Hello my name is :Tariq Owens

#76
#76
Spartacavolus said:
Hall, Golden, Woolridge...all highly ranked 4*, iirc, and just not good basketball players. Golden is ok, but not good enough to lead his teams to win much of anything.
Seems like Pearls highest rated class had worse basketball players than his low rated classes, but that's just a guess.
Click to expand...

I think his highest ranked class was Tobias, Golden and McRae. 2 out of those 3 are in the NBA currently. Golden wasn't a bad player either. He just had a sorry attitude and wasn't suited to be a starting point guard.
 
#77
#77
Spartacavolus said:
Just for an example, Pearls best teams were with guys like Bradshaw, Smith and Lofton with a combined 4-5 stars. When he changed his philosophy and went after big names and high rankings that didn't fit his style, we didn't play as well, imo.

Recruit ballhandlers and shooters and all will be good. The rest of the pieces will fall into place.
Click to expand...

I can't count the number of times I've posted that very same thing. Rankings mean next to nothing to me, and that is why a perceived "top-20" class is really irrelevant if a coach knows how to win with less with a sound philosophy and basketball knowledge, and a willingness to change if things aren't working.

Pearl fell in love with the athlete, and out of love with the basketball player.
 
#78
#78
cncchris33 said:
Pearl fell in love with the athlete, and out of love with the basketball player.
Click to expand...

I hear people say this and while I agree, that's what he did, I don't have that much of a problem with it because he kept winning. I loved that Elite 8 team. I don't understand why that team isn't more beloved.

Kansas game at home. Beat the John Wall Kentucky team at home. Beat Memphis at Memphis. Then had that great elite 8 run.
 
#79
#79
BigZiti09 said:
I hear people say this and while I agree, that's what he did, I don't have that much of a problem with it because he kept winning. I loved that Elite 8 team. I don't understand why that team isn't more beloved.

Kansas game at home. Beat the John Wall Kentucky team at home. Beat Memphis at Memphis. Then had that great elite 8 run.
Click to expand...

Agree totally....Bradshaw, Lofton, or Watson never played in the Elite 8
 
#80
#80
BigZiti09 said:
I hear people say this and while I agree, that's what he did, I don't have that much of a problem with it because he kept winning. I loved that Elite 8 team. I don't understand why that team isn't more beloved.

Kansas game at home. Beat the John Wall Kentucky team at home. Beat Memphis at Memphis. Then had that great elite 8 run.
Click to expand...

True, he kept winning, but the type of players he was targeting caused him to completely change his philosophy (following the Sweet 16 loss to UofL) in order to keep winning at a high level. Kudos to him for realizing that and making the necessary changes rather than stubbornly forcing a style that his players didn't fit.
 
#81
#81
Spartacavolus said:
there is little difference between a player ranked 50 and 150 and it usually comes down to the hype train or one game where a player went off or struggled in an aau tourney
Click to expand...

Thats not even close to true.....look at what range the majority of the consistently top teams recruit at. Sure there are misses in the top 100 and some big time sleepers in the top 150 or below but the rating system is a good guide to know how we compare to the rest of the country. Its not a black and white standard like BTO tries holding me too but definitely a good idea of where your program is headed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#82
#82
bleedingTNorange said:
I 100% agree with this and it's why I wasn't nearly as down on the last class, pieces that fit are much more important than marginally better talent that doesn't fit IMO.

I would rather have a guy ranked 125-175 that fits your system, than a guy ranked 75-125 who does not.
Click to expand...

I would hope that a coach would recruit guys that were higher rated that also fit his system. It doesnt make sense to recruit guys that you dont think would work in your system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#83
#83
cncchris33 said:
True, he kept winning, but the type of players he was targeting caused him to completely change his philosophy (following the Sweet 16 loss to UofL) in order to keep winning at a high level. Kudos to him for realizing that and making the necessary changes rather than stubbornly forcing a style that his players didn't fit.
Click to expand...

