Terry Larrier transferring

[johnhuskies95]

@johnhuskies95 AO supporters?

Maybe not so far as supporters, but at least guys that don't see him as being just short of a villain.

 

[Jaybo]

I guess I could un-hate him just this once.

 

[champs99and04]

Recruiting is almost entirely hypothetical, and, as @businesslawyer states, applying anecdotal observations to a process that can only be evaluated in totality is senseless, particularly when recent history has vindicated a variety of different recruiting methods.

There is no such thing as sustainability in recruiting, especially not in today's climate. One great class earns you that one great class and only that one great class, whether they're from high school, college, or preschool. I don't disagree that KO and the staff have a ways to go in regards to refining their recruiting skills, but much of the time it feels like they being evaluated on an arbitrary, unreasonable set of standards. Here, we tend to process KO's recruiting ability - or lack thereof - by who he missed on, and not who he hit on. No other coach is held to this standard, and likewise, it matters not that you led a recruitment for 99 laps but only that you crossed the finish line first.

Long point short, many of us are imposing a moving scale as it relates to how we are viewing this stuff. Just as easily one could say recruiting grad transfers is not a sustainable model, you could also say that KO has been undone by bad luck in plenty of other recruitments.

IF Diamond Stone is affiliated with Nike, and not Under Armor, he is a Husky.

IF Prince Ali blew up later in the signing period, rather than when he did, he is a Husky.

IF Shaka Smart had left VCU two years earlier, Terry Larrier is a Husky.

IF Hamilton and Purvis weren't entrenched in their positions, some combination of Mack, Jones, and Clarke would be Huskies.

We seem to have no problem indicting the staff for recruiting misses when variables beyond their control undoubtedly influenced the final decision, but when the variables beyond their control do swing in their favor, its "we can't always rely on these kids falling into our laps."

IF, and that's a big if, KO manages to sign Gibbs, his horse finished the race in first place. Whether he led in lap ten or whether he projects to win next years race is immaterial.

 

[businesslawyer]

I'm pretty sure people who know the team well(like the beat writers and connected posters like Fishy) would tell you that there are probably 5 other things that hurt that team's chemistry more than Andre Drummond's mere presence on the roster, namely the head coach being out for 10 games in the middle of the season.

Any AO-Drummond rift seems way overplayed on here. I think Oriakhi supporters like to bring it up because it takes the blame off of his last season's performance, and Oriakhi detractors like to bring it up because it makes it look like he took the team down singlehandedly.

I'm way more inclined to believe the nature of the timing of Drummond's arrival had more to do with chemistry issues than him just being on the team in the first place. But a late arrival like that isn't at all typical for a high school one and done.

As for your positioning hypothesis, I think you're putting a lot of weight onto Drummond as to his impact on other players. Maybe I buy that Roscoe was better at the 4, but Drummond was still one of the top 3 players on that team, you're better off with him than without him.

Good, well reasoned post. We will agree to disagree. I agree fully that Drummond gotten there earlier -- or had Calhoun not missed time -- the chemistry might have been better. And no doubt Drummond was one of the better players that year. But you will never convince me a team with AO, Roscoe, DAniels, Giffey, Lamb, Boat and Bazz couldn't have beaten RPI top 30 teams -- and made at least a Sweet 16 -- had Drummond never shown up.

And by the way -- what happened that year should show us that what the squid does every year in terms of keeping egos from overrunning chemistry is not as easy as it looks.

 

[sdhusky]

Good, well reasoned post. We will agree to disagree. I agree fully that Drummond gotten there earlier -- or had Calhoun not missed time -- the chemistry might have been better. And no doubt Drummond was one of the better players that year. But you will never convince me a team with AO, Roscoe, DAniels, Giffey, Lamb, Boat and Bazz couldn't have beaten RPI top 30 teams -- and made at least a Sweet 16 -- had Drummond never shown up.

And by the way -- what happened that year should show us that what the squid does every year in terms of keeping egos from overrunning chemistry is not as easy as it looks.

You really suck as a BY poster. Too reasonable.

But the best FB of all-time? Maybe.

I really want to win some fb games this year.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

To me the argument is that even though AD did "okay" to good in terms of performance stats, the problem was that JC could not play AD and AO at the same time. AO was a big leader in encouraging AD to come and to welcome him to UConn (IIRC). JC chose to play AD in hope of his taking the team to another level, I would guess, but this was not in the cards. The team would have been better without AD because AO would have been better and there would have been less dissatisfaction on the team. I think that Fishy made the point in the past that Roscoe was also not treated in the best way that year and that had a negative impact as well. Bazz was not ready to be accepted as "the guy."

