Bear Down Wildcats

Beachcat97 wrote:Doutrive over Baker? Really?

Absolutely. I don't get the love for Baker, frankly. Doutrive is a superior offensive player in nearly every metric, and was a better defender as well. Doutrive is more athletic, a much better rebounder and younger. If it's a question between those two I'm taking Doutrive every time.

Beachcat97 wrote:Doutrive over Baker? Really?

Is it that crazy? Baker's supposed to be a better shooter, but Doutrive shot 45% on 3s to Baker's 31% last year, and 46% on 2s to Baker's 37%. Doutrive's got a year in the system, and as fans many of us enjoy the chance to watch guys develop over the course of their career. It's also not like anyone is hyping up Baker as a program-changer; it seems like at best he's expected to be a nice complementary piece who can hopefully space the floor and provide some steady PG play if needed.

+1 on Loomer's take.

Give me DD also.

Seems like Choo, maybe others, have hinted that the DD thing might not be 100% about ability, but also fit/chemistry?

Those can be real factors.

EVCat wrote:Seems like Choo, maybe others, have hinted that the DD thing might not be 100% about ability, but also fit/chemistry?

Those can be real factors.

I mean it is what it is guys, it's not a basketball deal.

Also in regards to shooting percentages from deep, yeah that's a fluke if I've ever seen one. Doutrive got most of his in garbage time anyways, he is nowhere near a 45% 3 point shooter. Baker is a much better shooter.

ChooChooCat wrote:

EVCat wrote:Seems like Choo, maybe others, have hinted that the DD thing might not be 100% about ability, but also fit/chemistry?

Those can be real factors.

I mean it is what it is guys, it's not a basketball deal.

Also in regards to shooting percentages from deep, yeah that's a fluke if I've ever seen one. Doutrive got most of his in garbage time anyways, he is nowhere near a 45% 3 point shooter. Baker is a much better shooter.

And that's fair; I certainly trust Miller to know how to put the roster together. Just as a fan looking purely at what I can see on the court, I would prefer Doutrive. I'm also wary based on how many times we're told someone's a great shooter but it never seems to translate to game situations. For a team that could have used some 3-point shooting, Kentucky used Baker less than we used Doutrive.

I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

York was better than streaky, with steady minutes he never shot less than 38% from deep. Shot 40% as a junior and 42% as a senior on very high volume. Lavender also shot 48% on 100 plus attempts his senior year, so yeah he proved his worth there too.

Baker only got 9 minutes per game last year coming off an injury. It's not like he had numerous opportunities to make it rain in rhythm. He doesn't lack for confidence though, which was Pitts's issue and is currently Barcello's.

Baker can defend and shoot 3s, Baker can play PG & SG. Armstrong can play SG & SF, I think Armstrong can do what Doutrive does and do it better while having better size and length and being able to play SF. In college I'd rather have combo guards instead of pure SGs, when one of the ball handler gets cold the other can take over - also harder to stop two capable ball handlers. Doutrive reminds of a less talented Kobi Simmons, he should be a PG but he's not and really doesn't have the skills you'd want in a straight SG (Trier) - nor is he a pure shooter.

Even with all that said I still like DD and think he would've been really good his upperclassmen years but sounds Devonaire isn't leaving because of bball reasons. He probably would've never sniffed Arizona if it wasn't for the FBI, there lies the problem.

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Oh no?

We can remember back to DW, yes?

SCCats wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Oh no?

We can remember back to DW, yes?

Derrick Williams? I mean, sure. I just don't think of him as a rifleman the way other AZ players have been. He was an excellent all around player who at times got very hot from deep.

Beachcat97 wrote:

SCCats wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Oh no?

We can remember back to DW, yes?

Derrick Williams? I mean, sure. I just don't think of him as a rifleman the way other AZ players have been. He was an excellent all around player who at times got very hot from deep.

What was DW’s 3 point shooting percentage for his sophomore year?

