Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 57 of 57

Thread: William Avery

  1. #41

    Ready or Not

    I get the following:

    1. A player can stay in school, improve is play, and then get a higher draft position and more guaranteed money.

    2. A player can gamble that next year's drafter will have fewer players better than he, stay in school, and, if correct, get a higher draft position and more guaranteed money.

    3. A player can stay in school, graduate, get a degree, and have something better to fall back on if the pro basketball does not work out.

    4 A player who is not mature enough for the NBA and should stay in school.

    I do not get that a player will improve in college and have a longer pro career. Why would he not improve in the pros? He will not have academics to distract him from his basketball improvement.

    I doubt if Avery's pro career would have been much different had he stayed a Duke for another year or two. He probably would have been drafted higher and gotten more guaranteed money but I think his NBA would have been about the same.

    SoCal

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    I do not get that a player will improve in college and have a longer pro career. Why would he not improve in the pros? He will not have academics to distract him from his basketball improvement.
    SoCal
    I tend to agree with this as well (and maybe what I'm about to go into deserves its own thread because I am certain there will be disagreement). If you are good enough to make an NBA team, the NBA would almost certainly prefer you to be on that team, in the D-league, or in Europe to develop than college. I remember Mark Cuban saying as much several years back. He said something to the effect of: We don't have limits on practice time, number of coaches, how we pay our coaches. Pro players don't have the distraction/mirage of academics to deal with.

    We love college basketball and NCAA sports in this country. I know I do. But we are the only country in the world (plus maybe Canada to an extent) that uses it's academic institutions as a minor league for its major sports. I won't argue against the idea that college may improve many athletes intellectually, personally, etc. I agree with that premise. And there are 18 year olds that aren't ready to handle the rigors of a professional lifestyle even though their game is. I'd posit most of those athletes would never be ready, though.

    I think you are going to see a lot of high schoolers going to Europe. If they can handle it personally, I think you'll see that their game will be more improved than if they had spent a year in college. As this starts to happen, I think you'll see the NBA put more emphasis (and economy willing) more money/higher salaries in the D-league.

    Even though we have this notion that players "should stay in college a another year." The reality is, if a viable professional minor league exists (which may begin to be europe), why are we maintaining this illusion that college is the best route for guys like Brandon Jennings, or even the kid skipping his senior year in High School? Or in Avery's case -- why would staying at Duke another year make him more likely to make it in the NBA? Is a year at Duke really going to develop him better than a full year of practice, one on one attention, and practicing/playing against the best in the world is?

    I'd almost prefer that we evolve away from this illusion that a year in college (or any college) is needed. If you have a guy like Shane Battier or Emeka Okafor that want to get the degree too, awesome.

    Hockey, baseball, tennis, soccer don't follow this model, and there is no public outcry. Hell, just about all European major sport getsthese kids in the club at an early age and develop them up through the ranks. The fact that college/NCAA purports to be the best model for player development is, to me, dated and potentially even incorrect.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Wink Not Just Draft Position

    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    I get the following:

    1. A player can stay in school, improve is play, and then get a higher draft position and more guaranteed money.

    2. A player can gamble that next year's drafter will have fewer players better than he, stay in school, and, if correct, get a higher draft position and more guaranteed money.

    3. A player can stay in school, graduate, get a degree, and have something better to fall back on if the pro basketball does not work out.

    4 A player who is not mature enough for the NBA and should stay in school.

    I do not get that a player will improve in college and have a longer pro career. Why would he not improve in the pros? He will not have academics to distract him from his basketball improvement.

    I doubt if Avery's pro career would have been much different had he stayed a Duke for another year or two. He probably would have been drafted higher and gotten more guaranteed money but I think his NBA would have been about the same.

    SoCal
    It isn't all a matter of draft position. Kwame Brown, the #1 pick in 2001, was a high schooler not mentally ready for the pro game. He was totally lost from day one. I think his career could have turned out differently if he had spent four years (or even two or three) in college.

