Tre Mitchell Recruitment

[Burnsbros23]

Don’t think Mitchell is a guy who comes in and starts right away. Think we could sell Mitchell that cockburn would be one and done or two and done.

 

[Chief00]

One problem we definitely don’t have is a lack of playing time for a quality big.

 

[Paesano]

This thread is going well. Kudos to all involved. Here is my take on a couple of points.

1. Absolutely agree that, given the state of the program, that you take a top 100 kid instead of waiting on a top 40 kid. I want the top 40 kid but he has to commit early (now) or we need to move on.

2. The main thing to consider with one and dones is the impact on team chemistry. And that is not to blame the one and done. Look at what happened when we brought Drummond in. Love that kid but Oriakhi did not respond well. A perfect one and done situation is when a starter at their position leaves. You may upset a bench player but that is less likely to destroy team chemistry.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Don’t think Mitchell is a guy who comes in and starts right away. Think we could sell Mitchell that cockburn would be one and done or two and done.

I don't think the difference between them is that great. Mitchell is too good to just sit for two years, and Cockburn is not so good that there is any real prediction that he would be early entry to the NBA. Mitchell might even have the better potential NBA game.

I can't really worry about it. We need AkAk. Then we need Mitchell, Cockburn or Wahab.

 

[Chief00]

I don't think the difference between them is that great. Mitchell is too good to just sit for two years, and Cockburn is not so good that there is any real prediction that he would be early entry to the NBA. Mitchell might even have the better potential NBA game.

I can't really worry about it. We need AkAk. Then we need Mitchell, Cockburn or Wahab.

Chief’s eye test is that Cockburn is much more of a dominant physical presence. Having said that we need a rotation of Bigs. Young ones tend to make foolish fouls and we can have those who can post and those who can spread the floor. The bottom line is we need a stable of Bigs.

 

[BlueMAB]

This thread is going well. Kudos to all involved. Here is my take on a couple of points.

1. Absolutely agree that, given the state of the program, that you take a top 100 kid instead of waiting on a top 40 kid. I want the top 40 kid but he has to commit early (now) or we need to move on.

2. The main thing to consider with one and dones is the impact on team chemistry. And that is not to blame the one and done. Look at what happened when we brought Drummond in. Love that kid but Oriakhi did not respond well. A perfect one and done situation is when a starter at their position leaves. You may upset a bench player but that is less likely to destroy team chemistry.

That's because Oriakhi was selfish and not nearly as good as he thought he was. Drummond is an all-star and Oriakhi has bounced around Isreal, Turkey, the D Leauge, Venezuela and Mexico. We can't pass on an impact player because it might upset a guy who isn't willing to put the team first.

 

[businesslawyer]

That's because Oriakhi was selfish and not nearly as good as he thought he was. Drummond is an all-star and Oriakhi has bounced around Isreal, Turkey, the D Leauge, Venezuela and Mexico. We can't pass on an impact player because it might upset a guy who isn't willing to put the team first.

Your logic is a little bizarre, because it's focused on future NBA play. Here is the logical question to ask: did Drummond coming in make our season better or worse? Almost certainly, it made it worse. Was that Drummonds fault? heck no. But it's also a clear conclusion. It's hard to understand why you care about how good the players were individually as opposed to whether the team did or didn't get better by the addition.

Same question exists here, or for any one or dones. Does bringing him in make us better for that year. I think that in most cases the answer will be yes. But it does depend on not just the skills and positions but the egos and expectations of the other players. And leadership. '11-'12 might have been a totally different season if the team had a real leader, instead of one Freshman point and one Sophomore point who each thought they needed to be a 1 and the other needed to be a 2.

 

[Tyler2Rings]

did Drummond coming in make our season better or worse? Almost certainly, it made it worse.

I don't think Drummond made the season worse. That team lost more than just points, assists and steals when Kemba graduated. The whole year they lacked leadership and the results certainly did not match the talent level. But there's no way that that same team, minus Drummond, is better. Less disappointing, maybe, but not better.