SCCats wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

SCCats wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Oh no?

We can remember back to DW, yes?

Derrick Williams? I mean, sure. I just don't think of him as a rifleman the way other AZ players have been. He was an excellent all around player who at times got very hot from deep.

What was DW’s 3 point shooting percentage for his sophomore year?

56.8%

SCCats wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

SCCats wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Oh no?

We can remember back to DW, yes?

Derrick Williams? I mean, sure. I just don't think of him as a rifleman the way other AZ players have been. He was an excellent all around player who at times got very hot from deep.

What was DW’s 3 point shooting percentage for his sophomore year?

Yes, but he only attempted 74 threes. His percentage was insane, but he was not a high volume 3pt shooter.

Salim attempted 160 (and hit 47%) in '03. Gardner attempted 199.

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

You have high standards, man. York was 40% and 42% from 3 his last two years. Lavender was 38% and 48%.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

You have high standards, man. York was 40% and 42% from 3 his last two years. Lavender was 38% and 48%.

York is a hell of a lot closer to Salim than anyone else. That 42% he put up was on 233 attempts. That's pretty nice.

I guess I'm talking about a high volume, high percentage shooter. Lavender's numbers aren't bad, but he was never someone who could be counted on to take and make a high number of threes.

Anyway, might be splitting hairs here. My only point is that we've had some guys over the years hyped as "great shooters" (or my favorite, "great practice shooters"), but they've rarely become reliable, high-volume shooters over the course of an entire season. Feels like we had more of those guys under Lute. It's not Miller's fault. He's clearly trying to find shooters.

SCCats wrote:What was DW’s 3 point shooting percentage for his sophomore year?

68% thru non-conference. Really fell apart in P12

loomer wrote:That's disappointing. I'd much rather have Doutrive than Baker.

The coaching staff clearly prefers Baker and I'm going to back their analysis.

Baker is described as extremely hard working, coachable, a dogged defender and a knock down shooter. 6'4" with a 6'7" wingspan, tough as nails, and apparently a really good kid who just hit a tough patch with the meniscus injury in his senior year championship game, missed his freshman year with the surgery and recovery, and then came back not really in the right headspace last year at UK and on a short leash.

He'll have a year to refine his body and to know that he's a guy who can be a leader of the team when he gets eligible next season. I think having the time to work on himself without the pressure that he's getting left behind, and without the distance from his father in LA, is going to make all the difference. See: Jeter, Chase.

After two years at UK, Baker should make for a heck of a practice squad player as well. My biggest concern in that we're thinning out depth this season to bet on next season (if we take Brown along with Baker)... though in that scenario we would still have 9 strong players (Hazzard, Mannion, Williams, Green, Armstrong, Lee, Gettings, Nnaji, Jeter) + Barcello and Koloko as insurance (here's hoping Barcello emerges as more than just that).

Would you rather have DD as the 10th man on this roster, likely to be uninterested in that role and exit in the next off-season, or Baker working on his body and taking a red shirt (essentially) until we need him next year?

YoDeFoe wrote:

loomer wrote: My biggest concern in that we're thinning out depth this season to bet on next season (if we take Brown along with Baker)... though in that scenario we would still have 9 strong players (Hazzard, Mannion, Williams, Green, Armstrong, Lee, Gettings, Nnaji, Jeter) + Barcello and Koloko as insurance (here's hoping Barcello emerges as more than just that).

Would you rather have DD as the 10th man on this roster, likely to be uninterested in that role and exit in the next off-season, or Baker working on his body and taking a red shirt (essentially) until we need him next year?

Miller rarely goes past a 7-8 player rotation if he can help it, so it probably is not a big deal, unless there are a series of injuries. Even with all of the talent on next season's roster, does anyone really think Miller is going to have a deep rotation?

