Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="RF2044, post: 2230793, member: 40"]
That's fine--but it is important to point out that is your opinion.  I and others [based upon this thread] have a different one -- that he might have been a better fit in our system, where his offensive skill would have been featured differently.  And that he might have benefitted from our final four run [I know that the transitive property doesn't work, who knows if we make it with different variables in the lineup, as a different seed, etc.] from an exposure standpoint.

Bryant's problem was that he stayed around too long, and gave NBA folks the opportunity to nitpick his flaws.  As a frosh, the potential mystique is still there for NBA scouts.

For comparison's sake, a guy like Tyler Ennis wasn't going to realistically be a 1st rounder, because he lacks the explosive athleticism that NBA teams covet.  However, he rode the wave of our team being ranked #1 for a significant portion of the year and got a lot of attention because of that, and then wisely jumped ship because his stock would never be higher and had nowhere to go but down.  Had he stayed at SU, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have had a better statistical year as a sophomore [and junior, and senior], that he would have improved his all around game as a lead guard, etc. but by then scouts would have had more game film to talk themselves out of liking him, due to his limitations.  Ennis rode the hype, left at the right time, and snuck into the first round.  I believe that Bryant would have been able to do so, as well.  Not every NBA big -- even in the current game -- is a skywalking jumping jack.  There were guys who went in the first round this year who were unrefined and not explosive athletes.  But those guys were all frosh.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?