Insider Articles - Hip Hop/Rap Music and Urban Social Network Community

**Quarter Crack** · 02-07-2006, 01:07 AM

I'm just gonna be posting a shit load of articles from places like espn, rivals.com, etc.

Vandy QB is the best QB coming out of the draft?

Let's get something straight right off the mark. This is not a knock against Matt Leinart or Vince Young. This also is not a knock against my colleague and friend Mel Kiper Jr., our ESPN draft scout, who does a terrific job.

However, this I'm pretty sure about : Jay Cutler of Vanderbilt is the best quarterback available for the NFL draft come April.

I am not alone. A bunch of NFL scouts are whispering the same thing during Senior Bowl week in Mobile, Ala. Some of those even will put out some "negatives" on Cutler deliberately in hopes that he'll drop a little in the draft. It's not going to work.

"It's not even worth trying to downgrade the kid ... hoping he slides," one top personnel director said. "The secret is out."

I have felt for almost a year now that Cutler is the best quarterback prospect, and nothing has changed my mind. If anything, he has even solidified his standing now that I've had the pleasure and benefit of personally seeing him play in the Southeastern Conference.

Lori Young/ESPN.com
Could Jay Cutler end up getting drafted before Vince Young and Matt Leinart?Cutler was the All-SEC first-team quarterback selected by coaches and the media. He was the preseason pick, too. Heck, he was a first-team All-SEC choice as a redshirt freshman.

You know how difficult that is when you play at Vanderbilt in a conference with many of the nation's heavyweights?

A West Coast scout for one of the NFL's top personnel departments supported this notion in November after he did some cross-checking on the SEC quarterbacks.

"It can't be fun playing quarterback in the SEC," the scout said. "I mean, most of the teams are five and six deep at cornerback -- it's not even close when you compare it to the Pac-10. The speed on defense across the SEC is ridiculous. The defensive coordinators, well, some of them should be coaching in the NFL. Some of them have, in fact. Playing quarterback in the SEC is a task. Playing it well every week is a bigger task."

This scout (remember, a West Coast-assigned personnel man) marveled at Cutler's performance with inferior personnel around him.

"Unbelievably competitive with the physical skills to back it up," the scout said.

Cutler's similarities to Brett Favre are uncanny, except Cutler is far ahead of Favre in the mental aspects of the game at the same career stage. Cutler probably has the strongest arm in this draft. He has moxie. He has a swagger. As Favre did at Southern Mississippi, Cutler had Vandy winning games it had no business winning and competing in games in which the Commodores should have been blown out. As with Favre, his gunslinger mentality will get him in the doghouse with some NFL coach but the upside is way too high to let it bring him down. Oh, he never got his team to a bowl appearance? Neither did John Elway.

"Jay Cutler is special, like Elway and Favre," Bus Cook said.

Cook is supposed to say that. He is Cutler's agent. Oh, he also represents Favre and the Titans' Steve McNair, all three of them good ol' Mississippi men. Don't ask me how Cutler joined that club -- he hails from Santa Claus, Ind. It will be Christmas for any team that lands him.

The Titans, picking third in the draft, could be that team -- if Cutler gets past the New Orleans Saints at No. 2. Titans general manager Floyd Reese has noted that Cutler is a blend of Leinart and Young. He's a terrific pocket passer like Leinart but with much greater arm strength. He's athletic enough to make plays out of the pocket, although Young is certainly a better athlete, just without Cutler's arm strength.

Arm strength is not the only measure of a quarterback, as everyone knows. But it's probably more important in today's NFL than ever before. For instance, defensive coordinators are talking about how tough it is to defend the Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger because he can throw it "outside the numbers" so well, meaning he has the arm to deliver the deep outs.

Leinart is clearly smart. Titans offensive coordinator Norm Chow, his former USC mentor, talks glowingly of how "everything runs on time" when Leinart is behind center.

Yet, in today's NFL, the clock is running faster than ever once the ball is snapped. The idea that a quarterback has a chance to go through his first, second and third progressions while he drops back is basically a myth. The throwing windows are tighter than ever on about 75 percent of the passes a quarterback must deliver. The RPMs matter in a quarterback's throws. There are some doubts about the ability of Leinart and Young to throw it through those closing windows consistently.

Take Cutler's arm, his smarts, his moxie, his toughness and his athleticism, and you have a pretty good model quarterback. To downgrade him because you see a few errant balls during Senior Bowl week is silly because these guys are working in a strange offense with new receivers.

Put Cutler in USC's offense and Leinart in Vanderbilt's offense the past couple of years and imagine what would have happened.

True, Leinart and Young have much more notoriety and the draft projections have them as the stars of the draft, along with USC running back Reggie Bush. But that's where a lot of people in and out of the NFL go shallow.

Cutler was almost bypassed in college recruiting out of high school before choosing Vanderbilt. That wasn't his fault. Somebody missed. It happens a lot. As I've stated many times, the NFL spends millions of dollars on scouting and still gets it wrong more than 50 percent of the time on quarterbacks. So why would it surprise you that colleges would fare even worse?

One of the best players in Super Bowl XL is Seahawks linebacker Lofa Tatupu, who should have been the hands-down selection for NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year. You know how many Division I scholarship offers he had coming out of high school? None.

Yes, it's early to be talking about the draft. But it's Senior Bowl week, and I've almost never been more excited about the draft than I am about the one coming up in April. The complaint last year is that it was a weak top-10 class. This year, it's ridiculously strong. You have three quarterbacks in Cutler, Leinart and Young. You have a future Marshall Faulk type in Bush; his rushing mate LenDale White might be another Jamal Lewis. D'Brickashaw Ferguson could be a future Pro Bowl left tackle. North Carolina State defensive end Mario Williams could be another Julius Peppers. Ohio State middle linebacker A.J. Hawk could be another Ray Lewis, and Maryland tight end Vernon Davis could be another Tony Gonzalez.

Yes, I know I'm leaving somebody out.

Don't be shocked if Cutler is the first quarterback taken in the draft. It's not a lock, but Leinart and Young could go behind him. Regardless, I'm not sure that's a negative on either one of those guys, anyway.

In Cutler, maybe we have another Favre or Elway. In Leinart, we might have another Steve Young (minus the athleticism). In Vince Young, he's not Michael Vick fast, but he is 6-5, he is competitive and he is an intriguing prospect.

I'd like to think that there's something for everybody, except there are always busts. I just know the one guy I'd buy stock in right now is Cutler.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breaking Down Senior Bowl Rosters

Senior Bowl week can boost the draft status of a player or send his stock spiraling downward. Here's a quick look at each player's week in Mobile and his current draft projection.

North Roster

Coaching staff: Tennessee Titans

North Roster
No. Pos. Name Height Weight School
1 CB Anwar Phillips 6-0 190 Penn State
Good athlete. Suspect coverage skills. (Day 2)
2 WR Demetrius Williams 6-2 184 Oregon
Angular. Good Hands. Average speed. (Round 2 or 3)
4 DB Jahmile Addae 5-11 205 West Virginia
Tough. Aggressive. So-so coverage skills. (Day 2)
4 WR Travis Wilson 6-2 215 Oklahoma
Nice finish to the week. Showed some separation. (Round 3)
6 QB Jay Cutler 6-3 219 Vanderbilt
So-so accuracy. Good arm. Made all the throws. (Early Round 1)
6 QB Charlie Whitehurst 6-5 223 Clemson
Throws a great pass. Tight spiral. A little erratic. (Day 2)
8 WR Jason Avant 6-2 210 Michigan
Questionable speed. Struggled some catching the ball. (Day 2)
8 CB Tye Hill 5-9 179 Clemson
Natural cover skills. Spunky. Confident. (Round 1)
9 RB Jerome Harrison 5-9 202 Washington State
Natural runner. Shows quickness. Hands a question. (Round 3 or 4)
11 RB Mike Bell 6-1 212 Arizona
Athletic. Shows outside speed. Runs too upright. (Day 2)
12 QB Michael Robinson 6-2 215 Penn State
Struggled at QB. Not a natural at WR. Possible safety. (Late Day 2)
14 DB Daniel Bullocks 6-0 205 Nebraska
Very fluid, athletic and tough. Good player. (Round 2)
15 WR Martin Nance 6-4 212 Miami (Ohio)
Tall with big hands. Average week of practice. (Day 2)
17 FB Lawrence Vickers 6-0 233 Colorado
Good all-around fullback. (Round 4 or 5)
18 LB Chad Greenway 6-3 243 Iowa
Gifted athlete. Good feel for LB position. Solid week. (Round 1)
20 DB Anthony Smith 6-0 194 Syracuse
Tough. Alert. Adequate coverage skills. Excellent week. (Round 2)
21 CB Will Blackmon 6-0 191 Boston College
Has athletic skills. Suspect coverage. DB or WR? (Day 2)
21 WR Maurice Stovall 6-4 236 Notre Dame
Big. Physical. Good hands. (Round 2)
26 DB David Pittman 5-11 171 Northwestern St
Some ability. Struggled with big WRs. Speed questions. (Day 2)
27 LB Brian Iwuh 6-0 226 Colorado
Didn't jump out at me. (Day 2)
28 CB Darrell Hunter 5-11 211 Miami (Ohio)
Struggled in coverage. Needs to trust his skills more. (Day 2)
29 P John Torp 6-1 222 Colorado
Too methodical. Needs to pick up his pace. (Day 2)
32 RB Cedric Humes 6-1 233 Virginia Tech
Runs a little upright. Has power. Questionable hands. (Day 2)
38 RB Terrence Whitehead 5-10 225 Oregon
So-so all-around threat. (Day 2)
40 K Deric Yaussi 5-11 199 Wyoming
Didn't wow me. (Day 2 or free agent)
42 LB Jon Alston 6-1 215 Stanford
Decent athlete. Flashed some ability. (Day 2)
44 LB Clint Ingram 6-1 236 Oklahoma
Flashed some ability. Up-and-down week. (Day 2)
51 LB Abdul Hodge 6-1 231 Iowa
Strong against the run. Flows and diagnoses well. (Round 2 or 3)
52 LB D'Qwell Jackson 6-1 227 Maryland
Not big, but tough. Flies to the ball. Reacts well. (Round 2)
54 OL Marvin Philip 6-2 298 California
Not a strong anchor. Gets overpowered by big DTs. (Day 2)
55 OL Nick Mangold 6-4 296 Ohio State
Great week. Strong anchor. (Early Round 2)
55 DE Darryl Tapp 6-2 266 Virginia Tech
Long arms. Low base. Great intensity. (Day 1)
56 OL Charles Spencer 6-5 330 Pittsburgh
Good week. Good feet and technique. (Late Round 1 or Round 2)
61 OL Ryan O'Callaghan 6-7 363 California
Natural right tackle. Huge. Good in pass protection. (Round 2)

