Bear Down Wildcats

Beachcat97 wrote:I think this AZ team will be solid but probably not a league champion. Other teams have better returning players, like OR, Cal, and Ucla.

I'd say we'll finish 3rd or 4th and reach the NCAA tourney.

2nd at worst. You think Cal can beat us? They have two players

enfuego wrote:Arizona has a lot of talented perimeter players, but lack a true point guard who can lead your team to a title. Kobi is not a true point guard. Parker is not a title quality back-up.

Educate me on the crucial concept of a title quality backup point guard.

dcZONAfan wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I think this AZ team will be solid but probably not a league champion. Other teams have better returning players, like OR, Cal, and Ucla.

I'd say we'll finish 3rd or 4th and reach the NCAA tourney.

2nd at worst. You think Cal can beat us? They have two players

I may be overestimating Cal, but I do think OR and UCLA have better returning units than we do. I'd be surprised if those two didn't finish 1-2. I may also be overestimating UCLA, given that they finished 10th. Aside from the incoming class, what has changed?

OR looks like the only sure-thing. They lost some depth, but I'd expect them to be a top 10-ish team all year and make another run at the FF.

Beachcat97 wrote:

dcZONAfan wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:I think this AZ team will be solid but probably not a league champion. Other teams have better returning players, like OR, Cal, and Ucla.

I'd say we'll finish 3rd or 4th and reach the NCAA tourney.

2nd at worst. You think Cal can beat us? They have two players

I may be overestimating Cal, but I do think OR and UCLA have better returning units than we do. I'd be surprised if those two didn't finish 1-2. I may also be overestimating UCLA, given that they finished 10th. Aside from the incoming class, what has changed?

OR looks like the only sure-thing. They lost some depth, but I'd expect them to be a top 10-ish team all year and make another run at the FF.

This is a perfect example of college hoops fan being far too influenced by recruiting rankings.

Yes, UCLA has highly rated players. And, yes, a core of those highly rated players finished 10th in an incredibly weak conference. So what has changed? If Washington State had finished 10th but brought in a good new class, we wouldn't pick them above Arizona.

In no other sport would we take a team that absolutely looked like shit on the field/court/pitch and give them lingering credit for the fact that their shitty team was filled with players who recruiting services once said were the best at a lower level of play. Ignoring the actual performance and the remaining environmental factors and coaching staff.

UCLA finished 10th out of 12 teams in a really bad PAC 12. So,taking away the incoming classes, how does one figure UCLA has better returning players? Considering we return a number of key players...and the returners at UCLA finished 10th last year. Certainly a great freshman class can erase all of that. But we have every bit the incoming class. So we are down to elevating the returning starters from a 10th place team to being impactful enough to finish in front of us? How?

Because of their high school ratings.

Results matter. More than rankings. Coaching matters. Environment matters. UCLA has a shitty environment for winning college basketball games (low attendance, numerous distractions, unrealistic fan expectations based upon glory years decades ago that led them to firing a coach that took them to 3 straight Final Fours within 4 years). UCLA has a seriously below average coaching situation (their shitty environment left the once beast level UCLA program reaching for a mid major coach with more accomplishment as a player who not only failed on the big stage at his mid major, but failed in the ethical challenge of his coaching career at Iowa, and didn't win there, either. Add to that the fundy Christian at LA school mismatch in tone and booster fit, and one can only think that coaches must really be scared off of Westwood if this was what UCLA could pull). And UCLA, as currently rostered under "returning players" got slapped around by a conference at its absolute bottom for the last few years.

Their class ranking, tho...

EVCat wrote:This is a perfect example of college hoops fan being far too influenced by recruiting rankings.

Yes, UCLA has highly rated players. And, yes, a core of those highly rated players finished 10th in an incredibly weak conference. So what has changed? If Washington State had finished 10th but brought in a good new class, we wouldn't pick them above Arizona.

