Who starts? Hubbs or Josh?

[cncchris33]

The point that I was trying to make is that we have no great 3 point shooters on our team at all. NONE. That was one of our biggest weakness last year. We lost McBee. Yeah, he sucked, but he could knock down a few every now and then. Golden is not a great 3 pt shooter. McRae hit 35.5% last year, but like I said those numbers were inflated by 2 games. Take those stats out and he's 30%. Other than that you have Reese and Edwards that have shown they can hit a few every now and then, but they will not see the floor IMO. Hell, one of them might not even be on the team next year. Richardson is a turnover when he spots up and shoots a 3. So, the competition for shooting the highest percentage on the team next year is really Golden and Mcrae. Both might shoot 30% next year, which is really not a good percentage at all for a guard. Yes, both could have exceptional years and could hit above 40% which is what this team needs. But if we are looking at the 30% range, then I think Hubbs can probably hit that also. Being the 4th option in the offense, he will not be drawing the best defensive players on the opposing teams and I think he will potentionally have much better open looks, than what McRae or Golden will have. So, with that I think he could potentially shoot a very good percentage.

You can't subtract McRae's two best games to strengthen your argument. Surely you understand why that doesn't work?

 

[johnnybravo]

You can't subtract McRae's two best games to strengthen your argument. Surely you understand why that doesn't work?

With the addition of Maymon and Hubbs, I don't think McRae will be jacking up double digit 3's next year. I don't think he will get the opportunity to go 8-11 like we saw this year. Hopefully, our offense will actually go through the post this year.

 

[cncchris33]

With the addition of Maymon and Hubbs, I don't think McRae will be jacking up double digit 3's next year. I don't think he will get the opportunity to go 8-11 like we saw this year. Hopefully, our offense will actually go through the post this year.

Well I can agree with your last sentence. Having two viable threats down low certainly will help in that aspect.

 

[bleedingTNorange]

I honestly think McRae's 3 pt% will be very close to what we saw his Soph. year. Around 32%. So, yes I think they will drop slightly. That's what his average was in 97% of the games last year. If Hubbs can shoot around 32%, then I don't think that's really shooting lights out.

If McRae and Hubbs both shoot 32%, and McRae is taking 3x as many shots as Hubbs, how is it that you'd consider Hubbs the best 3pt hirer on the team?

 

[johnnybravo]

Well I can agree with your last sentence. Having two viable threats down low certainly will help in that aspect.

McRae is 3 times more likely to go 0 for X than he is to hitting more than 3 3s in a game based on his carreer here. Just last year he hit 1 or less 3s in over half the games, so IMO I think the 8-11 and 6-6 is definitely not the norm for him. Yes, he had some carrer nights against GA and LSU, but I don't think we will see the same thing with him having to carry the offense next year. If we do, then I will be pretty dissappointed. I would much rather see us go throught the post with a much more balanced offense.

 

[johnnybravo]

If McRae and Hubbs both shoot 32%, and McRae is taking 3x as many shots as Hubbs, how is it that you'd consider Hubbs the best 3pt hirer on the team?

OK, if Hubbs shot 32.01% then that's not shooting lights out.

 

[johnnybravo]

If McRae and Hubbs both shoot 32%, and McRae is taking 3x as many shots as Hubbs, how is it that you'd consider Hubbs the best 3pt hirer on the team?

The whole convo is who starts Hubbs or Richardson. I will reword my statement that with our poor 3 pt shooting, you need to start Hubbs. You shouldn't leave off the starting line up the "potential" best 3 pt shooter.

It's not like there are any real sharpshooters on the team. From what I have seen and read about his AAU game, IMO Hubbs could "potentially" be the best on the team.

 

[cncchris33]

McRae is 3 times more likely to go 0 for X than he is to hitting more than 3 3s in a game based on his carreer here. Just last year he hit 1 or less 3s in over half the games, so IMO I think the 8-11 and 6-6 is definitely not the norm for him. Yes, he had some carrer nights against GA and LSU, but I don't think we will see the same thing with him having to carry the offense next year. If we do, then I will be pretty dissappointed. I would much rather see us go throught the post with a much more balanced offense.

He hit 3 or more 8 times last year, and went 0-fer on 7 occasions. And yes, I know you said MORE THAN 3. Of course, that makes your argument more appealing, because you probably looked and realized he hit exactly 3 in 5 separate games.

I have been as hard on McRae as anyone over his first two seasons, but last year he turned that potential into production, and thus makes it difficult to lump his junior season in with the rest of his career. I see no signs that he will regress into his FR or SO form, but I guess anything is possible.