66 OL D'Brickashaw Ferguson 6-5 295 Virginia
Best player in Mobile. Great feet. Long arms. (Early Round 1)
68 OL Mark Setterstrom 6-4 307 Minnesota
Overmatched at times. Good experience. (Day 2)
72 OL Jeremy Trueblood 6-8 319 Boston College
Shows good technique. Battles well. (Round 2 or 3)
73 OL Daryn Colledge 6-4 295 Boise State
Experienced pass blocker, but gets overpowered. (Day 2)
76 OL Deuce Lutui 6-5 375 USC
Strong. Finishes blocks. Has mean streak. Decent feet. (Round 2)
77 OL Davin Joseph 6-4 315 Oklahoma
Natural guard. Must trust his skills. (Late Day 1 or Early Day 2)
78 DL Gabe Watson 6-3 335 Michigan
Strong. Talented. Up-and-down week. (Round 2)
80 WR Derek Hagan 6-2 202 Arizona State
Has ability. Small hands. Tendency to have drops. (Round 3)
86 TE Dominique Byrd 6-3 260 USC
Great hands. Good body control. Great awareness. (Round 1 or 2)
89 TE Joe Klopfenstein 6-5 245 Colorado
Good hands. Can struggle with blocking. (Round 2)
91 DE Tamba Hali 6-2 265 Penn State
Shows a good motor. Good pass rush techniques. (Round 1)
92 DL Julian Jenkins 6-4 275 Stanford
Late addition to roster. (Will predict after game)
94 DE Mathias Kiwanuka 6-6 258 Boston College
Gifted athlete. Ideal size. Great potential. (Round 1)
95 DE Victor Adeyanju 6-4 265 Indiana
Flashes pass-rush ability. (Day 2)
96 DL Babatunde Oshinowo 6-2 320 Stanford
Good DT. Can occupy. Not much penetration. (Round 3 or 4)
99 DL Dusty Dvoracek 6-3 302 Oklahoma
Intense. Improved during week. Could help in a rotation. (Round 3)

South Roster

Coaching staff: San Francisco 49ers

South Roster
No. Pos. Name Height Weight School
1 WR Devin Aromashodu 6-2 198 Auburn
Has his moments. Decent prospect. (Round 3 or 4)
2 CB DeMario Minter 5-11 198 Georgia
Needs to work on hands. Has some skills. (Late Day 1 or Early 2)
2 WR Ben Obomanu 6-1 205 Auburn
Didn't jump out at me. (Day 2)
3 QB D.J. Shockley 6-1 214 Georgia
Nice arm, but erratic. Needs QB coaching. (Day 2)
4 QB Darrell Hackney 6-1 245 UAB
All over with his throws. Not great size. (Late round or free agent)
5 WR Skyler Green 5-9 197 LSU
Didn't make an impression. (Day 2)
6 CB Cedric Griffin 6-1 190 Texas
Has ability. Tough. Aggressive. Played off too much. (Late Day 1)
7 DB Marcus Hudson 6-2 200 NC State
Tweener. Suspect coverage skills. (Late Day 1 or Early 2)
8 LB Freddie Roach 6-2 250 Alabama
Didn't jump out at me. (Day 2)
9 WR Anthony Mix 6-5 248 Auburn
Some drops. Position questions. (Day 2)
10 RB Joseph Addai 5-11 210 LSU
Versatile. Can catch and block. (Late Day 1 or Early Day 2)
12 QB Brodie Croyle 6-3 205 Alabama
Great arm strength. Makes all throws. Moves well. (Round 2)
17 DB Greg Blue 6-2 211 Georgia
Tough, aggressive, strong tackler. Suspect in coverage. (Late Day 1)
18 WR Hank Baskett 6-3 219 New Mexico
Big. Decent hands. Doesn't separate. (Day 2)
19 TE Marcedes Lewis 6-6 255 UCLA
Talented. Can catch. Needs to show blocking skills. (Round 2)
20 RB DeAngelo Williams 5-10 217 Memphis
Great burst and feet. Impact player. (Early-to-mid Round 1)
21 RB Jerious Norwood 6-0 204 Mississippi State
Shows some quickness. Had a good week. (Early Day 2)
22 CB Kelly Jennings 5-11 180 Miami
Solid corner. Good technique. Experienced. (Round 2 or 3)
23 CB Tim Jennings 5-9 182 Georgia
Spunky. Could be nickel or dime corner. (Day 2)
24 DB Pat Watkins 6-4 202 Florida State
Special-teams potential. Average cover skills. (Day 2)
32 K Stephen Gostkowski 6-2 200 Memphis
Average leg. (Free agent)
35 FB Garrett Mills 6-2 226 Tulsa
Can catch. Good feel. Showed blocking potential. (Early Day 2)
35 LB DeMeco Ryans 6-2 236 Alabama
Didn't wow me, but has ton of ability. (Round 1)
38 RB Andre Hall 59 204 South Florida
Good week. Showed natural instincts. (Early Day 2)
40 LB Thomas Howard 6-3 231 UTEP
Fast. Gifted athlete. Questionable instincts. (Round 2)
41 DB Roman Harper 6-0 196 Alabama
Smart. Questionable in coverage. (Day 2)
42 LB Spencer Havner 6-3 235 UCLA
Can make plays. Shows instincts. Must be more physical. (Day 2)
44 LB Gerris Wilkinson 6-3 238 Georgia
Showed some ability. Good week. (Day 2)
47 DE Mark Anderson 6-4 256 Alabama
Pass rusher. Questionable against the run. (Early Day 2)
51 LB Travis Williams 6-0 216 Auburn
Improved during the week. Nice finish. (Round 3)
52 DL Brodrick Bunkley 6-2 286 Florida State
Powerful pass-rusher. Good player. (Round 2)
55 DL Jesse Mahelona 6-2 304 Tennessee
Gets leverage. Strong. (Round 3)
63 OL Ryan Cook 6-7 322 New Mexico
Struggles technically. Developmental prospect. (Early Day 2)
68 OL Mike Degory 6-5 301 Florida
Struggled some. Often overmatched. (Day 2)
70 OL Cody Douglas 6-4 330 Tennessee
Didn't catch my attention. (Day 2)
71 OL Jonathan Scott 6-7 307 Texas
Has some ability. Didn't wow me. (Early Day 2)
72 OL Albert Toeaina 6-5 352 Tennessee
Struggled this week. (Late Day 2)
73 OL Marcus McNeill 6-8 332 Auburn
Lots of talent. Up-and-down week. (Round 1 possibility)
74 OL Eric Winston 6-6 310 Miami
Can struggle in protection. Had some good moments. (Early Day 2)
75 OL Will Allen 6-5 309 Texas
Didn't wow me. (Day 2)
77 OL Max Jean-Gilles 6-4 258 Georgia
Long arms. Strong. Good technique. (Round 3)
81 P Thomas Olmsted 6-4 217 Troy
Hit a few. Inconsistent. (Late rounds or free agent)
82 TE T.J. Williams 6-2 253 NC State
Has talent. Dropped too many passes. (Day 2)
83 WR Sinorice Moss 5-8 185 Miami
Fast. Electrifying. Good week. (Round 2)
91 DE Manny Lawson 6-4 230 NC State
Natural pass-rusher. Good special-teams player. (Round 2)
92 DE Orien Harris 6-3 301 Miami
Talented. Needs to be more consistent. (Round 2)
94 DE Kamerion Wimbley 6-3 240 Florida State
Showed pass-rush ability. Outside LB or situational DE? (Round 2)
95 DL Kyle Williams 6-2 295 LSU
Short arms hindered him. Great motor. Intense. (Round 3)
98 DE Elvis Dumervil 6-0 254 Louisville
Has pass-rush skills. Struggled some. (Round 3)
99 DE Parys Haralson 6-2 250 Tennessee
Outside pass-rusher. Kind of a tweener. (Day 2)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Best and Worst of the Senior Bowl Practices

Ferguson, Williams shine during practices

By Mel Kiper Jr.
Special to ESPN Insider

MOBILE, Ala. -- This year's crop of talent at the Senior Bowl compares favorably with the last few years. A couple of the quarterbacks and defensive backs elevated their groups this year, but the wide-receiver corps was disappointing. This year's group of offensive linemen in Mobile has some talent. The defensive ends and linebackers will have a better chance to showcase their skills in Saturday's game (ESPN, 4 p.m. ET). Overall, there seems to be more balance to this year's roster.

