Page 27 of 43

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:42 pm
by EVCat
NYCat wrote:
There's a reason elite PGs don't want to come to Arizona and run this offense. Not very fun.
This narrative has created its own momentum on this board, but isn't really rooted in truth at the player level. We run a slower pace so because we want something the players must feel the same and that's the problem even though we had PGs all the way through TJ and know what happened with PJC and family...

This offense is as open as the PG allows it to be. And the NBA game is very much about two man action (sounds hot, right?) and sets as well as spacing, all of which are utilized in this offense. The amount of leash given is equal to the amount of bravado and ability the point has. Momo used to jet up and down the floor. So did Lyons. Hell...Lyons often did everything. There is plenty of freedom in this system, and point guards are far better showcased with structure and playmaking offenses. Wings love to run/jump/dunk/mean mug. Point guards love coming off screens and delivering a pass to a cutter or post/re-post or the dozens of other sets in half-court offense. Sure, they love to get out and run, too, but the great PG is going to look to show play making ability in something other than transition and early offense.

I've never heard hint of a PG recruit avoiding Arizona because we are not fun.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:53 pm
by Spaceman Spiff
EVCat wrote:
NYCat wrote:
There's a reason elite PGs don't want to come to Arizona and run this offense. Not very fun.
This narrative has created its own momentum on this board, but isn't really rooted in truth at the player level. We run a slower pace so because we want something the players must feel the same and that's the problem even though we had PGs all the way through TJ and know what happened with PJC and family...

This offense is as open as the PG allows it to be. And the NBA game is very much about two man action (sounds hot, right?) and sets as well as spacing, all of which are utilized in this offense. The amount of leash given is equal to the amount of bravado and ability the point has. Momo used to jet up and down the floor. So did Lyons. Hell...Lyons often did everything. There is plenty of freedom in this system, and point guards are far better showcased with structure and playmaking offenses. Wings love to run/jump/dunk/mean mug. Point guards love coming off screens and delivering a pass to a cutter or post/re-post or the dozens of other sets in half-court offense. Sure, they love to get out and run, too, but the great PG is going to look to show play making ability in something other than transition and early offense.

I've never heard hint of a PG recruit avoiding Arizona because we are not fun.
That gets hinted at constantly by about 4 posters on this site. It relies on the logic that point guards love running, but guys like Aaron Gordon and Nick Johnson would rather grind it out in the Four Corners.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:49 pm
by gumby
Yeah, it is a bit baffling that PGs would be turned off, but SGs and small forwards would be turned on.

Momo, Nick, Josiah, Mark, Gabe, TJ, Stan, Rondae, Aaron, Allonzo, Ray, Rawle, Kobi and -- coming soon -- Brandon, Alex (and, perhaps, Brian) all signed up for some brand of hoops that is offensive to elite point guards?

Could some proponent of this explain, please?

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:16 pm
by midnightx
gumby wrote:Yeah, it is a bit baffling that PGs would be turned off, but SGs and small forwards would be turned on.

Momo, Nick, Josiah, Mark, Gabe, TJ, Stan, Rondae, Aaron, Allonzo, Ray, Rawle, Kobi and -- coming soon -- Brandon, Alex (and, perhaps, Brian) all signed up for some brand of hoops that is offensive to elite point guards?

Could some proponent of this explain, please?
It is a bit baffling.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:23 pm
by Spaceman Spiff
gumby wrote:Yeah, it is a bit baffling that PGs would be turned off, but SGs and small forwards would be turned on.

Momo, Nick, Josiah, Mark, Gabe, TJ, Stan, Rondae, Aaron, Allonzo, Ray, Rawle, Kobi and -- coming soon -- Brandon, Alex (and, perhaps, Brian) all signed up for some brand of hoops that is offensive to elite point guards?

Could some proponent of this explain, please?
I'll offer my real thoughts. Our history is a reflection of the following things:

1. Generally, a true PG is the rarest recruiting commodity. That forms the backbone of my opinion, that PG supply is generally lower, so the market is less tolerant of error.