If it is chemistry that's one thing, if it's attitude and work ethic, that is tougher.

and what about a grad transfer too?

midnightx wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

loomer wrote: My biggest concern in that we're thinning out depth this season to bet on next season (if we take Brown along with Baker)... though in that scenario we would still have 9 strong players (Hazzard, Mannion, Williams, Green, Armstrong, Lee, Gettings, Nnaji, Jeter) + Barcello and Koloko as insurance (here's hoping Barcello emerges as more than just that).

Would you rather have DD as the 10th man on this roster, likely to be uninterested in that role and exit in the next off-season, or Baker working on his body and taking a red shirt (essentially) until we need him next year?

Miller rarely goes past a 7-8 player rotation if he can help it, so it probably is not a big deal, unless there are a series of injuries. Even with all of the talent on next season's roster, does anyone really think Miller is going to have a deep rotation?

Yeah just thinking about injuries insurance, though you're right that Miller will settle on 7 or 8 guys that he likes and we'll have three or four more guys who could step in if need be. Hopefully that's plenty.

ChooChooCat wrote: mean it is what it is guys, it's not a basketball deal.

well there in no point in talking about it if you aren't gonna say what the issue is.

Also in regards to shooting percentages from deep, yeah that's a fluke if I've ever seen one. Doutrive got most of his in garbage time anyways, he is nowhere near a 45% 3 point shooter. Baker is a much better shooter.

He might be a better shooter than DD but that doesn't mean he is any good of a shooter. Shot 31% his freshman year in college. 34% from 3pt both his junior and senior years in hs. I don't think there is any evidence he is a good shooter.

tricat wrote:And that's fair; I certainly trust Miller to know how to put the roster together.

the guy who played Ayton at pf and next to a slow-footed, non-shooting big nonetheless. Also gave a scholarship to Dylan Smith.

SunnyAZ wrote:

tricat wrote:And that's fair; I certainly trust Miller to know how to put the roster together.

the guy who played Ayton at pf and next to a slow-footed, non-shooting big nonetheless. Also gave a scholarship to Dylan Smith.

So... you don’t trust him to put together the roster?

What time is the “Fire Miller” protest in front of McKale you’re organizing?

Dusan has been best 3-point shooter in Miller era.

Lauri

Chicat wrote:

SunnyAZ wrote:

tricat wrote:And that's fair; I certainly trust Miller to know how to put the roster together.

the guy who played Ayton at pf and next to a slow-footed, non-shooting big nonetheless. Also gave a scholarship to Dylan Smith.

So... you don’t trust him to put together the roster?

What time is the “Fire Miller” protest in front of McKale you’re organizing?

also didn't get pgs cause pjc, ehhh

i am neither for or against a fire miller campaign

SunnyAZ wrote:

Chicat wrote:

SunnyAZ wrote:

tricat wrote:And that's fair; I certainly trust Miller to know how to put the roster together.

the guy who played Ayton at pf and next to a slow-footed, non-shooting big nonetheless. Also gave a scholarship to Dylan Smith.

So... you don’t trust him to put together the roster?

What time is the “Fire Miller” protest in front of McKale you’re organizing?

also didn't get pgs cause pjc, ehhh

i am neither for or against a fire miller campaign

But, I mean.... if he’s that shitty at his job..... why would you be on the fence?

97cats wrote:Lauri

No shit. How short is every one's memory here?

SunnyAZ wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote: mean it is what it is guys, it's not a basketball deal.

well there in no point in talking about it if you aren't gonna say what the issue is.

Sorry, Sunny, I just won't talk anymore.

SunnyAZ wrote:He might be a better shooter than DD but that doesn't mean he is any good of a shooter. Shot 31% his freshman year in college. 34% from 3pt both his junior and senior years in hs. I don't think there is any evidence he is a good shooter.

He shot much better on the AAU circuit and I'll take Gershon's word for it. He'll be fine.

Chicat wrote:But, I mean.... if he’s that shitty at his job..... why would you be on the fence?

