PDA

View Full Version : Character vs. Potential



JayW_1023
04-09-2009, 10:25 AM
To celebrate my 5000th post...here is a poll I made that was inspired by Charley Rosen roast of Lance Stephenson. What kind of player would you take.

A troubled young player with lots of natural talent and potential.

OR

A high character player who won't get much better than he is but works hard.


Also aside from the fact...how do you weigh a players character into a basketball team. Is overall talent more important than knowing your role without questions or complaints?

EX-TREME
04-09-2009, 10:48 AM
i would anyday take character over talent.

congrats on your 5000th post

MoBASS
04-09-2009, 12:07 PM
do you have a link to the Charley Rosen article?

Missing56&33
04-09-2009, 12:07 PM
The NBA is a business and the object of the business is to win games and make lots of money doing it. If a player has great potential but a troubled past, I still take the risk because it is just that... his past. If he gives me the best opportunity to win games i take that chance and see how it goes once he gets there. The high character guy is still good but depends on my need for him at the time

Gilbert>TheRest
04-09-2009, 12:11 PM
defiantly high potential

GregOden#1
04-09-2009, 12:21 PM
Why cant you have both like 80% of the Blazers roster?

WSU Tony
04-09-2009, 12:24 PM
This depends on the team and situation.

JordansBulls
04-09-2009, 12:32 PM
Why cant you have both like 80% of the Blazers roster?

I'm not quite sure who is considered troubled on the Blazers.

JayW_1023
04-09-2009, 12:34 PM
I'm not quite sure who is considered troubled on the Blazers.

He probably means a combination of talent AND character...without the bad traits.

JayW_1023
04-09-2009, 12:38 PM
do you have a link to the Charley Rosen article?

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9430598/For-now,-Przybilla-better-than-Oden

Charley Rosen is a cynical grumpy traditionalist basketball analyst...poor Lance Stephenson. Even I think he went too far, and I usually agree with most of Rosens points...Stephenson has plenty of time to still mature since his college career has yet to begin.

The new Iverson article is an even harsher roast though.

RaffyBoy
04-09-2009, 12:49 PM
its easy to make a bad behaviour into a good one, then a bad player into a good one.

what54!?
04-09-2009, 12:54 PM
depends on what the team needs. If I need some talent then I take the potential. If in the right system or with the right team they could turn it around. If I need just a player I take the role player

GregOden#1
04-09-2009, 01:10 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9430598/For-now,-Przybilla-better-than-Oden

Charley Rosen is a cynical grumpy traditionalist basketball analyst...poor Lance Stephenson. Even I think he went too far, and I usually agree with most of Rosens points...Stephenson has plenty of time to still mature since his college career has yet to begin.

The new Iverson article is an even harsher roast though.

Rosen is an idiot, he used to say Brandon Roy was a bust. 2 years ago he said our "keepers" were Miles, Aldridge, Udoka and Randolph. Everyone else was expendable. Seriously this guy gets paid to say that.

I'm glad he's saying the same thing about Oden now, it can only mean he'll be a superstar.

IrespectNumber3
04-09-2009, 01:20 PM
Greg Oden doesn't have bad character...you can tell he wants to come in the league and be a 20/10 player...Greg Oden doesn't even talk much...Maybe he should've said Would you rather have a great injured rookie in the nba...Or a guy whose having a great season...

That article was a waste

madiaz3
04-09-2009, 01:27 PM
The first option is very fragile and has to be molded within the first few years in the league under a certain coach (Popovich type) or else they will start to develop habits they won't be able to break until well after their prime.

The second option never hurts but you really can't have more than one on a team. Malik Rose was the definition of high character and lack of talent the past few years on the Knicks, then again we had Jared Jeffries too and it was always a pain to watch them both get in on a game.

superkegger
04-09-2009, 04:03 PM
I'm assuming this is refering to drafting a guy. In which case it depends on where you're drafting. If you've got the #1 pick, and you have a choice between a really talented guy, who has character questions (as beasley and mayo did, which proved thus far to be off base) or a high character guy with not a ton of potential (hansbrough comes to mind) then I'll take the talent.

If we're talking about character problems like JR Rider or Rickey Davis, then no way, I'll take the high character guy. It all depends on what kind of character problems they supposedly have, how high the ceiling they have. It's a tricky call.

Jacob K.
04-09-2009, 04:40 PM
you can always get better beahviour, but you cant improve skill that much

The Ooh Child
04-09-2009, 04:43 PM
I'm assuming this is refering to drafting a guy. In which case it depends on where you're drafting. If you've got the #1 pick, and you have a choice between a really talented guy, who has character questions (as beasley and mayo did, which proved thus far to be off base) or a high character guy with not a ton of potential (hansbrough comes to mind) then I'll take the talent.

This is how I interpreted his post as well. You've come up with a pretty good rule of thumb here.

Steven A. Smith
04-09-2009, 10:28 PM
you can always get better beahviour, but you cant improve skill that much

I disagree, if you practice you can improve any skill? And behavior is all in your head if you have your head on straight they're both fixable.

dtmagnet
04-09-2009, 10:36 PM
It's a double edged sword, the high potential guys can do awsome things on the court but can be hard to control and make really bad descisions. There are a lot of factors to consider, if you need a difference maker then its probably smarter to go with the potential, but if you have a solid team already then take the one who you think could fit into your team system the best.

Jay22Redd
04-09-2009, 10:43 PM
Character. A troubled star could mess team chemistry up

Spurred1
04-09-2009, 10:47 PM
It really depends on the team itself and its most pressing needs. And sometimes a troubled person can't really be helped and may just wind up creating problems throughout the team.

Ironman5219
04-09-2009, 11:09 PM
The risky player more times than not are going to be cancer to the team and make it worse. The character guy is more coachable and won't let the team down when it matters most. Take the characture guy every time

b_rad23
04-09-2009, 11:21 PM
I take the potential, unless this player isn't really needed, in which case I'll take the character left bench over the potential role player.

Kaptain Kanada
04-09-2009, 11:34 PM
Character is a dime a dozen... there are lots of seasoned 'character' guys to go around.

I'll take the talent any day... surround him with a few good old boys to show him the way and its all good.

DenButsu
04-10-2009, 12:02 AM
Players can grow up, and learn better, and with good coaching and leadership can develop good character.

The same can't be said for talent, which is either there or it's not.

I'd still take J.R. Smith again in a heartbeat, just to apply a specific example to the question.