New offer out for 2014 PG Devin Watson

[Tenspro2002]

I'm OK with it if Boatright stays or if Purvis is an actual PG.

Remember 2009 had AJ (senior) Austrie (Senior) Kemba (freshman) Bev (sophomore) as the PGs. That team only had Dyson at the two. So five guards. Two were considered lower rated out of high school in Bev and Austrie.

I don't think Watson would stop Ollie from continuing to go after Snider or McLaughlin and I don't think he would stop them from joining UConn if that's what they want to do.

Boat isn't staying and Purvis isn't a full-time PG. I see Purvis as being a similar player to Dyson, to be quite honest (take that for what it's worth).

I don't have a problem with signing lower-rated PG's so long as it doesn't preclude signing a true stud for either 2014 or 2015, which we are going to need.

 

[Gurleyman]

I prefer taking a wait and see approach. Stick a solid pass-first role player with Purvis, Calhoun and Hamilton and you may have something to build with for a few years (depending on how long those guys stick around). Whether Samuel or Watson if he comes can be that guy, I don't know, but I'm not writing them off. Austrie found a niche with us, and was way out of the top 100.

When you think about tiers of recruits, you also have to consider how they project. With the advantage of hindsight now, would you have preferred Brandon Knight or Shabazz Napier? Knight was Plan A and Napier Plan E or so. It's not even close - even if Knight is/was a better player.

All things equal, you want the top tier guys, but sometimes all things aren't equal. Pieces fitting is important too - plus some guys who stick around long enough to reach stud level in college and not leave when still scratching the surface (ie Drummond). Knowing what we already have in the fold around the perimeter, I'd rather find a good fit in a lower tiered recruit than a higher ranked stud who doesn't mesh. I think Perkins seemed like an ideal fit, so I'm not saying we're better off without him, and I don't have a good enough feel for Snider, McLaughlin or Watson to speculate. But hopefully Ollie and his staff do, and if they think they see the right type of complementary piece in Watson that can fit well with the other guys, then I'm on board. Or if they see him as a guy who can back up Dorsey for a year (should that happen) and start as a junior, that's cool too.

 

[SeattleHoop]

I prefer taking a wait and see approach. Stick a solid pass-first role player with Purvis, Calhoun and Hamilton and you may have something to build with for a few years (depending on how long those guys stick around). Whether Samuel or Watson if he comes can be that guy, I don't know, but I'm not writing them off. Austrie found a niche with us, and was way out of the top 100.

When you think about tiers of recruits, you also have to consider how they project. With the advantage of hindsight now, would you have preferred Brandon Knight or Shabazz Napier? Knight was Plan A and Napier Plan E or so. It's not even close - even if Knight is/was a better player.

All things equal, you want the top tier guys, but sometimes all things aren't equal. Pieces fitting is important too - plus some guys who stick around long enough to reach stud level in college and not leave when still scratching the surface (ie Drummond). Knowing what we already have in the fold around the perimeter, I'd rather find a good fit in a lower tiered recruit than a higher ranked stud who doesn't mesh. I think Perkins seemed like an ideal fit, so I'm not saying we're better off without him, and I don't have a good enough feel for Snider, McLaughlin or Watson to speculate. But hopefully Ollie and his staff do, and if they think they see the right type of complementary piece in Watson that can fit well with the other guys, then I'm on board. Or if they see him as a guy who can back up Dorsey for a year (should that happen) and start as a junior, that's cool too.

Thank you for posting this. My thoughts are much the same. Many people on this board, who follow recruiting heavily, act like the sky is falling if one of the recruit's we get isn't in the Top 100.

In fact, many times it is the opposite. The most successful programs tend to get a mixture of 2 or 3 top 100's and a couple under the radar guys who stick around and are "team first" guys.

Now, Napier might not be the best example, since he was Top 100 but I know we have had guys, like Austrie for example, who were under the radar and turned out to be really good for our program.

I was very young (8-9 years old) so I'd like to ask how highly rated were Kevin Freeman, Edmund Saunders, Jake Voskuhl, and Ricky Moore coming out of HS? They helped make up our 1st NC and I am guessing not all were top 100 but could be wrong.