 

[businesslawyer]

I don't think Drummond made the season worse. That team lost more than just points, assists and steals when Kemba graduated. The whole year they lacked leadership and the results certainly did not match the talent level. But there's no way that that same team, minus Drummond, is better. Less disappointing, maybe, but not better.

Obviously there is no way to go back and prove it but I could not disagree more. Drummond's minutes and roles were the cause of AO's attitude going south (again, that's primarily AO's fault but it's also not hard to understand) and Roscoe, who was such a key defensively to winning the prior year, being stuck to the bench. And, for all his talents, the things he couldn't do yet (shoot foul shots and set screens) made it hard for the rest of the team. IIRC, we didn't beat a single Top 50 RPI team that year and were lucky to get into the NCAAs. A team that started AO, Roscoe, Lamb, Bazz and Boat, with a bench of Giffey, Daniels, Olander, etc., should have been more than talented enough to play better.


And, for all the crap hurled at AO for that year, sucky attitude or not his plus/minus was significantly better than Drummonds that year. And, since they played most of their minutes together, that meant that the team was much better off when AO was at the 5 and Drummond was sitting than when Drummond was in and AO was sitting.

Finally, it might have been easier to transition leadership to 'Bazz if we weren't dealing with a surefire lottery pick who showed up the first day of classes and was instantly supposed to be the Man.

 

[BlueMAB]

Your logic is a little bizarre, because it's focused on future NBA play. Here is the logical question to ask: did Drummond coming in make our season better or worse? Almost certainly, it made it worse. Was that Drummonds fault? heck no. But it's also a clear conclusion. It's hard to understand why you care about how good the players were individually as opposed to whether the team did or didn't get better by the addition.

Same question exists here, or for any one or dones. Does bringing him in make us better for that year. I think that in most cases he answer will be yes. But it does depend on not just the skills and positions but the egos and expectations of the other players. And leadership. '11-'12 might have been a totally different season if the team had a real leader, instead of one Freshman point and one Sophomore point who each thought they needed to be a 1 and the other needed to be a 2.

How exactly is it that you know what the results of the season would have been had we not brought Drummond in?

Drummond averaged 10 and (nearly) 8. Give his minutes to Oriakhi, and who comes off the bench to rest him? Enosch Wolf? Olander? You can argue the chemistry would have been better, but that team was thin (literally and figuratively) on the front court without Drummond.

My point is that Drummond was one of the best players on that team, one of the top 2 HS seniors in the country, and you don't turn that opportunity down because there's the potential that your fragile/selfish/overly inflated ego having starter might not be able to handle someone better than him coming in and taking his minutes. (I don't like to use the word cancer because it's not that serious, but that metaphor fits). Oriakhi quit on UConn. His dad had more to do with the poor chemistry of that team than Drummond, and that's because Drummond exposed Oriakhi for what he was. A decent college player, but not a guy who could elevate a program.

That team had no senior leadership. They had no junior leadership. Oriakhi as a JR should have been the leader on that team. Instead that team suffered from chemistry problems because the leader of that team cared more about the name on the back of the jersey than the one on the front. You want to say that team was worse because Drummond was there. I say that's false. The team struggled because they had no leadership, and their one impact upperclassmen put himself before the team, and if you take Drummond off that team, it's possible they would have had even worse results.

 

[HawkHusky]

Mitchell would look great in Husky blue.

 

[BlueMAB]

Mitchell would look great in Husky blue.

Agreed.

 

[Kenny11]

How exactly is it that you know what the results of the season would have been had we not brought Drummond in?

Drummond averaged 10 and (nearly) 8. Give his minutes to Oriakhi, and who comes off the bench to rest him? Enosch Wolf? Olander? You can argue the chemistry would have been better, but that team was thin (literally and figuratively) on the front court without Drummond.

My point is that Drummond was one of the best players on that team, one of the top 2 HS seniors in the country, and you don't turn that opportunity down because there's the potential that your fragile/selfish/overly inflated ego having starter might not be able to handle someone better than him coming in and taking his minutes. (I don't like to use the word cancer because it's not that serious, but that metaphor fits). Oriakhi quit on UConn. His dad had more to do with the poor chemistry of that team than Drummond, and that's because Drummond exposed Oriakhi for what he was. A decent college player, but not a guy who could elevate a program.

