G
I understand what you're saying. I have no problem with us disagreeing here.
You can't equate Anthony Morrow to Johnny McNeil or Anthony McHenry. They were both very limited in what they did. Stephens and Morrow were among the best players on their respective teams and were looked to for leadership, which is not the traditional definition of a role player. They're all role players in they have their role on the team. Morrow was a leader and one of the top scorers. I don't agree with your assertion unless you say his role was to score and play great defense. Yes, he was a spot-up shooter, but that's not all he did. By your definition (as I read it), you're saying that if you're not the lead dog, the view's the same, therefore you're a role player. I guess Baye was a role player last year?
Kelly was the main go-to guy this past season. As he went, the team went. I think he would have been a much better leader in the locker room this year had he returned. I'll miss him on this team.
Good! Let's get down to definitions for clarity.
I would differentiate role players from mainstay players by the following:
A mainstay player will be the focus of the opposition game planning, but the player produces numbers in the teeth of the opposition's efforts to contain that player. Mainstay players create opportunities for their team mates by virtue of being the focus of the opposition. Mainstay players make plays at key moments in games. Good teams and championship teams have mainstay players because mainstay players win match-ups more often than not. Mainstay players create match-up difficulties, command double teams and scramble the opposition with their talent.
By contrast, a role player is one who's production is largely dependent on playing with mainstay players. They can't win individual match-ups consistently and therefore, require mainstay players to move the defense or create defensive plays to get open or get in transition or get a rebound.
My use of the term "role player" seems to be carrying a lot of baggage so maybe a better term is "complimentary player."
We agree that Miles Kelly was given the opportunity to be the main go-to guy on last year's team. But being given that opportunity does not mean he was successful. As often as not, Miles Kelly was successfully defended by opposing ACC players and coaches. His best performances were clearly in games when he "allowed the game to come to him." He did not show the ability to produce when he was the focus of the opposition's defense. Miles Kelly could be neutralized by ACC players and coaches.
By contrast, the two Freshmen, Ndongo and George flashed the ability to make plays at key moments and while heavily defended. Ndongo did this with his physical skills and his moxie, while George did it with his court vision and his moxie. As Freshmen, they were not consistent, but to me they showed the promise of being mainstay players, players who could lead us to wins in the ACC where I think Miles Kelly did not show me that.
It's not a knock. Miles Kelly is a good high level college player and that probably puts him in the top 5% of players in the world. Put him on the court with some seasoned mainstay players and he could be a key guy on a good team like Johnny McNeil was and Anthony McHenry was.
And I listed McNeil and McHenry because they were starters on two of the most accomplished teams that GT ever put on the floor. They were not scorers but they were fine defenders, did a lot of the dirty work and facilitated for the mainstay guys. Miles Kelly is like that as an offensive weapon. He has great range that defenses must respect so he was able to stretch the floor and prevent defenses from sagging. This is valuable to teams at every level. And while Kelly has made strides on defense (especially the boards, where his production was quite good last season), his defense has progressed from being awful to just scratching adequate. If he can't make it to the NBA like Morrow did, it will be because of his shortcomings on defense (the same as Devoe and Moses Wright).
Anthony Morrow is an interesting case. Morrow's best year in terms of scoring was his Soph year where he put up 16ppg and 4.5 rebounds per game. He led the team in scoring but the team was 11-17 and 4-12 in conference. He was the main guy on a bad team. The next season his scoring dropped to 10ppg which was 4th on the team. But the team was 20-12 (8-8) and went dancing. He wasn't the main guy, he was a complimentary player on a winning team.
Then, as a Senior, he was back to being the leading scorer on a 15-17 (7-9) team. He was the main guy on losing teams and a complimentary guy on a winning team. I project the same kinda deal for Miles Kelly. His upside is to be a complimentary player on a good team or a mainstay guy on a bad one.
When Morrow made it to the NBA, there was collective surprise among Tech fans. The buzz when he made it was, "If he was so good all along, why didn't we get him more shots??" The answer is, because he was a complimentary player and not a mainstay player. He carried that role to the NBA.