In no other sport would we take a team that absolutely looked like shit on the field/court/pitch and give them lingering credit for the fact that their shitty team was filled with players who recruiting services once said were the best at a lower level of play. Ignoring the actual performance and the remaining environmental factors and coaching staff.

UCLA finished 10th out of 12 teams in a really bad PAC 12. So,taking away the incoming classes, how does one figure UCLA has better returning players? Considering we return a number of key players...and the returners at UCLA finished 10th last year. Certainly a great freshman class can erase all of that. But we have every bit the incoming class. So we are down to elevating the returning starters from a 10th place team to being impactful enough to finish in front of us? How?

Because of their high school ratings.

Results matter. More than rankings. Coaching matters. Environment matters. UCLA has a shitty environment for winning college basketball games (low attendance, numerous distractions, unrealistic fan expectations based upon glory years decades ago that led them to firing a coach that took them to 3 straight Final Fours within 4 years). UCLA has a seriously below average coaching situation (their shitty environment left the once beast level UCLA program reaching for a mid major coach with more accomplishment as a player who not only failed on the big stage at his mid major, but failed in the ethical challenge of his coaching career at Iowa, and didn't win there, either. Add to that the fundy Christian at LA school mismatch in tone and booster fit, and one can only think that coaches must really be scared off of Westwood if this was what UCLA could pull). And UCLA, as currently rostered under "returning players" got slapped around by a conference at its absolute bottom for the last few years.

Their class ranking, tho...

I guess there's the added element of this sort of being a do-or-die year for Alford. If they finish out of the top 3 and/or miss the tournament, he's done. Many alums wanted him gone after last season, but his buy-out is insane. So you figure, maybe, just maybe, he'll rein in his chucker son this year and let Lonzo and others use their talents. 10th to the top 3 is a huge improvement, like Pac COY improvement, but I guess it's a thing where there's simply so much talent on that roster that it's getting harder and harder for a coach to f*** it up.

If UCLA isn't markedly improved, and if AZ's new guys don't live up to billing, OR could win the league without too much struggle. I still think Cal will be in the mix and possibly UW.

rgdeuce wrote:People are being a little rough on Kadeem, eh? In conference play, 3.3 apg to 1.8 TO, 8ppg on 45%fg and 35% 3pfg. He'll be one of our best defenders. We will have plenty of offense next year and plenty of guys who can create their own shots and hopefully keep their heads up if there is an open man when the defense reacts. He just needs to be steady, trim down his bad turnovers (half of which seemed to come on entry passes to low post players), and play D. He has to be less of a playmaker this year than he did last year. I saw a lot of good things from him last year. With more weapons and versatility, those drives to the cup are gonna be a lot easier. His shot will be better too. He was in his first season playing point, there is an expected improvement and he will be a senior. . Hes a bulldog.

TJ spoiled us. Bad. We forget how life was before him for quite a while.

I like him as a backup 2 which I think he will be next season.

Rawle cleared by NCAA:

https://bustingbrackets.com/2016/08/17/ ... ared-ncaa/" target="_blank

EVCat wrote:
This is a perfect example of college hoops fan being far too influenced by recruiting rankings.

Yes, UCLA has highly rated players. And, yes, a core of those highly rated players finished 10th in an incredibly weak conference. So what has changed?

UCLA finished 10th out of 12 teams in a really bad PAC 12. So,taking away the incoming classes, how does one figure UCLA has better returning players?

Their class ranking, tho...

What has changed is their incoming class and the fact they are adding a capable point guard to the rotation. How can you ignore the incoming class to predict how a team is going to perform? One of the big question marks for Arizona will be the point guard position, btw.

enfuego wrote: One of the big question marks for Arizona will be the point guard position, btw.

Kobi Simmons, PJC, and/or Kadeem Allen.

Beachcat97 wrote:

enfuego wrote: One of the big question marks for Arizona will be the point guard position, btw.