Lori Young/ESPN.com
D'Brickashaw Ferguson was dominant during Senior Bowl practices.

Virginia OL D'Brickashaw Ferguson and Memphis RB DeAngelo Williams were unquestionably the best players this week during the Senior Bowl practices. They were spectacular.

Ferguson displayed great hands, long arms and good feet. He was the best player on the field. Williams showed a burst to daylight that is second to none. He displayed great vision, cutting ability and great feet. As a pure natural runner, he has very few peers.

QBs Jay Cutler (Vanderbilt) and Brodie Croyle (Alabama) are among the players who raised their stock this week.

Croyle moved from the third or fourth round into the second. He was electric during Wednesday's practice. His arm is outstanding -- as good as any QB I've seen down here in the last few years. He was accurate in the pocket or on the move.

Cutler still needs to work on his accuracy, but he displayed a terrific arm and good mobility. Cutler solidified himself as an early to mid first-rounder.

USC TE Dominique Byrd and Clemson CB Tye Hill moved into the first round with great weeks at Mobile.

Byrd caught everything, showed great hand-eye coordination and outstanding natural pass-catching skills. He did a great job of sensing where the defender was. Byrd has a good feel for when the defender moves in and avoids him. His great awareness leads to yards after the catch. Byrd is not a great blocker, but that will improve with time in the weight room.

Hill just covered everyone. He displayed great coverage instincts and awareness. Hill is tough, alert, spunky, confident and loves to play the game. He responds to challenges. Hill totally blanketed Notre Dame WR Maurice Stovall in practice on Thursday. Stovall had been outstanding but was not a factor when matched up against Hill.

Nebraska safety Daniel Bullocks showed he can cover. He also displayed toughness and a feel for coverage. He is projected as a second-round pick and solidified that status.

Pitt OL Charles Spencer has been drawing raves from position coach Mike Munchak. The 330-pounder showed good feet and quickness this week.

USC OL Deuce Lutui was physical, strong, tough and finished his blocks. Ohio State center Nick Mangold proved something this week. He showed that he is a stronger anchor than most scouts thought. Mangold proved to be more than smart and athletic.

On the other hand

Lori Young/ESPN.com
Mathias Kiwanuka struggled with his technique this week.

Boston College DE Mathias Kiwanuka and Arizona State WR Derek Hagan struggled this week. Kiwanuka had a tough time against D'Brickashaw Ferguson and needs some technique work. He plays a little high.

Hagan is a solid receiver and caught a lot of balls at ASU, but in each practice this week he dropped a ball or two. In Thursday's practice, Hagan made a good inside move on CB Will Blackmon but then dropped a sure TD pass. Hagan is a frustrating prospect to watch because you see glimpses of a very good player followed by a dropped ball. He has dropped out of the first round. Look for him to go in the second or third round.

Penn State's Michael Robinson is not a quarterback. He's not a natural receiver, either. However, he's tough and competitive. The 218-pounder should be tried at safety. At best, he is a late-round pick.

Safety Anwar Phillips (Penn State) dropped from a second-round pick into Day 2 with his Senior Bowl performance. Phillips struggled in coverage all week.

Michigan WR Jason Avant did not show speed, separation or great hands. If a WR is not fast, he needs to have great hands.

RB Jerome Harrison from Washington State is a good natural runner but did not catch the ball well downfield.

Prospects who impressed during practice
RB Joseph Addai, LSU
Safety Daniel Bullocks, Nebraska
DL Brodrick Bunkley, Florida State
TE Dominique Byrd, USC
QB Brodie Croyle
QB Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt
OL D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Virginia
LB Chad Greenway, Iowa
RB Andre Hall, South Florida
DL Orien Harris, Miami
CB Tye Hill, Clemson
LB D'Qwell Jackson, Maryland
OL Max Jean-Gilles, Georgia
CB Kelly Jennings, Miami
DE Manny Lawson, NC State
OL Deuce Lutui, USC
Center Nick Mangold, Ohio State
FB Garrett Mills, Tulsa
WR Sinorice Moss, Miami
OL Ryan O'Callaghan, California
Safety Anthony Smith, Syracuse
OL Charles Spencer, Pittsburgh
WR Maurice Stovall, Notre Dame
DE Darryl Tapp, Virginia Tech
RB DeAngelo Williams, Memphis
WR Travis Wilson, Oklahoma
DE Kamerion Wimbley, Florida State

Prospects who need a big game to impress the scouts
WR Jason Avant, Michigan
CB Will Blackmon, Boston College
OL Daryn Colledge, Boise State
OL Ryan Cook, New Mexico
OL Mike Degory, Florida
DE Elvis Dumervil, Louisville
QB Darrell Hackney, UAB
WR Derek Hagan, Arizona State
Safety Roman Harper, Alabama
CB Darnell Hunter, Miami (Ohio)
DE Mathias Kiwanuka, Boston College
OL Marvin Philip, California
CB Anwar Phillips, Penn State
DB David Pittman, Northwestern State
QB Michael Robinson, Penn State
OL Albert Toeaina, Tennessee
TE T.J. Williams, NC State

**Quarter Crack** · 02-07-2006, 01:29 AM

Chris Anderson's road to drug stardom

By the time Chris Andersen is eligible to return to the NBA, his arms should be as colorful as those alternate road uniforms he used to wear for the Hornets.

There's a fascinating human interest story behind the first player banned from the league for a major drug policy violation since Stanley Roberts in 1999.

Andersen is the son of a second-generation Motor Maid, a woman who grew up on Harley-Davidson motorcycles. His mother, Linda, could probably tell you where Sturgis is before she could tell you who Stockton was. She brought young Chris along when she went for her first orchid tattoo, later adding hummingbirds and butterflies, and Andersen returned the favor the first time he had ink injected under his skin.

Chris Andersen
Before now, Chris Andersen was best known for his failed dunks.

But Andersen spent 3½ of his formative years without his mother. His father, an artist, put him and his sister, Tamie, into a group home when he was 11. It was either that or a military school, because dad was heading off to New York to try to sell his paintings.

Linda regained custody after initially being unable to find them and brought them back to rural east Texas, where she would pick 14-year-old Chris up from school on her chopper. Andersen's mom took her Harleys seriously, mind you, because it ran in the family. She says her mother (Andersen's grandmother) was riding the back of a Harley when pregnant with her.

Andersen eventually became one of 34 members of the Class of '97 at Iola High School, and after a year and a half of community college, he ditched his letter of commitment to Clyde Drexler's University of Houston Cougars and decided to go for the money by playing professionally in China, where he faced Yao Ming before hardly anyone in America had heard of him.

Andersen eventually played minor league ball in North Dakota and New Mexico before the Nuggets saw him in a summer league tryout. Known as "The Birdman," he was a hit with the free-spirited home fans in Denver and later New Orleans and Oklahoma City, and gained some national fame (or shame), by missing his first seven attempts at the dunk contest in Denver last year. (A year earlier, he spiked his hair for the dunk contest in L.A.)

Andersen apparently failed a drug test last week, testing positive for one of the so-called "drugs of abuse" (including heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, LSD and PCP) that bring an automatic two-year banishment.

No one has said exactly which substance Andersen tested positive for, but the players' union has filed a grievance on his behalf. Citing strict confidentiality rules that have cost high-ranking people their jobs when breached in the past, the union has not even disclosed the grounds for Andersen's appeal.

Under league rules, the four-year, $14 million contract Andersen signed over the summer is now null and void. If his dismissal is upheld and he misses two seasons, the Hornets will have first dibs on Andersen should he be reinstated. If they were to want to bring him back, they'd have to tender him a contract at his old salary of $3.5 million.

Not to be trite, but it really is a shame that Andersen just threw away more than $12 million. He seemed like a good guy every time I spoke to him. We once discussed the specifics of his tattoos, how one arm was tattooed with the Chinese symbols for good, the other with the symbols for bad. He also had the outlines of a few new tattoos on his arms and shoulders, explaining that it was an ongoing process to have all of the colors filled in. He expected it to take years, but I guess he'll have the extra time for it now.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A look at the NCAA tourney 06

One thing is for absolute certain as we approach the 2006 NCAA Tournament: Uncertainty will rule.

If you watch a lot of games and then peruse the newspapers for game stories, you will often find that the two do not match up with each other. The use of the word "upset" has become ubiquitous and no longer applies in most situations.

The ranking beside the name of a team means little. The difference among most teams, beyond a precious few, is razor thin. If there ever seemed a year when something wacky could happen in the tournament, this would be it.

While there are no prohibitive favorites, some teams have a better chance than others to cut down the nets in Indianapolis. I have said from the first week that UConn is my favorite to be the best team in March, with Duke not far behind. Texas was a preseason power prediction, as was Michigan State.

But others have shown the chops, too, and what follows are the Other Eight in the chase to be great. One prediction: A Final Four participant will come from outside of this list. It takes only one "upset" to open up a bracket, and there will be more than one upset per bracket in this year's tournament. There is no such thing as chalk.

Memphis: The Tigers are talented, but Memphis has been talented before under John Calipari with little to show for it beyond the NIT.

This team is different because the players get along and relate to each other well on the floor. They share the ball and get out and defend. They are unselfish and pass the ball well with a high basketball IQ. They play with great energy and athleticism and they have a swagger. The Tigers expect to win.

The only things in the way of Memphis are youth and shot selection. Young players are prone to mistakes, especially in pressure situations. Don't buy into the myth that, come postseason, freshmen aren't freshmen anymore. That is when freshmen can be the most unreliable.

