Generational Players-when can you tell?

[CocoHusky]

I also find the use of #1 and #2 recruiting rankings not as helpful as it should be (other than to limit possibilities) since--to me, at least-- the biggest takeaway from the chart is their hit or miss nature, no matter how carefully done, with the former not much more frequent (if at all) than the latter.

I had a slightly different take on the chart. I think it is significant when a player reaches Consensus #1 in High school. As with the @meyers7 post which I copied here I think HS Consensus #1 is a great starting point (not definitive) for identifying generational talent. In the decade prior to the @and one attachment there were 5 players that achieved consensus HS #1 Maya, Parker EDD, Tina and Brittney Griner. I would make the argument that Maya, EDD, Parker, and Griner solidify their status as generational talents while Tina's play, especially her Freshman and Sophomore did not solidify her status. That solidify is the most important because a big part of my criteria is how early you get the label and how well you carry it.
Can a Non-Consensus HS #1 ever become a generational talent? Sure, but I just can't think of one right now & Sabrina might come the closest. Is anyone really prepared to say that Sabrina was more of a talent than Tina Charles or A'ja Wilson?
I would also strongly disagree with the concept that we could apply the generation talent label with a caveat for a specific school as in, A'Ja Wilson being a "generational player for South Carolina." For me a generational talent would have been a BOSS regardless of where they played.

 

[soxfan23]

I never said Tina was a generational player. Neither is Boston.

No, you said Boston is as good right as a Jr/Sr Charles. That is just absurd!

 

[CocoHusky]

Let's compare Wilson to Stewart, who is hands down considered a generational player here:

B.S.: .530 FG%, .355 3PFG%, 17.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.7 bpg, 1.5 spg
A.W.: .550 FG%, .375 3PFG%, 17.3 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 1.4 apg, 2.6 bpg, 1.0 spg

Now, I'm being a little disingenuous here: Stewart attempted 428 career 3-pt FGs, while Wilson attempted only 16. Stewart's perimeter offense is truly what separates her from Wilson, but is that enough based on the other stats? This is by no means an attempt to diminish Stewart's talent - I consider her definitely a "generational" type player.

I'll just keep it a full buck with you! There is no comparison of the these two players before college, during college, or after college. I have seen it up close and personal with my own eyes from the beginning. Don't let these number lie to you. If you are still unsure go ask A'ja. Whatever you do don't ask Roscoe-that's A'ja dad because that's his baby girl and he's gonna lie to you.

 

[Tank]

I never said Tina was a generational player. Neither is Boston.

Boston, it’s early but probably not generational...Aja was generational imo. I reserve my opinion on Boston to wait and see if she can improve her conditioning and body type more in the next 3 years. Aja had both those qualities from day one.

Stew was the best ever imo. Diana a close second.

 

[Bama fan]

Yes EDD would likely have had a championship or 2 had she stayed at UConn, but she did not. It is just my opinion, but I firmly believe that the greatest players make everyone on their team better. I have no problem with EDD’s decision to get closer to home, but as a result of that decision, we just don’t know if she would have been able to lead her team to a championship.

There is an interesting bit of trivia about Y. A. Tittle that relates to this discussion I think. If you go to the FB HOF in Canton, OH, you will see the busts of many great pro QB’s, including Tittle. Tittle has a unique distinction. He is the only QB ever enshrined in the FB HOF who never won a playoff game.

This is how I most remember Y A Tittle. I was a 13 year old delivering the Pittsburgh Post Gazzette on a Monday morning and I stopped to read the sports page . This iconic photo was there. Y A later said that was the end of him. A whole lifetime was over! Big John Baker leveled him that day, and Y A left it all on the field that afternoon.

A tale of two frames: The iconic Y.A. Tittle photo(s)

PG photographer Morris Berman’s famous image wasn’t the only fine picture he shot that day.

newsinteractive.post-gazette.com

 

[oldude]

This is how I most remember Y A Tittle. I was a 13 year old delivering the Pittsburgh Post Gazzette on a Monday morning and I stopped to read the sports page . This iconic photo was there. Y A later said that was the end of him. A whole lifetime was over! Big John Baker leveled him that day, and Y A left it all on the field that afternoon.

A tale of two frames: The iconic Y.A. Tittle photo(s)

PG photographer Morris Berman’s famous image wasn’t the only fine picture he shot that day.

newsinteractive.post-gazette.com

One of my prized possessions is a copy of that photo, autographed by Tittle, which hangs in my “man cave” downstairs.

