In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 483
Online now 226 Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)
The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns
The place for off topic discussion on Hookem
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
You truly do not understand college basketball or basketball recruiting if these are the things that you believe.
Good recruits, even 2-3 year prospects don't want to play for a school that can't get them to the NBA. The winning is nice, but most recruits are more concerned with getting to the league. If this wasn't the case then why does Kentucky get every 5 star they want? Calipari has one NC.
With that said, who will recruits look at as an impact on their decision? J'Covan or Avery Bradley? Are they looking at Gary Johnson or Tristan Thompson? Sure, J'Covan and Gary won more games in a UT uniform and scored more points, but the NBA players are like a gift that keeps on giving. Especially KD.
And to act like they shouldn't recruit 1-2 year guys is insane. Damion James was supposed to be a 2 year player and look how that played out. You never know how someone will perform until they get on campus.
That could very well be the case, that I truly do not understand college basketball/recruiting. The only thing I have to go by is what my eyes tell me about their play while they're in Austin, not their draft status, or how they do if they made it into the NBA.
All I know is that Avery Bradley and Cory Joseph came in with a whole bunch of hype, and Avery looks like he's going to be a decent pro, but fact of the matter is that while they were in Austin, they struggled as much as they succeeded. Yet, because of their pro potential, they still got drafted in the first round, but if you look at their net contribution while in Austin, I don't see a whole lot for us fans to chest bump each other about. Now compare to a Damion James or J'Covan Brown, heck, even someone like AJ Abrams, they didn't come with nearly the same level of fanfare, but they were FAR greater contributors than Bradley, Joseph, and Thompson. Yes, they showed glimpses of greatness, but by the time they figured out how to play with each other, it's time to move out of their dorm room.
Finally, it's ridiculous to compare Texas to Kentucky. Kentucky is about the only school that can sustain the one and done plan. Texas is no Kentucky when it comes to basketball, and to attempt to emulate a strategy that we have zero chance at succeeding is just insane.
For me, there's a happier medium. I'm interested in seeing how Michigan State manages to get the talented enough players and somehow convincing them it's prudent to stay for 3+ years. Yes, I'm aware that Jason Richardson left after one year, but for the most part, Izzo players stay for the longer haul, the same with Duke to a slightly lesser extent. Why can't we follow a similar course?
Disciplina praesidium civitatis
If you really think J'Covan Brown was a "FAR greater" contributor than Avery Bradley, then you really don't understand basketball at all. And what do you chest bump about Brown? That he hit some shots down the stretch to help Texas beat ISU in the Big 12 tournament semi-finals?
Brown was a decent, not great, long range shooter who had no interest in playing defense for two years and couldn't play it well his last year and was always more interested in making a fancy pass than a good one. By being a volume shooter, he had some games in which it appeared his scoring brought Texas back from large deficits, but his effectiveness in the last minute of games was defined mostly by his ability to hit free throws. And he missed some big ones--vs. Baylor 2010, @NU 2011, WF NCAA tournament OT. Did you know that in his career he hit only one shot that either won the game or forced OT? A&M in College Station as a freshman -- forced OT with a jumper with 20 seconds left. And he spent his entire junior year with the ball in his hands in the last 2 minutes of games.
Brown was a very valuable player as a junior who had some good moments in his first two years, but he wasn't the player Bradley was. Bradley may have tired down the stretch of his first year and his shooting suffered, but he did so much more in the way of disrupting opponents' offenses, blocking shots, getting steals, and he was (surprise) a better percentage shooter than Brown both overall and from deep.
Texas would have been better off with a new Bradley for three straight years than one J'Covan Brown for a three year career. I still can't believe he held the ball in front of himself for the Cincy defender to steal. Was that your idea of how maturity will yield better play? Or the bad lob he threw out of bounds about 2 minutes earlier? Or the two bad threes he jacked up in the last 7 minutes? That was a guy who never had his head on straight, not even after three years, the last year being one in which he was the guy who was supposed to have the ball at the end of the game and a year in which Texas more often than not fell apart in the last minute of close games.
