Maybe Durant Won't Be That Great

"Not so fast, Kevin Durant lovers ..." | source </p>

This is a lengthy blog entry dissecting Kevin Durant's game and making the somewhat controversial case that he won't be an elite player at the NBA-level. He makes the following points:</p><ul>[*]Will be too slow for a star perimeter player[*]Too weak for an inside player[*]A poor defender[*]Dominated in college due to skills rather than raw physical ability (see Adam Morrison)[*]The NBA game is geared towards players who dominate on the inside or on the outside. The midrange game is inherently inefficient.[*]If he has a bad shooting night, he's probably not going to be contributing much in other areas[/list]

</p>

He compares him, somewhat negatively, to Dirk Nowitzki. Dirk is another star player with an excellent midrange game but does not have a reputation at excelling at areas other than scoring. I do think he's selling Dirk a little short, and he's an example that you can be primarily a mid-range player and still be an excellent offensive player in today's league. But Dirk is a legit 7-footer who makes his living abusing PFs. Durant will be guarded primarily by wing players who will be able to match his quickness and contest his jumper. Anyways, I think that's the argument he's making.</p>

What do you think? </p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

 

i dont think Kevin Durant will win a scoring title like everyone says he will, but i think he will be a good player. Most likely gonna score at least 20 a game and maybe 5 boards and some assists. Its tough to tell right now though, hes real young and absolutely dominated college so he has a couple things goin for him.

 

I could see maybe saying that he got overhyped cause of the year he had and just the combined hype of him and oden. But i think morrison is a terrible comparison, morrison is slower, much worse on defense and was always known that he could only score.

 

I realize that this blog post is meant to serve as devil's advocate, but clearly the author believes most of it, which to me is ridiculous.</p>

As Durvasa said, his main points were:</p>[*]Will be too slow for a star perimeter player [*]Too weak for an inside player [*]A poor defender [*]Dominated in college due to skills rather than raw physical ability (see Adam Morrison) [*]The NBA game is geared towards players who dominate on the inside or on the outside. The midrange game is inherently inefficient. [*]If he has a bad shooting night, he's probably not going to be contributing much in other areas

For each of those, there's an obvious answer, which is why Durant was chosen with the second pick and not in the second round, as he would have been if those had been valid concerns. </p>

Too slow for a star perimeter player - Durant isn't a slow player. That's just a false statement, and there's no way around it. He's obviously not Allen Iverson-quick, and wasn't a standout at the players combine or at workouts in terms of speed, but anyone who even saw a Texas game last year knows that he's no plodding giant. He's fast enough to make it in the NBA period, and fast enough to survive out on the perimeter. Although Seattle's decision to start him at the 2 instead of the 3 means he'll be guarding quicker players, his length(over 7 foot wingspan) will obviously help him out there. Andre Kirilenko is another player who isn't known for quickness or speed, but he's used the physical tools he does possess to regularly guard NBA shooting guards effectively. Besides, all the testament to Durant being simply a spot up shooter are completely nuts. I'm a Bobcats fan, and I wish the comparisons to Adam Morrison were correct, just the other way around. But the Sonics are just going to use Durant out on the wing the way they did Ray Allen. His mid range jumper was his most utilized shot in college, whether it was backing out of the post or taking a couple steps in from 3-point land. </p>

Too weak for an inside player - Yes. Yes he is extremely weak, especially for a big man(I'm going to keep calling him a big man even though he'll play on the outside a lot, simply b/c he's nearly 7 ft. I can actually bench more than he can, and I'm less than 6 ft tall. But I'm also older than him, and couldn't lift that much when I was his age either. True, he's a world class athlete and I was playing in church andintramural leagues. But here's the thing: name as many top college players from before the 90's, and I'll bet you that a sizeable chunk of them were just as weak as Durant. Here's why: not only is he only 19 years old, so his full man body hasn't evolved yet(don't cite Lebron, Amareor Oden for me, theyall looked at least 30 while still in high school), but basketball is a sport which doesn't inherently build strength. Obviously, you develop some muscles, and I'm sure if they had asked Durant to do as many pushups as possible, he would have impressed. But the main point of the league is to build strength in players who were focusing on developing skills in high school and college, not the other way around. Look at guys like Shaq and Ben Wallace, who were amazing specimens coming out of college, and who were undoubtedly amond the strongest in the L from day 1. After over a decade, neither has been able to develop a decent free throw. I'd rather have the problem of packing on muscle to my draft pick than having to teach him the game. </p>

A poor defender - Come on, who's not? I mean, the guys who develop decent defensive skills are usually the guys who couldn't hit the backside of a barn(pardon my NBA Jam vernacular). Even perenial MVP candidates like Lebron, Nash and Dirk have serious defensive woes. But again, Durant's got the physical tools to overcome these problems. He may never win a steals title, but I wouldn't be surprised if he turned out to be a Tracy McGrady, circa-1999, one of the leading shotblockers among guards and averaging at least 1 block and 1 steal per game. Those numbers(especially the steals ones) will be more impressive when the Sonics eventually move him back to his more natural position at the 3(which I guarantee you they will after he bulks up a bit).</p>

