The post referred to a Jason Whitlock column. i like some of Whitlock's stuff and dislike other stuff, but I think he is one of the better writers on the mainstream sites, especially for commentary. However, I disagree with his point about Olson.
His column refers to Brandon Jennings and he supports Jennings. I support Jennings, provided he made the decision rather than being used by Sonny Vaccaro as part of his anti-NBA, anti-NCAA agenda. I don't disagree with Vaccaro on many of his points about the age limit rule, but I would take issue with an adult using a kid to make his point. But, if Jennings decided he always wanted to play in Rome, than go for it, even if I think the Italian league is a poor choice as a jump off for Jennings.
In the column, Whitlock writes:
Strictly from a basketball standpoint, a year in Europe will do Jennings good. No one who knows anything about basketball believes Lute Olson would teach Jennings a thing about the fundamentals of the game. I'm not taking a cheap shot at Lute to defend Jennings' decision. It's a well-known fact within basketball circles that Lute Olson is famous for rolling the ball on the court, kicking back and enjoying the work of his recruiters. Lute Olson is not Bobby Knight.
Playing in Europe might be good for Jennings. However, playing for a high profile club in a high profile league is a more pressure filled job than the NBA. Coaches do not have the power they have in the NBA, in terms of multi-year multi-million dollar contracts that a club must buyout, so they lack security. With a job potentially on the line, how much patience will a coach have with a 19-year-old PG adjusting to FIBA rules, European culture, etc? How many college coaches have confidence in their freshman PG? How many NBA teams rely on first-year PGs? Mike Conley was a top 5 pick and received sporadic playing time on a team going nowhere in full rebuilding mode.
The bigger point, however, was the point about Olson. Arizona is not known as "Point Guard U." (an article I wrote for Basketball Times years ago) by accident or luck. Arizona is a very guard friendly, guard development program. Jerryd Bayless spent one year at Arizona and may or may not have learned anything, but he was just named the MVP of the Las Vegas Summer League. Arenas, Bibby, Terry, Stoudemire, Kerr, etc played for Olson.
In the comments under the article, someone quotes the Tucson Citizen:
Anyway, after reading that paragraph from Whitlock - and picking up my jaw from the floor - I called Corey Williams, a well-spoken former Wildcat who played for 12 years in Europe.
I read him the passage.
"Are you serious?" Williams said.
"Oh . . . my . . . god. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard."
"When I interviewed with the Suns, (then coach Danny) Ainge told me, 'I know you know how to play because you played for coach Olson.' "
Williams added, "We have all heard that," referring to the other former Wildcats.
The comments on the Bruin site were even worse:
It depends on the player. I don't believe elite players need "coaching". Kevin didn't, Beasley didn't, Rose didn't and Bayless didn't. Basketball is a "skill profession" and a lot of kids already have the skills.....like art,,,,like music.
The concept of teaching to these elite kids is overrated. Ben did not teach Kevin, and any defensive concepts could have been picked up quickly in 1 month as a pro.
Disagree. As I continue to argue on my other blog, we have a very poor understanding of skills and talents; what can be taught and what cannot be taught; and how talent develops. This poster espouses a common theory, and one which the popular media and general public believes, but one which research and science suggests is incorrect or at least inaccurate.
I'm talking about what coaching(college in this case) has to offer a kid who has it all that couldn't be taught faster at the pro level. I have a bad memory, but I was watching some of the Vegas games with the Timberwolves and they started talking about some of the things a kid has to learn at the pro level. The first thought that came to my mind was "why couldn't this be taught at the college level???" I don't know the answer, but the simple fact is it wasn't...and there you go.
It is remarkable to me how little credit is given to the player for developing himself. The machinations of coaching the talented is way to complex,,,where does the nurturing begin and how much, where to fit a talent in the team, but I guess with me I'm a BIG believer in talent first and I read almost way too much about coaching and teaching and very little about native talent. It's always "Mayo chose a good coach in Floyd", or "Love chose the right school with Ben", or "xxx will flourish under K", but the fact is BOTH would have gone straight to the L if they could've,,, making the whole college argument moot.
Now, this is not incorrect. There is a learning curve for the NBA because it is a different game. Coaches coach differently and players play differently. The rules are different. The college game is moving more toward the NBA game in terms of match-ups and isolations, but it's a different game.
I also agree that too much is made of coaching and the individual plays a huge part in his own development. However, to suggest that all coaches are the same or that coaches do not help players develop is incorrect. Sure, talented players could go straight to the NBA. And, of course NCAA rules make individual development more difficult at the college level. But, coaches can assist a player's development and preparation for the NBA. I believe players should be able to go pro straight from high school because I hate the 1-and-done's and the mockery it makes of college institutions. But, a college coach can impact a player's development, just like a high school coach, junior high school coach, etc.
I cover the talent vs. skills a little more in this week's newsletter. Subscribe here.
3 comments:
Very good post and didn't see Whitlock's article on this topic. Thank you for pointing it out. When it comes to basketball, I have found Whitlock as not the sharpest tool in the shed. Every Arizona player and coach that I know that has had the opportunity to coach or play under Olsen, has does nothing but praise him. I am not sure which direction would be best for Jennings. Personally, I think it all depends on the makeup of the young man. If he handle Europe and being around grown men who dont speak his language, then he will flourish under the opportunity. If he is a typical AAU immature Sonny Vaccaro kid, then college would have been the best choice for the young man. Only time will tell.
The importance of coaching?!
Does anyone really believe that high school and college coaches all over the country are spending time this summer breaking down tape of Davidson's NCAA games with Gonzaga, Georgetown, Wisconsin, and Kansas because they want to watch Curry shoot?
Ummmm. Maybe they think the Wildcat post defenders were relying on superior athletic ability? Or Curry was getting open all by himself?
No. Ask Bo Ryan, John Thompson or Bill Self about the importance of coaching.
Very interesting post, as usual. I believe that some players (namely guards) prepare themselves better for the NBA if they play in wide-open offenses in college, while others need more structure at the college level to best prepare for the NBA (namely big men). I haven't done any scientific research to back up this theory, but I make an effort to discuss the topic in my blog.
Post a Comment