Bear Down Wildcats

CalStateTempe wrote:Complete wishful thinking and in this cats fans selfish interest....

Any chance Miller and romar can talk Lauri into coming back?

Nah, it's a done deal. The only guy who is debatable at this point is Trier.

My mind is going to explode if Kobi doesn't come back

Jefe wrote:My mind is going to explode if Kobi doesn't come back

My condolences to your mind then.

CalStateTempe wrote:Complete wishful thinking and in this cats fans selfish interest....

Any chance Miller and romar can talk Lauri into coming back?

Think he signed with his brother who is now an agent. So if that's the case not a chance.

Seriously, the experience and competition Kobi would get here is better than anything he'll see in he d league. Unless he feels he can't compete here, in which case he's probably not able to compete out to the d league for a spot on an NBA roster either.

He should seriously think of staying with romer on board.

CalStateTempe wrote:Seriously, the experience and competition Kobi would get here is better than anything he'll see in he d league. Unless he feels he can't compete here, in which case he's probably not able to compete out to the d league for a spot on an NBA roster either.

He should seriously think of staying with romer on board.

He never intended to stay in college more than a year.

Let's put it this way, if he decided today he wanted to return he'd very likely be ineligible for the first semester as a best case scenario.

Kobi ain't come to play school

I for one think Kobi will do just fine at the next level. You can't teach his type of athleticism & explosiveness.

Perhaps Miller isn't quite the recruiter than people hype him to be then if he's taking guys that are other school's 1-B choice because of red flags.[/quote]

He really isn't. Last year, if you assume that Alkins and Simmons were that, you have Lauri and Ferguson. Beyond that, you have to go back years for anyone who fits that profile.

Year before, Trier/Simon/Smith/Comanche, no red flags. If you want Ray's health, he was in the fold prior to knee injury #1.

Year prior, Stanley/Victor/Dusan/PJC/Allen.

There just isn't much truth to it.[/quote]

Ferguson was clearly a red flag - no interest in going to school.
Simon and Victor were both projects who weren't willing to wait. What makes you certain that other schools didn't see that?
Allen and PJC weren't top 10 program talents.[/quote]

That's monday morning quarterbacking or revisionist history, IMO.

Ferguson spent several months after graduation trying to get eligible and left when he couldn't. We were worried about KU or UNC swiping him, and Baylor was on him hard.

Simon and Victor were projects, but we were far from the only team in on either. When you speculate other teams saw that, I would refer to your praise for Duke and how Chase Jeter has worked for them. Maybe projects aren't an exact science.

Kadeem was the national Juco POY and Parker was the #50 recruit nationally on 24/7 composite. Saying either was clearly not our level...well, that is a legit pedigree.[/quote]

You're not making the point you think you are. When we took Ferguson he wasn't eligible. Based on the trends, my belief is that we went harder than other schools did despite the risk. I think the same thing happened with Ayton but there it looks like it will actually pay off.

Duke got one more year out of Jeter than Arizona got out of Simon and Victor. He's pretty much proved that he's useless. Simon and Victor still showed potential but left anyway. Better talent evaluation by Miller than K on that one (though Miller chased Jeter hard too) but much worse man and roster management by Miller.

To me, Allen is another example of us going harder after a marginal player. As I recall we were in on him earlier than other schools.[/quote]

Ferguson was never formally declared ineligible. Arizona took him thinking that the NCAA would look more favorably on API than they did. I just don't think you're right. KU backed off a bit due to Jackson committing, but it was likely a situation where Jackson and Ferguson were going KU or Arizona, and Feguson was wherever Jackson wasn't.

Allen's cred as juco POY, well, just consider this: Chris Boucher was his successor as juco POY. It is not some low level, throwaway thing.[/quote]


Kadeem Allen is exactly the type of player that helps u win a championship. The problem was he was our starting pg a lot of his career which is not where he should be to help win championships. Boucher obviously had more upside , but I'll take the juco player of the year on arizonas roster every year. Kadeem as a 6th man / defensive stopper would have been perfect on any team. Best believe he'd have gotten plenty of run on gonzaga, unc, Oregon, whoever. He just wouldn't have been the starting pg on any of those teams.

