Did you know that there over 360,000 NCAA athletes--and almost all of them are going pro in something?

Just like the rest of us, ex-collegians go on to diverse professional careers. Sure, you've got those kids who just aren't ready for the real world--like the law school wanna-bes, many get interested in the legal system. Then there are the practical ones interested in business, or the over-achieving high-flyers who display new interest in medicine. But some pretty boys turn to male modeling; the grungier folks may even become bricklayers. And for the most part, I don't want to stop these guys from following their yen. After all, they're the ones making bloggers' dreams come true.

But of all the jobs open to Rhodes Scholar finalist and graduating Penn power forward Steve Danley, his latest NY Times article makes me hope he'll avoid "professional writer."

The article--a "player's eye" view of current NBA prospects--is a well-conceived idea. It's strongly written. And, best of all, it's actually insightful. I *knew* McRoberts was a head-case that the 'Zards needed to avoid at no. 16; who better to scout him than his fellow player?

Unfortunately, just like Danley's first story for the paper--how being an Ivy League athlete sets him and his teammates apart from the rest--the piece feels a little pretentious. If there's sarcasm, it gets lost in translation. And here's my Doctor Dribbles diagnosis: Danley's articles *sound like* a bad case of Smug, which may be linked to acute Ego-itis.

Sure, his articles are interesting, and many sports fans are dying for articulate athletes who can share an insider's perspective. In many ways, Danley is ably positioned to be a junior Paul Shirley, who himself blogged onto the scene by exposing how average NBA players view their world.

But despite a quick reference to "desire slightly exceeding talent," Danley lacks Shirley's--how can I best put this--humility. Shirley's not ego-less, but he played up his lowly 12th man status when he started; he often would follow a put-down of others (e.g., the Hawks) by making fun of himself. Quite frankly, Danley would benefit from similar self-deprecation, especially in an article where he's strongly critical of players who are much, much better than him.

Oh yes. Among D1 players, Danley was closer to scrub than star. In the Jabbo Kenner summer league, the only points I remember Danley scoring were Tommys for his hustle. And while an above-average big man in the Ivy League, Danley came up real small against top teams, best seen by revisiting three of the four players he's critical of.

• Danley knocks Brandan Wright ("we considered him the third-best player on [UNC]") but leaves out that Wright's 12 points and 7 rebounds, in basically half the game, helped UNC trounce Penn by nearly 40 points, thanks partly to Danley's no-show (1-5 FGs, 2 Rbs)
• While McRoberts may be a head case (a point I want to be true, by the way), Danley was the one who looked rattled in Penn's loss to Duke: 1-5 from the field, 7 TOs, and 1 Shelden Williams-inspired concussion. Even if you throw the game out of the window because of Danley's injury and deal with his claim--that McRoberts was being tested to make an open shot--at least the then-freshman (in only his 8th game) canned half of them, helping Duke to the win.
  
• Danley also criticizes Darryl Watkins of Syracuse as lacksadaiscal, but Watkins made all three of his shots in Syracuse's win over Penn this year. Danley, meanwhile, shot 1-3, grabbed 3 Rbs., and committed 4 TOs.
  

Obviously, analysts often have critical eyes that exceed natural abilities; witness the careers of Tom Tolbert and Jay Bilas, or even a Roger Ebert and especially a Doctor Dribbles. And it's hard to know if the Times editors are strictly trimming Danley's asides or giving him a voice he didn't intend.

But Danley's not a 40-year-old veteran of sports journalism or professional basketball; he's a callow, unemployed college boy who's weighing in on his much-stronger peers. And if the punk's going to wax on the weaknesses of others, I'd love to see him first acknowledge his own limitations.

(Update: So turns out that Bill Simmons loved Danley's piece today. This has the potential to cause all kinds of cognitive dissonance up in here.)

Contributors

• Pedro Cerrano
• WRG
• Phunctional Phalcoholic
• Crucifictorious

Twitter Updates

follow We on Twitter