Was thinking about this a week ago.
Just popped into my mind.....
When you go through his past you hear Russell Westbrook was a late bloomer....
But is he really a late bloomer?
Russell Westbrook was born in 1988, same year as D.Rose,Jeff Teague, Jerryd Bayless, etc...
But the difference between them and him is they graduated 07 technically a year late for their class, while Westbrook graduated on time in 06.
With that being said if Russ had graduated 07 he wouldn't have the label late bloomer on him, peep if he had graduated just a year later:
He would have probably been a top 3 PG in the 07 class, cause in 06 he averaged 26.0 PPG, 9 RPG and 7 APG, so that would have probably been monster numbers in 07.
He only had offers from Kent State, Creighton, San Diego and Miami, but had he played AAU another year and killed the circuit he wouldn't have lucked up to get into UCLA, they would have been knockin his door down had he came out in 07, along with all the other big time schools.
He struggled his freshman year at UCLA, but technically had he been an 07 recruit he wouldn't have been there that year, and he would have came in that next year and probably would have done good and been one and done.
I don't really think he was a late bloomer, I just think he didn't have much exposure, because if he had came out with D.Rose,Bayless,Teague etc who all were born in 88 as well, I think he would have been one of the top players in his class.
Yall catch my drift?
he is not a late bloomer in terms of talent as much as he was an unknown quantity. you may be right, a year later and he couldve burst onto the national scene. he was still more of an athlete than a player and was totally under the radar as a junior in HS because he wasnt even 6' tall. he is a late bloomer so to speak like Davis, Henson, etc...because of his growth spurt. If he wouldve went to prep school couldve been a different story...but nevertheless, he still became a top 5 pick in the draft so late bloomer or not, he developed at a rapid pace.