I didn't say that lol. There are definitely better coaches out there and worse coaches. If we did fire him I don't know which side we would end up on. So I'm neutral.

ChooChooCat wrote:

SunnyAZ wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote: mean it is what it is guys, it's not a basketball deal.

well there in no point in talking about it if you aren't gonna say what the issue is.

Sorry, Sunny, I just won't talk anymore.

Fine. Be that way. I didn't want to know more anyways. (spin and exit dramatically).

But seriously...could you tell us more? ? No...never mind. I don't want to know







...

Penny Hardaway puts together a monster class out of the blue (or is it out of the green) with no coaching history and ESPN is quick to praise them as "top notch recruiters" while they continue to bash Arizona. The hypocrisy in college basketball is out of control and so infuriating.

SunnyAZ wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote: mean it is what it is guys, it's not a basketball deal.

well there in no point in talking about it if you aren't gonna say what the issue is.

Sometimes it isn't something tangible and specific. There doesn't have to be one particular thing causing separation. One clear "he is sleeping with the AD's wife" or "he wears white tube socks and sandals...not sliders, but SANDALS!!!" issue.

And even if there is...I would imagine if that is within the team, and the person posting has access, there would be a pretty direct line back saying "so in so said something...I saw it online".

And even without that, if there are differences/issues, airing specifics creates taking sides and running down the one at "fault". That can be pointless and cause a simple issue of fit to turn into a fan blame game.

gronk4heisman wrote:Penny Hardaway puts together a monster class out of the blue (or is it out of the green) with no coaching history and ESPN is quick to praise them as "top notch recruiters" while they continue to bash Arizona. The hypocrisy in college basketball is out of control and so infuriating.

They produce theater, not reporting.

See: Windhorst speculating that maybe Zion won't go to the NBA in this draft after all.
Anyways, Miller has been cast as the villain and Penny is one the ultimate "what if they stayed healthy" NBA figures so he's a hero.

YoDeFoe wrote:

gronk4heisman wrote:Penny Hardaway puts together a monster class out of the blue (or is it out of the green) with no coaching history and ESPN is quick to praise them as "top notch recruiters" while they continue to bash Arizona. The hypocrisy in college basketball is out of control and so infuriating.

They produce theater, not reporting.

See: Windhorst speculating that maybe Zion won't go to the NBA in this draft after all.

Anyways, Miller has been cast as the villain and Penny is one the ultimate "what if they stayed healthy" NBA figures so he's a hero.

Zion may have to take a pay cut with the rookie wage scale.

RJ is awesome

Memphis will be out of the tourney the first weekend.

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Markaanen was probably as good a shooter as I can remember. I guess Miller just forgot that when we lost to Xavier in the Sweet 16. Trier and Simmons have both attested this week to being limited by Miller's stubborn, restrictive, and antiquated coaching philosophy. Let the players play to their strengths or expect more march sadness.

Captain Obvious wrote:Trier and Simmons have both attested this week to being limited by Miller's stubborn, restrictive, and antiquated coaching philosophy.

They did not use those words. You did.

Captain Obvious wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Markaanen was probably as good a shooter as I can remember. I guess Miller just forgot that when we lost to Xavier in the Sweet 16. Trier and Simmons have both attested this week to being limited by Miller's stubborn, restrictive, and antiquated coaching philosophy. Let the players play to their strengths or expect more march sadness.

I think Miller is on record saying he wouldn’t disagree LM should have taken more shots. I also believe Miller probably mentioned getting him some shots but we will never know but I highly doubt he froze him out. At least Miller took the blame as opposed to Lute saying it was on the players so many times

azcat49 wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Markaanen was probably as good a shooter as I can remember. I guess Miller just forgot that when we lost to Xavier in the Sweet 16. Trier and Simmons have both attested this week to being limited by Miller's stubborn, restrictive, and antiquated coaching philosophy. Let the players play to their strengths or expect more march sadness.