 

[mauconnfan]

Good, well reasoned post. We will agree to disagree. I agree fully that Drummond gotten there earlier -- or had Calhoun not missed time -- the chemistry might have been better. And no doubt Drummond was one of the better players that year. But you will never convince me a team with AO, Roscoe, DAniels, Giffey, Lamb, Boat and Bazz couldn't have beaten RPI top 30 teams -- and made at least a Sweet 16 -- had Drummond never shown up.

And by the way -- what happened that year should show us that what the squid does every year in terms of keeping egos from overrunning chemistry is not as easy as it looks.

I guess my question is how could they with the way AO performed that year? You have no way of telling me he would have been better than he was just because AD was there so no way without Andre they were any good at all. To me it wasn't all about Andre but instead showed how much Kemba opened the floor to make others look so good the year prior.

 

[JLock819]

This is a Terry Larrier thread, go take the side conversations elsewhere please.

 

[Kembacity]

Someone please fill in the blank for me: "BusinessLawyer is too old by ___ decades to have any clue what Kembacity was posting."

What in my 2 sentences do you think you're too old to understand?

Is "cut of your jib" young man speak?

You can just , and by the way your thoughts on Kromah over Drummond? Hilarious

 

[UConn990411]

The Drummond vs. Kromah debate is one of the silliest ones we've had on here in a while. That whole apples to oranges saying doesn't come close to describing how different their situations were.

And Drummond did not tear down the 2011-12 team. My god.

 

[Rico444]

Didn't Chief say Larrier was a lock to come here? He never said when that would happen.

 

[gtcam]

you are comparing 2 very different teams. in that sense theres no way to measure who had more value but if you were picking players to make a team would you really pick kromah over a freshman drummond? drummond put up big numbers on a team with not much chemistry and maybe he wasnt shaq like some people expected but he was one of the top freshmen weve had

Disagree - you can measure by success of the teams with both players player significant parts on and off the court.
I am plainly not saying that Kromah is more talented - no way
BUT he lended more positives to his team than Drummond did to his - beyond pure numbers
Just my opinion

 

[mdkhusky]

how is that the case kromahs team was way better

 

[boog204]

This is such a BY thread... We get one piece of factual info (Larrier transferring), rampant speculation and false rumors (Larrier coming here/visiting), and then a completely disconnected argument about AO and AD, Kromah vs. AD and god knows what else. The beauty of it all is that this will easily go another 4-5 pages. Makes me want some pizza...

 

[DOZE860]

how is that the case kromahs team was way better

you know Kromahs team won the national championship ?

 

[gtcam]

how is that the case kromahs team was way better

Don't know what you are refering to
Way better? Who said that?
They were better based on the fact that they won the NCAA and had to go through some really stacked teams that on paper were WAY BETTER
If the two teams played head to head - who knows - but one had a huge ticker and the other had some ego problems

 

[gtcam]

This is such a BY thread... We get one piece of factual info (Larrier transferring), rampant speculation and false rumors (Larrier coming here/visiting), and then a completely disconnected argument about AO and AD, Kromah vs. AD and god knows what else. The beauty of it all is that this will easily go another 4-5 pages. Makes me want some pizza...

Buono Appitito

 

[nomar]

It was Diarra.

I hope his stomach feels better now.

 

[UMass]

How about we become better at recruiting high school kids and leave the scrambling to the SDSU and Iowa States of the world?

There's no reason that UConn has to become some sort of spring scavenger.

The occasional scholarship filled here or there - fine. But it's no way to make a living.

Great post! I realize a lot of things go into a kid's decision..i.e.proximity to home, playing time...etc, but there is no way that UConn should not be in the top-5 for most 4 and 5 star kid out there. There are just a handful of blue blood programs and UConn has firmly entrenched themselves on that short list. With the UConn success both in championships and players in the NBA I honestly don't believe kids care about the conference affiliation. UConn basketball has risen above that.

 

[businesslawyer]

I guess my question is how could they with the way AO performed that year? You have no way of telling me he would have been better than he was just because AD was there so no way without Andre they were any good at all. To me it wasn't all about Andre but instead showed how much Kemba opened the floor to make others look so good the year prior.

Nothing you said is unreasonable. And we will never know. But (and I'm not excusing AO for this) it's not hard to see how guys that started on a championship team, and played their butts off unselfishly, would be bent out of shape by having their minutes cut and their roles changed when, when school opens, a freakish talent but unproven basketball player shows up and, instead of feeling respected as national championship pieces, now they have to adjust their minutes and roles. It's not hard for me to see how things spiralled out of control from their (especially with JC's absence as well).

