I think by the time his senior year is over, Bragg will be a top 10 recruit. Look at that speed, athleticism and fluidity in the open floor. Look at his jumper and ballhandling. Kid can play.
justanotherfan
3643 posts
I like Diallo quite a bit. I think Bragg is better, so if the choice was one or the other I would take Bragg, but if it's a package, sign me up.
I think UK and KU will be in similar frontcourt situations after this season as both stand to lose at least a couple interior players. UK may have more spots if Johnson, Cauley Stein and one of the freshmen all leave, but there is a lot of basketball to be played before then.
The sad fact is that many athletes are smoking. I knew of several athletes when I was in school that would smoke in season but not drink (they thought it disrupted their conditioning to drink). Whether that is still a thought that is around or not I don't know, but it was 15-20 years ago.
I think the tendency to want to dribble comes from so many players now learning to play facing the basket as opposed to a back to the basket traditional post up. There aren't many Shaq's or Moses Malone's out there who can go down to the block, carve out space without using their upper body and score from that spot. Most guys have to turn and face, then make a dribble move because they can't get to the sweet post spot just by using positioning (and because the initial post up is called more closely now than it was even 15 years ago).
You are correct about Sean Miller. I typed it and was thinking it wasn't right, but then forgot to go back and correct it.
I don't think the Yahoo article holds much water. After all, Coach K is working almost exclusively with the senior national team, which is made up of NBA guys. He can't recruit those guys, so no advantage there. He gets the extra exposure, which I'm sure helps, but he doesn't gain a recruiting advantage as far a contact is concerned.
The U19 team was coached by Billy Donovan (Florida), Tony Bennett (Virginia) and Shaka Smart (VCU). Some of those players were in college, some were still in high school. Is that an advantage?
The U18's were coached by Donovan with Ed Cooley (Providence) and Sean Miller (Arizona h/t @JayHawkFanToo ). Those are all high school guys. Is that an advantage?
The U17's and 16's are both coached by high school or AAU coaches because that would violate NCAA rules to have college coaches in contact with non juniors.
If anything, I think Coach K gains an advantage from a strategic standpoint. The international rules make you think about things a little differently. Having Boeheim there specifically to help coach against zones, and having two NBA coaches there to help install the defensive principles, I'm sure he's added some things to his coaching toolkit over these last 8 years.
To me, that is where he would stand to benefit the most because he has a zone expert (Boeheim), the best defensive coach in the NBA (Thibodeau) and a very good matchups guy in Monty Williams. He also has access to a lot of other NBA coaches, as many of the teams who have guys participating will send along either the head coach or an assistant to observe during camp. It's basically a huge basketball brainstorm that could help Coach K gain a tactical advantage that most college coaches won't be able to match.
Reading this reply, I think we are actually making two different versions of the same point.
You are saying that Baylor recruits their home state because it is a fertile recruiting ground. I say that they are not a strong recruiting school, but have success because they happen to reside where there are lots of good recruits.
I think both points are valid and have been made. I enjoyed the back and forth banter.
I guess we see it differently, or just disagree. Of the Baylor guys in the NBA, Heslip was a three star player. Three star players go to school's like Baylor all the time, regardless of where they are from. But among the four and five star players (the ones that have lots of college options), Baylor has almost all of its success in either Texas or Louisiana. They were on Towns' list, but never offered him. They did offer Jones (from Minnesota) and Mudiay (from Dallas). They have never successfully recruited a five star player from anywhere other than Texas. Ever.
Yes, Baylor has lots of players in their backyard, which is why it is easier to build a strong program at a place like Baylor than it would be at a place like Idaho or South Dakota State, because you have the ability to convince some pretty good players to come play close to home, which is a recruiting advantage.
That's my whole point on this Baylor thing - their primary recruiting success is tied directly to location. If Baylor were located in Wyoming instead of Texas, they could not lure the talent that they do because they couldn't convince a kid like Perry Jones to leave Dallas and come to some random town in Wyoming. You can get a kid from Dallas to come 95 miles south to Waco. Baylor has not shown that they can consistently land top talent from anywhere other than Texas or Louisiana. They are a regional recruiter when it comes to top talent, with a chance to go national only for lesser (non top 50) players. Heck, even TCU can land a kid ranked in the 60s from their area, and they are terrible. I bet if that same player was from somewhere else, they wouldn't even have considered TCU.
KU is different because KU is a national recruiting school. Just in the last 10 years KU has recruited guys that went on to be drafted in the NBA from the following places - Anchorage, Chicago, Kansas City, Russia, Dallas, Oklahoma City (x2), Baltimore, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Jersey City, San Diego, St. Louis, Toronto, and Cameroon. They currently have NBA prospects on the roster from Boston, Ukraine, Houston, and Chicago. KU can recruit a kid from Miami County, Kansas just as easily as a kid from Miami, Florida, and they have as good a chance of landing either kid.
At KU, we see both sides of this, because in football, we can't land top notch talent outside of the region. We go to Texas or Florida and land three star recruits. We get a three star guy from California or Arizona. A three star from Ohio or Illinois. When we get four or five star players, they are primarily from Kansas or Missouri because in football, KU is a regional recruiter.
I don't think most of Baylor's players select Baylor because of Scott Drew as a basketball coach. I think they pick Baylor because it's close to home, they like Drew and the coaching staff personally and they know that Baylor will at least be good enough to play on Big Monday and get to the NCAA tournament.
If you're a 4 star recruit like Rico Gathers and you have scholarship offers from Baylor, Syracuse, St. Johns and LSU, what would you pick? You're a Louisiana kid. You can stay close to home at either Baylor or LSU. Syracuse is good, but it's a long ways from home, and depending on recruiting, you may not play much there. LSU and St. John's you will almost certainly play, but your teams may not be very good. At Baylor you can stay relatively close to home (a day's drive, basically), play on a good team, play a lot and get some good exposure. If you like the campus and the people, why wouldn't you do that?
As I pointed out, almost every single one of Baylor's high ranked players came from Texas or Louisiana. It's not like they were beating out Duke and UNC for a top ranked player from Tobacco Road. They were landing mostly four stars, and most of those four stars were kids that (I'm just guessing) thought about the things I talk about above with Rico Gathers.
When KU recruits in Texas, they are recruiting guys like Myles Turner, not Rico Gathers. Guess what? Baylor wasn't even involved in recruiting Turner. Duke, Arizona, Kentucky, KU - all on his list. No Baylor.
If there is a top player, regardless of where they are, if KU wants in, they get in. Not so with Baylor. They recruit top players in Texas and Louisiana, and offer scholarships to lower ranked players elsewhere. You ask why players go to Baylor. For most of these players, they aren't being recruited by the power schools. I would ask why not?
Players are drawn by different things.
For top players, the ability to play right away is important. However, once you get past the top 25 or 30 players in the class, the next most important thing is the talent of the team that they will play on, coaching, how much they like the school, campus and how close it is to home, family, girlfriend, etc. The exception is international players, who often come as a result of national or family influences (i.e. if a former countryman went to that school).
For example, you look at Baylor, almost all of their recruits come from Texas or Louisiana. Their first two big recruits under Drew (2005) were Henry Dugat and Kevin Rogers, both 4 star recruits. They were both Texas kids. The next year they signed two more American four stars - Demond Carter (Louisiana) and Josh Lommers (Texas). The next year they added another four star player from Louisiana (LaceDarrius Dunn). In 2008 the signed two more four stars - Quincy Acy and Anthony Jones, both Texans. In '09 it was Texans Nolan Dennis and Cory Jefferson to go with Mark McLaughlin from a prep school in New Hampshire. McLaughlin never played at Baylor. In 2010 they signed their first 5 star, Perry Jones, from Dallas. They also signed a four star (Gary Franklin) that actually stayed at Baylor from somewhere other than Louisiana or Texas (Franklin was from California). In 2011 they got high school teammates Deuce Bello and Quincy Miller, both from North Carolina. In 2012 it was five star Isaiah Austin (Texas) and four stars Rico Gaithers (Louisiana) and LJ Rose (Texas). In 2013 they landed Ish Wainwright from Missouri, Allerick Freeman from Nevada and Johnathan Motley from Texas.
