# Kansas 2005 preseason #1, says Katz



## VincentVega

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=1776251


----------



## ThePhenom

Villanova should be in the top 25. They're going to be dynamite next year.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

Already getting #1 love, and Hairston hasn't even decided to come to Lawrence yet


----------



## WhoDaBest23

A lot of 'what ifs' behind the whole thing...


----------



## ThePhenom

Katz also predicted Stanford to be cutting down the nets tonight.


----------



## Stevie B

DHarris is gone. Wisconsin should be 20-25.

I like his 1-2. I think Zona should be higher but they haven't earned it. ACC/BEast are gonna dominate once again. Doesnt it look like it?

Both leagues have 5 or 6 top 20-25 teams.


----------



## rebelsun

Wisconsin is way too high, if Harris is gone.

Arizona is way too low. Yeah they lose Iguodala, but they are gaining McClellan and Tangara, along w/ a more mature squad.


----------



## KJay

even without Hairston we should be really good. Syracuse should be up there, now that Edelin may not be back. (THANK GOD)


----------



## Kmasonbx

That was written yesterday so he should've known Kirk Snyder has signed with an agent, so there is no if he comes back, he isn't. 

Katz didn't mention JR Smith for North Carolina, who if he goes to school will be one of the best freshman in the nation. ACC and Big East are easily going to be the 2 best conferences again next season. I don't get why Pitt isn't in the top 25, they are losing Julius Page and Jaron Brown, but they return Chris Taft, Carl Krauser, Chevy Troutman and Mark McCarroll. They are also bringing in 2 impact freshman, 6'2 Keith Benjamin and 6'0 Ronald Ramon, both will give Pitt much needed perimeter shooting. 

I don't think Kansas will be better than Duke, I think Daniel Ewing will show a lot next year, and Deng will be back. They are only losing Duhon, they will miss his defense and leadership but everything else he brough is easily replaceable. I think Dockery is just as good a defender, so basically all they need is someone to step up as their leader. 

Syracuse and UCONN are going to be very good. If Warrick doesn't go pro Cuse could be making a run at the national title. Along with everybody that will be back they are bringing in Josh Wright who with Louie McCroskey will form the best backup backcourt in the nation. Those two would actually start for 90% of the schools in the nation, and Cuse will get to bring them off the bench. UCONN is losing a lot with Okafor, Gordon and Brown, but AJ Price will be a PG who can actually put the ball in the hoop, the rest of the starting five should be Anderson, Denham Brown, Villanueva and Boone, with Rudy Gay and Marcus Williams getting major minutes off the bench. Gay could end the season as the top freshman in the nation if he doesn't turn pro.


----------



## tr_west

Acc had 5 teams in the top 10 and 6 in the top 15!


----------



## Coatesvillain

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> Villanova should be in the top 25. They're going to be dynamite next year.


 

If they take their play from the end of this season into next, I could definitely see Villanova making a run to be one of the better teams in the nation. Really there's no excuses for this season, the talent has always been there, but they can no longer use the excuse of their youth. One thing though, they have to have an even better shot at winning the Big 5 this season.


----------



## Nimreitz

Oh man. And the best part is that Wisconsin almost SHOULD go to the Final Four next year.

STAY IN SCHOOL DEVIN HARRIS


----------



## ThePhenom

> Originally posted by <b>PhillyPhanatic</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they take their play from the end of this season into next, I could definitely see Villanova making a run to be one of the better teams in the nation. Really there's no excuses for this season, the talent has always been there, but they can no longer use the excuse of their youth. One thing though, they have to have an even better shot at winning the Big 5 this season.


I see them atleast doing what Providence did this year. The Friars came on really strong at the end of the 2002-2003 season and it carried into 2003-2004. Nova came on really strong at the end and I think it'll have the same effect. Of course, the ACC gets most of the media hype so teams from other conferences do tend to fly under the radar.


----------



## texan

georgia tech and wisconsin dont deserve to be that high


----------



## ThePhenom

Georgia Tech will be solid next year, although I'm not sure if they'll have much success sustaining that #3 ranking. If you want to worry about a team most likely not deserving the ranking Katz gave them, it's probably Kansas. Miles, Langford, and Simien 3 of the nation's best players? I'll give you Simien. I won't give you Miles and Langford. I take Duke over them in a heartbeat even if Livingston and Deng bolt for the NBA.


----------



## Ghost

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> Georgia Tech will be solid next year, although I'm not sure if they'll have much success sustaining that #3 ranking. If you want to worry about a team most likely not deserving the ranking Katz gave them, it's probably Kansas. Miles, Langford, and Simien 3 of the nation's best players? I'll give you Simien. I won't give you Miles and Langford. I take Duke over them in a heartbeat even if Livingston and Deng bolt for the NBA.


I disagree with you on that. Duke doesn't have a leader now that Duhon is leaving and if Deng and Livingston leave they wouldn't have as good of a team as Kansas. Kansas would have a Better PF, PG, SF, SG.


----------



## ThePhenom

That leader stuff is beyond overrated. Duke has enough talent to beat Kansas. Miles and Langford are nowhere near as good as some would like to believe.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> If you want to worry about a team most likely not deserving the ranking Katz gave them, it's probably Kansas. Miles, Langford, and Simien 3 of the nation's best players? I'll give you Simien. I won't give you Miles and Langford. I take Duke over them in a heartbeat even if Livingston and Deng bolt for the NBA.


I fail to see your logic.

Simien, Miles and Langford have 2 Final Fours, 2 conference titles and an Elite Eight under their belts, and they'll be back for more next season. Simien might be the best post in the nation next year, and Miles will almost certainly be a top 5 point (he was third in the nation in assists this year, yet nobody seemed to notice). Langford averaged 16/5/4 this season (for comparison purposes, Deng averaged 15/7/2 on the same shooting percentage as Langford). This trio has the most experience out of any core group in the nation. They've earned any high rankings they'll get. Not only does Kansas have a great deal of incoming talent to rest their hopes on, they also have a tremendous amount of _proven_ talent to lead the way.

Apart from this core group, Kansas has a player who is ready to absolutely explode next year. His name is JR Giddens. By the end of the season he was forcing defenses to face guard him out to 30' because of his range. By the start of next season he'll have worked on his game enough to be a legit All-American candidate. But besides Giddens, Kansas will have the services of a top 10 recruiting class as well. Russell Robinson (6'2" top 25 combo guard from NYC), Sasha Kaun (6'11" top 30 post from Russia) and Darnell Jackson (top 75 bruiser from Oklahoma City) will all get immediate PT in reserve roles. And last but not least, Kansas has a _very_ good chance of landing unanimous top 10 wing Malik Hairston and/or top 50 post Chester Giles in the next few weeks. If Hairston comes to Lawrence, Kansas will likely have the #1 recruiting class in the nation in addition to a team returning four starters (five if you include Padgett) from a team that was an overtime away from a third consecutive Final Four.

Kansas will enter next year completely fluent in Self's hi-low offense, which is something they didn't get comfortable with until the last few weeks of this season. And they'll finally be healthy (5 guys, including Langford, Simien and Giddens, are all in casts/rehab right now).


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> That leader stuff is beyond overrated. Duke has enough talent to beat Kansas. Miles and Langford are nowhere near as good as some would like to believe.


Let's have a little compare/contrast session.

Aaron Miles: 33.8 mpg, 9.1 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 7.3 apg (2.7:1 A/TO), 40% FG, 70% FT, 33% 3PT. 
Chris Duhon: 35.4 mpg, 10.0 ppg, 4.1 rpg, 6.1 apg (2.2:1 A/TO), 45% FG, 72% FT, 30% 3PT. 

Keith Langford: 31.7 mpg, 15.5 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 3.5 apg, 48% FG, 67% FT, 36% 3PT.
Luol Deng: 31.1 mpg, 15.1 ppg, 6.9 rpg, 1.8 apg, 48% FG, 71% FT, 36% 3PT.

Possible conclusions:
A.) Duhon and Deng are nowhere near as good as some would like to believe.
B.) Miles and Langford are as good as some would have you believe.

You make the call.


----------



## ThePhenom

I never did bring Duhon or Deng into this. I just said put them on the court right now and Duke would win. Stats aren't going to persuade me to feel otherwise.


----------



## On Thre3

^you just said even if deng and livingston leave they would win on the previous page...you know nopthing of basketball my friend


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> I never did bring Duhon or Deng into this. I just said put them on the court right now and Duke would win. Stats aren't going to persuade me to feel otherwise.


What is your argument besides "Miles and Langford are overrated", then? Do you have one?


----------



## ThePhenom

> Originally posted by <b>On Thre3</b>!
> ^you just said even if deng and livingston leave they would win on the previous page...you know nopthing of basketball my friend


Be quiet.

And I don't need an argument about how Duke would beat Kansas. Stats won't prove who is the better team. All I said was that if they stepped on the court Duke would win. It's called an opinion.


----------



## VincentVega

Wow. Color me persuaded.


----------



## ThePhenom

I never was trying to persuade anyone. All I did was state my opinion.


----------



## VincentVega

Opinions are fine, but if you're going to boast such a strong one upon entering a thread without so much as a single sentence of substance to back it up, then don't expect everybody to take you seriously in the future.


----------



## ThePhenom

It's not a strong opinion. I actually hate Duke. I just think they'd win. If I said Kansas would beat Duke most of you wouldn't have cared about what I said. I don't get this 'won't take you seriously stuff'. It's not like I said Southwest Joe Smo State would beat Kansas. I said Duke. I don't understand how you'd like me to persuade anyone seeing as it's just my opinion. There isn't anything persuasive you can say.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> It's not a strong opinion. I actually hate Duke. I just think they'd win. If I said Kansas would beat Duke most of you wouldn't have cared about what I said. I don't get this 'won't take you seriously stuff'. It's not like I said Southwest Joe Smo State would beat Kansas. I said Duke. I don't understand how you'd like me to persuade anyone seeing as it's just my opinion. There isn't anything persuasive you can say.


There has to be some sort of justification to your opinion though. Duke and Kansas are both very high quality teams, obviously, but you can't just say one of them would beat the other and give absolutely no reason as to why you feel this way. People don't just have opinions, there are reasons why they have them.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> People don't just have opinions, there are reasons why they have them.


Don't take this sentiment for granted. After all, a few short months ago the majority of Americans believed that we'd found WMDs in Iraq...


----------



## ThePhenom

Duke would beat Kansas because they'd score more points than them. That good enough?


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> Duke would beat Kansas because they'd score more points than them. That good enough?


