Lol @ the CCM haters

[patrick]

Where are these posts you speak of? Shouldn't be hard for you to cite one if there are as many as you say.

It appears that my fine, well-informed poster "JoseDaMofo" already cited for you examples of the posts to which I was referring.

Frankly, there are many threads wherein these same very things are repeated over and over about CBP and supposed short comings. Heck I have seen posters say that Tennessee's run under CBP was a "nice little run".

Tennessee's success under CBP was for all practical purposes unprecedented! You do not have that level of success without being able to coach, scheme, scout, recruit and develop players. When Pearl first began coaching at Tennessee he had 0 Top-100 players and Martin had 2.

CCM has the opportunity to make his mark at UT. If the Vols make it to the dance this year, I will be the first to say that he did a very good job! But again I have already said that!

 

[GoobieVol]

I picture you guys(JoseDaMofo & Patrick) sittin in the same room high fivin each other, while trying to keep your broken eye-glasses from fallin off.

 

[whobethis16]

In bold: Exactly. That's why I'm not getting why you're struggling so much with what I'm saying. It wasn't set in stone that both Hopson and Harris were gone -- especially with the lockout looming in the NBA. Couple in the fact that Pearl had three 4* recruits waiting in the wings (Golden, McRae, Maymon) and the possibility of two veterans returning (Hopson, Harris) and there's plenty of talent left.

Just because the stars aligned and UT suffered a setback after a coaching change doesn't mean Pearl couldn't recruit or that he couldn't develop players. It's asinine to argue that, further, when your evidence is that Pearl left McRae, Golden and Maymon considering they're 3 of our best players, currently.

If we really want to talk about development, the easiest place to look is Pearl's biggest recruits, Hopson and Harris. Neither of them were really "developed" under Pearl. Harris would've gone pro after high school if he could have, and the only way he really improved was by playing in Div. I games. He could've done that anywhere and had the same results. Hopson, while I don't claim he was a bust, greatly underachieved while here, or did not develop. If he could've gone pro out of high school he would have, but he never really grew as a player. He had some good years, but for a McDonald's All-American, he did not develop (or was not developed) like he should have.

Stokes, on the other hand, has developed. It is obvious. He has grown incredibly as a player from when he first set foot on the floor to where he is now. Yes, part of that is from getting used to Div. I ball, but Martin and Co. have done a tremendous job with him.

 

[patrick]

In bold: Exactly. That's why I'm not getting why you're struggling so much with what I'm saying. It wasn't set in stone that both Hopson and Harris were gone -- especially with the lockout looming in the NBA. Couple in the fact that Pearl had three 4* recruits waiting in the wings (Golden, McRae, Maymon) and the possibility of two veterans returning (Hopson, Harris) and there's plenty of talent left.

Just because the stars aligned and UT suffered a setback after a coaching change doesn't mean Pearl couldn't recruit or that he couldn't develop players. It's asinine to argue that, further, when your evidence is that Pearl left McRae, Golden and Maymon considering they're 3 of our best players, currently.

This.

Three of the best players on the team.

How many points are Golden and McRae averaging this year in conference and total???

 

[patrick]

If we really want to talk about development, the easiest place to look is Pearl's biggest recruits, Hopson and Harris. Neither of them were really "developed" under Pearl. Harris would've gone pro after high school if he could have, and the only way he really improved was by playing in Div. I games. He could've done that anywhere and had the same results. Hopson, while I don't claim he was a bust, greatly underachieved while here, or did not develop. If he could've gone pro out of high school he would have, but he never really grew as a player. He had some good years, but for a McDonald's All-American, he did not develop (or was not developed) like he should have.

Stokes, on the other hand, has developed. It is obvious. He has grown incredibly as a player from when he first set foot on the floor to where he is now. Yes, part of that is from getting used to Div. I ball, but Martin and Co. have done a tremendous job with him.

You are blind.....

 

[whobethis16]

You are blind.....

How? A McDonald's AA shooting guard should be able to average more than 12.7 ppg for his career.

 

[whobethis16]

You are blind.....

And being essentially in the "December of his sophomore year" stage, you cannot say that Stokes has not developed under Martin from his first splash to his 6 straight double-doubles in conference play. The guy has developed incredibly. More so than Pearl's biggest recruits.