And one point I've made before but not in a long time and not in this thread -- over the course of the entire Big EAst season and NCAA tourney, AO's plus/minus was light year's better than Drummonds. Which means that when AO was on the floor without AD, the team played better than when AD was on the floor without AO. Drummond did many things unbelievably well, and many things unbelievably poorly, but he did not make the team better.

 

[businesslawyer]

The Drummond vs. Kromah debate is one of the silliest ones we've had on here in a while. That whole apples to oranges saying doesn't come close to describing how different their situations were.

And Drummond did not tear down the 2011-12 team. My god.

I had to look up what "cut of your jib" meant on urban dictionary. If I'm the only old man who had no clue, so be it.

But not once did I accuse Drummon of tearing down the team. I've said repeatedly that I don't view the lack of chemistry as his fault.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Eh, I disagree on a few items here.

There is no such thing as sustainability in recruiting, especially not in today's climate. One great class earns you that one great class and only that one great class, whether they're from high school, college, or preschool.

That's not true at all. Recruiting is about perception, and in that sense, one great class frequently begets another. Why does UK get many of the top players? Because in the previous class, many of the top players went to UK, signifying that UK is the destination for top players. And so on. It's a cycle.

Just as easily one could say recruiting grad transfers is not a sustainable model, you could also say that KO has been undone by bad luck in plenty of other recruitments.

IF Diamond Stone is affiliated with Nike, and not Under Armor, he is a Husky.

IF Prince Ali blew up later in the signing period, rather than when he did, he is a Husky.

IF Shaka Smart had left VCU two years earlier, Terry Larrier is a Husky.

IF Hamilton and Purvis weren't entrenched in their positions, some combination of Mack, Jones, and Clarke would be Huskies.

We seem to have no problem indicting the staff for recruiting misses when variables beyond their control undoubtedly influenced the final decision.

I'll grant you Stone and I'll grant you that Mack/Jones/Clarke were influenced by the presence of Purvis/Hamilton (though I would argue a better recruiter could get them in spite of that concern), but the others are not "bad luck". Prince Ali's decommitment after his stock soared basically said "UConn is small time and I want bigger" -- that's a major perception problem that the staff could not counter; that's not bad luck. Losing Larrier to VCU and Shaka is not bad luck, it's bad recruiting, and should not be excused as something out of the staff's control.

Here, we tend to process KO's recruiting ability - or lack thereof - by who he missed on, and not who he hit on. No other coach is held to this standard, and likewise, it matters not that you led a recruitment for 99 laps but only that you crossed the finish line first....We seem to have no problem indicting the staff for recruiting misses when variables beyond their control undoubtedly influenced the final decision, but when the variables beyond their control do swing in their favor, its "we can't always rely on these kids falling into our laps."....IF, and that's a big if, KO manages to sign Gibbs, his horse finished the race in first place. Whether he led in lap ten or whether he projects to win next years race is immaterial.

I'll end on a cheery note -- most of this I actually agree with. At the end of the day, it matters who you land. That said, after Enoch, we failed on all of our high school targets and landed nobody (until grad transfer season). Now, if we get Gibbs, that suggests we're doing really well with grad transfers. But it doesn't change the fact that we've struggled to get the high school recruits we need.

I also think it's reasonable to look "under the hood" at the process and who we've been able to get. We shouldn't dismiss getting Adams and Enoch because they were local. But then we should look at the local crop going forward. If New England is going to continue to produce top prospects, then we're in good shape if our local recruiting is strong. On the other hand, if we're going to have to recruit nationally, then the failure in this cycle to attract anyone from farther away bears some consideration.

 

[upstater]

Prince Ali's decommitment after his stock soared basically said "UConn is small time and I want bigger" -- that's a major perception problem that the staff could not counter; that's not bad luck. Losing Larrier to VCU and Shaka is not bad luck, it's bad recruiting, and should not be excused as something out of the staff's control.

Did Ali's stock actually ever soar? He's in the 40s on ESPN and in the 50s on 247. Right about where UConn offered him.

I still say something nutty went on there.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Nothing you said is unreasonable. And we will never know. But (and I'm not excusing AO for this) it's not hard to see how guys that started on a championship team, and played their butts off unselfishly, would be bent out of shape by having their minutes cut and their roles changed when, when school opens, a freakish talent but unproven basketball player shows up and, instead of feeling respected as national championship pieces, now they have to adjust their minutes and roles. It's not hard for me to see how things spiralled out of control from their (especially with JC's absence as well).