That team had no senior leadership. They had no junior leadership. Oriakhi as a JR should have been the leader on that team. Instead that team suffered from chemistry problems because the leader of that team cared more about the name on the back of the jersey than the one on the front. You want to say that team was worse because Drummond was there. I say that's false. The team struggled because they had no leadership, and their one impact upperclassmen put himself before the team, and if you take Drummond off that team, it's possible they would have had even worse results.

Good points but that team struggled because a few of them didn't like each other due to fights over girls.

 

[Exit 4]

Good points but that team struggled because a few of them didn't like each other due to fights over girls.

I thought that was Chief’s job to handle.... guess he blew it.

 

[businesslawyer]

How exactly is it that you know what the results of the season would have been had we not brought Drummond in?

Drummond averaged 10 and (nearly) 8. Give his minutes to Oriakhi, and who comes off the bench to rest him? Enosch Wolf? Olander? You can argue the chemistry would have been better, but that team was thin (literally and figuratively) on the front court without Drummond.

My point is that Drummond was one of the best players on that team, one of the top 2 HS seniors in the country, and you don't turn that opportunity down because there's the potential that your fragile/selfish/overly inflated ego having starter might not be able to handle someone better than him coming in and taking his minutes. (I don't like to use the word cancer because it's not that serious, but that metaphor fits). Oriakhi quit on UConn. His dad had more to do with the poor chemistry of that team than Drummond, and that's because Drummond exposed Oriakhi for what he was. A decent college player, but not a guy who could elevate a program.

That team had no senior leadership. They had no junior leadership. Oriakhi as a JR should have been the leader on that team. Instead that team suffered from chemistry problems because the leader of that team cared more about the name on the back of the jersey than the one on the front. You want to say that team was worse because Drummond was there. I say that's false. The team struggled because they had no leadership, and their one impact upperclassmen put himself before the team, and if you take Drummond off that team, it's possible they would have had even worse results.

I don't understand your first line. I said there was no way we would ever know.

That having been said, the answer to your frontcourt question is Roscoe would have gotten the minutes alongside AO -- yes, he wanted to be a 3 but that's where the minutes were -- and we would have been fine. Heck, because we lost Roscoe mentally, Tyler ended up being the third man in the rotation with Drummond and AO, so Tyler being the back up big was where we ended up anyway.

No one is arguing that if you are looking to establish "fault," AO is the logical starting place. But I'm looking at the alternative. There was little reason to think AO wouldn't have continued his improvement, and shown some leadership, if his coach didn't tell him at the beginning of the season thanks for being such a huge part of a national championship but now I need you to totally play differently and outside your comfort zone so I can accomodate this one and done who doesn't have a ring and won't be here for your senior year. Fault -- yes, AO's. But it's not hard to understand why a young man reacted that way either.

 

[Tyler2Rings]

@businesslawyer OK I looked it up. Dre was 10 and 8, Alex was 7 and 5, Roscoe was 4 and 3.

So is your argument that, if you take away the issues Dre brought on (no fault to him) with AO's attitude, PT for Roscoe, etc, then Alex would of averaged something like 15 and 10, and Roscoe 10 and 8?

Do you think AO would of become a better leader if Andre didn't sign and elevated the team by more than 10 and 8? I suppose it's possible but to call it "almost certain" is a bit ludicrous.

 

[Peacefrog]

@businesslawyer OK I looked it up. Dre was 10 and 8, Alex was 7 and 5, Roscoe was 4 and 3.

So is your argument that, if you take away the issues Dre brought on (no fault to him) with AO's attitude, PT for Roscoe, etc, then Alex would of averaged something like 15 and 10, and Roscoe 10 and 8?

Do you think AO would of become a better leader if Andre didn't sign and elevated the team by more than 10 and 8? I suppose it's possible but to call it "almost certain" is a bit ludicrous.

Please just stop now guys. For the love of God.

 

[BlueMAB]

I don't understand your first line. I said there was no way we would ever know.

That having been said, the answer to your frontcourt question is Roscoe would have gotten the minutes alongside AO -- yes, he wanted to be a 3 but that's where the minutes were -- and we would have been fine. Heck, because we lost Roscoe mentally, Tyler ended up being the third man in the rotation with Drummond and AO, so Tyler being the back up big was where we ended up anyway.

No one is arguing that if you are looking to establish "fault," AO is the logical starting place. But I'm looking at the alternative. There was little reason to think AO wouldn't have continued his improvement, and shown some leadership, if his coach didn't tell him at the beginning of the season thanks for being such a huge part of a national championship but now I need you to totally play differently and outside your comfort zone so I can accomodate this one and done who doesn't have a ring and won't be here for your senior year. Fault -- yes, AO's. But it's not hard to understand why a young man reacted that way either.

Here's what you wrote:
"did Drummond coming in make our season better or worse? Almost certainly, it made it worse."
Here's what I asked:
"How exactly is it that you know what the results of the season would have been had we not brought Drummond in?"

It's bizarre to make the statement you did, and then say there is no way we'd ever know if the season would have been better or worse without Drummond.

 

[Peacefrog]

Mitchell would look great in Husky blue.

Nice try.

 

[Tyler2Rings]

Please just stop now guys. For the love of God.

Haha, well what else am I going to do on a slow day at work besides inanely argue about our season 7 years ago!?

I don't have much to say on Tre other than I trust Coach Hurley to get us some good players. If he's one of our options I'm sure we have a good plan for him.

 

[BlueMAB]

lol, having your cake and eating it too I see @businesslawyer

for the sake of the thread, i'll just say I find your posts duplicitous and will agree to disagree.

Hoping whatever Tre decides, it works out for both him and UConn, whether that means he signs with us or not.

 

[Scrutineer]

This is getting out of control, but imagine what this thread will be like if Akok and Cockburn pick another team.

Never mind............

 

[UofCT]

This is getting out of control, but imagine what this thread will be like if Akok and Cockburn pick another team.

Never mind..

What do you know?

 

[businesslawyer]

for the sake of the thread, i'll just say I find your posts duplicitousQUOTE]

You are welcome to your opinion on my posts. But if you think your comment qualifies for "for the sake of the thread" you need a better dictionary.

 

[gtcam]

How exactly is it that you know what the results of the season would have been had we not brought Drummond in?

Drummond averaged 10 and (nearly) 8. Give his minutes to Oriakhi, and who comes off the bench to rest him? Enosch Wolf? Olander? You can argue the chemistry would have been better, but that team was thin (literally and figuratively) on the front court without Drummond.

My point is that Drummond was one of the best players on that team, one of the top 2 HS seniors in the country, and you don't turn that opportunity down because there's the potential that your fragile/selfish/overly inflated ego having starter might not be able to handle someone better than him coming in and taking his minutes. (I don't like to use the word cancer because it's not that serious, but that metaphor fits). Oriakhi quit on UConn. His dad had more to do with the poor chemistry of that team than Drummond, and that's because Drummond exposed Oriakhi for what he was. A decent college player, but not a guy who could elevate a program.

That team had no senior leadership. They had no junior leadership. Oriakhi as a JR should have been the leader on that team. Instead that team suffered from chemistry problems because the leader of that team cared more about the name on the back of the jersey than the one on the front. You want to say that team was worse because Drummond was there. I say that's false. The team struggled because they had no leadership, and their one impact upperclassmen put himself before the team, and if you take Drummond off that team, it's possible they would have had even worse results.

I agree that you don't turndown a top 2-5 HS senior but I totally agree with BLwyr that AD's presence did screw up the chemistry to some degree. I have spoken to players who played on that team and while they think the world of AD some did have reservations about stating that he was a huge impact. I myself was terribly disappointed in his output but mostly with his lack of desire and hustle while playing - he just didn't give 100%. Watching him in the pros I still see that same attitude. The guy has unbelievable size and God given talent but never really uses it to its optimum in a consistent manner. I think a lot came to him too easy because of his size and that has caused a deficiency in the desire category. Last night vs the Celts, when he became involved he was a monster but at times he just went through the motions. I know Van Gundy was upset about that in the past few years and talked about it. JMO