Written by Zach Harper | 09 April 2009

In an email exchange with someone that I really admire recently, he called me an apologist when I took up for the side of Duke University and their basketball team. We were discussing whether or not this team was properly set up for a tournament run. I defended the idea that they were absolutely set up for tourney success due to their defensively opportunistic style and their three-point shooting prowess. He argued that their recruiting might not be all it's cracked up to be and that they needed to be tougher.

But the biggest thing that stood out to me was the fact that I was deemed an apologist by this man. Was it an accusation? Was it something to catch me off guard (if so, it worked brilliantly)? Was it a good thing? Was it a bad thing? I was kind of and still am confused by the characterization he gave me.

And it led me to thinking about if I actually am an apologist or not. I've always rooted against the hometown Sacramento Kings because of the fundamental flaws that many of the Kings fans that I've interacted with fail to recognize. I don't hate Duke or Coach K. I don't like the Yankees but I also don't hold them in this evil regard when the Boston Red Sox are equally as bad but not nearly as maligned. I don't fawn over LeBron James or Dwight Howard to the degree that they can do no wrong and are among the best ever before they have earned it (assuming they do, of course). And I don't hate Kobe Bryant. In fact, I really like the player he's become despite the fact that I used to hate him and tried to be as petty as Bill Simmons when analyzing/criticizing him.

So am I an apologist? Personally, I don't think I am. I'm an extremely rational thinker and unabashedly unbiased when it comes to forming my opinion on topics in sports, especially when it comes to basketball. I don't think I'm more likely to go against popular opinion just for the sake of playing devil's advocate. I try to never argue with bias and I think that by doing so, it naturally causes me to go against flippant judgements made by the general audience of sports.

So what does any of this have to do with Blake Griffin? Well, you should be able to see this coming.

Blake Griffin is NOT the answer to an NBA's rebuilding plan.

Now, do I actually believe this or am I just saying this to be different? Well, those of you who know me or have listened to me rant on about this ad nauseum know that this is definitely not me taking up the minority side of this argument. I don't only think that Blake Griffin is going to be a bust in terms of NBA superstardom but I KNOW that Blake Griffin is going to probably end up being the fifth best player in this draft but will end up costing far more to keep before people/GMs realize this.

Do I actually know this? Not really. But I have a pretty good track record of nailing these assumptions. They aren't all in print/web print but you're just going to have to take my word for it. I was correct about Michael Beasley (thus far). I was right about Dwight Howard over Emeka Okafor (crazy to think that was actually a debate). I was right about Darko, Kwame, Elton Brand and Kenyon Martin.

When it comes to top picks that end up being big men, I usually have a pretty good eye for whether or not they can be main guys. Now, I've also been wrong about some big men. Spencer Hawes is definitely better than I thought he'd be and Brook Lopez is more than just a source for comedy (even though he's a really good source for comedy). But I'm asking you to trust me on this Blake Griffin situation because I'm pretty sure that we've seen him before.

When I first started watching him as a freshman last year who often showed some promise but also showed a lot of looks like a dear in headlights, I thought that he looked a lot like a slightly better version of Kris Humphries. People forget that Kris Humphries was a really good big man at the University of Minnesota and put away more double-doubles than Eddy Curry at In'N'Out. Humphries dazzled scouts as a freshman by putting up 20-10 numbers in a decent Big Ten conference. He played so well that it landed him the 14th pick in the 2004 draft. That was a loaded year for college basketball, which featured a lot of talent that seemed ready for the NBA.

But the more I try to understand the historical sense in which to pre-judge Blake Griffin as he prepares to be the number one pick in the NBA draft, the more a name that I mentioned earlier in this article comes to mind.

The Blake Griffin rise to prominence or at least number one pick projection reminds me a lot of when Kenyon Martin ended up being the first guy selected in the 2000 draft. Kenyon Martin was a terror in the paint who showed a limited game outside of the key but his athleticism and ferociousness around the rim was something that delighted NBA GMs and fans who were more interested in highlights than substance. But what many people failed to realize during that season was just how weak the college basketball scene was that year.

Guys like Scoonie Penn, A.J. Guyton, Marcus Fizer, Courtney Alexander, and Chris Carawell made up the first and second All-American teams. Mark Madsen was one of the biggest difference makers in the entire country and Pepe Sanchez was one of the better guards in the country. Kenyon Martin led a pretty good Cincinnati squad to a number two seed in the tournament (number two seed was primarily because Martin broke his leg in their conference tournament, which ruined their chances to be considered a number one seed). Kenyon Martin was unquestionably the player of the year in college basketball that year because he was spectacular above the rim.

Now, aside from the fact that K-Mart was a senior and take away the leg injury and I find it hard to not see the glaring similarities of Blake Griffin and the man nicknamed after a superstore that was taken under because of Wal-Mart and Rosie O'Donnell. Blake Griffin has been the best player in an extremely weak college basketball season. This was a season that failed to feature a team or teams that rightfully ruled the country in the polls. Due to early exits to the NBA and a lack of freshman ready to st ep in and contribute right away, Griffin was rarely tested throughout the season. When he was played physically, he seemed to avoid contact and play a soft brand of basketball. When he was able to get above the rim, he dazzled highlight shows with rim-rocking dunks. When he was left alone in the lane with a smaller offensive player, he smacked the shot in spectacular fashion. When he was forced to play one-on-one defense, he gave up far too many points.

Now, this doesn't necessarily make him a bad player by any means. But if the Kings, Wizards, Thunder, and Clippers fan bases are expecting him to come in and help turn the franchise around, they're sorely mistaken. Blake Griffin seems much more likely to go down the K-Mart path of NBA with a "I wouldn't mind having him on my team but not for that cap number" type of career than a "perhaps, he could lead a franchise with the right role players around him," Amare Stoudemire-type of career. Griffin will be solely dependent on staying healthy and playing with a great point guard. If he doesn't get those luxuries, he'll be another overpaid starter that fans hope to unload as an expiring contract after his eighth year in the league.

He benefitted from being an athletic player in a down college basketball year and is being rewarded for it.

And I'm not just saying that to be an apologist or argue against the current of popular opinion. 

I think...   

< Prev		Next >