Kobi Simmons, PJC, and/or Kadeem Allen.

Kobi, Kadeem and maybe PJC. I don't know how the priority list does not go like that.

It's not tremendously settled, but it isn't like we lack talent. I'm more worried about the 5 than PG.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

enfuego wrote: One of the big question marks for Arizona will be the point guard position, btw.

Kobi Simmons, PJC, and/or Kadeem Allen.

Kobi, Kadeem and maybe PJC. I don't know how the priority list does not go like that.

It's not tremendously settled, but it isn't like we lack talent. I'm more worried about the 5 than PG.

It's DR, CC, and/or LM. We'll miss Zeus, but these three should suffice. We could really use a 5 in our '17 class.

Beachcat97 wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Beachcat97 wrote:

enfuego wrote: One of the big question marks for Arizona will be the point guard position, btw.

Kobi Simmons, PJC, and/or Kadeem Allen.

Kobi, Kadeem and maybe PJC. I don't know how the priority list does not go like that.

It's not tremendously settled, but it isn't like we lack talent. I'm more worried about the 5 than PG.

It's DR, CC, and/or LM. We'll miss Zeus, but these three should suffice. We could really use a 5 in our '17 class.

I worry about DR having to move his feet on D and Chance being physically and skillwise ready. I think Chance will be really good, I just am not sure it will be happening quite yet.

Rolling LM to 5 means we have to play Pinder a lot or stretch Ray to the 4 and deplete our perimeter rotation, so I'd rather have that as a last option.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:I worry about DR having to move his feet on D and Chance being physically and skillwise ready. I think Chance will be really good, I just am not sure it will be happening quite yet.

Rolling LM to 5 means we have to play Pinder a lot or stretch Ray to the 4 and deplete our perimeter rotation, so I'd rather have that as a last option.

CSM will figure out the defensive side, as he has before. We may not have the athletic bigs we've had in recent years (though I think CC and RS will be very good defensively), which could mean we press more and try to create turnovers or that we try some zone. I know Miller does not use a zone, but you have to figure out the best strategy given the roster. I'd like to see some versatility on the defensive side, if it turns out we're getting beaten going man to man for 40 minutes.

KS
AT
RS
LM
DR

KS
RA
AT
RS
CC

KA
AT
RA
CC
DR

These are just three possible starting fives. I didn't include PJC because the consensus is that he won't start this year.

Beachcat97 wrote:

enfuego wrote: One of the big question marks for Arizona will be the point guard position, btw.

Kobi Simmons, PJC, and/or Kadeem Allen.

Simmons is more combo, than point but true he can play point, but he is very wild and unproven. PJC is a marginal back up at best and at 5'2 is a defensive liability. Kadeem is a shooting guard and not someone I would think Miller would want leading the team into the tournament. Your post rotation is fine. You have rebounding and size and LM should contribute but will probably struggle a bit with the physicality of the college bigs he'll be going up against.

I'm not worried about our PG spot. We've got three guards with star potential (AT, RA, KS) and two more (KA, PJC) who can give us solid minutes while these other three rest. If we lose games this year because we're not sharing the ball enough or executing on offense, so be it.

This is not among the strongest AZ teams Miller has had, but we'll still finish top 3 in the league and reach the tourney. A league title or a deep tourney run would be surprising this year.

At the end of the day, we have a 5th-year senior, a junior, and a top 20 player in a loaded class fighting for two spots. It could be and has been much worse, and we have more talent around those guys than in times when it was worse.

enfuego wrote:

EVCat wrote:
This is a perfect example of college hoops fan being far too influenced by recruiting rankings.

Yes, UCLA has highly rated players. And, yes, a core of those highly rated players finished 10th in an incredibly weak conference. So what has changed?

UCLA finished 10th out of 12 teams in a really bad PAC 12. So,taking away the incoming classes, how does one figure UCLA has better returning players?

Their class ranking, tho...

