Here are the BE teams that we are more talented than:
Nova, Creighton, Butler, Seton Hall, Xavier, Georgetown, Providence, DePaul and Marquette.
The difference is that most of these programs have a coach with a clear POV.
Lavin doesn't know what he's going to do next. That's why I've had enough of him. I'm not interested in a let's see what the future brings attitude because he doesn't know what it will bring. If he returns, the University can go F itself. Sell tickets to some other a hole.
Its easy to simply say we have more talent, but please quantify that. Creighton has the best player in the BE but we're more talented? I don't care about comparing players 6-10. I'm looking at 1-5.
Let's look at a team that we just played and could have beaten, Providence. Do we have a better guard than Cotton? Who could shot, dribble penetrate, pass, defend, and rebound. Do we have a better big than Batts or Henton? They could defend, rebound, pass, and score.
I think the problem is many of you struggle assessing the talent of the players on our team. I just listed three players' on Providence who preforms at least four aspects of the game very well. Who are on our team does at least two things very well? I see Jordan and that's it. If you do that simple exercise, you will discover that we have a team full of one dimensional players who do different things. We are deeper, but only five play at a time. That's how i'm looking at it which is why I believe Providence, GT, and Nova's starting five is more talented than our starting five. Creighton I think we may be better than but they has the best player in the BE so it's a push.
Convince me that we have more talent than Nova, GT, and Xavier.
We have the best shot blocker in the BE since Dikembe Mutombo. Obekpa came here with that natural talent. What else has the staff taught him? Cooley develops players. Last year, and this year, he's shown us that. Who the heck was Cotton before Providence? Who was Henton?
We have a 6'4 PG who is more talented than any guard in the conference. When opposing teams zone us, he has one answer for that zone. Dribble right through it. Since we both know that doesn't work, why doesn't Lavin try something like, oh, IDK, draw up a F'n play? The reason why Providence was able to beat us in addition to Lavin's awful substitution patterns was their ball movement. If you practice with the same group of guys over a period of time, you should have an understanding of how they play. How they like to receive the ball for example.
Lavin has had more time than Cooley to work out the kinks. No one is injured. We aren't playing with walk ons. We aren't playing with 6 or 7 new players. I understand that not every player can do it all. Fine. Then why the F are you bringing Max Hooper in to play defense on Henton? WTF is wrong with Lavin? Is he even paying attention to what he's doing? I honestly don't think he is.
Your argument has many holes in it. First off, we're discussing actual talent, not development. The fact you completely ingnored my question to quantify how our players are more talented than others I will take that as you conceeding my point. Secondly, Cotton and Batts are seniors. How then can Lavin possibly have spent more time with his players than Cooley? They were balling the first year Cooley took over the program, doubt that had anything to do with Cooley developing them. Cooley inherited them. What sophmore did Lavin inherit when he took over this program that would turn into the teams two best players when they are senoirs? none. CO blocks shots, great, can he rebound? Pass? Score? Hit and "F'N" free throw?. How are you comparing players development when Sampson, CO, and Jordan are sophmores and freshman to seniors like Cotton and Batts? When our players are seniors, then you can compare the development aspects of it, but right now we are speaking about who has more talent, and its not SJU.
I did answer your question. I'll try to again. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that a top 50 recruit who won the BE ROY is more talented than anyone in Providence's frontcourt. That's quite a few pro opinions that hold Jakarr's ability in high regard.
What I saw last week is that Providence is smarter. They run set plays. They work the ball around and they put guys in position to score. That's not talent. That's awareness and polish that comes from coaching. Good coaching.
Talent, even if it's raw talent is Sampson scoring even when he does it the wrong way. Harrison, Jordan and Sampson are spending most of their time trying to get shots for themselves. Thing is, enough of the time, they are so gifted, it works despite no set play or any sensible ball movement.
Understand now?
So let me understand this, you would take Sampson over Batts because Sampson won BE rookie of the year? You think Sampson is a better rebounder, scorer, passer, defender than Batts because he won BE rookie of the year? That really make no sense. Along with this foolish notion that we don't run any plays. The irony of that statement in reference to the Providence game is that both teams ran the same exact play in overtime multiple times. The last play SJU ran for Harrison at the end of the 1st overtime, where he almost turned the ball over before he got off a prayer shot, was the same exact play Providence ran at the end of the 2nd overtime where Cotton scored and got fouled. It had nothing to do with being smarter, or better coaching, or running plays, or moving the ball, its called talent. That's what it looks like.
The more many of you speak the clearer it becomes. It baffles my mind how some can criticize coach for not doing this or that yet don't have a clue what they're looking at.
Sampson has been regarded by high school basketball analysts, and BE coaches to be more worthy of recognition than anyone in Providence's front court. I'm saying that all of his skills are sharper than Batts or Henton. That's my point. Sampson, with better coaching would be in position to declare for the NBA draft.
He was a better player last year. A bad coach can ruin a player's development, no matter how much talent is there. A great coach can help a player with potential realize that potential. It's not a recipe that works every time in every situation. These are all individual people, who can be motivated to work as hard as they want, and take it upon themselves to decide how much work is enough?
Felipe Lopez was more talented than Lawrence Moten as a freshman. Moten was smarter. Not more talented, smarter.
AND it's not a foolish notion that we don't run set plays. We don't run many set plays. You are correct that we run an offense with plays. It's just that we run them rarely. Harrison should be looking for an open player when he is doubled teamed late in the game. He did that once, and Sanchez missed a wide open 3 pointer. So, the next time, he took the shot himself, except he didn't have a shot.
Think about like this. One team has 5 guys who were regarded as legit NBA prospects in October in their starting line up. One team has zero. Cotton isn't a pro. Batts isn't a pro. These guys are hard workers who have learned Cooley's system.
Our system, is apparently unclear to me, and most of the "slow" people on this board. So, if you understand it so well, please take a moment and explain it me/us. Not trying to be a dic, but I've watched most of our games and I honestly have no idea what we try to do.