2. Momo and Mayes were products of necessity. Momo was in a class where we truly had no one prior to SC's implosion. Mayes was without the benefit of Miller having time to build ties. Mayes was rated in the 120's, so he wasn't really a bust, just that he never delivered on his freshman promise.

3. Josiah was a miss that hurt a lot. Not only did he steer the NIT ship, he shaved our chance to get another PG in the 2012 class. That meant we had to pull the trigger on Lyons, who was always playing out of position.

4. TJ was a major coup. We tend to discount this one, but he was a player from a midmajor without great stats. If we criticize Miller for other things, TJ was a home run. It wasn't like we had competition for him either. He was a diamond in the rough. The only downside of TJ was that we really couldn't recruit into the 2013 class because it became known he was the starter, and Miller had no PT to sell to recruits.

5. PJC was not a great investment. We took a flyer that he would get bigger and develop. That has not really happened. It becomes worse when you figure that we didn't really recruit a PG his soph year beyond a developmental guy in Simon. I will say, I was optimistic about PJC after his freshman year. He just has never evolved beyond his flaws.

And that is our history.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:18 pm
by NYCat
19 ppg, 3.7 apg

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:40 pm
by ASUHATER!
NYCat wrote: 19 ppg, 3.7 apg
I assume he'd have to sit out all of 2017/2018? But he is a 1st team all conference player from a not super terrible conference

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:02 pm
by NYCat
Sit out this year, which means he could play 18/19. But UA has a good chance with Brandon Williams in '18 and maybe someone better now that Romar will be here.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 9:05 pm
by ChooChooCat
He's from Virginia and his coach at Rice is now the head man at VCU.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:16 pm
by zonagrad
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
gumby wrote:Yeah, it is a bit baffling that PGs would be turned off, but SGs and small forwards would be turned on.

Momo, Nick, Josiah, Mark, Gabe, TJ, Stan, Rondae, Aaron, Allonzo, Ray, Rawle, Kobi and -- coming soon -- Brandon, Alex (and, perhaps, Brian) all signed up for some brand of hoops that is offensive to elite point guards?

Could some proponent of this explain, please?
I'll offer my real thoughts. Our history is a reflection of the following things:

1. Generally, a true PG is the rarest recruiting commodity. That forms the backbone of my opinion, that PG supply is generally lower, so the market is less tolerant of error.

2. Momo and Mayes were products of necessity. Momo was in a class where we truly had no one prior to SC's implosion. Mayes was without the benefit of Miller having time to build ties. Mayes was rated in the 120's, so he wasn't really a bust, just that he never delivered on his freshman promise.

3. Josiah was a miss that hurt a lot. Not only did he steer the NIT ship, he shaved our chance to get another PG in the 2012 class. That meant we had to pull the trigger on Lyons, who was always playing out of position.

4. TJ was a major coup. We tend to discount this one, but he was a player from a midmajor without great stats. If we criticize Miller for other things, TJ was a home run. It wasn't like we had competition for him either. He was a diamond in the rough. The only downside of TJ was that we really couldn't recruit into the 2013 class because it became known he was the starter, and Miller had no PT to sell to recruits.

5. PJC was not a great investment. We took a flyer that he would get bigger and develop. That has not really happened. It becomes worse when you figure that we didn't really recruit a PG his soph year beyond a developmental guy in Simon. I will say, I was optimistic about PJC after his freshman year. He just has never evolved beyond his flaws.

And that is our history.
Pretty good summation of our point guard history. I'll add that TJ was heavily recruited by Virginia when he announced he was transferring from Duquesne. It was between Bennett & Miller. And Miller won. I'm still trying to wrap my head around Fultz going to UW despite the fact that he was from Maryland and UW had not made the tourney since 2011 and had a pretty thin roster as well. Doesn't make sense, especially Fultz probably knowing he was a "one and done" player anyway.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:37 am
by gumby
ChooChooCat wrote:He's from Virginia and his coach at Rice is now the head man at VCU.
So you're saying there's a chance?