    I can also think of other players not emotionally mature enough to play 82 games in 30 different cities. They would be much better off with their own age group in college. Devil Momma told JWill in 2001 -- "Go pro? You've never even lived in an apartment!"

    sagegrouse

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    I get the following:

    1. A player can stay in school, improve is play, and then get a higher draft position and more guaranteed money.

    2. A player can gamble that next year's drafter will have fewer players better than he, stay in school, and, if correct, get a higher draft position and more guaranteed money.

    3. A player can stay in school, graduate, get a degree, and have something better to fall back on if the pro basketball does not work out.

    4 A player who is not mature enough for the NBA and should stay in school.

    I do not get that a player will improve in college and have a longer pro career. Why would he not improve in the pros? He will not have academics to distract him from his basketball improvement.

    I doubt if Avery's pro career would have been much different had he stayed a Duke for another year or two. He probably would have been drafted higher and gotten more guaranteed money but I think his NBA would have been about the same.

    SoCal


    I think you should "get it", and here's why: NBA contracts for rookies are slotted and capped. There is a limit on what they will make and they will almost certainly sign a contract that lasts exactly 3 years. If they spend the first two of those years working on development in practice (which they'd be doing on the floor in live games if they were still in college) then they have only one potentially productive year before they sign their second contract -- the one that has the potential to make them some real "i'm set for life"-type money. A player who is a diamond in the rough or who has only marginal or below-average NBA talent therefore runs a severe risk of reducing the value of his second contract. That's really the one they should be working towards.

    It's a gamble either way but the risks are very different. By staying in school, they increase the risk of being injured before they can sign a pro contract but decrease the risk of compromising their chances to cash in big later. By leaving before they are ready to produce they almost eliminate the risk of getting injured before signing but they also greatly increase the risk that their second contract -- the most important one most players ever sign -- will be worth only a small fraction of what it could been.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    Even though we have this notion that players "should stay in college a another year." The reality is, if a viable professional minor league exists (which may begin to be europe), why are we maintaining this illusion that college is the best route for guys like Brandon Jennings, or even the kid skipping his senior year in High School? Or in Avery's case -- why would staying at Duke another year make him more likely to make it in the NBA? Is a year at Duke really going to develop him better than a full year of practice, one on one attention, and practicing/playing against the best in the world is?

    I'd almost prefer that we evolve away from this illusion that a year in college (or any college) is needed. If you have a guy like Shane Battier or Emeka Okafor that want to get the degree too, awesome.
    College isn't right for everybody and neither is Duke University but Avery was already at Duke and in his particular case, I think staying in school would have been best for him. Avery was talented but at his height his skills were (as we have seen) no guarantee of success at the NBA level. Therefore, to make it, he needed to be as polished as possible. He really needed to master the ideals of running a team at the pg postion, both offensively and defensively. Had he stayed around for two years, he chances of doing so would have been greatly enhanced. He would have been much more productive right out of the shoot and -- in my opinion -- stood a good chance of signing a lucrative second contract. As it stands, he spent the duration of first contract trying to figure out how to play in the league and did not make it. It's unfortunate.

    Just a couple other related thoughts. Elton Brand left and I don't think there was any reason, careerwise, that he shouldn't have. It seems that he's a bright guy, so he would have benefited in personal development and enrichment from remaining in school and embracing academics but the real world is a classroom, too, so good for EB. He's made it as a player and appears to be well-adjusted. That's a great outcome and the only reason I was disappointed when he left was because I knew Duke basketball would miss him. Never thought it was a bad decision for him.

    In contrast, I think Avery leaving was the best thing for Duke basketball and the worst thing for him. With Jason Williams coming in and the conflicts that would have created, I'm not sure Duke would have won the NC in 2001 had Avery stayed with the program. More talent doesn't always equal more success. The 2001 team had a completely different look from the 99 one. Who's to say how that unit would have developed if Avery were still there.