So in 9 years of recruiting, Baylor landed 18 four star recruits. 17 actually attended Baylor. Of those 17, only 5 were not from either Texas or Louisiana and they didn't sign any of those kids until 2010. They never signed a four star player from outside Texas or Louisiana prior to 2009. They have only landed 2 five star players and both those kids were from the Dallas area. Simply put, Baylor has built their program almost exclusively on kids from Texas and Louisiana. They are not a national recruiting force even now, but because Texas produces a lot of D1 talent, they are in on quite a few high ranked players. They are in on DJ Hogg (Plano) and have signed Kerwin Roach (Houston) for next year.
I doubt Baylor ever becomes a national destination, but for Texas kids, Baylor will always be a viable option, and because of the talent coming out of Texas, that means Baylor will always have access to lots of talent.
K-State has it a lot tougher because Kansas doesn't produce tons of D1 talent, and KU draws a lot of that instate talent, anyway. But if you look at K-State's roster, its heavy on juco kids and lower ranked players. Marcus Foster, for example, was a three star recruit. So was Thomas Gipson, and Angel Rodriguez, and Shane Southwell. For most 3 star guys, they aren't going to pass on a chance to play at a major conference school.
Southwell picked K-State over Marquette, Providence, St. John's, South Carolina and Xavier.
Foster chose the Cats over Cal, Creighton, Lehigh, Oklahoma and SMU. It's not like these kids are choosing K-State over Arizona, UCLA, Duke and Kentucky. They are picking between a lot of middle ranked major conference teams or higher up low conference teams.
Standard post up plays are not high efficiency plays against good defenders. This is because good post defenders can force low percentage twos (challenged 7-10 foot shots) without fouling, that most shooters make only about 38% of the time. Shooting a 40% shot that only results in 2 points means the scoring expectancy on that shot is roughly 0.8 points. Even if you add in the foul potential, the point expectancy probably doesn't creep much over 0.9.
Instead, the more efficient scoring method is the drive and drop. Catching the defense on a rotation allows the inside player to attack the rim immediately, either getting an unchallenged 7-10 foot shot (where the shooting percentage jumps up above 50%) or getting a dunk or layup (again, that's a 50%+ shot).
Against lesser defenders, yes, post ups are a great play. But against UK, Texas and others, we are going to need to be able to force rotations and help with guard play. That's why during the NCAA tournament teams with good guards tend to play better. Good guards can force rotations and get their team good, easy shots, while a dominant big man on his own cannot get those high percentage shots because the defense doesn't have to shift to defend him because a post up is a more stationary play.
The issue with UK for KU is that UK has more size at every position except the 3. Not only that, but UK is just as deep as KU, meaning KU can't hope to simply wear down their first five, because UK's second five are also very talented. The key for KU will be to force UK into post ups rather than allowing the twins to drive (how they beat Wichita State) and forcing those low percentage twos, which is what UK shot for most of the first half of last season before they figured out how to space the floor and attack the rim.
@JayHawkFanToo
I don't think Budinger is a good comp for Perry because Perry is more of an inside player, while Budinger was more of a perimeter player. During his time in Tucson, Budinger never made fewer than 50 threes in a season. Perry has never made more than 8 threes in either of his seasons.
Chase handled the ball more as well, never dishing out fewer than 62 assists, while Perry has never had more than 36. Perry shot over 54% last year, and nearly 48% as a freshman, due in part to being a post player. Chase never was better than 48%, due to the amount of jumpshots (particularly 3s) he took. Chase was a more athletic (but less filled out) player than Perry is. They list Chase at 6-7, 218 now in the NBA. He was probably 10 pounds lighter in college. Perry is probably an inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than Chase is today.
When Illinois controls the Chicago recruiting ground, they are strong. When they don't, they struggle. Chicago is just too important of a recruiting base for Illinois to not have those kids play for the Illini and have any hope of being good. There are really only a couple of programs that are absolutely dependent on recruiting a specific area in order to be good. Illinois has Chicago, USC has Los Angeles (because it's tough for USC hoops to recruit nationally with UCLA across town), Washington has Seattle (because it's tough to get non-west coast kids to come to UW, and its tough to get the California kids away from the California schools and Arizona schools) and Georgia Tech has Atlanta. When those schools recruit those cities well, they do well. When they don't, they struggle.
Welcome to the board. Drinks are in the fridge, food is in the cabinets, help yourself.
Try not to spill anything. @approxinfinity and the crew keep things pretty sharp here, so we try to take care of the place.
Have fun and enjoy the banter. Don't be a stranger. Go Hawks.
I like what you did here. On your comment about finding it hard to compare players outside the top 10, a lot of that is because the rankings become more and more subjective the further down you go because there is much less separation.
For example, next year's ESPN 100 lists just 6 players with a ranking score above 95 - one 97, two 95's and three 96's. As you go down though, more and more players get the same ranking score. There are, for example, 7 players with a score of 89. Is Jalen Adams (ranked 25th) actually the 19th best player in the class? That makes a difference because if he jumps from 25th to 19th, he goes from being the #4 PG to the #2 PG because three PG's all have a ranking of 89.
Further down, it gets even murkier. Every player from 32 to 48 is ranked 87. Five consecutive PF are scored 86 from 50-54. And if you account for the fact that maybe a player could be mis-scored by a +/- of 1, you can see the chaos it could cause. Is player 54 (PF Horace Spencer) really an 87 instead of an 86, and if so, should he jump to where Esa Ahmad is at 42? That would jump him over 5 other PF, which would be really significant.
I think it would be interesting to follow these stats through the year and see if they mirror the ones you mention above. It's a really cool baseline to work off of, and has me dreaming in the offseason again.
I can only wonder if his struggles to finish around the rim are related to the fact that he takes a lot of contested shots. At the 1:33 mark of the clip he starts a move out at the 3pt line and beats his man badly into a vacant lane off a hop step. At 6-6, I would like to see him go ahead and dunk that, but he just flips it in. I would like to see the ability to finish the explosive move with a dynamic finish, but I think that will come with time and maturity.
The thing I am concerned about from this video more than the other video is that he takes a lot of shots that are very, very difficult and I can't tell if that's just poor decision making on his part or if its a reflection of something else.
For example, he has a very good first step to get the advantage on the drive. He has a very good last step to set up his shot (whether a layup or jumpshot). What I am missing from Svi is that strong second step that gets him clear of his defender before help arrives. If you watch guys like James Harden and (young) Kobe Bryant, they have the ability to separate. They are rarely dealing with both a defender on their hip and a defender coming for help. Svi doesn't create that distance on the drive right now. He uses his first step well, but he doesn't explode free of the defense.
Defensively, he's a ball watcher like a lot of younger players. I'm not worried about that so much, because that's just a process of learning a system and focusing on the assignment and principles. I think he can do that because he is athletically cable of being a good defender.
His drive and kick game isn't that great, but ideally, he's the one catching the kick and taking the shot.
I think Svi will be fine his freshman year because he can step away from the basket, handle and shoot. If he cannot handle the physical play, he's still a 6-8 guy that can shoot the three. That means that he can find a niche on the wing. If he can handle the physical play, that makes him even more dangerous because he can go inside. He's at least a spot up shooter, with the potential to be much more depending on how he adapts.