 

[UK101]

I don't see it. Still has a lot to improve on. Right now he'd be a late second round pick. Unless he has people in his ear telling him to go he comes back. I think he also sees the potential of next years team and being able to have something special happen. Plus he wants to beat UK at Rupp before he leaves .

Well next years draft is gonna be insane so there's a good chance he might just stay all 4 years if he isn't projected a first rounder.

Beating us at Rupp next year will be a hell of a task with our big time class coming in. Just another incentive for him to stay, right?
Do we even play twice next year?

 

[SJAVol32]

Well next years draft is gonna be insane so there's a good chance he might just stay all 4 years if he isn't projected a first rounder.

Beating us at Rupp next year will be a hell of a task with our big time class coming in. Just another incentive for him to stay, right?
Do we even play twice next year?

Possibly it's a all a matter of how he feels I think. I'd hope for 4 years personally and haha yeah but we will just see! And yeah I believe so.

 

[OrangeBalls]

Please see Golden, Maymon, and McRae.

Both Maymon and McRae ESPN top - 100 prospects!

All four star players and recruited by Pearl.

Please see how much experience those players had after a huge % of the total points scored and experience left the team before Martin arrived. I never said Pearl couldn't recruit. I said Martin was left with less than Pearl inherited. Pearl didn't have 1 player left over from his last recruiting class. He also didn't recruit a point guard. Something that Martin has failed to do too.

I'd take what Pearl inherited over what Martin inherited in a heartbeat. Martin had virtually no experience returning. Golden was the only player with any kind of minutes other than Tatum. McRae was an immature kid who basically got his ass sat down and Maymon was riding the pine and getting less playing time than Pearl's son. That, in and of itself, is laughable.

 

[OrangeBalls]

In bold: Exactly. That's why I'm not getting why you're struggling so much with what I'm saying. It wasn't set in stone that both Hopson and Harris were gone -- especially with the lockout looming in the NBA. Couple in the fact that Pearl had three 4* recruits waiting in the wings (Golden, McRae, Maymon) and the possibility of two veterans returning (Hopson, Harris) and there's plenty of talent left.

Just because the stars aligned and UT suffered a setback after a coaching change doesn't mean Pearl couldn't recruit or that he couldn't develop players. It's asinine to argue that, further, when your evidence is that Pearl left McRae, Golden and Maymon considering they're 3 of our best players, currently.

And you seem too damn obtuse to grasp reality. The fact of the matter is that Hopson and Harris didn't come back. Keep living in your fantasy world of, "it wasn't set in stone!!!". Who gives a damn? They didn't come back. So, Martin was left with two players that got any appreciable minutes the year before. Maymon rode the pine more than Pearl's kid which is laughable.

 

[NashVol11]

Player development is a part of coaching. Take your own advice and read.

All that does is prove my point, genius. They're not one and the same. Therefore, saying Pearl is good enough at gameplanning to put Bradshaw at the 4 has nothing to do with a discussion of player development.

 

[JoseDaMofo]

And you seem too damn obtuse to grasp reality. The fact of the matter is that Hopson and Harris didn't come back. Keep living in your fantasy world of, "it wasn't set in stone!!!". Who gives a damn? They didn't come back. So, Martin was left with two players that got any appreciable minutes the year before. Maymon rode the pine more than Pearl's kid which is laughable.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I've made point that rather clearly.

What you fail mentally conceive is that Martin was unable to retain them. Despite your whines of "everybody knew they were 1 and dones!!!11", Martin acquired two 5* recruits and wasn't able to keep them.

Having said that, I still agree Pearl inherited a better squad. It's when people talk about Martin's squad and how pathetic and terribly barren it was left for him, that is where I find it absurd.

This sidebar with VKAman makes it incredibly obvious where my comments stem.

 

[whobethis16]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I've made point that rather clearly.

What you fail mentally conceive is that Martin was unable to retain them. Despite your whines of "everybody knew they were 1 and dones!!!11", Martin acquired two 5* recruits and wasn't able to keep them.

Having said that, I still agree Pearl inherited a better squad. It's when people talk about Martin's squad and how pathetic and terribly barren it was left for him, that is where I find it absurd.

This sidebar with VKAman makes it incredibly obvious where my comments stem.