 

[bballnut90]

I agree: someone else in this thread also referred to A'ja Wilson as a "more traditional and not generational" player. Let's compare Wilson to Stewart, who is hands down considered a generational player here:

B.S.: .530 FG%, .355 3PFG%, 17.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.7 bpg, 1.5 spg
A.W.: .550 FG%, .375 3PFG%, 17.3 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 1.4 apg, 2.6 bpg, 1.0 spg

Now, I'm being a little disingenuous here: Stewart attempted 428 career 3-pt FGs, while Wilson attempted only 16. Stewart's perimeter offense is truly what separates her from Wilson, but is that enough based on the other stats? And of course, the fall-back is, "Stewart won more championships than Wilson", but Stewart did NOT win CT WBB it's first ever Big East/AAC conference tournament title, did NOT lead CT to it's first ever #1 national ranking, did NOT lead CT to its first ever Final Four, and did NOT lead CT to its first ever national championship, nor be CT's first ever consensus NPOTY, Wooden, Naismith, Wade. They both own their program's career blocks record, but only Wilson owns her program's career points record. But Stewart is generational, and Wilson is traditional?

We also need to look at the caliber of teams players that we consider to be generational play on. As a fan of an SEC school, this is a very healthy debate when it comes to college football, and the talent that Alabama has, and whether or not they are generational players. Running backs rushing for Heisman-level yardage, but that play behind offensive lines full of 1st-round NFL talent.

This is by no means an attempt to diminish Stewart's talent - I consider her definitely a "generational" type player. But in considering Wilson, for example: Stewart played alongside other players such as Doty, Hartley, Dolson, Mosqueda-Lewis, Jefferson, Tuck, Williams, Edwards, Ekmark, Nurse, KLS, and Collier. All high 5-stars. Wilson played with Cuevas, Harris, White (2 yrs), Duckett (1 yr), Davis (1 yr), Gray (1 yr), Bradshaw (1 yr), Grissett, Jackson, Williams.

Because so many of those at USC were for just 1 year each, they never stacked up on the roster, so Stewart played with a combined 25 player-years with other 5-star talent, compared to Wilson playing with 15 player-years with other 5-star talent. Over 4 years, that's an average of 2.5 more 5-star caliber teammates per year that Stewart played with, than what Wilson played with. At USC, Duckett, White, Bradshaw, and Williams hardly contributed at all before they moved on. Same with Jackson I guess...

Watch them play, there's really no comparison. Stewart dominated both ends her senior year unlike almost anyone else ever has. She won 4 titles and was the centerpiece of all 4. Even with all of those talented teammates and upperclassmen, she was the star. She went 116-1 over her last 3 seasons and every single win was by double figures. There was one truly competitive game in her final 3 seasons and it was a nail biter in overtime. 3 POY seasons and she dominated Wilson head to head. Wilson's SC teams were handily beat by UCONN each year, with or without Stewart.

A'ja joined an excellent program (they were a #1 seed the year before she arrived) and elevated them to a title her junior year with the help of some marquee transfers. Her first 2 years she played with 2x SEC POY Tiffany Mitchell and #2 WNBA draft pick Alaina Coates. Coates was there her junior year too along with Gray/Davis. That year they took their time to adjust and ultimately hit their stride once A'ja had the paint to herself. Her senior year I'll give you that her supporting cast just wasn't very strong, but it was her 2nd year with the same PG for what its worth.

She was a great collegiate player but just isn't on the same level as a Stewart/Griner/Moore/Parker. Her skill set wasn't as polished and she wasn't peerless like the "generational" types. She's more on par with the likes of the Ogwumikes, Tina Charles, Sylvia Fowles, Skylar Diggins. Excellent players who won a lot of awards/honors and elevated their team to greatness during their career but not in consideration for best ever.

I know the argument of "Wilson won a title, Diggins/Fowles/Ogwumikes didn't" is coming, but I think there is value in noting that all of those players had their seasons end losing the likes of Moore, Griner, Stewart and Parker. A'ja deserves her 2017 title but I don't think of it as a difference maker comparing her to that other grouping considering the circumstances.