I need to see him playing against higher caliber athletes to decide how quickly he will make an impact. He barely played in the World Championships, but he was one of the youngest players in the field. He seems like he is a good enough athlete to compete, but I haven't seen him have to do that consistently yet.
Posting up a perimeter player requires two things.
First, it requires having a perimeter player that can hurt the opposition in the post.
Second, it requires having post players that can hit shots away from the basket so the defense can't simply switch a big man onto the posting perimeter player to negate the advantage.
Let's take these one at a time.
From my look at the roster, there are four guys that are potential post threats on the perimeter for KU - Selden, Svi, Oubre, Greene. However, I don't know that any of them can actually be a dangerous offensive player in the post. In order to do damage in the post, a player has to be strong in the third quartile - the area from the knees to the waist. Post play requires lots of position work, and that work cannot be done with the hands, arms and chest. It has to be done with the butt. Moses Malone was one of the best ever at this. Charles Barkley made a career out of it. You have to be able to get into position and then use your hips to knock your opponent off balance without bulling them over.
Selden has the type of build that suggests he has that type of third quartile strength. Svi has lots of length, but he's still a bit on the skinny side, so there's no telling if he can actually get on the block and establish position against D1 players without resorting to using his upper body and getting called for fouls. Oubre is also on the tall/skinny side, so it's unclear if he can post. Greene is kind of in between. Not as bulky as Selden, but not as skinny as Svi.
The second question with the first issue is whether any of those four can actually score in the post. Perimeter guys are used to either handling the ball out front or catching the ball facing the basket. In the post, a lot of perimeter guys get disoriented because they are not facing the bucket. This messes up their entire offensive game - footwork, shot selection, ball handling - because they are literally turned around. Do any of these four have some moves they can go to in the post quickly before help arrives, knowing that there will be a helping big that will be cheating back towards the paint anyway? Anything a guard does in the post has to happen quickly, otherwise the help will clog it all up.
The second issue is having big guys that you can't leave. Posting up perimeter guys seems like it would work best when Ellis and Mickelson play together, as both of those guys have range out to at least 15+ feet. With Alexander, his man would sag off him more and clog the area. We don't want Selden posting up and some 6-9 guy coming over to defend without Wayne being able to swing the ball to a wide open Perry Ellis to can a 16 footer.
The whole point of any offense is to create a bad defensive matchup that forces rotations. But if you end up putting offensive players in spots where they aren't particularly dangerous, you can't force those rotations. I think this has always been Self's hangup. He was hesitant to move Wiggins into the post last year because it would mean either taking one of his bigs off the floor or moving a big away from the basket. He has that option with Ellis because of his shooting touch. It's just a question of whether or not he uses it.
I finally had a chance to spend some time watching some of his work, and I like Svi's game.
Strengths: Great form and balance on his jumpshot. He has good size already, so having the good form and balance should make him a very good shooter at the collegiate level. He has range out to at least 21/22. I haven't seen enough to determine whether his range goes further, but at his size, he will not have any problem getting his shots off. I watch him and can tell that he has been well coached for at least the last few years because his footwork is good in almost every situation offensively. There are a couple things he needs to clean up, but overall very good. Good length and he's already starting to add more muscle from 2013 to 2014. His quickness is decent for his size. He doesn't shy away from contact going to the rim, which should make him an effective finisher even against D1 defenders.
Weaknesses: As well coached as he is on offense, his defense is not as far along. On several of his defensive highlights he made steals by reaching with the incorrect hand. Rather than using the hand closest to the passer, he sold out on a few passes. That looks great if you make the play, but if not, you just left your teammates in an odd man situation. His rotations were also just a beat or so late at times. He made up for that with length, but better and quicker players will be able to exploit that. His footwork on pull up jumpers to his right was a bit ragged at times. His lead (right) foot tends to drag, preventing him from getting fully squared to the rim. That's just a minor thing, as his other jumpshot mechanics are very good, so a little coaching should correct that and make him a dangerous pullup shooter.
If I had to pick any one guy from this group of bigs, it would be Carlton Bragg. Zimmerman probably has a chance to be the best eventually, but if you're talking about definite impact, Bragg is your guy.
I would be willing to bet there are other sites like this for fans of other teams. Just about every major school has an IT major, so I would imagine that every fan base has at least a few hardcore fans that have the skill. Whether they have the dedication and time that @approxinfinity and @bskeet have shown is another question.
I too appreciate this site. I enjoy being able to banter with everyone here without the names because that allows you to judge someone on the quality of the content they write rather than judging them based on their name or job. It doesn't matter if you're a CEO or a curb cleaner, or whatever - if you love the Jayhawks and can bring something to the discussion, you're welcome here, no judgment. I like that.
There's a nice article over at Wages of Wins ↗ that does a pretty detailed analysis of Garnett vs. Love over the early part of their career. It basically determines that Love has been more productive with worse teammates than Garnett had in his early years.
As a second year player, Garnett was teamed with Tom Gugliotta (a solid veteran) and Stephon Marbury. He also had Sam Mitchell and Terry Porter (productive veterans) on those early teams. When Marbury was traded a few years later, they brought back Terrell Brandon, who played an all star caliber PG for a few years for them. Malik Sealy and Wally Szczerbiak (another all star caliber player for a couple years) teamed with him as well. This all before he was 25.
The best teammate Love ever had was Al Jefferson, and the two of them never played a full season together because of injuries. Kevin Love has not played with a single other all star caliber teammate.
The situations were not even close to similar. You can't compare Rubio to Marbury or Brandon because Rubio is the worst shooting PG in basketball, not just for last season, but on a historical basis. There's no Gugliotta equivalent. No veterans like Sealy, Porter or Sam Mitchell. No draft picks that became like Szczerbiak. Just two lost seasons with Al Jefferson or Kevin Love injured for portions of them. That's it.
I disagree with your guess that the "money teams" will always play for titles. This isn't baseball. There's a salary cap in the NBA that actually evens the playing field, provided that teams are smart with how they spend their money. Take Minnesota for example. They have had Kevin Love this entire time, and yet they have used lottery picks on the following players since drafting Love:
Ricky Rubio (worst shooting PG in NBA history)
Johnny Flynn (Out of the NBA)
Wesley Johnson (yet to average even double figures in his career)
Derrick Williams (had one season averaging 12 ppg, other than that, has averaged less than 9).
Trey Burke (traded for Shabazz Muhammed, who averaged 4 points a game in 37 games last year).
That's the lottery picks they used. They had Ty Lawson, but traded him to Denver on draft day so they could keep Rubio and Flynn. I don't have to tell you how that worked out.
Simply put, Minnesota's front office did a terrible job surrounding Love with talent, in much the same way that Cleveland's previous front office did a poor job of surrounding Lebron with talent. I think now players in the NBA realize that if they are stuck on a team with a bad front office, they are better off either 1) taking it upon themselves to bring in good players or 2) moving on.
Whether Minnesota has learned anything will become more obvious over the next couple of years as they try to build around Wiggins and Bennett. They got a good haul in this trade. Not enough to win a title, but a good start. But are they smart enough to build on the foundation or not?
As for me, I'm a Pistons fan from the Bad Boys days, so I know how the whole trade thing works. Those Pistons were built through the draft and trades
Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, Dennis Rodman and John Salley were drafted by the Pistons.
Bill Laimbeer (Cleveland), Rick Mahorn (Washington), Vinnie Johnson (Seattle), James Edwards (Phoenix) and Mark Aguirre (Dallas) were all acquired via trade.