What's the point in "stating your opinion" over a message board when you admittedly don't care what others make of it and offer absolutely nothing to grant it any validity?


----------



## ThePhenom

There's nothing I can do to validate my opinion, whether I think Duke could beat Kansas or Kansas could beat Duke. It's just an opinion at this point. Neither team has played with the squad they'll have next year, but as I see it right now Duke would win. I know you Jayhawk fans don't want to hear that, but you'll just have to get over it. It's just how I think it would go down. Doesn't mean it would play out that way. 

My opinion was not a persuasive one, which is why you're having a hard time understanding. It was just a statement.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> Neither team has played with the squad they'll have next year,


Kansas returns all five starters from this years' squad and brings in one of the top recruiting classes in the nation. Moreover, the existing players will enter next season completely fluid in Self's system, something they were not familiar with this year until the very end. As I said earlier, Kansas will probably be the most experienced team in the nation next year.



> but as I see it right now Duke would win.


Okay...but _why_? I have no problem with someone saying Duke would beat Kansas. I'm just wondering why you'd take them "in a heartbeat". That's a pretty strong statement to be making without any justification whatsoever.



> I know you Jayhawk fans don't want to hear that, but you'll just have to get over it.


I have zero problems hearing it in the context of an objective discussion. I do think it's a bit silly to just spout out as much without any sort of rationale behind it. Opinions tend to resonate better with explanations.


----------



## Jonathan Watters

I don't know where this discussion is at, but I don't think that Kansas can win it all next year. I've seen Aaron Miles choke too many games away with poor decision making down the stretch...


----------



## Kmasonbx

The thing I don't get is why Kansas would be better than G Tech next year if they both are returning pretty much the same team and G Tech was better this year?


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> I don't know where this discussion is at, but I don't think that Kansas can win it all next year. I've seen Aaron Miles choke too many games away with poor decision making down the stretch...


Short, hard-hitting and explanatory, as well as a worthy topic. I like that.

That said, Miles has shown up more times than not in the clutch...


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> There's nothing I can do to validate my opinion, whether I think Duke could beat Kansas or Kansas could beat Duke. It's just an opinion at this point. Neither team has played with the squad they'll have next year, but as I see it right now Duke would win. I know you Jayhawk fans don't want to hear that, but you'll just have to get over it. It's just how I think it would go down. Doesn't mean it would play out that way.
> 
> My opinion was not a persuasive one, which is why you're having a hard time understanding. It was just a statement.


If you have no reason as to why you have this opinion, than what was the point of sharing it with everyone? On top of which, you haven't elaborated on your "Miles and Langford are overrated" comment either.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> I don't know where this discussion is at, but I don't think that Kansas can win it all next year. I've seen Aaron Miles choke too many games away with poor decision making down the stretch...


You don't think they can or you don't think they will? I think it's hard to argue that they certainly are going to be contenders. 

And I've seen every game Miles has played in a Kansas uni, and he's one of the best clutch performers on the squad. Just because he was horrendous in the final stretch of the GT game doesn't mean he loses all credibility as a clutch performer. Miles is not the reason Kansas loses games, he's one of the main reasons they win them.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> The thing I don't get is why Kansas would be better than G Tech next year if they both are returning pretty much the same team and G Tech was better this year?


GT wasn't neccesarily better this year, and even if they were you have to look at everything in context. Giddens has as much potential as anyone in the country, and he'll have a summer of development under his belt (and his foot will be healed, hopefully). Simien's shoulder didn't allow him to really have a productive offseason, so he should be in better shape this year. There's a prayer that Padgett will have hit the weightroom.

This all on top of the fact that they'll finally be comfortable with Self's system and KU's freshman class > GT's freshman class (and if Hairston comes it could be the best class in the country), means they have more than a shot at being superior to GT.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> The thing I don't get is why Kansas would be better than G Tech next year if they both are returning pretty much the same team and G Tech was better this year?


Excellent point.

*Kansas* loses Graves (18.1 mpg, 6.4 ppg, 4.9 rpg), Nash (4.9 mpg, 1.0 ppg, 1.3 rpg) and Niang (4.7 mpg, 0.9 ppg, 1.1 rpg). 

Total = 27.7 mpg, 8.3 ppg, 7.3 rpg.

Kansas' incoming frosh are Russell Robinson (top 30 G), Sasha Kaun (top 25 C) and Darnell Jackson (top 75 F). Kansas also has a strong possibility of signing either Malik Hairston (top 10 G) or Chester Giles (top 50 F) in the next few weeks. 

*Georgia Tech* loses Lewis (27.6 mpg, 11.0 ppg, 2.8 rpg), Moore (20.1 mpg, 5.9 ppg, 4.7 rpg) and Brooks (8.8 mpg, 1.4 ppg, 1.5 rpg).

Total = 56.5 mpg, 18.3 ppg, 9.0 rpg.

Georgia Tech's incoming frosh are Jeremis Smith (top 50 F), Ra'Sean Dickey (top 75 F), Anthony Morrow (top 100 G) and Zam Frederick (top 100 G).

Now, I know nothing ever pans out as it appears on paper. But I found these numbers to be a little interesting. Kansas loses considerably less production than G.Tech does in addition to bringing in higher ranked recruits. However, G.Tech did beat Kansas this year in the Elite Eight and made it to the title game (Kansas did last year, lest we forget). Both teams have great experience, although Kansas has a little more than G.Tech. All in all, they're extremely similar squads.

I can't wait for the Kansas - Georgia Tech game next season. It's already got Lawrence buzzing...


----------



## Kmasonbx

Personally I think Kansas is in for a surprise when Robinson steps on campus. Granted he is a very good player, but he is streaky, 1 day he can look like a McDonald's All-American and another day you will think is this guy a top 300 player. He is an excellent defender, he's pretty athletic but his handle needs work, when he faces tough defensive pressure he is going to have problems. 

He is not a player that is going to come in right away and get 12 points a game, if he gets 6 points I'll be satisfied with his production. 

I'm not saying G Tech is easily better than Kansas, I'm just saying people are acting like next year its Kansas, Duke and then everybody else, when G Tech will be on the same level as both, and maybe better than both, unless Livingston and Deng are wearing Blue Devil unis next year.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>Kmasonbx</b>!
> Personally I think Kansas is in for a surprise when Robinson steps on campus. Granted he is a very good player, but he is streaky, 1 day he can look like a McDonald's All-American and another day you will think is this guy a top 300 player. He is an excellent defender, he's pretty athletic but his handle needs work, when he faces tough defensive pressure he is going to have problems.
> 
> He is not a player that is going to come in right away and get 12 points a game, if he gets 6 points I'll be satisfied with his production.


Interesting. Thanks for the input. I've heard him described as a slightly bigger version of Hollis Price with better handles, for what it's worth. But all comparisons go out the window when you get to college. From all accounts, Robinson held his own quite well against Telfair head to head. Did you ever see any Robinson-Telfair matchups? If so, how did they do against each other? 



> I'm not saying G Tech is easily better than Kansas, I'm just saying people are acting like next year its Kansas, Duke and then everybody else, when G Tech will be on the same level as both, and maybe better than both, unless Livingston and Deng are wearing Blue Devil unis next year.


Agreed 100%.


----------



## Kmasonbx

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Interesting. Thanks for the input. I've heard him described as a slightly bigger version of Hollis Price with better handles, for what it's worth. But all comparisons go out the window when you get to college. From all accounts, Robinson held his own quite well against Telfair head to head. Did you ever see any Robinson-Telfair matchups? If so, how did they do against each other?


I've actually never seen them play, the only two times they have matched up during their high school career is when they were Sophs. They played 2 games that year with Rice winning by 1 both times. From what I've heard Sebastian was doing pretty much whatever he wanted until they put Russell on him, and thats when Rice came back. The 2nd time Sebastian was Sebastian the whole game and finished with 30 points and made a halfcourt shot just after the buzzer that would have won it. 

But I think when you watch Sebastian play and you watch Russell play you can tell their is a huge gap.


----------



## ThePhenom

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Kansas returns all five starters from this years' squad and brings in one of the top recruiting classes in the nation. Moreover, the existing players will enter next season completely fluid in Self's system, something they were not familiar with this year until the very end. As I said earlier, Kansas will probably be the most experienced team in the nation next year.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay...but _why_? I have no problem with someone saying Duke would beat Kansas. I'm just wondering why you'd take them "in a heartbeat". That's a pretty strong statement to be making without any justification whatsoever.
> 
> 
> 
> I have zero problems hearing it in the context of an objective discussion. I do think it's a bit silly to just spout out as much without any sort of rationale behind it. Opinions tend to resonate better with explanations.


Returning your starter's is fine if you were an elite team, but Kansas was not one this year. They were handed a 4 seed of which they didn't deserve and played closed to home in the tournament, which they also didn't deserve. 

Your starting 5 was not even one of the better starting 5's this year. Miles was 3rd in the country in assists. That's great. Unfortunately, regardless of the numbers, he's not a true elite point guard. He's a nice one, but he's nothing special. Langford falls into the same point at the 2 spot. He's a good shooting guard, but he's nothing incredible. Your backcourt as a whole is good, but they're not the best backcourt in the nation and for the sake of comparison, I would take Ewing and Redick over Miles and Langford, even if Livingston skips out on Duke. Simien's your only true elite player in my mind, but he is a bit undersized. He'll still be pretty dominant though, but he's still got to show a consistent ability to take over games. After that, the team is very average. David Padgett is a joke. He's not very good and would get absolutely shut down against most top teams. That's fine if you're bringing in a top recruiting class, but you were just bragging about all the experience this team has. Let's see how those freshmen do before you crown them great. 

What's really sad is that this Kansas team might not even win the Big 12. Oklahoma State, a team that beat you 3 times, is bringing back a majority of it's core.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> 
> 
> Returning your starter's is fine if you were an elite team, but Kansas was not one this year.


Point taken...but Kansas did win 24 games.



> They were handed a 4 seed of which they didn't deserve


At the time of seeding, Kansas had an RPI of 15.



> and played closed to home in the tournament, which they also didn't deserve.


A huge gift, absolutely. But the NCAA wanted $$$, and they knew that Kansas fans in K.C. would give them that. It's no different than Wisconsin playing in Madison, or Syracuse playing in Jersey as a 4 seed last year, etc. 



> Your starting 5 was not even one of the better starting 5's this year.


They weren't the best, obviously, but they were certainly one of the "better" starting units in the country, IMO. Which starting units, in your opinion, were better? Can you name five of them? One of Kansas' main weaknesses this year was a conspicuous lack of bench production. This will not be the case next season.