 

[bballnut90]

Imo there has been 5 generational since 1995. Holdsclaw and Parker from Tennessee and Taurasi, Moore and Stewart from Uconn! These 5 players dominated college basketball like no others! 14 National Championships between them and if Candace stayed 1 more year! Maybe Uconn doesnt win in 2009 but none of them played each other in college!

I'd throw Griner into that list even with just 1 title. In terms of greatest of all time conversation, she's not in it due to 1 title, but in terms of being a once in a generation type of player, absolutely. No one has physically came close to making the impact Griner did while she was at Baylor.

 

[bballnut90]

A few months ago I started the thread "transcendent vs transformative" to get peoples thoughts about this very thing. The choice of words wasn't that best but I was more or less asking if people thought Ionescu was in that transcendent category yet. Clearly Stewart, DT, Maya all fit transcendent and I think we all know there is a fine line between exceptionally good and transcendent. I do think Ionescu is still on that line and that's not to slight her.

Boston is pretty darned good. I said once on this board it just seems to take female post players, even the very good ones, a year of college to adjust to the pace, get their conditioning up to par, and figure how to play against competition when they aren't necessarily the tallest or strongest on the floor. Well Boston is making me eat my words regarding that statement. It's still a little soon to anoint her with any labels other than likely NFOY and WBCA All American.

Boston is going to be really good. I don't see her being a Stewart/Parker/Maya type of player though. A Sylvia Fowles/A'ja Wilson hybrid might be a better example IMO.

 

[BobbyJ]

Watch them play, there's really no comparison. Stewart dominated both ends her senior year unlike almost anyone else ever has. She won 4 titles and was the centerpiece of all 4. Even with all of those talented teammates and upperclassmen, she was the star. She went 116-1 over her last 3 seasons and every single win was by double figures. There was one truly competitive game in her final 3 seasons and it was a nail biter in overtime. 3 POY seasons and she dominated Wilson head to head. Wilson's SC teams were handily beat by UCONN each year, with or without Stewart.

A'ja joined an excellent program (they were a #1 seed the year before she arrived) and elevated them to a title her junior year with the help of some marquee transfers. Her first 2 years she played with 2x SEC POY Tiffany Mitchell and #2 WNBA draft pick Alaina Coates. Coates was there her junior year too along with Gray/Davis. That year they took their time to adjust and ultimately hit their stride once A'ja had the paint to herself. Her senior year I'll give you that her supporting cast just wasn't very strong, but it was her 2nd year with the same PG for what its worth.

She was a great collegiate player but just isn't on the same level as a Stewart/Griner/Moore/Parker. Her skill set wasn't as polished and she wasn't peerless like the "generational" types. She's more on par with the likes of the Ogwumikes, Tina Charles, Sylvia Fowles, Skylar Diggins. Excellent players who won a lot of awards/honors and elevated their team to greatness during their career but not in consideration for best ever.

I know the argument of "Wilson won a title, Diggins/Fowles/Ogwumikes didn't" is coming, but I think there is value in noting that all of those players had their seasons end losing the likes of Moore, Griner, Stewart and Parker. A'ja deserves her 2017 title but I don't think of it as a difference maker comparing her to that other grouping considering the circumstances.

See, you know just as much as Creme and Voepel.

 

[and one]

I like a lot of the posts to this thread - thoughtful and well reasoned.

Defining a "generational" talent leads down the road of what constitutes a generation, and how long that might be. There is also at least an implication that there is for each generation one and only one talent that rises above the rest in that generation. It seems clear to me that super-duper talents come along randomly, sometimes spaced apart and sometimes clustered into a short time period. In tennis, Federer, Nedal and Djoko all clearly meet any reasonable definition of a generational talent, yet largely share the same timeline.

For discussion purposes I like "transcendent" talent better. It eliminates the artificial time constraint implied by "generational" and puts the focus on the player talent level where it belongs. Transcendent players are, to pick a number, one in 10,000. Not just an A player, but an A+++ player. There is no reason why you can't separately look at who is transcendent at various age/competition levels - high school, college, pro. There is no direct line from being A+++ at one level to maintaining that at the next level. For me, adding high school players into the transcendent player discussion doesn't have much value unless it is only a discussion of who are/were great high school players.

A lot of criteria for what goes into making a player transcendent have been brought up and most seem reasonable to me, with the exception of winning championships. More often than not great, great players do end up on teams that win championships, but not necessarily. EDD (who is at least in the conversation as an A+++ player) had no shot at taking Delaware to a national championship and that doesn't obviate her very high skill level.

