I didn't think there was much to say that I haven't explicitly said in response to this particular poster in similar posts from him in the past, but since you sent me the Illinois game from 2000:
I have always enjoyed reading the many threads submitted by BYs.
But, unfortunately, I have noticed a tendency on the part of some BYs to assign certain kinds of descriptions to some players and not to others.
Very unclear what's unfortunate about people making distinctions between different recruits. Not all players are the same.
I have often wondered how it is possible, for some posters, to arrive at those descriptions absent having actually watched a player play the game over a period of time.
Ironic given the assertion below as to how ready to be a PG at the college level the poster believes Moriah to be
More specifically, is there a real distinction between a talented player, a player with a hight basketball IQ, and a player with raw talent?
In some cases yes, in some cases it's total BS, and I don't think those terms are mutually exclusive. For instance, Maya Moore was both a highly intelligent basketball player and someone with a prodigiously high level of raw athletic ability. Since no one prominently used any of these terms in this thread that I noticed, I'm not sure why this was brought up.
Could there be an evaluating basketball talent code that I am unaware of?
Yes, but unless you can prove you're a Mason, I can't give away the secret.
Breanna is usually described as being very talented, the real deal and ready to go from day one.
Which she is. She'll be much, much better by Day 1,000, but she'll be relied upon from Day 1. The distinction between her and the other recruits, however, has much more to do with her filling a specific void on the current UConn team than anything else...as I've said before.
Whereas Moriah and Morgan have been described, by some posters, as having a lot of raw talent.
Actually, as I've also said before, the two are separate and distinct. Morgan has more experience playing alongside and against top competition than has Moriah. I think she's more Day 1 ready than Moriah, actually, even if Moriah might be a better prospect in the long run. In any event, it's safe to say everyone's delighted to have all three of these young women.
Raw talent that might have to be reigned in by coach A, in Moriah's case.
I disagreed earlier in this thread, so I won't repeat myself here.
Raw talent that might need to be further refined in Morgan's case.
All three kids have raw talent that need to be further refined. They're incoming freshmen playing for the most demanding and detail-oriented coach in WCBB.
Please don't even suggest that Caroline or Kelly, or any other current roster player for that matter, were better prepared, than Moriah, to be our starting point guard when they began their careers at UConn.
Not sure what the point of this statement was. Neither Caroline nor Kelly were asked to be Day 1 starters at the PG position. Bria was asked to be the starting PG as a freshman...sort of. A) no one would have called that an ideal situation, and B) that was on a team where five different players had over 100 assists (so the load of running the offense was largely shared).
I think most of the recruiting services agree that Moriah is the most compelling PG prospect in years. We neither need nor particularly want a freshman starting PG next season, however, no matter how compelling she may be. We desperately need size at the four, which is why I expect Breanna to see more PT early. Both players will be starters on UConn's 2014 NC-winning team, so we have that to look forward to.
And from what I saw of Aerial M. in the Duke game last night, Bria is a much better PG.
Bria is terrific.
Peace,
John Fryer