> Miles was 3rd in the country in assists. That's great. Unfortunately, regardless of the numbers, he's not a true elite point guard. He's a nice one, but he's nothing special. Langford falls into the same point at the 2 spot. He's a good shooting guard, but he's nothing incredible.


Agreed, but they're still above average starters at worst, and borderline stars at best.



> Your backcourt as a whole is good, but they're not the best backcourt in the nation


I never said they were this year. Next year, I have a strong feeling they will be -- especially if KU lands Malik Hairston.



> and for the sake of comparison, I would take Ewing and Redick over Miles and Langford,


I almost would, too...but then when I think about how Redick will get the ball, I switch my preference back to Miles and Langford. Ewing's a helluva shooter and a very solid player, but he's no point guard. If your shooters don't get the ball, they can't shoot.



> Simien's your only true elite player in my mind, but he is a bit undersized.


He is a bit undersized, but that hasn't seemed to slow him down on the college level. We're not talking NBA here -- we're talking NCAA. There are few, if any, college posts who can match Simien's size, strength and skill level in the paint.



> He'll still be pretty dominant though, but he's still got to show a consistent ability to take over games.


Agreed. Aside from the Georgia Tech game (when his shots just didn't fall), when he gets consistent touches he tends to take over games. This is where a full understanding of Self's offense and a summer of rehab and training become invaluable.



> After that, the team is very average.


Perhaps you haven't noticed the ability -- and continued improvement -- of J.R. Giddens. He's just now starting to realize how good he can be, and he's got the work ethic of a housewife on speed. He's a better shooter than both Redick and Ewing, too.



> David Padgett is a joke. He's not very good and would get absolutely shut down against most top teams.


Padgett had a relatively disappointing debut season, but he still put up 6.5 ppg, 4.5 rpg and 1.4 bpg on 53% FG in only 19 mpg. He's in desperate need of strength training, however.



> That's fine if you're bringing in a top recruiting class, but you were just bragging about all the experience this team has. Let's see how those freshmen do before you crown them great.


In my mind, you can rarely go wrong with (proven) experience in addition to an influx of top talent. Don't you agree? But like I said before, all rankings go out the window when you first step onto a college court. 



> What's really sad is that this Kansas team might not even win the Big 12.


How is that sad? The Big XII will once again be one of the premier leagues in the country. Since the Big XII's inception in 1997, Kansas has dominated the league. KU can take a down year like this one (in which KU tied for 2nd) every once in a while.



> Oklahoma State, a team that beat you 3 times, is bringing back a majority of it's core.


KU only played Oklahoma State once this year. And they lose their best player (Allen), a key sixth man (Weatherspoon) and big body inside (Miller). Still though, they'll be extremely tough next year.


----------



## Hollis

> KU only played Oklahoma State once this year. And they lose their best player (Allen), a key sixth man (Weatherspoon) and big body inside (Miller). Still though, they'll be extremely tough next year.


Must've thought it was 3 games since it was over after the first 3 minutes


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>Hollis</b>!
> 
> 
> Must've thought it was 3 games since it was over after the first 3 minutes


That could be the case.


----------



## ill subliminal

> Originally posted by <b>Hollis</b>!
> 
> 
> Must've thought it was 3 games since it was over after the first 3 minutes



Lol good call. I wish K-State bball was good so I could root for them in a down year...

Anyways, Vega I think you're beating up on this Duke guy with stats when you know that Duhon and Deng are unquestionably better players than Miles and Langford. I think you probably agree with this. I think I would put Miles-Langford and Ewing-Reddick about equal to each other, but no one should ever try to say that Miles is a good offensive player outside of pinpoint passing and above-average layups.

Also, to everybody, Simien is not the premier post player in the country. Maybe he's the best against inferior competition, but he didn't do **** against the real competition (ie Georgia Tech, Texas, and if anyone bring me some lame *** 11 and 11 numbers being a double-double and therefore a good game should just come fight me, I'll be at the flagpole). Like the Duke guy said, Simien is undersized. Yes, huge numbers, but look at how he played this season against the bigger teams. More importantly, look at the postgame comments for each of those games (and losses, we didn't beat a single REAL team the entire year). In every one, you will find Bill Self making excuses about Simien's play being because of a nagging groin injury. Sure, I understand that this type of injury makes jumping, getting post position, hell even walking hard to do, but playing poorly against every good team...hmmm, I think I'll call bull**** on that being coincidence.

He's still good, probably top 3 or 4, and he might even make the All-American list, but this is probably assuming the miracle of him going a whole season uninjured. Also, he doesn't possess the guard handles that allows big men to be effective from all areas of the floor, a la Garnett, Warrick, Gomes, or even more classic big men like Collison or Tim Duncan.

That said, unless Deng stays (I don't think Duke needs Livingston, and I suspect that he is probably overrated) I agree with Katz that KU is the preseason #1, but I think he's probably stretching things a little bit to say that Miles, Langford, and Simien are all cream of the crop players. Where the hell is the line for being elite? Also, don't sleep on that lanky mofo JR.



(sorry to the moderators if mofo ain't allowed...my bad I wasn't sure)


----------



## ThePhenom

My mistake about OSU and Kansas playing 3 times. If I could correct my statement I'd say that Kansas lost 2 times to a team OSU beat 3 times, in Texas.

And I'm not a Duke guy. I hate Duke with about every fiber of my being. I'm just not biased when I give my opinions.

Giddens is not a better shooter than Redick. Better than Ewing, probably, but not Redick at this point.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ill subliminal</b>!
> 
> Anyways, Vega I think you're beating up on this Duke guy with stats when you know that Duhon and Deng are unquestionably better players than Miles and Langford.


Deng is better than Langford, sure. But their production is eerily similar. As for Miles and Duhon, I think they're roughly the same player. One just happens to have significantly more hype.



> Also, to everybody, Simien is not the premier post player in the country. Maybe he's the best against inferior competition, but he didn't do **** against the real competition (ie Georgia Tech, Texas, and if anyone bring me some lame *** 11 and 11 numbers being a double-double and therefore a good game should just come fight me, I'll be at the flagpole).


I see what you're saying, but on the other side of things, Wayne didn't do too shabby against some decent competition. He tore up Arthur Johnson and Travon Bryant, two potential NBA draftees.  He had 28 and 8 against Michigan St. and Paul Davis (future NBA player). He had 23 points against Villanova and 20/15 against Colorado, a team that should have made the tourney (Harrison is going pro, BTW). The games he didn't do well, he never got the ball.



> Like the Duke guy said, Simien is undersized. Yes, huge numbers, but look at how he played this season against the bigger teams. More importantly, look at the postgame comments for each of those games (and losses, we didn't beat a single REAL team the entire year). In every one, you will find Bill Self making excuses about Simien's play being because of a nagging groin injury. Sure, I understand that this type of injury makes jumping, getting post position, hell even walking hard to do, but playing poorly against every good team...hmmm, I think I'll call bull**** on that being coincidence.


Hyperbole.



> He's still good, probably top 3 or 4, and he might even make the All-American list, but this is probably assuming the miracle of him going a whole season uninjured. Also, he doesn't possess the guard handles that allows big men to be effective from all areas of the floor, a la Garnett, Warrick, Gomes, or even more classic big men like Collison or Tim Duncan.


Garnett and Duncan are Hall of Famers. Warrick is, for all intents and purposes, a SF (with no outside shot, unlike Simien). Gomes is even smaller than Simien.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> Giddens is not a better shooter than Redick. Better than Ewing, probably, but not Redick at this point.


Giddens is more accurate, more consistent and has equal or greater range than Redick. Both stats and actual play demonstrate this.


----------



## Hollis

> Lol good call. I wish K-State bball was good so I could root for them in a down year...


Ouch.

I still haven't figured out if you were a Kansas fan or not...


----------



## ThePhenom

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Giddens is more accurate, more consistent and has equal or greater range than Redick. Both stats and actual play demonstrate this.


He's not a better shooter than Redick. J.J. slumped early in the year and that ended up throwing off his averages, but he's a better shooter than Giddens. Not even a question.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> 
> 
> He's not a better shooter than Redick. J.J. slumped early in the year and that ended up throwing off his averages, but he's a better shooter than Giddens. Not even a question.


Check out Giddens early season percentage. He couldn't hit a thing from outside. But he finished the season off (meaning the last 23 or so games) at a 46% clip from 3 pt. land.


----------



## ThePhenom

He's not a better shooter than Redick. If you weren't a Kansas fan you'd feel that same way.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> He's not a better shooter than Redick. If you weren't a Kansas fan you'd feel that same way.


Nice counter.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> 
> 
> He's not a better shooter than Redick. J.J. slumped early in the year and that ended up throwing off his averages, but he's a better shooter than Giddens. Not even a question.


Redick slumped because he's inconsistent, like I said above. There is no "throwing off of the averages" over the course of a season. What's a guy to do, cut those poor games out and not count them towards the entirety of a season? You either shoot well, or you don't. Redick's a very good shooter, but he's not the Jeff Hornacek much of the media makes him out to be. _He hasn't even hit 40% of his three-pointers in his two years at Duke._ And that's _with_ an offense structured around three-point shooting (as opposed to the hi-low Giddens plays in -- the majority of Giddens' shots are without the benefit of Redick's stagger screens and are released with guys in his face).

"Not even a question?" Perhaps you need to adjust your perspective. Numbers don't necessarily tell the entire story, but they don't lie, either. Like I said above, Giddens is more consistent, more accurate and has equal or better range than Redick.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> He's not a better shooter than Redick. If you weren't a Kansas fan you'd feel that same way.


More strong opinions with exactly zero substance or explanation to back it up. Same record, different song...


----------



## ThePhenom

What did Giddens shoot at the free throw line and what did Redick shoot? The difference there completely outweighs whatever 3 point percentage you want to throw out there because everyone shoots free throws under the same circumstances. 3 pointers are taken from different spots on the court and with different defenses.

In case you're too lazy to look that up, Giddens shot 67% from the line and Redick shot 95%.

And Giddens shot 40% from 3. And Redick shot 39.5%. :-\

Giddens: 74-182(40.7%) from 3
Redick: 102-258(39.5%) from 3

Giddens: 18-27(66.7%) from FT Line
Redick: 143-150(95%) from FT Line

Giddens missed 2 more free throws than Redick and J.J. took 123 more.

Rashad Anderson is a better shooter than Giddens.

