NBA Draft 2012: Anthony Davis Is Fool's Gold for New Orleans Hornets
Without a doubt, no one can take any credit away from Anthony Davis.
He was a solid player in the collegiate level. He proved that through a stellar season capped off with a win in the NCAA National Championship game.
Although the big man has obtained quite a buzz and is the consensus No. 1 overall pick in the upcoming June NBA draft, in reality, he is far from the best player in the draft.
Fans nationwide have speculated whether Anthony Davis’ first season (and possibly first couple of seasons) in the NBA may be rough. With a raw skill set, the forward will have to improve a diminished offensive game. The development of a jump shot is an absolute must, and if he puts in the necessary work, some believe Davis to be the second coming of Kevin Garnett.
In reality, however, he is merely fool’s gold, to be snagged by New Orleans with the first pick in the upcoming draft.
The future for New Orleans depends on the development of Anthony Davis into a superstar, but that dream may not come to fruition. With his current skill set where it is, Davis may become no more than a glorified Joakim Noah.
First of all, Joakim Noah is a hustler, an excellent defender and a rebounder, though by no means is he a Kevin Garnett or a star player. He has a knack for playing hard and he fulfills his role for the Chicago Bulls. Without Noah, the Bulls would be a team with a major hole at the center position.
This is exactly how Anthony Davis will turn out but with a slightly better scoring touch.
Anthony Davis is certainly not the most skilled player coming out of the draft.
As past drafts will show, NBA teams look for potential, the kind of potential that the Minnesota Timberwolves saw when they drafted Kevin Garnett.
The Hornets are hoping that Davis will have as much success as stars like Kevin Garnett.
One needs to remember, though, that his odds are slim to shine as a star, and he will most likely be a better role player in the NBA.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?