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:51 am
by gumby
Spaceman Spiff wrote:
gumby wrote:Yeah, it is a bit baffling that PGs would be turned off, but SGs and small forwards would be turned on.

Momo, Nick, Josiah, Mark, Gabe, TJ, Stan, Rondae, Aaron, Allonzo, Ray, Rawle, Kobi and -- coming soon -- Brandon, Alex (and, perhaps, Brian) all signed up for some brand of hoops that is offensive to elite point guards?

Could some proponent of this explain, please?
I'll offer my real thoughts. Our history is a reflection of the following things:

1. Generally, a true PG is the rarest recruiting commodity. That forms the backbone of my opinion, that PG supply is generally lower, so the market is less tolerant of error.
It's this. That traditional PG is trending downward ... in college ... because the NBA has changed. The best last year?

Lonzo Ball and D'Aaron Fox -- both have good size for the position and are super-talented and athletic.

Others:

Fultz -- Can he really run an offense? Remains to be seen.
Williams-Goss -- borderline NBA chances ... took four years to blossom.
Joel Berry -- nice knowin' ya.
Frank Mason -- it was swell
Monte Morris -- later.

Only Ball fits the pass-first definition. Unless you can land such a rare commodity, it looks like the too-small-for NBA option is the way to go in college. They stick around longer and develop.

Next year in Pac-12: Pritchard, McLaughlin, Holder, um ... CU guy ... Utah guy ... UCLA guy ... UW guy ... Wazzu guy ... Charlie Moore! ... Stanford guy ... Beaver. Even a "can't miss" like Derryck Thornton is now a "show me."

One reason PJC doesn't look so awful to me. He certainly comes up short (badabing) when compared with our PGs from yesteryear but this isn't yesteryear. We're not PGU.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:01 am
by SCCats
gumby wrote: Unless you can land such a rare commodity, it looks like the too-small-for NBA option is the way to go in college. They stick around longer and develop.
Yup. Find a guy that's around six foot tall (so not much NBA prospects/potential) who is a good pass first PG and an just above average shooter and just above average defender (or even better than that if you can).

Then two years later you find another guy just like that to add to your roster and keep doing that every other year, so that you always have either a junior and a freshman PG on your roster or a senior and sophomore PG on your roster (depending on what year of the cycle you are in).

Rinse and repeat.

And honestly I'd probably do the same thing with our Center position.

Then surround those cornerstones (at PG and C) with the high flying 2s, 3s and 4s that Miller seems very good at pulling

Roster issues solved.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:06 am
by the real dill
NYCat wrote: 19 ppg, 3.7 apg
I put this in the other thread, but I'll leave it here too. Rivals has him ranked as the 3rd best transfer prospect:

3. Marcus Evans: The most productive transfer this spring, Evans, a native of Virginia Beach, Va., has already been named as a first-team Conference USA member twice. Mike Rhoades, who left Rice to take the VCU head coaching job, will do his best to bring his former star with him, but a litany of other high-majors will do their best to land the 20-point-per-game scorer from last year.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:13 am
by Spaceman Spiff
SCCats wrote:
gumby wrote: Unless you can land such a rare commodity, it looks like the too-small-for NBA option is the way to go in college. They stick around longer and develop.
Yup. Find a guy that's around six foot tall (so not much NBA prospects/potential) who is a good pass first PG and an just above average shooter and just above average defender (or even better than that if you can).

Then two years later you find another guy just like that to add to your roster and keep doing that every other year, so that you always have either a junior and a freshman PG on your roster or a senior and sophomore PG on your roster (depending on what year of the cycle you are in).

Rinse and repeat.

And honestly I'd probably do the same thing with our Center position.

