No more Kentucky...

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
59,541
Likes
27,491
So all you guys in this thread saying you’d always pick talent what you say now after the national titles proved otherwise?????







again I say! No more one and dones and I don’t care about having 5 star McDonald’s all Americans and the proof is behind my stance
 

walkenvol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
6,064
Likes
6,331
Loading a team full of 1&done types hasn’t put anyone on top of the podium in a while. Gonzaga who usually depends on older guys doesn’t make the finals without their McDonalds AA Suggs.
 

TheMookieMonster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,289
Likes
12,601
So all you guys in this thread saying you’d always pick talent what you say now after the national titles proved otherwise?????







again I say! No more one and dones and I don’t care about having 5 star McDonald’s all Americans and the proof is behind my stance
LOL. Jared Butler was the #75 overall recruit. Are you trying to make some statement saying he was some scrub that become special? No one here is saying we need to construct an entire roster of one-and-done players, but Springer and Johnson were NOT the reason our team failed this year.
 

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
64,134
Likes
17,403
So all you guys in this thread saying you’d always pick talent what you say now after the national titles proved otherwise?????







again I say! No more one and dones and I don’t care about having 5 star McDonald’s all Americans and the proof is behind my stance
1 Top 75 player and that was Davion Mitchell who transferred in from Auburn after his freshman year...everyone of their 8 man rotation has played at least 3 years of college ball.
 

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
64,134
Likes
17,403
LOL. Jared Butler was the #75 overall recruit. Are you trying to make some statement saying he was some scrub that become special? No one here is saying we need to construct an entire roster of one-and-done players, but Springer and Johnson were NOT the reason our team failed this year.
I’ll phrase it this way, would you have traded Jaden Springer for Corey Kispert? Do you think if we make that trade we win more or less games?
 

TheMookieMonster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,289
Likes
12,601
I’ll phrase it this way, would you have traded Jaden Springer for Corey Kispert? Do you think if we make that trade we win more or less games?
I think it's a wash. I wouldn't have traded Springer for Kispert.

I mean as many others have said in this thread, the freshmen weren't the problem. Fulky was a no show this season. Pons was elite on defense but didn't provide much offensively. Bailey was reliably inconsistent on offense and not good defensively. It was the upperclassmen who drug this team down.

I also wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison in that one post. I was just pointing out the ludicrous nature of suggesting a Top 75 player is some under-valued diamond in the rough. Butler was a highly regarded prospect from the start. That was my only point.
 
Likes: zjcvols

OrangeVolMan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
697
Likes
1,561
LOL. Jared Butler was the #75 overall recruit. Are you trying to make some statement saying he was some scrub that become special? No one here is saying we need to construct an entire roster of one-and-done players, but Springer and Johnson were NOT the reason our team failed this year.
So you are basing your entire argument on one year. That’s like saying the roulette wheel hit 8 so I’m betting 8 every time. There are plenty of examples of teams with one and done players that won championships. That having been said, your original argument was you didn’t want to be Kentucky and we weren’t. We had two one and done players which is not the Kentucky model so your original point is null and void anyway.
 

TheMookieMonster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,289
Likes
12,601
So you are basing your entire argument on one year. That’s like saying the roulette wheel hit 8 so I’m betting 8 every time. There are plenty of examples of teams with one and done players that won championships. That having been said, your original argument was you didn’t want to be Kentucky and we weren’t. We had two one and done players which is not the Kentucky model so your original point is null and void anyway.
You have me confused with someone else. I actually support the one-and-done model to a degree. The freshmen were our two best players on the team this year.
 
Likes: Maxwell865

bleedingTNorange

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
64,134
Likes
17,403
I think it's a wash. I wouldn't have traded Springer for Kispert.

I mean as many others have said in this thread, the freshmen weren't the problem. Fulky was a no show this season. Pons was elite on defense but didn't provide much offensively. Bailey was reliably inconsistent on offense and not good defensively. It was the upperclassmen who drug this team down.

I also wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison in that one post. I was just pointing out the ludicrous nature of suggesting a Top 75 player is some under-valued diamond in the rough. Butler was a highly regarded prospect from the start. That was my only point.
The bigger point Bruin is making, which is one I argued for years, is that guys ranked 75-150 who stick around 4-5 years can be much more valuable than Top 25 guys who are one and done.
 

TheMookieMonster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,289
Likes
12,601
The bigger point Bruin is making, which is one I argued for years, is that guys ranked 75-150 who stick around 4-5 years can be much more valuable than Top 25 guys who are one and done.
Yes, I agree with the caveat that you mix in a couple of one-and-done talents ideally each year. The problem as has been said in this thread is the roster construction from 2017-2019. Only 3 of the 11 players we picked up in that time were even true contributors. That's why I said our biggest issue was not the freshmen this year.