Why did the Pistons have to make so many trades? Well, by Isiah Thomas' third year, they were a playoff team, but nowhere close to being good enough to take down the Celtics, but not picking high enough to get impact players entering the league like Malone, Jordan, Olajuwon, Barkley and Ewing. So they traded for guys to fill out their roster and hung two banners - my two favorite teams of all time.
I like the thought of small ball. If you do go small like that, you have to play your best rebounder with that group. The best rebounder will likely be Alexander, so I think he would get most of the minutes in a 4 guard lineup, followed by Mickelson or Lucas. A small ball lineup isn't going to be a group that looks to get the ball into the post, so there is a possibility that they would even go super small and play a lineup like Mason-Selden-Oubre-Svi-Traylor and take advantage of speed and quickness with pressing and trapping all over the floor, or potentially a lineup of Selden-Greene-Oubre-Svi-Traylor, where everybody is virtually the same size, so you could almost literally switch everything.
Lebron and the Heat were crowned. All they did in four years was go to the Finals four times and win the whole thing twice. That's quite an accomplishment. No team had gone to four consecutive Finals since the Lakers from 1982-1985. Guess what? Those Lakers also went 2-2 in that stretch, beating Philly in 6, losing to Philly in 4, losing to Boston in 7 and beating Boston in 6. When you can match resumes with the Showtime Lakers, I'd say you're doing okay as far as historical legacies are concerned.
Getting to the NBA Finals in four straight years is hard. Jordan never did it. Duncan never did it. Neither did Bird. The list of NBA greats to go to 4 consecutive finals looks like this - Magic, Kareem, Russell, Cousy. Havlicek. Oh, and Lebron and Dwyane Wade. That's the whole list. EVER
So we are in pretty historic territory at this point. If Lebron returns to the Finals this year with the Cavs, that will give him five straight trips, which will shorten the list to just Russell, Cousy and Lebron.
Love will probably never be an elite defender, but given that there are very few true post up players in the NBA now, as long as he does a decent job scheme wise, he should be able to help the Cavs on that end. The fact that Lebron, Irving and Love represent three of the best 25 offensive players in the NBA means that they can play a defense first big man with Love and still not clog things up offensively since all three of Love, Irving and James can play away from the basket. I would say that Love's presence should help a player like Anderson Varejao because the attention will be on Love rather than the less skilled offensive bigs for the Cavs.
A major thing lost in the discussion of this trade is that the Cavs core is still very young. Kevin Love turns 26 in two weeks. For a guy that doesn't predicate his game on athleticism, he should age very nicely, meaning he will probably remain effective well into his 30's. Kyrie Irving is 22. Dion Waiters is 22. Tristan Thompson is 23. Yes, they dealt Wiggins and Bennett, but the Cavs are still flush with young talent from all of the high draft picks they have had recently (Thompson, Waiters, Bennett, Wiggins and Irving were all top 5 draft picks).
Also, Kevin Love did go to the Final Four when he was at UCLA.
I have had at least one (possibly two) concussions in my life. It's scary to think that those two events may have turned my brain into a ticking timebomb where one day I wake up and can't remember basic things. I have tried to combat this by doing logic puzzles and memory exercises, in hopes that these things will combat any damage that may have been done during those concussions.
For that reason, I am a lot like @jaybate-1.0 . I still enjoy football, but I can't help but feel a little guilty when watching, especially when I see a woozy player helped to the sidelines. The unfortunate thing about football is that the vast majority of the people that will be affected by concussions suffered while playing will never make a dime playing the game.
To make matters worse, there just isn't enough being done, particularly at the high school level, to diagnose concussions. Too many high school teams are understaffed (most states have a cap on the number of coaches that can be hired) so trying to keep track of that many players to make sure that they aren't injured is an impossible task if there is only one trainer, 5-7 coaches and a handful of student managers assigned to 50-90 players (depending on school size and turnout).
It all adds up to a very worrisome situation that, like @jaybate-1.0 I have serious issues with supporting. I am also very disappointed in the NFL and their reaction to the issue, as I feel that they have not taken it very seriously.
50 years from now, I think football will become like boxing is now - a fringe sport, unless something significant is done to look after injuries, particularly head injuries.
I don't think Love is a superstar. He is a star. The problem for Love is that, playing in the NBA, if you are a single star on a team, you probably aren't going to the playoffs consistently. Look at some of the superstars that have missed the playoffs in the West over the years - Kobe and the Lakers missed the playoffs after Shaq left. Dirk missed the playoffs with the Mavs just a couple years ago. Carmelo and the Knicks missed the playoffs. Paul Pierce missed the playoffs several times (three straight years in his prime).
One guy can't do it on his own in the NBA. There is just too much talent to overcome. Unless you are the best player on the planet (a Jordan, a Lebron, a Magic, a Bird, a Russell or a Chamberlain) you can't drag a mediocre team to the playoffs. Even if you are the best player on the planet and you can drag a mediocre team to the playoffs, you aren't winning once you get there without some help.
I don't think Bennett is that good, honestly. He was a #1 pick, but I think his best case scenario is a solid interior scorer off the bench. The other #1 that Cleveland gave up is going to be a non-lottery selection, so it's probably going to be a fringe rotation player type of pick. The only top notch player that Cleveland really gave up was Wiggins, unless you're really high on Bennett or think that whoever is available at the 28th pick next year will be really good.
I'm not a big UA guy, but I will say that I really respect the work and effort that they went to in building that company literally from the ground up. It's a great story about perseverance, hard work and patience.
I finally took the time to really check out Stephen Zimmerman. My thoughts:
First things first, he's a lefty big man, which you rarely see. That's intriguing all by itself. He's a little thin on the frame, but I think he could fill out, so its not a huge negative. Definitely something to watch for as he goes through his senior year, though. I'd like to see him closer to 260 than the 235-240 he is right now.
Positives: He's very agile and mobile for his size. If he's a legit 7-0 (and he looks it) he moves extremely well. He's very fluid in his movement, which is important since he's a pretty tall, lanky kid. He has some explosion in his body, which allows him to finish in traffic even though he doesn't look very strong. He has a nice shooting stroke out to at least 17, maybe even a bit further. I could definitely see him developing touch out to the three point line if he doesn't already have it, because the mechanics are excellent. Great footwork in the post suggests that his is either very gifted naturally or has been coached extremely well. Knows how to use his head fakes, up and unders, etc. Can high point the ball on defense to get blocks. Handles the ball well on offense, although there is the danger that he thinks he is a better ball handler than he actually is.
Negatives: His body is probably not quite D1 ready. Very little muscle tone and quite thin. He will need to develop a lot of strength, especially in his lower half, or he will get pushed around in the post by smaller (but stronger) players. Does everything with the left hand. I watched several highlight videos and didn't see a single righty block or layup. He also tries to put the ball on the floor more than you would like to see from a big man.
Overall: I think a lot of Zimmerman, honestly. When I watched his highlights I had a flashback to something I saw back in the late 1990's. I don't think he is nearly as polished, but watch [this](
and tell me that his shooting and ball handling don't look similar. I think if he can add a little weight and strength, he is almost certainly an OAD player. He may stay two years to get his body ready, though.This already happens to a large extent on the coaching/training staff level. The question is whether the new NCAA rules will allow a player to transfer up without having to sit out a year. Also, whether they will allow players to transfer if schools change conferences (i.e. if a school drops from the Power 5 to the Sun Belt, can a player transfer out with no penalty).
This is where we have been for a while - it's just that the curtain has been pulled back and we can all see what is happening now.
I would imagine the transfer situation will start to really churn soon. Since D1 scholarships are renewable on a yearly basis, I can imagine that even more players will be non-renewed now as coaches are under pressure to produce results (wins). Players from lower level schools will be transferring up with the opportunity to get a larger stipend, while others will transfer down if they can't compete. This is what the NCAA fears, even though it has been going on for years, anyway.
