Its interesting that with shooting, in particular three point range, becoming more important, there is a developing trend between several FOs, that shooting isn't important in evaluating prospects. With the proper work ethic, athletic ability, bball instincts etc shooting can be taught and learned. Obv there is something to that, Sixers, spurs seem to particularly follow this philosophy among others but I do think it's a fallacy overall and players have to have some semblance of form, skill, potential. Some guys will never be good shooters. With Kawhis improvement, it made a lot of teams think their guys can take a similar path but fact is some guys become better shooters, some don't. Its something I plan to research, in seeing what are the factors that are common for guys that improve and guys that don't. Anyway, i think Chip Engellands involvement in Kawhis, while important, is somewhat overrated.
First of Kawhi has always had nice form and good touch. He also shot 38% three his rookie year, so while his improvement this year has been immense it's not like he couldn't shoot at all in the start of his career. I don't care who doctors his shot and how much practice he puts in, Nerlens Noel will never be a great shooter, Jerami Grant prob won't either. With Chip England or not.
I understand that not everyone needs to be Steph Curry to be effective but evaluating shooting ability at the college level and early stages of prospects careers, is still important. With the way things are going it may be a market inefficiency at some point. Guys that can really shoot may actually become undervalued in the draft, especially considering how important three point shooting is in this league.
Sorry for being long winded but I've had this on mind recently, especially after hearing Brett Brown on Zach Lowe's pod.