Anderson: 87-212(41%) from 3
Giddens: 74-182(40.7%) from 3

Anderson: 51-65(78.5%) from FT Line
Giddens: 18-27(66.7%) from FT Line


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> What did Giddens shoot at the free throw line and what did Redick shoot? The difference there completely outweighs whatever 3 point percentage you want to throw out there because everyone shoots free throws under the same circumstances. 3 pointers are taken from different spots on the court and with different defenses.
> 
> In case you're too lazy to look that up, Giddens shot 67% from the line and Redick shot 95%.
> 
> And Giddens shot 40% from 3. Not 46%. And Redick shot 39.5%. :-\
> 
> Giddens: 74-182(40.7%) from 3
> Redick: 102-258(39.5%) from 3
> 
> Giddens: 18-27(66.7%) from FT Line
> Redick: 143-150(95%) from FT Line
> 
> Giddens missed 2 more free throws than Redick and J.J. took 123 more.


Your last comment sums Giddens free throw shooting up. Due to his role in the offense, the system he plays in, and his lack of a mindset to slash with the ball (for the large part of the season) meant he went to the line next to zero times. He never got in a rythm at the stripe cause he never went there.

However, if you want to say Reddick's a better free throw shooter than Giddens, by all means go ahead. That doesn't apply to 3 pt. shooting though.


----------



## ThePhenom

I never specified 3 point shooting. Go and read my posts. I said Redick was the better shooter. And Rashad Anderson is as well.

That 'not getting in rhythm' stuff is just a really poor excuse. A good shooter should make a shot better than 67% of the time from 15 feet away with nobody guarding him.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> I never specified 3 point shooting. Go and read my posts. I said Redick was the better shooter. And Rashad Anderson is as well.
> 
> That 'not getting in rhythm' stuff is just a really poor excuse. A good shooter should make a shot better than 67% of the time from 15 feet away with nobody guarding him.


I guarantee next year Giddens free throws are much better than 67%.

And you never specified free throw shooting either, pal. Giddens is money from pretty much everywhere on the floor (mid-range game could use a bit of work, but he hasn't showcased it enough yet for me to know for sure).

And whether you originally did or not, you eventually said Reddick was a better 3 pt shooter, then shrugged off the stats, and then said that Vince and I only believe Giddens to be a superior long distance shooter (or at worst equal) because we are Kansas fans.


----------



## kansasalumn

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> What's really sad is that this Kansas team might not even win the Big 12. Oklahoma State, a team that beat you 3 times, is bringing back a majority of it's core.


'

get your facts stright, 3x????? 

NO, ONly ONE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

must not follow Big 12 too often


----------



## ill subliminal

If Reddick is as good a shooter as advertised, then he takes way too many shots. This is college. Someone with that kind of easily NBA range (hate to bring another Jayhawk into this, but a good example would be Kirk Hiinrich) should be able to shoot well over 40% in college, possibly even approaching 50% some seasons.

Oh well though, I think even The Phenom would admit that overall, JR Giddens is, and if not will most certainly be, the superior player.


----------



## ThePhenom

> Originally posted by <b>kcchiefs-fan</b>!
> 
> 
> I guarantee next year Giddens free throws are much better than 67%.
> 
> And you never specified free throw shooting either, pal. Giddens is money from pretty much everywhere on the floor (mid-range game could use a bit of work, but he hasn't showcased it enough yet for me to know for sure).
> 
> And whether you originally did or not, you eventually said Reddick was a better 3 pt shooter, then shrugged off the stats, and then said that Vince and I only believe Giddens to be a superior long distance shooter (or at worst equal) because we are Kansas fans.


Guarantee? Based on what? That's a strong opinion with no backup evidence, eh?

I didn't specify FT shooting? I never specified 3 point shooting either. I said Redick was the better shooter and he is. He's no more 'money' than Redick is. You need to clear off your homer goggles.

He's not a superior player to Redick. I'm glad this is an unbiased argument, eventhough everyone who has a problem with me saying Redick is better just happens to be a Jayhawk fan.

And I was already corrected, kansasalum. You wouldn't happen to be a KU fan, would you? You really shouldn't take much offense to my mistake, seeing as they hammered Kansas by 20 the time they did play. And I did watch that game. It was on Big Monday.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> 
> 
> Guarantee? Based on what? That's a strong opinion with no backup evidence, eh?
> 
> I didn't specify FT shooting? I never specified 3 point shooting either. I said Redick was the better shooter and he is. He's no more 'money' than Redick is. You need to clear off your homer goggles.
> 
> He's not a superior player to Redick. I'm glad this is an unbiased argument, eventhough everyone who has a problem with me saying Redick is better just happens to be a Jayhawk fan.
> 
> And I was already corrected, kansasalum. You wouldn't happen to be a KU fan, would you? You really shouldn't take much offense to my mistake, seeing as they hammered Kansas by 20 the time they did play. And I did watch that game. It was on Big Monday.


While Vega and I were bringing up 3 pters, you continued to refute the claim that he was the better long distance shooter, thus, you did specify 3 pt. shooting.

Giddens shot a total of 27 free throws this year, that's less than 1 a game. If you think that's an authoritive figure on how good he is from the stripe, than it's no use arguing with you. Giddens is a terrific shooter, and once he gets to the line more, that percentage WILL go up.

You've lost this debate and the only thing you can do to rationalize your own opinion is to cry homer. Pretty weak, bro.


----------



## ill subliminal

I think these guys are just diiferent types of shooters.

Reddick is a pure, streaky shooter in the same vein as guys like Rex Chapman, who can't miss when on, but are known to go on major cold streaks. JR Giddens is simply an excellent shooter. He's more consistent, in fact towards the end of the season he shot probably around 45% from the arc, but he's not gonna go 6/6 in a half anytime soon. I guess my best NBA comparison would be RayRay.

As far as overall skills, there is absolutely no question that JR is by far the superior athlete and finisher. Last season, JJ was much better as creating his own shot or getting to the free throw line, but I expect that to change next season.


----------



## VincentVega

Phenom, perhaps I should have clarified my stance. Giddens is a better _three-point shooter_, thus my citation of three-point statistics and elaboration of each player's respective abilities from beyond the three-point line. Three-point shooting is also the context in which you responded to, and you know it. I didn't intend to reference free-throw shooting -- thus my only talking about three-point shooting. Thus your response to my subsequent statments of long range shooting.



> In case you're too lazy to look that up,


Newsflash: until this breakthrough post of yours, I was the one looking up stats and *explaining* my opinion above and beyond that of a one or two sentence comment.



> And Giddens shot 40% from 3. And Redick shot 39.5%. :-\


Giddens shot 40.7%, which is 41% rounded up. Which is higher than Redick has shot in his entire career.



> Rashad Anderson is a better shooter than Giddens.
> 
> Anderson: 87-212(41%) from 3
> Giddens: 74-182(40.7%) from 3


Anderson shot 39.3% from three his freshman year, which is...drumroll please...not as good as Giddens during his freshman year.

Phenom, given the vehemency with which you gave the post I'm quoting here, I'm surprised you (conveniently) forgot to mention good ol' field goal percentage. It's a pretty important stat, I figure. So, in case you forgot (or just chose to ignore) these numbers, I'll provide them to you now with relation to the players debated in our posts:

*Rashad Anderson:* 43.7% FG sophomore year, 40.1% FG freshman year.

*JJ Redick:* 42.3% FG sophomore year, 40.7% FG freshman year.

*JR Giddens:* 47.5% FG, freshman year.

Next.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ill subliminal</b>!
> If Reddick is as good a shooter as advertised, then he takes way too many shots. This is college. Someone with that kind of easily NBA range (hate to bring another Jayhawk into this, but a good example would be Kirk Hiinrich) should be able to shoot well over 40% in college, possibly even approaching 50% some seasons.


Good call.

Hinrich's sophomore year in college, he shot 50.0% from the field and 50.5% from three.

JJ Redick's sophomore year, he shot 42.3% from the field and 39.5% from three.

Pretty stark contrast, IMO.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ill subliminal</b>!
> JR Giddens is simply an excellent shooter. He's more consistent, in fact towards the end of the season he shot probably around 45% from the arc, but he's not gonna go 6/6 in a half anytime soon.


Giddens was 6/7 from three in the first half against Iowa State at home, if I remember correctly.


----------



## texan

did someone say that jj redick was a better overall player than jr giddens?:mrt: hhah thanks for the laugh. jj redick cant shoot with someone defending him, he cant drive and he cant play D. giddens has a more consistent shot and altho he has problems off the dribble it is because he was playen with a broken foot. he is more athletic than redick, plays loads better D and can make the big plays. i am not a biased opinion yet i would never take redick over giddens except in a ft shootin contest


----------



## VincentVega

See that, Phenom? It's not just us Kansas fans who share this opinion.

News to you, I know.


----------



## Ghost

J J Reddick is not that good IMO. Sure he can shoot the three but as soon as i see him play some good defense and handle the ball good I will call him good but J.R. Giddens is Way better than Reddick is. He can shoot the three just as good and defend better.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> 
> 
> Giddens was 6/7 from three in the first half against Iowa State at home, if I remember correctly.


I believe it was 6/8. I distinctly remember 2 shots going in-and-out, which, if they had gone, would've given him 7 threes in the first 10 minutes of the game. He's consistent, but he has bursts in which he can't miss as well.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>#1Stunna</b>!
> J J Reddick is not that good IMO. Sure he can shoot the three but as soon as i see him play some good defense and handle the ball good I will call him good but J.R. Giddens is Way better than Reddick is. He can shoot the three just as good and defend better.


See, Phenom? There's another one.


----------



## VincentVega

And another one, this time a professional sports writer from California:



> *1. Kansas.* With point guard Aaron Miles, wings Keith Langford and J.R. Giddens, and forwards Wayne Simien and David Padgett, the Jayhawks have the best combination of talent and experience. Plus, they'll be more comfortable with Coach Bill Self's system.


This pretty much sums up what I've been saying.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/colleges/8383242.htm


----------



## JuniorNoboa

The thing that concerns me about Giddens is 27 free throws for the entire season - that is awful simple as that. It basically shows he never drove to the basket.

Now I know that is more Langford's role, and that Simien also get it inside a lot. Also injuries were a factot

I predicted superstardom for Giddens a lttle while back (great shooter + athleticism) but this stat that I just read really worries me - it gives me worries about his overall game. And to be an all-american he will need to step up in the mid-range and in.

I guess the question is, does 27 Ft's:
1. Lack of skilll in certain areas of game
or
2. Not aggressive enough. he has the skills.