The Big 12 has been an average to slightly above average conference. The major problem is that the Big 12 has really not had many top tier teams over the last decade.
Let's look at Sweet 16 appearances since 2004 -
Kansas has seven. Texas and Baylor each have three. Oklahoma State has two. Iowa State, K-State, Mizzou, Texas Tech, Texas A&M and Oklahoma all have one each. That's 21 total appearances in 11 seasons. That's not even 2 teams a year making it past the first weekend of the tournament.
Let's look at top 4 seeds since 2004:
2004 - OSU (2), Texas (3), Kansas (4)
2005 - OSU (2), Kansas (3), Oklahoma (3)
2006 - Texas (2), Kansas (4)
2007 - Kansas (1), A&M (3), Texas (4)
2008 - Kansas (1), Texas (2)
2009 - Oklahoma (2), Missouri (3), Kansas (3)
2010 - Kansas (1), K-State (2), Baylor (3)
2011 - Kansas (1), Texas (4)
2012 - Kansas (2), Missouri (2), Baylor (3)
2013 - Kansas (1), K-State (4)
2014 - Kansas (2), Iowa State (3)
That's not all that impressive, especially if you ignore KU on those lists. Consider that in those 11 years, the Big 12 has gotten a combined 60 teams into the dance and you realize that the Big 12's problem is that it has too many decent teams and not enough elite ones.
K-State is decent, but they aren't going to compete for a national title. Oklahoma is decent, but they aren't going to win it all. Same with OSU, Baylor, Missouri (when they were in the league), Iowa State, Texas (most years), etc. The Big 12 is full of legitimate NCAA tournament teams, but not teams that can lift the trophy on the first Monday in April. And that's the issue.
The key to watching the videos is to ignore the competition and look for specific skills. I look for athleticism, shooting mechanics, ball handling ability and the type of plays they try to make and can make.
For example, my hesitation with Tyler Dorsey comes not just from his size, but also from the fact that almost every jumpshot he takes is pretty closely challenged. He's a 2 guard, and in college he will have to deal with a 6-4 athlete every single night out. Can he still knock down those 20 footers with that type of defender on him? Also, the fact that he can't shake free of some of these guys is a concern as to whether he will be able to get his own shot at the D1 level. Is he quick enough and explosive enough to do that? The tape calls that into question. I like his ball handling and his shooting mechanics, but his athleticism gives me pause.
On the other hand I look at a guy like Carlton Bragg and you see a 6-9 guy with quickness, lots of explosive bounce, decent ball handling skills and good shooting mechanics. That means that he probably won't have any issues against bigger players because he's such a good athlete already. Look at him run the floor in the videos above - he runs the floor with the speed and agility of a guard. That's what makes me think he's an OAD.
When watching the shooting mechanics, I specifically focus on the release point. Is it high? Is it consistent? Is it fluid? That's what makes me love Kelly Oubre's shot. If guys have a lower release point, they will struggle as the competition improves (i.e. gets bigger and more athletic). Oubre's shot is high and smooth.
I want to see guys that can elevate and dunk in traffic, particularly for bigger players. That was always a concern for me with our own Perry Ellis. He didn't elevate in traffic and finish over guys at the high school level, which made me worry that he would struggle against bigger players in college. Guess what? When Perry Ellis faces guys bigger than him, he often struggles to finish around the rim. If you watch Bragg, you see the difference and realize that he probably will not have that same problem. If you can't elevate and finish over a 6-4 post player, you aren't going to be able to elevate and finish over a 6-9 guy.
I'm also very picky when watching guards to see the type of decisions they are making. Do they give the ball up on time on the break, or do they hold it too long. Those late decisions won't burn you in high school, but in college against better athletes and better overall players, it will haunt you to no end. Do they throw a bounce pass when they should? Do they seem to have command of the floor, or do they just make plays because they are bigger/ stronger than their opponents?
"I am always leery of players that have to lose that much weight to be competitive."
I agree with that sentiment as well, especially for a big man. Overweight big men struggle with conditioning and injuries, which could easily limit the ceiling of a player. Davis worries me for that reason. First, he may not be able to lose the weight and keep it off, or will struggle with his weight throughout the season, meaning that he will also struggle with his energy level and strength. Second, the extra work he has to do to lose/maintain the weight could result in injury.
I have known a few players that had to lose 20+ pounds when they went to college and of those guys, only one did not struggle significantly with maintaining his weight. The rest struggled either with losing the weight to begin with, or with the after effects like sluggishness, lack of strength, etc. Remember, you're asking him to drop maybe another 15 or 20 pounds and still bang on the block. There's no guarantee that losing the weight won't wear him down and decrease his effectiveness for a period of time, meaning you may not get much from him in year one.
But let's look at the injury risk as well. A guy that has to lose weight is likely doing extra work on the side to do so. Extra cardio and weight training is the probable formula. Well, that could mean that he's doing those things when he is tired, especially because he's also having his eating habits monitored. If he is not careful, that could lead to injury from sloppy training. I have confidence in Hudy and Co. that they will monitor these things, but that also is on the player to make sure every rep is done properly, which is something that doesn't always happen when a guy is tired.
The first stretch that stands out to me is Jan 13 - Jan 19. Oklahoma State, @ Iowa State, Oklahoma is a tough stretch. I'd be willing to guess that each of those teams will be in the top half of the conference. Because that's such a challenging stretch, I'd be wary of that January 10 game with Texas Tech at the Fieldhouse.
I'd also be wary of the game @ West Virginia on February 16 after the Saturday game with Baylor. That looks like a road trap game.
The Big Monday game against K-State is another game that is always tough.
The Hawks need to be careful of the final conference game @ Oklahoma also, as KU has not done well in season ending road conference games the last few years.
I am firmly in the camp that Ellis will not jump to the NBA because he isn't strong enough to play PF in the NBA and isn't athletic enough to play SF. With no position, I can't see him being a lottery pick, so there's no reason for him to jump. So I believe he will be back as a four year player.
As for the group you point to here, if Davis does the things that ESPN mentions (specifically improving his conditioning and losing a bit more weight, which will likely make him more explosive) then he likely is an OAD player. He's ranked 21 right now by ESPN, 35 by Rivals. Improved explosiveness and conditioning from a guy that size means he likely won't be in college more than a year. If he doesn't improve those things, or struggles with his weight, he likely won't be an effective D1 player. So the sword cuts both ways. If he does the things that will make him effective, he's probably an OAD. If he doesn't, we probably can't get more than 15 mpg out of him because of his weight and conditioning.
Carlton Bragg is an OAD. He's too athletic to not be an OAD if he plays well. As the scouting report states, he's a McD's AA from an athleticism standpoint. On top of that his jumpshot mechanics are sound, so he can probably become a legitimate perimeter shooter. He's ranked 14 right now by ESPN. Rivals has him at 9. That's OAD territory all the way. The only way he misses on that is if he just outright doesn't play well, which doesn't help KU.
Dorsey is the only one that I believe isn't a potential OAD, mostly because of his size. Since he's only 6-4 and isn't a true PG, I can't see him jumping right to the NBA, particularly since he isn't an elite athlete for a SG to make up for the lack of size (think Dwyane Wade). The downside for non-elite athletes on the perimeter is that they may not pan out when faced with bigger or stronger players. Remember Royce Woolridge? He wasn't ranked this high, but similar build and athletic profile. He once dropped 50 in a high school game. He was a non factor at KU. On the other end of the spectrum you have a guy like Tyler Ennis. He wasn't expected to be an OAD, primarily because he wasn't an elite athlete, but he settled in at the point and next thing you know, Adam Silver is calling his name.
