I believe it is a lot easier to teach a player who has 1 talent to be OK at some other stuff. For example, take Kevin Durant and imagine he ONLY knows how to score (his 1st year this was pretty much the case). It is a lot easier to teach him how to rebound (boxing out), play D, create his own shot, etc. Go from 0 to average, than taking Kyle Lowry and trying to get him to learn how to have better vision or a better shooting motion. Exceptional skills are there with work + having a natural talent. Since you can't teach natural talent, you have to go with exceptional skill.
Again, back to the OP's point he said an average all-around player (average generalists), he didn't say a great all-around player (elite generalists.
:grin:, I used to think spell check was weird, because licence (shows up misspelled) and license (doesn't). It's only because spell-check is set to American English, not British English. Schedule is pronounced she-jule (silent d), while schedule is pronounced ske-jule in the US.
Ok. I though this was in relation to the team. If it's players then a specialist wins. One must also describe what "average" means in relation to this thread. I understand that the primary roles of each position is highlighted here (i.e. SG shoots, PG passes, etc.). If that is so, just focus on the SG for offense, PF and C for defense, etc. If I were to build a team I would want all around players but I don't want every one doing everything all the time. I appreciate a PG that rebounds, a PF that passes but not a C that shoots the 3. A specialist would definitely do damage and would be a challenge. If I'm not stopping Rodman or Wallace or Melo or Deke, then I'll definitely be stopping them.