----------



## sov82

*Purely looking at stats..*

Purely using statistics is a faulty way to evaluate players. Most guards in the country can make a wide open three pointer 50% of the time. Does that make them a good three point shooter? No. It means they are doing what is expected of them (making the open shot the majority of the time).

A good 3 point shooter does more than just make wide open threes. He's able to create his own shot or shoot over a defender. In these situations, 40% is a very good average.

Player A:

Open Three Pointers: 6
Makes: 3
Contested 3 Pointer Attempts: 0
3FG% 50%


Player B:

Open Three Pointers: 4
Makes: 2
Contested 3 Point Attempts: 5
Makes: 2
3FG% 44.4%

I would much rather have Player B than Player A...ESPECIALLY at crunch time. If I purely looked up a name and used his stats, Player A would be the obvious choice (and the wrong choice).

Its very easy for Freshman, who has a nice stroke, to come in and have high percentages? Why? They don't have the reputation yet of being a deadly shooter so defenses don't focus on them. Moreover, most coaches bench Freshman who take too many contested 3 pointers because they would rather have their upper tier players taking the contested shot at that point in their career. As they get further along in their career, the coaches let them take more contested shots AND defenses start keying in on the players. Thus, percentages go down.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>JuniorNoboa</b>!
> The thing that concerns me about Giddens is 27 free throws for the entire season - that is awful simple as that. It basically shows he never drove to the basket.
> 
> Now I know that is more Langford's role, and that Simien also get it inside a lot. Also injuries were a factot
> 
> I predicted superstardom for Giddens a lttle while back (great shooter + athleticism) but this stat that I just read really worries me - it gives me worries about his overall game. And to be an all-american he will need to step up in the mid-range and in.
> 
> I guess the question is, does 27 Ft's:
> 1. Lack of skilll in certain areas of game
> or
> 2. Not aggressive enough. he has the skills.


I think it's a combination of both. Certainly his foot injury had something to do with it, and he was uncomfortable with putting the ball on the floor and slashing to the basket. However, towards the end of the season he did get better in this regard. But, it's easy to tell that ballhandling is his biggest flaw right now. He appears to have a hellacious work ethic, and while he's recooperating from his foot and knee, hopefully he's dribbling the ball a couple hours a day.


----------



## ThePhenom

> Originally posted by <b>VincentVega</b>!
> Phenom, given the vehemency with which you gave the post I'm quoting here, I'm surprised you (conveniently) forgot to mention good ol' field goal percentage. It's a pretty important stat, I figure. So, in case you forgot (or just chose to ignore) these numbers, I'll provide them to you now with relation to the players debated in our posts:
> 
> *Rashad Anderson:* 43.7% FG sophomore year, 40.1% FG freshman year.
> 
> *JJ Redick:* 42.3% FG sophomore year, 40.7% FG freshman year.
> 
> *JR Giddens:* 47.5% FG, freshman year.
> 
> Next.


You just said you were only talking about long distance shooting, so why would YOU bring up FG%? FG% is probably the stat you should not talk about because a layup counts as much as a 19 foot jump shot. That's why I would never talk about FG%. And what's this about 'Giddens shot this well as a FRESHMAN!' stuff. That doesn't mean he's going to go up in the next year. As sov said, he's going to be guarded and concentrated on even more come next year. He's not a better shooter than Redick and that 'he needs to get in rhythm' at the free throw line excuse is seriously beyond weak. Redick probably made about 99% of his first free throw shots, which weren't in 'rhythm' as you'd call it.


----------



## ill subliminal

*Re: Purely looking at stats..*



> Originally posted by <b>sov82</b>!
> Purely using statistics is a faulty way to evaluate players. Most guards in the country can make a wide open three pointer 50% of the time. Does that make them a good three point shooter? No. It means they are doing what is expected of them (making the open shot the majority of the time).
> 
> A good 3 point shooter does more than just make wide open threes. He's able to create his own shot or shoot over a defender. In these situations, 40% is a very good average.



Giddens' threes have been as contested as anybody's. As far as creating one's own 3 point shot, well Reddick can't do that very well either yet. Jameer and Ben Gordon did that pretty well this year, but Reddick and Giddens both need to work on creating their own shots.


----------



## VincentVega

*Re: Purely looking at stats..*



> Originally posted by <b>sov82</b>!
> Purely using statistics is a faulty way to evaluate players. Most guards in the country can make a wide open three pointer 50% of the time. Does that make them a good three point shooter? No. It means they are doing what is expected of them (making the open shot the majority of the time).
> 
> A good 3 point shooter does more than just make wide open threes. He's able to create his own shot or shoot over a defender. In these situations, 40% is a very good average.
> 
> Player A:
> 
> Open Three Pointers: 6
> Makes: 3
> Contested 3 Pointer Attempts: 0
> 3FG% 50%
> 
> 
> Player B:
> 
> Open Three Pointers: 4
> Makes: 2
> Contested 3 Point Attempts: 5
> Makes: 2
> 3FG% 44.4%
> 
> I would much rather have Player B than Player A...ESPECIALLY at crunch time. If I purely looked up a name and used his stats, Player A would be the obvious choice (and the wrong choice).
> 
> Its very easy for Freshman, who has a nice stroke, to come in and have high percentages? Why? They don't have the reputation yet of being a deadly shooter so defenses don't focus on them. Moreover, most coaches bench Freshman who take too many contested 3 pointers because they would rather have their upper tier players taking the contested shot at that point in their career. As they get further along in their career, the coaches let them take more contested shots AND defenses start keying in on the players. Thus, percentages go down.


I agree. That said, Giddens took just as many (or more) contested threes than did Redick. Like I said earlier, Giddens doesn't have an offense filled with stagger screens and set plays for him like Redick does, and thus finds himself launching from NBA range with guys in his face much of the time -- and he still manages to hit consistently, unlike Redick. And while I think Redick's a great shooter, I don't think he's very clutch. Giddens, on the other hand, is.

And about being able to come in as a freshman and have an easy time shooting high percentages -- that's a very, very broad statement that doesn't really apply when comparing Giddens and Redick. Giddens was KU's best shooter and only legitimate threat from three the entire year besides Lee, who missed half the season, came off the bench, and wasn't nearly the shooter Giddens was. This was known soon after the season started, and teams quickly adapted their defense to face guarding Giddens out to NBA range. Redick on the other hand might have had a more "televised" reputation (thank you, ESPN), but he also had Daniel Ewing, another great shooter, in the backcourt with him to help spread the defense and get him better looks with greater regularity. Having another shooter in the backcourt really opens things up -- especially if the offense is geared around freeing you up for shots via screens and set plays.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> He's not a better shooter than Redick and that 'he needs to get in rhythm' at the free throw line excuse is seriously beyond weak. Redick probably made about 99% of his first free throw shots, which weren't in 'rhythm' as you'd call it.


I've seen 80+% free throw shooters go 2-12 from the foul line. 27 is a very small sample and doesn't reflect his true skill at the stripe, I think it's rather pathetic that you're unwilling to concede this. However, if you insist, then it's settled.......Giddens is the better 3 pt. shooter and better shooter from the field, Reddick is the better free throw shooter.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> 
> 
> You just said you were only talking about long distance shooting, so why would YOU bring up FG%?


Because you backpedaled and said that you were talking only about shooting in general -- thus my efforts to include FG%, which is, basically, shooting in general. We can continue to talk about three-point shooting if you want, but only if you promise not to go off on a free throw tangent to conveniently suit your needs.



> FG% is probably the stat you should not talk about because a layup counts as much as a 19 foot jump shot. That's why I would never talk about FG%.


Gee, makes you wonder why they even include it as a stat in the first place.



> And what's this about 'Giddens shot this well as a FRESHMAN!' stuff.


I merely pointed out that, as a freshman, Giddens shot better from both the field _and_ three than both Anderson and Redick.



> That doesn't mean he's going to go up in the next year. As sov said, he's going to be guarded and concentrated on even more come next year.


Really? So which of the other four returning starters will teams decide to lessen their focus on? Also, why did Anderson and Redick's percentages go up their sophomore years? Doesn't this contradict what you said?



> He's not a better shooter than Redick


Evidence? Examples? Explanation? I gave my reasoning multiple times. Conversely, a trite sentence with nothing to back it up is all you have to offer.


----------



## sov82

*Well...*

Well don't forget, Kansas also had an All-American down low and Duke did not. Shelden Williams and Shavlik Randolf are hardly studs on offense.

All that being said, Redick is not as good of a shooter as people make him out to be...and you are defintely right, he is NOT clutch at all.


----------



## VincentVega

*Re: Well...*



> Originally posted by <b>sov82</b>!
> Well don't forget, Kansas also had an All-American down low and Duke did not. Shelden Williams and Shavlik Randolf are hardly studs on offense.


Good point.



> All that being said, Redick is not as good of a shooter as people make him out to be...and you are defintely right, he is NOT clutch at all.


Exactly. Why Phenom can't see this, I don't know. As far as clutch shooting goes, I'd go as far to say that Giddens is a *great* clutch shooter while Redick is a *horrible* one, IMO.

However, ESPN believes Redick is the 6'4" version of Larry Bird.


----------



## ThePhenom

I never said Redick was a clutch shooter. And Giddens is great? How many big shots did he make this year? Aside from the 1 against Georgia Tech, of which he missed originally, but got another chance. Rashad's more clutch than both of them, but statistics can't show that. It's opinion.

I never contradicted myself in regards to the shooting percentage in the player's freshman year. I just said that you don't know whether that pattern will continue or not. How's that contradiction?

You claim I need examples and evidence for my opinions, but nothing you've said has translated into Giddens being a better shooter than Redick or Anderson. What they shot freshman year doesn't constitute as evidence. With the exception of free throw shooting, of which Giddens is terrible, all those shots are taken under different circumstances, whether it be time left in the game or the spot on the floor in which they're shooting.

You Jayhomer fans might be some of the few people who would actually take Giddens over Redick. I'd also like to see proof on that statistic you gave that Giddens took more contested 3's than Redick. Seems more like an opinion, unless of course you watched and studied each shot these two took throughout the whole year.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> I never contradicted myself in regards to the shooting percentage in the player's freshman year. I just said that you don't know whether that pattern will continue or not. How's that contradiction?


When you say, _"That doesn't mean he's going to go up in the next year. As sov said, he's going to be guarded and concentrated on even more come next year"_, you imply that Giddens' shooting percentage won't be as high next season as it was this season. That's not an entirely erroneous position, but it is a bit simplistic, seeing as how most players improve quite markedly between their freshman and junior years. That said, Giddens' room for improvement is significantly larger than that of most freshmen due to his considerable upside. These facts tend to dilute your assumption in this case, don't you think?