Dominated due to skills rather than physical ability - How is this a bad thing? I fail to see it. Because obviously he was no Adam Morrison last year. Morrison, as a junior, didn't put up as impressive numbers as Durant did as a freshman. People are still forgetting that that was Durant's first year out of high school. Morrison toiled for two years in the shadow of Ronny Turiaf, and even without Turiaf(the conference p.o.y. Morrison's soph year) gobbling up rebounds by his junior year, the 'Stache grabbed less than 4 boards a game. Even at 6'10, you can't be 4th in the nation in rebounding without some physical ability(see Mike Done-leavy). Durant, somehow, and despite his being weaker than a schoolgirl(apologies to all strong schoolgirls out there), managed to grab more boards than certifiable hosses like Nick Fazekas, Aaron Gray, 'Big Baby' Davis, Greg Oden,and Al Horford, all of whom considerably outlifted Durant. Instead, I'd argue the opposite, that Durant chose not to fully utilize his physical abilities in order to exhibit his skills. If Durant just drove and dunked every time, or posted up and 'dream-shaked' his way to an easy layup, wouldn't detractors be saying the opposite, that he doesn't have the requisite skills for the L and that he won't be able to get by on shear physicality anymore?</p>

Midrange game is inherently inefficient - I'm guessing there aren't many true MJ fans out there for this statement to go unchallenged. I argue that MJ was the king(along with everything else he was king of) of the midrange game, and that all other players' failure to come close to his pinnacle is due to their ignoring of this key aspect of Money's game. Comparing his most apt heir, Kobe Bryant(81 points, need I say more?), I would argue that Kobe is far better from outside and only marginally worse in penetrating to the basket. A big part of Jordan slipping to #3 in '84(besides Portland's stupidity and lack of a time machine) was because he was perceived as a shooting guard who couldn't shoot(at least from outside), and his famous shrugging episode during Game 1 of the '92 Finals was because amongst the media, this conception was still prevalent eight years later. A majority of Jordan's points came from the midrange. And for those who want to argue that that was then, and this is now, simply check out His Airness 2.0 and 3.0. Jordan never became a threat of epic proportions from the outside(his top 3pt years were during the shortened line in the mid 90's), and by '98, and especially '02 and '03, he couldn't realistically take it the whole time and again. His pull up jumper and his sweet turnaround j were the trademarks of his career as physical limitations took hold. The fact that Durant has such a shot down pat makes him even more of a candidate for a breakout career. As everyone can tell, zone defenses have become more widespread in the league, and most of these zones are designed to put pressure around the perimeter or to channel penetrators towards more defenders. In short, it's designed to stop 2-dimensional players like Tracy McGrady, Gilbert Arenas, or Lebron James. Besides sprinkling so-called 'zone-busters' around the perimeter for stars to dish out to when defenses collapse on them, the best remedy for this is to develop a midrange jump shot. (don't tell me that you think Cleveland still lost that game if Lebron, after first developing a reliable midrange jumper, had pulled up for a 10 footer rather than dish to Donyell-I-want-to-be-Horry-Marshall)</p>

Won't contribute outside of shooting/scoring - This may be the only semi-legitimate point that won't soon be remedied. Its impossible to tell if a player is going to be multifaceted if they aren't famously already. Durant showed that he could rebound and score, but rebounding in college isn't the same as rebounding in the pros(see Carmelo Anthony). Scoring doesn't necessarily convert either(see Kurt Thomas), but if its more than spot up shooting, it usually does. Besides that, you could argue that Durant doesn't have anything else to offer. But I think that would be premature at this point. Durant was playing on a team that lost all of its good players from the year before, and for a coach who asked him to score every time down the court(you would too if youboldly proclaimed him the best frosh in the nationat the start of the Year of Oden). But he wasn't really asked to do much of anything else. He wasn't asked to defend,that was left to the other 4 guys so that Durant could use his energy on the other end of the court(remember, defense doesn't show upvery well in box scores). He had a top notch point guard, so playmaking was out of the question. Besides, even if he had tried to dish often, who else was gonna hit a shot? Honestly, I think we would have seen a much more accurate portrayal of Durant if he had been playing alongside P.J. Tucker and LaMarcus Aldridge instead ofTweedle dee andTweedle dum. And therefore, my argument has to simply be that he probably can contribute more outside of scoring, and stop right there. Because what is Seattle if not a professional version of the Longhorns squad from last year. Their only proven player is their point guard, and they have a couple of stiffs who, if not for rebounding, would be making their only NBA appearances as props in the dunk contest. Jeff Green is a start, but he's probably going to have a more typical rookie season and won't be asked to carry the team. P.J. Carlesimo is a far better assistant than a head coach(assistant=best known for helping Spurs win several titles / head=best known for getting choked out by Latrell Sprewell), so it wouldn't be inconceivable for him to take the route of most coachs of bad teams who suddenly have a stud rookie(see Kevin Loughery(Bulls '85), Johnny Davis(Sixers '97), and Jeff Bzdelik(Nuggets '04)) and give Durant the never-ending green light on offense.</p>

I know this is an extremely long post, but I don't buy the devil's advocate argument as to Kevin Durant. I was more apt to take it with regards to Greg Oden, and maybe now that Oden's out, Durant's drive to put up huge numbers will be mitigated somewhat. But I think that we're seeing a once-in-a-player's-generation type superstar, one who's far more likely to average 25-8-4 than 16-5-2.</p>

 

I dont buy into this blog. You could do one of these for every player in the NBA. Durant proved his game in college, now he just has to work hard and stay consistent to become a good to great NBA player. I dont think he will have a problem becomming a good player, but the first few years in Seattle are going to be difficult.

 

Hey, or maybe Durant will be!

 

Durant doesn't strike me as a superstar player, though he is definitely an elite scorer at the next level. His combination of pure athleticism and penetration ability, an effective shooting stroke, especially within twenty feet, and an array of post moves will eventually put him among the league's best scorers. That being said, I think he will have to be much more efficient in his scoring if he wants to maximize his production. In terms of rebounding, defense, and most importantly passing, he is below average and he must improve these areas of his game in order for anyone to write him off as anything more than a scorer.