The Tigers also might rely upon the 3-point shot too much, but they seem to be a good listening team. Time after time, Memphis will launch youthful 3s in the first half of games and calm down after a halftime chat with Calipari.

Memphis is dangerous but can be clipped early by an older, ball-control team.

Villanova: Jay Wright has done a magnificent job of adapting to injuries and overcoming them. Without Curtis Sumpter, many thought the Wildcats would drop like a rock and play among the unwashed masses trying to distinguish themselves from the pack. Well, the four-guard lineup has many wondering if we are seeing the beginning of a trend across the game.

Randy Foye and Allan Ray are superior guards who can manufacture a shot even when challenged, and Mike Nardi is a pure point guard who never gets the credit for being one of the best in the Big East. Kyle Lowry can get to the rim and guard people, and every guard sees rebounding as a responsibility rather than as a chore for big men only.

The key is energy. Can Villanova keep up the energy necessary to put pressure on opponents offensively and defensively and overcome its matchup difficulties? At times lately, Villanova has looked worn out. By March, opponents might get closer to figuring out how to adapt to the four-guard concept and get the ball inside against Villanova. Jay Wright is playing two big guys more now and will do it more down the stretch.

I like the Wildcats in the tournament because they can cause havoc. Last year's run could have been the trailer to this year's blockbuster if Villanova gets a good draw.

West Virginia: Most really good teams keep you off balance on one end of the floor. The team might be hard to guard because of some offensive scheme, like a Princeton-style look or Villanova's quad-guard lineup, or because of an unusual defense, like Temple's matchup zone or Duke's denial pressure.

West Virginia keeps you off balance on both ends of the floor and seizes control of the game's tempo. John Beilein is one of the game's best and most innovative coaches, and he has a group of skilled and well-drilled players who play well together.

Kevin Pittsnogle is one of the more intriguing matchups in the game, because he can hit the deep 3 over size and has a really quick trigger. If you put a small guy on him, he will simply shoot over him. If you put a big guy on him, he will shoot over him anyway -- and your big guy will be uncomfortable as far out on the floor as Pittsnogle likes to go. He also is showing a post game, including a little left-shoulder jump hook, which makes him harder to guard.

Mike Gansey has been one of my favorite players over the last two years. He is a surefire pro. He can run all day, is a great defender, is a stellar athlete and is the most efficient guard in the country.

West Virginia is susceptible to a bad shooting night, but absent that will be a very tough out.

Illinois: The Illini will be hard to beat in March.

Dee Brown simply will not fail, and even if the poster boy for Illinois basketball has had two rough games on the road in the Big Ten, so what? The kid is a gamer who will be there when the lights go on.

James Augustine remains one of the most resourceful big men in the nation, and one of the most underpublicized. Brian Randle can guard anyone and Jamar Smith can shoot the lights out. The Illini defense is outstanding, putting great pressure on the ball and choking off what you like to do.

The only question about Illinois is, aside from Brown, who is the go-to guy when Bruce Weber needs a basket? In the postseason, Illinois will require someone other than Brown to step forward and lead and hit a big shot. It could be Rich McBride.

I would not want to play Illinois in the NCAA Tournament, unless it was in Indy.

Florida: The Gators have had a great year, and Billy Donovan has solidified his position as one of the finest coaches in the country. The line between the Gators' being truly elite and beatable, however, is a fine one.

One thing is very clear: You had better beat Florida now, because these guys will only get better together. With another year under those young belts, Florida is on the way to powerhouse status.

Taurean Green, Corey Brewer, Al Horford and Joakim Noah all are talented and athletic, and this team can really run and pass. The big guys get out in transition and get easy scores and put a great deal of pressure on your defense.

Like most teams today, youth is the great equalizer. Young minds can be inconsistent, as mental toughness and preparation are just as important as any physical gifts you bring to the game. Florida can beat anyone, but a lot of teams can clip the Gators. Watch out for ball-control teams that can control the tempo. It is easier for mature teams to slow down a team such as Florida than for the Gators to speed a game up to their preferred pace.

Washington: The Huskies have some holes but also have some outstanding talent to plug them.

Brandon Roy would be a household name if he played in the ACC. Roy is versatile and can play about any position on the floor. Bobby Jones is an outstanding defender who can guard inside or out; he is a tough-minded performer who thinks only of winning.

The keys for Washington will be guard play, decisions and shot selection. The Huskies like to play fast and can really get out and run. With that fast pace and many possessions, sometimes there can be a looseness with the ball and a tendency to put up some questionable shots.

To wear teams down, Washington must know when to put it up and when to pull it out. If it isn't there on the break or in early offense, Justin Dentmon needs to make his team run something to make the other team defend.

Washington relies upon freshmen Dentmon and Jon Brockman, and both are capable, but both are freshmen. Washington can get to Indy but can be bounced in the Sweet 16 by the right matchup.

Gonzaga: Already, Gonzaga is being billed as overrated by some. Why? Because the Zags have yet to reach a Final Four in the last seven years, which puts them in the same class as Memphis, Villanova, Washington and West Virginia on this list. Mark Few has taken his team back into the relative obscurity of the West Coast Conference, and the Zags are enduring best shot after best shot from opponents in their endless streak of "storm the court" adventures.

Gonzaga has everything you would want on the offensive end, including the most complete offensive forward in the game, Adam Morrison. The mustachioed one can hit almost any shot imaginable and runs the floor like he is being chased -- and he is. Morrison runs his defender off so many screens, it gets dizzying. J.P. Batista is a solid low-post scorer who can put up numbers, and he makes a living at the free-throw line.

The question marks are few but significant. Can Gonzaga defend at the highest level, especially inside? Can the Zags be overpowered by some physical teams? Of course they can, but the Zags can outscore almost any team out there. This is a well-coached and competitive team that is not a juggernaut, but it has the ability to reach the Final Four.

Pittsburgh: The Panthers have been really good before this year, but this might be Pitt's best chance to reach the Final Four.

This Pitt team is still physical and methodical, but it seems to be less deliberate and dependent upon muscle. In other words, this version of Pitt basketball might be more skilled. The different aspect of this team is quality depth. Jamie Dixon really does put 10 different guys into the game in key situations and gives the game a different look.

Carl Krauser is now playing off the ball and is no longer dominating the ball and over-dribbling. Ronald Ramon is a good shooter and defender who is not flashy, but he makes smart basketball plays. Ramon is a winner. Aaron Gray is the most improved big man in the Big East (along with UConn's Hilton Armstrong) and is reliable and consistent.

Pitt is not a favorite to reach Indy, but beware of Dixon's near dozen performers. I like the way they play together and without ego.

Bonus

George Washington: This is the sleeper team of the Other Eight.

Karl Hobbs has done a great job with the GW program and has lifted the Colonials to must-see status. While Saint Joseph's captured the early headlines with an upset of Kansas, and Xavier has been talked about as a Top 25 team, GW has quietly piled up a load of wins against only one defeat, coming at the hands of NC State, a ball-control team.

The Colonials have older players who have been through it and understand the urgency required to play at the highest level. Mike Hall, Danilo Pinnock, Carl Elliott and Pops Mensah-Bonsu carry the load and Regis Koundjia provides athleticism off the pine.

GW can press and trap and defend well. The Colonials are a solid team that does not rely heavily on the 3-point line for its scoring. The Achilles' heel(s)? GW is not a big team, and the Colonials do not knock down free throws. With an opening in a bracket, though, GW has a chance.

Other teams to watch out for: Indiana, Michigan, LSU, Oklahoma, South Carolina.

Before now, Chris Andersen was best known for his failed dunks.

But Andersen spent 3½ of his formative years without his mother. His father, an artist, put him and his sister, Tamie, into a group home when he was 11. It was either that or a military school, because dad was heading off to New York to try to sell his paintings.

Linda regained custody after initially being unable to find them and brought them back to rural east Texas, where she would pick 14-year-old Chris up from school on her chopper. Andersen's mom took her Harleys seriously, mind you, because it ran in the family. She says her mother (Andersen's grandmother) was riding the back of a Harley when pregnant with her.

Andersen eventually became one of 34 members of the Class of '97 at Iola High School, and after a year and a half of community college, he ditched his letter of commitment to Clyde Drexler's University of Houston Cougars and decided to go for the money by playing professionally in China, where he faced Yao Ming before hardly anyone in America had heard of him.

Andersen eventually played minor league ball in North Dakota and New Mexico before the Nuggets saw him in a summer league tryout. Known as "The Birdman," he was a hit with the free-spirited home fans in Denver and later New Orleans and Oklahoma City, and gained some national fame (or shame), by missing his first seven attempts at the dunk contest in Denver last year. (A year earlier, he spiked his hair for the dunk contest in L.A.)

Andersen apparently failed a drug test last week, testing positive for one of the so-called "drugs of abuse" (including heroin, cocaine, amphetamines, LSD and PCP) that bring an automatic two-year banishment.

No one has said exactly which substance Andersen tested positive for, but the players' union has filed a grievance on his behalf. Citing strict confidentiality rules that have cost high-ranking people their jobs when breached in the past, the union has not even disclosed the grounds for Andersen's appeal.

Under league rules, the four-year, $14 million contract Andersen signed over the summer is now null and void. If his dismissal is upheld and he misses two seasons, the Hornets will have first dibs on Andersen should he be reinstated. If they were to want to bring him back, they'd have to tender him a contract at his old salary of $3.5 million.