This post was edited by bierce 15 months ago
Since I'm such a simpleton, and I don't understand basketball at all, please (continue to) explain to me like I'm a 5-year old what exactly did Avery Bradley contribute to the University of Texas basketball program.
Better play on the court for the year he was here.
That is indeed a 5-year old explanation. I asked for it.
I assume Bradley's superior play was more intangible in nature, thus difficult to quantify via stats?
I won't attempt to argue that Bradley possesses more talent than Brown, evident by the fact that Bradley plays for the Celtics and Brown plays in Greece, but I don't know how anyone can argue that Bradley was more productive in his single season than Brown's three. Below are their respective offensive stats. Defensive stats are a little harder to come by, but I will also agree that Bradley was a much better defender than Brown, but Brown's output on offensive side of the court trumps that of Bradley.
Avery Bradley Stat Summary:
Season GP MPG PPG FG% 3FG% FT% APG RPG BPG SPG
2009-10 34 29.5 11.6 43.2 37.5 54.5 2.1 2.9 0.5 1.3
J`Covan Brown Stat Summary:
Season GP MPG PPG FG% 3FG% FT% APG RPG BPG SPG
2011-12 34 35.6 20.1 41.7 36.9 86.3 3.8 3.4 0.1 1.2
2010-11 36 21.5 10.4 40.6 38.5 86.1 2.1 2.2 0.2 0.9
2009-10 33 21.7 9.6 35.4 28.8 88.3 2.4 2.2 0.1 0.8
And then he gave the ball up to Gary Johnson rather than shoot the FTs that Johnson missed that gave WF the chance to win.
“Kansas may wind up number one in these polls, but that would be so unfair to Texas...” -- Len Elmore, 2/13/11
Well, since we're talking freshman years, Bradley was better. Better than J'Covan's sophomore stats, too. I haven't added it up, but I would guess that Bradley shot a better FG and 3P percentage in his one year than J'Covan shot in his career.
And he was one of the best defenders ever to play for Barnes.
As Hoops Coach pointed out, and Barnes has said, you can't get them for two (years) until you get them for one.
Barely, but Bradley's FT% was in the 50s while Brown shot in the mid to high 80s.
As little as I apparently know about basketball, I understand the importance of floor chemistry, and it's just not possible to develop good chemistry in one season.
How does Izzo manage to keep his talented players for more than a single season?
How about I apologize for overdoing it with my tone and lets proceed.
Brown's play trumps Bradley's offensively for one year only, Brown's junior year, and then only if you place a great weight on total points rather than offensive efficiency. Brown was worse over his career in fg %, 3 pt %, and a/t ratio. Brown had a much better ft % over his career. Brown's offensive advantage, if you can call it that, was overwhelmed by Bradley's defensive advantage.
Yes, what Bradley brought was hard to quantify with stats. If you watched the 2009-10 team in November, you would have seen a team that made the opposing team burn 20 seconds off the clock on every possession just to get the ball to the 3 point arc. When Bradley was hawking the opposing guards, opponents simply couldn't get into their offense without a huge struggle, especially when Balbay was on the floor as well. By contrast, Brown was notorious for letting his guy beat him on the perimeter and get into the lane, making the interior defender have to choose between challenging the driving guard or keeping his man away from the rim. That became sheer hell for Clint Chapman against Cincy in the tournament.
I never understood why when th3 2009-10 team started to go bad, Barnes didn't just opt to press and run. Since Texas couldn't shoot well (at least the guys who could play defense couldn't), it should have reduced the whole game to a war of athletic attrition. (I know, Barnes would never adopt that strategy, but the result couldn't have been any worse than the 7-10 finish we witnessed.)
One of the biggest problems in your theory that the long term players necessarily produce a better product was precisely the 2009-10 team. It was loaded with long term guys. James, Mason, Pittman were seniors. Johnson, Balbay, Wangmene, Hill, and Chapman were all juniors.
