How is it changing the narrative to post that we don't have a sample size to judge in one post and then support that for the reasons why?
Only an unreasonable a rear of a donkey would try to judge a coach in his fourth season of taking over a disaster for development when he's never had a kid he recruited or even a capable rotation player play three seasons.
Ok, genius, Mullin failed to turn AA from a scrub into a star, but Ponds gets better each week and is an All-American. But that's not evidence of development?!
You're so ready to draw conclusions based on a small sample size, let's do it: Mullin has had two kids after this season who have played three years for him and he turned 50% of them into All-Americans. That is the greatest % of all-time.
Damn this isn't that difficult to grasp. I'm not giving the staff credit for the development of Ponds, who as a freshman averaged over 17pts a game and as a sophomore averaged over 21pts a game. If you do, then lets look at other players the staff had a least 2 years to work with and see how they progressed.
Clark and Simon - 3rd year with the program, they have regressed from last year. Hopefully their play improves but as of right now that is the case.
T. Owens - 3 years with the program and didn't show any improvement.
AA - 3 years, results speak for themselves.
B. Ahmed - Didn't improve in the second year like Ponds showed.
K. Yakwe - Similar to Ponds, the previous staff was recruiting him but the current staff signed him. Top 100 kid, thought he would lay the foundation, we had him for 3 years, had a promising freshman year then dropped off a cliff.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Let's just pump the breaks a little on giving the staff credit for developing Ponds non sense. Who else have they developed to warrant that credit? Ponds developed Ponds. He is a once in a generation type of player.