Now I'm guessing you forgot to look at the improvement percentage-wise of Anderson and Redick from their freshman to sophomore years, and that wish you would have caught that little error before you commented on Giddens. But that still doesn't make up for the fact that you ignored the reality that Kansas will have even _more_ weapons for defenses to guard next year than this year in addition to returning all five starters. My basic point is that it's not as simple as "he's going to be guarded and concentrated on next year". In my opinion, there are more factors indicating an improved percentage rather than one that stays the same or declines. 



> You claim I need examples and evidence for my opinions,


Yes I have, as have other posters.



> but nothing you've said has translated into Giddens being a better shooter than Redick or Anderson.


Well, that's true if you don't count numerous statistics in addition to objective observations which multiple posters on this thread agree on.



> What they shot freshman year doesn't constitute as evidence.


...so why are you so sure that Redick is a better shooter than Giddens? Aren't you a little short on evidence here?



> With the exception of free throw shooting, of which Giddens is terrible, all those shots are taken under different circumstances, whether it be time left in the game or the spot on the floor in which they're shooting.


Brilliant observation. You know what the conclusion is? Despite all those different circumstances, Giddens is a more accurate and more consistent shooter than is Redick. I do like how you're employing yet another player (Anderson) into your general defense, though.



> You Jayhomer fans might be some of the few people who would actually take Giddens over Redick.


Why the personal attack? Am I upsetting you?



> I'd also like to see proof on that statistic you gave that Giddens took more contested 3's than Redick.


I never said it was a statistic. Such a statistic would be damn near impossible to both formulate and acquire. It was my opinion -- an opinion others here agree on.


----------



## ThePhenom

Stop saying 'others have agreed on'. All those 'others' happen to be Kansas fans. That doesn't constitute as evidence. And it seems like when it's my opinion I need evidence, but as long as other KU fans agree with your opinion then it's basically fact.


----------



## kcchiefs-fan

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> Stop saying 'others have agreed on'. All those 'others' happen to be Kansas fans. That doesn't constitute as evidence. And it seems like when it's my opinion I need evidence, but as long as other KU fans agree with your opinion then it's basically fact.


Are you dense? Numerous people in this thread (non-Jayhawk fans) have agreed with us "blind homers".

The fact that the only evidence you have brought to the table is a superior FT% for Reddick to try and prove your point, and then cry about everybody who disagrees with you (in other words, everybody that has ventured into this thread) being biased and ignorant, shows your desperation. Get some new material.


----------



## ThePhenom

Name those who came out and completely agreed with everything you guys have said. That texas UNC fan might be the only one.


----------



## kansasalumn

> Originally posted by <b>ThePhenom</b>!
> Name those who came out and completely agreed with everything you guys have said. That texas UNC fan might be the only one.


#1Stunna also agreed.


----------



## vadimivich

I watched a ton of Kansas games this year (my fiance is a current student at KU) and even was in the stands for the Michigan State game. I love J.R Giddens, he's a funny kid, a great athlete, and a lot of fun to watch. 

You are smoking crack if you think he's a better shooter than J.J Redick though, as much as I hate Duke with all my heart. Redick's % is a bit low because he's so cocky and Duke's offense is so perimeter oriented that he'll jack it from anywhere, and with anyone in face. If Redick played in Kansas's offense with a true interior threat, he'd shoot 45% or more, hell - he'd shoot 45% in his current offense if he just stopped shooting 30 footers with people in his face on a regular basis. As a pure shooter though, he's far, far superior to Giddens. It's not even close.

Giddens will end up being the much better player, but will probably never be a better shooter. Redick's release (which no one in this thread mentioned) is unbelievably quick, and despite often suffocating defense on him at the 3pt line, he still bangs it home at a 40% clip. For a total non-athlete who can't get his own shot, and is a 1 trick pony, that's pretty impressive.

Giddens is much more similar to someone like B.J Elder - terrific range, a very smooth stroke, and when spotted up he's money. If he learns to take it off the dribble, and use his height to post up smaller guards (ala Elder's improvement) he'll be the best KU pro prospect since a certain kid named Pierce.

But come on, save the "better 3pt shooter than JJ Redick" crap, it's a bit of unnecessary hyperbole. Everyone hates how Duhon was made to sound like the best player ever, when he didn't need that kind of hype - same with Giddens.


----------



## vadimivich

If you wanted to add another person to the discussion. how about someone who put up this line from 3:

78/191 40.8

And he's able to create his own shot easily, get to the rim, and coincidentally - led the ACC in scoring.

Rashad McCants quietly had a terrific season for UNC, I don't know if people realize how good a shooter he really is. That second half in Atlanta where he went for 29 in the half (read that last sentence again to sink in) was the best 20 minutes I saw a college player play last year, even if UNC ended up losing (mostly because B.J Elder went for 24 in the second half as well)


----------



## CP26

Maryland at 8?? I am a Marylan die hard fan but I don't expect them to be this high, even though its great and all but its still too high. They have no good recruits, but they still have the returning players except Jamar Smith


----------



## GTFan513

*ORIGINALLY POSTED IN ACC FORUM...*

Georgia Tech is getting no respect at all from you guys...after almost winning the NCAA tourney, the yellow jackets only lose two players and will go 10 deep next year WITHOUT Randolph Morris who is looking like he will come to Tech. Assuming Morris comes to Tech here is our lineup for next year...

PG- Jarrett Jack / Will Bynum
SG- B.J. Elder / A. Morrow / Frederick
C- Schenscher / R. Morris
F- A. McHenry / Dickey
G/F- Muhammed / Tarver

Here would be our heighth on the team

7'1
6'11
6'9
6'9
6'7
6'7
6'6
6'5
6'4
6'3
5'11

So as you can perfectly well see Georgia Tech is VERY stacked for next year!


----------



## sov82

*GT next year*

GT will do very very well next year. To win a championship, however, I think one of those guys is going to have to develop into a "go-to" guy. Big players make big plays throughout games. Deep teams are able to keep games close. But every team needs a go-to guy. If one of the guys can step up and be that man, this team has a good chance to being back in the championship game.


----------



## Like A Breath

*Re: ORIGINALLY POSTED IN ACC FORUM...*



> Originally posted by <b>GTFan513</b>!
> 
> PG- Jarrett Jack / Will Bynum
> SG- B.J. Elder / A. Morrow / Frederick
> C- Schenscher / R. Morris
> F- A. McHenry / Dickey
> G/F- Muhammed / Tarver


Morris>>>Schenscher. I guarantee that after a few games he'll either be playing PF or starting.

All this talk abouut 3 point shooters...Rashad Anderson + A healthy Denham Brown will absolutely kill teams next year. They'll finally have a PG that can keep defenses honest and I expect Charlie V. to be an All-American.


----------



## ErikDaniels14UK

Morris hasnt committed to anyone yet and why would Morris want to be back up while he can start at Kentucky and get tons of pt. Also its not looking either way because we havent even announced our transfers yet imo(were waiting until the finals have ended). And Ive also heard that youre still looking at players one being named Aarron Pettway(which i heard is a really good juco player)


----------



## ErikDaniels14UK

*Re: Re: ORIGINALLY POSTED IN ACC FORUM...*



> Originally posted by <b>Like A Breath</b>!
> 
> 
> Morris>>>Schenscher. I guarantee that after a few games he'll either be playing PF or starting.
> 
> All this talk abouut 3 point shooters...Rashad Anderson + A healthy Denham Brown will absolutely kill teams next year. They'll finally have a PG that can keep defenses honest and I expect Charlie V. to be an All-American.


Morris cant play pf in georgia tech's offense though imo.......


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>vadimivich</b>!
> Redick's % is a bit low because he's so cocky and Duke's offense is so perimeter oriented that he'll jack it from anywhere, and with anyone in face.


Redick's been in college two full seasons. He has yet to hit even 40% of his three-point attempts. As for jacking it from anywhere, Giddens will do that too. The majority of Giddens' three-pointers were from NBA range or beyond this year. And he did it with people draped all over him (due in large part to the fact that he didn't have the luxury of running around screens to rid his defenders like Redick did). Giddens gets his shot off every time, though, because of his extreme athleticism.



> If Redick played in Kansas's offense with a true interior threat, he'd shoot 45% or more,


Kansas' offense doesn't have (or at least didn't have, this year) set plays and stagger screens that Redick is so used to having at Duke. He wouldn't get nearly as many looks at KU, and he wouldn't get nearly as many _good_ looks either. Moreover, it's not like Duke's playing with a couple of stiffs inside -- Shelden Williams is one of the best big men in the ACC for cryin' out loud.



> hell - he'd shoot 45% in his current offense if he just stopped shooting 30 footers with people in his face on a regular basis.


This is what I was talking about being consistent. Giddens is more consistent _and_ a smarter shooter than Redick. Additionally, I bet Giddens would have shot around 45% with a fully-healed left foot (he played on a broken bone this year, limiting his lift and explosion).



> As a pure shooter though, he's far, far superior to Giddens. It's not even close.


I honestly don't know why people say this. At least the "not even close part". Giddens isn't the shooter Redick is at the line, but from long range I'd pick Giddens in a shooting exhibition 10 times out of 10, guarded or not. I've seen Giddens shoot for three or four minutes from behind the arc before games and not miss once, and I've seen him nail countless bombs from beyond NBA range with guys in his face (just like Redick, when he's on). Coming into this season, a lot of (misinformed) people thought that Giddens was just an athlete. They didn't know he considered himself a shooter first and foremost. Regardless, a lot of fans didn't care because he could throw down some nutty dunks and rile up the crowd. Conversely, Redick was proclaimed Larry Bird, Jr. from the day he arrived in Durham. Naturally, his shooting ability (which is very good, but not as tremendous as many would like you to believe) was immediately magnified, lauded over and broadcast to the entire nation on television more than any other team in America. His shooting legend was not commensurate with actual (39.5% 3PT) results. Meanwhile, Giddens had to play half the season before anybody in the media took notice that he was actually a damn fine shooter. And I think this is why so many people think that it's "not even close" between the two players. 



> Redick's release (which no one in this thread mentioned) is unbelievably quick, and despite often suffocating defense on him at the 3pt line, he still bangs it home at a 40% clip.