I think Dorsey is really the only guy out of these three that could both play well and return to Lawrence for a second season. Bragg is almost a sure fire OAD and if Davis does his work, he will be as well.
To get to the non OAD players, you really have to look outside the top 30, but KU isn't really in on most of those guys right now.
I don't think you can really build a dynasty through the draft anymore. Too much has to go right. With salary caps and things like that, even if you draft all the right guys (like OKC did with Durant, Westbrook, Ibaka, Harden, etc). you can't really keep them all together.
Or you get good too quickly. Lebron faced this problem in Cleveland. In 2004 they picked 10th a took Luke Jackson, who didn't pan out. They had no pick in 2005 and then didn't pick until 25th in 2006 and didn't pick higher than 19 until after Lebron left. Lebron was actually too good to let the Cavs develop a team around him through the draft because they didn't get high picks in multiple years. The same thing happened to David Robinson in the 80's and 90's. Stockton and Malone as well. They made their teams so much better that they couldn't continue to add through the draft.
Or what would have happened to Jordan had the Sonics not sent them #5 pick Scottie Pippen for #8 pick Olden Polynice. Had the Sonics just kept Pippen, we would probably be talking about how many titles the 90's Sonics won and how close Jordan got so many times without breaking through. Sometimes you need to get lucky to build a dynasty.
I appreciate the back and forth and have taken no offense to any of the posts that you have made. I hope that I have likewise been able to make my points in a way that doesn't come off as standoffish or offensive.
I will agree with you that there are some inherent benefits to being a student athlete that a regular student does not get to enjoy. However, there are some drawbacks, too. While I was in college I was asked to be pictured in a promotion for student life. I was just a regular student, so I was paid for my appearance in the promotional materials. A friend of mine that was a student athlete could have participated as well, but could not have been paid for their appearance (and opted not to appear). That seemed unfair to me at the time because I myself was on scholarship (academic) and it wasn't like we were getting rich for this - I think we made $50 each for the four or five of us that appeared. That experience probably shapes my viewpoint on this issue more than anything. It seemed unfair to me when I was 19 and it still seems unfair to me now.
@JayHawkFanToo
I would respectfully disagree - academic scholarship winners have access to world class coaches and trainers with their professors. In addition, academic scholarship winners can have those professors introduce them to individuals in the professional world.
Bill Self cannot introduce his players to RC Buford. A business professor at KU can introduce their academic scholars to a prominent KU business graduate. Scholarship students have access to writing labs and such, as well as tutoring and special luncheons / banquets, etc. Just about every department has a scholarship banquet in which all of the scholarship recipients are brought to a banquet where they can meet and mingle with donors, etc. and actually do networking and get jobs, internships, etc. Athletes aren't really able to do this.
As a fan I ultimately want my team to win championships. I'm a Royals fan, but I'm in my early 30's, so I am too young to remember the playoffs of '84 and '85. I have memories of exactly 3 teams that finished above .500 - 1994, 2003 and last season. If you gave me the option of having the Royals win two World Series titles over the next 4 years, then being a 100 loss team every year for five years after that I would take it and I would not think twice. I'm a fan and I want to see my team win the big one, because even one title trumps several losing seasons. Heck, I've already sat through more than a few losing seasons, but to get a pair of titles, I would sit through five more losing seasons wearing my World Champions t-shirt and rewinding my championship DVD.
Fans remember titles, especially in the pros because titles are hard to come by. At KU we have a different perspective in basketball because KU is quite literally always good. The KU spectrum ranges from good to elite in basketball. A down year is a fourth place finish in the conference and an 8 seed in the NCAA tournament. At KU, there's no sense in mortgaging the future because the future is almost certain to be bright.
In the NBA though, that is not the case. The Bulls were awesome as long as Jordan and Pippen were there. As soon as those two left, the Bulls were no longer a great team. When Magic Johnson retired, the Lakers went from being elite to so-so until Shaq and Kobe hit their primes. After Bird, McHale and Parish, the Celtics were pretty pedestrian until they got Garnett and Allen (and Rondo) to team with Paul Pierce. That's just the way it goes in the NBA because the greatness of a team is directly intertwined with the players.
There is no assurance that the future will be bright, so if you are good now, you better shoot to be great because it will be over before you know it. Ask the Pacers about that. They were on the brink the last couple of years, then free agency hit for Lance Stephenson and Paul George broke his leg. They probably won't even make the playoffs this year after being the second best team in the East 2 years straight. Just like that, it may be over for them. Maybe they can land someone in the draft and Paul George comes back 100% next year, but maybe it doesn't work out and 2013 was the Pacers best chance at greatness and they let it all slip away. Six months ago the Pacers looked like they were on the brink of toppling the Heat - today, they are trying to figure out what they should do about the 2014-15 season.
That's pro sports for you. There is no guarantee that you will be good perpetually because no one team has the ability to corner the talent market like you can in college. That's why I look at OKC and wonder if they made the right decision with James Harden. I understand the salary cap, but why not play those two years out and see if the Durant-Westbrook-Harden-Ibaka group was enough to win a title because who knows, that window may have closed for them. You never know.
I agree that championships don't establish a legacy. There is more than that.
For instance, let's switch sports and talk about Jackie Robinson and Curt Flood. Both of them have legacies that are more about what they did off the field than what they did on it. Those are legacies built around not being a star.
But I think stars are judged differently. We judge them based on individual accomplishments, team success, off court things and personality. Nobody worries about whether non-stars have a great personality except for those that are putting together the team.
Lebron has done the on court stuff and his off court history is pretty good to me. As far as we know he hasn't impregnated a dozen different women, gotten into a bunch of bar fights, drove drunk, shot someone, hit his wife/girlfriend or any of the other things we often read about athletes doing. He just decided he wanted to play for a better team, and so he did. Now he has decided that he can do a better job assembling a team than the executives in Cleveland which, given their track record, isn't an unreasonable belief.
In a way, I think this will be his legacy. The NBA is starting to shift even more towards being a player's league and with that will inevitably come the ability of the player's to dictate how rosters are constructed. No one is going to games to watch the executives duke it out - they go to watch the players play. The players now realize that and are exercising that influence. As the best player, Lebron is leading the way on that, first by making it clear that he would take the max so that the league salary structure actually makes sense (i.e. best player making the most money) and then by making Cleveland act now to improve around him for both now and in the future. After all, a core of Love-Irving-Waiters isn't that bad.
Trading 3 for 1 isn't ideal, but as I wrote before, it's necessary given that you can't really build your franchise off other teams' incompetence anymore. Teams aren't just giving away talent for nothing at this point.
For instance, if Lebron had come into the League in the Magic Johnson situation (landing on a veteran team poised for a title run), he would have been drafted by Detroit instead of Cleveland (the Pistons picked second that year) and landed on a veteran team. If that happens, how many titles does Lebron help Detroit win from 2004-2010? Does he match Magic's run of five titles from 1980-1987? If so, what is his legacy?
Or let's say that Lebron comes into the Bird situation (drafted by one of the best front offices in sports, with a legendary coach) and lands on a team like San Antonio. I think it's fair to say that if that had happened, the Spurs would have won more than the 3 titles Bird won in the early 80's with Boston.
Or let's say that Lebron comes into the Jordan situation (drafted by the Cavs, but able to pair with another star just as he's coming into his own) who then are able to somehow trade in 2006 for the rights to LaMarcus Aldridge, giving Lebron a floor spacing big just as he starts figuring out how to utilize a player with that talent.
If any of those scenarios happen, we are probably discussing Lebron's career in far different terms. Heck, give him Kevin Love from the 2008 draft and we aren't even having the current discussion.
