MBB talent compared to other Big 12 teams

[bots]

The question was "talent," though. Brady Morningstar was a better college player than Josh Selby. Are you telling me that Brady Morningstar is more talented than Josh Selby?

I don't read the question as "talent" - the question was which rosters are best on paper. On paper I would rather have an experienced/savy Morningstar during last year's season than Selby. To me "on paper" doesn't just look at a player's eventual pro ceiling, it's an assessment of how much they contribute to a team's projected success in the upcoming season. It's a measure of current effectiveness.

"On paper" I'd rather have a Chris Allen this upcoming season (note - looking at this season only) than McLemore. That's different than saying one player or another will be drafted higher or have greater pro success.

 

[rholtgraves]

I agree - and I'd love you to show where I said that. Please don't put words in my mouth.

The point is mock drafts might have some correlation to college success, but to simply point to a mock as proof of how good a college team is "on paper" is stupid.

I would argue that an "on paper" assessment of a college team is a function of how good of college players are on the roster (not how high of NBA ceilings), and at what point in their development each player is. A seasoned 22 YO player with significant high D1 experience is likely a better player "on paper" for the upcoming college season that a highly touted frosh player who's just stopping by on his way to the nba.

Sorry, I probably read your post too fast. But it is all relative to the player. Some experience four year players are still not better than some freshman. Brandon Knight was a lot better than some four year div one gaurds and so was Kyrie Irving when he played.

Regardless of that, the question was how does ISU's talent compare to the rest of the teams.

 

[rholtgraves]

I don't read the question as "talent" - the question was which rosters are best on paper. On paper I would rather have an experienced/savy Morningstar during last year's season than Selby. To me "on paper" doesn't just look at a player's eventual pro ceiling, it's an assessment of how much they contribute to a team's projected success in the upcoming season. It's a measure of current effectiveness.

"On paper" I'd rather have a Chris Allen this upcoming season (note - looking at this season only) than McLemore. That's different than saying one player or another will be drafted higher or have greater pro success.

how do you not read the question as talent when the thread is "MMB talent compared to other Big 12 teams"?

 

[kucyclone]

I don't read the question as "talent" - the question was which rosters are best on paper. On paper I would rather have an experienced/savy Morningstar during last year's season than Selby. To me "on paper" doesn't just look at a player's eventual pro ceiling, it's an assessment of how much they contribute to a team's projected success in the upcoming season. It's a measure of current effectiveness.

"On paper" I'd rather have a Chris Allen this upcoming season (note - looking at this season only) than McLemore. That's different than saying one player or another will be drafted higher or have greater pro success.

I would agree that talent alone is a different thing than projected success. I read the question solely asking about talent, because the thread title says "talent" and not projected order of finish.

 

[rholtgraves]

I doubt Franklin or heslip will even start for us. Though will add functional depth along with bello which was nonexistent.

Look for Pierre Jackson and Walton. Walton was never a pure PG and put in a tough position last year. He was still in the conversation for the best defensive guard in the league last year.

Jackson has a lot of hype following him in. I hope he can live up to it.

Baylor's toughest task is to find a place for arguably our best three players who all play small forward (jones, jones, miller). Lots of banter back and forth between fans on what could/should happen. Drew has some work ahead of him.

Looking forward to a situational lineup of 6'1" 6'9" 6'10" 6'11" 6'11"

You are right, the biggest question marks for Baylor are going to be gaurd play and how to get all those big guys minutes. It also seems like they like good oustide shooters.

 

[bots]

how do you not read the question as talent when the thread is "MMB talent compared to other Big 12 teams"?

You are correct on the thread title, however, the term talent is not a part of OPs question:

"Where does everyone think ISU ranks on paper compared to the other 9 MBB teams in the conference?"

Frankly, I don't see the point of debating whether KU or Baylor or ISU will have more players drafted, or which ones will ultimately make the best pros. To me OP's question is how does the combination of talent/development look on paper for the upcoming year. The "on paper" part (to me) removes the variables of chemistry, coaching, etc. If you're just looking at players based on a projection of their eventual ceiling then you're not differentiating between DG as a freshman and DG as a senior... and to me there's a big difference "on paper" and on the court.

 

[baylrballa]

You are right, the biggest question marks for Baylor are going to be gaurd play and how to get all those big guys minutes. It also seems like they like good oustide shooters.

Surprising to some, Lace was the 3rd best three-point shooter on our team at 36%.

Walton and Anthony Jones shot 38.5 and 39.5% respectively. (Ant shot 54% in conference play) Problem was that, combined, they shot 100 less than Lace.

And the rumors floating out of practice are Heslip is better than all mentioned above, yet to be seen though.

 

[cykadelic2]

You are seriously not very smart if you think A&M has more talent than KU or Iowa State. A&M has average talent that got the most out of its players.

Your argument that someone being a the bench = not good, is just a stupid argument because it doesn't take into account who is playing above them and the specifics of the situation.

Classic KU BS. You have no clue about the quality of A&M's returning players (e.g. Middelton / Loubeau) and their new guys like Elston Turner. Calling their talent average is asinine. But that figures, Turgeon is a KU grad so it must have been all his doing to have A&M's success.

Again, if Withey, E.Johnson, and Releford were any good they would have played against VCU when most of their starters choked and they needed a bench to bail them out. Self is a good coach, he didn't play them for a reason (Johnson played only 6 minutes, Withey and Releford were DNPs). Also, they didn't show that much when they did play in mopup duty against other teams' subs.