In the end, transcendent players stand out so easily from the rank and file that what ever your criteria, if you have to think about if someone is one of that rare breed they probably aren't.

 

[uconnfan68]

No, you said Boston is as good right as a Jr/Sr Charles. That is just absurd!

You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. I liked Tina, but she was underwhelming sometimes. Many of her offensive rebounds were her own missed shots. I've only seen one game of Boston, and she was good. Even made 3s.

 

[baggerbob]

I like a lot of the posts to this thread - thoughtful and well reasoned.

Defining a "generational" talent leads down the road of what constitutes a generation, and how long that might be. There is also at least an implication that there is for each generation one and only one talent that rises above the rest in that generation. It seems clear to me that super-duper talents come along randomly, sometimes spaced apart and sometimes clustered into a short time period. In tennis, Federer, Nedal and Djoko all clearly meet any reasonable definition of a generational talent, yet largely share the same timeline.

For discussion purposes I like "transcendent" talent better. It eliminates the artificial time constraint implied by "generational" and puts the focus on the player talent level where it belongs. Transcendent players are, to pick a number, one in 10,000. Not just an A player, but an A+++ player. There is no reason why you can't separately look at who is transcendent at various age/competition levels - high school, college, pro. There is no direct line from being A+++ at one level to maintaining that at the next level. For me, adding high school players into the transcendent player discussion doesn't have much value unless it is only a discussion of who are/were great high school players.

A lot of criteria for what goes into making a player transcendent have been brought up and most seem reasonable to me, with the exception of winning championships. More often than not great, great players do end up on teams that win championships, but not necessarily. EDD (who is at least in the conversation as an A+++ player) had no shot at taking Delaware to a national championship and that doesn't obviate her very high skill level.

In the end, transcendent players stand out so easily from the rank and file that what ever your criteria, if you have to think about if someone is one of that rare breed they probably aren't.

EDD and Stewie have changed the women's game just as Kevin Durant changed the men's game. Those 3 showed that a total game can be had by all size of players. As long as EDD and Stewie stay healthy the USA is the best in the world. No one can guard either one of them, let alone both.

 

[Bama fan]

One of my prized possessions is a copy of that photo, autographed by Tittle, which hangs in my “man cave” downstairs.

When I looked for the article to link, I saw ads for autographed photo copies. Hope you got yours at a discount!

 

[MSSportsGuy]

Watch them play, there's really no comparison. Stewart dominated both ends her senior year unlike almost anyone else ever has. She won 4 titles and was the centerpiece of all 4. Even with all of those talented teammates and upperclassmen, she was the star. She went 116-1 over her last 3 seasons and every single win was by double figures. There was one truly competitive game in her final 3 seasons and it was a nail biter in overtime. 3 POY seasons and she dominated Wilson head to head. Wilson's SC teams were handily beat by UCONN each year, with or without Stewart.

A'ja joined an excellent program (they were a #1 seed the year before she arrived) and elevated them to a title her junior year with the help of some marquee transfers. Her first 2 years she played with 2x SEC POY Tiffany Mitchell and #2 WNBA draft pick Alaina Coates. Coates was there her junior year too along with Gray/Davis. That year they took their time to adjust and ultimately hit their stride once A'ja had the paint to herself. Her senior year I'll give you that her supporting cast just wasn't very strong, but it was her 2nd year with the same PG for what its worth.

She was a great collegiate player but just isn't on the same level as a Stewart/Griner/Moore/Parker. Her skill set wasn't as polished and she wasn't peerless like the "generational" types. She's more on par with the likes of the Ogwumikes, Tina Charles, Sylvia Fowles, Skylar Diggins. Excellent players who won a lot of awards/honors and elevated their team to greatness during their career but not in consideration for best ever.

I know the argument of "Wilson won a title, Diggins/Fowles/Ogwumikes didn't" is coming, but I think there is value in noting that all of those players had their seasons end losing the likes of Moore, Griner, Stewart and Parker. A'ja deserves her 2017 title but I don't think of it as a difference maker comparing her to that other grouping considering the circumstances.