ChooChooCat wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:Complete wishful thinking and in this cats fans selfish interest....

Any chance Miller and romar can talk Lauri into coming back?

Nah, it's a done deal. The only guy who is debatable at this point is Trier.

Choo any chance Bowen comes if Trier comes back? Didn't know if Kobi leaving was enough for him to come. Or is it strictly either/or for Bowen and Trier?

Other than length and maybe learning how to use it to be a better defender than Trier in the back half of the season ....... Trier is def the better option for next years team. Especially if he learns he doesn't have to do it all himself.

zonagrad wrote:

NYCat wrote:

zonagrad wrote: Perhaps, but I contend that Miller could beat Alford with UCLA's players against Alford coached Arizona players. And the same for Miller with Oregon players against Altman coached Arizona players. Alford has players fall into his lap because he's at UCLA. Altman had TWO sixth year seniors on his roster and hasn't dealt with any player attrition.

The bolded is ridiculous

Altman is a better X & Os coach than Miller. He'd win with Arizona players. And now Altman is starting to recruit.

Feel free to disagree. But Altman had two SIXTH-year seniors in Dylan Ennis and Chris Boucher. These guys are 25 years old!!!! Arizona was relying on three 19 year olds most of the season, until a 21 year old Trier returned from a 19 game suspension. And yet Miller still coached his way to a 16-2 record & tied Oregon for the regular season title, and beat Oregon in the conference tourney.

This is a weird way to justify the performance of a head coach. In your mind Miller gets credit for accomplishing a lot with a roster of younger players. So shouldn't Altman get credit for building a roster of older players who outperformed Miller's younger players?

Puerco wrote:

zonagrad wrote:

NYCat wrote:

zonagrad wrote: Perhaps, but I contend that Miller could beat Alford with UCLA's players against Alford coached Arizona players. And the same for Miller with Oregon players against Altman coached Arizona players. Alford has players fall into his lap because he's at UCLA. Altman had TWO sixth year seniors on his roster and hasn't dealt with any player attrition.

The bolded is ridiculous

Altman is a better X & Os coach than Miller. He'd win with Arizona players. And now Altman is starting to recruit.

Feel free to disagree. But Altman had two SIXTH-year seniors in Dylan Ennis and Chris Boucher. These guys are 25 years old!!!! Arizona was relying on three 19 year olds most of the season, until a 21 year old Trier returned from a 19 game suspension. And yet Miller still coached his way to a 16-2 record & tied Oregon for the regular season title, and beat Oregon in the conference tourney.

This is a weird way to justify the performance of a head coach. In your mind Miller gets credit for accomplishing a lot with a roster of younger players. So shouldn't Altman get credit for building a roster of older players who outperformed Miller's younger players?

They're two entirely different coaching functions. The original idea was Altman is superior in X's and O's, and I think it's fair to credit Miller in that way. Coaching has a lot of facets. I'll toss out a brief list:

Recruiting.
X's and O's.
In game adjustments.
Player development.
Player retention.
Integrity/running a classy program.

This thread is way off topic, but I think those are a fair criteria for a coach. I think Altman is arguably better than Miller for in game adjustments and player retention. The remainder Miller is arguably better or clearly better. That is not to slight Altman, who is a really good coach.

ChooChooCat wrote:Let's put it this way, if he decided today he wanted to return he'd very likely be ineligible for the first semester as a best case scenario.

Why?

stupid stupid stupid

Puerco wrote:

zonagrad wrote:

NYCat wrote:

zonagrad wrote: Perhaps, but I contend that Miller could beat Alford with UCLA's players against Alford coached Arizona players. And the same for Miller with Oregon players against Altman coached Arizona players. Alford has players fall into his lap because he's at UCLA. Altman had TWO sixth year seniors on his roster and hasn't dealt with any player attrition.

The bolded is ridiculous

Altman is a better X & Os coach than Miller. He'd win with Arizona players. And now Altman is starting to recruit.