Then surround those cornerstones (at PG and C) with the high flying 2s, 3s and 4s that Miller seems very good at pulling

Roster issues solved.
Then you need to not recruit someone who will transfer or miss on an evaluation. Either one totally destroys the plan and you are trying to lure Mark Lyons with a grad transfer or someone this year.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:22 am
by SCCats
Spaceman Spiff wrote:Then you need to not recruit someone who will transfer or miss on an evaluation. Either one totally destroys the plan and you are trying to lure Mark Lyons with a grad transfer or someone this year.
Right. You recruit those kind of players and have those kind of discussions with them, the kind of discussions where you lay out your plan and make sure they are 100% on board with it before you offer a scholi.

If the high school kid says "Well I don't really want to be the backup PG for two years playing just 10 minutes a game" it's on to the next recruit. But these kids absolutely can be found, particularly so when you're offering eventual starters roles at high majors like Arizona.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:40 am
by Spaceman Spiff
SCCats wrote:
Spaceman Spiff wrote:Then you need to not recruit someone who will transfer or miss on an evaluation. Either one totally destroys the plan and you are trying to lure Mark Lyons with a grad transfer or someone this year.
Right. You recruit those kind of players and have those kind of discussions with them, the kind of discussions where you lay out your plan and make sure they are 100% on board with it before you offer a scholi.

If the high school kid says "Well I don't really want to be the backup PG for two years playing just 10 minutes a game" it's on to the next recruit. But these kids absolutely can be found, particularly so when you're offering eventual starters roles at high majors like Arizona.
Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I see a lot of flaws there. First, I don't think a ton of players are cool with being told they're backups. Most top 200 recruits have been stars and leaders since they picked up a basketball.

Next, it presumes that even if a kid says he's cool with it, it means he is. No homesickness will creep in, no dissatisfaction, just development.

Then, it presumes everyone works out. Look at our 50-100 recruits. They are not all hits. Recently, guys like Pitts, York, Parrom, etc have come through just on the wing. It's a 50% rate of producing starters. Maybe a bit higher.

Miss on any one of these steps, and you have 2 years without a starting level pg.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 8:57 am
by NYCat
SCCats wrote: Then surround those cornerstones (at PG and C) with the high flying 2s, 3s and 4s that Miller seems very good at pulling

Roster issues solved.
See that's the problem, Miller's system works with guys who are long, versatile, can defend and can play multiple - the 2 & 3 or 3 & 4.

Guys that are 6'6-6'8.

He had Ray Smith, and although he got injured he should've kept recruiting guys behind him to play these positions. And Ferguson went down under.

The problem is the '14 & '15 teams had these types, but really were missing quick, dynamic guards and shooters. (Even Parom, Solo were better fit). Those teams were built on length, athleticism, defense. But then Miller overcorrected on that and went full of guards these last couple of years.

Brandon Randolph in this class fills that roll, and he can also shoot. Hypothetically, Emmanuel Akot & Taeshon Cherry (maybe Ira Lee) fill these spots that the Miller system needs.

Randolph can play 2/3, Cherry 3/4, Akot 3 but could probably play 2/4 if needed. Maybe add another lower rated guy who'll stay longer.

That's length, athleticism, defense. Now just add what the '14 & '15 teams needed, quick guards and shooters.

There aren't true centers or point guards anymore, it'll be hard to find one if you keep looking in the past.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:47 am
by rgdeuce
Well, the 14 team had Nick Johnson, and I would argue that he was as quick and explosive as just about any 2 in the country at the time. Not to mention he was a good shooter and an All American. Stanley Johnson was on a 15 team and he was quick himself, plus had the strength to go with it.