I think Miller is on record saying he wouldn’t disagree LM should have taken more shots. I also believe Miller probably mentioned getting him some shots but we will never know but I highly doubt he froze him out. At least Miller took the blame as opposed to Lute saying it was on the players so many times

One of the many reasons you are top-of-class when it comes to posters on this board. You actually were around before-and-during the Lute years, and represent them as they were... as opposed to “how people want to remember them”.

Ensign Idiot can crow all he wants about Miller’s “antiquated coaching style” that wins conference championships nearly every other year. He’ll wear maroon and gold the moment we have a Steve Lavin hire that sends the program into perpetual anonymity. Which is not close to the worst we could do.

But please... let’s hear more from people who have read about “the Olson years” to tell those of us who lived them what they were actually like.

CLARIFICATION: What Lute accomplished her was nothing short of remarkable... but the romanticized and revisionist History that is perpetually circulated by fans who were not around at the time nothing short of laughable.

Harvey Specter wrote:

azcat49 wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Markaanen was probably as good a shooter as I can remember. I guess Miller just forgot that when we lost to Xavier in the Sweet 16. Trier and Simmons have both attested this week to being limited by Miller's stubborn, restrictive, and antiquated coaching philosophy. Let the players play to their strengths or expect more march sadness.

I think Miller is on record saying he wouldn’t disagree LM should have taken more shots. I also believe Miller probably mentioned getting him some shots but we will never know but I highly doubt he froze him out. At least Miller took the blame as opposed to Lute saying it was on the players so many times

One of the many reasons you are top-of-class when it comes to posters on this board. You actually were around before-and-during the Lute years, and represent them as they were... as opposed to “how people want to remember them”.

Ensign Idiot can crow all he wants about Miller’s “antiquated coaching style” that wins conference championships nearly every other year. He’ll wear maroon and gold the moment we have a Steve Lavin hire that sends the program into perpetual anonymity. Which is not close to the worst we could do.

But please... let’s hear more from people who have read about “the Olson years” to tell those of us who lived them what they were actually like.

CLARIFICATION: What Lute accomplished her was nothing short of remarkable... but the romanticized and revisionist History that is perpetually circulated by fans who were not around at the time nothing short of laughable.

THIS ^^^^^^^^

The same fans bitching about Miller underachieving with top talent would have railed against Lute back in the day. Do they realize Arizona had Chirs Mills, Sean Rooks, Khalid Reeves, Damon Stoudamire, etc... and failed to get out of the first round in '92 & '93?

Do they realize Lute had a player of the year in Jason Terry, a freshman in Richard Jefferson and AJ Bramlett in '99 and choked away a game vs. Oklahoma?

I'm a huge Lute fan -- but there was plenty of frustration during the early exits. And that made you cherish those Final Four runs even more.

zonagrad wrote:

Harvey Specter wrote:

azcat49 wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I'll second this wariness towards players reputed as "great shooters." This was Barcello. Pitts. Lavender.

Come to think of it: who is the most lights-out shooter of the Miller era? I can think of streaky guys (York, Trier), but Miller hasn't had a Salim-type player yet.

Markaanen was probably as good a shooter as I can remember. I guess Miller just forgot that when we lost to Xavier in the Sweet 16. Trier and Simmons have both attested this week to being limited by Miller's stubborn, restrictive, and antiquated coaching philosophy. Let the players play to their strengths or expect more march sadness.

I think Miller is on record saying he wouldn’t disagree LM should have taken more shots. I also believe Miller probably mentioned getting him some shots but we will never know but I highly doubt he froze him out. At least Miller took the blame as opposed to Lute saying it was on the players so many times

One of the many reasons you are top-of-class when it comes to posters on this board. You actually were around before-and-during the Lute years, and represent them as they were... as opposed to “how people want to remember them”.

