Who starts? Hubbs or Josh?

#151
#151
cncchris33 said:
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?
Click to expand...

You are in the glory days of the "one and done". You have coaches promising these 5* that they will be playing in the league the following year. The same coaches that recruited Hubbs. These kids expect to be in college 2 years at the absolute max. Look at Stokes. he said it's really "weird" to be saying I'm a junior. He wanted more than anything to leave. Most of these kids look at college as a stepping stone. Until the rules change to 3 years, that is what we are facing. Not many 5* are going to go somewhere where they will not shine immediately. I fully believe that college basketball success is 75% recruiting. You have to have really good players to "consistently" win.

If CCM was at an AAU tourny and he approached Wiggins and told him that he would like him to come to UT. Wiggins said I've seen UT and that you have a lot of talent coming back and I think that if I came to UT we could win a championship. Wiggins says that I only plan on being there one year and going to the league. I will come to UT if you "guarantee" me a starting spot. What do you think CCM will say?
 
#152
#152
johnnybravo said:
You are in the glory days of the "one and done". You have coaches promising these 5* that they will be playing in the league the following year. The same coaches that recruited Hubbs. These kids expect to be in college 2 years at the absolute max. Look at Stokes. he said it's really "weird" to be saying I'm a junior. He wanted more than anything to leave. Most of these kids look at college as a stepping stone. Until the rules change to 3 years, that is what we are facing. Not many 5* are going to go somewhere where they will not shine immediately. I fully believe that college basketball success is 75% recruiting. You have to have really good players to "consistently" win.

If CCM was at an AAU tourny and he approached Wiggins and told him that he would like him to come to UT. Wiggins said I've seen UT and that you have a lot of talent coming back and I think that if I came to UT we could win a championship. Wiggins says that I only plan on being there one year and going to the league. I will come to UT if you "guarantee" me a starting spot. What do you think CCM will say?
Click to expand...

I think he would say...

CCM: "Andrew, you are a highly skilled player. Probably the best player nationally regardless of class. You could contribute on an NBA team right now, and probably start for some. It's a shame the NCAA and NBA want to hold you back from that dream, but since they do, you may as well come to Tennessee and play for me."

Wiggins: "Will I start coach?"

CCM: "I just said you can start for some NBA teams right now. Of course my plan is for you to start!"

Problem with this scenario is this; Robert Hubbs isn't Andrew Wiggins, and its not even close right now. I've seen Wiggins play more than Hubbs. He lives and attends school 20 minutes from me.
 
#153
#153
cncchris33 said:
I think he would say...

CCM: "Andrew, you are a highly skilled player. Probably the best player nationally regardless of class. You could contribute on an NBA team right now, and probably start for some. It's a shame the NCAA and NBA want to hold you back from that dream, but since they do, you may as well come to Tennessee and play for me."

Wiggins: "Will I start coach?"

CCM: "I just said you can start for some NBA teams right now. Of course my plan is for you to start!"

Problem with this scenario is this; Robert Hubbs isn't Andrew Wiggins, and its not even close right now. I've seen Wiggins play more than Hubbs. He lives and attends school 20 minutes from me.
Click to expand...

So, it's ok to guarantee some 5* and not others?

I've read an interview of Hubbs and his goals are to be Freshman of the year. An AA. And to play in the NBA.

Hubbs doesn't plan on coming in for anyone if his goal is to be Freshman of the year. I'm sure CCM is fully aware of that. It's important for these kids to know that CCM will put them in position to go to the next level. All 5* think they will be playing in the league. What do you think the next 5* CCM goes after next year says when he sees Hubbs playing behind 3* Richardson that isn't averaging double digits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#154
#154
johnnybravo said:
So, it's ok to guarantee some 5* and not others?
Click to expand...

Andrew Wiggins is the best player in the US not playing in the NBA. If you want to try and prove a point by comparing him to Robert Hubbs, who at last check, wasn't even a consensus 5* player for his own class, be my guest. It's a fool's errand.
 
#155
#155
cncchris33 said:
Andrew Wiggins is the best player in the US not playing in the NBA. If you want to try and prove a point by comparing him to Robert Hubbs, who at last check, wasn't even a consensus 5* player for his own class, be my guest. It's a fool's errand.
Click to expand...

This is what you said:

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.

OK, where do the "guaranteed" starting positions stop at? How bout Julius Randle? Think Hill will be starting at Florida? What about Nichols? Where does it stop at?
 
#156
#156
cncchris33 said:
Andrew Wiggins is the best player in the US not playing in the NBA. If you want to try and prove a point by comparing him to Robert Hubbs, who at last check, wasn't even a consensus 5* player for his own class, be my guest. It's a fool's errand.
Click to expand...

I don't have time to look it up and I have no clue what the answer is, but it would be interesting to know how many 5*s started their first year the last couple classes.
 