The issue with those teams, IMO, is we did not have enough shooting because both Rondae and Gordon played significant minutes at positions where great shooting is expected. Our best shooters statistically in 14 were Pitts and York, both bench guys who you could not rely on for anything else. NJ shot a respectable number considering he was a high volume guy, but after Bash went down, we were much easier to defend when you could sag off Rondae and AG, effectively crowding the paint for Zeus and making help more available if TJ and NJ put the ball on the floor. Those guys shrunk the floor. The 15 team, you lose NJ and get Stanley, who was not nearly the polished offensive player and veteran as NJ. Again, relying a lot on Gabe and Pitts to be the outside guys who were still liabilities or at best average in every other area. Teams could still sag off Rondae, and though we got Bash back, he wasn't a Grant Jerrett type who could fully stretch out to the 3 all the time, nor knock them down at the same rate. Bash was nice wand the team really looked good offensively when he was assertive offensively, but we all know that was only the case some of the time and he would play Whodini a lot. Stanley shot respectable numbers from 3 but remember he had a lot of confidence issues outside at one point and wasn't the most consistent shooter. Both of those teams either needed a Grant Jerrett (knockdown shooter at the 4 to compensate for losing a shooter at the wing) or a Rawle Alkins (well rounded guy who isn't a shoot only guy like York or Pitts) and it would have been a wrap.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:55 am
by Spaceman Spiff
NYCat wrote:
SCCats wrote: Then surround those cornerstones (at PG and C) with the high flying 2s, 3s and 4s that Miller seems very good at pulling

Roster issues solved.
See that's the problem, Miller's system works with guys who are long, versatile, can defend and can play multiple - the 2 & 3 or 3 & 4.

Guys that are 6'6-6'8.

He had Ray Smith, and although he got injured he should've kept recruiting guys behind him to play these positions. And Ferguson went down under.

The problem is the '14 & '15 teams had these types, but really were missing quick, dynamic guards and shooters. (Even Parom, Solo were better fit). Those teams were built on length, athleticism, defense. But then Miller overcorrected on that and went full of guards these last couple of years.

Brandon Randolph in this class fills that roll, and he can also shoot. Hypothetically, Emmanuel Akot & Taeshon Cherry (maybe Ira Lee) fill these spots that the Miller system needs.

Randolph can play 2/3, Cherry 3/4, Akot 3 but could probably play 2/4 if needed. Maybe add another lower rated guy who'll stay longer.

That's length, athleticism, defense. Now just add what the '14 & '15 teams needed, quick guards and shooters.

There aren't true centers or point guards anymore, it'll be hard to find one if you keep looking in the past.
Dusan is a true center. He was born about 25 years too late.

I feel like Ray's injuries get ignored by Miller haters. He was slated as our starting SF for two straight years, we didn't directly recruit over him (unless you count Tollefsen or Ferguson, who I always thought were risks we took thinking Ray would be there) and both years, we had a hole there.

It's just a major loss that has handicapped us two years in a row.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:11 pm
by NYCat
Yeah but the point is ideally, you would have 3-4 guys that 6'6-6'8 that can play multiple positions (versatile), have length, and can defend. That's an ideal Miller team, you have to have the talent to run it. Not just one.

Even if Smith stays healthy that's just one guy that fills that roll. Then next year only Ferguson would be added if Smith doesn't go pro after one year. We pretty much need guys like Parrom, Solo and add a Gordon or RHJ every year to solidify it.

Then add shooters and quick guards.

Like I said, the '18-'19 team (and maybe the year after) has the makings of a ideal Miller team. Randolph, Akot, Cherry, and maybe Lee.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:37 pm
by HiCat
NYCat wrote:http://allsportstucson.com/2017/03/09/a ... -wildcats/

Gershon says Bowen is waiting to see if Trier does leave which we knew, but it's interesting that Sparty is out of it. Down to Creighton, Arizona.
Who knows??
https://spartanavenue.com/2017/04/06/mi ... arizona/5/" target="_blank

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:46 pm
by EVCat
Spaceman Spiff wrote:I feel like Ray's injuries get ignored by Miller haters. He was slated as our starting SF for two straight years, we didn't directly recruit over him (unless you count Tollefsen or Ferguson, who I always thought were risks we took thinking Ray would be there) and both years, we had a hole there.

It's just a major loss that has handicapped us two years in a row.
Excuses. Every team loses a player to 3 straight ACL tears and retirement as a freshman. You just have to adapt.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:54 pm
by EVCat
HiCat wrote:
NYCat wrote:http://allsportstucson.com/2017/03/09/a ... -wildcats/

Gershon says Bowen is waiting to see if Trier does leave which we knew, but it's interesting that Sparty is out of it. Down to Creighton, Arizona.
Who knows??
https://spartanavenue.com/2017/04/06/mi ... arizona/5/" target="_blank
What a hot mess of stupidity this article is.