Feel free to disagree. But Altman had two SIXTH-year seniors in Dylan Ennis and Chris Boucher. These guys are 25 years old!!!! Arizona was relying on three 19 year olds most of the season, until a 21 year old Trier returned from a 19 game suspension. And yet Miller still coached his way to a 16-2 record & tied Oregon for the regular season title, and beat Oregon in the conference tourney.

This is a weird way to justify the performance of a head coach. In your mind Miller gets credit for accomplishing a lot with a roster of younger players. So shouldn't Altman get credit for building a roster of older players who outperformed Miller's younger players?

Sure...if you could actually do this tightrope walk that so many seem to ask for and actually mean to recruit great players who will stay for 6 years.

But, really, Altman is just recruiting the best players he can, and if they stay 5 or 6 years, then fantastic. But you can't plug the variables in and say "please send me players that can compete at a Final Four level but will be here for 5 years."

Most coaches call that "getting whoever will come here and I sure hope we can win a bunch of games". Most fail

For example...if Altman could have gotten RH-J, Aaron Gordon, Stanley Johnson, Lauri Markkanen, and DeAndre Ayton, he would have taken every. single. one of them. And 10 more exactly like them. But he couldn't. So he took lesser players and got that rare mix that makes coaches careers and may yet happen for Sean. Happened for Lute in 88. Happens occasionally...that (now, not in 88) rare group of seniors who can win in college basketball at a high level. There are 351 programs, and it happens to one, maybe two a year.

Meanwhile, this program here in Tucson averages much deeper runs than the vast majority of programs. We just haven't gotten win #4. We have gotten win #2 and #3 when Altman and other coaches were getting win #1 in the NIT or win #0 at home. But we focus on their highest output as the standard in these kinds of kneejerk reviews. Yet, Altman has an Elite Eight in that same run we are complementing him for. He won one more game once. And, as a program, we average a Sweet 16 or better since 2010. The Final Four is the goal. But it is also a false construct, a marketing ploy. A rhythmic, alliterate name that means exactly one more win than a similarly rhythmic Elite Eight. In baseball, that Eight is Great for a CWS. There is nothing naturally to make win 4 in one season so much more valuable than 3 wins repeated. Really, win 6 is the goal. But we place great import on win 4. That is the game, and we all know it. But that doesn't actually imbue that one more win with some talent to reach that is insanely different than the talent to reach win 3. Phil Mickelson really wasn't magically an amazingly better golfer when he won his first major. He was just finally relieved to shut people up about a false construct. Yet, even in that, the significance had a kernel of truth in that the Majors were more difficult tournaments. Winning 2 to 3 regularly in the NCAA is a great talent that can be much more difficult than winning 4 once...but we let the marketing plan determine success...doesn't mean it really has intrinsic value.

Goes #7 to the T-Wolves

84Cat wrote:Goes #7 to the T-Wolves

Bulls in reality.

Great pick!

Alieberman wrote:

84Cat wrote:Goes #7 to the T-Wolves

Bulls in reality.

Great pick!

Duh! I wrote Bulls but NBA.com still has it as Minny

Alieberman wrote:

84Cat wrote:Goes #7 to the T-Wolves

Bulls in reality.

Great pick!

I'm just not sold on the Bulls organization being a good home for Lauri.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Alieberman wrote:

84Cat wrote:Goes #7 to the T-Wolves

Bulls in reality.

Great pick!

I'm just not sold on the Bulls organization being a good home for Lauri.

That team is going to win 9 games and everyone is going to blame and hate Lauri.

Congrats to Lauri. Not a bad place to land.

Bulls fans on suicide watch on twitter. Idiots have no idea what they may be getting.

rgdeuce wrote:Congrats to Lauri. Not a bad place to land.

Bulls fans on suicide watch on twitter. Idiots have no idea what they may be getting.

I would be too. I don't think their reactions have a lot to do with LM, but the fact what they got in return for Butler

Seems like there's a lot of good kids in this draft. Very likeable group of young men considering most are 19.

Frybry02 wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:Congrats to Lauri. Not a bad place to land.

Bulls fans on suicide watch on twitter. Idiots have no idea what they may be getting.