The better question in this argument is whether or not Pearl would've been able to keep them. Honestly, I'd say not, so therefore Pearl would'be failed at retaining them, too.

 

[OrangeBalls]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I've made point that rather clearly.

What you fail mentally conceive is that Martin was unable to retain them. Despite your whines of "everybody knew they were 1 and dones!!!11", Martin acquired two 5* recruits and wasn't able to keep them.

Having said that, I still agree Pearl inherited a better squad. It's when people talk about Martin's squad and how pathetic and terribly barren it was left for him, that is where I find it absurd.

This sidebar with VKAman makes it incredibly obvious where my comments stem.

Yeah, so it's Martin's fault that he was unable to retain them. I guess Cal is to blame for this year's Ky squad because he couldn't retain Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, Jones, Teague and Lamb. The point you're trying to make is absurd. They were gone. Outside of Martin giving them money under the table, they weren't coming back.

 

[JoseDaMofo]

All that does is prove my point, genius. They're not one and the same. Therefore, saying Pearl is good enough at gameplanning to put Bradshaw at the 4 has nothing to do with a discussion of player development.

My God, you are dense. Of course they're not one in the same. However, if I say "he displays good coaching" when discussing player-development and I cite an example of Pearl implementing a style that suits a player's play style, I find it to be fairly obvious that "good coaching" refers to player-development.

The change in style helps the player develop his skills of awareness, positioning/spacing, rebounding and scoring -- all these things were improved upon during Pearl's tenure with Bradshaw.

Do attempt to elongate this all ready petty debate over semantics that you've created.

 

[JoseDaMofo]

Yeah, so it's Martin's fault that he was unable to retain them. I guess Cal is to blame for this year's Ky squad because he couldn't retain Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist, Jones, Teague and Lamb. The point you're trying to make is absurd. They were gone. Outside of Martin giving them money under the table, they weren't coming back.

Yeah, it is. I thought that was fairly obvious. It's Cal's fault because that's the type of player he's recruiting and promoting.

You can say it's partly Pearl's fault, too. Whatever. I'm simply defending Pearl's recruiting ability and his player-development. I've all ready said this repeatedly, so the fact you're continuing this notion that "I'm blaming Martin" as If I'm defiantly angry at him is either intellectually dishonest or, as you like to put it, obtuse.

 

[JoseDaMofo]

The better question in this argument is whether or not Pearl would've been able to keep them. Honestly, I'd say not, so therefore Pearl would'be failed at retaining them, too.

I'd say the probability would've been better of them staying. With Pearl being the guy who recruited them and with the lockout occurring, I think there would've been a legitimate shot. I wouldn't have been surprised to see Harris go, though.

 

[OrangeBalls]

Yeah, it is. I thought that was fairly obvious. It's Cal's fault because that's the type of player he's recruiting and promoting.

You can say it's partly Pearl's fault, too. Whatever. I'm simply defending Pearl's recruiting ability and his player-development. I've all ready said this repeatedly, so the fact you're continuing this notion that "I'm blaming Martin" as If I'm defiantly angry at him is either intellectually dishonest or, as you like to put it, obtuse.

Yes, that is the way Cal recruits, but to blame him for all those players leaving early for the NBA is absurd. They would go straight to the NBA if it wasn't for the stupid one year college rule. It's absurd to blame Martin for two players he initially had no prior relationship with. Cal has hit more than he has missed. Pearl went after some big fish and only caught a few. That's my biggest gripe against him. I'd take a roster full of Wayne Chism's all day who stayed 4 years instead of the 5 star prima donnas who leave after one year. The 5 star that really turned out to be a true one was Harris. Hopson and Ramar Smith were 4 stars on their best days. Most of the time, they played like 3 stars.

Pearl had a number of washouts. He also had a number of players get into trouble that put the university in a bad light. Luckily for him, he won. If not, the heat would've been turned up for the off the court shenanigans.

 

[JoseDaMofo]

Yes, that is the way Cal recruits, but to blame him for all those players leaving early for the NBA is absurd. They would go straight to the NBA if it wasn't for the stupid one year college rule. It's absurd to blame Martin for two players he initially had no prior relationship with. Cal has hit more than he has missed. Pearl went after some big fish and only caught a few. That's my biggest gripe against him. I'd take a roster full of Wayne Chism's all day who stayed 4 years instead of the 5 star prima donnas who leave after one year. The 5 star that really turned out to be a true one was Harris. Hopson and Ramar Smith were 4 stars on their best days. Most of the time, they played like 3 stars.