Or Charles Okwandu, Hilton Armstrong, Ed Nelson, Tony Robertson, Gavin Edwards

I don't know just trying to think of guys who may have been under the radar and proved to be very valuable to our program and toward successful teams in the past. I could be wrong about some of them, I didn't follow recruiting back then.

Point is, I would rather have a top tier guy, but I think people on this board need to ground themselves a bit and realize it;s not the end of the world if we don't get exactly what we are looking for. In fact, it could even mean the making of a championship team...

 

[James]

It isn't just us, people fly under the radar across the nation. I mentioned lillard, but even russel westbrook and paul george were 3 star recruits. I can't really speak on levels of exposure varying , nor am I calling Samuel a Westbrook mold. all I'm saying is wait and see.

 

[BLUEDOGHOUSE]

Boatright will back for his senior year IMO. I am 99% sure of that. Listening to Boat spout off at the mouth regarding the decision making process for the 2013-14 season was simply Boat being Boat. It is not the genetic makeup of the UConn coaches now or in the past to let a kid put his name in the draft early when he has 1% chance of being drafted in the first 40 picks. Unless he is one of the 15 or so finalists for the Naismith Award like Khalid was after his Jr. year (fringe 1st rounder) Boat won't leave despite the pending drama over the decision. There is about a 1% chance of that happening IMO.

Kevin Ollie is respected by his players. Boat is no exception and will get another dose of reality from KO soon after our NCAA tournament game.

Boat has a shot at top 40 (fringe 1st rounder) if he puts in the work and stays 4 years. NBA is the kids dream. He has a shot to get there by following the advise of KO. Absent a very strong case for financial hardship which is personal it is my opinion a 4th year will benefit Boat quite a bit despite the naysayers who claim his size ect...caps his draft stock.

I don't think it is imminent to sign a PG in this years class unless the fit is perfect. JMHO

 

[Gurleyman]

Thank you for posting this. My thoughts are much the same. Many people on this board, who follow recruiting heavily, act like the sky is falling if one of the recruit's we get isn't in the Top 100.

In fact, many times it is the opposite. The most successful programs tend to get a mixture of 2 or 3 top 100's and a couple under the radar guys who stick around and are "team first" guys.

Now, Napier might not be the best example, since he was Top 100 but I know we have had guys, like Austrie for example, who were under the radar and turned out to be really good for our program.

I was very young (8-9 years old) so I'd like to ask how highly rated were Kevin Freeman, Edmund Saunders, Jake Voskuhl, and Ricky Moore coming out of HS? They helped make up our 1st NC and I am guessing not all were top 100 but could be wrong.

Or Charles Okwandu, Hilton Armstrong, Ed Nelson, Tony Robertson, Gavin Edwards

I don't know just trying to think of guys who may have been under the radar and proved to be very valuable to our program and toward successful teams in the past. I could be wrong about some of them, I didn't follow recruiting back then.

Point is, I would rather have a top tier guy, but I think people on this board need to ground themselves a bit and realize it;s not the end of the world if we don't get exactly what we are looking for. In fact, it could even mean the making of a championship team...

Voskuhl was out of the top 100. Saunders ended up about 50, but was actually really high in 10th grade or so (top 10) before fading as he plateaued and others caught up to him. Free was about 40 and Ricky about 30. Ricky was very highly regarded, but maybe came up short relative to expectations as a scorer/PG and adapted as his career went on to be a defensive specialist.

We've had a lot of some success with guys like Ricky, Rashamel Jones, Taliek, Roscoe, and CV who maybe had inflated recruiting rankings, or didn't have the immediate impact their rankings said they should, but who adapted to lesser roles than they probably envisioned for themselves and won titles. And we've had the Jakes, Emekas, Boones and Lambs who were much better than expected and also won those titles.

I admit I'm taking an optimistic look at it. Possible that the staff thinks a kid like Watson is a great fit, but it is also possible that they are just looking for an insurance policy - they may fear a worst case where Samuel never comes, Boat leaves, we don't get Snider, and we have a loaded team of Purvis-Hamilton-Calhoun-Daniels-Abu (maybe on the last two, of course) and no point guard to get them all the ball (or at least let Purvis play off the ball a bit). There are success stories, but sometimes you reach on a less-heralded kid and it doesn't pan out, too (Eaves, Garrison, Haralson, Trice, etc.). And there is honesty in recruiting sometimes - the offer we gave to Watson may be conditional on others passing, and he would still like to come if the door opens (and Oregon State is his fallback).

