Post by krupimpski424 on Dec 15, 2005 15:58:45 GMT -5
We see players with potential all the time. At one point there was Kevin Garnett and he went on to become one of the greatest PF of all time. Then there are the likes of Kwame Brown who is the exact opposite of KG. Is there still hope? Lets take a look...
Every general manager loves a player with the potential to be great, but does your team hinder this players’ potential to be so great. The two approaches to developing players are
A: Let him sit on the bench and develop and play him when he is ready
Or
B: Throw him into the game and let him learn as he goes along
Both of these methods might help a player to develop and it might also hinder his development.
If you choose option “A” this gives the player more time to be comfortable in his environment and might help him for the long term. It also might discourage the player and his skills might begin to rot on the bench and he will never fully develop. In this case you might see a players ratings drop with his potential staying at the “B” potential but never develop until the player sees significant playing time. This is called the Darko Theory. If you choose option “B” then you might see a quicker rate of development but you might hinder his overall max potential because he doesn’t have the time to tone his skills. You might see a player like this put up some pretty good numbers but his “A” potential quickly goes down to a “B” then down to a “C” without ever seeing improvement. This is the Jim Jackson theory.
Now this is just the skeletal for a much more complex thought of player development. Another factor is the players surrounding the young player developing. Some questions on this part are….
If a young player is put into a winning or losing franchise could that play a role in a player’s development?
If a young player has a stud in front of him in the depth chart playing his position does that slow him down or does that give him guidance?
Some thoughts on this are that a player needs to play with players that compliment his talents. If a poor shooting, great ball handling and passing PG is put with players that can not shoot the ball but his teammates can create shots off their own dribble this renders the PG to be useless. This could hinder the PG’s development because of lack of assists and would force the PG to shoot the ball more or have more TO’s. Where would John Stockton be without Malone, Hornacek, or Russell? This is known as the Stockton theory.
The last factor is that of a coach’s philosophies. Not all players can play for every coach. This is called the Josh Smith Theory. Josh Smith has to be one of the most moved players in BBS that is still held in regard a player with great potential. Josh Smith is a very versatile player that can fly high and play defense. He has gone up and down in ratings but still holds potential he has been on great teams to some of the worst. He has been a number 1 option and a 5th option. Yet no GM has gotten Smith to reach that high potential that everyone knows he has. Would he be better suited for an up tempo offense? Or perhaps a half court offense? Or maybe his offense would be stimulated through press and trap defense getting fast break dunks off steals.
Or maybe he is already a lost cause and will never reach his potential? I leave with the question what are your thoughts and your theories on the matter because no one man can crack this mystery alone….
Every general manager loves a player with the potential to be great, but does your team hinder this players’ potential to be so great. The two approaches to developing players are
A: Let him sit on the bench and develop and play him when he is ready
Or
B: Throw him into the game and let him learn as he goes along
Both of these methods might help a player to develop and it might also hinder his development.
If you choose option “A” this gives the player more time to be comfortable in his environment and might help him for the long term. It also might discourage the player and his skills might begin to rot on the bench and he will never fully develop. In this case you might see a players ratings drop with his potential staying at the “B” potential but never develop until the player sees significant playing time. This is called the Darko Theory. If you choose option “B” then you might see a quicker rate of development but you might hinder his overall max potential because he doesn’t have the time to tone his skills. You might see a player like this put up some pretty good numbers but his “A” potential quickly goes down to a “B” then down to a “C” without ever seeing improvement. This is the Jim Jackson theory.
Now this is just the skeletal for a much more complex thought of player development. Another factor is the players surrounding the young player developing. Some questions on this part are….
If a young player is put into a winning or losing franchise could that play a role in a player’s development?
If a young player has a stud in front of him in the depth chart playing his position does that slow him down or does that give him guidance?
Some thoughts on this are that a player needs to play with players that compliment his talents. If a poor shooting, great ball handling and passing PG is put with players that can not shoot the ball but his teammates can create shots off their own dribble this renders the PG to be useless. This could hinder the PG’s development because of lack of assists and would force the PG to shoot the ball more or have more TO’s. Where would John Stockton be without Malone, Hornacek, or Russell? This is known as the Stockton theory.
The last factor is that of a coach’s philosophies. Not all players can play for every coach. This is called the Josh Smith Theory. Josh Smith has to be one of the most moved players in BBS that is still held in regard a player with great potential. Josh Smith is a very versatile player that can fly high and play defense. He has gone up and down in ratings but still holds potential he has been on great teams to some of the worst. He has been a number 1 option and a 5th option. Yet no GM has gotten Smith to reach that high potential that everyone knows he has. Would he be better suited for an up tempo offense? Or perhaps a half court offense? Or maybe his offense would be stimulated through press and trap defense getting fast break dunks off steals.
Or maybe he is already a lost cause and will never reach his potential? I leave with the question what are your thoughts and your theories on the matter because no one man can crack this mystery alone….