Not to be trite, but it really is a shame that Andersen just threw away more than $12 million. He seemed like a good guy every time I spoke to him. We once discussed the specifics of his tattoos, how one arm was tattooed with the Chinese symbols for good, the other with the symbols for bad. He also had the outlines of a few new tattoos on his arms and shoulders, explaining that it was an ongoing process to have all of the colors filled in. He expected it to take years, but I guess he'll have the extra time for it now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article on the teams that passed Chris Paul up in the draft

Hindsight is always 20-20 after the NBA draft. That said, the more this season progresses, the harder it is to figure out what NBA GMs were thinking when they passed on Wake Forest sophomore point guard Chris Paul in last year's draft.

By March of his freshman year, NBA scouts were already calling him the best college point-guard prospect since Jason Kidd. He had a stellar sophomore season and looked great in workouts, but somehow a number of teams passed up the chance to draft him or to trade for the opportunity to take him.

Paul ended up going No. 4 to the Hornets, but as many as seven other teams had a shot at him before the draft. Most of them have to be kicking themselves now, as Paul has led the Hornets out of the cellar in the West and could be an All-Star in his rookie season. And he's only 20.

Looking back to last June, let's ask the question GMs don't want their fans to ask: Who could have had Paul, and why didn't they take him?

The breakdown:

Milwaukee Bucks
How they could have picked Paul: Held the No. 1 pick in the draft

The skinny: It looks as though the Bucks never seriously considered Paul. They quickly narrowed their list down to two players: Utah big man Andrew Bogut and North Carolina forward Marvin Williams. Both Bogut and Williams filled needs, while Paul happened to play the same position as two promising young players for the Bucks: T.J. Ford and Mo Williams.

The verdict: While it looks as if neither Ford nor Williams will be as good as Paul, passing on Paul wasn't a major mistake, given the other holes the Bucks had to fill. Bogut appears to be a solid big man, a rare commodity in the draft. You can't really say the Bucks blew it.

Atlanta Hawks
How: Held the No. 2 pick in the draft

The skinny: Amazingly, when draft day rolled around, it looked like the Hawks weren't seriously considering Paul with the No. 2 pick. Sources close to the Hawks told Insider around draft time they were deciding between Marvin Williams and Illinois point guard Deron Williams. That's odd, because of all the players in the draft, Paul best fit the Hawks' biggest hole. The team desperately needed (and still needs) a floor leader who can push the ball up the floor.

The verdict: With a track record that now includes letting Chris Paul slip through his fingers, it's hard to see how Atlanta GM Billy Knight will keep his job much longer. Marvin Williams might turn out to be the best player in the draft someday, but King probably won't be around to take the credit. Williams' skills duplicate almost all the strengths of the other players on the roster. Don't forget, if Knight had decided to draft for need, chances are he would've drafted Deron Williams over Paul. Had the team drafted Paul and added Joe Johnson, it would have one of the best backcourts in the NBA and a much better record than it does now.

Portland Trail Blazers
How: Originally held the No. 3 pick in the draft

The skinny: The Blazers did consider drafting Paul with the No. 3 pick, but ultimately decided they had their point guard of the future in Sebastian Telfair. They eventually traded the pick to the Jazz for the No. 6 and No. 27 picks in the draft. They used the No. 6 pick on high school phenom Martell Webster. GM John Nash said after the draft that had the Blazers kept the pick, they still would've drafted Webster at No. 3.

The verdict: Like Knight in Atlanta, Nash has blundered in Portland and might lose his job by summer over errors like passing on Paul. Nash said in an interview after the draft that he believed Telfair was "ahead of the curve" in comparing him to Paul. That clearly hasn't been the case. There isn't an NBA scout I've talked to who thinks Telfair is in the same league as Paul as a point guard or as a prospect. The Blazers missed badly on this one. Their love affair with high school stars, Telfair and Webster included, has left them in the NBA cellar.

Utah Jazz
How: Acquired the No. 3 pick in the draft from the Blazers

The skinny: The Jazz struggled with the decision between Paul and Deron Williams up until the day of the draft, but ultimately decided Williams was a better fit in their system. He was bigger, scouts saw him as a better shooter and defender, and he seemed a little more comfortable in the half-court game. Paul's style of play -- he gets the ball up and down the court quickly -- and his occasional defensive lapses didn't seem as good a fit in head coach Jerry Sloan's system.

The verdict: The jury's still out. A lot of scouts loved Williams and agreed with Utah's assessment that he was a better fit in their system. Williams is having an inconsistent rookie season, but there's nothing to suggest that he won't become a great player with more time. Still, you have to wonder whether the Jazz overthought this. I have a hard time believing, after watching them both play this year, that Williams will overtake Paul as the best point guard to come out of this draft.

Charlotte Bobcats
How: Could have acquired the No. 2 or No. 3 pick in the draft via trade for the No. 5 and No. 13 picks

The skinny: The Bobcats got unlucky on lottery night, slipping from the prospective No. 2 pick to the No. 5 pick because of some bounces of the ping-pong balls. GM Bernie Bickerstaff had his eye on two franchise-type players all year -- Marvin Williams and Paul. Either would've fit a need, complemented Emeka Okafor and been wildly popular with Charlotte's fans because of their local ties. Both the Hawks and the Blazers were willing to deal their pick to Charlotte, but Bickerstaff felt that, as an expansion team, the Bobcats could not afford to give up two lottery picks for one player.

The verdict: Bickerstaff made his first major blunder for the Bobcats. The two players the Bobcats got, Raymond Felton and Sean May, were also North Carolina favorites, but neither has the star potential or local popularity of Paul. This is an example of when being conservative doesn't pay off. An expansion team needs star players to build around, and Paul would've been the cornerstone. Felton and May? They both have talent, but the chance that either becomes an NBA All-Star is slim.

Toronto Raptors
How: Could have acquired the No. 3 or No. 4 pick in the draft via trade for the No. 7 and No. 15 picks

The skinny: The Raptors, like the Bobcats, overvalued the multiple picks they were getting in the draft. They had a star power forward, Chris Bosh, to build around and desperately needed to add a point guard and center to complete the puzzle.

The verdict: We saw it on Thursday when the Raptors fired GM Rob Babcock. Charlie Villanueva and Joey Graham weren't bad picks. But Villanueva plays the same position as Bosh. The Raptors' point-guard troubles have been temporarily solved by the stellar play of Mike James, but he's an unrestricted free agent this summer and will likely bolt Toronto (or be traded first). Had the Raptors added Paul, it might have been enough to save Babcock's job and convince Bosh that the team is heading in the right direction. Even more important, it would've made them better. Paul would've had the same impact in Toronto that he's having for New Orleans/Oklahoma City. Babcock's blunder may have been the biggest of them all -- Paul could've saved his job and given Raptors fans a reason to care again.

Boston Celtics
How: There was talk around draft time of a trade that would've sent Paul Pierce to Portland for the No. 3 pick in the draft and the nonguaranteed contract of Nick Van Exel.

The skinny: Danny Ainge labeled the rumor of the trade "ludicrous." However, sources from both teams have said it was considered. The Blazers would've done it in a heartbeat, because they had coveted Pierce for some time and felt they already had their point guard of the future in Telfair.

The verdict: The Celtics should've pulled the trigger. The team is clearly rebuilding. While Delonte West has played well for Boston this year at the point, he's no Chris Paul. West would be a stellar sixth man. Paul and Al Jefferson would have given the Celtics a very young inside-outside combo that would've been awesome down the road. As it stands, the Celtics are running to stand still. Eventually players such as Jefferson, Kendrick Perkins and West are going to be good. But by the time they get there, will players such as Pierce and Wally Szczerbiak (who are both 28) still be good enough to help them win a championship? A deal like this could've set the clock back a bit, shored up their talent base and given the Celtics some cap flexibility in the free-agent market.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York VS Larry Brown

NEW YORK -- Larry Brown received the loudest ovation of the night, but he had to get ejected to beat out Kobe Bryant.

New York's latest loss, a 130-97 drubbing that eclipsed the Knicks' previous worst loss this season (26 points), was appalling on so many levels, it was hard to find a fan not shaking his head while streaming toward the exits at the end of the third quarter. Bryant was serenaded with a chant of "M-V-P" by the few who stuck around until the end, almost all of them Lakers fans.

A new low for the Knicks for sure, but don't believe for a second that things can't get worse.

Isiah
AP Photo/Julie Jacobson
Isiah Thomas, talking with old friend Magic Johnson at Tuesday's game, faces a tough road ahead as Knicks president.

If the past-half decade of futility has taught anybody anything when writing about the Knicks, it's that one must be careful when declaring they've hit rock bottom. Invariably when someone says it, the ensuing events make last week or last season look rosy by comparison.

"I went shopping today, and people kept coming up to me on the street, saying, 'You're going to score 90 tonight. You're going to score 100 tonight.' You know how crazy that sounds?" Bryant said.

The Knicks' 30th loss of this lost season was so dreadful, it was pitiful. Bryant went to the free throw line 26 times, making 23, and stayed in the game past the midpoint of the meaningless fourth quarter just to be certain he made it to 40.

If the idea of opposing players shamelessly padding their stats wasn't humiliating enough for the Knicks to stomach, they can play back a tape of the first half and listen to the ovations Bryant was receiving from the Madison Square Garden crowd. And if the sound of the home crowd giving its love to an opposing player wasn't sickening enough, there's always the video of Monday night's lethargic loss to the Hawks to turn their collective stomachs inside-out.

"Their organization, it's a matter of being patient," Bryant said afterward, oozing with a false sincerity that fooled absolutely no one. "They'll get back to the top. This period they're going through now, though, it sucks."