Our "4-5 year guys" didn't provide what we needed this year, and some of the guys who we planned on being "4-5 year guys" didn't pan out like Walker, Burns, Gaines, Kent, Pember, etc.

This upcoming year will hopefully be a better reflection of the ideal model. Your "4-5 year guys" (i.e. JJJ, Bailey, Vescovi) will be another year older and wiser. Hopefully they up their game. You add a transfer big man that has hopefully been in a program for a few years and falls under that category. And then you combine that with your studs (i.e. Chandler and BHH) to create the right recipe for success.

The key here is the "4-5 year guys" need to produce and make a stride in their game. If Bailey is just as bad on defense next year and cannot find a more efficient offensive game then the model doesn't work.
 

Vols8086

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
244
Likes
275
The bigger point Bruin is making, which is one I argued for years, is that guys ranked 75-150 who stick around 4-5 years can be much more valuable than Top 25 guys who are one and done.
I don't disagree with you, but with the amount of transfers now, I wonder how many of those top 75-150 guys actually stick around for 3 or 4 years.

The phrase 1 and done is going to be more than just leaving to go to the NBA I'm afraid.
 

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
24,546
Likes
20,391
I think it's a wash. I wouldn't have traded Springer for Kispert.

I mean as many others have said in this thread, the freshmen weren't the problem. Fulky was a no show this season. Pons was elite on defense but didn't provide much offensively. Bailey was reliably inconsistent on offense and not good defensively. It was the upperclassmen who drug this team down.

I also wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison in that one post. I was just pointing out the ludicrous nature of suggesting a Top 75 player is some under-valued diamond in the rough. Butler was a highly regarded prospect from the start. That was my only point.
You have to think bigger picture, though. For all of Springer’s talent, he gave us one year, and it was essentially wasted in what was collectively a disappointing season as a team relative to expectations (fair or not). Kispert has given Gonzaga 4 years worth of contribution, 2 all-conference seasons, and a conference POY season. He provided veteran leadership and experience, two things that Springer couldn’t despite his talent.
 

TheMookieMonster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,289
Likes
12,601
You have to think bigger picture, though. For all of Springer’s talent, he gave us one year, and it was essentially wasted in what was collectively a disappointing season as a team relative to expectations (fair or not). Kispert has given Gonzaga 4 years worth of contribution, 2 all-conference seasons, and a conference POY season. He provided veteran leadership and experience, two things that Springer couldn’t despite his talent.
I thought we were just talking about this one season. If it’s “whose career do you want” then obviously it’s Kispert 10 times out of 10. But, I don’t necessarily think this one season would have been different at all if you swap the two out. Our biggest issue was in the post and Kispert can’t change that.
 

VolGee4

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2012
Messages
22,143
Likes
19,761
I’ll phrase it this way, would you have traded Jaden Springer for Corey Kispert? Do you think if we make that trade we win more or less games?
Hate to say it, but I would take Kispert’s 3 point percentage with his volume of shots over anyone on our team. I was thinking just this year, but obviously 4 years would be better.
 

cncchris33

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
24,546
Likes
20,391
I thought we were just talking about this one season. If it’s “whose career do you want” then obviously it’s Kispert 10 times out of 10. But, I don’t necessarily think this one season would have been different at all if you swap the two out. Our biggest issue was in the post and Kispert can’t change that.
The post and an absence of consistent outside shooting. Kispert is a career 41% outside shooter who hit 270 career 3s. He also averaged 5 rpg as a SR at 6-7, 220 lbs. He isn’t a true post presence, especially offensively, but he can hit the boards pretty well for a predominantly perimeter-oriented player.
 

TheMookieMonster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2015
Messages
5,289
Likes
12,601
Hard to say the notion is stupid with what the last 5 years has taught us

Maybe you are a slow leaner I guess
You’re right. Gonzaga shouldn’t have accepted the commitment of Jalen Suggs. That type of one-and-done talent wasn’t necessary and didn’t at all put them over the edge and make them a national title game team.

The Gonzaga model is the model to mimic if experienced, 3-4 year players is what you think is most important AND even Gonzaga accepts commitments from one-and-done players like Suggs and Hunter Salis. It’s what puts them over the edge.
 
Likes: Maxwell865

BruinVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2011
Messages
59,541
Likes
27,491
You’re right. Gonzaga shouldn’t have accepted the commitment of Jalen Suggs. That type of one-and-done talent wasn’t necessary and didn’t at all put them over the edge and make them a national title game team.

The Gonzaga model is the model to mimic if experienced, 3-4 year players is what you think is most important AND even Gonzaga accepts commitments from one-and-done players like Suggs and Hunter Salis. It’s what puts them over the edge.
Gonzaga is a different animal due to their schedule. The desperately need to find a way to play challenging games late in the season. It’s hard to think their model is the end all be all because they really don’t play anyone that is even remotely close to them after conference schedule starts.
 

VN Store


Sponsors
 

Top