    OTOH, to counter my own arguments for why he should've stayed, maybe he wouldn't have had the chance to develop his game as much if he had to compete for playing time with jason williams and chris duhon.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    It isn't all a matter of draft position. Kwame Brown, the #1 pick in 2001, was a high schooler not mentally ready for the pro game. He was totally lost from day one. I think his career could have turned out differently if he had spent four years (or even two or three) in college.
    sagegrouse
    Now we'll never know for sure, but I imagine if Kwame Brown had gone to college, many of his flaws would have been exposed, and when he eventually came out, he would not be the #1 pick. Dude is still getting paid by someone, I think, (Memphis?) even though he's not very good. So I don't exactly think he's been an abject failure. It's not his fault Michael Jordan can't evaluate talent.

    As far as learning basketball goes, practicing with a pro team with 100% attention to basketball (whether NBA, Europe or D-League) is better for one's game than college.

    (edited to say -- that's not to say staying in school doesn't better one as a PERSON, but on the court, how does practicing and playing against college players improve your game MORE? This is all speculative, but I think people turn out about how they would have turned out regardless of when they make the jump)

    Why doesn't anyone weep for all the 17-18 year old rookie league and A-ball minor league baseball players making 5 figures and living in hotel rooms all summer and small latin american apartments all winter?

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    College isn't right for everybody and neither is Duke University but Avery was already at Duke and in his particular case, I think staying in school would have been best for him. Avery was talented but at his height his skills were (as we have seen) no guarantee of success at the NBA level. Therefore, to make it, he needed to be as polished as possible. He really needed to master the ideals of running a team at the pg postion, both offensively and defensively. Had he stayed around for two years, he chances of doing so would have been greatly enhanced. He would have been much more productive right out of the shoot and -- in my opinion -- stood a good chance of signing a lucrative second contract. As it stands, he spent the duration of first contract trying to figure out how to play in the league and did not make it. It's unfortunate.

    Just a couple other related thoughts. Elton Brand left and I don't think there was any reason, careerwise, that he shouldn't have. It seems that he's a bright guy, so he would have benefited in personal development and enrichment from remaining in school and embracing academics but the real world is a classroom, too, so good for EB. He's made it as a player and appears to be well-adjusted. That's a great outcome and the only reason I was disappointed when he left was because I knew Duke basketball would miss him. Never thought it was a bad decision for him.

    In contrast, I think Avery leaving was the best thing for Duke basketball and the worst thing for him. With Jason Williams coming in and the conflicts that would have created, I'm not sure Duke would have won the NC in 2001 had Avery stayed with the program. More talent doesn't always equal more success. The 2001 team had a completely different look from the 99 one. Who's to say how that unit would have developed if Avery were still there.

    OTOH, to counter my own arguments for why he should've stayed, maybe he wouldn't have had the chance to develop his game as much if he had to compete for playing time with jason williams and chris duhon.
    See, I guess my main premise in all this, not said very well, is that we all want to keep the college game at as high of a competitive level as possible. But the landscape has changed, and I think we are going to see the talent level in college b-ball start to look a lot like college baseball. Still pretty good, but almost all of the wunderkinds are going to go straight to getting paid.

    I think we say "this guy should go to school" or "that guy should stay another year" not because we really think going to or staying in school will really make that player better and better that players chances in the pros, but that because by coming/staying, they will make the team that we are rooting for better and the overall level of college basketball better. But as far as basketball development goes, I'm just not sure that's the best scenario for the individual in most cases.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    See, I guess my main premise in all this, not said very well, is that we all want to keep the college game at as high of a competitive level as possible. But the landscape has changed, and I think we are going to see the talent level in college b-ball start to look a lot like college baseball. Still pretty good, but almost all of the wunderkinds are going to go straight to getting paid.

    I think we say "this guy should go to school" or "that guy should stay another year" not because we really think going to or staying in school will really make that player better and better that players chances in the pros, but that because by coming/staying, they will make the team that we are rooting for better and the overall level of college basketball better. But as far as basketball development goes, I'm just not sure that's the best scenario for the individual in most cases.
    The point of my post -- the one you quoted before posting the above comments -- was to counter exactly this sort of criticism. I think William Avery leaving was the best thing for Duke because it cleared the way for Jason Williams and later Chris Duhon to play without having to share time with any experienced talent. I think it was just a bad decision for his career. If he had left when he did and transferred to another school, even a rival, I would still have called it a poor decision. In Elton Brand's case, his leaving severely hurt duke in 2000 but it was right move for him, because he was talented enough to go number 1 and already polished enough to be able to line up a big 2nd contract -- the important one.