Redick has a textbook release. It's great to watch. And it is quick. Giddens on the other hand has an unorthodox release and uses more wrist than follow-through. It catches you off guard the first few times you see it, and it looks somewhat fugly. However, despite Giddens' odd mechanics, he gets his shot off as quick or quicker than Redick. Literally speaking, Giddens needs _no_ time or separation to get his shot off. He doesn't need a screen and a bit of space like Redick does. He'll just stop and pop from wherever, and his feet don't have to be set. That's half of what makes it so quick -- Giddens just launches straight into his shot, regardless of whether or not his feet are set. And the quickness and height of his jump, combined with his freakishly long arms, make his shot virtually unblockable.



> For a total non-athlete who can't get his own shot, and is a 1 trick pony, that's pretty impressive.


Agreed.



> Giddens is much more similar to someone like B.J Elder - terrific range, a very smooth stroke, and when spotted up he's money. If he learns to take it off the dribble, and use his height to post up smaller guards (ala Elder's improvement) he'll be the best KU pro prospect since a certain kid named Pierce.


I agree about Giddens' potential (and what he needs to work on), but I'm not sure Elder is the best comparison. Elder is a big, thick guard who can post up and shoot with range, while Giddens is a total finesse player right now. Elder is smooth and stays relatively close to the ground, while Giddens is a little raw and jerky and does a lot of his damage from above the rim. Don't get me wrong -- I wholeheartedly wish Giddens would get a little of BJ's style in him. I think Elder is a great player and before this season he was definitely one of the most underrated players in the nation.



> But come on, save the "better 3pt shooter than JJ Redick" crap, it's a bit of unnecessary hyperbole.


What is hyperbolic about 40.7% vs. 39.5%, a comparison of team offenses and the analyzation of consistency from long range?



> Everyone hates how Duhon was made to sound like the best player ever, when he didn't need that kind of hype - same with Giddens.


Point taken. However, you yourself said that Giddens has the distinct potential to be the best pro prospect since Pierce. I think this is an honest assessment. I also think that such a statment could _not_ be said about Chris Duhon.


----------



## GTFan513

> Morris has committed to anyone yet and why would Morris want to be back up while he can start at Kentucky and get tons of pt. Also its not looking either way because we havent even announced our transfers yet imo(were waiting until the finals have ended). And Ive also heard that youre still looking at players one being named Aarron Pettway(which i heard is a really good juco player)


He wont be a backup, he will grabs Schenschers spot pretty easily and he will probably play close to 25 minutes a game with Schenscher playing 15...BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS:

Why would he want to play for a team that spits out just mediocre NBA players (Kentucky), when he can play for a national championship contender that spits out such all-stars as: Kenny Anderson, Stephon Marbury, Matt Harpring, Mark Price, John Salley, Chris Bosh, Dennis Scott, and Tom Hammonds, and others that stay in the league a while such as: Matt Geiger, Travis Best, Dion Glover, Jason Collier, Jon Barry, Drew Barry...so answer me that question...


PS-- sure, you will bring up Antoine Walker and Jamal Mashborn, but how do they compare to Matt Harpring and Stephon Marbury?? And Tony Delk with Jon Barry? And Ron Mercer with Chris Bosh?? I would rather have the Tech players...


----------



## adarsh1

how far do you guys see maryland going next year
??


----------



## Ghost

> Originally posted by <b>adarsh1</b>!
> how far do you guys see maryland going next year
> ??


It depends on how far much young players develope. Elight Eight maybe Sweet Sixteen.


----------



## vadimivich

This thread is an awful lot like the NBA one where people are trying to say Ray Allen is a better 3pt shooter than Peja. You can't compare someone who shoots a lot less, and shoots in common catch and shoot situations (which most of Giddens were, I saw almost 3/4 of KU's games this year) to someone who is constantly running of screens and shooting in off balance situations.

Giddens will be a phenomenal player though, 6' 6" guards with his athleticism and shooting range are a very uncommon thing. I'm looking forward to watching him play next year, if he improves his toughness and post up game (ala McCants and Elder) he'll be the best SG in the country. He still won't be a better shooter than J.J Redick though, and nowhere near as good as Kyle Korver was last year - who was about as good a college shooter I've ever seen.


----------



## VincentVega

> Originally posted by <b>vadimivich</b>!
> This thread is an awful lot like the NBA one where people are trying to say Ray Allen is a better 3pt shooter than Peja. You can't compare someone who shoots a lot less, and shoots in common catch and shoot situations (which most of Giddens were, I saw almost 3/4 of KU's games this year) to someone who is constantly running of screens and shooting in off balance situations.


Very true.



> Giddens will be a phenomenal player though, 6' 6" guards with his athleticism and shooting range are a very uncommon thing. I'm looking forward to watching him play next year, if he improves his toughness and post up game (ala McCants and Elder) he'll be the best SG in the country. He still won't be a better shooter than J.J Redick though, and nowhere near as good as Kyle Korver was last year - who was about as good a college shooter I've ever seen.


I agree...mostly.  

You're right on the money regarding Korver. Kid checks into the lineup in Philly and goes nuts from downtown all the time.


----------



## deranged40

> Originally posted by <b>GTFan513</b>!
> 
> 
> He wont be a backup, he will grabs Schenschers spot pretty easily and he will probably play close to 25 minutes a game with Schenscher playing 15...BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS:
> 
> Why would he want to play for a team that spits out just mediocre NBA players (Kentucky), when he can play for a national championship contender that spits out such all-stars as: Kenny Anderson, Stephon Marbury, Matt Harpring, Mark Price, John Salley, Chris Bosh, Dennis Scott, and Tom Hammonds, and others that stay in the league a while such as: Matt Geiger, Travis Best, Dion Glover, Jason Collier, Jon Barry, Drew Barry...so answer me that question...
> 
> 
> PS-- sure, you will bring up Antoine Walker and Jamal Mashborn, but how do they compare to Matt Harpring and Stephon Marbury?? And Tony Delk with Jon Barry? And Ron Mercer with Chris Bosh?? I would rather have the Tech players...


HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHA :laugh: Are you crazy? That's a nice collection of talent from Georgia Tech, but Kentucky is up there with UNC in terms of quality NBA players produced. Plus it has little to do with the school, it's all about coaching. Pretty much that whole list besides Mark Price, Stephon Marbury, and possibly Chris Bosh in the future is "mediocre". Matt Harpring is not even in the same league as Mash and 'Toine so asking how they compare with him is very humorous. Oh BTW, last time I checked Kentucky was the #1 overall seed in the past two NCAA tourneys, which makes them a "national championship contender" in anyone's book. Plus add the tradition factor, with UK having probably the greatest tradition and history of any college program in the country (the only ones that come close are ones like KU and UNC). 

Now I'm not saying Morris should go to UK, and that Georgia Tech is not a worthy school in it's own right, but your post was pretty much laughable from the get-go.


----------



## vadimivich

Laugh what you want, very few schools in the last 20 years have put out as many good to great NBA players as Ga. Tech has done. The only schools that have done better are UNC, KU, and a few others. Kentucky, especially under Tubby Smith, is not an NBA factory. It's similar to Duke, nice players, a few all-stars, but mostly a tradition of role players who had nice college carreers.

Kind of surprises you actually, doesn't it? Cremmins had a boatload of talent during his career there in Atlanta, and Hewitt is certainly a terrific recruiter.

As for the quality of school, Ga. Tech is (along with Berkeley) the best public engineering school in the country, and one of the premier science/engineering institutes in the world. People talk about Duke and Stanford and Berkeley and their academic tradition, Tech is in that same short list. US News & World report had it as the 9th best overall public university in the country - which is no mean accomplishment for a school who's slogan is "ramblin' wreck from Georgia Tech and an hell of an engineer too".

I'm glad they made a run this year in the tournament, so that the program got some more national exposure, but it's a damn good school, with a damn good athletics program. Baseball is a continual powerhouse (Nomar Garciaparra and Mark Texiera being recent players at Tech) and the football team won national championships in 1917 (with Heisman as their coach), 1928, 1952, and 1990. Basketball until Bobby Cremmins was actually the traditional weakling of Tech athletics, though that seems to have changed. And yes Georgia fans, we won a national title in football a hell of a lot more recent than you have, so suck on your stupid bulldog and your hedges.


----------



## VincentVega

I would bet a lot of money on Georgia Tech becoming a premier NBA player-supplying powerhouse with Hewitt at the helm. Not that there's a dearth of good pros from Georgia Tech in the NBA right now...I just think it can get even better with Hewitt in charge.

Good post, vadimivich. I have two cousins that work for the CDC (one biochemist, one geneticist/microbiologist) and they've said nothing but the highest of remarks regarding GT.


----------



## vadimivich

Atlanta (and Tech by continuation - since it's located in the center of the city right off I-75) is strangely viewed in the national outlook. If you had to ask people in the US to name one thing about Atlanta outside it's sports teams, they'd probably only think of it burning during the Civil War, or that it's the home of the "dirty south" rap acts such as Ludacris, Outkast, J. Dupri and Goodie Mobb.

People forget it's the traditional center of the south, the business and commerce hub of the most tradition soaked portion of the country. Near Tech you can see the Margaret Mitchell house where _Gone With the Wind_ was written, right next door to modern finance and banking high rises, and one block down from the chicken and waffles joint where you can see Goodie Mobb out front playing checkers.

It's one of the largest and most modern cities in the United States, but the resentment for Sherman burning it still runs deep, and the people still get in an uproar when the newspaper's front page picture is Brittany and Madonna kissing (the AJC had to publish an apology for that).

And in the middle of this is a fairly drab collection of yellow brick and concrete, which has been the traditional home of the most capable engineers and scientists in the south for the last 150 years. For some reason the image of Atlanta as a sleepy town has stuck to Tech as well, with very little attention paid to it on a national scale, despite the excellence it has produced. (well, unless you want a job, and then Gerogia Institute of Technology on your resume speaks quite loud)

I went to go buy my final four shirt at a shop here in North Carolina, and was telling the guy behind the counter that Atlanta was a giant party on the night they beat OSU - he asked why Atlanta would care ... if anything I hope that this run this year has brought the school into a more prominent light.

Anyways, I love Atlanta, I loved my time there, and I'll stick up for my Yeller Jackets whenever I can.


----------



## ErikDaniels14UK

tubby makes regular players into nba players and with morris he can do a whole lot more than you think. I hope Morris is watching the Nba right now and the two centers tubby developed Nazr and Magloire(expecially Magloire) are putting up numbers. Here is some of the players that made it to the Nba during Tubby's tenture Magloire, Mohammed, Bogans, Prince, and Padgett(and some more that i have to look into). This year he also has 3 seniors that might make it to the Nba(hawkins, daniels and fitch). He also has 2 mc donalds all americans who have convinced him to go to Kentucky(one was his roomate rajon rondo) Just because georgia tech had 1 good season there is no reason you should compare the two. Also you shouldnt compare who gets more players into the Nba because it is the same as the last comparison. Im not saying georgia tech isnt on the rise because they probally are.