I would be too. I don't think their reactions have a lot to do with LM, but the fact what they got in return for Butler

I agree they could have done better, but I'm not sure that much. Couple of other real good guys out there to eat up the overpayers. Certainly a big gamble, but think of how the Lauri, Lavine, and Dunn payoff could be if things work out. It's a financial move too, theyre likely all in on a rebuild with the payoff coming in Lebrons twilight

rgdeuce wrote:Congrats to Lauri. Not a bad place to land.

Bulls fans on suicide watch on twitter. Idiots have no idea what they may be getting.

I seem to remember Knick fans reacting the same way when they drafted Porzingis. I imagine a LOT of fans haven't seen the players they are whining about play.

CatMG wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:Congrats to Lauri. Not a bad place to land.

Bulls fans on suicide watch on twitter. Idiots have no idea what they may be getting.

I seem to remember Knick fans reacting the same way when they drafted Porzingis. I imagine a LOT of fans haven't seen the players they are whining about play.

Exactly what it is. Probably saw him in the Xavier game and maybe 1 other. Anyone who follows CBB closely raves about the kid to various degrees. Doesn't help he is white/European, most fans want familiarity and instant impact.

The good news is he is going to get a ton of PT, which will greatly help him develop. I think the system fit is good as well, but the personnel around him is not.

I'd expect the Bulls waive Rondo, can buy him out for $3 mil by June 30th or his contract is guaranteed. However, its the Bulls, so who the hell knows what theyll decide to do. Wade will be on a contender as a buy out by the end of the season.

TucsonClip wrote:The good news is he is going to get a ton of PT, which will greatly help him develop. I think the system fit is good as well, but the personnel around him is not.

I'd expect the Bulls waive Rondo, can buy him out for $3 mil by June 30th or his contract is guaranteed. However, its the Bulls, so who the hell knows what theyll decide to do. Wade will be on a contender as a buy out by the end of the season.

Yeah, that's why I worry about Lauri being in the organization. They're between blowing it up and starting over (Butler trade) and hanging onto the past (Wade). Their coach is a dead man walking.

We'll see. They just seem rudderless right now. If they commit to waiving Rondo and dropping Wade, I feel a little better. At least there's a direction.

Ive been posting this video everywhere and reminding people he was only 18

I think he will end up being the greatest wildcat NBA'er surpassing JT, Kerr and Sean

Bill Simmons and the Ringer guys (except one guy) have roasted Lauri this week. And then he was the main piece for a Butler trade and they roasted him even more. Even called him the Finnish Andrea Bargnani. Ridiculous.

SunnyAZ wrote:Bill Simmons and the Ringer guys (except one guy) have roasted Lauri this week. And then he was the main piece for a Butler trade and they roasted him even more. Even called him the Finnish Andrea Bargnani. Ridiculous.

I don't get why Bargnani is a diss. Bargnani put up 16-17 ppg for a decade until he broke down physically this last year.

For a #7 pick, that might even be overperforming. Jamal Murray was #7 in 2016, and put up 9.9 ppg in year one. 2015, Mudiay, who's averaged 12 ppg. 2014, Julius Randle, 12 ppg for his career. 2013, Ben McLemore, 9.5 career ppg. 2012, Harrison Barnes, 12 ppg.

Bargnani level production ain't bad at the #7 spot. Everyone thinks everyone's a future HOF'er when they're drafted, but Bargnani is actually not a bad deal. You can also pick Anthony Bennett.

ESPN will have a special on him his weekend. It's called 'The Finnisher" Sunday 10aM

Lets be real - 1) He's white, 2) He's foreign, 3) Most people have never seen him play more than a few games. If Lauri were black and U.S. born and played in a conference whose games started before most of the nation goes to bed, everyone would be "omg ceiling, Jonathan Isaac, potential, sperm."

Lauri's weaknesses = bust. Anyone else = he can improve/what he provides more than compensates. The foreign guys are always the ones to get labeled bust thanks to Darko.

I don't know if Lauri will ever be a star but people saying he's Channing Frye or has a Ryan Anderson ceiling are just clueless. He will average 15ppg by his 3rd year in league minimum.