    We can disagree about what's best for player development. I think it's case-by-case, you appear to think it's always better to get out and start making money when you can if college isn't your fave thing, even if that means the d-league or europe (maybe I'm reading you wrong). But my ideas about for who should stay or go and when, as far as what's best for that player, aren't about Duke basketball's success. That's a separate question.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Allawah, NSW Australia (near Sydney)
    As far as learning basketball goes, practicing with a pro team with 100% attention to basketball (whether NBA, Europe or D-League) is better for one's game than college.
    I don't think this is necessarily true. Too many factors to consider to make this blanket statement for every player: What situation will give the player the most playing time? What will the talent level be like on the team the guy is on? Will moving to one place or the other require playing in a sytem/position that may not help the player down the road? Will the adjustment to the minor leagues or Europe, or hardships in college affect the player's focus on his game? What kind of coaching is he likely to receive under each option?

    There are many factors to consider.

    (edited to say -- that's not to say staying in school doesn't better one as a PERSON, but on the court, how does practicing and playing against college players improve your game MORE?
    This is all speculative, but I think people turn out about how they would have turned out regardless of when they make the jump)
    Strongly disagree with this. How can you possibly suggest that the time spent in development doesn't affect how players will turn out? The entire attitude towards player development vs. winning right now changes with the move from one to the other. Plus all the other factors I just mentioned. I think when you leave and how far along you are when you do plays a huge part in how much many players will develop.

    Why doesn't anyone weep for all the 17-18 year old rookie league and A-ball minor league baseball players making 5 figures and living in hotel rooms all summer and small latin american apartments all winter?
    I don't know, you'd have to ask the people weeping. My guess is that most of the players you're talking about the average sports fan in the US hasn't heard of and doesn't care whether their teams win or lose, so they're not concerned about their fate.

    I personally think that society as a whole would be far better if all athletes valued their education a little more and I think the ones who wash out in baseball are a shame because their talent could have given many of them the avenue to a safety net, but I'm not here to impose my prejudices on them. Every player's case is different. That's how you should look at it if you're really trying to think of what's best for the player.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    Strongly disagree with this. How can you possibly suggest that the time spent in development doesn't affect how players will turn out? The entire attitude towards player development vs. winning right now changes with the move from one to the other. Plus all the other factors I just mentioned. I think when you leave and how far along you are when you do plays a huge part in how much many players will develop.
    Obviously this can never be known and we would be arguing hypotheticals, but I just can't think of a single case where someone stayed in school and it clearly helped them have a better NBA career than if they had left early. Better draft position, maybe -- although it seems draft position usually gets worse the longer you stay -- but would their pro career actually have been any different? Maybe Steph Curry will bear this out since he got to play point last year. If a player WANTS to stay in school, then awesome. I have ZERO problem with that in any case (unless it's a Tarheel). But I'm not sure it's ever a mistake to leave early unless the player was truly going to graduate and has no shot at a professional basketball career.

    IMHO, if players are going to make it, they'll find a way, and another year of college isn't going to make or break a career. The players that are good enough to play in the NBA make it, regardless if their path follows Shane Battier, Kobe Bryant or Chris "Birdman" Anderson.

