Ironic?

[thefish7]

I'll bite fish...

The problem in many instances for the names you throw out is that they either ended their careers as basically the same players, or likely will. Sure they might have been marginally better and physically stronger...but they don't add dimensions to their game.

Warren has offered some new intangibles and toughness that I know some had openly questioned. But if he wasn't this team's only option this year, it's questionable if we would have seen him be this aggressive.

POB's dominance in Feb/March of 2006 could have had as much to do with the fact he didn't play the first 1/3 of that season. Also his work ethic, as exhibited by his fluid professional career) likely would have limited any further growth in college.

Certainly, I get some shooters, rebounders and defending specialists may never be more than that one dimension to their game. However, part of coaching is either developing those additional skills, or putting those guys into roles in a system designed to make them successful.

I don't think you answered any of the questions I posed.. Nor do I think the expectation you seem to be putting out there as the target makes a lot of sense. Let's take Dyricus as an example, he's a good slasher, a decent shooter, has a mean entry pass, a pretty good defender, but struggles to keep his handle on the ball. If he finishes his Bradley career as an excellent slasher, consistent outside threat, patient with the ball, and a lights out defender, I'm not going to complain that he never turned into a better post up guy? Nor would I want him or the coach spending a lot of time on that skill.

Likewise, Jordan Prosser is having a very nice freshman season. He's a good finisher, strong in the paint, and at times a good rebounder. He's struggling with his hands both on catching passes and bobbling rebounds. Good development would be him improving his hands, getting more consistent on defense, getting better at his FTs, and becoming even more aggressive in the paint, but if he never develops an outside shot I will not be disappointed.

When it comes to adapting system to take advantage of your strengths, I think I've been clear that I think Les is screwing that up... And I think in the case of say AT, that we've also probably squandered some potential. But it's not the topic I raised, I'm asking about player development, which is that guys show progress year to year and cash in on their potential. I think for the most part, our players have shown that.

[squirrelgotdead]

Ok...let's examine your arguments as to players who stand as "good" examples of marked improvement...

Crouch...by your standards would be a higher shooting %, fewer TO's, and maybe more steals.

Well, in something like 8-10 more minutes a game, scoring doubled between frosh and senior years. The FG% generally increased, but not enough that screams out improvement (frosh and sr %s are roughly the same). Perhaps Crouch had already reached his ceiling in terms of shooting anyway. So we move on...assists shot up, but TO's nearly doubled between Jr and Sr year, and doubled roughly comparing against frosh or junior years. For someone who played 26 mpg as a frosh playing 34 as a senior those numbers show very little variance to me, at least what I would call "good improvement". The major reason for the spike in assists and TOs largely had to do with Crouch playing the point during Ruffin's absence.

Most of Ruffin's improvement happened between frosh and soph years, with his HS coach on staff. Numbers after that pretty much stalled, and things like A:TO went in the wrong direction by senior season, though scoring did go up.

I'm not suggesting Prosser all of a sudden start working on being a combo forward, however, I don't think it's asking much to have a high % shooter from the paint who appears able to battle and rebound maybe add a couple things to his arsenal...shot blocking and maybe a deadly 10-12' hook with both hands.

I am not saying there aren't areas of improvement, but I am saying that the development is not noteworthy or what I would call "good." I just don't think it's adequate in helping guys mature their games, and that is very individualized and can vary.