I was watching the game last night and I got caught up in trying to figure out how we seem to have fielded teams in back-to-back years that just really struggle to stay on the floor with Carolina. It's interesting because even last year's group that came together and played some outstanding basketball at times in the tourney lost twice to UNC in the regular season (played tough in Chapel Hill, but were fighting out of a hole most of the game) and then got waxed in the final four.
What's interesting about how they've beaten us (ugly turnovers aside in yesterday's game) is that I would say generally that we've been overwhelmed by their size and athleticism.
Yet, if you look at the NBA draft as some sort of referendum on how much talent their is on each team (an imperfect measure, I agree, but stay with me) Johnson didn't go until 25 (after Mali) and Paige didn't go until 55. If you look at this group Jackson is the only guy I've seen with a first round grade and it's mostly sneaking into the end of the first round. Meeks and Hicks will get a shot somewhere, presumably, and maybe the Bradley kid could go but he didn't even play yesterday.
So, anyway, all of this brings me back to the point of who are you recruiting? The question is this: Is there a way to recruit kids that are really good basketball players, have good athleticism, but don't necessarily blow the doors off the folks making decisions in the NBA draft? And, is there a method to keeping kids in your program even if they don't see huge minutes as frosh and/or sophs?
So it's possible to look at it and say that both outcomes are pure luck -- you do a good job of finding a great prospect in Michael Carter-Williams, but he blows up late in high school, you hang onto him with a death grip for two years and eventually conceded that while he still has improvement to make, he's about to go on and be NBA rookie of the year. You find Jeremi Grant and, for whatever reason, he decides he doesn't need a jumper to start an NBA career (not being a pr!ick, but that was quite literally the decision he made). You find BJ Johnson, there is some sort of miscommunication or something regarding a redshirt and, whatever happened, he's helping LaSalle instead of SU in his fourth season.
But the other way to look at those guys (outside of BJ) is like this -- whether MCW or Grant could hit a jumper or not, they had length and athleticism and unique athletic gifts that make NBA scouts drool regardless of their actual production or true basketball skill.
So here is my theory: I don't see SU going away from playing on a few of the big names from year-to-year, nor would I want them to abandon that. But do they try to put more emphasis on basketball skill over pure athleticism? In other words, instead of recruiting only Quade b/c he's the 'perfect PG', do they settle on someone with good skill and some solid upside to potentially become Quade by 2019 or 2020? Instead of finding the perfect 6'5" 2-guard prototype in Mali, do they find a player who has a good nose for the basket but plays the 2 at 6'2"? Do you go with Josh Pace instead of Jeremi Grant?
Which brings me to TT. I'm not trying to gloss over Thompson's weaknesses and the very real possibility that for all his offensive prowess there is a legitimate chance that he never becomes even a halfway decent defender or remotely adequate rebounder. But Thompson has put up more points in fewer minutes than McCullough did and, if he averages 6 ppg for the remainder of the season, will outpace Fab's sophomore season as a scorer (234 pts).
Now, again, his scoring doesn't make him a great player but I don't seem Thompson's name on draft boards anywhere. So if that stays true and they can somehow find a way to make him OK defensively between now and next November, they could easily have a guy who is a legit weapon offensively while playing OK D and standing 6'10". Plus, if he's not an NBA prototype, maybe you get year 3 from him. Who knows?
Anyway, bottom line is that both Carolina and Nova (along with some other programs) have clearly reaped the benefit of finding players who are really good but haven't left after a year or two while the Cuse has been ravaged by early departures (NBA and transfers who decided not to stick it out) or left with players who didn't have as much upside -- guys like Keita (who was great and valuable but exceedingly limited offensively), Cooney (loved how he played in the tourney but spent most of his time as a streaky outside shooter who played solid defense), and Brandon Triche (decent all-around player but awful shooter and not particularly great off the bounce -- limiting combination for a guard). Instead they need to find themselves more versions of the Jalen Brunsons and Isaiah Hicks types.
It's obviously not as simple as it sounds but I have to wonder if focusing a bit more on makeup and polish and a bit less on measurables and potential is a direction this staff goes. Otherwise you get stuck in the frustrating and often unfulfilling cycle of constantly trying to work 3 or 4 pieces into the rotation each year and often times getting caught short on functioning parts (this rotation as well as last year's is really short, even for JB).
