2004 UConn vs. Gonzaga | Page 6 | The Boneyard

2004 UConn vs. Gonzaga

superjohn said:
1999 40 underclassmen put their names in the draft, 11 went undrafted. In 2004 it was up to 91 underclassmen, 14 went undrafted. In 2019 it was 237 underclassmen, 52 went undrafted.
Expand ...
This has to include people who put their name in but pulled out right? Otherwise you 04 number can’t be right and the 19 number would only be accurate if we’re talking football.
 
Analytics has transformed basketball as much as any sport. Arguing that the teams were better 20 years ago is arguing with math. Or 75% of the teams in the country are stupid and should throw analytics out the window. Is Jay Wright stupid?

Also, and this is also inarguable, the depth of talent today is light years ahead of where it was 20 and especially 30 years ago. 30 years ago, a kid would play his 20 game high school season (often with a random teacher as a coach), a few camps, and the top players would do AAU tournaments in high school. Youth basketball was usually just town leagues, with a few travel leagues scattered around that might play 10-15 games a season. A lot of the players developed completely on their own. Magic Johnson talks about learning to dribble by bouncing a basketball to and from school, and Reggie Miller said his shot is so weird because it was hard to get a normal shot off against his sister playing 1-on-1 in the driveway. Cool stories, but not a scalable infrastructure for developing lots of high level talent.

Today, most D1 caliber players start AAU in 5th or 6th grade in addition to town travel, and play about 50-60 games a year of competitive basketball. By the time they reach high school, they have probably played over 200 games and had 300-400 practices with coaches that are better on average than the high school coaches were from the prior generation. In high school, they are probably playing 50 offseason games a year plus camps.

The top players are still the top players, but the depth of talent today is just better. Unless you want to argue that more practice and more games makes a player worse at basketball.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Analytics has transformed basketball as much as any sport. Arguing that the teams were better 20 years ago is arguing with math. Or 75% of the teams in the country are stupid and should throw analytics out the window. Is Jay Wright stupid?

Also, and this is also inarguable, the depth of talent today is light years ahead of where it was 20 and especially 30 years ago. 30 years ago, a kid would play his 20 game high school season (often with a random teacher as a coach), a few camps, and the top players would do AAU tournaments in high school. Youth basketball was usually just town leagues, with a few travel leagues scattered around that might play 10-15 games a season. A lot of the players developed completely on their own. Magic Johnson talks about learning to dribble by bouncing a basketball to and from school, and Reggie Miller said his shot is so weird because it was hard to get a normal shot off against his sister playing 1-on-1 in the driveway. Cool stories, but not a scalable infrastructure for developing lots of high level talent.

Today, most D1 caliber players start AAU in 5th or 6th grade in addition to town travel, and play about 50-60 games a year of competitive basketball. By the time they reach high school, they have probably played over 200 games and had 300-400 practices with coaches that are better on average than the high school coaches were from the prior generation. In high school, they are probably playing 50 offseason games a year plus camps.

The top players are still the top players, but the depth of talent today is just better. Unless you want to argue that more practice and more games makes a player worse at basketball.
Expand ...

Teams 20 years ago were much better than teams today. UCONN 2004 would smoke college basketball teams today. UCONN 1999 would obliterate teams today.

The high end talent was also much better in the past. Today's high end talent is overrated.

At the bottom end is where the floor has gotten higher.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The top players are still the top players, but the depth of talent today is just better. Unless you want to argue that more practice and more games makes a player worse at basketball.
Expand ...

No, we want to argue that more good players leave early. As I mentioned in my last post, Okafor and Gordon won a championship as juniors and then went #2 and #3 in the draft. That is unheard of over the last decade, it simply doesn't happen.

College teams that were a mix of experience + high-level lottery talent are a thing of the past.

The depth of talent is better but the top-end talent/teams is worse.
 
Lefty2one said:
No, we want to argue that more good players leave early. As I mentioned in my last post, Okafor and Gordon won a championship as juniors and then went #2 and #3 in the draft. That is unheard of over the last decade, it simply doesn't happen.

College teams that were a mix of experience + high-level lottery talent are a thing of the past.

The depth of talent is better but the top-end talent/teams is worse.
Expand ...

You are talking about a handful of players leaving maybe a year earlier than they did a generation ago. I don't see the seismic impact.

I would also point out that given the huge number of total busts in more recent NBA drafts, college sports may not be missing much with some of these players leaving early or never showing up on a college campus.