 

[Husky15]

It isn't just us, people fly under the radar across the nation. I mentioned lillard, but even russel westbrook and paul george were 3 star recruits. I can't really speak on levels of exposure varying , nor am I calling Samuel a Westbrook mold. all I'm saying is wait and see.

Those are anomalies, not the norm. You can find lots of those for every position but can find way more where the player didn't work out

 

[aboogieee]

He's a one man wrecking crew!

 

[SeattleHoop]

Those are anomalies, not the norm. You can find lots of those for every position but can find way more where the player didn't work out

You must have misunderstood his point. His point, and mine alike, was not that the lower-rated guys are going to be Westbrook's or Lillard's. His point was that they are often good enough to play significant roles on winning teams. He used those specific players to highlight the "best-case scenario" of his contrary view as oppose to the widely held belief that anyone below the Top 100 is not meant to play for an elite program.

And I would like to know what you mean by "didn't work out" because that is a very vague statement. By "didn't work out" if you meant "bust" or player that came into a program and didn't do anything to help it, I would say that is also on the opposite side of the bell curve.

The "norm" for most 3 star athletes specifically picked by experienced coaches and good programs isn't to "not work out" but to provide a serviceable compliment to a successful team. We are talking about players like Giffey, Olander, Nolan, etc, who are all around 3 star recruits.

In my opinion, it usually "works out" for us.

 

[Hoophound]

Samuel may be a four year backup but he has potential for more.

5 year backup?

 

[Danzz]

Thank you for posting this. My thoughts are much the same. Many people on this board, who follow recruiting heavily, act like the sky is falling if one of the recruit's we get isn't in the Top 100.

In fact, many times it is the opposite. The most successful programs tend to get a mixture of 2 or 3 top 100's and a couple under the radar guys who stick around and are "team first" guys.

Now, Napier might not be the best example, since he was Top 100 but I know we have had guys, like Austrie for example, who were under the radar and turned out to be really good for our program.

I was very young (8-9 years old) so I'd like to ask how highly rated were Kevin Freeman, Edmund Saunders, Jake Voskuhl, and Ricky Moore coming out of HS? They helped make up our 1st NC and I am guessing not all were top 100 but could be wrong.

Or Charles Okwandu, Hilton Armstrong, Ed Nelson, Tony Robertson, Gavin Edwards

I don't know just trying to think of guys who may have been under the radar and proved to be very valuable to our program and toward successful teams in the past. I could be wrong about some of them, I didn't follow recruiting back then.

Point is, I would rather have a top tier guy, but I think people on this board need to ground themselves a bit and realize it;s not the end of the world if we don't get exactly what we are looking for. In fact, it could even mean the making of a championship team...

We've had a lot more misses than hits on under the radar players. We need a PG with skills badly. It doesn't look like McLaughlin or Perkins are likely and Snider may be up in the air so the Watson offer makes sense. Watson may be small but at least he can shoot so we don't end up with a situation like we had with Brown where he could be left unguarded and clog up the paint..

 

[Danzz]

It seems like Perkins and JM are very long shots at this point but you never know. We landed Daniels out of nowhere. Snider is likely the #1 PG target for us now.

i'd like to see if we land perkins or JM first.

 

[Huskyforlife]

It seems like Perkins and JM are very long shots at this point but you never know. We landed Daniels out of nowhere. Snider is likely the #1 PG target for us now.

didn't know about snider back then

 

[Tenspro2002]

There's a difference between low-rated guys becoming valuable role players and becoming starters on a championship-caliber team.

I fully expect a guy like Watson or Samuel can be Craig Austrie 2.0, a steady point guard, solid backup, a contributor to a winning team. But for every Craig Austrie there was also an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams.

And after Boat leaves, we are going to need an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams, whether that's in 2014 (Perkins/McLaughlin/Snider) or 2015 (Dorsey?).

