ACC Discussion
- Thread starter McCamish Maniacs
- Start date
Ya know, that one, I don’t understand
ESPNjacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,489
lauraee
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,407
lauraee
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,407
None of the blue bloods do much developing. They simply take advantage of the skills their 5-stars come in with. None of them leave significantly different or better than they were when they came in.
ramblinjacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 800
I doubt it’s for lack of trying. Probably just less juice to squeeze out of kids who are farther along in their development.
I imagine it is indeed for lack of trying. Surely they figure there's no need to develop them for the nba's benefit. Just take what you can get then send them on their merry way.
ramblinjacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 800
I really thought @kg01 was just joking. So either you are both just being sarcastic or your hate must be clouding your good judgement. If I read you guys right you are stating that "None of the blue bloods" develop players. So I think we can all agree Kansas, UNC, Duke and Kentucky would match the blue blood label. And so the premise is all of them either don't try or are no good at all at developing players. I call BS. Too many good coaches and assistant coaches and too many driven athletes that wouldn't tolerate the neglect without being vocal about it at some point.
- Messages
- 15,514
I think Kentucky players get better in their 1 year there or they don't play.
Uh, it doesn't work that way.
Good/great coach does not necessarily equate to good/great talent developer. I'd venture to say most "great" coaches don't have the patience to truly develop players to any significant degree.
I think we can all agree that Larry Brown was a great coach, for example. Well he simply chose not to play guys who couldn't help him.
The blue bloods do a great job of putting elite prospects in a position to help them. They're not gonna invest time in truly developing a guy. If a guy doesn't help them, just like Brown, they simply recruit over then push out the guy.
Will their players get incrementally better? Sure but if a guy needs to develop a handle or a reliable shot to make it on the next level, nah that's not happening.
Why not? Because there's not time to do it before they're gone. Remember, we all laugh but there are restrictions on how much work they can do on their game while in "school".
Most players realize, after they declare and get with a real player devel guy, that whatever they've been working on has been wrong anyway. College coaches don't generally develop players like that. It's why, and laugh again, NBA guys liked Hewitt. He actually worked on individual skill development. Unfortunately for us ... well, we know how that statement ends.
mstranahan
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,553
Wait. We’re seriously saying Hewitt developed players? Seriously? The running joke among people in my section at AMC was that players left with the exact same game they arrived with. The consistency was nice. Their first game as a fresh to their last game, nothing ever changed
That's cute but I'd challenge you and your section cronies to analyze the situation independent of your hatred for the dude.
Kansas is prolific at producing busts at the NBA level though. Prolific. They do the Duke thing, to a degree.
ramblinjacket
Ramblin' Wreck
- Messages
- 800
I am losing the trail now. Is it blue bloods that stink at developing talent or is it Duke? Is it blue bloods that stink at developing talent or is it just tough in college given time limits and lots of coaches are better CEO's/recruiters than player developers? The original implication as I read it was that blue bloods in particular fail to develop talent. As if they have it so good they just say "f-it no need to waste time". In reality I would think they fall in line, at worst, with whatever transpires at the average school. I am inclined to believe they are better than average, though, as I do believe they can attract better assistant coaching talent than average.