@JayHawkFanToo
I think the problem for the athletes is they have no real way of profiting from their own image while in college. For instance, a journalism student could submit their work to a magazine or other outlet and get paid for it as long as they do it on their own time. A college basketball player can't leave practice at KU and go somewhere and get paid to play basketball without forfeiting their scholarship. Again, the scholarships have roughly the same value and both students are receiving exposure from being at KU - but only one can directly profit while still in school without forfeiting their scholarship.
That's the major difference IMHO. As an athlete your scholarship basically prevents you from benefiting from your name and likeness without putting your scholarship in jeopardy. That is where the inequality comes in.
The O'Bannon ruling points to a long held legal principle - you own the rights to your name and image. For years, the NCAA and its member schools made money from promoting various things using the images of players - either in video games or in print material. Now, if the NCAA wants to do that, they will have to compensate athletes.
That means that what will likely happen is the NCAA will stop selling jerseys with various numbers on them depending on what number certain star players wear. You won't be able to go to the team store and buy a KU basketball jersey with the number of the star power forward on it. You won't be able to go to the team store for Oklahoma and buy the football jersey of the starting QB. Already, they have stopped selling the video games and there will likely be some sort of settlement for that.
I have long argued that athletes are restricted much more than other scholarship students. Let's look at this another way. KU has a strong journalism program. That program gives out scholarships. A student gets a journalism scholarship. During the summer, they get a paid internship at the LJW. In addition to that, a local Lawrence business owner that likes to hire KU students gives this journalism student a job at a local flower shop with some very nominal responsibilities, basically allowing the student to study while at work and get paid.
If an athlete were to do the same thing, they would not be able to work for the summer in the same area as their scholarship. Moreover, NCAA rules would require that if they worked somewhere else, it would have to be documented that they were actually working and not just goofing off or studying. That's a huge difference to me.
@JayHawkFanToo
The mention of Jordan brought to mind Michael Jordan's hall of fame speech. He basically spent his entire speech demeaning just about everyone that had ever come into contact with him and talking about how great he was. Jordan was as much about Jordan as anyone ever has been - he looked out for his own interests. It just so happens that he was fortunate enough to be teamed with an all time great as a teammate for his entire run, as well as other "very good" players (Rodman, Horace Grant, Kukoc). Early in his career, when he wasn't surrounded by those types of players - basically, from his rookie year until 1989-90 - his teams got bounced from the playoffs early. It wasn't until Pippen and Grant excelled that Jordan started winning titles.
Bird never won a single title without McHale and Parish. Johnson never won one without Kareem. He only won two of his five without Worthy. Wilt won one title with Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham, and the other with Jerry West. Russell won with Cousy, Jojo, Havlicek, KC and Sam Jones. Havlicek passed it on to Cowens. Olajuwon won his second title with the help of Drexler. Kobe and Shaq teamed up for three. Kobe won two more with Gasol. Wade won with Shaq, then Lebron and Bosh. Duncan won two with Robinson, then, with Robinson gone won more with Parker and Ginobili. Isiah Thomas won with Dumars and Rodman. You can go back through history and can't find a single all time great that won multiple titles that did so without teaming with another all star level talent, often and all time great.
Those two paragraphs cover 44 of the 67 titles won in the history of the league, including every multiple title winner of the last 30 years. Greatness requires not just individual greatness, but the greatness of at least one (probably two) teammates.
Some teams just aren't good at building that. Dallas has surrounded Dirk with that type of talent once. Paul Pierce and Boston did it once, but couldn't repeat. Barkley never did win a title. Stockton and Malone didn't, either because they always needed one more piece. Same with Ewing. Robinson never won a thing before Duncan came along.
The thing is, I think the current players are well aware of this. Lebron is well schooled in history, particularly NBA history. So is Kobe. They know what it takes to win a title just by looking at history. They also know that those windows often slam shut long before we are ready.
Lebron knows that his legacy as a great player at this point is defined only by titles. He needs at least one more, and the next 3-4 years is the best time to get it.
That link is for a story about possible NCAA changes that will alter the rules for the 65 schools in the 5 major conferences (ACC, Pac-12, SEC, Big 12, Big 10). It doesn't outright allow schools to pay players, but it does allow them to add money beyond the tuition, room and board costs that can currently be covered.
This seems like an attempt to keep the NCAA together by making allowances for the top tier schools. As I said back on the old board when we were dealing with conference realignment, a day was coming when the 5 major conferences were going to strike out on their own and have their own governing rules. It looks like that day is close.
In order to build a successful NBA team, you have to be able to both draft talented players and also trade or sign other players to supplement those guys.
For instance, the Spurs drafted Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Splitter and Cory Joseph. They traded for Kawhi Leonard on draft day (dealing George Hill, a player they had drafted and developed). They traded for Matt Bonner. Belinelli, Diaw, Danny Green, Patty Mills and Jeff Ayers, the guys that really enhanced their depth, were all signed as free agents. That's how you construct a team. You draft an all time great like Duncan, make some smart picks in Parker, Ginobili and Splitter, make a couple of saavy trades and then supplement everything through free agency.
Now, let's look at the roster construction of some other historic teams.
The Magic Johnson Lakers of the early 80's had Johnson, Michael Cooper, James Worthy and Norm Nixon acquired through draft (though Nixon was traded before the titles really started stacking up). A draft day trade brought back Byron Scott. They got Kareem Abdul Jabbar and Bob McAdoo (both all star level players) through trades. Mitch Kupchak, Kurt Rambis and Jamaal Wilkes all came through free agency.
The Bird Celtics are similar to these Spurs, as Bird, McHale, Cedric Maxwell, Danny Ainge and Greg Kite were all drafted by Boston. Dennis Johnson, Robert Parish and Quinn Buckner were all acquired through trades. M.L. Carr was a free agent pickup.
Jordan's Bulls had Jordan, Horace Grant, BJ Armstrong, Stacey King and Will Perdue all drafted by Chicago. Pippen was acquired in a draft day trade. Bill Cartwright was acquired through a trade. Cliff Levingston, John Paxson and Scott Williams were free agent signings.
The second three-peat saw only Jordan and Kukoc as players drafted by the Bulls (along with the draft day trade that brought back Pippen. Luc Longley and Dennis Rodman were both acquired through trade. Everyone else - Randy Brown, Ron Harper, Steve Kerr, Bill Wennington, Judd Buecheler - was signed through free agency.
And now the Heat. They only drafted Wade (although they did sign Haslem as an undrafted free agent that year). Joel Anthony was an undrafted signee. Chalmers and Norris Cole were both draft day trades. Bosh and Lebron came through trade. Battier, Allen, Juwan Howard, Rashard Lewis and the rest came through free agency.
Everyone makes trades and signs free agents. I think the difference with the Heat is that the trades for Bosh and James were so prominent. The Celtics traded for Robert Parish, who anchored the middle for those teams. They don't win those titles in the 1980s without him. The Lakers don't win without trading for Kareem. Same for the Bulls needing to trade for Rodman. These were all-star level players that they acquired through trade - in Kareem's case, and MVP level player.
The other thing you have to remember is that most teams are pretty savvy now and won't make some of the mistakes that allowed some of those earlier teams to be built. The Lakers drafted both Magic Johnson and James Worthy #1 overall. How did they get those picks? Well, the 1979 pick (Johnson) came because at the time free agency meant teams received compensation for players signed away from them (which has since been changed). New Orleans signed Gail Goodrich in 1976 and had to give the Lakers their 1978 first round pick, their 1979 first rounder and an additional second rounder. That 1979 pick ended up being #1 and became Magic Johnson. That's how Johnson ended up on a stacked team and won two titles in his first three seasons. After that second title, the Lakers picked James Worthy #1 overall. They got that pick from Cleveland, who after that and a series of other trades had the Stepien rule named after them (the rule that prevents an NBA team from trading consecutive first round picks).
