Perception vs. Reality

[alphaorange]

With all the chatter surrounding the NN recruitment and why he should go where, one of the constants has been which schools have the best track records of developing players and, specifically, at their given position. To me, in the case of "one and dones", it is particularly overblown.

To begin with, any player with the talent to be considered a one season rental is already fairly physically developed and has an obvious level of polish, already. Calipari has been noted on here to be very good at developing raw players. Which players are these and what did he do for them? I realize that he has had several first rounders in the last few years but several of these have busts or already had the ability to play at the next level. Most of these guys would have been 1st rounders right out of HS. He provides more of a haven to play high level ball while biding time.

GT has the rep of turning out top level centers. Is it really true that they developed there? Ewing, Mourning, and Othella Harrington were the #1 prospects in the country. Since Ewing made his real money and reputation as an offensive player and never did much in that regard at GT, it could be argued that the coaching at GT held him back rather than helped him reach his potential. Mourning came in as a defensive and rebounding juggernaut and left the same way. His offense also developed later. There are others but no player shows an obvious case of being a product of the coaching staff, but rather a product of what they were going to be regardless of who coached them.

Lest anyone think I am just an SU homer, I am not. Melo came in as a dynamic offensive machine and left the same way. Owens, the same. DC really evolved his game, but he stayed four years and I think he would have done the same at any number of other schools, as well.

Any great player is going to do most of his development in the NBA, and most of it by virtue of playing for top coaches and against top flight competition.

My point is that no school is going to really make a difference to a top player as long as they are going to a school where they can play and practice against great players, and be coached by talented coaches. In the case of one year players, the difference is even less.

My homerism thought: JB does help players offensively prepare for the NBA more than most others as he gives them much more freedom on that end of the game.

 

[kuethstheman]

With all the chatter surrounding the NN recruitment and why he should go where, one of the constants has been which schools have the best track records of developing players and, specifically, at their given position. To me, in the case of "one and dones", it is particularly overblown.

To begin with, any player with the talent to be considered a one season rental is already fairly physically developed and has an obvious level of polish, already. Calipari has been noted on here to be very good at developing raw players. Which players are these and what did he do for them? I realize that he has had several first rounders in the last few years but several of these have busts or already had the ability to play at the next level. Most of these guys would have been 1st rounders right out of HS. He provides more of a haven to play high level ball while biding time.

GT has the rep of turning out top level centers. Is it really true that they developed there? Ewing, Mourning, and Othella Harrington were the #1 prospects in the country. Since Ewing made his real money and reputation as an offensive player and never did much in that regard at GT, it could be argued that the coaching at GT held him back rather than helped him reach his potential. Mourning came in as a defensive and rebounding juggernaut and left the same way. His offense also developed later. There are others but no player shows an obvious case of being a product of the coaching staff, but rather a product of what they were going to be regardless of who coached them.

Lest anyone think I am just an SU homer, I am not. Melo came in as a dynamic offensive machine and left the same way. Owens, the same. DC really evolved his game, but he stayed four years and I think he would have done the same at any number of other schools, as well.

Any great player is going to do most of his development in the NBA, and most of it by virtue of playing for top coaches and against top flight competition.

My point is that no school is going to really make a difference to a top player as long as they are going to a school where they can play and practice against great players, and be coached by talented coaches. In the case of one year players, the difference is even less.

My homerism thought: JB does help players offensively prepare for the NBA more than most others as he gives them much more freedom on that end of the game.

I'll disagree on Carmelo somewhat. He was already a polished scorer but I saw lots of improvement over the course of the year. He had to adjust to the speed, double-teams, triple teams. Coaching should get at least a little credit. Still, I don't think it takes a magician to improve the game of any AA.

 

[triplethrea]

I agree with you 100%. It is precisely why 99% of everything your read in the media, message boards, etc. is BS.

The kid will make his decision based on what will be best for his NBA career. What difference would it make in the NBA if he played one year at Syracuse or one year at Kentucky. The only difference is in the heads of journalists whose job it is talk. The problem with being paid to talk is that you will be forced to talk when you have nothing to say. Thus speculation is invented out of thin air.

I see it at it's most simple level like this: Kentucky - Pressure from those surrounding him, media, handlers, etc. "It" school, charismatic coach. I have a gut feeling that Noel does not "connect" with Calipari. I got that impression from the way he talked about Boeheim and Calipari in a blog once. I don't think he connects with Boeheim either.

Georgetown - Family pressure, good school, perception of developing talented big men (like you said), and I am sure Georgetown tries to take credit for that whenever they can.

Syracuse - Chance to shine with your best friend. Going deep in the tourney with you best friend right next to you means a lot more than doing it with a bunch of other one and dones you barely know and are mostly there for the wrong reasons. Noel knows this. MCW knows this too as he got a first row seat to the journey Scoop and Dion went through this season. I guarantee MCW tells Noel about Scoop and Dion all the time. Plus I think he has a connection with Hopkins, who seems gifted at doing that.

If he follows the right path, then he already knows where he needs to go. This is why he has kept Syracuse so high despite the baggage we carry with us this season and why he has not fully accepted Kentucky yet.

 

[SBU72]

With all the chatter surrounding the NN recruitment and why he should go where, one of the constants has been which schools have the best track records of developing players and, specifically, at their given position. To me, in the case of "one and dones", it is particularly overblown.

To begin with, any player with the talent to be considered a one season rental is already fairly physically developed and has an obvious level of polish, already. Calipari has been noted on here to be very good at developing raw players. Which players are these and what did he do for them? I realize that he has had several first rounders in the last few years but several of these have busts or already had the ability to play at the next level. Most of these guys would have been 1st rounders right out of HS. He provides more of a haven to play high level ball while biding time.

GT has the rep of turning out top level centers. Is it really true that they developed there? Ewing, Mourning, and Othella Harrington were the #1 prospects in the country. Since Ewing made his real money and reputation as an offensive player and never did much in that regard at GT, it could be argued that the coaching at GT held him back rather than helped him reach his potential. Mourning came in as a defensive and rebounding juggernaut and left the same way. His offense also developed later. There are others but no player shows an obvious case of being a product of the coaching staff, but rather a product of what they were going to be regardless of who coached them.

Lest anyone think I am just an SU homer, I am not. Melo came in as a dynamic offensive machine and left the same way. Owens, the same. DC really evolved his game, but he stayed four years and I think he would have done the same at any number of other schools, as well.

Any great player is going to do most of his development in the NBA, and most of it by virtue of playing for top coaches and against top flight competition.

My point is that no school is going to really make a difference to a top player as long as they are going to a school where they can play and practice against great players, and be coached by talented coaches. In the case of one year players, the difference is even less.

My homerism thought: JB does help players offensively prepare for the NBA more than most others as he gives them much more freedom on that end of the game.

Obviously you don't read the experts. According to many of "them" JB ruined Melo, Wesley, Jonny by playing zone and not instilling discipline in them despite only having them 1 or 2 years. While coaches like Calipari obviously brought out the best in the those guys despite them being top 25 recruits and playing only one year at college. EVERYBODY knows that.

sarcasm alert!