In Chris's thread Rob made the following comment: "Detrick is pretty much the same player we've seen in the past". He then followed that up to say that he was still a very streaky shooter and a weak defender. My question is this. Isn't that almost always the case with players? They stay who they are. They may get better at what they are and their weaknesses may become less apparent but they still remain true to their core. People point to Punter's development but Punter has always been a scorer in HS, JUCO and in college. He just got a lot better at it. Let's think about Fulkerson and Kent, two similar sized and ranked players. Fulkerson is an aggressive rebounder who tries to block every shot but who has almost no offensive game. On the other hand Kent is a skilled offensive player but who is a weak rebounder, defender and shies away from contact. Is it reasonable to expect either to develop into a complete player? I don't think so. Both can and hopefully will get better at what they are but I think best case is that they are effective role players doing what they do. I don't think players that are average scorers in HS rarely become more productive scorers in college. Same for rebounds and assists. HS success is far from a guarantee of success in college but a lack of success in an area is a major read flag. One caveat that I can see are players that mature late or have dramatic weight changes. Thoughts? Violent disagreement? By the way yes I do realize that I am making a "leopard don't change his spots" type argument.
