Basically if a young player has the skills and smarts to play in the NBA their progression nearly always comes down to having a comfort level on the court! I really think this is true at all levels of BB. That's generally why you see young guys on BAD teams progressing faster than young guys on elite teams (such as the C's)! Coach's like Doc can't afford having these guys make mistakes, costing games when trying for a title, whereas the bad teams can let them play through the mistakes and get a quicker, true idea of whether or not they'll cut it some day.
For that reason again, guys in the D-league relax and give a truer indication of what their game might really look like if given the chance to play without worrying about being yanked out of the game with every turnover, missed defensive rotation, or missed shot!
Until guys like JR and Walker truly get those kind of minutes it is really hard to tell how they'll turn out, IMHO.
If this is true then how do you explain the development of Powe, Rondo, and Davis over the last 2-3 years. Most of Rondo's and Powe's development and all of Davis' has come primarily while on a great basketball team. And all of their development is exceptional. Could it just be that some players are inherently more talented and more ready to perform at this level and not just that the more time you are exposed to the pro game the more comfortable and natural your game gets?
I think you either have the talent both physically and mentally or you don't. Most who are in the D-League are there for a reason. Livingston is a prime example. He has definite NBA talent but he was a major headache and immature. He has the physical but not the mental. POB could be the same. He has the physical but he may not have what it takes mentally and in his work ethic and character to be able to do it. I think the D-League provides an opportunity and could produce some good bench type NBA players but my belief is that either you have it or you don't and most of the time that can be seen by the time the player gets drafted and most times before. Way before in most cases.
Nick - between Rondo, Powe, and Davis only Rondo was given a substantial role to explore his game, which has led to the speed of his development.
1 month ago the debate on Powe and Davis was whether or not they were dime-a-dozen replaceable or worth keeping as backups - bang - injuries hit and both get a chance to play extended minutes out of necessity and start putting up stats that have people thinking potential starter-level talent.
Davis and Powe came into last season with a chance to win a role because their position was very thin. Giddens arrived at TC with Pierce, Allen, TA, House, Pruitt and Walker also looking to grab time at the wing - that's 6 players, 5 of which have more NBA experience - its a completely different situation to Powe and Davis who were looking to only beat out Scalabrine for minutes.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't interpret things like that. I think their development came off the court in practices and that's why they saw the court. And I think even though Powe and Davis have had limited minutes there has been consistent long term growth in their games up to the time that KG went down. Rondo was given the opportunity last year but could just as easily become Sebastian Telfair-like and stagnated for years. They could just as easily been given minutes and become Mikki Moore like and not have performed. Playing time does not equal game growth. Playing time is just a platform to display what was already there.
This is a head-scratcher to me - you HAVE to factor in those things if you are going to accurately evaluate the environment a player is developing in.
To not do so is to basically admit to using an inferior methodology with which to make your assessment - its not an optional type deal, its a vital part of the equation.
Look - if you want to argue that Giddens was the least game-ready of the players at his position or that he gave the staff little confidence that he could out-perform the others that's fine - but that is entirely different than assessing his ability to contribute on the court period.
I am fairly certain that Giddens has the skills to play productive minutes and would have growth in efficiency as he was exposed to more and more playing time - the fact that this particular roster did not afford him that opportunity is not synonymous with his inability to play - Doc had other, more proven options and did not have to speculate or take risks - Giddens isn't so good right now that he had to get on the court.
But in time, Giddens has superior skills to every wing on this roster outside the two starters - he's more diverse in skillset than Walker as well - however, his mental preparedness is likely his biggest obstacle thus far. He needs to feel as if he belongs so he can make decisions off instinct.
Topic: Giddens is going to be a good one (Read 9826 times)