What has changed is their incoming class and the fact they are adding a capable point guard to the rotation. How can you ignore the incoming class to predict how a team is going to perform? One of the big question marks for Arizona will be the point guard position, btw.

I'm not. The comment was they have a better returning unit, and I said no, that is really not the case. I note the class coming in but responded to the idea of better returning players, and also note the serious deficiencies in the program...the class is not overwhelming enough to overcome their serious deficiencies.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basket ... oot-injury" target="_blank

I'lll put this here because I don't see a 2016-17 Pac thread yet. OR has their own injury to overcome.

Ouch. Sucks for Brooks.

Roster updated, we're gettin closer fellas

http://www.arizonawildcats.com/roster.aspx?path=mbball" target="_blank

did you know PJC grew an inch?

97cats wrote:did you know PJC grew an inch?

97: what's the word on Comanche? Seems like he could be a key player for us this year.

97cats wrote:did you know PJC grew an inch?

I find that difficult to believe.

Main Event wrote:Roster updated, we're gettin closer fellas

http://www.arizonawildcats.com/roster.aspx?path=mbball" target="_blank

Thanks MainMan.

Look forward to seeing the less-heralded new guys. especially Smith, Pinder and Denny. All should add a lot to practices and it wouldn't be surprising if one or more gets surprising minutes.

Hope we get some observations on pre-official practices. You gonna be on this Main?

Can't wait for this season!

EOCT wrote:

Main Event wrote:Roster updated, we're gettin closer fellas

http://www.arizonawildcats.com/roster.aspx?path=mbball" target="_blank

Thanks MainMan.

Look forward to seeing the less-heralded new guys. especially Smith, Pinder and Denny. All should add a lot to practices and it wouldn't be surprising if one or more gets surprising minutes.

Hope we get some observations on pre-official practices. You gonna be on this Main?

Can't wait for this season!

Smith can't play this season and Denny just tore his knee up and is done for the year.

EOCT wrote:

Main Event wrote:Roster updated, we're gettin closer fellas

http://www.arizonawildcats.com/roster.aspx?path=mbball" target="_blank

Thanks MainMan.

Look forward to seeing the less-heralded new guys. especially Smith, Pinder and Denny. All should add a lot to practices and it wouldn't be surprising if one or more gets surprising minutes.

Hope we get some observations on pre-official practices. You gonna be on this Main?

Can't wait for this season!

I wish man lol

I'm really curious to see Pinder as well though, would love if he could just be a Jessie Perry type player

Chicat wrote:

97cats wrote:did you know PJC grew an inch?

I find that difficult to believe.

Growing his hair up like Hazzard did.

97cats wrote:did you know PJC grew an inch?

That's what she said.

Chicat wrote: I find that difficult to believe.

you and me both, Playboy -- you and me both.

and as an aside, it doesnt make one shred of difference anyway.

Not only is the UA using a shorter measuring stick, they are using a lighter scale too.

Or Smith is just a fatty now since he can't walk.


http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... aign=share" target="_blank

-- Ray Smith's weight went from 180 when he arrived in 2015 to 220 pounds.

-- Allonzo Trier went from 6-4 and 190 upon arriving to 6-5 and 205.

-- Parker Jackson-Cartwright went from 5-10 a year ago to 5-11 while Chance Comanche grew from 6-10 to 6-11.

97cats wrote:

Chicat wrote: I find that difficult to believe.

you and me both, Playboy -- you and me both.

and as an aside, it doesnt make one shred of difference anyway.

No it does not. He is who he is.

Merkin wrote:Not only is the UA using a shorter measuring stick, they are using a lighter scale too.

Or Smith is just a fatty now since he can't walk.


http://tucson.com/sports/arizonawildcat ... aign=share" target="_blank

-- Ray Smith's weight went from 180 when he arrived in 2015 to 220 pounds.

-- Allonzo Trier went from 6-4 and 190 upon arriving to 6-5 and 205.