First, Bridges likely won't be there.

Second, Creighton has about as much of a logjam at the 2 as MSU.

Third, trying to play it off like MSU is this All American laden roster while Bowen wants to be the man so he will go to thin rosters like Creighton or Arizona (even with the "if Trier leaves" caveat) is laugh out loud ridiculous. We have more with Randolph and Alkins and even Barcello than MSU has.

Talk about your myopic, self-centered "no basketball exists west of Lansing" tripe. Arizona is, by and large, considered the best returning team in the country, and this fool is talking about how Bowen should go to Arizona if he wants to be "the man" over a swiss cheese MSU roster.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 3:28 pm
by ChooChooCat
EVCat wrote:
HiCat wrote:
NYCat wrote:http://allsportstucson.com/2017/03/09/a ... -wildcats/

Gershon says Bowen is waiting to see if Trier does leave which we knew, but it's interesting that Sparty is out of it. Down to Creighton, Arizona.
Who knows??
https://spartanavenue.com/2017/04/06/mi ... arizona/5/" target="_blank
What a hot mess of stupidity this article is.

First, Bridges likely won't be there.

Second, Creighton has about as much of a logjam at the 2 as MSU.

Third, trying to play it off like MSU is this All American laden roster while Bowen wants to be the man so he will go to thin rosters like Creighton or Arizona (even with the "if Trier leaves" caveat) is laugh out loud ridiculous. We have more with Randolph and Alkins and even Barcello than MSU has.

Talk about your myopic, self-centered "no basketball exists west of Lansing" tripe. Arizona is, by and large, considered the best returning team in the country, and this fool is talking about how Bowen should go to Arizona if he wants to be "the man" over a swiss cheese MSU roster.
Bowen is a 3, but every thing else is dead on.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2017 9:01 pm
by Spaceman Spiff
I mean, I don't think we have a chance, but Duval really looks good in the Hoop Summit. I can dream, right?

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:02 am
by NYCat
Could decide Wednesday (if not end of April), down to 2 schools.
Chief is probably gone, so need to land McCoy or Jeter or grad transfer

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:32 am
by UAEebs86
NYCat wrote:Could decide Wednesday (if not end of April), down to 2 schools.


Chief is probably gone, so need to land McCoy or Jeter or grad transfer

Is Chance still attending classes? Signing with an agent or blowing off school would be so stupid at this point.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:16 am
by zonagrad
It's not like there aren't examples of leaving early and and staying four years: Exhibit A is Grant Jarrett and exhibit B is Channing Frye. Or Solomon Hill. If you are guaranteed being picked high, stay in school and work on your game. You'll be better off in the long run. It seems so obvious.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:20 am
by NYCat
Last I checked his Snap he was still in LA, guess we'll see if it was just a week or if he's done. If keeps missing classes he'll be academically ineligible next year, so gone anyway.

If we land McCoy (outside shot), he's definitely gone.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:22 am
by ChooChooCat
zonagrad wrote:It's not like there aren't examples of leaving early and and staying four years: Exhibit A is Grant Jarrett and exhibit B is Channing Frye. Or Solomon Hill. If you are guaranteed being picked high, stay in school and work on your game. You'll be better off in the long run. It seems so obvious.
This is the guidelines/logic that well advised players use:

Freshman - If you're lotto you go - Lauri Markkanen logic
Sophomore - If you're 1st round you go - Reportedly Allonzo Trier logic
Junior - If returning could only hurt your stock or if following year's draft is deeper and you're not likely to improve your stock you go - Nick Johnson logic

Kobi Simmons and if rumors are to be believed Chance Comanche are not following this well placed logic.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:26 am
by UAEebs86
ChooChooCat wrote:
zonagrad wrote:It's not like there aren't examples of leaving early and and staying four years: Exhibit A is Grant Jarrett and exhibit B is Channing Frye. Or Solomon Hill. If you are guaranteed being picked high, stay in school and work on your game. You'll be better off in the long run. It seems so obvious.
This is the guidelines/logic that well advised players use:

Freshman - If you're lotto you go - Lauri Markkanen logic
Sophomore - If you're 1st round you go - Reportedly Allonzo Trier logic
Junior - If returning could only hurt your stock or if following year's draft is deeper and you're not likely to improve your stock you go - Nick Johnson logic

Kobi Simmons and if rumors are to be believed Chance Comanche are not following this well placed logic.