I think he thought they would make his press more intimidating but misjudged the players lack of lateral quickness but adjusted and still won at a high level. I think that was one of Pearl's biggest strengths as a coach was taking whatever he had and making it work. I never imagined he would find a role for Dane like he did.
 
#84
#84
volbeast33 said:
I think he thought they would make his press more intimidating but misjudged the players lack of lateral quickness but adjusted and still won at a high level. I think that was one of Pearl's biggest strengths as a coach was taking whatever he had and making it work. I never imagined he would find a role for Dane like he did.
Click to expand...

I agree. His ability and willingness to adjust was/is huge for him.
 
#85
#85
volbeast33 said:
Thats not even close to true.....look at what range the majority of the consistently top teams recruit at. Sure there are misses in the top 100 and some big time sleepers in the top 150 or below but the rating system is a good guide to know how we compare to the rest of the country. Its not a black and white standard like BTO tries holding me too but definitely a good idea of where your program is headed.
Click to expand...

To be fair, you were pretty damn black and white in all of Zo's recruiting discussions. I believe I even recall you writing off the '14 class a few times.
 
#86
#86
Stoked said:
I wouldn't put Golden in with Hall and Woolridge. Golden was a hell of a scorer that needed to play the 2 and an underrated passer. Woolridge and Hall just weren't focused on basketball and were waste of talents.
Click to expand...

That's fair but he's still a guard who put up some points, but never made players around him better, which is why he never really won.
I don't agree on passer though. He couldn't even use his left hand at all and had trouble feeding the post because the d coukd shadow his right hand on the pass. He seemed to have trouble finding the passing angle to get Stokes the ball. DT and Barton fed the post much much better and hit stokes often in rhythm.
 
#87
#87
volbeast33 said:
Thats not even close to true.....look at what range the majority of the consistently top teams recruit at. Sure there are misses in the top 100 and some big time sleepers in the top 150 or below but the rating system is a good guide to know how we compare to the rest of the country. Its not a black and white standard like BTO tries holding me too but definitely a good idea of where your program is headed.
Click to expand...


My #150 kid with a good attitude and coaching is going to be as good as your #50 kid, if not better. And vice versa. I didn't say recruiting top players didn't matter. There is just not that much difference for many. There are 6'6 basketball players all over the country and more than ever.
Getting ballplayers is important. And for goodness sakes a couple of deadly shooters. With the athletes we have, I'd become a shooting specialist and beg to play for UT. With all the picks and slashers, spot ups will be wide open.
 
#88
#88
Chris4Vols22 said:
To be fair, you were pretty damn black and white in all of Zo's recruiting discussions. I believe I even recall you writing off the '14 class a few times.
Click to expand...

I didnt like his '14 class, although I did like Austin and Cofer as players but not the overall class. It was still middle of the pack or below in the SEC. My opinion doesnt mean it wasnt going to be a great class. Its still what happens when they step foot on the court. I dont think any unbiased onlooker thought it was a great class. I liked his 3rd class better than any of them. He had a top line player in Hubbs and Thompson had many positive things said about him and AJ is a sleeper with potential. If he could have gotten one legitimate big man prospect it could have been a good class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#89
#89
CDT needs to pull in top 100 players and top 20 classes if we want to compete nationally. No way you can argue against that. The first year he got a pass. From now on though he has to step up. That is what I had a problem with during the last coach's tenure. We needed more highly rated recruits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#90
#90
We needed better ball players and better coaching, regardless of ranking. Jrich was a 3*. So was Reese. Big difference in player but same ranking. Hall was a 4*, as was Woolridge. I''ll take Moore over both of them every time.
 
#91
#91
k-town_king said:
CDT needs to pull in top 100 players and top 20 classes if we want to compete nationally. No way you can argue against that. The first year he got a pass. From now on though he has to step up. That is what I had a problem with during the last coach's tenure. We needed more highly rated recruits.
Click to expand...

That's not really fair to say when we haven't played one game
 
#92
#92
Spartacavolus said:
We needed better ball players and better coaching, regardless of ranking. Jrich was a 3*. So was Reese. Big difference in player but same ranking. Hall was a 4*, as was Woolridge. I''ll take Moore over both of them every time.
Click to expand...

