NIT Tournament 2011: Alec Burks Poised to Boost His NBA Stock
NIT Tournament 2011 Could Help Alec Burks' Improve His NBA Draft Stock
Out of all the snubbed teams who didn't make it into the final bracket, arguably the most deserving case was Colorado. We've all heard by now that the Buffaloes beat Kansas State three times and also knocked off Missouri and Texas and still didn't get into the tournament.
But if making the NIT is any consolation, at least CU fans will get to watch Alec Burks at least one more time. The shooting guard has been a big reason why the Buffaloes got to this point, but ESPN is also ranking him as the top shooting guard prospect in this years draft and could very well be a lottery pick.
There is one big doubt about him though, and it's his perimeter range:
"He excels at getting to the basket but his jumper is still very much a work in progress," ESPN's Chad Ford wrote of him in his last update. "He's just 22-for-77 from behind the arc (29 percent) and his overall efficiency level has dropped this season as teams have focused on him."
Shooting guards don't have to be phenomenal three-point shooters (although they often are), but they at least have to be shooters. There's no questioning his scoring ability, the kid's averaging better than 20 points a night for a reason. But that question of whether or not he can develop his jumpshot could be a red flag for some teams.
If it's any help, Iowa State coach and former NBA player Fred Hoiberg told the Denver Post Burks and teammate Cory Higgins are "two players that I think will be (NBA) pros," according to the report.
That's a pretty strong endorsement from a guy who's been there and had a nice career for himself in Hoiberg. Burks still has to work on that perimeter game. But the scoring ability is there, and the NBA is always looking for scorers.
For more March Madness news: March Madness 2011 Predictions, Bracket Picks and News
Most recent updates:
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?