1-2 Punch

[jp1]

If he leaves it is because he's good enough to leave. I like Lofton plenty, but there was a very good reason he never had to make that kind of decision.

Hopson is unquestionably our best player since Allan Houston. To argue otherwise would require a very contrived definition of "best".

So if u were the coach at ut and the chance to have chris lofton or scotty...u would choose scotty? Not me and thats my definition of best for a college player.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[Vercingetorix]

If he leaves it is because he's good enough to leave. I like Lofton plenty, but there was a very good reason he never had to make that kind of decision.

Hopson is unquestionably our best player since Allan Houston. To argue otherwise would require a very contrived definition of "best".

If by "best" you mean "most likely to go on to have a successful professional career," then absolutely, of course. If by "best" you mean "most valuable in a Tennessee uniform," then no way. I'm not really interested at all in what guys do professionally after they leave Tennessee.

 

[jp1]

If by "best" you mean "most likely to go on to have a successful professional career," then absolutely, of course. If by "best" you mean "most valuable in a Tennessee uniform," then no way. I'm not really interested at all in what guys do professionally after they leave Tennessee.

Im not interested either cause the nba sucks. Not sure that should even be called basketball.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[EZE]

I'd take Lofton and Smith any day of the week.

Give me Lofton and CJ.

 

[DeepSpringsVol]

If he leaves it is because he's good enough to leave. I like Lofton plenty, but there was a very good reason he never had to make that kind of decision.

Hopson is unquestionably our best player since Allan Houston. To argue otherwise would require a very contrived definition of "best".

I would say Vincent Yarbrough was even if not slightly better than Hopson. But I agree with you dude has got the gift.

 

[WesternKyVol]

Haislip, Slay, and Yarbrough in 2002 were better. Much better.

And to the guy who said Scotty was better than Lofton...hmy:

 

[WesternKyVol]

I would say Vincent Yarbrough was even if not slightly better than Hopson. But I agree with you dude has got the gift.

Yarbrough is VERY under-appreciated. He was the total package--an amazing defender and rebounder as well as a Wildcat slayer.

 

[lylsmorr]

Haislip, Slay, and Yarbrough in 2002 were better. Much better.

And to the guy who said Scotty was better than Lofton...hmy:

Scotty is much more gifted but at this point in their careers Lofton had a much, much better career.

 

[BigPapaVol]

If by "best" you mean "most likely to go on to have a successful professional career," then absolutely, of course. If by "best" you mean "most valuable in a Tennessee uniform," then no way. I'm not really interested at all in what guys do professionally after they leave Tennessee.

Lofton was a much better college player.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[WesternKyVol]

Scotty is much more gifted but at this point in their careers Lofton had a much, much better career.

Peak Lofton (Junior) better than peak Hopson (Junior). Lofton over four better than Scotty over four. I just don't see it. Hopson is playing great, but how soon we forget how great Lofton was as a Sophomore and Junior.

 

[kiddiedoc]

I have crazy man-love for C-Lo, but claiming that he and J Smith are a better combo (talent-wise) than Hop-Harris is a little absurd. To clarify, I'm talking pure "talent." Have we gotten the most out of these two? Absolutely not (yet). Has the rest of the team (or lack thereof) had something to do with that? Absolutely. Thus begins the recruiting argument...

 

[Vercingetorix]

I have crazy man-love for C-Lo, but claiming that he and J Smith are a better combo (talent-wise) than Hop-Harris is a little absurd. To clarify, I'm talking pure "talent." Have we gotten the most out of these two? Absolutely not (yet). Has the rest of the team (or lack thereof) had something to do with that? Absolutely. Thus begins the recruiting argument...

As Tennessee fans, why should we care about something as theoretical as "pure talent"? Why does it matter how good a pro prospect a player is, or what his ratings would be in a video game? Assuming this is it, Hopson's Tennessee career will go in the books as two and a half years of inconsistency and disappointment, followed by ~15 games where he finally figured it out and became a consistent offensive threat. And that's it. Why does his pure talent matter if it barely meant anything to Tennessee on the basketball court?

 

[HoundDog4954]

Line up all the 2s and 3s that have been at UT since Pearl showed up and if I'm the captain, I'm taking Chris and JaJuan for my team everyday and twice on Sunday. Knowing how to win is a talent too and those guys are winners.

 

[papatomany]

As Tennessee fans, why should we care about something as theoretical as "pure talent"? Why does it matter how good a pro prospect a player is, or what his ratings would be in a video game? Assuming this is it, Hopson's Tennessee career will go in the books as two and a half years of inconsistency and disappointment, followed by ~15 games where he finally figured it out and became a consistent offensive threat. And that's it. Why does his pure talent matter if it barely meant anything to Tennessee on the basketball court?

Still can't figure what "pure talent" is supposed to mean. Jumps real high? Runs real fast? Anything that causes points to appear on your side of the scoreboard or prevents points from appearing on your opponent's side of the scoreboard is a basketball talent. As a for instance, folks that talk about "pure talent" would say Diebler doesn't have it, but he just hit 17 threes in 2 games; seems obvious that there's talent involved in that.

 

[papatomany]

Line up all the 2s and 3s that have been at UT since Pearl showed up and if I'm the captain, I'm taking Chris and JaJuan for my team everyday and twice on Sunday. Knowing how to win is a talent too and those guys are winners.

:good!:

 

[Spartacavolus]

Still can't figure what "pure talent" is supposed to mean. Jumps real high? Runs real fast? Anything that causes points to appear on your side of the scoreboard or prevents points from appearing on your opponent's side of the scoreboard is a basketball talent. As a for instance, folks that talk about "pure talent" would say Diebler doesn't have it, but he just hit 17 threes in 2 games; seems obvious that there's talent involved in that.