Ensign Idiot can crow all he wants about Miller’s “antiquated coaching style” that wins conference championships nearly every other year. He’ll wear maroon and gold the moment we have a Steve Lavin hire that sends the program into perpetual anonymity. Which is not close to the worst we could do.

But please... let’s hear more from people who have read about “the Olson years” to tell those of us who lived them what they were actually like.

CLARIFICATION: What Lute accomplished her was nothing short of remarkable... but the romanticized and revisionist History that is perpetually circulated by fans who were not around at the time nothing short of laughable.

THIS ^^^^^^^^

The same fans bitching about Miller underachieving with top talent would have railed against Lute back in the day. Do they realize Arizona had Chirs Mills, Sean Rooks, Khalid Reeves, Damon Stoudamire, etc... and failed to get out of the first round in '92 & '93?

Do they realize Lute had a player of the year in Jason Terry, a freshman in Richard Jefferson and AJ Bramlett in '99 and choked away a game vs. Oklahoma?

I'm a huge Lute fan -- but there was plenty of frustration during the early exits. And that made you cherish those Final Four runs even more.

All that is true, but there was always a perception that there was a level of consistency that would remain intact. There were early round losses, but as a fan, you always knew there was hope moving forward, with a stable program (with a guarantee of a tournament appearance) and an influx of talent (as well as Lute's ability to develop players). Granted, it was an era where Lute kept most players for 3-4 years and did not have to deal with the kind of annual roster turnover Miller does in this current era. If anything, a faction of fans look back fondly at having a consistently great program without the recent drama and depleted rosters -- I don't think people are rewriting history and erasing the disappointments. It was distressful watching the early '89 exit, the underachieving '91-'93 squads loaded with talent, and the '05 elite eight collapse (perhaps the worst defeat in program history). But you are correct, the final four runs (and other deep tournament runs) were something to cherish, and relieved some of the pain from the early tournament exits.

If anything, a faction of fans look back fondly at having a consistently great program without the recent drama and depleted rosters

I think it's more like depleted roster. In 17-18, we had a top three preseason team with a top three freshman class and the #1 overall pick. 19-20, we'll have a top three recruiting class and see how high that takes us.

We had one depleted roster because the FBI and ESPN debacle gutted a recruiting class and our ability to reload. Other than that, the roster talent has been consistently high under Miller.

I have trouble dinging Miller's roster management for the FBI/ESPN issue just because of how truly unprecedented this is. It's not an overstatement to say we faced a situation no program ever has before.

In hindsight, how crazy does the '97 run look? Bibby was a freshman (albeit a very good one), and Terry didn't even start. Dickerson was the only other guy on that team who made any sort of noise in the NBA, but he had to retire prematurely due to injury. Simon wasn't good enough for the NBA, but he was our Kemba Walker that year.

Even if we'd only gotten to the FF that year, that too would've been a surprising outcome. Beating three #1 seeds and winning it all...so crazy. Even all these years later.

This is all to say: it happened because Lute achieved that consistency midnightx describes above. He kept the team competitive. Not necessarily dominant, but we were normally within striking distance. The roster was balanced, and our players tended to get better, the longer they stayed in the program. It may not feel like it right now, coming off such an ugly ass season, but Miller is doing the same thing.

Terry started in '97 prior to Simon returning from.his academic suspension. Terry willingly stepped aside so Simon could start. Guys were a different breed back then.

ChooChooCat wrote:Terry started in '97 prior to Simon returning from.his academic suspension. Terry willingly stepped aside so Simon could start. Guys were a different breed back then.

The timetable was very different then. Vince Carter got under 18 mpg and scored 7 ppg as a freshman, largely off the bench. Ademola Okulaja started over him.

Nowadays, the entire expectations are just so different. Fans would label him a bust after coming in a McD's AA. He'd probably have a few Jahvon Quinerly deleted tweets. What fans, coaches and players see as reasonable nowadays is very different.