When you've sat through the Felton Spencer/Travis Knight era, the "We Want Lampe" chants at the draft, the Don Chaney and Lenny Wilkens firings and countless mind-numbing Scott Layden press conferences, you have a whole different perspective on what sucks and what really sucks. But make no mistake, this is as sorry of an era as anything the franchise has been through lately. Possibly ever.

The degree of quit displayed by the Knicks against the Lakers was so disheartening that Brown got himself tossed by referee Steve Javie midway through the third quarter. Bryant had been parading to the free throw line all night, the discrepancy so glaring that the Knicks posted each team's attempted foul shots on the scoreboard each time one of the teams went to the line. The Lakers ended up with a 58-24 advantage from the line, meaning Kobe himself had more makes and attempts than the Knicks did as a whole.

Brown was serenaded with a chant of "Larry, Larry" as he exited through the tunnel and breezed past team president Isiah Thomas, whose days only get worse as his level of job security sinks along with his reputation. The sexual harassment allegations made against him by a former team executive kept the tabloids busy all last week, and the dirty laundry being slung by both sides resulted in a photo of Thomas' illegitimate "love child" adorning the front of the New York Post on Monday morning -- a prelude to Tuesday morning's back page screamer: "Kobe vs. Quitters."

Clearly, Thomas' second honeymoon is over, his days as Knicks president appearing numbered. Ironically, though, the sexual harassment case might have actually bought him some time. The thinking here is there's no way Cablevision owner James Dolan would sack Thomas at this point -- even using his failed basketball moves as the reasoning -- because of the effect it would have on the sexual harassment lawsuit.

But with the team barely treading water in the two-plus years since he arrived, with this year's draft pick already traded away (and next year's, too), it's not hard to foresee Thomas being shown the door the day after the regular season ends, with Dolan handing control over personnel matters to Brown. After all, Brown's the only person -- aside from Kobe, of course -- getting cheered at the Garden these days. Too bad he's having to get thrown out just to endear himself to the fans.

Maybe this really is rock bottom.

**Quarter Crack** · 02-08-2006, 04:39 PM

Duke: Tops in modern era; not in past decade

If you think the NCAA Tournament is ruled by a handful of elite programs -- the Dukes, North Carolinas, Kentuckys and Connecticuts of the world -- think again.

Since the NCAA Tournament went to a 64-team bracket 21 dances ago, 15 different schools have won the championship. Consider that only six NBA teams have won the last 21 championships, just 11 teams have claimed the last 21 NHL crowns. There are 12 different champions for the past 21 Super Bowls. And 14 major league baseball clubs account for the last 21 World Series champs.

You want parity? How's this: Over the last decade, 25 unique schools have filled the 40 Final Four slots -- and only nine squads have made multiple trips to the semifinals.

Given how quickly underclass stars are jumping to the NBA and how many solid programs are vying to replenish their talent, we'll probably never see another basketball dynasty that approaches the dominance of John Wooden's UCLA juggernaut. Still, if you ask anyone with a passing interest in college hoops which school has been the best of the modern 64-team tourney era, they'll almost unanimously vote for Duke (Tar Heels and UConn fans excepted).

And with good reason. Duke has compiled the best winning record since 1985 (0.795), has reached more Final Fours (10) and won more championships (three) than any other school. For Duke to lose its hold on the best record this year, it would have to get upset in round one or two, while UConn runs the table.

Here are the top 10 winningest schools of the 64-team era. These schools have combined to win 398 games -- an impressive 30 percent of the 1,323 games played since 1985. And they've won 15 of the 21 championships.

Top 10 schools based on win-loss record (10 or more appearances since 1985)
Team Apps W L W% Final Four Champ
1. Duke 20 66 17 0.795 10 3
2. Connecticut 13 35 11 0.761 2 2
3. Kentucky 18 50 16 0.758 4 2
4. North Carolina 19 53 17 0.757 7 2
5. Kansas 20 50 19 0.725 6 1
6. Michigan 12 26 11 0.703 3 1
7. Michigan State 15 30 14 0.682 4 1
8. Arkansas 14 27 13 0.675 3 1
9. Syracuse 18 35 17 0.673 3 1
10. Maryland 14 26 13 0.667 2 1

Only .004 separates the winning rate of UConn, Kentucky and North Carolina -- the schools with the next three best overall records -- so this March should shake up the rankings. Last year's tourney certainly jumbled the top 10. North Carolina overtook Kansas thanks to its championship run and the Jayhawks' upset at the hands of Bucknell. And Michigan State and Syracuse swapped positions after the Spartans made their fourth Final Four and the Orange suffered an early exit.

The best performers against seed expectations
It shouldn't come as a big surprise that these 10 schools have the best overall records in the modern tourney era. After all, they're also among the highest seeded schools -- so you'd expect them to have strong records. Take Duke, for instance. Its average seed in its 20 tourney trips has been 2.2. It's certainly easier for the Blue Devils to amass a strong record than, say, Temple, which enters the Big Dance averaging a 7.2 seed. What is surprising, however, is that three of the teams with the highest average seeds aren't among the top tourney winners. Arizona, Cincinnati and Wake Forest didn't crack the top 10 list for overall winning record.

So just because Duke has a higher winning rate than, say, Arkansas, does that make the Blue Devils a better overall tourney performer? After all, the Razorbacks have compiled their .675 winning record with an average seed 3.5 positions below Duke. You'd expect them to struggle more for wins. You could make an argument that the Razorbacks are the better performing tourney team since they've had to compile their strong record from a lower seed position.

Yes, you could make that argument … but it wouldn't hold water. Even if you evaluate tourney performance by comparing the number of games a school has played above or below its seed expectations, Duke still comes out as the best tourney team. Take a look at the following chart. We compared the number of games that schools won at each seed position they occupied to the number of wins the average team at that seed has won. Here are the top 10 schools with at least 10 tourney appearances that perform better than their seeding would dictate:

Top 10 schools based on performance against seed expectations (10 or more appearances since 1985)
School Apps Avg. Seed W % Rank Wins vs. Seed +/- Wins/Apps
1. Duke 20 2.20 1 +14.96 +0.748
2. Connecticut 14 3.36 2 +6.74 +0.481
3. North Carolina 19 2.89 4 +8.51 +0.448
4. Arkansas 14 5.71 8 +6.23 +0.445
5. Villanova 10 6.80 18 +4.33 +0.433
6. Kentucky 18 2.89 3 +7.15 +0.397
7. Michigan 12 4.17 6 +4.75 +0.396
8. Louisville 14 5.64 16 +5.23 +0.373
9. Syracuse 18 4.17 9 +6.17 +0.343
10. Maryland 14 4.64 10 +4.75 +0.339

Adjusting tourney performance for seeding doesn't change which school comes out on top. In its 20 tournament appearances, Duke should have won about 51 games based on seeding; the Blue Devils won 66 -- 15 more than that, for a stunning PASE (Performance Against Seed Expectations) of .748 games per team. Think of it in one of two ways: Every Blue Devil squad wins three-quarters of a game more than seeding says they should or 75 percent of the Duke teams win one more game than they should. Either way, the Blue Devils had the greatest expectations to advance the furthest in the tourney and exceeded those expectations by the most -- hard to beat that kind of peformance. UConn's record is also impressive, coming in second both in terms of overall record and surpassing expectations -- but the Huskies are clearly a notch below the Blue Devils.

This list of modern-era overachievers changed significantly with last year's tourney results. The biggest advancer was North Carolina. Last year, the Tar Heels barely cracked the top 10; their championship run vaulted them from ninth to third on the list. Villanova also climbed the rankings, moving from seventh to fifth. The biggest decliner? Not surprisingly, the Jayhawks, whose loss to Bucknell dropped them from fifth all the way out of the top 10 to No. 12. Overall, Kansas is still an overachiever, but the school fell off last year's PASE (.407 to .299). Syracuse also dropped, losing five positions and .104 off its PASE as it went from fourth to ninth on the list.

The two surprise teams on the list of overachievers are Villanova and Louisville. Neither school is among the top 10 winningest programs of the modern era. Louisville is 13 and Villanova is 15, but they've been saddled with low overall seeds (5.6 and 6.8, respectively) and should've been closer to .500 squads. The two surprise omissions from this list are Kansas and Michigan State, both of which were among the winningest programs. We already touched on how the Jayhawks dropped off the list. The Spartans' situation is almost the opposite of Kansas. They weren't anywhere near the top 10 list of overachievers last year. But their 2005 Final Four run vaulted them from 20th place to 11th -- and doubled their PASE from .154 games to .320. MSU's problem is that they spent the first 11 years of the modern tourney era underachieving. The last decade has been an entirely different story, as we'll see in a moment.

The worst performers against seed expectations
Before we examine recent history, let's uncover the dark side of PASE: Those teams that underachieved against seed expectations (see list below). Of the 44 schools with at least 10 tourney trips in the modern era, 18 have fallen short of the number of wins their seed position would dictate. The worst of those 18 is Purdue. Despite being relatively high-seeded, the Boilermakers have suffered some quick exits in the tourney. Their biggest failings came as top seeds. In their three stints as No. 1 seeds, the Boilermakers should've won 10 games; they won only six. As two and three seeds, they should have won about eight games and won only five. Altogether, Purdue teams underachieve by more than half a game per appearance (-.513 PASE).