I feel the exact same way about Wilson and Diggins: phenomenal talents who stayed close to home and elevated their programs to high levels. SC was on it's way up but Aja clinched their status as elite company. ND had won a title and was generally successful but Skylar played in 3 final fours and started a trend that lasted the rest of the decade of ND in the conversation as elite. Ionescu is at worst in this category and at best in the company with the other mentioned names.

It came up the last time and has again about EDD. I have no doubt EDD is transcendent despite her lack of a collegiate NC. She is a bit injury prone but has more than demonstrated her toughness, leadership and versatility.

 

[bballnut90]

You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. I liked Tina, but she was underwhelming sometimes. Many of her offensive rebounds were her own missed shots. I've only seen one game of Boston, and she was good. Even made 3s.

Tina as a junior vs. Tina as a senior are very different stories.

Boston probably compares well to Tina as a junior IMO. Tina split POY honors with Maya Moore as a senior and it wasn't like Moore had a let down season, Charles was really really good. Boston physically and skill wise looks like she has all of the tools to be a top rate player. Other players have too, like Kristine Anigwe, and it just didn't pan out quite as expected, so it's too early to declare anything regarding how good she'll be. Her size and hands remind me of McCowan, but Boston is far more developed as an offensive threat than McCowan ever was at SC despite not having quite the same size and stature that Big T did.

 

[bballnut90]

I feel the exact same way about Wilson and Diggins: phenomenal talents who stayed close to home and elevated their programs to high levels. SC was on it's way up but Aja clinched their status as elite company. ND had won a title and was generally successful but Skylar played in 3 final fours and started a trend that lasted the rest of the decade of ND in the conversation as elite. Ionescu is at worst in this category and at best in the company with the other mentioned names.

It came up the last time and has again about EDD. I have no doubt EDD is transcendent despite her lack of a collegiate NC. She is a bit injury prone but has more than demonstrated her toughness, leadership and versatility.

Agree. Very comparable players when you look at their career and impact. I do think SC was more advanced prior to A'ja than ND was prior to Sky, but A'ja got them to a title and Skylar came up just short so it evens out. And agree regarding Ionescu. She absolutely needs to win a title to be in consideration with the next group.

EDD is kind of a weird one. Skill wise she's absolutely up there with the best of the best, but playing at Delaware she didn't really challenge herself or ever compete against good competition. I looked it up a while back, but I think she played against like 3-4 ranked opponents in her entire career. For that I can't include her in either the top or 2nd tier grouping since she was irrelevant during her collegiate career when you look at her effect during women's college basketball from 2009-2013. IMO she's in her own side category since no one else that talented has played at such a low level. If she didn't go on to be a great WNBA player and Olympian, no one would include her on any of these lists IMO.

 

[MilfordHusky]

I agree: someone else in this thread also referred to A'ja Wilson as a "more traditional and not generational" player. Let's compare Wilson to Stewart, who is hands down considered a generational player here:

B.S.: .530 FG%, .355 3PFG%, 17.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.7 bpg, 1.5 spg
A.W.: .550 FG%, .375 3PFG%, 17.3 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 1.4 apg, 2.6 bpg, 1.0 spg

Now, I'm being a little disingenuous here: Stewart attempted 428 career 3-pt FGs, while Wilson attempted only 16. Stewart's perimeter offense is truly what separates her from Wilson, but is that enough based on the other stats? And of course, the fall-back is, "Stewart won more championships than Wilson", but Stewart did NOT win CT WBB it's first ever Big East/AAC conference tournament title, did NOT lead CT to it's first ever #1 national ranking, did NOT lead CT to its first ever Final Four, and did NOT lead CT to its first ever national championship, nor be CT's first ever consensus NPOTY, Wooden, Naismith, Wade. They both own their program's career blocks record, but only Wilson owns her program's career points record. But Stewart is generational, and Wilson is traditional?

We also need to look at the caliber of teams players that we consider to be generational play on. As a fan of an SEC school, this is a very healthy debate when it comes to college football, and the talent that Alabama has, and whether or not they are generational players. Running backs rushing for Heisman-level yardage, but that play behind offensive lines full of 1st-round NFL talent.

This is by no means an attempt to diminish Stewart's talent - I consider her definitely a "generational" type player. But in considering Wilson, for example: Stewart played alongside other players such as Doty, Hartley, Dolson, Mosqueda-Lewis, Jefferson, Tuck, Williams, Edwards, Ekmark, Nurse, KLS, and Collier. All high 5-stars. Wilson played with Cuevas, Harris, White (2 yrs), Duckett (1 yr), Davis (1 yr), Gray (1 yr), Bradshaw (1 yr), Grissett, Jackson, Williams.

