Yeah, a HORRENDOUS 46% from the floor. Which is way worse than, say, Tim Duncan: who has shot 50% over his career. The only knock on Marcus Camby is that he is injury prone. That's it. And there is no indication that Anthony Davis is injury prone. And so I KNOW that if you were to tell whatever team wins the draft that his skillset will be the exact replica as that of Marcus Camby -- a guy who has been the most efficient shot blocker in the league and one of the top five most efficient rebounders in the league for the last 17 [dadgum] years -- they would probably take Davis in approximately 0.0002 seconds and wish Berrypick6 the best of luck in improving the quality of his nonsense message board posts.
I said if his career was an exact replica, not his skill set. There is a difference. Speaking of moronic posts, you compared Marcus Camby to Tim Duncan. Congrats. Davis may be a great defender and rebounder for a number of years, we will find out. Chances are he goes the Bobcats and will have to deal with some bigger stronger guys that reside in the East. If I were whoever had the first pick I would be a little worried about his weight/strength. That's all I'm saying.
(1) The only difference is that Camby is injury prone. Go back through Camby's career and give him even 70 games per season at his per-game averages and see what those hypothetical career totals look like. Hint: they're somewhere between historically elite and historically quite elite. So you are either assuming Davis is going to be injury prone like Camby -- which is an unfounded asssumption -- or you're simply not making sense and I don't have the first clue what point you might be attempting to convey. (2) I sure did. Thanks! As you may recall, you said that Camby's 46% FG percentage was horrendous. So I pointed to a legitimately great offensive player -- Tim Duncan -- and made note that his FG percentage was only a touch higher than the FG percentage that you had just finished saying was horrendous. So now you have two options: (a) admit that your first statement was moronic, or (b) call Tim Duncan's offensive prowess into question. Which will it be?
Whole lot of ifs and buts in that first rebutle. I'll take option C, where I point out that Marcus Camby and Tim Duncan's shot selection is nowhere near the same. Camby is basically a putt back and garbage scorer. Where as Duncan split his time between the post and taking 10-15 foot shots. Huge difference. Now that's not really the argument at hand. Personally, I think Davis could be great, then again, he could get his ass pushed around his whole career. Answer is probably somewhere in the middle.
Watching the tourney so far, my estimation of Thomas Robinson has gone up; my estimation of Harrison Barnes has gone down. I still have no idea of what to think of Terrence Jones. Just throwing out a few guys not yet mentioned.
It depends on what a team thinks they are getting in Robinson. If they think they're getting a young Charles Oakley, they'll be satisfied. If they think they are getting a young Xavier McDaniel, they're going to be sorely disappointed. Harrison Barnes is soft. He'll be a guy who plays in the league forever, but never really does anything of note. Terrence Jones will be a superb pro, assuming he adds range to his shot. Teams absolutely love his ballhandling for his size, his rebounding, and his potential to be a plus defensive player.
Sort of my read on the first two. Jones looks like a solid lottery guy for some stretches and then pulls a disappearing act for games at a time. I can't tell if he is among the best players in the country or the 7th best guy on his own team. It's a team with a lot of other options, but the swings are dramatic.
I'm intrigued by DeShaun Thomas. Not sure he has a true position in the NBA, but he may have the most versatile offensive repetoire in the college game today.