I've been part of that discussion for weeks. Talented or gifted athlete does not equal good college basketball player. Maybe 1 on 1, but not on a team. I.e Woolridge-jumps, runs, wide shoulders, long arms=not much basketball skill on the college level. Can't dribble, pass, shoot, box out, anticipate or defend on the college level. Yeah, guys his size dominate HS because few players in HS are that size.

 

[kiddiedoc]

My point really wasn't to compare SH and TH with players of the past, it was more an expression of disappointment in the production of the team with the two "most highly touted/rated" players we have had in quite some time.

Sorry the thread degenerated...

 

[wildnkrazykat]

Scotty did disappear after that didn't he? Liggins would have caught a inadvertent elbow to the jaw had that been me. I don't want to harp on Scotty though as he's been about all we've had for a few weeks now. Tyler Smith would have jacked Liggins up, i miss Tyler.

that's retarded, due to the rule change any elbow around the head is either 2 free throws and the ball or an automatic ejection. i'm sure those would benefit your team alot.

 

[Vercingetorix]

My point really wasn't to compare SH and TH with players of the past, it was more an expression of disappointment in the production of the team with the two "most highly touted/rated" players we have had in quite some time.

Sorry the thread degenerated...

I don't think it completely degenerated; I think there's a reasonably interesting question here. Kidbourbon says this:

Hopson is unquestionably our best player since Allan Houston. To argue otherwise would require a very contrived definition of "best".

...and while I understand what he's saying, in my mind as a Tennessee fan it requires a really contrived definition of "best" to put so much weight on raw talent and pro potential when it really hasn't helped Tennessee basketball much at all. Hopson has given us maybe half a season of top-level production, during which the team had a losing record anyway. There's no way I'm putting him in the pantheon over Chris Lofton just because he'll be riding the bench in Sacramento next year rather than playing in Turkey.

 

[jp1]

I don't think it completely degenerated; I think there's a reasonably interesting question here. Kidbourbon says this:



...and while I understand what he's saying, in my mind as a Tennessee fan it requires a really contrived definition of "best" to put so much weight on raw talent and pro potential when it really hasn't helped Tennessee basketball much at all. Hopson has given us maybe half a season of top-level production, during which the team had a losing record anyway. There's no way I'm putting him in the pantheon over Chris Lofton just because he'll be riding the bench in Sacramento next year rather than playing in Turkey.

Agree 100%
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[papatomany]

I don't think it completely degenerated; I think there's a reasonably interesting question here. Kidbourbon says this:



...and while I understand what he's saying, in my mind as a Tennessee fan it requires a really contrived definition of "best" to put so much weight on raw talent and pro potential when it really hasn't helped Tennessee basketball much at all. Hopson has given us maybe half a season of top-level production, during which the team had a losing record anyway. There's no way I'm putting him in the pantheon over Chris Lofton just because he'll be riding the bench in Sacramento next year rather than playing in Turkey.

and another :good!:

 

[papatomany]

My point really wasn't to compare SH and TH with players of the past, it was more an expression of disappointment in the production of the team with the two "most highly touted/rated" players we have had in quite some time.

Sorry the thread degenerated...

You posted on volnation and are surprised the thread degenerated? :birgits_giggle:

If you had phrased it like this note I probably would have done what I always should, which is, keep my mouth shut. I do appreciate that you responded to my points; usually I get ignored.

 

[kiddiedoc]

You posted on volnation and are surprised the thread degenerated? :birgits_giggle:

If you had phrased it like this note I probably would have done what I always should, which is, keep my mouth shut. I do appreciate that you responded to my points; usually I get ignored.

Trust me, I've seen worse!

I think that Scotty will likely have a productive NBA career, but I think he needs to get his head straight (which, I hope, he will).

I still believe that we will look back on this season as one that could have been much, much more...whether that is because of the coaching issues/uncertainty, team chemistry, or recruiting missteps.

 

[kidbourbon]

As Tennessee fans, why should we care about something as theoretical as "pure talent"? Why does it matter how good a pro prospect a player is, or what his ratings would be in a video game? Assuming this is it, Hopson's Tennessee career will go in the books as two and a half years of inconsistency and disappointment, followed by ~15 games where he finally figured it out and became a consistent offensive threat. And that's it. Why does his pure talent matter if it barely meant anything to Tennessee on the basketball court?

Because his pure talent has been manifested this year. To be clear, I'm not just saying he is the most talented player we've had since Houston...I'm saying he is the best player. Lofton certainly did more over the course of his career. But whoever said they would trade Lofton his junior year for Scotty this year....well, maybe that person is smart...but I think that statement is dumb.

Lofton was a great shooter, and he benefited from the helter skelter system that we played. But if the opposing team wanted to stop Lofton from scoring, they could do it. Put your best defender on him, and mission accomplished. Done. The guy couldn't do anything other than shoot, and he couldn't create his own shot.

Scotty, on the other hand, can create offense by himself. There isn't a guy in the NCAA that you can put on Hopson who can stop him from getting to the basket without fouling him. Nobody. This obviously wasn't true of Lofton. Scotty has more basketball skills than Lofton. He can do things with relative ease that Lofton couldn't dream of doing. So I don't really even see how this is a close call. And, yes, he didn't really bring it all to the table until this year. But what you're seeing right now when you watch Scotty Hopson play basketball is a much much better basketball player then you saw when you watched Chris Lofton, even on Lofton's best day.* And, again, I don't think this is even a particularly close call.

*I bolded this part because it is basically my main point.

 

[Cartervol]

that's retarded, due to the rule change any elbow around the head is either 2 free throws and the ball or an automatic ejection. i'm sure those would benefit your team alot.

He's a punk and he needed to be punked, just like your greaseball coach.