-- Parker Jackson-Cartwright went from 5-10 a year ago to 5-11 while Chance Comanche grew from 6-10 to 6-11.

I'm not sure I buy that putting an inch on PJC makes him 5'11. Ray apparently is going to return looking like the Incredible Hulk, though, so we have that going for us.

That extra 40lbs just sews up Ray as predominantly playing the 4 this year IMO.

On the 1290 radio show they were talking about how Ray has bulked up and will most likely play the 4.

ASUHATER! wrote:On the 1290 radio show they were talking about how Ray has bulked up and will most likely play the 4.

It's like they've never heard Miller gush over Ray's size at the 3. There are only 100 double entendres in that other thread that they need to look up.

Chicat wrote:No it does not. He is who he is.

somewhere the late Denny Green is smiling at this comment

Go Cats!!

Spaceman Spiff wrote: I'm not sure I buy that putting an inch on PJC makes him 5'11.

I saw every game last year on TV, and don't recall a single game where PJC wasn't the shotest guy on the court, many times by several inches. I would guess 5'8" is probably more accurate.

ASUHATER! wrote:On the 1290 radio show they were talking about how Ray has bulked up and will most likely play the 4.

I cannot listen to that show any more. That Kevin Woodwacker dude is ridiculous.

Merkin wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: I'm not sure I buy that putting an inch on PJC makes him 5'11.

I saw every game last year on TV, and don't recall a single game where PJC wasn't the shotest guy on the court, many times by several inches. I would guess 5'8" is probably more accurate.

That's about where I would peg him too. Maybe TV is deceiving, but even against other small PG's, he was always a few inches under.

Sweet Baby Ray

wow, Kadeem is the only Senior playing this year

Trier switching from #11 to 35(Zeus)
Rawle taking Gabes 1
Kobi taking Rays 2
Ray took Elliotts 24

Pinder has #25 and Markannen got #10. So we arent retiring jerseys?

Meet the top 25 players for 2016-17
John Gasaway
ESPN Insider

24. Allonzo Trier, Arizona Wildcats
As a freshman, Trier missed seven games in the middle of the season because of a broken hand, yet his season totals were quite impressive. The 6-foot-6 wing did his part as one of three preferred options on offense, alongside Ryan Anderson and Gabe York, and in that role, Trier hit his shots from both sides of the arc and took commendably good care of the ball. He is more than ready for the scoring responsibilities that will come his way, now that Anderson and York have both departed.

http://insider.espn.com/mens-college-ba ... basketball" target="_blank

Jefe wrote: so we arent retiring jerseys?

With the lack of numbers in college basketball (no digit greater than 5) only jerseys are retired, not numbers.

I think Elliott was asked if was OK.

UA has/had very strict rules for retiring jerseys, but other school's rules aren't near as strict and would run out of numbers.

UCLA actually retires numbers I believe. Used to be you had to be 3 time All American. Only Lew Alcindor and Bill Walton qualified but now you can be just NPOY.

Interesting, thank Merk

Merkin wrote:
I think Elliott was asked if was OK.

Pitts was asked for permission?

Sean was 32. Bob was 55.

Was waiting for that to be corrected lol.

Ray looks like Melo when Melo slims down. Not skinny, but more of a slim-muscular build. These guys look bigger on TV than in real life (pause). I remember running into Melo in a Denver suburb and thinking, how the hell are my arms bigger than an NBA superstar? I was like 6'3 185 at the time.

If we're actually a top 10 team and second in the Pac this year, I'd be pleasantly surprised. How improved will DR and KA and AT be? Will RS be the player he was before the injury? What will LM's impact be? Will RA and KS be ready?

I have as much respect as the next guy for what Altman is doing at Oregon. But No. 5, above Carolina and Wisky, they ain't.

Oregon's really good, I like them more than Kansas actually. They're still gonna take this L though