    Quote Originally Posted by devildownunder View Post
    I don't know, you'd have to ask the people weeping. My guess is that most of the players you're talking about the average sports fan in the US hasn't heard of and doesn't care whether their teams win or lose, so they're not concerned about their fate.
    I personally think that society as a whole would be far better if all athletes valued their education a little more and I think the ones who wash out in baseball are a shame because their talent could have given many of them the avenue to a safety net, but I'm not here to impose my prejudices on them. Every player's case is different. That's how you should look at it if you're really trying to think of what's best for the player.
    Fair enough on the education piece, and maybe that's an advantage to our development system. The bold part is important to note, though. I think that's the underlying reason people take offense when basketball players leave early, under the guise that it's in the player's best interest. But there is not a lot of difference between what a kid coming out of high school to the NBA chooses to do and baseball/hockey/soccer players.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Steamboat Springs, CO

    Wink It Isn't Just About Dollars and Draft Position

    Quote Originally Posted by A-Tex Devil View Post
    Now we'll never know for sure, but I imagine if Kwame Brown had gone to college, many of his flaws would have been exposed, and when he eventually came out, he would not be the #1 pick. Dude is still getting paid by someone, I think, (Memphis?) even though he's not very good. So I don't exactly think he's been an abject failure. It's not his fault Michael Jordan can't evaluate talent.

    As far as learning basketball goes, practicing with a pro team with 100% attention to basketball (whether NBA, Europe or D-League) is better for one's game than college.

    (edited to say -- that's not to say staying in school doesn't better one as a PERSON, but on the court, how does practicing and playing against college players improve your game MORE? This is all speculative, but I think people turn out about how they would have turned out regardless of when they make the jump)

    Why doesn't anyone weep for all the 17-18 year old rookie league and A-ball minor league baseball players making 5 figures and living in hotel rooms all summer and small latin american apartments all winter?

    Let me pose the question differently, to clarify our area of disagreement. "Should a player for basketball reasons say no to the NBA, even if he were to be drafted in a high position?"

    You seem to say "no," the player should always go, because, in effect, the draft position is the coin of the realm and is a true expression of the basketball value of the player. And as you said, devoting 100% of one's time to a pro basketball career would be better than playing at college with diverse other interests, such as academics.

    I say yes. A player, particularly a high school player, can suffer in terms of his basketball future. IMHO (with the sagegrouse, the "H" is always silent) here's why:

    1. The kid is not mentally ready for a much faster and more complex game. Hoops at a high level is mental as well as physical. The world's smartest young man or woman, who had absorbed everything thrown at them as a teenager, would not be helped by skipping college and grad school and going directly to a university faculty.

    2. The physical is also important. A young player not strong enough to compete is not going to get much out of the experience. Then why would he be drafted? Teams make mistakes all the time. The player and his parents should make an independent decision.

    3. The support group on the college basketball team is underestimated. (Now that Obama is president, I can use the work as written.) There are serious players in the same age range and a really good team concept at the college level. The good coaches are interested in developing "people" not just basketball players. This makes a person a better basketball player.

    4. In the NBA there is no peer group for a 19YO. Consequently, there are unattractive options: playing electronic games alone in an apartment or hotel room or hanging out with childhood friends who have nothing better to do and who will be a liability, not an asset. (I know, I know. But Lebron James and Dwight Howard really are different.)

    5. Just as in the case of the boy genius cited above, there is something to be said for checking boxes at every level. I grew up in era when many kids skipped grades in school. Some could easily do the work at the higher level; but few of them had the same total school experience.

    6. My other argument is a life experience one, not a basketball one, so it doesn't really belong in this debate: players with an education and who have had the chance to be celebrated (All-American, e.g.) and to make a zillion public appearances (JJ, Hansbrough, e.g.) are on a much better footing for dealing with the money and experiences in pro basketball and will have a more interesting and rewarding life. I.e., I am an apologist for higher education.

    You are welcome to disagree, and for most players you may be right -- the projected draft choice is a true expression of long-term value -- but I don't think that is true for a lot of kids.

    sagegrouse

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Quote Originally Posted by gumbomoop View Post
    I'm glad you mentioned this, for I have a similar memory, involving Al McGuire rhapsodizing [as Al was wont to do, generally] about Avery. It's conceivable we're thinking about the same game, but more likely different games, for the quotation I remember is surely McGuire, not Raftery: "Avery is the best thing since 7-Up!" [Al's more standard line: "X is the greatest thing since sliced bread!" God bless Al McGuire.]