Bottom 10 schools based on performance against seed expectations (10 or more appearances since 1985)
School Apps W L W % Avg. Seed Wins vs. Seed +/- Wins/Apps
1. Purdue 15 18 15 0.545 4.93 -7.69 -0.513
2. Pittsburgh 10 9 10 0.474 5.70 -4.79 -0.479
3. Stanford 13 16 13 0.552 5.23 -5.94 -0.457
4. Oklahoma 17 25 17 0.595 4.65 -7.10 -0.417
5. BYU 10 3 10 0.231 9.70 -4.06 -0.406
6. Wake Forest 12 15 12 0.556 4.33 -4.63 -0.386
7. St. John's 12 15 12 0.556 5.17 -3.92 -0.326
8. Charlotte 10 4 10 0.286 8.10 -3.26 -0.326
9. Missouri 14 12 14 0.462 6.79 -4.38 -0.313
10. Cincinnati 14 20 14 0.588 4.14 -3.77 -0.270

The two new underperformers on this bottom 10 list are Charlotte and Wake Forest. The Demon Deacons' second-round loss to West Virginia pushed them from the 12th worst PASE (-.288) to the sixth worst (-.386). Charlotte's first-round loss as a seven seed to 10th seed NC State dropped it from the 13th worst PASE (-.258) to eighth worst (-.326). One team from last year's bottom 10 managed to escape ignominy with a strong 2005 performance: The Fightin' Illini were the fifth worst underachiever last year (-.330 PASE). Their run to the finals elevated them to the 11th lowest PASE, just behind Arizona, whose Elite Eight run improved its overall PASE from -.294 to -.216.

Last decade sees big power shift
The 64-team tourney era is 21 years old and much different today than it was when teams such as Georgetown and UNLV were powerhouses. In fact, over the last decade, half of the 10 overachievers of the modern era have fallen from grace. Case in point: Duke, which has dropped from the top slot of overperformers to 29th among the 41 schools with at least five tourney trips since 1996. In fact, the Blue Devils actually have underachieved over the last decade, winning 27 games when seeding says they should've won 28. Of course, Duke has been saddled with the highest expectations, averaging a two seed over that period. But that didn't seem to bother the school in its first 11 trips to the dance, when it notched 39 victories, 16 over seed expectations.

Check out the list of top overachievers for the last 10 years. Tom Izzo's Michigan State Spartans climb from 11th on the 21-year list to the top of the heap. MSU's .997 PASE mean that every time it goes to the dance, the school has won a game more than seed expectations. Syracuse is nearly as impressive at +.878 -- and would've overtaken Michigan State had the Orange not been upset by Vermont.

Besides MSU, the other four schools appearing on the 10-year overachievement list that didn't appear on the overall top 10 are Tulsa, Temple, Utah and Arizona (see chart below).

Top 10 schools over last decade based on performance against seed expectations (10 or more appearances since 1985)
School Apps W L W % Avg. Seed Final Four Champ Wins vs. Seed +/- Wins/Apps
1. Michigan State 8 23 7 0.767 4.50 1 +7.98 +0.997
2. Syracuse 8 18 7 0.720 4.75 1 +7.02 +0.878
3. Connecticut 8 24 6 0.800 2.50 2 +6.05 +0.756
4. Kentucky 10 32 8 0.800 2.20 2 +7.48 +0.748
5. Tulsa 6 7 6 0.538 9.50 0 +3.35 +0.558
6. Temple 6 9 6 0.600 7.00 0 +3.12 +0.521
7. North Carolina 8 21 7 0.750 3.50 1 +3.62 +0.453
8. Utah 9 15 9 0.625 6.33 0 +3.60 +0.400
9. Arizona 10 25 9 0.735 3.10 1 +3.60 +0.360
10. Wisconsin 8 11 8 0.579 6.38 0 +2.38 +0.297

The Wildcats' surplus of wins came from their 1997 championship as a four seed and their '01 runner-up showing as a two seed. These deep runs overcame the school's three-game underachievement in its three stints as a top seed. Utah built its surprise performance with a run to the finals as a three seed in 1998. Temple's Elite Eight showing as an 11 seed in ''01 did the trick for the Owls. And Tulsa earned its status as a top-five overachiever with an Elite Eight run from the seven seed and two upsets as 12 and 13 seeds.

Which modern-era overachievers fell out of the "decade's best" list? Aside from Duke, Arkansas, Villanova, Michigan and Louisville failed to crack the top 10. Villanova and Michigan didn't make it because they failed to appear in at least five tourneys since 1996. Arkansas underperformed by less than a game in its five trips to the dance, and Louisville barely overachieved, winning seven games when seeding predicted 6.75 wins.

None of the top 10 all-time overachievers performed so poorly over the last decade that they fell into the bottom 10 underachievers. Five schools that were in the all-time bottom 10 stayed there over the last decade (see chart below). Cincinnati was the biggest offender. For the first 11 years of the tourney, the Bearcats were overachievers; since 1996, they've won just 12 games when their high-seed positions dictated that they should've won 18. Stanford, Oklahoma, Wake Forest and Charlotte are the other four schools whose 10-year performance couldn't pull them out of the PASE basement.

Bottom 10 schools over last decade based on performance against seed expectations
School Apps W L W % Avg. Seed Wins vs. Seed +/- Wins/Apps
1. Cincinnati 10 12 10 0.545 3.70 -6.00 -0.600
2. Creighton 6 2 6 0.250 9.67 -3.45 -0.575
3. Mississippi 5 3 5 0.375 6.60 -2.30 -0.460
4. Stanford 10 15 10 0.600 4.30 -3.95 -0.395
5. Wake Forest 7 9 7 0.562 3.86 -2.55 -0.364
6. Murray State 5 0 5 0.000 12.60 -1.52 -0.305
7. Boston College 5 5 5 0.500 5.80 -1.30 -0.260
8. Oklahoma 9 11 9 0.550 6.33 -2.22 -0.247
9. Charlotte 7 4 7 0.364 7.71 -1.10 -0.157
10. California 5 4 5 0.444 7.80 -0.62 -0.125

On the other hand, five schools that don't appear among the all-time bottom 10 underperformers have had disappointing decades -- California, Creighton, Mississippi, Murray State, and Boston College. They've replaced Purdue, Pitt, BYU, St. John's and Missouri. Of these schools, only Purdue and Missouri earned their way out of the bottom 10. In the last 10 years, Purdue notched one more win than expected for a 15th best +.158 PASE. Missouri's Elite Eight run as a 12 seed vaulted its PASE to a 12th best +.255. Pitt, BYU and St. John's escaped the decade's bottom 10 list only because they didn't have five tourney appearances. They all underachieved over the last 10 years.

How will the 2006 tourney affect the fortunes of newest crop of over- and underachievers? Michigan State is one bad loss away from surrendering its top PASE ranking to Syracuse, Connecticut or Kentucky -- whichever school meets or exceeds seed expectations. Cincinnati could pull out of the PASE cellar with one good win. Meanwhile, Duke will have to get to the Finals as a one seed or the Final Four as a two seed to shed the stigma of underachieving over the last decade.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which superstars might be relocated?

A few folks in Philadelphia are clamoring for the 76ers to trade Allen Iverson, figuring they've already gone as far as they're going to get under the leadership of the diminutive scoring machine who has produced more than 18,000 points over the past decade.

In Minneapolis, the pulse of Kevin Garnett is being constantly checked, his level of satisfaction persistently gauged for a reading on whether his plan for long-term happiness includes staying with the Timberwolves for the rest of his career.

In New York, it was open season on Stephon Marbury before the travails of Isiah Thomas butted him out of the way, and in Orlando there's more smoke than fire surrounding Steve Francis, who's generating plenty of phone calls from opposing teams who are convinced he's available despite the Magic's insistence that they're not looking to move him.

The Paul Pierce trade talk has died down somewhat in Boston, but there's always the possibility the Celtics will decide to move forward without him if the right offer comes along. After all, it almost happened last June when Boston and Portland discussed a deal for a draft pick that would have been used on Chris Paul.

In a league in which players from Wilt Chamberlain to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar to Shaquille O'Neal have been dealt, it's often said that nobody is untradable. Tim Duncan, Yao Ming and LeBron James might want to dispute that theory, but the point is that almost anyone can be traded, and there's never a shortage of teams waiting to pounce when a top-echelon player is put on the block.

Today, ESPN Insider takes a look at several of the league's best players who have been mentioned in trade speculation this season and last season, assessing the plausibility of any of them being traded, including Iverson, Garnett, Marbury, Pierce, Francis, Jermaine O'Neal, Vince Carter, Rashard Lewis, Rasheed Wallace and Kobe Bryant.

Iverson

Allen Iverson
Contract status: Signed through 2008-09, making $18.2, $20.1 and $21.9 million the next three seasons.

Would they move him? In a word, no. When the 76ers acquired Chris Webber and took on the final 3½ seasons of his $79.7 million contract, they locked themselves into taking a three-year shot with the tandem of Webber and Iverson. Webber's contract (he makes $22.3 million in 2007-08, his final season) makes him virtually impossible to move this season or next season, and Philadelphia's management believes there is no hope in trying to contend for the next 2½ seasons with a team built around Webber and the spare parts they could acquire for Iverson.

Pierce

Paul Pierce
Contract status: Signed through 2007-08, making $13.8 million this season and $15.1 and $16.3 the next two.

Would they move him? The Celtics would have moved him in late June in a deal with Portland for Nick Van Exel and the No. 3 pick in the draft, but the deal fell through when the Blazers accepted Utah's offer of the sixth and 27th picks, plus Detroit's first-rounder in 2006. The much-rumored deal with Denver for Nene Hilario and Andre Miller was not as close to happening (as some believed), and Boston's Danny Ainge is now insisting that he plans to build around Pierce and newly acquired Wally Szczerbiak.

KG

Kevin Garnett
Contract status: Signed a $100 million extension through 2008-09, but can opt out of his deal in the summer of 2007.

