Anthony Davis: What's his ceiling?

Why are we starting from the premise that college coaches are better teachers than NBA coaches?

 

and how would he get that in college?

 

Fundamentals Dick, fundamentals.

 

John Calipari can win big at the college level because he can acquire the talent that makes his team better than 90 percent of his competition before the first ball is tossed.

John Calipari is shit as an NBA coach because it's impossible to do the same, year after year. Though, of course, there are many other reasons.

 

It's not that staying four years makes you a better or worse pro, necessarily. It's that each time you move up a level of competition, you have to adjust to that level, including the idea that more people are as good as you are. The early entries that flopped in the NBA weren't necessarily less talented. In many cases, they had no idea how to make that adjustment.

 

Competition and coaching aside, in three years you have missed out on at least 120-130 games of experience.

 

We aren't. I asked the question about the quality of coaching upthread.

 

For the most part, if you are a four year guy it is because you aren't good enough for the NBA.

 

We need an all-star game:

Four-year team:
Russell
Kareem
Bird
Duncan
West

An abundance of big guys there. Maybe Oscar for Duncan, make TD best sixth man in history.

Early:
Jordan
Magic
Wilt (didn't really come out straight of Kansas but didn't stay either)
Kobe
Shaq

Maybe Hakeem off the bench. Shaq and Wilt on court at same time? Probably doesn't work real well. Moses, LeBron, KG off bench as well.

Now, have that game and limit it to guys who have played since, say, 1990 and it will be an ugly rout for the early-birds.

Clarence Gaines Jr. - a longtime scout, son of Big House - has a piece comparing Davis to guys like Camby/Duncan/KG, etc.

http://cgscoutperspective.blogspot.com/2012/04/who-is-anthony-davis-camby-duncan.html

One thing I'd disagree from earlier in the thread is the idea that a big guy can't be a franchise-changer anymore or that Duncan was the last. I still think a big guy, a dominant big guy, can make the difference between an also-ran and a great team. And Howard is the perfect example of it. His theatrics this year were ridiculous and he still has a limited offensive game, but he also led the 2009 Magic to the Finals - Hedo was their second-best player for God's sake. And even this year they could make a run to the Finals, because of his dominance in the paint and defensively. The fact Jordan was better than Bowie and Durant was better than Oden doesn't change the idea big guys can still rule. It's just that if you have otherwordly talents like Jordan and Durant, you shouldn't automatically draft a center.

I also think coaching at the NBA level is light years ahead of the college game. There's more advanced offenses, defenses, scouting, everything. Whether that translates to a one-on-one basis with individual players and helping them learn the game, I don't know, but I think it would.

 

He'd be coached. By educators. One presumes the academic setting encourages teaching, after all.

At least that's what the brochures say.

 

The two being Duncan and ... Kenyon Martin?

Grant Hill
Steve Nash
Alonzo Mourning
Eddie Jones (don't laugh, he made three All-Star teams)
Jeremy Lin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OK I give up. Less than great, but still able, were Emeka Okafor and Shane Battier.

 

Plus there's the matter of age when franchises make their evaluations. We just saw "Fausto Carmona" as the latest Latin player revealed to be older than previously believed. Why do athletes do that? Because there's more potential in a 19-year-old than in a 22-year-old.

I believe it has been cited here that this is an amazingly large contributing factor -- as in, baseball prospects who graduate high school at age 17 work out in much larger proportions than those who graduate high school at age 18.