- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,642
- Reaction Score
- 53,287
Don't disagree with any of that and I don't say Calhoun wasn't an excellent talent evaluator. Not even close. And maybe Lamb was a bad example in the sense that he was a kid they did want. But the point I was making is that just because the best basketball coach in the college game, probably one of the top 5 of all time, could win with players others thought were lesser talents, that doesn't automatically mean that any other coach can do the same. It amazes me that some of you guys don't understand just how good the guy was as a basketball coach. You throw out things like Hall of fame coach without, it seems, any concept of what that means. He was one of those coaches as they said of Bear Bryant, who "could take hisn and beat yourn or take yourn and beat hisn." Assuming Ollie or anyone but a very few others could do the same shows a complete lack of understanding of just how incredible Jim Calhoun was. As a matter of fact I've heard Jim Calhoun talk about the issue of recruiting a few times and he always said that he looked for players with the ability to get better. Sometimes highly rated guys were already at their max while lower rated guys had potential to get better and ultimately exceed the guy ranked above him. He thought Okafor was one of those guys who would eventually be a stud. He thought Hilton had the potential to be very good, too. So no, it isn't revisonist history. But to assume that another coach can be equally adept at it just becaus eone of th ebest to ever coach college basketball did it is pretty crazy and I think shows little appreciation or understanding of just how good Jim Calhoun was.
No one said anything about Calhoun being easy to replace.
What people object to is that the pet favorites of some other posters are better equipped to keep the ball rolling.