    Anyhow, in my dismay at Avery's decision to leave early, I always "blamed" wonderful-but-wacky Al McGuire for putting the notion into Avery's head that he was ready. My recollection is that at the time, his decision was plausible but questionable, certainly not nutty [a la some players every, every year--what the hell are they thinking? Ans: "I don't wanna go to class, period."] but hardly a sure thing, either.
    Oops, no, we are thinking about the same game. It was McGuire I was thinking of. I'm pretty sure it was our game against Temple in the NCAAs.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Quote Originally Posted by sagegrouse View Post
    You are welcome to disagree, and for most players you may be right -- the projected draft choice is a true expression of long-term value -- but I don't think that is true for a lot of kids.

    sagegrouse
    I apologize -- I haven't made my point very well at all because it is less about money and draft position (although that plays a role) and more about the macro level of player development in USA Basketball and what is best for players who really would rather not take the step of going to college if they didn't have to (see virtually every 1-2 year player). This is an issue I've thought about quite a lot since the high school junior decided to go to Europe (and I don't mind his decision a bit), and it touches on a lot of areas.

    I believe these players jumping to Europe (like high school to the NBA and underclassmen to NBA before that, which is why the Avery discussion prompted my post) is just the tip of the iceberg. And it really rankles me when people immediately claim, for instance, that Brandon Jennings "made a mistake" or Avery "made a mistake." The European development systems have been superior to the AAU/college route for many years now and allowed other countries to catch up to us in basketball. I think USA Basketball and the NBA want to and should set up a similar pipeline for those kids for whom college b-ball is an unwanted stepping stone for bigger things. But there is this unspoken "cooperation" between the NBA and the NCAA right now which seems to be holding this next step back.

    Why are we so much more worried/angry about these 18 year old American basketball players than other 18 year old athletes? Is it because they are making a mistake, or because the threat of another potential pipeline to the NBA diluting the college game? It's OK if it's the latter, but it shouldn't be projected on these kids as if THEY are screwing everything up. College will still be the best bet for many, many great players, but the landscape is changing. The D-league is a GOOD thing. I'd even say 18 year olds wanting to spend a year or 2 in Europe is a GOOD thing (at least it's not a BAD thing). It may not all be peaches and cream all the time, but it's their choice. If 18 year old Ricky Rubio can play in the NBA next year, then Johnny Five-Star can play in Italy. More power to you and I'm rooting for you.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Clifton, VA
    Here are the 3 main reasons why I think it is often better for players to develop an extra year or two in college than leaving school early to play in the NBA (I agree with Sagegrouse's views posted a few posts earlier):

    1. Confidence. By staying in school, many of these players are the stars and focal points of their teams, whereas on an NBA roster they are often after-thoughts even if they are as talented as the more experienced players ahead of them. Being THE MAN or one of the main guys for several years in college gives a player the confidence he needs to develop into the player they can be. Guys like Battier, JJ, Laett, etc. no doubt benefitted from being THE MAN at Duke. They likely got the lion's share of coaching attention from a talented staff rather than a smaller amount from a likely less talented core of NBA Assistants. I think this extra seasoning can never hurt a player's development. Grant Hill could have left any time in college but it seemed to have worked out just fine for him to stay. Whereas Coach K, Collins, Wojo, James can give every last drop of their expertise to Singler next year, it is doubtful even the great Phil Jackson would spend near as much time developing an early entry Singler when he has to worry about designing new ways to get Kobe, Gasol, Odom, etc. the ball and figure out a way to stop the likes of Carmelo, D-Wade, James, etc.

    2. On the Job Training. Staying in school allows you to develop your basketball skills ON THE COURT DURING GAME PRESSURE SITUATIONS against very good competition. Sure the competition isn't as good as the NBA but if you are barely playing in the NBA you aren't going to get much "on the job" experience. Miss a couple shots in the NBA and/or allow a couple easy hoops and you may not see the court for a week. In college, they pat you on the butt and say "Keep Shooting!"