Pearl had a number of washouts. He also had a number of players get into trouble that put the university in a bad light. Luckily for him, he won. If not, the heat would've been turned up for the off the court shenanigans.

I don't blame him for them leaving early. I blame him for promoting that tactic -- for better or worse. For him, it's turned out to be better, for the most part.

And I avidly disagree. I'd rather have the 5* prima donnas who win championships than the four-year Chisms who couldn't quite cut it -- as much as I enjoyed watching Chism (provided it's one or the other).

Obviously, I wouldn't have a problem with a combination of the two.

 

[OrangeBalls]

I don't blame him for them leaving early. I blame him for promoting that tactic -- for better or worse. For him, it's turned out to be better, for the most part.

And I avidly disagree. I'd rather have the 5* prima donnas who win championships than the four-year Chisms who couldn't quite cut it -- as much as I enjoyed watching Chism (provided it's one or the other).

Obviously, I wouldn't have a problem with a combination of the two.

He doesn't promote that tactic. The absurdity of the rule does. Do you really think he wanted Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist and the rest of those guys leaving? Hell, he could've won a few titles if those guys decided to stay more than one year. He can recruit those kind of kids so he goes after them.

UT can't get all 5 stars like Ky, Duke, etc. When they have a 5 star like Harris leave early it hurts their program more than it helps it because UT usually doesn't have another 5 star to plug in to take his place. If we had the tradition of a Ky or Duke then I'd have no problem getting all 5 stars. However, we don't. We need a mixture and I'll take the Loftons and Chisms all day long. I'd say Chism could cut it. He was an outstanding college player. Probably Pearl's best recruit.

 

[golf437]

CCM is 3-0 vs Billy D, which IMO is the best coach in the SEC. Let that sink in you clowns that wanted him fired. Please eat some crow this morning for breakfast :crazy:

Those that throw it up to their face are just as bad.

 

[UK101]

He doesn't promote that tactic. The absurdity of the rule does. Do you really think he wanted Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist and the rest of those guys leaving? Hell, he could've won a few titles if those guys decided to stay more than one year. He can recruit those kind of kids so he goes after them.

UT can't get all 5 stars like Ky, Duke, etc. When they have a 5 star like Harris leave early it hurts their program more than it helps it because UT usually doesn't have another 5 star to plug in to take his place. If we had the tradition of a Ky or Duke then I'd have no problem getting all 5 stars. However, we don't. We need a mixture and I'll take the Loftons and Chisms all day long. I'd say Chism could cut it. He was an outstanding college player. Probably Pearl's best recruit.

Judging by your avatar im amazed your not ridiculing his way of coaching. Most haters say he's ruining CBB

 

[SGMVols]

When Pearl first began coaching at Tennessee he had 0 Top-100 players and Martin had 2.

False. CJ Watson and Major Wingate were both top 100 recruits Pearl inherited. And Buzz had a signed LOI from Tyler Smith who was also top 100, that Pearl lost.

 

[JoseDaMofo]

He doesn't promote that tactic. The absurdity of the rule does. Do you really think he wanted Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist and the rest of those guys leaving? Hell, he could've won a few titles if those guys decided to stay more than one year. He can recruit those kind of kids so he goes after them.

UT can't get all 5 stars like Ky, Duke, etc. When they have a 5 star like Harris leave early it hurts their program more than it helps it because UT usually doesn't have another 5 star to plug in to take his place. If we had the tradition of a Ky or Duke then I'd have no problem getting all 5 stars. However, we don't. We need a mixture and I'll take the Loftons and Chisms all day long. I'd say Chism could cut it. He was an outstanding college player. Probably Pearl's best recruit.

How does he not promote it? He's even brazenly admitted he has no qualms with it.

Edit: No Qualms isn't the best phrase. He definitely acknowledges that staying 4 years for all these guys isn't their best option, and he claims to have their goals in mind.

Kentucky's John Calipari defends philosophy of one-and-done recruits