New York, NY- Darius Garland is freshman from Vanderbilt University. He was a top-20 recruit in the 2018 ESPN 100. He is projected to go as high as number 3 in the 2019 NBA Draft...
...and he's only played in five collegiate games.
Garland averaged 16.2 points and just under 4 rebounds a game for the Commodores until a meniscus injury two minutes into the Kent State game sidelined the Tennessee native for the rest of his freshman campaign. However, with reports about Garland working out with the New York Knicks less than a week before the draft, it has raised eyebrows around the league. Scouts says he has the talent, but without a full season of work, the biggest trait Garland has going in his favor is "potential".
Keep in mind, I am not saying evaluating a player heavy on potential is a bad thing; Garland isn't the first player with these same circumstances. Kyrie Irving is a Top-5 point guard in an era where the position is probably as deep as it's ever been, even though he only played 11 games at Duke. Joel Embiid, who is growing into a dominant center with a huge personality, had a stress fracture in his back during his freshman season, and still went third overall in 2014. Even Nerlens Noel, though he's yet to live up to the hype in his brief career, was still good enough to be selected sixth overall in the 2013 draft, the same draft that contained future MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo and midrange deadeye CJ McCollum.
What I am saying though, is I fear that "potential" inflates player ratings, the type of inflation that would move teams to draft a Nerlens Noel over McCollum; to draft Dion Waiters over Damian Lillard in 2012; to draft Jonny Flynn over a skinny, sharp-shooting point guard from a mid-major.
I know the debate can go on forever about "potential" vs. "production", and there will always be cases to prove one side wright and the other wrong. The idea still remains though: balance is key. Depending on what the team needs will move them to weigh different traits more heavily than others, but how much of a difference is a 22-year-old whose game is tested and proven, and an 18-year-old raw talent with "potential", when ultimately the goal is to create and sustain a championship level team for years to come?
Mason Smith is a student at Alabama State University, and a writer for his school newspaper, The Hornet Tribune. The articles are in an effort to improve his writing skills and to be better prepared for work after graduation, where he hopes to earn a writer/editor position.
...and he's only played in five collegiate games.
Garland averaged 16.2 points and just under 4 rebounds a game for the Commodores until a meniscus injury two minutes into the Kent State game sidelined the Tennessee native for the rest of his freshman campaign. However, with reports about Garland working out with the New York Knicks less than a week before the draft, it has raised eyebrows around the league. Scouts says he has the talent, but without a full season of work, the biggest trait Garland has going in his favor is "potential".
Keep in mind, I am not saying evaluating a player heavy on potential is a bad thing; Garland isn't the first player with these same circumstances. Kyrie Irving is a Top-5 point guard in an era where the position is probably as deep as it's ever been, even though he only played 11 games at Duke. Joel Embiid, who is growing into a dominant center with a huge personality, had a stress fracture in his back during his freshman season, and still went third overall in 2014. Even Nerlens Noel, though he's yet to live up to the hype in his brief career, was still good enough to be selected sixth overall in the 2013 draft, the same draft that contained future MVP Giannis Antetokounmpo and midrange deadeye CJ McCollum.
What I am saying though, is I fear that "potential" inflates player ratings, the type of inflation that would move teams to draft a Nerlens Noel over McCollum; to draft Dion Waiters over Damian Lillard in 2012; to draft Jonny Flynn over a skinny, sharp-shooting point guard from a mid-major.
I know the debate can go on forever about "potential" vs. "production", and there will always be cases to prove one side wright and the other wrong. The idea still remains though: balance is key. Depending on what the team needs will move them to weigh different traits more heavily than others, but how much of a difference is a 22-year-old whose game is tested and proven, and an 18-year-old raw talent with "potential", when ultimately the goal is to create and sustain a championship level team for years to come?
Mason Smith is a student at Alabama State University, and a writer for his school newspaper, The Hornet Tribune. The articles are in an effort to improve his writing skills and to be better prepared for work after graduation, where he hopes to earn a writer/editor position.