PennZona20 wrote:I don't know if Lauri will ever be a star but people saying he's Channing Frye or has a Ryan Anderson ceiling are just clueless. He will average 15ppg by his 3rd year in league minimum.

A Ryan Anderson ceiling isn't an insult, it may short change the guy a bit, but in his absolute prime Anderson was a very good player. Wait....we're talking about the Cal Ryan Anderson and not the Arizona Ryan Anderson right?

ChooChooCat wrote:

PennZona20 wrote:I don't know if Lauri will ever be a star but people saying he's Channing Frye or has a Ryan Anderson ceiling are just clueless. He will average 15ppg by his 3rd year in league minimum.

A Ryan Anderson ceiling isn't an insult, it may short change the guy a bit, but in his absolute prime Anderson was a very good player. Wait....we're talking about the Cal Ryan Anderson and not the Arizona Ryan Anderson right?

Agree, if it's the Cal dude.

ChooChooCat wrote:

PennZona20 wrote:I don't know if Lauri will ever be a star but people saying he's Channing Frye or has a Ryan Anderson ceiling are just clueless. He will average 15ppg by his 3rd year in league minimum.

A Ryan Anderson ceiling isn't an insult, it may short change the guy a bit, but in his absolute prime Anderson was a very good player. Wait....we're talking about the Cal Ryan Anderson and not the Arizona Ryan Anderson right?

Yes the Cal Ryan Anderson that plays for Rockets.

As his CEILING it's an insult. As his floor or even his likely outcome it seems fair, but as his best case scenario???? No. Ryan Anderson is a one-dimensional stretch 4 who can shoot 3s efficiently at 6"11. He can't put the ball on the floor or hit a two dribble pull-up or play in the post unless he has a mouse in the house on a switch. He's a pick and pop player or someone for Harden to kick it to on ISO 4-flat plays. That is NOT Lauris CEILING.

I doubt his Ceiling is Dirk either, but if he works hard enough it could be. Dirks ceiling wasn't Dirk when he was traded for Tractor Traylor either. Lauri could absolutely turn into a 22ppg scorer if he fully evolves his offensive game. It'll take a few years but his lateral quickness isn't bad for a 7 footer. I think his ceiling is a right handed Chris Bosh w better range minus the shot blocking. He needs to get tougher but he's not "soft" like most Euros. He will def need to fill out but he's not even a grown man yet. When the kid is 25 he might be a monster.

I could be wrong, and all he might be is Channing Frye if all he ever does at an elite level is shoot. But I liked his driving game he showed and his one dribble pull up was automatic. I feel he could be a terror in the high post at some pt too (that's where I see some likeness to Dirk if he develops a step back that would also be unblockale as he's 7feet and already fades a little on his shot).

gumby wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

PennZona20 wrote:I don't know if Lauri will ever be a star but people saying he's Channing Frye or has a Ryan Anderson ceiling are just clueless. He will average 15ppg by his 3rd year in league minimum.

A Ryan Anderson ceiling isn't an insult, it may short change the guy a bit, but in his absolute prime Anderson was a very good player. Wait....we're talking about the Cal Ryan Anderson and not the Arizona Ryan Anderson right?

Agree, if it's the Cal dude.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2017/profiles/ ... id=2557853" target="_blank

It's actually this guy, and frankly, I don't get the comparison at all.

https://youtu.be/sroQJeKadCc" target="_blank

Same video. Just embedded.

Cam Payne SUCKS.

Lauri just had the worst shooting game of his career. 8 pts 9 rebs 4 blks, 0-10 from deep but 6-6 FTs. Bulls scored 55 total points

33 mins last night, played very well

X

This hurts the Cat fan that saw him do nothing in the last quarter of the knockout game.

YoDeFoe wrote:This hurts the Cat fan that saw him do nothing in the last quarter of the knockout game.

I was thinking the same thing.

YoDeFoe wrote:This hurts the Cat fan that saw him do nothing in the last quarter of the knockout game.

He is young and still developing. It sucks, but it happens.