Because so many of those at USC were for just 1 year each, they never stacked up on the roster, so Stewart played with a combined 25 player-years with other 5-star talent, compared to Wilson playing with 15 player-years with other 5-star talent. Over 4 years, that's an average of 2.5 more 5-star caliber teammates per year that Stewart played with, than what Wilson played with. At USC, Duckett, White, Bradshaw, and Williams hardly contributed at all before they moved on. Same with Jackson I guess...

"Generational" or "transcendent" in my mind means how they play, more than their stats or championships. Stewie probably has the greatest versatility in the world. That's what makes her unique. A'ja is a solid post player with a good handle and shot, at least going to her left. I view her as more traditional.

Elena won no championships in college, but her height and shooting accuracy make her unique.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Championships are not individual accomplishments.

I think you can certainly be a generational player without winning any championships.

The best player doesn't always win even most of the time. See Lebron James.

 

[bballnut90]

Championships are not individual accomplishments.

I think you can certainly be a generational player without winning any championships.

The best player doesn't always win even most of the time. See Lebron James.

I agree but he's not the best example considering he's won 3 times and took his team to the finals in 9 consecutive years. One time he beat a team with the best record in NBA history (73-9 Warriors) in a massive series comeback in epic fashion.

If you look at players who define a generation or an era of a sport, it usually revolves around them being the gold standard and having their team consistently in the championship hunt. Collegiately, you have a shorter time frame to work with, so if you're going to make your mark as the defining player of your era, you have to win titles. I know it's a team sport, but historically the best WCBB players have won titles and their program was viewed as the pre-eminent school during their title run. Everyone has their own definition of what transcendent, generational, etc. means, but usually it comes down to who is the greatest of all time or who defined a particular era of women's college basketball. To me, the only players who truly defined eras of women's basketball are Stewart, Griner, Moore, Parker, Taurasi and Holdsclaw. Mid 90s is about as far as my viewership goes back.

 

[Dillon77]

Jack Sikma! Now there’s a blast from the past. One of the most accurate shooting centers to ever play the game. I believe he was also the only center to ever lead the NBA in FT shooting.

Liked that Supersonic team immensely, from the way they played to their green, gold and white uniforms. Of course, Lenny Wilkins coached them and the guards -- Gus Williams and the late, great Dennis Johnson -- shined, as did "Downtown" Freddy Brown. And Wally Walker had some Jack Marin moments. But Lenny really encouraged Skima to take those turnarounds from further and further out and then to just face the hoop and let it fly (which he really did later in Milwaukee). All while the blonde bangs were flopping.

 

[SCspur]

I as a fan won’t put a label on Aliyah Boston just yet! She has done things your “generational” players of the past hasn’t yet and she only a freshman. I will reserve that judgement before her senior season, but the fact that everyone has to question it really makes me believe she will be. I mean why else bring up this topic?

 

[oldude]

Liked that Supersonic team immensely, from the way they played to their green, gold and white uniforms. Of course, Lenny Wilkins coached them and the guards -- Gus Williams and the late, great Dennis Johnson -- shined, as did "Downtown" Freddy Brown. And Wally Walker had some Jack Marin moments. But Lenny really encouraged Skima to take those turnarounds from further and further out and then to just face the hoop and let it fly (which he really did later in Milwaukee). All while the blonde bangs were flopping.

Yes, I too followed the Supersonics back then. There was a guy I played against growing up named Frank Oleynick out of Notre Dame HS in Bridgeport, CT. He played college ball at the University of Seattle and was later drafted by the Supersonics. I followed his career in Seattle in the mid-70’s. He lasted only a couple seasons in pros. I’m not sure if Frank ever played with Sikma who I think was just starting his pro career about the time Frank was done.

 

[j66kicker]

I as a fan won’t put a label on Aliyah Boston just yet! She has done things your “generational” players of the past hasn’t yet and she only a freshman. I will reserve that judgement before her senior season, but the fact that everyone has to question it really makes me believe she will be. I mean why else bring up this topic?

It was brought up by @BostonBay, who apparently is either an extreme S. Carolina homer troll or Boston's close relative, and started calling her "generational."