Sounds like Kobi and Chance are following the Brandon Ashley logic - I'm tired of going to school.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:41 am
by YoDeFoe
Why do I keep hearing "Chance is probably gone" without any back-up for why that's true.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:54 am
by ChooChooCat
YoDeFoe wrote:Why do I keep hearing "Chance is probably gone" without any back-up for why that's true.
If he gets a 2nd round promise he's gone.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:03 pm
by NYCat
Guess he is done with school if he's willing to leave for a 2nd round future in the G league.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:15 pm
by az91
If Chance is done with school, he should go pro. He could probably play overseas. I doubt he gets drafted.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 12:40 pm
by YoDeFoe
Here's the knock on Chance:

He doesn't rebound, block shots, or get putbacks. His standing reach is probably higher than anyone he plays against, yet he was fourth on the team in putbacks and OReb % behind 6-5 Rawle Alkins. That and his 5 fouls called per 40 minutes.

Chance doesn't have the lower body strength or the toughness to fight down low for boards without picking up fouls. That shit doesn't get easier at the next level. If he spent the summer eating 1,000k extra a day, deadlifting / box jumping / squatting - then spent the year cleaning the boards and crushing putbacks, he'd be a heck of a prospect.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:03 pm
by SCCats
ChooChooCat wrote:
YoDeFoe wrote:Why do I keep hearing "Chance is probably gone" without any back-up for why that's true.
If he gets a 2nd round promise he's gone.
:lol:

That's....wow. Just not good thought processes.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 1:06 pm
by UAEebs86
Any chance (no pun intended) CC is looking around because he knows McCoy is coming here?

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 2:52 pm
by EVCat
SCCats wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:
YoDeFoe wrote:Why do I keep hearing "Chance is probably gone" without any back-up for why that's true.
If he gets a 2nd round promise he's gone.
:lol:

That's....wow. Just not good thought processes.
It isn't as crazy as it used to be with the extra 2-way roster spots. The logic takes no more leap than "if i am a 2nd round pick I will get one of those new spots and i can develop just as well or better with pro D-League coaching on a team where development is the point and Ws and Ls are beside the point as I could at Arizona where i have to go to school, can only get limited coaching hours due to NCAA regs, and the coach is more worried about winning than my personal development".

With the D League and the new two-way roster spots, it is the equivalent of going AAA in baseball with a $75,000 annual salary that can triple if you get hot and get your number called. It sucks from the Arizona fan point of view, but for a kid not interested in school who is a 20 minute a game player in college, getting started now and going back to school later IF you bust out of the league makes plenty of sense. Why wait if projections say you are a 2nd rounder today and will be one in 2 years and the college team has PT issues? Approach it strictly as a career move...you can finish your degree and might command more salary but likely won't, or you can get into a fast track management development program which gets you in the tower downtown and grooming by the company's senior management, but costs some long term flexibility if it doesnt work out. A 2nd round guarantee is a guarenteed spot in this "program".

It is understandably alluring. I prefer the education/higher end option when so young. But i loved school and had no issue staying there forever. If you hate it and can get into your mgmt dvlp program, why not?

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:48 pm
by ChooChooCat
UAEebs86 wrote:Any chance (no pun intended) CC is looking around because he knows McCoy is coming here?
Who the hell knows? I doubt he does. MSU is convinced they're landing McCoy, everyone says he's an Oregon lean, if no one has a straight answer I don't see how Comanche would remotely have an inkling of that.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:39 pm
by catgrad97
Like BangkokWildcat, just tired of the revolving door in A Player's Program. If Chance had shown more skills and development while he was here, that would be different.