So that allowed the Lakers to draft two hall of fame players that, had they drafted in the appropriate spots considering their finish, they never would have landed either Johnson or Worthy in all likelihood.
I think the writer that put the column up about his interview is just trying to stir something up. He pretty clearly is talking about his constant tweeting. The interviewer asked him if that was a side of his personality and he says "I did it [meaning Twitter] at Kansas, but at Kansas there are so many rules..." This is likely in reference to the code of conduct that the athletes must abide by, as well as internal team rules regarding social media. It's unfortunate that the writer of that article decides to use Joel's accent as a means to troll for clicks.
I would guess his low ranking is at least in part due to the fact that he is Canadian and bounced around at US high schools, playing at times against subpar competition as far as I can see on the videos. It appears that he's a decent athlete, but I haven't seen any other skills on the limited video I have watched. I would say that he is a lesser version of Cliff Alexander, actually.
He's an inside banger that doesn't step out to shoot much. He can protect the rim, but he's not the athlete that Cliff is. He's not as big or as strong to my eye, but his timing is good and his effort seems good. I wish there was more video of him, but I haven't found it yet.
I'd like to see him next between Traylor and Alexander to compare his size to those guys. He would be a nice late add, but how much he would contribute this season is an open question.
I truly believe the reason Nike hasn't made a big push to sponsor KU is because they already have OU and Texas on the roster. If OU and Texas were not with Nike, I think Nike's approach would probably change with regard to KU.
As for whether the shoe companies are recruiting or steering kids to certain schools, that is difficult to pin down. Duke got big time recruits the last few years, but is that because of Nike, or because they have Kyrie Irving playing well in the NBA and Coach K in a prominent spot coaching USA basketball?
Was Wiggins not targeted by Nike because Nike has spent a large amount of its budget on Lebron, Durant and others, including the aforementioned Irving? I think both companies are looking at players and deciding who fits with their marketing idea. Wiggins is a quiet guy, similar in that trait to another Adidas front man (Derrick Rose). Lebron and Durant are both much more outgoing in personality. Does personality play into who each company focuses on when it comes to marketing?
I don't know the answers to this, but I would imagine that those things play into that decision as much as anything else.
@drgnslayr
There's a concept that Pat Riley talks about when it comes to championship teams. He started talking about it back when he was with the Showtime Lakers. Basically, its an issue where once a team has had success, everybody starts wanting more - more fame, more publicity, more playing time, more shots, more credit, whatever. And that desire for more cuts into the type of sacrifices necessary to play championship basketball.
For Miami, the disease of more caught up to them this year, combined with an aging roster. Look at Miami's team from this season, but from a different angle:
3 - Wade, Haslem
2 - James, Bosh, Allen, Anthony, Anderson, Chalmers, Cole, Battier
1 - Lewis
That's everyone that was in the rotation for this year's Miami team, according to how many titles they have. Only Rashard Lewis didn't have multiple titles.
Now look at San Antonio
4 - Duncan
3 - Parker, Ginobili
1 - Bonner
That's a roster where most of the guys on the team - Leonard, Mills, Splitter, Diaw, Green, Belinelli, Joseph - had never won a title. Those guys were hungry because for most of the Spurs, the only Finals experience they had was losing after they had been so close the previous year.
You have to remember, in the last minute of Game 6 of the 2013 Finals, they actually had rolled the championship trophy out in anticipation of a Spurs win. Some of the players on the bench actually saw the trophy sitting in the wings. The floor staff was already beginning to rope off the floor and bring out the stage. That's how close Leonard, Green, Diaw, Joseph and Splitter were to their first NBA title. They could literally see it right in front of them.
And then it was snatched away.
I can't criticize the Heat too much because they played in the last game of the season in four straight seasons, and won two titles along the way. That doesn't happen unless you construct a great roster with a group that is committed to playing basketball the right way. They just ran out of gas this year against a younger, fresher, hungrier Spurs team.
I disagree that the Spurs aren't athletic. Tony Parker is one of the quickest PG's in the league. He may not be a high flyer, but his speed and quickness is absolutely elite. Kawhi Leonard is a tremendous athlete. Danny Green isn't Lebron or even Kawhi Leonard, but he's athletic. Ginobili still has some bounce. Splitter is a pretty athletic big guy.
Compare that to Miami - Obviously Lebron is an elite athlete by any measure. But neither Cole or Chalmers is an uber athlete for an NBA PG. Wade is about at the same place as Ginobili. Battier is well past his prime. Same goes for Haslem, Lewis and Allen. Joel Anthony isn't any more athletic than Splitter. Anderson is more athletic than those guys, but not tremendously so. Bosh is athletic as far as being mobile, but when matched inside with a guy like Duncan, his quickness can't match Duncan's strength, so it evens out. Athlete for athlete, the Heat weren't any more athletic than the Spurs. Once you discount James and Leonard (the two truly elite athletes in the series), the athleticism was actually fairly even. It's just that the thought of a guy like Lebron makes you think Miami as a whole is more athletic. That's just not the case, and when you have a guy like Leonard who can match up with James athletically, the fact that SA was pretty even with them (if not more athletic, honestly) starts to show, especially when you account for the depth of the Spurs.
I think that KU has three guys going next year with Oubre, Alexander and Selden. Like most, I expect Perry to be a four year player. I just don't know quite how he fits on an NBA roster right now. He's not powerful enough to play at the 4 and has not shown the lateral quickness to be a 3 in the NBA. There's not really any reason to leave for the NBA as a junior if he isn't a sure fire first round pick, so I figure he's back in Lawrence for his senior year.
I think Svee plays two seasons simply because he's so young. The only caveat to that is that because he is international, he always has the option to leave KU and return to Europe to play there at any time. There are no rules that would prevent him from playing in the Euroleague, even in the middle of the college season.
The nice thing about having top 10 picks basically every year is that keeps KU in everyone's basketball consciousness year round. College season ends in April, but with lottery picks, people are interviewing Coach Self and talking KU hoops into late June. That's something that doesn't happen if you don't have lottery pick talent. How many times did you see Roy Williams get interviewed leading up to the NBA draft? That's basically free recruiting time for teams with lottery picks. Hopefully Self continues to capitalize on that.
I'm a Nike guy for shoes because the narrowness has helped me avoid sprained ankles. I've worn other shoes in the past and had ankle problems, but never in Nikes. That's just my experience, though.
As for the shoe deals, it's a marketing strategy thing. For Nike, they try to get 2-3 major schools in every conference. In the Big 12, that's Oklahoma and Texas. In the Big 10, it's tOSU and MSU. In the PAC-12 it's Stanford and Oregon. In the SEC, Florida, Alabama and Kentucky. ACC has Florida State, Duke and UNC. I think Nike tries to cover both football and basketball, but they pay a premium for football because football is the money maker.
Obviously for KU, this hurts because KU football has been weak the last several years. OU and Texas give Nike a good presence in the midwest, so they are in a position where they don't have to offer KU as much money because they already got Texas and OU. On the other hand Reebok and Adidas are in a position where they need a deal with a prominent midwest school, so they have to offer KU a good deal, hence why KU took the Adidas deal.
Honestly, I don't think this affects recruiting. Most of the top players attend all of the various camps, so they have Nike stuff from the Nike camp, Adidas stuff from the Adidas camp, Reebok stuff, etc. Individual players probably have some preferences, but I don't think many players are choosing a school because it is a "Nike" school or an "Adidas" school or whatever.
I don't think this hurts KU's perception, ultimately. The product on the court/field is what matters. In basketball, that product is strong. In football it is not. That's what helps or hurts.