USAFgolferVol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2019
- Messages
- 7,140
- Likes
- 3,652
Why does it have to be one extreme or the other around here? No one said he deserved praise preseason. But he was getting a lot of hate. Yes, people begrudgingly backed off some once the season started but they were on him. Because they set expectations that were too high. He was a project player coming in with a lot of raw athleticism (aka Kyle Alexander).No one hated Pons, but what had Pons done the first 2c years on campus that deserved any praise? Be a good athlete? He had scored like 58 points in two years, there just wasn't much to praise.
Like the other guy said, who was hating on him? Do you not think it was fair to question Pons before this year for his output?Why does it have to be one extreme or the other around here? No one said he deserved praise preseason. But he was getting a lot of hate. Yes, people begrudgingly backed off some once the season started but they were on him. Because they set expectations that were too high. He was a project player coming in with a lot of raw athleticism (aka Kyle Alexander).
He did what was asked of him proven by the fact he got minutes. He played the role he was asked and this year when minutes opened up for a new role he stepped up. He was getting minutes when a lot of other guys were not so obviously the coaches were at the very least more comfortable with what he was contributing than the guys behind him.Like the other guy said, who was hating on him? Do you not think it was fair to question Pons before this year for his output?
You avoided my question completely. Pons was a 4 star, there are more expectations put on higher ranked players. That is what it is. He didn't live up to those expectations his first two years. That's okay because he was such a raw talent, and he's living up to those expectations now. Again, before this year, was it not fair to question his contributions?He did what was asked of him proven by the fact he got minutes. He played the role he was asked and this year when minutes opened up for a new role he stepped up. He was getting minutes when a lot of other guys were not so obviously the coaches were at the very least more comfortable with what he was contributing than the guys behind him.
He was raw and played in Europe and we already had a guy playing the role he was best suited for (Admiral). My thing is, lets let the past be the past, learn from it and not knock these kids because we set unrealistic expectations before they ever hit the court. I see similar rumblings for Plasvic and Vescovi starting. Because they are not setting the world on fire but their situations should have totally been expected. Like Pons they came from European ball but in their cases are less raw. They will probably transition faster but until they get used to the difference in playstyle in actual games their growth won't take root. I guarantee next year both of them will contribute a lot more than they do now. This officially became a full-on rebuilding year the moment Turner retired. It should have pretty much been seen as such from the beginning but the early success made it look like it might be more. Barnes has proven he does develop kids. And now we are moving to the phase where we will have less developmental guys and more ready-made ballers coming in. I think he will always have a mix even JJJ seems to be more of a project than most thought. But I don't see that as him disappointing just he will be enjoyable to watch grow.
Like I clearly said we as fans let ourselves set unrealistic expectations. What is him being a 4 star or 5 star or 3 star have to do with it? It does not change the fact he was obviously raw (this was in all his scouting reports). He didn't even start, or play big minutes, on his team in France. European players don't really play a lot of minutes and each of them normally play very specific roles. Pons was rated a 4 star based on his tools, not his skills. Similar with Vescovi but the opposite he was rated highly because of his skills, not his tools. But for both the transition to the American game was rough like it is for all kids that come over from EU ball. Plasvic however I'm a bit surprised due to the fact even though he hasn't played in 2 years he did play high school ball here and Serbian club ball is fairly high level. It's just them getting used to the athleticism and physicality of American ball (Plasvic and Vescovi). Pons is still freakishly athletic but here the gap is smaller. He had to develop some skills and BBIQ on the offensive end because he was decent defensively from day 1 (also his main role when he played in France)..You avoided my question completely. Pons was a 4 star, there are more expectations put on higher ranked players. That is what it is. He didn't live up to those expectations his first two years. That's okay because he was such a raw talent, and he's living up to those expectations now. Again, before this year, was it not fair to question his contributions?
Would love to see Fulky used in a true high post role some. I bet who could shoot a decent percentage anywhere on the floor. He has a nice stroke and it never gets talked about.If Uros improves greatly, he may be a starter next year. Only if he improves greatly. Fulk would be the PF next to him. Fulk is gamer
Yeah that would be great if this discussion was about football. Even still, according to that article, mine and most of everyone's position on Pons was way too low.I found an article explaining how players are ranked, it is specifically talking about football but I think it applies here. It seems that the star rankings are given for how a player will develop over their college career, not the impact they will have their freshman year. So the star rankings of JJJ, Pons and Uros were likely given for their potential, not their ability to dominate from day one. Maybe (just maybe) keep that in mind for these young men and lower your expectations for them the first couple of years.
Recruiting: What do all those 'stars' mean?