I've said it in several threads, and I'll repeat it here, Barnes has tried to get a mix of the one and dones and a core of longer term players, and the disappointing results aren't really related to whether there are more or less one and dones. The disappointing results have been the result of a much greater range of causes
2008-09: A ton of juniors and seniors (James, Atchley, Abrams, Pittman, Mason) but no one who could combine the talents of dribbling, passing, and shooting.
2009-10: Summed up nicely by Bobby Knight. "Texas's problem is that the players who are good at defense aren't good at offense and the players who are good at offense aren't good at defense."
2010-11: A better year than expected, thanks in huge part to two one and dones, but a disappointing end that had a lot to do with weird decisions (forcing tempo in Colorado with a short-handed team--Wangmene was suspended that day; calling timeout after securing rebound against Arizona)
2011-12: Just not a good team. Too young, too small. Yes, it was murdered by roster attrition, and one can look to Thompson and Joseph as being to blame for that, but when one blames the players who aren't there, it really says a lot about the need to have players of that talent around, doesn't it? And I really doubt Thompson and Joseph would have left had it not been for the fact they were facing the weakest draft class in weakest memory and one gutted by decisions of a lot of other 4/5s to return for a sophomore year.
I do think Barnes has made a bit of an effort to look for better parts to blend with the stars he can recruit to Austin. I always thought the 2007 class was just weird in that it had a very small 4 with some skills and three guys who were guys with clear limitations and two of which were positionally redundant, even if of very different skill sets (Wangmene, Chapman). Then the 2008 class was a washout with Brown having to sit and rust for a year and Ward showing athleticism but not much else as a freshman, then showing a lot of athleticism before tearing up his leg in pre-game warm ups against Pitt, then transferring). Had Texas gotten some better pieces and more contribution from those classes, I think the last 4 years might have played out differently.
Anyway, a lot of this is moot. Texas currently has a gob of guys who will be juniors and sophomores next year, and most people looking at the team are pretty adamant that it needs a couple of go to stars. I'm a little less inclined to think Texas is desperate to get Randle and Frazier. They would help, and next year could be a very, very good year, particularly if Kabongo is still effective and decides he needs a full year to regain draft status. However, then Texas is probably facing a very lean year after that or two years after that as the huge classes of 2011 and 2012 leave and Texas will not have a group of juniors around to help the freshmen in 2014 and 2015.
Again, sorry if my tone was a little patronizing earlier in the thread.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by bierce 15 months ago
Chemistry is extremely important, but you are wrong that you can't develop good chemistry in one season. Every basketball team is new every season. Take this year's team for example. Do you not think the chemistry will be different next season even though we only lose Kabongo? Taylor, and hopefully Frazier and Randle, will bring new personalities to the team. The chemistry will have to be developed in the summer and fall during pick up games and practices.
2010-11 team did fine with the chemistry issue.
Izzo, by and large, backed away from McD A-A types for several years after losing not only Richardson, but also Zach Randolph and Marcus Taylor.
His tournament seeds show this... the last 11 years they are:
10 7 7 5 6 9 5 2 5 10 1
The 10 two years ago was a gift, IMO.
But Barnes's average over that period is better:
6 1 3 8 2 4 2 7 8 4 11
It's basically a six average for Izzo and a five for Barnes.
Anyway, Izzo has gone back to the McD A-As the last few years... Keith Appling, Brandon Dawson, Gary Harris... I may be missing one. Texas really hasn't had that many one-year players. It would have been nice to keep Bradley for a second year, but losing Tristan Thompson two years ago really, really hurt.
This post was edited by Bob in Houston 15 months ago
Very few were top 20 types, and he tended to have deeper rotations yielding limited minutes for star freshmen, particularly on the front line. In the last 6 years, his most highly regarded recruits were Lucas, Roe, Nix, Green, Payne, Appling, Dawson, and Gary Harris. Rivals had only Roe, Payne, Dawson, and Harris in the top 25.
Minutes as a frosh
Later transferees Allen and Lucious were around 14 and 9.