Would they move him? Only if Garnett approached Timberwolves owner Glen Taylor and made a personal appeal to be relocated. Sources close to the Wolves say Garnett's future in Minnesota is secure for the rest of this season, but it's possible things could change over the summer. New Jersey and Chicago have the pieces to get a deal done, with the Nets having an edge if they'd be willing to trade Richard Jefferson after his base-year compensation status expires July 1.

Francis

Steve Francis
Contract status: Signed through 2008-09, making $13.7 million this season and topping out at $17.8 in his final year.

Would they move him? The Magic have been fielding calls, with Denver the most likely destination if the Magic take back some combination of Andre Miller, Earl Watson and Nene -- or if the Nuggets decide to move Kenyon Martin, who also is being pursued by the Knicks in a deal involving Jamal Crawford. Several multi-team scenarios have been suggested as possibilities, and the Knicks would be willing to take Francis in exchange for Anfernee "Penny" Hardaway and spare change if the Magic desired cap flexibility.

Kobe

Kobe Bryant
Contract status: Signed for $136.4 million through 2010-11, but can opt out in the summer of 2008.

Would they move him? You never say never, but you're tempted to say never here. Year one in his L.A. reunion with Phil Jackson has been devoid of any public rifts, though it's hard to fathom Jackson's continuing to subjugate his ego while Bryant does as he pleases, when he pleases, with Jackson's offense. If Armageddon erupted and one of them had to go, right now it looks like Jackson would be the one shown the door. But he's almost family now around the Buss household, so you never know. It's only one major blowup away from becoming an issue.

Marbury

Stephon Marbury
Contract status: signed through 2008-09, making $16.4 million this season, then $18.3, $20.1 and $21.9 million.

Would they move him? Even if the Knicks wanted to, who'd take him? He's been traded three times, and each of the teams that got rid of him fared better after he left. Marbury has also developed a reputation as a teammate who can be difficult to get along with, meaning the Knicks are likely stuck with him for three more seasons after this one.

O'Neal

Jermaine O'Neal
Contract status: Signed through 2009-10, making $16.4 million this season and topping out at $23 million in his final year.

Would they move him? One major reason the Pacers decided to trade Ron Artest was to placate O'Neal, their franchise player, so it wouldn't seem to make any sense to turn around and trade him, too. It has been suggested that O'Neal's value might never be higher, despite his recent groin tear, but it's hard to fathom Indiana's dealing an All-Star it has installed as its leader.

Carter

Vince Carter
Contract status: Signed through 2007-08, making $13.8 million this season.

Would they move him? If the Nets could get Kevin Garnett, they'd trade him, but they know they don't have a shot at Garnett until this summer at the earliest, and that's also when Richard Jefferson loses his base-year compensation status and can be dangled in front of the Wolves. While Jason Kidd was a subject of trade rumors last season, his contract makes him a bigger long-term financial risk than Carter, because Kidd's contract runs three more seasons at a total of $49 million.

Lewis

Rashard Lewis
Contract status: Signed through 2008-09, but can opt out in the summer of 2007.

Would they move him? Not now, but the SuperSonics might have to consider it a year from now if they're convinced he'll leave as a free agent. Lewis is due to make $10.1 million and $10.9 million in the final two years, but his new contract could total at least four times that amount if he were to go on the open market -- a pretty clear sign he'll exercise that opt-out.

Wallace

Rasheed Wallace
Contract status: Signed through 2008-09, making $10.8 million this season.

Would they move him? Not now, with the way the Pistons are playing and with the way Sheed is such an integral part of their team chemistry. But Wallace is owed nearly $40 million over the final three seasons of his contract, and the law of diminishing returns might necessitate the Pistons' exploring what they can get for him in the summer of 2007.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Quarter Crack** · 02-11-2006, 09:28 PM

Did you see the guy in your thread post it?

Insider Article on 06 Rookies

OK, so perhaps the NBA Rookie of the Year voting won't provide much suspense this year. Unless aliens invade in the night and secretly inject Chris Paul with Rafael Araujo's DNA, the Hornets' point guard will win going away.

But what of the rest of the rookie class? If Paul is blowing the doors off, it follows that the rest of this year's crew isn't exactly making us forget the LeBron-Melo-Bosh-Wade class of 2003. Besides this one breakout star, the other rookies have all had their ups and downs this season.

Perhaps we should have expected this. Unlike a year ago, when a great high school class saved what otherwise would have been a dud of a rookie crop, this year's prepsters didn't bring much to the table. In a draft already devoid of superstar talent, that meant we weren't likely to see many impact players.

Nonetheless, some have turned out better than others. With their first campaign half over, it's time to assess where each of this year's rookies stands and what their future holds. The class of 2005 is easily broken down into three groups -- the cream, the surprises, and the disappointments. Of course, Paul should be in a class by himself, but he'll have to settle for being captain of the first team:

THE CREAM

paul

Paul
Chris Paul, New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets: In addition to all the other things he's bringing to the table, check out this stat: Paul has the second-best Rebound Rate of any point guard, trailing only Jason Kidd. The 6-foot, 20-year-old Paul is outrebounding Mark Blount, Rashard Lewis, Andre Iguodala, Shane Battier, Carmelo Anthony, Tayshaun Prince, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade, among others.

jasikeviciusr

Jasikevicius
Sarunas Jasikevicius, Indiana Pacers: The Lithuanian combo guard has been one of the few Pacers to make it through the year without breaking something, and his numbers should improve once he adjusts to the longer NBA 3-pointer. He's at 39.2 percent from downtown even now, which isn't bad, but with his stroke he could be in the low to mid-40s next year. Better yet, he's proved better at running the offense than expected and could take over at the point if Jamaal Tinsley's struggles continue.

Villanueva

Villanueva
Charlie Villanueva, Toronto Raptors: Rob Babcock took heat for this pick, but he's turned out to have the last laugh (well, except for the part where he got fired last month). Villanueva still needs work on his defense, but his variety of offensive skills has him averaging nearly 20 points per 40 minutes and creating nightly matchup problems for opponents. The main concern is that the 6-11 forward plays the same position as Raptors star Chris Bosh, making a future trade south of the border a distinct possibility.

frye

Frye
Channing Frye, New York Knicks: A star in the making, were it not for the Knicks' baffling reluctance to play him. Look Larry, you're a great coach, but anytime you're looking up at the Hawks in the standings, it's time to give it a rest and let the kids play. Frye's per-minute numbers are phenomenal -- 21.2 points, 9.4 boards per 40 minutes -- and they'd almost certainly be even better if his role and minutes didn't fluctuate on a nightly basis. He's one of the best shooting big men in basketball, but he's not just a perimeter guy -- Frye gets to the line and blocks shots too. The defense needs work, though.

bogut

Bogut
Andrew Bogut, Milwaukee Bucks: He's turned out about as expected, and were it not for Paul's exploding onto the scene, he'd be cruising toward a Rookie of the Year trophy. Bogut still takes his lumps on some nights, but he's a high-percentage scorer (52.8 percent from the floor), he rebounds and he's one of the best passing big men in the game. And while the Rookie of the Year award won't be his, Bogut already has blown Luc Longley and Andrew Gaze off the map for the title of "Greatest-ever Australian basketball player."

THE SURPRISES

Stoudamire

Stoudamire
Salim Stoudamire, Atlanta Hawks: For a guy taken with the 31st overall pick, Damon's cousin has established a niche very quickly. The naysayers were right about two things: He's not a true point guard, and he's not much of a defender. But with that shot of his, it doesn't matter. Stoudamire is shooting 38.1 percent on 3-pointers and 88.1 percent from the line, and will stay in the league for a decade because of his unlimited range.

jack

Jack
Jarrett Jack, Portland Trail Blazers: Yes, the Blazers traded the pick that could have been Chris Paul, but never let it be said that they didn't get jack. Taken with the 22nd pick, the rookie from Georgia Tech has earned crunch-time minutes because of his defense, and at 6-3, 202 pounds, he has the size and strength to finish around the rim. Right now he can't shoot to save his life, but if he ever gets a jumper, he'll be a long-term starter.

granger

Granger
Danny Granger, Pacers: He may not be a surprise in the sense that people are shocked by what he's doing, since a lot of people had high hopes for Granger. But the fact remains that he was the 17th overall pick and is playing a major role on a quasi-contending team. While his numbers aren't anything special, he's as far along defensively as any of the other rookies and showed he can score when called upon. In this class, that's noteworthy.

kleiza

Kleiza
Linas Kleiza, Denver Nuggets: Kleiza hasn't seen much action because some guy named Carmelo plays the same position, but when he's been out there he's performed very well. While Denver's other first rounder, Julius Hodge, has spent the year learning the meaning of "business casual," Kleiza has helped the injury-wracked Nuggets stay afloat. The Lithuanian is unusually physical for a Euro and has the pipes to prove it, helping him to one of the best rebound rates among small forwards.

lee

Lee
David Lee, Knicks: The last pick of the first round started every game in the Knicks' six-game winning streak, the lone bright spot in an otherwise miserable season. So of course, Brown had to put him back on the bench. Despite having to sit behind mediocrities such as Jerome James, Maurice Taylor and Malik Rose, Lee is shooting 59.8 percent and has one of the best rebound rates among forwards. The 6-9 lefty should become a fixture in the Knicks' rotation if one is ever established.

THE DISAPPOINTMENTS

williams

Williams
Deron Williams, Utah Jazz: Come back, Carlos Arroyo, all is forgiven. The Jazz are saying the right things about their bungled choice of Williams over Paul this June, but good heavens, look at their actions. Last