 

[MilfordHusky]

It was brought up by @BostonBay, who apparently is either an extreme S. Carolina homer troll or Boston's close relative, and started calling her "generational."

“Generational” might mean next generation from the poster.

 

[j66kicker]

“Generational” might mean next generation from the poster.

Yes I think that poster may have a lot more insight into Ms. Boston than the rest of us, having known her a lot longer (like since birth - literally).

 

[Gamecockfan77]

UConn was awesome. Stewart was awesome.

there was a gigantic difference in the talent surrounding Stewie and Wilson.

put Wilson on a team with eventual all Americans surrounding her every year, she'd have won more titles.

 

[Cedar]

I agree that EDD should not be penalized for not winning a national championship. As others have noted, championships are team accomplishments.

Michael Jordan entered the NBA in 1984, racking up years of incredible performances, but he did not win an NBA title until 1991. Prior to 1991, teams such as the Lakers, Celtics, and Pistons won championships because they had superior overall talent. It was only when Jordan had a strong supporting cast—especially Scottie Pippen—and a great coach, Phil Jackson, that the Bulls won 6 NBA titles.

Wayne Gretzky won four Stanley Cups with the Edmonton Oilers in the 1980s. Those Oilers teams are considered by many observers to be the most talented in the history of the NHL. After Gretzky was traded in 1988, he never won another championship, because the three teams he played on—the Los Angeles Kings, the St. Louis Blues, and the New York Rangers—did not have enough overall talent to win the Stanley Cup.

A transcendent player can be phenomenally talented and be a prolific scorer, but if he or she doesn’t have a strong supporting cast, it can be very difficult to win a championship.

 

[hoophuskee]

You can have your opinion, and I can have mine. I liked Tina, but she was underwhelming sometimes. Many of her offensive rebounds were her own missed shots. I've only seen one game of Boston, and she was good. Even made 3s.

I think Tina Charles got such an awful rap. I think fans and the media fell for Geno's shtick hook-line-and-sinker. There is a rarely a player that isn't underwhelming sometimes. Sometimes DT, and STeiw and Maya were underwhelming too. Geno over-exaggerated her faults because before she came and after DT left UCONN got crushed by big, physical teams. I can recall going to one of the games and watched Geno bench her because of "body language."

Tina Charles was a super player. And Geno did a super job too. In Tina's frosh year she was Honorable Mention a/a. In her soph year she was 3rd team a/a. Yet we hear she was "disappointing" those 2 years? That's because Geno fed that to the media. As a coach he needed her to be 1st team a/a but as a frosh or a soph she wasn't while jr year she was top 10. That doesn't make her "disappointing."

Just because Geno or any coach doesn't accept certain things during the season doesn't mean we have to pretend we are the coach and do the same thing too. I feel you are doing this with Tina. IMO you're not giving credit to what she was - which was while being less skilled -she was a terrific athlete for her size. So teams couldn't stop her for getting that extra offensive rebound yet you are holding it against her because imo you recall all the things Geno was exaggerating to try to get her to be something she was too young to be.

Case in point you say her offensive rebounds were her own missed shots. So if she misses a shot and she gets the rebound and scores that is 50% fg%. If she misses two then scores it is 33%. If this happened so often and apparently you hold Boston in such high esteem because she doesn't do this as much- so can you explain why their FG%'s of Boston this year is equal is Tina's sr year? And for Tina's jr year she was slightly higher than this year's Boston right at 62% while Boston is 61.8%. So where are all these ORebounds from her missed shots coming from vs how is she able to have a slightly better fg% if she is missing so much and getting ORebounds from those misses?

Geno was just doing his job that a coach should do sometimes and that is ride your stars hard. Tina progressed every year the way a star should too. I get it though. You probably do have some memories of games she didn't play well and missed bunnies a lot. I respect what you're saying she was a bit underwhelming for you because of the type of player she was. Not your preferred type - we all have them. To me, she gets a bad rap just because Geno rode her hard and the media took Geno's comments too literal; just as if Geno were saying his post players are the worst in america and can't guard a chair etc.

 

[willtalk]

I think it is safer to wait till a player has put in more than just one season. I remember Paris's first season. She dominated so much it appeared that her team was unbeatable and that she would break all sorts of records by the time her college career was over. Well her production not only didn't get better but rather got worse each subsequent year. Teams figured out that if they speed up the game they could literally run her out of the game.