Willis/Dodson actually may be a decent comparison. Willis is probably a little more fluid and definitely has more all-around skill.
But Dodson was a very good standstill shooter. Had no athleticism to speak of, was weak as water, but he could shoot from outside and came to Kentucky with that reputation. He was streaky (West Virginia), and he was crazy, but he started for that Wall team for a short time.
The reason he started was simply because he could put the ball in the basket. It was his one and only attribute.
Derek Willis hasn't shown that. A lot of people want him to be a good shooter, probably because it's assumed that white kids from Kentucky should be able to shoot, but I think he's just okay. He's made six threes in his career.
When surrounded by this much talent, you have to have that one thing that gets you on the floor. Dominique Hawkins has gotten time because he's a bulldog defensively. Polson got time because he could handle the ball. Willis never has found that niche. These kinds of players, in the Cal era, HAVE TO HAVE a niche.
But Dodson was a very good standstill shooter. Had no athleticism to speak of, was weak as water, but he could shoot from outside and came to Kentucky with that reputation. He was streaky (West Virginia), and he was crazy, but he started for that Wall team for a short time.
The reason he started was simply because he could put the ball in the basket. It was his one and only attribute.
Derek Willis hasn't shown that. A lot of people want him to be a good shooter, probably because it's assumed that white kids from Kentucky should be able to shoot, but I think he's just okay. He's made six threes in his career.
When surrounded by this much talent, you have to have that one thing that gets you on the floor. Dominique Hawkins has gotten time because he's a bulldog defensively. Polson got time because he could handle the ball. Willis never has found that niche. These kinds of players, in the Cal era, HAVE TO HAVE a niche.
Comment