I found this writeup on Fields on bbi, my favorite football board. It's pretty thorough and was done by a reliable poster. I'll link it and copy it. I think we got a good player.
NFT: Landry Fields, SG/SF, Stanford (Now of the NY Knicks)
Dubs : 3:38 am
A preface: I've covered Stanford men's basketball, through radio and print, for the past two seasons. I've seen every game Landry has played since his sophomore year.So, what do we have?
History
Landry entered school as a 17 year old, weighing about 100 pounds soaking wet. Great talent and athleticism, but he was very much a kid. There was talk that he should have either a) redshirted his freshman year or b) gone to prep school. He was one of the rare instances where Stanford lowered its admissions bar for a player, banking on the idea that he would improve dramatically both as a student and as a basketball player.
Both came true. He won the Pac-10 academic player of the year award as a senior, and should have won the straight up Pac-10 player of the year award, too--he was both the best and most valuable player in the conference in 2009-2010.
We'll get back to last season in a moment.
Landry comes in as a tremendously raw talent, and essentially rides pine for the first two years. This was the Lopez era, and also when Lawrence Hill (and, arguably, Anthony Goods) was at his peak. There was little room for him in the starting rotation.
He started getting more starts and far more minutes in 2008-2009. He tripled his minutes, points and rebounds. Still, on a team with four seniors, three of whom were long time starters, he remained an after-thought.
That brings us to 2009-2010. Stanford's historically rich basketball program had been depleted, the star freshman tore his ACL, and the team was picked, unilaterally, to finish last in the Pac-10.
From the beginning, the onus was on Landry, the lone senior of any consequence on a very young team, to become a) a leader, which he had never had to be before, and b) carry the team on his back. I spoke to him before the season began. He said something along the lines of "I didn't ask to be in this position, but I am and it's my responsibility to see it through." By now, he had filled out. Still a relatively slender guy, but far more muscular than he was when he arrived as a frosh and was nothing more than a string bean. Check out the difference:
Anyway, Stanford had a poor season, and finished 9th in the Pac-10. We were 14-18 on the year. That said, despite playing with more walk-ons than scholarship players, at some points, the Cardinal was close in nearly every single game. If not for missed free throws by our young PG with seconds remaining, we would have beat Kentucky; Oklahoma State, UCLA, Washington State and Arizona all escaped with narrow victories. A few bounces here and there, it's a different season.
Why do I mention this? Because Landry put us in that position. Make no mistake: without him, Stanford struggles to win more than 6-7 games. He was the lone consistent force. We'd occasionally get 20 point performances from our SG, Jeremy Green, but he would also go absent for games at at time. Landry, meanwhile, never scored less than 14 points in a contest, even though everyone on the court knew that he was getting the ball 95% of the time. I cannot stress just how talent-deficient Stanford was this season. Every single post-player was a walk-on, outside of one mid-major transfer. Our PG was actually a SG. Very few people could shoot FTs. There was zero depth. Even in the weak Pac-10, that was a bad place to be. And yet, Landry kept us competitive in nearly every single contest. It was him, and practically him alone.
Scouting Report
Let's look at Landry, the player, to see what the Knicks have. He played a de facto SF this season, but he was really a third guard and is a natural SG. Given that he's a legit 6'7" and has long arms, that's a nice little match-up problem. He's also had experience bringing the ball up court as a bit of a point-forward, and has done well in that regard.
Beyond that, he has good instincts attacking the rim, and has the hops to deliver posterizing dunks. Check out the link. Once he starts his approach, he's also pretty quick, and in transition, he can get up to a pretty significant top speed.
His jump shot is my favorite part of his game, because the improvements even within the 2009-2010 season alone have been tremendous. He went from being a liability beyond 12 feet to a consistent threat from just inside the arc. He can drain the shot from pretty much anywhere on the court. It's not a bankable asset juuuust yet but it's getting there.
His perimeter defense is very, very good. This is where the long arms really get to work (read: good number of steals). He can shut his man down, and has guarded everyone from centers to point guards.
His rebounding is also a strength, and he has a nice little tendency for put backs around the offense rim. But beyond that fanciness, he has the instincts for crashing the boards, and because he's a tall guy, he can outleap his competition.
My biggest concern is that he may be a step slow. That can be killer in the NBA. He doesn't have the greatest moves off the dribble. This would hurt him on offense, obviously, but it may also hinder him defensively against quicker perimeter players. He's athletic, but he's not a freak. And while this probably won't be the biggest concern for him with the Knicks, since he'll be a role player, he can have the tendency to make weird/bad mistakes late in games. And his FT shooting is decent (about 65-70%) but not where you want it to be for a SG. His three-point shooting is still a bit of a mystery, and not anything too reliable. He shoots about 35%, which isn't awful but nothing too great, either.
One criticism that I don't think holds any weight is that he's not strong enough. IMO, that carries over from when he was a younger player, but now, I've seen him, on multiple occasions, wrestle balls away from much bigger post players, and go up against them in the air--and win--consistently. He can still add bulk but he's a powerful guy.
Overall
Landry's collegiate career has been one of potential and rawness. Even as a veteran senior, he was still realizing his talent and making vast improvements in his game. The point being: he has not maxed out. There are reasons he was a second rounder--I've discussed them above--but do not fall into the fallacy of "good collegiate producer, limited upside." That is not the case. Why wasn't he a well-regarded prospect? Casey Jacobsen has some ideas, and I think he's on point: the pathetic display by Stanford this season caused scouts to look down on him, even though he was one of the best players in the country at his position and did pretty much everything he could to make the team respectable.
BTW, I'm trying to talk to Landry in the next couple of days. If you have anything you'd like me to ask, let me know.
6/25/2010 11:12 AM