I do agree the offense should run through the paint next season. Let's just leave it at that.

 

[bleedingTNorange]

The whole convo is who starts Hubbs or Richardson. I will reword my statement that with our poor 3 pt shooting, you need to start Hubbs. You shouldn't leave off the starting line up the "potential" best 3 pt shooter.

It's not like there are any real sharpshooters on the team. From what I have seen and read about his AAU game, IMO Hubbs could "potentially" be the best on the team.

Much more fair statement IMO. While I agree that if it was my decision I likely would start Hubbs, my opinion is going off what I think Zo will do. If Hubbs proves he is close to where Richardson and McRae are defensively he may very well start, but he will have to prove himself defensively before Hubbs gets the nod. Remember, Martin was starting skylar Mcbee over McRae for a long time because of defense.

In all honesty it's a pointless question really IMO because I think it's very likely all 3 of McRae, Hubbs and Richardson will average starter minutes.

 

[cncchris33]

Much more fair statement IMO. While I agree that if it was my decision I likely would start Hubbs, my opinion is going off what I think Zo will do. If Hubbs proves he is close to where Richardson and McRae are defensively he may very well start, but he will have to prove himself defensively before Hubbs gets the nod. Remember, Martin was starting skylar Mcbee over McRae for a long time because of defense.

In all honest it's a pointless questions really IMO because I think it's very likely all 3 of McRae, Hubbs and Richardson will average starter minutes.

Your last sentence nails it. I said something similar several pages back.

To me, the team is better served with Hubbs and McRae alternating because it leaves an offensive presence on the floor at all times. They are too similar to play together exclusively. Think Scotty and Tatum. I felt like Tatum should have come off the bench because him and Scotty were too much alike.

 

[johnnybravo]

He hit 3 or more 8 times last year, and went 0-fer on 7 occasions. And yes, I know you said MORE THAN 3. Of course, that makes your argument more appealing, because you probably looked and realized he hit exactly 3 in 5 separate games.

I have been as hard on McRae as anyone over his first two seasons, but last year he turned that potential into production, and thus makes it difficult to lump his junior season in with the rest of his career. I see no signs that he will regress into his FR or SO form, but I guess anything is possible.

I do agree the offense should run through the paint next season. Let's just leave it at that.

I didn't say that he would regress at all. He's a extremely good scoring threat. And like I said, should have been POY. I think he will have a very good year next year, but expect (and hope) that his ppg does decrease slightly and I don't think we will see (and hope) double digit 3 pt games like we did this past year. That's not regressing, IMO, I just think he will be playing on a better more balanced team this year. Actually, I hope he does hit 45% from the 3 with less attempt (100 to 130). But I don't think he will. All I'm saying is we have a poor 3 pt shooting team. IMO, Hubbs is a good 3 point shooter. I got slammed cause "I don't know his game". His AAU game is nothing like his HS game. The boy can shoot and it wouldn't take much at all for him to be the best on the team. With that, IMO he should be in the starting line up.

 

[cncchris33]

I didn't say that he would regress at all. He's a extremely good scoring threat. And like I said, should have been POY. I think he will have a very good year next year, but expect (and hope) that his ppg does decrease slightly and I don't think we will see (and hope) double digit 3 pt games like we did this past year. That's not regressing, IMO, I just think he will be playing on a better more balanced team this year. Actually, I hope he does hit 45% from the 3 with less attempt (100 to 130). But I don't think he will. All I'm saying is we have a poor 3 pt shooting team. IMO, Hubbs is a good 3 point shooter. I got slammed cause "I don't know his game". His AAU game is nothing like his HS game. The boy can shoot and it wouldn't take much at all for him to be the best on the team. With that, IMO he should be in the starting line up.

Do you not at least concede that he should have to earn a starting spot? You, and others, seem content with just handing it to him. If I have misread your intent, I apologize in advance, but there have been several here that claim he should start solely on the 5* reputation he brings with him.

 

[SJAVol32]

I think we can all agree we will have more than one or two legit threats from three this year. Until we prove it tho teams will run zone or box in one and face guard Mcrae

 

[johnnybravo]

Do you not at least concede that he should have to earn a starting spot? You, and others, seem content with just handing it to him. If I have misread your intent, I apologize in advance, but there have been several here that claim he should start solely on the 5* reputation he brings with him.

I saw 5* Jarnell Stokes walk in here with about a couple weeks practice and start. He was good offensively, but lost on defense. I don't think he earned his spot at that time. He himself said that he was shocked that he was able to start as quickly as he did.