----------



## ErikDaniels14UK

also how many of them nba players were on your team when that coach you have now has coached and developed thoese players..... i know bosh was but thats all i can name. stephon was before hewitt was coach(wasnt he).....


----------



## vadimivich

Stephon Marbury, Mark Price, Kenny Anderson, John Salley, Matt Geiger, Dion Glover, Travis Best, Drew Barry, Tom Hammonds, Dennis Scott, Matt Harpring and the rest all played for Bobby Cremmins.

Hewitt just finished his fourth season at Tech, Bosh was a top 5 pick, and Ed Nelson will be an NBA player as well (ACC rookie of the year 2 years ago, right before Bosh - now transfered to UCONN). There's probably 2 future NBA players on the current roster as well - so I don't think that for developing NBA players, GT has ever struggled.

I'm not arguing that GT is anywhere remotely near Kentucky as a basketball dynasty, you can't even compare it. For generating NBA players in the last 20 years though, you can certainly make a case that they have done very well.

If he wants to go for the tradition and Ashley Judd and to play in Rupp Arena, wonderful for him. But the Thriller Dome (Alexander Memorial) is a terrific place to play, you get to live in downtown Atlanta, and if GT isn't close to UK's basketball tradition, UK can't compare to it as an academic institution.

(plus, Tech is going to be stacked again next year - that's certainly a plus )


----------



## sov82

*I dont think...*

I dont think you can credit a program for "developing" a player into an NBA player if they are only there for one year.

Do you really think GT's coaching staff turned Bosh from a nonprospect into a top 5 pick? Do you really think Duke developed Corey Maggette? Syracuse & Carmello? 

If you want to say a program develops players, I think the player must be in a program for 2+ years. They also must be able to do something when they leave, that they couldn't do when they got there. Run the point, defend the post, develop pivot moves...something!

(I also disagree with the GT Ed Nelson comment. GT did little for Ed in developing him into a prospect. He came in as a top 50 prospect. Ya, he got ACC freshman of the year. Then Bosh started over him. If he left for the NBA instead of UCONN last year, he wouldn't have been drafted. If he ends up being picked, look no further than UCONN).


----------



## vadimivich

If Ed Nelson never has an NBA career and ends up waiting tables in Lithuania for a day job, I won't shed a tear. What a waste, he's a big fat whiner and has 0 work ethic.

On that point GT did nothing to limit Bosh's potential, allowing him to show off a pro style game instead of trying to limit him inside a 'system'. Pretty important when you are looking for a springboard to the draft.

Otherwise, yeah - teams don't really 'develop' players anymore, they mostly are holding pens for 1-2 years for guys just looking for the best draft slot.


----------



## sov82

*lol*

Lol how quickly you change your mind on a player. First, you are trying to talk up a program because of a player that played there. Then you attack that player.

Plleeeeeeaaaaassssseeeeeee.

GT must have done a great job motivating their players to be the best if he has 0 work ethic.


----------



## ErikDaniels14UK

i though your coach right now(hewitt) has only been there coaching for four years... my mistake


----------



## deranged40

I wasn't laughing at him for saying Georgia Tech was a good school, which it is in both academics and athletics. I was laughing due to his comments about how Georgia Tech makes all those "all-stars" and Kentucky's NBA talent sucks. I also got a chuckle when he said Harpring was in the same league as Masburn and Walker. Nothing against Georgia Tech though, Hewitt's a fantastic coach and a great recruiter too.


----------



## GTFan513

He has been coaching only 4 years but its the "tradition" (for lack of a better word) of NBA players we've had come out of Georgia Tech: which equals to 20 in the past 15 years compared to Kentuckys 15...and Harpring and Marbury equal the same number of points + more rebounds and assists than Walker and Mashburn do...thats why I said that...AND I NEVER SAID KENTUCKYS NBA TALENT SUX...I JUST SAID GEORGIA TECH DOES HAVE A REPUTATION FOR SPITTING OT VERY GOOD NBA PROSPECTS...I also typed a very long reply to a lot of your comments which were then erased (which really SUX) so I said screw it...


----------



## deranged40

Well maybe if Antoine wasn't coming off the bench for the Mavs, and if Mashburn hasn't been injured off-and-on all year, it might mean a little more. They have both been 20-5-5 guys, with Walker pretty consistently and Mashburn doing it at least once. Right now UK has 11 plays in the NBA, and GT has 8 so the numbers are similiar with UK having a slight edge. Oh and FYI, 'Mash and 'Toine combine for 35.0 pts, 14.6 rebs, and 7.0 assists; while Harpring and Starbury combine for 36.3, 11.0, and 10.9. So you were right about assists but not rebounds, and the stats are similiar, but at the same time slightly misleading. Walker doesn't get nearly the touches as he used to, and Mashburn has been injured throughout the year. If you take Walker's and Mashburn's averages from last year, when their stats are more representative of how they truly play, they average together about 40.9 ppg, 13.3 rpg, and 10.1 apg. Just a little food for thought.

I was simply laughing since you said that Kentucky's NBA players were "mediocre" and G Techs were "all-stars" when Kentucky has more present all-star caliber players. I wasn't knocking the G-Tech program at all.


----------



## JuniorNoboa

> Originally posted by <b>GTFan513</b>!
> 
> 
> Why would he want to play for a team that spits out just mediocre NBA players (Kentucky), when he can play for a national championship contender that spits out such all-stars as: Kenny Anderson, Stephon Marbury, Matt Harpring, Mark Price, John Salley, Chris Bosh, Dennis Scott, and Tom Hammonds, and others that stay in the league a while such as: Matt Geiger, Travis Best, Dion Glover, Jason Collier, Jon Barry, Drew Barry...so answer me that question...



Ladies and gentlemen, this is an all-star



> http://www.basketballreference.com/players/playerpage.htm?ilkid=HAMMOTO01



Tom Hammonds - all-star?
John Salley - all star?

Perhaps the most homeristic and utterly wrong assertion made on this board .... ever.

Drew Barry? I thoroughly enjoyed his 598 minute career in the NBA.

I am surprised you missed Ivano Newbill - that guy was a superstar.


----------



## deranged40

So it appears you think of this the same way I do, eh JuniorNoboa?


----------



## GTFan513

The Fact is this...I dont know too much about what they did after they left Georgia Tech...except the ones that are playing right now...frankley though the ones that I mentioned WERE all stars on Georgia Tech teams, and thats what I meant when I said most of that... but u do have to admit that many of the players up there were very strong in the NBA, even though some were not, a lot of them had long careers...




> Perhaps the most homeristic and utterly wrong assertion made on this board .... ever.


I doubt that is the case as I have only screwed up a couple of names up there, when I have seen some seriously wrong comments...dont go that far...


----------



## deranged40

> Why would he want to play for a team that spits out just mediocre NBA players (Kentucky), when he can play for a national championship contender that spits out such all-stars as


Ok now you're making sense, but that was your original post above. I wasn't trying to make a personal attack on you or anything I was just commenting on how your comments seemed a little ludicris. No hard feelings, right?


----------



## GTFan513

Sure I understand, its all good but I still have to defend my posts, lol, but did anybody see the Bracketology on ESPN???? Ga Tech has got a *5th seed* for next season accourding to him...what is he smoking????


----------



## deranged40

Yeah I noticed that. Kind of suprising, Lunardi is usually pretty accurate with his projections. At the very least G-Tech is a 2 seed :no:


----------



## VincentVega

David Padgett is transferring. Kansas should drop to a fringe top 10 team now.


----------



## ErikDaniels14UK

Georgia tech if none of the players leave will definetely be in the top 5(top 3 imo) in the preseason.


----------



## GTFan513

*Morris's Father's Statement*

If anyone of you people have been to theinsiders.com, and are an insider, Randolph Morris' father has an article with the title "Dad says he'll play in College" so judging by that title, the NBA is out.....hopefully. Plus, his family wants him to go somewhere close and his brother helps out as a trainer for the Tech basketball team. I hope he comes to tech even if it is for only a year. If he doesnt well then jeremis smith, zam "bam" frederick, tony morrow, and ra'sean dickey is still a top 15 recruiting class. Oh and by the way is looking like the Jackets will get JUCO player Aaron Pettway... Go Jackets. 

He is also visiting Georgia Tech this weekend which bodes well for when he makes his decision as it will be the freshest thing on his mind when he commits one way or the other...


----------



## ErikDaniels14UK

he might be waiting until they decide on the 5/8 rule, if they decide to get rid of it or due away with it i think he will end up at kentucky. if they dont who knows. But as of right now hes still looking at the nba as an option. his mom said he would like his son to stay close to home but it isnt her decision. Also rajon rondo(kentucky's recruit) told the newspaper that morris told him he was coming to kentucky(even though he really didnt know if he was telling the truth or not) after the mcdonalds all american game was over.


----------



## UKfan4Life

UK under Tubby has produced one All-Star. Jamaal Magloire, and man is he having a great season or what? Tayshaun is one of the main guys that saved Detroit a first-round playoff exit last season and Keith Bogans ain't playing too bad for a second round rookie on a crappy NBA team huh? But hey, if we're going to talk like that, why would Morris want to go to GTech when he could go to a 7 time national champion school as opposed to a school with none (correct me if I'm wrong on that one...my bad if I am...)? Why would he want to go to GTech when he could go to UK, where he would get the most national exposure and be on national TV for almost every game? Why would he want to go to GTech when he could go to one of the premier college basketball schools in the nation under one of the premier coaches in the nation?

Minor trash-talking aside, with or without Morris, GTech is going to be one of the premier teams in the nation next season and probably an early Final Four pick for most. Paul hewitt is a hell of a coach and I definitley hold him in high regard. But don't kid yourself, Tubby develops players as well as anybody. Some of these players don't get a lot of hype, but always turn out to be something special. Morris wouldn't be making a mistake by going to Kentucky and learning under Tubby, as Tubby would definitley make him NBA ready. Look at what he's done with Jamaal Magloire. That being said, however, he wouldn't be making a mistake going to Georgia Tech either.


----------



## ThePhenom

Schools that have produced more/better pros than GTech in last 20 years:
- Kentucky
- North Carolina
- Duke
- Maryland
- Kansas
- Connecticut 
- Georgetown

And that's just off the top of my head without looking at any actual numbers. There's still a bunch more better.


----------