And one point I've made before but not in a long time and not in this thread -- over the course of the entire Big EAst season and NCAA tourney, AO's plus/minus was light year's better than Drummonds. Which means that when AO was on the floor without AD, the team played better than when AD was on the floor without AO. Drummond did many things unbelievably well, and many things unbelievably poorly, but he did not make the team better.

I think you have the plus/minus thing backwards or you have bad information. Drummond's average plus/minus that year was 6, Oriakhi's was .7. Per Sports Reference. They were actually worse than the other team on average on offense when AO was out there.

 

[champs99and04]

Eh, I disagree on a few items here.



That's not true at all. Recruiting is about perception, and in that sense, one great class frequently begets another. Why does UK get many of the top players? Because in the previous class, many of the top players went to UK, signifying that UK is the destination for top players. And so on. It's a cycle.

Recruiting is about perception, yes. But being perceived in one way does not guarantee you will be perceived that way forever. Nobody has terrorized the recruiting trail like Kentucky these past few years - yet, they only managed to snag one of their main targets (and he may not qualify).

And that perception, mind you, is not built based on who you recruit but rather what you do with those recruits. Obviously, it is easier to do good things with better recruits, but the thing is, we have good recruits. So I'm still unclear on why our current class is not sustainable.



I'll grant you Stone and I'll grant you that Mack/Jones/Clarke were influenced by the presence of Purvis/Hamilton (though I would argue a better recruiter could get them in spite of that concern), but the others are not "bad luck". Prince Ali's decommitment after his stock soared basically said "UConn is small time and I want bigger" -- that's a major perception problem that the staff could not counter; that's not bad luck. Losing Larrier to VCU and Shaka is not bad luck, it's bad recruiting, and should not be excused as something out of the staff's control.

We were small time even though we were championship? If by small time, you mean less marketable, and less appealing, than other top programs, I agree. But that has always been the case.



I'll end on a cheery note -- most of this I actually agree with. At the end of the day, it matters who you land. That said, after Enoch, we failed on all of our high school targets and landed nobody (until grad transfer season). Now, if we get Gibbs, that suggests we're doing really well with grad transfers. But it doesn't change the fact that we've struggled to get the high school recruits we need.

I also think it's reasonable to look "under the hood" at the process and who we've been able to get. We shouldn't dismiss getting Adams and Enoch because they were local. But then we should look at the local crop going forward. If New England is going to continue to produce top prospects, then we're in good shape if our local recruiting is strong. On the other hand, if we're going to have to recruit nationally, then the failure in this cycle to attract anyone from farther away bears some consideration.

If we're signing two top recruits out of high school and two top grad transfers every year until I die, sign me up now.

 

[CL82]

I had to look up what "cut of your jib" meant on urban dictionary. If I'm the only old man who had no clue, so be it.

That phrase traces it's origins to the 19th century. Just how old are you BL?

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

So where's Larrier going?

 

[businesslawyer]

I think you have the plus/minus thing backwards or you have bad information. Drummond's average plus/minus that year was 6, Oriakhi's was .7. Per Sports Reference. They were actually worse than the other team on average on offense when AO was out there.

Drummond had a much better plus minus while UConn was running through the non-conference schedule. Once the Big East season started, from then on AO's was much better.

 

[johnhuskies95]

Drummond had a much better plus minus while UConn was running through the non-conference schedule. Once the Big East season started, from then on AO's was much better.

Do you have a link to support that? I'm not doubting you, but if you look at their individual conference stats, Oriakhi was ever so slightly more efficient that Drummond with regards to shooting numbers, but Drummond was more effective overall in virtually every other stat. And even so, .7 compared to 6 is a huge difference for plus/minus. Of the 34 games they played that year, 21 of those were in the Big East.

It just doesn't make sense that AO's plus/minus was "much better" in those games.

 

[businesslawyer]

Do you have a link to support that? I'm not doubting you, but if you look at their individual conference stats, Oriakhi was ever so slightly more efficient that Drummond with regards to shooting numbers, but Drummond was more effective overall in virtually every other stat. And even so, .7 compared to 6 is a huge difference for plus/minus. Of the 34 games they played that year, 21 of those were in the Big East.

It just doesn't make sense that AO's plus/minus was "much better" in those games.

1. No, I did this calculation right at the end of the season when we were fighting about this then. I don't remember what website.

2. More importantly, I 'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. When I say "plus/minus," I'm not talking about a computer driven statistical analysis (which it sounded like you may have been). I'm talking about how many points you outscored the other team by -- or were outscored by the other team -- while a particular player was on the floor.