twix2500 wrote:
Being 19 does not what so ever mean you will improve more than a 24 yr old. All it does is give you an excuse why you're not as good as a 24 yr old. The potential to improve should be based on physical talent and work ethics. Age only gives you possibly more TIME to improve before the body (physical talent) starts to breakdown.
Riller can very well be a better player than Herro as a rookie. We don't know that. If Riller has the physical talent, the IQ and the work ethics to make it in the NBA at some level, his age is pointless. In fact his age is a bonus to scouts because you have actual plenty of game tape to evaluate his development. When a player is younger with less game tape, you have to guess on how he MIGHT develop and work.
In regards to Heat drafting Herro. His age didn't mean squat. What helped Herro was Riley trust in the Kentucky coaching staff combined with his private workouts. We just dealt with Winslow all these years. Hoping after brick after brick, hoping, debated on what hair style he wore, gave him nicknames, made theme songs and hashtags to keep our hopes alive. Finally had a stretch in his 4th season that showed promise and then start bricking again. We kept giving EXCUSES for Winslow because of his age.
Before Winslow we had Beasley (20) and Dorrell (19). Who couldn't surpass Haslem (23 yrs old) or Chalmers (22 yrs old) as players. Dorrell and Beasley were both 100x more physically talented than Herro.
I get many hold sentimental value watching a kid become a man. Which is fine but it seems its getting to a point where some are discriminating against talent because of their age.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The draft has created this expectation of finding a star, not finding a good rotation player or a solid NBA starter. This creates enormous pressure to take risks on unproven talent, lest you miss the next Tracy McGrady, Kobe Bryant, Amare Stoudamire, Kevin Garnett...etc (of course, for everyone of those, there are lots of Stromile Swifts, Eddy Currys, and Tyson Chandlers)
There are so many unknowns and variables to consider. Sometimes that is because there are questions about their physical traits (height, athleticism), their lack of competition in college/Europe (think Lillard and Curry), and the risk/reward factor with taking the unpolished player vs a more NBA ready guy.
Picking lower in the draft means less expectations. Miami was thrilled to get Winslow because the general consensus was he was a guy who would have been a top-3/5 pick if he had stayed one more year; to get him at 10 was "a steal," from that perspective.
With #20, there is no expectation Miami will even get a rotation player. Choosing a player with "raw" talent gives the fan base more hope than choosing a "safer" known player; if the "raw" talent doesn't pan out, no one is going to feel like Miami missed out on much unless there is a Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili who gets picked later. But hindsight is 20/20 and no one is going to blame a team much for not drafting a player another 20-25 teams passed on. No fan is lamenting not having found Haslem or Whiteside, like Miami did; they start lamenting when it becomes a pattern, like San Antonio and, more recently, Miami has done.