 

[Dogbreath2U]

After watching 2 longish videos, I would say that Devin Watson is a good looking player. Good quickness, plays under control, very good midrange game and made a lot of step-back 3 pointers as well as floaters. He seems to be good at finding space where he can get his shot off even though he is not very tall. Seems to finish well going to the hoop and showed good court vision.

Link..click here!

(it would not embed)

 

[Gurleyman]

There's a difference between low-rated guys becoming valuable role players and becoming starters on a championship-caliber team.

I fully expect a guy like Watson or Samuel can be Craig Austrie 2.0, a steady point guard, solid backup, a contributor to a winning team. But for every Craig Austrie there was also an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams.

And after Boat leaves, we are going to need an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams, whether that's in 2014 (Perkins/McLaughlin/Snider) or 2015 (Dorsey?).

Or Purvis can fill a Ben Gordon role and have the ball in his hands a lot to create, and we just need to be find someone who can be the Taliek and get things organized and fill a role as a glue guy. There's no single formula that succeeds - other than having talented playmakers on the perimeter somewhere. In 1999, our role guy on the perimeter who we didn't look to score much was the two (Ricky), same as 2009 (Austrie). In 2004, it was the point guard (Taliek), which was similar to Ollie in 1994-95. In 2011, it was the SF (Roscoe) or the PG (Napier) when we went small - same as 1996, when Rudy was SF and Ricky came in. With Purvis and Calhoun/Hamilton at the 2 and 3, we've got talent, so perhaps all we need is the Taliek/Ollie/freshman Bazz type PG. Unless Purvis or Hamilton don't pan out like we hope (or pan out so well they leave after one year), which is always a possibility. It certainly wouldn't be a bad thing to get a stud PG, and sort out everyone's roles from a position of strength - rather than have no choice but to give someone more responsibility than they are capable of (ie Olander last year)..

I also hope we never get another Marcus Williams. Or, well, I hope we get someone who can pass like him, but who is nothing like him otherwise. Personal distaste.

 

[LIUCHusky]

We've had a lot more misses than hits on under the radar players. We need a PG with skills badly. It doesn't look like McLaughlin or Perkins are likely and Snider may be up in the air so the Watson offer makes sense. Watson may be small but at least he can shoot so we don't end up with a situation like we had with Brown where he could be left unguarded and clog up the paint..

Would love to have a situation like T. Brown. If my memory serves me correctly 2004 ended up pretty well.

 

[SeattleHoop]

There's a difference between low-rated guys becoming valuable role players and becoming starters on a championship-caliber team.

I fully expect a guy like Watson or Samuel can be Craig Austrie 2.0, a steady point guard, solid backup, a contributor to a winning team. But for every Craig Austrie there was also an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams.

And after Boat leaves, we are going to need an AJ Price or a Marcus Williams, whether that's in 2014 (Perkins/McLaughlin/Snider) or 2015 (Dorsey?).

I agree with this. And yes as you mentioned Dorsey in 2015 lets not count 2015 out to find our main pg.

 

[Gurleyman]

Different position, but look at what Josh Boone did as a freshman. He was ranked way behind CV in that class. Both had key roles in the 2004 title, but Boone proved to be the better fit as the starting 4 that year, despite having limited skill (his range was a putback). CV was the better player, but Boone was actually the better fit for what we needed. Lamb was ranked around 70 by Rivals and out of the top 100 by ESPN and Scout (Scout ranked him 21st among shooting guards), but proved to be more ready than Roscoe, who was ranked around 30. That was more a case of the rankings being off, with Lamb being undervalued and Roscoe overvalued.

 

[ctchamps]

After watching 2 longish videos, I would say that Devin Watson is a good looking player. Good quickness, plays under control, very good midrange game and made a lot of step-back 3 pointers as well as floaters. He seems to be good at finding space where he can get his shot off even though he is not very tall. Seems to finish well going to the hoop and showed good court vision.

Link..click here!

