verbal8 wrote:Kanyewest wrote:Maybe Otto Porter is like Brandon Roy- above average at everything but not excellent at anything. Perhaps the lack of zone defenses creates more spacing for Porter. The Calbert Cheaney comparison is interesting but I would point out that Cheaney didn't excel in the NBA because he was a below average 3 point shooter. What will be key for Porter to succeed is knocking down open shots along with getting to the foul line; he might have to improve his handle a bit.
Looking at Calbert Cheaney's college vs. NBA shooting is very strange. He was a very good FT shooter in college(~80%), he was only mediocre in the pros(~70%). He was an amazing 3 point shooter in college. His percentage was similar to Ray Allen and Reggie Miller(only one season of 3 point line). Cheaney made almost 150 college 3 pointers at a 43.8% rate. In the pros he made only 200 NBA 3s and shot them at a 30% rate.
His rookie year he shot 23 3 pointers and missed all but 1. His second year he looked like he was on his way to being a respectable 3 point shooter - 98 made at a 33.9% rate. His 3rd year was a similar rate on 1/2 the volume. Then over the next 15000 minutes of his career he made less than 70 3 pointers.
I use the cal cheaney analogy not because I think there the same or analagous players, Porter is much longer for instance, and plays the 3, whereas Cal was a swing man, playing either the 2 or 3 and quite a bit shorter too. I use the analogy because despite the college basketball player of the year angle (sound familiar? Cheaney was up for that, think he won it), Cheaney didn't project to be an elite NBA player because he wasn't special at any given thing, just good at a ton of things, some of his failures can be attributed to his play statistically falling off in many areas, but it's also applicable in that Cheaney's chief weakness was that he wasn't really elite or great at anything, his good at everything angle dominated the more spotty play of Rose, and Webber etc, but it didnt translate as well to the NBA.
My fear with Porter is that being good at everything means in the end, being great at nothing. Joe Smith had the same issue too, like Cheaney, and if that's how it plays out, then Porter most likely will simply become a plug and play starter that we'll be looking to replace after his contract ends, or a guy were going to be giving a far less than max contract too, something another poster suggested is a great attribute for him and us, but for me, is damning, if you are already admitting that he'll never command a max contract due to his quality, why in hell take him at #3?