But any second-round promise is still mostly about his physical specs and not his ability against the best in his class, or any others, in college.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:24 am
by KaibabKat
Last year was the first time in the last fifteen years that we did not have a four year player leaving the program.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:22 am
by NYCat
This update says he's going to Oregon
This says he's going to MSU
Meanwhile Brandon McCoy retweeted this
Conclusion, nobody knows where he's going, sort of like Josh Jackson who MSU, UofA, KU thought was their's.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:27 pm
by ghostwhitehorse
NYCat wrote:This update says he's going to Oregon
This says he's going to MSU
Meanwhile Brandon McCoy retweeted this
Conclusion, nobody knows where he's going, sort of like Josh Jackson who MSU, UofA, KU thought was their's.
So. . .Aussies pro ball gets another one. Revenge for not playing Marty Barmettaloo enough. . . ./half

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:06 pm
by ChooChooCat
I'd much rather him go to MSU, but what the fuck ever at this point.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 3:02 pm
by Jwsisliving
ChooChooCat wrote:I'd much rather him go to MSU, but what the fuck ever at this point.
umm what :shock:

you must be joking. are you saying you'd rather have one of the top rated recruits go to MSU than us. He's a premier frontcourt player, we're probably losing CC, most of you have been bitching a lot about Dusan, and most think Pinder is basically a walkon level talent. :?

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 4:08 pm
by UAEebs86
Jwsisliving wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:I'd much rather him go to MSU, but what the fuck ever at this point.
umm what :shock:

you must be joking. are you saying you'd rather have one of the top rated recruits go to MSU than us. He's a premier frontcourt player, we're probably losing CC, most of you have been bitching a lot about Dusan, and most think Pinder is basically a walkon level talent. :?

He meant MSU would be better than Oregon.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:03 pm
by ChooChooCat
UAEebs86 wrote:
Jwsisliving wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:I'd much rather him go to MSU, but what the fuck ever at this point.
umm what :shock:

you must be joking. are you saying you'd rather have one of the top rated recruits go to MSU than us. He's a premier frontcourt player, we're probably losing CC, most of you have been bitching a lot about Dusan, and most think Pinder is basically a walkon level talent. :?

He meant MSU would be better than Oregon.
This.

If he was rumored to be favoring us recently like he has been Oregon for MONTHS then of course I'd be beside myself if he would choose MSU, but since we got Ayton the writing has been on the wall for a long time in this recruitment. I would much rather that beast be playing ball in the B1G than in the Pac-12 with a rival.

Also for the record I don't and have never subscribed to the "a strong Pac-12 is good for Arizona" narrative. I could give a crap less if the Pac-12 rolled out with rosters full of walk ons as long as Arizona is beasting.

Re: let's talk '17

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 5:14 pm
by prh
ChooChooCat wrote:
UAEebs86 wrote:
Jwsisliving wrote:
ChooChooCat wrote:I'd much rather him go to MSU, but what the fuck ever at this point.
umm what :shock:

you must be joking. are you saying you'd rather have one of the top rated recruits go to MSU than us. He's a premier frontcourt player, we're probably losing CC, most of you have been bitching a lot about Dusan, and most think Pinder is basically a walkon level talent. :?

He meant MSU would be better than Oregon.
This.

If he was rumored to be favoring us recently like he has been Oregon for MONTHS then of course I'd be beside myself if he would choose MSU, but since we got Ayton the writing has been on the wall for a long time in this recruitment. I would much rather that beast be playing ball in the B1G than in the Pac-12 with a rival.

Also for the record I don't and have never subscribed to the "a strong Pac-12 is good for Arizona" narrative. I could give a crap less if the Pac-12 rolled out with rosters full of walk ons as long as Arizona is beasting.
Agreed on bolded, especially since Gonzaga was always the perfect example of that and now we can't say that anymore.