(it would not embed)

I'm with you. He seems more SN than CA on offense. Snider is still a preference but this kid is capable of running a team with talent around him.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Or Purvis can fill a Ben Gordon role and have the ball in his hands a lot to create, and we just need to be find someone who can be the Taliek and get things organized and fill a role as a glue guy. There's no single formula that succeeds - other than having talented playmakers on the perimeter somewhere. In 1999, our role guy on the perimeter who we didn't look to score much was the two (Ricky), same as 2009 (Austrie). In 2004, it was the point guard (Taliek), which was similar to Ollie in 1994-95. In 2011, it was the SF (Roscoe) or the PG (Napier) when we went small - same as 1996, when Rudy was SF and Ricky came in. With Purvis and Calhoun/Hamilton at the 2 and 3, we've got talent, so perhaps all we need is the Taliek/Ollie/freshman Bazz type PG. Unless Purvis or Hamilton don't pan out like we hope (or pan out so well they leave after one year), which is always a possibility. It certainly wouldn't be a bad thing to get a stud PG, and sort out everyone's roles from a position of strength - rather than have no choice but to give someone more responsibility than they are capable of (ie Olander last year)..

I also hope we never get another Marcus Williams. Or, well, I hope we get someone who can pass like him, but who is nothing like him otherwise. Personal distaste.

I agree with the first 90% of your post, but am curious about your beef with Marcus Williams. His off-court judgment and work ethic were questionable, but his combination of scoring and passing ability were unsurpassed. He carried us to the Elite 8 in 2006.

 

[CTBasketball]

I don't trust videos anymore after Andre Drummond.

But the offer does make sense, but he probably was told he won't get any serious PT unless he improves leaps and bounds.

 

[Gurleyman]

I agree with the first 90% of your post, but am curious about your beef with Marcus Williams. His off-court judgment and work ethic were questionable, but his combination of scoring and passing ability were unsurpassed. He carried us to the Elite 8 in 2006.

I've ranted on this before, and I know I'm in the minority so you certainly don't have to see it my way, but here goes:

I have a hard time getting past the fact that Marcus was a part of two preseason No. 1 teams and did his best to f them both up off the court. We survived without him the first time when he couldn't bother showing up for classes as a freshman - I frankly wish we tried again the second time without him, because he had proven to me by up again that you can't count on him. It should have ripped his heart out to the core to not be there to win a ring in 2004, and he had a chance for a reprieve, and then he screwed up even worse. Those two f-ups probably cloud my judgment a little on the rest.

On the court, I thought that Marcus was way too aloof for a leadership role. Lazy. Hollywood. Didn't give a s***. That was a trait that showed up throughout his career - he didn't give a s*** that he let the team down in 2004, and he didn't give a s*** about getting his 12 percent body fat down to something respectable for the NBA (which is why he lasted 1/10 as long as our current head coach). He played like he thought the little things didn't matter and that we could just simply outscore teams and/or make some plays at the end, and everyone fell in line behind him. Perhaps had AJ been around, he could have filled some of that void (Ben could be aloof too, but had Taliek alongside him to rally the troops, be an energy guy, dive for loose balls, etc.). But the same team that showed some impressive toughness playing shorthanded with a deer-in-the-headlights Austrie and beating two top 10 teams anyway in Maui, gave up 80+ points in every postseason game (except the one we were down 10 to Albany in the second half).

Marcus was outstanding against Kentucky - probably his signature game with us, especially given what Rondo has gone on to do - but he was frankly hot garbage against Washington and George Mason, until it was hero time late and then he turned it on to try to bail us out of a hole we wouldn't have been in if he had played a full 40. To his credit, he had a big "and one" late in both games, and then had an impact in both OTs, helping his stat line. But I was cursing him up and down the whole way through the Washington game for lazy turnovers (high school crap like one-handed crosscourt passes that led to UW layups), not getting back on D, not guarding anyone, etc. We were dead in the water, but Rashad hits two huge threes in the last 30 seconds (with Marcus getting that and-one in between), so we get another life. He was 30 seconds from ending with a hollow 15-point, 5-assist, 7-turnover stat line. Then with a minute to go in regulation against George Mason, Marcus had five points on 2-8 shooting and we were in desperation mode - then he makes some plays. Too late.

But if I liked Marcus, I'd probably have long ago forgotten the first 39 minutes of UW and GM and would remember him for being clutch. I had established a dislike for him, and probably had a case of "confirmation bias" - looking for the things that proved my preconceived conclusions. Not having AJ those two years might have changed everything.

