Reply With Quote
If their head is screwed on straight...
I know I stink at it. I can;t understand how a player in college can be a legit star, and at the next level suck really bad. Then the ones who in college who are mediocre to me usually are the stars. I for one thought Joseph Forte was going to be a star in the league...I was right on about Marvin Williams, he has yet to show me anything. What do you look for?
If their head is screwed on straight...
I know I stink at it. I can;t understand how a player in college can be a legit star, and at the next level suck really bad. Then the ones who in college who are mediocre to me usually are the stars. I for one thought Joseph Forte was going to be a star in the league...
# of co-eds slept with*(felony charges-class attended) = superstar
Only Sequ.........Are any of you guys a good judge of talent?
jumping ability + # of tattoos - playing time + keeping it real quotient is the formula many are fond of.
You aren't alone.
It was Red Auerbach who insisted the Celtics take Forte over Tony Parker.
So I guess the answer is, except for the few "Can't Misses", nobody knows.
I guess thats why they have talent scouts. I mean I understand that the college game and NBA game are two different speeds, but how a guy can absolutley suck in the NBA after being such a stud in college is mind-boggling. Anyone remember Scotty Thurman? Did he even get a shot?
J.J. Red ...
When we drafted Ian, I thought would be rookie of the year and THE Dirk-stopper 2 yrs later when I saw two youtube clips of him. That tells you everything you need to know about my talent scouting skills.
James White!
I mean he is still a solid contributor. I'm talking about those guys who never see hardly any playing time. Randolph Childress comes to mind too. I know there were alot of guys who I thought were going to at the very least contribute. Like say a Travis Best type of player.
I know I suck when it comes to that.
uh no.. there is definitely no talent judges here.. if there is one, he or she probably thought malik, van exel, carter, bonner or avery were actual contributors to the history of basketball, but when they stepped off of duncans wing they turned out to be a bucket of .. so the answer is a definite no.
I think it's the fish:pond ratio that can lead to exaggerated expectations. I've heard lots of players say going pro can be a very humbling experience. An average player can be a real stand-out on a college team. When you go pro you're struck with how good everyone is, even the bottom-dwelling teams; they're all pros--they're all really good.
This is pretty much what Barkley says in his last book*. Becuase of this, he concluded that the game was mostly mental at ude/preparedness on the NBA level. He went on to say that was the problem with too many players today and why they do not realize their draft potential. It sounded perfectly reasonable to me.
* led I May Be Wrong... But I Doubt It.
i was about to say exactly the same words... i have failed lot of times while trying to get my own take on prospects but at the end of the day... if you have the will to improve and discipline... that's all what it takes...
Are any of you guys a good judge of talent?
Yeap I know when a girl is lying, and when a beautiful blond know how to cook!
If you are a good judge of talent, please come and manage my development team in Dynasty League #3 (if it gets off the ground).
You get 25% of any winning FOR NOTHING.
Exactly - its the mental toughness and preparedness that separate the good from the best. Jack Nicklaus made the very same observation concerning golf pros during his playing days. He was amazed at how good all the players were but only a handful were in contention from week to week. Most got swallowed up by all the glamor and social events surrounding each tournament that they couldn't mentally compete consistently.
A lot of it has to do with if they're big/strong/fast/quick enough to hang with NBA type talent.
Every sports talent pool is shaped like a pyramid. Broad at the base, but on every step up, the number of players gets smaller and smaller.
And as the number of slots available gets smaller, only the best players are selected, so a high school star may not make a college team while a college star may not make the NBA. Call it survival of the fittest.
I think it also has to do with the individual's ability to adapt to a different role.
All of the guys who make it to the NBA are used to being the stars. When they find out they can no longer be the star, some of them learn to find a role by working on a new skill (like Bruce Bowen). Others can't deal with the prospect of having to work harder than ever yet getting less back in terms of playing time, recognition, etc.
beno udrih looms
I thought Walt Williams was going to be a hall of famer, and I thought the Spurs made a mistake trading Felipe Lopez. I also thought the Manu/Parker backcourt was going to be something special, so I'm one for three.
It comes down to athleticism along with at ude, work ethic, etc. You don't have to be a great athlete in college to be a great collegiate player. The nba game is based on isolation, pick and rolls. Not only do you have to be a great athlete you have to also work hard in to be great in the nba, there are probably some exceptions to the rule.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