Jrich was a top150 recruit. Reese was a 3* and even ranked as a 2* by ESPN iirc. Big difference.

Hall and Swiper were busts largely because they lacked the drive and dedication from what I could tell. I would take Moore over those two as well, but I could find countless higher ranked players I would take over Armani too.
 
#93
#93
I don't disagree, but also did a quick check and cross referenced the final top 25 vs 2013 top 25 recruiting rankings and 13 of the final 25 ranked schools didn't rank in the top 25 recruiting classes for the year prior.
I know there is more to it and having many high ranked classes is key to winning longterm, but basketball is cyclical too and you can still compete without the higher ranked classes.
UCONN won the NC last year, but I can't find them in the top 30 recruiting classes for 2012, '13 or '14. That pretty much crushes any idea that you have to have top 20 classes to win.
I couldn't believe it really. If somebody double checks and I read it wrong or skipped over them, correct it please.
 
#94
#94
Spartacavolus said:
I don't disagree, but also did a quick check and cross referenced the final top 25 vs 2013 top 25 recruiting rankings and 13 of the final 25 ranked schools didn't rank in the top 25 recruiting classes for the year prior.
I know there is more to it and having many high ranked classes is key to winning longterm, but basketball is cyclical too and you can still compete without the higher ranked classes.
UCONN won the NC last year, but I can't find them in the top 30 recruiting classes for 2012, '13 or '14. That pretty much crushes any idea that you have to have top 20 classes to win.
I couldn't believe it really. If somebody double checks and I read it wrong or skipped over them, correct it please.
Click to expand...

Looks like you're right about UConn not signing ranked classes in 2012 or 2013. Although they had top 20 classes in 2010 and 2011. Not sure how many of those guys were on the national champion team this past year.

Although their 2014 class wasn't ranked, they signed a 5* in a 3 man class.
 
#96
#96
daniel 85 said:
How about that owens guy
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


gimme a break. We'll have plenty of time to talk about him when somebody sees him play in a UT uniform. There's not much going on and this is the most civil discussion in VN hoops history with varying views.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#98
#98
UConn always hits home runs on those unranked African dudes that no one has heard of. Whoever finds those guys for them needs a huge raise.
 
#99
#99
Spartacavolus said:
I don't disagree, but also did a quick check and cross referenced the final top 25 vs 2013 top 25 recruiting rankings and 13 of the final 25 ranked schools didn't rank in the top 25 recruiting classes for the year prior.
I know there is more to it and having many high ranked classes is key to winning longterm, but basketball is cyclical too and you can still compete without the higher ranked classes.
UCONN won the NC last year, but I can't find them in the top 30 recruiting classes for 2012, '13 or '14. That pretty much crushes any idea that you have to have top 20 classes to win.
I couldn't believe it really. If somebody double checks and I read it wrong or skipped over them, correct it please.
Click to expand...

That's true about the class ranks but if u look deeper.....u conn only played eight in the championship and their big three was Boatright top 50, Napier (best player in college basketball IMO) top 100, deandre Daniels top 10, giffey (foreign player so not rated), Nolan 118, kromah transfer, amida 3 * not rated, and Samuels 118.

As u can see, even though their last two classes may not have been ranked that they were built on the backs of top 100 talent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#100
#100
volbeast33 said:
That's true about the class ranks but if u look deeper.....u conn only played eight in the championship and their big three was Boatright top 50, Napier (best player in college basketball IMO) top 100, deandre Daniels top 10, giffey (foreign player so not rated), Nolan 118, kromah transfer, amida 3 * not rated, and Samuels 118.

As u can see, even though their last two classes may not have been ranked that they were built on the backs of top 100 talent.
Click to expand...

I gotcha. But the point was made that we had to have consistent top 20 classes to do well and Uconn just won the NC with a #17 ranking in '11, not top 30 in '12 or '13.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top