    While many of the top European Pro teams in the stronger countries are superior to college teams due to experience and physical strength, I would argue that this is not the best place to develop as an 18, 19, 20 year old. The playing style and culture is entirely different than the NBA (whereas college is less different) and it would take an extremely mature kid to make it in that envrionment. Plus, no matter how good you are, you can easily be frozen out of games and disrespected by guys who have "paid their dues." Plus, the crowds in Europe are often unforgiving of poor performance. When I was in high school, I had the opportunity to talk a good deal with Larry Spriggs (former Laker) and Linton Townes (former Spur) who played for Real Madrid in the late 80s and they talked about how difficult it was to adjust to the European culture, style of play, and fit in with coaches/teammates given the language barrier. These guys were grown men who had already experienced lots of NBA pressure and in the case of Spriggs was in the rotation of at least one Magic/Worthy/Jabbar title run. These guys also had good famiuly support systems. Imagine a kid straight out of high school or after a year in college. Just a little bit different.

    3. Physical and Mental Maturation. Being mature on and off the court is often as important as physical talent in determining one's success. There is a reason baseball players aren't rushed to the Majors even when they have more talent than some of the guys on the Major League Roster. They need time to develop physically and mentally and need on the job training. I don't know about you all but I was a much better student by the time I was a senior at Duke than when I started even though I was no smarter. Similarly, I think in general a three or four year college player is much better able to take advantage of the coaching they receive than earlier in their high school or college careers. If any of you have coached a youth sport you can clearly see the amazing talent in some of the younger players, but you quick realize if they are moved up too fast by over-eager parents they are easily exposed by less talented but more mature/experienced kids. I think the same lesson applies to guys that go to the NBA before they are ready. They get exposed and some lose their confidence and the confidence of their coaches who are always looking for the next player to take a shot at. The NBA is a nasty business, whereas most colleges work hard with already established star players. (Unfortunately, with what's going on with Kentucky and other programs I can't justify making a stronger statement than this about the college programs.)

    Anyway, just my 2 cents.

  15. #55

    More Comments

    Kobe, LeBron and Dwight Howard are 3 of the best, if not the 3 best, players in the NBA. None went to college.

    There are players who develop in college and are much better when they leave than when they got there. My guess is that Tim Duncan is a better pro player now than if he had not gone to college. I think they are few and far between and mostly players who were inexperienced or who developed physically in college. (I think David Robinson grew several inches at Navy.)

    Avery had played a lot of basketball. I really doubt if leaving early hurt his pro career. Maybe his draft position but not his career.

    SoCal

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Clifton, VA
    There are always exceptions to the rule...Kobe, LeBron, Howard, KG, etc. However, I stand by my view that most mere mortals are better off developing their games in college for three or four years. There are plenty of high draft picks out of high school or after a year or two in college who never reached their potential -- for whatever the reason. I think the argument can be made that some of these players would have had more successful and longer NBA careers had they developed themselves and their games in college or at least stuck around an extra year or two. I am not sure that anyone hurt ever hurt their game by leaving late (although some undoubtedly have failed to make as much money as they could have by being drafted on their potential as a younger player). We will never know about Will Avery, but I would like to think he would have been more successful in the NBA with two more years at Duke (assuming he had taken care of his academics).

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ocala, FL (formerly Black Mountain, NC)
    Quote Originally Posted by SoCalDukeFan View Post
    Kobe, LeBron and Dwight Howard are 3 of the best, if not the 3 best, players in the NBA. None went to college.


    SoCal
    But don't forget the other guy who fits in that category, Dwayne Wade. And he did go to college.

Similar Threads

  1. This Team= Carrawell, Sanders, Wojo, Maggette, Avery
    By HandofHenderson in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 05:12 PM
  2. Avery Bradley to Texas
    By BD80 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-19-2008, 10:08 AM
  3. William Wesley
    By MChambers in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-05-2008, 03:16 PM
  4. Clarification about Avery?
    By Classof06 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-15-2007, 12:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •