In Reply to: Re: Few coaches can surmount losing three players every year posted by russsmith on October 09, 2018 at 19:29:44
I think you hit the nail on the head, but you dont realize it. People are extrapolating high school success/athleticism to the collegiate level when that doesnt necessarily translate, especially when they arent the top 5 type kids. What many were pontificating was that Hands would be an excellent defensive addition bc he was so athletic. It became VERY apparent that he simply wasnt a very good defender. His lateral movement was poor, his positioning was worse and his effort yoyoed.
Yes, we started 2 seniors and a Jr last year, but EVERYONE knew that Tommy was an atrocious defender and nobody thought of GG as a defensive stopper by any means. Hell, most of the prognosticators believed that Cody was going to the the starting PF sooner rather than later. WE knew our interior D was going to be bad, and then abysmal when we lost the China 3.
So if you really looked at our starters last year, we had 2 unproven freshman (Hands and Wilkes), an awful defender (Tommy), a poor defender (GG) and a very good defender (Holiday). I dont think it's crazy to say that there is no way to assert this should have been a defensive stalwart of a team.
Not sure why you thought we were a selfish team? We only had 2 players that you could reliably count on to score -- Holiday and Tommy. Hands was a loose cannon (think about all of those step back 3s), Wilkes certainly got better as the year progressed, but he was the third option always, and GG, AO, Ali were all offensive liabilities without defensive upside. Gelo was thought of as a potential 10 min player who shot the 3. Cody was going to be out power guy down low, while Tommy spread the court with Holiday.
I thought the team performed as expected based on the huge losses from the previous year coupled with the China event and the shallow and average roster that remained.
Post a Followup