Look at 2016, the most recent draft for which we can make a fair assessment since players have had enough time to develop if they were going to. Did college basketball lose much by not having Thon Maker or Jakob Poeltl not play more games? How about Malachi Richardson?

Ben Simmons would have left after 1 year no matter what decade he played in. Jamal Murray and Jaylen Brown may have stayed another year if they had played in the 90's. Siakum and Sabonis would have left after their sophomore year if that draft was held in 1996. The rookie of the year of that draft, Malcolm Brogdon, played 4 years of college.

Out of the 2017 draft, maybe Markkanen or Fultz stay another year if they played in the 90's.

In terms of depth, other players replaced the stars that left a year earlier than they would have historically. Duke, Kansas and Kentucky survived the departure of Tatum, Jackson and Fox. There would have been a domino effect, but here is where we get into the impact of better overall talent in the college game.

It is also worth noting that Gordon and Okafor were not McDonald's AA's and both took an extra year to develop into lottery picks. They are not good examples of players that would have left early if they played today.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You are talking about a handful of players leaving maybe a year earlier than they did a generation ago. I don't see the seismic impact.

I would also point out that given the huge number of total busts in more recent NBA drafts, college sports may not be missing much with some of these players leaving early or never showing up on a college campus.

Look at 2016, the most recent draft for which we can make a fair assessment since players have had enough time to develop if they were going to. Did college basketball lose much by not having Thon Maker or Jakob Poeltl not play more games? How about Malachi Richardson?

Ben Simmons would have left after 1 year no matter what decade he played in. Jamal Murray and Jaylen Brown may have stayed another year if they had played in the 90's. Siakum and Sabonis would have left after their sophomore year if that draft was held in 1996. The rookie of the year of that draft, Malcolm Brogdon, played 4 years of college.

Out of the 2017 draft, maybe Markkanen or Fultz stay another year if they played in the 90's.

In terms of depth, other players replaced the stars that left a year earlier than they would have historically. Duke, Kansas and Kentucky survived the departure of Tatum, Jackson and Fox. There would have been a domino effect, but here is where we get into the impact of better overall talent in the college game.

It is also worth noting that Gordon and Okafor were not McDonald's AA's and both took an extra year to develop into lottery picks. They are not good examples of players that would have left early if they played today.
Expand ...
All of this is wrong.
 
superjohn said:
If you were too young or just forgot watch the highlights from this game. UConn would absolutely destroy them physically...

Expand ...


2004

Six NBA players on the roster. Four of them were lottery picks, and Boone was a late first round pick. Three straight BE DPOY on the roster.

The above doesn't include all-time leader at UConn for assists or all-time 3 point shooter. Above list doesn't include two 1000 point scorers in Denham Brown or Anderson.

That team was loaded and I agree it's one of the best and most underrated teams of past 25 years.
 
I agree... I don’t see 04 UConn having too much problem against this Gonzaga team. Baylor on the other hand is a different story. They wouldn’t be able to guard all the shooters with Boone, Okafor, and Charlie V out there. Matchup nightmares everywhere.
 
UncleSpliff said:
I agree... I don’t see 04 UConn having too much problem against this Gonzaga team. Baylor on the other hand is a different story. They wouldn’t be able to guard all the shooters with Boone, Okafor, and Charlie V out there. Matchup nightmares everywhere.
Expand ...
It works both ways, Baylor would get nothing at the rim and UConn would dominate at the rim offensively with interior passing and crashing the offensive boards.
 
superjohn said:
It works both ways, Baylor would get nothing at the rim and UConn would dominate at the rim offensively with interior passing and crashing the offensive boards.
Expand ...
ya I guess. But if they shoot 50% from 3 it might not matter. I just think it would be a difficult proposition on the defensive side to have Okafor guarding Meyer on the perimeter. It’s why Gonzaga had to go zone last night when Baylor had the 4 guards out there with Meyer. They couldn’t guard all the shooters. But ur right they would have their way on the offensive side of the ball and on the O glass. Too much size for sure. Teams now just aren’t built like the 04 huskies. The game has evolved so much.
 
superjohn said:
It works both ways, Baylor would get nothing at the rim and UConn would dominate at the rim offensively with interior passing and crashing the offensive boards.
Expand ...
Also, there is versatility in the lineups as well. Calhoun could put a line up of Taliek (who is excellent on D, penetrating, forcing the pace, and passing), Gordon, Rashad, Villanueva, and OK4. Don't like Taliek doesn't give 3 pt shooting, move Gordon to the point, have Rashad, Denham, Villanueva and OK4. Plus these guys are athletic so Baylor wouldn't be able to bully them, in fact the opposite would be more likely.