 

[tazclone]

Classic KU BS. You have no clue about the quality of A&M's returning players (e.g. Middelton / Loubeau) and their new guys like Elston Turner. Calling their talent average is asinine. But that figures, Turgeon is a KU grad so it must have been all his doing to have A&M's success.

Again, if Withey, E.Johnson, and Releford were any good they would have played against VCU when most of their starters choked and they needed a bench to bail them out. Self is a good coach, he didn't play them for a reason (Johnson played only 6 minutes, Withey and Releford were DNPs). Also, they didn't show that much when they did play in mopup duty against other teams' subs.

I like Self but he has done the same thing two years in a row in the NCAA tourney. So your argument has a hole. Is Self a great coach when he loses to lower rated teams in the same manner two years in a row? Maybe he made a mistake by not bringing in his bench guys? You keep ragging on the bench talent for KU but the starters at KU got beat by VCU as well. I doubt you will say VCU had more talent on paper than KU.

Fact is, Self road his starters all year in close games. It is what he does and has always done. Stays with the starters and trusts his upperclassmen in tight moments. It doesn't really say anything about the talent on his bench. Also, you are using one game. One, as an indicator. One game is not an indicator.

And I really have no dog in this fight. On paper, ISU is middle of the pack. We hear a lot of hype about our transfers but we really know nothing.

 

[rholtgraves]

Classic KU BS. You have no clue about the quality of A&M's returning players (e.g. Middelton / Loubeau) and their new guys like Elston Turner. Calling their talent average is asinine. But that figures, Turgeon is a KU grad so it must have been all his doing to have A&M's success.

Again, if Withey, E.Johnson, and Releford were any good they would have played against VCU when most of their starters choked and they needed a bench to bail them out. Self is a good coach, he didn't play them for a reason (Johnson played only 6 minutes, Withey and Releford were DNPs). Also, they didn't show that much when they did play in mopup duty against other teams' subs.

Yeah, two guys returning for A&M that are good. ISU has a lot more talent than that. Turgeon is a good coach and that is why he got the Maryland job, it has nothing to do with being a KU grad. Under Gillispie they were a similar team. They would have one or two really good players, the rest were average but they play good defense and don't make many mistakes.

 

[rholtgraves]

Surprising to some, Lace was the 3rd best three-point shooter on our team at 36%.

Walton and Anthony Jones shot 38.5 and 39.5% respectively. (Ant shot 54% in conference play) Problem was that, combined, they shot 100 less than Lace.

And the rumors floating out of practice are Heslip is better than all mentioned above, yet to be seen though.

Well, one thing is for sure, they should get plenty of open looks this year with the guys inside.

 

[acgclone]

Jesus, are we really still arguing about whether KU will be good or not and whether Bill Self is a good coach?

They win the conference every year and Self has a NC, something Roy couldn't do while at KU.

They lost a lot this past year, but history tells us they will be in the top 2 at the end of the year.

Also, Self has been upset in the Tourney a couple of times but he has 1 NC under his belt and will likely get another one at some point in the next 10 years.

I guess I'm not sure why people are arguing these points.

 

[IcSyU]

How many coaches are there who haven't been upset in the NCAA Tournament? Bill Self is a great basketball coach.

 

[CycloneErik]

How many coaches are there who haven't been upset in the NCAA Tournament? Bill Self is a great basketball coach.

How many have been to the Elite Eight with three different schools?

Bill Self is a great basketball coach?

Side note: Who would watch the first two rounds of the NCAAs without the upsets and the chance of upsets? Isn't that how they became such a big deal?

 

[IcSyU]

How many have been to the Elite Eight with three different schools?

Bill Self is a great basketball coach?

Side note: Who would watch the first two rounds of the NCAAs without the upsets and the chance of upsets? Isn't that how they became such a big deal?

To the first question, how is John Calipari ruled? :biglaugh:

 

[cykadelic2]

Fact is, Self road his starters all year in close games. It is what he does and has always done. Stays with the starters and trusts his upperclassmen in tight moments. It doesn't really say anything about the talent on his bench. Also, you are using one game. One, as an indicator. One game is not an indicator.

The VCU is the Exhibit A example of the point I'm making, there are other games also like Texas. The KU homers are suggesting that guys like Withey, Releford and E.Johnson are talented enough to be starters on a conference champ contender next season. Based on their quality of play and lack of PT at KU so far, there is little to no evidence that they are capable of that. If they were good enough, Self would have found PT for them when games were still in question, the VCU game is one prime example of that. Now all 3 could drastically improve next season but that scenario can apply to every other returning player in the B12.

I agree that T.Robinson and Taylor could possibly become all-conference type players but they likely will be 1st and 2nd options next season in the offense which will be new for them. Taylor starred at times last season but he was inconsistent.

 

[ArmyDgls3]

Where does everyone think ISU ranks on paper compared to the other 9 MBB teams in the conference?

I'd say with the entire front court being new or unproven(only returning Railey in reality), and with the strength of our returners being Christopherson and Ejim, on paper, I'd put us around 6 or 7 at best. Allen and Babb probably push us to 6. The rest is unknown. They could take us into the top 3 or have little or no affect.

I'm with those that say we really need a PG to step up. Without a good PG, the rest of our team could be excellent and we'll only be 5 or 6 in the conference. A good PG takes us there on his own.

Hope we have one.