 

[selles]

I agree with the first 90% of your post, but am curious about your beef with Marcus Williams. His off-court judgment and work ethic were questionable, but his combination of scoring and passing ability were unsurpassed. He carried us to the Elite 8 in 2006.

But if his off-court judgment and work ethic hadn't been questionable, would he have had to carry us to the Elite 8?

 

[mauconnfan]

I agree with the first 90% of your post, but am curious about your beef with Marcus Williams. His off-court judgment and work ethic were questionable, but his combination of scoring and passing ability were unsurpassed. He carried us to the Elite 8 in 2006.

Again I know the Marcus doubters and the Taliek lovers and both have their reasons. As far as basketball put Marcus on the 2004 team and they don't lose and probably would have no one sniffing them in any games. I don't care about who was better on defense as there is no doubt about that one, but the 2004 team would have scored at will on the offensive end with Marcus at the helm. Like him or not he was easily a better offensive player therefore making the offense even tougher to guard while giving Taliek the defensive prowess. Hey they both count and TB was "tougher" no doubt, but they win with either at PG in 2004 anyway!

 

[Gurleyman]

Again I know the Marcus doubters and the Taliek lovers and both have their reasons. As far as basketball put Marcus on the 2004 team and they don't lose and probably would have no one sniffing them in any games. I don't care about who was better on defense as there is no doubt about that one, but the 2004 team would have scored at will on the offensive end with Marcus at the helm. Like him or not he was easily a better offensive player therefore making the offense even tougher to guard while giving Taliek the defensive prowess. Hey they both count and TB was "tougher" no doubt, but they win with either at PG in 2004 anyway!

Well, I can't disprove a hypothetical, but all the circumstantial evidence we do have points firmly to the contrary. Marcus couldn't lead his team to a win over George Mason with a FF on the line. In basically that same situation - loaded UConn team against a big underdog in the Elite Eight - Taliek led us to an epic blowout of Alabama despite Emeka getting hurt and scoring two points.

Marcus was at the helm for two years and was a part of three of the four worst postseason losses in our history by seed (a 2-11 vs NC State, a 1-11 vs Mason, and a 1-8 vs Syracuse in the BET) - and the fourth was when AJ tore his ACL. Taliek was 18-3 in the postseason his last three years with no bad losses. Marcus was 4-4 in his two years with three bad losses, and two of the wins were against a 15 seed and a comeback over a 16 seed. Washington was a bloody miracle in a game we deserved to lose, and we went down to the wire with a pedestrian Kentucky team. No signature wins. No A games. We were almost always trying to rally from behind (Albany, NC State, Washington, Mason - and we dug a big hole against Cuse before taking a late lead before GMac's three).

There was some bad luck that Marcus had to deal with - we were an infirmary in 2005, and he had no sidekick in the backcourt for both years with AJ's illness. Give him AJ (the Ollie to MW's Sheffer) and maybe everything is completely different since his weaknesses would be better covered. But Taliek had some bad luck too - during his senior year, his backup flunked off the team, for one thing. Emeka missed two BET games (and most of that Alabama game). And he lost one postseason game when he set someone up for a layup and the ball got stuck in the rim with the arrow pointing the other way.

I'll give you another hypothetical you can't disprove: George Mason scored on something like 16 of 17 possessions in the final eight minutes of regulation and OT (not counting missed FTs when we fouled them on purpose). No way Taliek lets that happen. He'd pressure the PG, double down on a big once in a while and recover, and disrupt what Mason was trying to do - all the things Marcus was frustratingly incapable of. If he had Marcus-Ben-Rashad on the perimeter in 2004, who's guarding anyone? None of those guys Even with Emeka we probably give up a lot of points and try to outscore teams - which was our failed m.o. in 2006. The reason we blew everyone out in the 2004 run (sans the 15 minutes Emeka was in foul trouble vs Duke) is that we scored AND we got stops.

