Bobs, you say that 3-4 year players don't have much upside, but lets take a look. Why is that? Is it b/c they aren't good? Or is it more so b/c they were smart, stayed in school, worked on their weaknesses while playing in college and become fundamentally sound and ready for the NBA, that just maybe, they didn't NEED to change their games that much.
We'll take a look at 2 guys who stayed in college and played for top coaches. Ray Allen who had Calhoun and Channing Frye.

Ray: I remember way back in the MSG days, we had a good thread going and a conversation about Ray Allen came up, and Bippity10 (UConn Alumni) explained that while he stayed in his 4 years of college, he utilized his strengths during the game (Shooting) and worked dilligently during practice on his driving to the hoop, that by the time he had it to the NBA, he already pretty much had it all, and really just needed to work on his defense. And look at him now, he came into the league, didn't have to make much of an adjustment, b/c he had the 3-4 years of work under his belt and just needed his short adjustment period and he took off. Try realizing, just b/c a player doesn't always add things to their repetoir (Sorry for spelling) like Ray Allen never becoming a post up guard, doesn't mean they haven't improved over the years and don't have upside.

Now a look at Channing Frye. The kid right now, can score in almost any way, and if he can learn how to position his body correctly, he'll be a real good rebounder too. His defense has been active and solid too. This guy has all the skills ALREADY and needs to just adjust and learn the rebounding and NBA passing game, and he's gonna be set. I have no doubt he'll have at least 1 all star year in his career. But under his 4 years, the guy had so much time to work on his skills, he really doesn't have to add much more. How do you want him to change? Add a 3 pt shot which kills some careers or develop Crawford like dribbling skills? He doesn't need all that crap! He already has enough skills, and athleticism that as long as he continues to adjust and get better, you'll be singing his praises for a very very long time.

Just remember, there are very very few Kobes, KGs, LeBrons, Telfairs, ect.. and with every guy that comes out real early, there are 5 that turn to be terrible busts b/c they didn't have the obedience that they could have gained in college, (As well as humbleness) so they could improve.

This is a very good arguement Bobs, but take a look at Channing play everyday. He's improving by the minute so to say he wont have that much upside is crazy.

It wasn't a criticism Allan.

Just a casual observation...

Yes, Frye looks good. No question. We'll see how he develops...

Back on topic --


Frye only has an outside chance at ROY, with Paul averaging 17,6, & 5.

Posted by bobs3304:

Most 3-4 year college grads these days (with the exception of a few of course) end up being solid players, but not All-Star caliber.

How is that so hard to accept?

Like Dwayne Wade?

Man, we all thought Briggs was setting up an unrealistic expectation when he said Frye should play 30+ mpg and average 14/7. It looks like the only unrealistic part was the mpg! If he had starter's minutes and stayed out of foul trouble, he might be an all-star and the leading ROY candidate right now.

Posted by Rich:

You just know that if IT was in Layden's shoes on draft night 2002, the Knicks would have kept Camby,and drafted Amare, Wilcox, or Nene.

Agreed.

I was wrong about Frye. I think if anything, Frye was hurt by playing in a guard oriented system in Arizona. His scoring ability is clearly outstanding. He gets open, he finishes...doesn't take a lot of time and doesn't bog down the offense. His face the basket game is top notch for a 6'11 guy...he could very well be on par with the Brad Millers, Rasheed Wallaces, Chris Webbers etc.

His rebounding rate is great, but he isn't bad. I'm fine with his defense so far. He has flashed shotblocking ability and his mobility is an asset.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Man, we all thought Briggs was setting up an unrealistic expectation when he said Frye should play 30+ mpg and average 14/7. It looks like the only unrealistic part was the mpg! If he had starter's minutes and stayed out of foul trouble, he might be an all-star and the leading ROY candidate right now.

They were realistic to me, but what I thought was that he would get off to a really slow start and then really start coming along.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so concerned with applying questionably perceived trends to trying to predict the future performance of a specific player. This is, obviously, moving beyond the side-railed debate of trends in college to NBA transitions- the larger issue is whether Frye has, as bobs suggest, a lower ceiling than others here assert.

What is it about Channing Frye that leads you to believe he will or will not develop as much as other players drafted in his class?
lack of ability? Low basketball IQ? Lack of Athleticism? A striking resemblance to Tiger Woods?

We need to remember we're talking about one player in particular, who can be analyzed on his distinct merits and shortcomings alone.

Actually the trend I noticed is that the HS guys usually take more years to develop, but they seem to have a bit of a higher ceiling (the guys who do make it), while the 3-4 year players are more solid and take a little less time to reach a somewhat lower ceiling. When it comes to the rate between the 2, it seems, from what I saw from 95-04, almost 1/3 of the early entrant applicants were Sophs.