 

[Jonboy]

If Hubbs isn't starting, then he's not meeting expectations. It's really that simple.

 

[SJAVol32]

I saw 5* Jarnell Stokes walk in here with about a couple weeks practice and start. He was good offensively, but lost on defense. I don't think he earned his spot at that time. He himself said that he was shocked that he was able to start as quickly as he did.

I think that was different in that as lost as he was on defense so was Kenny Hall. Kenny also wasn't a scorer so Jarnell could take his spot with ease.

 

[johnnybravo]

I think that was different in that as lost as he was on defense so was Kenny Hall. Kenny also wasn't a scorer so Jarnell could take his spot with ease.

So, your saying that Stokes was a better player and had "much" more potential so he was given the starting spot immediately.

 

[GoobieVol]

If Hubbs isn't starting, then he's not meeting expectations. It's really that simple.

If you are talking about his sophomore yr, then I would agree. But I could easily see him being first off all year this yr, and being on the court at the end of the games. Nothing wrong with that.?

 

[SJAVol32]

So, your saying that Stokes was a better player and had "much" more potential so he was given the starting spot immediately.

Stokes filled a void that we needed to have filled immediate. It's not the same with Richardson and Hubbs. Richardson plays defense and can actually score! I don't think you get if we start Hubbs we have ZERO scoring coming off the bench. You really want 8 points off the bench and you can't run the offense through him or would you rather have our 5* coming in relieving Mcrae and having his own touches. Hubbs plays with Mcrae Golden Stokes and Maymon he won't get that many touches.

 

[johnnybravo]

Do you not at least concede that he should have to earn a starting spot? You, and others, seem content with just handing it to him. If I have misread your intent, I apologize in advance, but there have been several here that claim he should start solely on the 5* reputation he brings with him.

I said 1,000 posts ago that I think Richardson will start at the beginning of the year, but fully expect Hubbs to be starting by January.

 

[cncchris33]

I saw 5* Jarnell Stokes walk in here with about a couple weeks practice and start. He was good offensively, but lost on defense. I don't think he earned his spot at that time. He himself said that he was shocked that he was able to start as quickly as he did.

We've already hashed that out. Stokes had a much clearer path to a starting spot. There was literally no one of note standing between him and his starting job.

 

[cncchris33]

I said 1,000 posts ago that I think Richardson will start at the beginning of the year, but fully expect Hubbs to be starting by January.

Yet six posts above the one I'm quoting, you are using Stokes coming in and starting almost immediately as an example to the contrary? Which is it?

 

[cncchris33]

If Hubbs isn't starting, then he's not meeting expectations. It's really that simple.

Whose expectations? The fans? The same fans who will turn on him when he doesn't average 14 ppg as a freshman and displays the same typical struggles that 95% of freshmen will show coming from high school? Then we'll hear all about how Hubbs is a bust, and we can compare him to Stokes and Hopson. I bet we'll even have a "Bigger Bust" poll like we did this year between Hopson and Stokes.

People need to temper their expectations or they are going to be disappointed.

 

[johnnybravo]

Yet six posts above the one I'm quoting, you are using Stokes coming in and starting almost immediately as an example to the contrary? Which is it?

I was just stating that it was said CCM will make him earn his spot, but he gave Stokes a starting sport immediately. It was his first 5*. I'm calling it like it is, that there was no way CCM wasn't going to start Stokes.

I think 5* are rare at TN. Yes, we've had a few over the past 3 years, but I don't expect CCM to be able to bring them in every year. In my opinion, unless they are a complete bust, then they should be given the opportunity to start.

 

[cncchris33]

I was just stating that it was said CCM will make him earn his spot, but he gave Stokes a starting sport immediately. It was his first 5*. I'm calling it like it is, that there was no way CCM wasn't going to start Stokes.

I think 5* are rare at TN. Yes, we've had a few over the past 3 years, but I don't expect CCM to be able to bring them in every year. In my opinion, unless they are a complete bust, then they should be given the opportunity to start.

You can't equate Stokes and Hubbs' situations as an apples to apples comparison.

Hubbs has genuinely talented people between him and a starting spot. Guys who habe started for awhile and understand and perform the thibgs CCM asks them to do. Not to mention, him coming off the bench is better for the team from an offensive balance perspective.

Stokes took over for an entitled, lazy, and lackadaisical Kenny Hall. The same Kenny Hall who finished the year suspended and in Martin's doghouse. It wasn't handed to Stokes as his recruiting birthright for being a 5*. He got it by default for lack of ANY better options.

Do you not see the difference?