Harris was the only top 25 type recruit to play 21+ minutes per game. It isn't easy to get NBA scouts drooling over you when you aren't playing, Daniel Orton to the contrary.
I hope we are in agreement that our #1 objective should be winning games at the University of Texas, and not to become some NBA factory so we can recruit future NBA bound players. There are teams that consistently recruit players outside of top 20 list and still manage to win big. Why can't we?
That, of course, is a rhetorical question. My theory is that at Texas, we love recruiting and recruiting drama more than we love winning. Today being Desmond Harrison's commitment day, you're likely witnessing the highlight of Harrison's career at Texas. Because next year, we're going to be drooling over the next highly ranked guy and have forgotten all about Harrison. The same, to an extent, applies in basketball too. We can't stand the idea of not going after the best players even if it means to only get him for one year and with nothing to show for.
Of course we are in agreement about winning, and I think Barnes is less about loving recruiting drama than about winning. See my closing paragraphs on my very long post on this page. .
Let's see, time to start tracking tournament results for guys named in this thread.
Greg Marshall--Wichita State (9) just demolished 8 seed Pitt. (I'll look back to see if Dixon was ever mentioned. He wasn't.)
Brad Stevens--Butler (6) beat Bucknell.
Buzz Williams--Marquette (3) needed insane shooting (think last second KU against ISU insane) and for Davidson to screw up royally in the last few seconds to pull out a 59-58 victory.
I won't bother to check on Izzo, Self, etc.
This post was edited by bierce 13 months ago
I know that Brad Stevens and Shaka Smart are popular choices, not only with Texas fans, but with fans all over the country. One of the ESPN analysts recently addressed the question of whether either was likely to move to a power conference school, or if they would be successful if they did. His comments:
Stevens - Methodical style that relies on solid fundamental basketball, and manages to get results without premier players. Problem at bigger school with high profile recruits may be that those types of players are used to showing off their athletic skills rather than playing fundamentally sound basketball within the framework of a team first coaching style. Also pointed out that Indiana HS coaches consistently teach fundamentals better than any other state in the nation. When Stevens gets these players, they are already schooled in his style of play.
Smart - Frenetic full court defense and up and down style may also not work in powwer conferences with high profile recruits. Those athletes want to show off their individual skills, offense and defense, for NBA scouts. Playing hard for a few minutes and then grabbing some pine time may not fit into their plans.
In other words, the assumption that a coach who is successful at a mid-major level with less than upper tier athletes, could be even more successful a level up with better players, may not be valid at all.
The analyst concluded by saying that there is a reson why guys like Stevens, Smart, and Mark Few stay at small schools. Besides, if you are being well paid, why would you leave and take the chance for failure in a situation that you find less appealing, just for more money?
Because Texas could make either Stevens or Smart more well-paid...& each coach has as many or more FF's than Barnes
16-18 @ Texas? Or mid-major success & currently in the NCAA? I'll take the one of the HC's currently in the tournament...
Buzz or Brett Brown
With the current leadership in place, I don't have any confidence they would make a good selection at all. Therefore, whatever would be my take.
Well, please note that the analysis was not mine, but that of a former coach. Also, you may have ignored the part where the analyst doubted that the style of play of either coach would produce similar results in a power conference school. Finally, not everyone responds to "more" money when they already have a "lot" of money.
I don't give a damn whose analysis this came from, you posted it...& during his time @ Oral Roberts, I wonder how many people thought Bill Self's style wouldn't be successful @ in a major conf...or maybe some thought Billy Donovan wouldn't go any further than Marshall...hmmm, wonder if those 2 coaches have had any success @ Kansas or Florida...
As for the money...keep telling yourself that not everyone responds to more money...when agents, wives, and kids are involved, more money is always a factor
Larry Brown would be ideal for us, but only for one reason. We won't have to worry about him staying too long!
Kim Mulkey would be a bold high risk choice that would create tremendous buzz. No, I'm not kidding. If Geno can coach girls why can't Kim coach boys? Big question is whether kids would come to play for a woman. But she's a great coach.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports