After watching the games throughout the tourney, how do you compare UMass starting five with various other programs? To me, it looks like Freeman would have to be a major part of any team across the country but after that I am not sure! Most of the others would really have to work to get alot of PT? Just a question not meant to be a criticism, but how you answer does possibly reflect upon Lappas! If talent is weak, his recruiting is suspect. If talent is decent, than he hasn't developed players as he should. In the past, his recruiting was touted but his coaching was considered suspect, at least according to my big east friends! That is why I pose the question. I don't mean for it to be a pro/con thing about the coach! Just looking for opinuions as to our talent level!!Comparing talent
Comparing talent
After watching the games throughout the tourney, how do you compare UMass starting five with various other programs? To me, it looks like Freeman would have to be a major part of any team across the country but after that I am not sure! Most of the others would really have to work to get alot of PT? Just a question not meant to be a criticism, but how you answer does possibly reflect upon Lappas! If talent is weak, his recruiting is suspect. If talent is decent, than he hasn't developed players as he should. In the past, his recruiting was touted but his coaching was considered suspect, at least according to my big east friends! That is why I pose the question. I don't mean for it to be a pro/con thing about the coach! Just looking for opinuions as to our talent level!!A lack of talent would still be a reflection on Lappas. In any sport, it ultimately comes down to the coach if the right talent isn't being brought in. It may not be totally his fault but that is always where the blame is gonna lie. We may not have the talent of all of these teams in the tourney but we certainly have enough to beat CC. Next season will answer any and all questions.
And still heavyweight champ..Umass basketball!
-
philosopher
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:39 pm
How does one judge talent without seeing the component parts? All that I know of Carrier, Salovsky, and Lemoreux is what I have read. What I have seen of the current roster in action is too little (my fault for living where few give a rat's ass about UMass).
Point of reference. People ask is Steve Francis talented? the obvious answer is YES. But does he have court smarts? Not commensurate with his talent. Conversely, we had ample opportunity to watch Derek Kellogg and Edgar Padilla play with such court savvy that we never were able to judge just how talented they were.
I would love to say the talent is there. I would love to say the court savvy is there. It would be fabulous to say that the chemistry is is there. I'll bypass this poll and say, next season we'll learn the answers to those questions. And it would please me greatly to be able to say "even Lappas coached far better than I thought possible..., what a season this was!" with a huge smile.
Point of reference. People ask is Steve Francis talented? the obvious answer is YES. But does he have court smarts? Not commensurate with his talent. Conversely, we had ample opportunity to watch Derek Kellogg and Edgar Padilla play with such court savvy that we never were able to judge just how talented they were.
I would love to say the talent is there. I would love to say the court savvy is there. It would be fabulous to say that the chemistry is is there. I'll bypass this poll and say, next season we'll learn the answers to those questions. And it would please me greatly to be able to say "even Lappas coached far better than I thought possible..., what a season this was!" with a huge smile.
Talkin about this in class so I figured I would throw it out there. And I do think this team has the "potential" to be a very good team.The Mundanity of Excellence by Daniel Chambliss wrote:Talent is a useless concept. Varying conceptions of natural ability ("talent," e.g.) tend to mystify excellence, treating it as the inherent possession of a few; they mask the concrete actions that create outstanding performance; they avoid the work of empirical analysis and logical explanations (clear definitions, separable independent and dependent variables, and at least an attempt at establishing the temporal priority of the cause); and finally, such conceptions perpetuate the sense of innate psychological differences between high performers and other people.
Actually. Phil, you may have answered your own question. sometimes you can project the talent level pretty easily. Suppoose, God forbid, UMass basketball had a moment comparable to what happened at Baylor. The athletic department allowed all the players to transfer and they could play immediately. Basically the players were free agents.
Judging by where the players that recently left the program went (Sac. State, Tenn. Tech, UMass-Lowell) it would be fair to say that the players wouldn't be heading to major programs. In fairness Lasme I went to a second division Big 12 school (Colorado). Other than Freeman it's unlikely that there would be more than minimal interest by A-10 or power conference schools in the rest of the squad.
I saw eight teams come through Buffalo in the first round. UMass played five (Vermont, St. Joe's, Texas Tech, UConn and Dayton), they had more talent than Liberty. DePaul and Charlotte would have had superior horses. I was also noticing that some of the better lower seeded teams, eg Central Florida, had players that would have started for UMass. The difference was there was a significant dropoff to the lesser starters.
This doesn't strike me as a talent laden roster.
Judging by where the players that recently left the program went (Sac. State, Tenn. Tech, UMass-Lowell) it would be fair to say that the players wouldn't be heading to major programs. In fairness Lasme I went to a second division Big 12 school (Colorado). Other than Freeman it's unlikely that there would be more than minimal interest by A-10 or power conference schools in the rest of the squad.
I saw eight teams come through Buffalo in the first round. UMass played five (Vermont, St. Joe's, Texas Tech, UConn and Dayton), they had more talent than Liberty. DePaul and Charlotte would have had superior horses. I was also noticing that some of the better lower seeded teams, eg Central Florida, had players that would have started for UMass. The difference was there was a significant dropoff to the lesser starters.
This doesn't strike me as a talent laden roster.
I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel. Oh no!! It's an oncoming train.
We are not Duke, NC,Kentucky,Kansas,orConn. We don't get the luxury of having to choose between Okafor or Gomes. This is a complete ground up rebuild, so you get what you can, try to build a program and reputation so that someday down the road you get to make that pick between Okafor and Gomes. It ain't gonna happen overnight. Are these guys any good? Right here and now,Yes. At Conn, or Duke, no. I can't wait till next year!!! GO UMASS!!!!!
"Nobody told me there'd be days like these!"
-
Used to be VOR
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 3169
- Joined: Sun May 04, 2003 5:39 am
Don't forget NOBODY foresaw Roberts or Lucas Jr. making the kind of impact they did. There was not a HUGE recruiting war over either one. You never know how a kid might function in a new situation with new surroundings.MAD wrote:Actually. Phil, you may have answered your own question. sometimes you can project the talent level pretty easily. Suppoose, God forbid, UMass basketball had a moment comparable to what happened at Baylor. The athletic department allowed all the players to transfer and they could play immediately. Basically the players were free agents.
-
philosopher
- Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2047
- Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 10:39 pm
You may have made one of the most insightful comment on this Board in a couple of years. Few people saw much in a young Erving (only 3 schools pursued him: St. John's, Iowa, and UMass). We had a couple of can't miss recruits who did miss. Recruiting is not an exact science.Used to be VOR wrote: You never know how a kid might function in a new situation with new surroundings.
There were quite a few people who predicted absolute greatness for Lucas. It was all there..., he just needed the right environment. He was the leader of his high school team since midway through his sophomore year. His shot just took time to develop. Surprisingly, it came from...Eddie Sutton??? Who would a thunk it? Roberts was more of a surprise. And Taylor, who landed at my other school, earned a lot of playing time.
He averaged 16/8 then 15/10 his first two seasons at Baylor, earning 3rd team All-Big 12 Honors both years. And Lucas also had almost identical stats to his numbers this year while at Baylor as well. I thought the reason there wasn't a big recruiting war was that most teams had already given out their scholarships for the next year.philosopher wrote:Roberts was more of a surprise.
Overall, I think UMass' talent level is pretty good. Ray-Ray is a solid player, but some of the others players (Bowers, Maxwell, Viggiano) would have been better suited providing depth this year, and were forced into starting roles. Next year, when we have enough depth that we aren't forced to play players more than they should be out there we should see improvement. I also think Stephane has a chance to be very good if he can add on some upper body strength and he keeps developing.