Having said all that, Baylor was fantastic last night and should be mentioned among the great championships teams which would include 99 UConn, 04 UConn, Nova 16, Nova 18, etc.
 
UncleSpliff said:
ya I guess. But if they shoot 50% from 3 it might not matter. I just think it would be a difficult proposition on the defensive side to have Okafor guarding Meyer on the perimeter. It’s why Gonzaga had to go zone last night when Baylor had the 4 guards out there with Meyer. They couldn’t guard all the shooters. But ur right they would have their way on the offensive side of the ball and on the O glass. Too much size for sure. Teams now just aren’t built like the 04 huskies. The game has evolved so much.
Expand ...
2004 team shot 40.2% from 3, Baylor shot 41.3%. If Okafor is guarding Mayer outside then that means Mayer is guarding Okafor and Emeka is dropping 40 points lol
 
aburks41 said:
2004 team shot 40.2% from 3, Baylor shot 41.3%. If Okafor is guarding Mayer outside then that means Mayer is guarding Okafor and Emeka is dropping 40 points lol
Expand ...
I realize that Timmie isn’t Okafor but they said he was going to feast last night and he had 12 points. Baylor isn’t terrible on the Interior. Their bigs did a great job on Timmie last night and despite being the clearly smaller team dominated on the O glass. I don’t buy that simulation that the 04 team wins by 15 points. I think it’s a very close game one way or the other.
 
Timme is a finesse player and the Zags play four-out. Baylor's athletism and strength bothered him. That wasn't happening to Okafor. Even if they managed to limit Okafor by some miracle, you've got Boone and Villanueva right there crashing the glass, finishing around the rim. Gonzaga's second-biggest starter is Kispert. It's just a different style. Baylor was an awful matchup for Gonzaga, '04 UConn would be an awful matchup for Baylor (and nearly every college team ever).
 
G0UCONN said:
Agreed. Our best defensive team ever. Great press back when presses worked.

Ray Allen's last 2 teams were great too. I thought best in country both years just didnt win it. That UCLA loss was soul crushing....great game but tough as I think UCLA playing that way was only team that could beat us that year.
Expand ...
Yup. That was the real national title game that year. I was absolutely crushed by that loss. I was convinced we were cutting the nets down that season if we got past UCLA. Of course we didnt and they won it all.
 
the only matchup advantage zags would have had is suggs v brown and brown's as good of an on ball defender as you could have asked for
 
Last edited:
nelsonmuntz said:
You are talking about a handful of players leaving maybe a year earlier than they did a generation ago. I don't see the seismic impact.
Expand ...

2004 UConn does not happen if we sign that 2001 class today. That's the entire point. The teams that are historically relevant don't happen anymore. Okafor would have left after his sophomore year without question.
 
Lefty2one said:
No, we want to argue that more good players leave early. As I mentioned in my last post, Okafor and Gordon won a championship as juniors and then went #2 and #3 in the draft. That is unheard of over the last decade, it simply doesn't happen.

College teams that were a mix of experience + high-level lottery talent are a thing of the past.

The depth of talent is better but the top-end talent/teams is worse.
Expand ...

Why we won in 2011 and 2014 (what the ‘14 team lacked in lottery talent it made up for with overall talent — all in upperclassmen, apart from Brimah).
 
2014 was crazy. What a _______ run. People - especially young people who started rooting for the team post-2000 - really need to appreciate how special that was. Nobody on that team is in the NBA right now. Not the best UConn team by any stretch, and they'd probably lose to a bunch of UConn teams that never made it that far. But that kind of weird alchemy that creates a March like that is so duck___ cool.

I remember it like it was yesterday - I was at a resort in Sedona with my wife and we got a series of progressively aggressive calls from the front desk because I absolutely refused to leave the room until the game was over, and I can remember listening to AM radio on the drive back to the airport in Phoenix to catch all the pundits and the interviews with Ollie and Shabazz. Being a UConn fan since Calhoun walked in the building has been awesome.
 

Online statistics

Members online
37
Guests online
2,485
Total visitors
2,522
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,256
Messages
4,389,292
Members
10,196
Latest member
Whizzlerr


.
..
Top Bottom