 

[James]

our bigs were simply incapable of guarding those behemoths on gmu. If okafor was on that team, they wouldn't be jump hooking him to death. Tony skinn wasnt the main problem.We also don't beat udub without mwill. adding him to 04 would just make that one of the best two way teams in NCAA history

 

[mauconnfan]

Well, I can't disprove a hypothetical, but all the circumstantial evidence we do have points firmly to the contrary. Marcus couldn't lead his team to a win over George Mason with a FF on the line. In basically that same situation - loaded UConn team against a big underdog in the Elite Eight - Taliek led us to an epic blowout of Alabama despite Emeka getting hurt and scoring two points.

Marcus was at the helm for two years and was a part of three of the four worst postseason losses in our history by seed (a 2-11 vs NC State, a 1-11 vs Mason, and a 1-8 vs Syracuse in the BET) - and the fourth was when AJ tore his ACL. Taliek was 18-3 in the postseason his last three years with no bad losses. Marcus was 4-4 in his two years with three bad losses, and two of the wins were against a 15 seed and a comeback over a 16 seed. Washington was a bloody miracle in a game we deserved to lose, and we went down to the wire with a pedestrian Kentucky team. No signature wins. No A games. We were almost always trying to rally from behind (Albany, NC State, Washington, Mason - and we dug a big hole against Cuse before taking a late lead before GMac's three).

There was some bad luck that Marcus had to deal with - we were an infirmary in 2005, and he had no sidekick in the backcourt for both years with AJ's illness. Give him AJ (the Ollie to MW's Sheffer) and maybe everything is completely different since his weaknesses would be better covered. But Taliek had some bad luck too - during his senior year, his backup flunked off the team, for one thing. Emeka missed two BET games (and most of that Alabama game). And he lost one postseason game when he set someone up for a layup and the ball got stuck in the rim with the arrow pointing the other way.

I'll give you another hypothetical you can't disprove: George Mason scored on something like 16 of 17 possessions in the final eight minutes of regulation and OT (not counting missed FTs when we fouled them on purpose). No way Taliek lets that happen. He'd pressure the PG, double down on a big once in a while and recover, and disrupt what Mason was trying to do - all the things Marcus was frustratingly incapable of. If he had Marcus-Ben-Rashad on the perimeter in 2004, who's guarding anyone? None of those guys Even with Emeka we probably give up a lot of points and try to outscore teams - which was our failed m.o. in 2006. The reason we blew everyone out in the 2004 run (sans the 15 minutes Emeka was in foul trouble vs Duke) is that we scored AND we got stops.

It's all hypothetical......I know one other thing I can't prove one way or the other, Taliek wouldn't have kept us in the game making those jumpers and passes that Marcus vs GMU.........that whole tourney he proved to be a catalyst on offense and a very good one. And he didn't Emeka or Ben Gordon playing beside him either and that is THE difference! Let's not compare Hilton to Emeka or anyone else to Ben.........he brought a less talented team to the Elite 8 and carried them on his back times..........

 

[Matrim55]

our bigs were simply incapable of guarding those behemoths on gmu. If okafor was on that team, they wouldn't be jump hooking him to death. Tony skinn wasnt the main problem.We also don't beat udub without mwill. adding him to 04 would just make that one of the best two way teams in NCAA history

I think this kind of make's Gurleyman's point. Marcus' talent was undeniable, an he probably would have shined in a backup role. But his character was awful, and when he was given the keys, his team underachieved.

I loved watching him play - point guards who are that much fun are few and far between, and I'm glad he went to UConn. I can't pretend for a second, though, that the Marcus Williams era was as satisfying as the eras of the guys who came before (KEA, Taliek) or after (Price, Kemba, Shabazz).

That's what he's measured against.

 

[mauconnfan]

I think this kind of make's Gurleyman's point. Marcus' talent was undeniable, an he probably would have shined in a backup role. But his character was awful, and when he was given the keys, his team underachieved.

I loved watching him play - point guards who are that much fun are few and far between, and I'm glad he went to UConn. I can't pretend for a second, though, that the Marcus Williams era was as satisfying as the eras of the guys who came before (KEA, Taliek) or after (Price, Kemba, Shabazz).

That's what he's measured against.

Funny how the rest of the team doesn't matter in this comparison, just the PG's? Hmmmmmm..........again 2 real good players but we can't pretend for a second that not having Okafor and Gordon would not make a difference. I believe if Marcus never got in trouble in the laptop deal and turned out to be a better pro this argument would be different for many of you!!