What's interesting about how they've beaten us (ugly turnovers aside in yesterday's game) is that I would say generally that we've been overwhelmed by their size and athleticism.
Yet, if you look at the NBA draft as some sort of referendum on how much talent their is on each team (an imperfect measure, I agree, but stay with me) Johnson didn't go until 25 (after Mali) and Paige didn't go until 55. If you look at this group Jackson is the only guy I've seen with a first round grade and it's mostly sneaking into the end of the first round. Meeks and Hicks will get a shot somewhere, presumably, and maybe the Bradley kid could go but he didn't even play yesterday.
So, anyway, all of this brings me back to the point of who are you recruiting? The question is this: Is there a way to recruit kids that are really good basketball players, have good athleticism, but don't necessarily blow the doors off the folks making decisions in the NBA draft? And, is there a method to keeping kids in your program even if they don't see huge minutes as frosh and/or sophs?
So it's possible to look at it and say that both outcomes are pure luck -- you do a good job of finding a great prospect in Michael Carter-Williams, but he blows up late in high school, you hang onto him with a death grip for two years and eventually conceded that while he still has improvement to make, he's about to go on and be NBA rookie of the year. You find Jeremi Grant and, for whatever reason, he decides he doesn't need a jumper to start an NBA career (not being a pr!ick, but that was quite literally the decision he made). You find BJ Johnson, there is some sort of miscommunication or something regarding a redshirt and, whatever happened, he's helping LaSalle instead of SU in his fourth season.
But the other way to look at those guys (outside of BJ) is like this -- whether MCW or Grant could hit a jumper or not, they had length and athleticism and unique athletic gifts that make NBA scouts drool regardless of their actual production or true basketball skill.
So here is my theory: I don't see SU going away from playing on a few of the big names from year-to-year, nor would I want them to abandon that. But do they try to put more emphasis on basketball skill over pure athleticism? In other words, instead of recruiting only Quade b/c he's the 'perfect PG', do they settle on someone with good skill and some solid upside to potentially become Quade by 2019 or 2020? Instead of finding the perfect 6'5" 2-guard prototype in Mali, do they find a player who has a good nose for the basket but plays the 2 at 6'2"? Do you go with Josh Pace instead of Jeremi Grant?
Which brings me to TT. I'm not trying to gloss over Thompson's weaknesses and the very real possibility that for all his offensive prowess there is a legitimate chance that he never becomes even a halfway decent defender or remotely adequate rebounder. But Thompson has put up more points in fewer minutes than McCullough did and, if he averages 6 ppg for the remainder of the season, will outpace Fab's sophomore season as a scorer (234 pts).
Now, again, his scoring doesn't make him a great player but I don't seem Thompson's name on draft boards anywhere. So if that stays true and they can somehow find a way to make him OK defensively between now and next November, they could easily have a guy who is a legit weapon offensively while playing OK D and standing 6'10". Plus, if he's not an NBA prototype, maybe you get year 3 from him. Who knows?
Anyway, bottom line is that both Carolina and Nova (along with some other programs) have clearly reaped the benefit of finding players who are really good but haven't left after a year or two while the Cuse has been ravaged by early departures (NBA and transfers who decided not to stick it out) or left with players who didn't have as much upside -- guys like Keita (who was great and valuable but exceedingly limited offensively), Cooney (loved how he played in the tourney but spent most of his time as a streaky outside shooter who played solid defense), and Brandon Triche (decent all-around player but awful shooter and not particularly great off the bounce -- limiting combination for a guard). Instead they need to find themselves more versions of the Jalen Brunsons and Isaiah Hicks types.
It's obviously not as simple as it sounds but I have to wonder if focusing a bit more on makeup and polish and a bit less on measurables and potential is a direction this staff goes. Otherwise you get stuck in the frustrating and often unfulfilling cycle of constantly trying to work 3 or 4 pieces into the rotation each year and often times getting caught short on functioning parts (this rotation as well as last year's is really short, even for JB).
