You seem to have read a lot into something I never said. Where did I say Davenport isn't a good player? In fact, I gave him quite a bit of praise. A role player isn't a bad player.
To me, a role player is a guy the opposing team doesn't particularly have to scheme around and a guy who you don't give the ball to in late shot clock or late game situations and expect him to create something. Take senior Justin Jenifer, in my mind he was more on the excellent role player side than a star player. He was great, but he wasn't someone who was going to take over and win the game for you.
Scott was an elite defender and rebounder. He wasn't a guy you give the ball to at the end of the game, but his impact was huge because of his defense and rebounding, he was absolutely a major focus of every teams game plan. It's easier for power forwards (and centers) to be stars because of defense/rebounding than for a guard to do so.
Now looking at Davenport. He probably doesn't have the athleticism to be a three-and-D guy at the NBA level. He's a very good athlete, but not an elite one. That makes it hard for him to have a major impact defensively or rebounding, which means if he's going to become a star, he most likely needs to do so on the offensive end. Which means becoming a better slasher and passer.
Or he remains a role player. A team doesn't need a bunch of stars. Role players and glue guys are a very important part of teams. Guys who aren't stars, but are willing to go in and do the dirty work, spread the floor with the three and give the ball to the star.
A simple comparison would be Davenport and Harvey. Right now, Davenport is the better player. But if I'm picking the guy more likely to become a star and be able to take over a game in a year or two, I'm taking Harvey.