#157
#157
johnnybravo said:
This is what you said:

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.

OK, where do the "guaranteed" starting positions stop at? How bout Julius Randle? Think Hill will be starting at Florida? What about Nichols? Where does it stop at?
Click to expand...

We are obviously not going to agree on the matter. Let's just suffice to say I'm confident CCM will put together a lineup that will produce. If that means Hubbs starts, then so be it. I won't agree with it until I see it working, but I have no choice but to accept it if it happens.
 
#158
#158
cncchris33 said:
We are obviously not going to agree on the matter. Let's just suffice to say I'm confident CCM will put together a lineup that will produce. If that means Hubbs starts, then so be it. I won't agree with it until I see it working, but I have no choice but to accept it if it happens.
Click to expand...

.
 
#159
#159
johnnybravo said:
What about Nichols? Where does it stop at?
Click to expand...

Austin Nichols is likely going to be playing behind a transfer from George Washington...thats gotta look worse than playing behind a top 130 recruit right?

Here's the thing with 5*, most of ten are going somewhere where 1. The majority of the team left so there's little competition at their spot (UK) or 2. Are going somewhere that they play a position of immediate need.

If you look at the 5* that went to a school where there were returning upperclassmen starters not many come in and start. Look at Devonta Pollard at Alabama, I'm pretty sure he didn't start a single game last year. What about a couple of the kids from UK, wasn't a former walkon playing over 5* Ryan Harrow, how bad did that hurt calipari in recruiting future 5*?
 
Last edited:
#160
#160
bleedingTNorange said:
Austin Nichols is likely going to be playing behind a transfer from George Washington...thats gotta look worse than playing behind a top 130 recruit right?

Here's the thing with 5*, most of ten are going somewhere where 1. The majority of the team left so there's little competition at their spot (UK) or 2. Are going somewhere that they play a position of immediate need.

If you look at the 5* that went to a school where there were returning upperclassmen starters not many come in and start. Look at Devonta Pollard at Alabama, I'm pretty sure he didn't start a single game last year. What about a couple of the kids from UK, wasn't a former walkon playing over 5* Ryan Harrow, how bad did that hurt calipari in recruiting future 5*?
Click to expand...

There are always exceptions to every rule of course. If Mr. Nichols can get screwed and be the exception, then good for him. I'm sure therer are threads on the Memphis boards talking about the same thing with Nichols and Pellom. But again, by Jan. I don't think Hubbs will be playing behind a top 130 player. Just my opinion.

I asked the question a few posts up and don't really have a clue, buth would be interesting to know. With the age of "one and done" how many 5* kids start their first year (I would consider entering the starting lineup midway through the year) from the last 2 or 3 classes. I would think most would start, but again just a guess.
 
Last edited:
#161
#161
johnnybravo said:
There are always exceptions to every rule of course. If Mr. Nichols can get screwed and be the exception, then good for him. I'm sure therer are threads on the Memphis boards talking about the same thing with Nichols and Pellom. But again, by Jan. I don't think Hubbs will be playing behind a top 130 player. Just my opinion.

I asked the question a few posts up and don't really have a clue, buth would be interesting to know. With the age of "one and done" how many 5* kids start their first year (I would consider entering the starting lineup midway through the year) from the last 2 or 3 classes. I would think most would start, but again just a guess.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right, and most probably start 1/2 the season or more, but like I said above that's largely because 5* usually go somewhere the roster has been depleted so they're basically guaranteed a slot, or there's nobody at their position. If you went back and looked at the 5* who had upperclassmen at their position who've started for 2 years that may be a bit more fair comparison. (Richardson/Hubbs scenario)

I think it's very likely/possible Hubbs will be starting by conference play, but I don't think he's guaranteed a starting spot simply because he's a 5* like some have pretty much said...that's all I'm saying.
 
#162
#162
bleedingTNorange said:
I'm sure you're right, and most probably start 1/2 the season or more, but like I said above that's largely because 5* usually go somewhere the roster has been depleted so they're basically guaranteed a slot, or there's nobody at their position. If you went back and looked at the 5* who had upperclassmen at their position who've started for 2 years that may be a bit more fair comparison. (Richardson/Hubbs scenario)

I think it's very likely/possible Hubbs will be starting by conference play, but I don't think he's guaranteed a starting spot simply because he's a 5* like some have pretty much said...that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I never said that he was guaranteed. I think most 5* are though. But my opinion that he will start over Richardson is that by mid year, he will be an overall better player than Richardson. Hubbs will be needed to lead the offense the following year. The more experience he gets the better for him and UT.
 
#163
#163
bleedingTNorange said:
I'm sure you're right, and most probably start 1/2 the season or more, but like I said above that's largely because 5* usually go somewhere the roster has been depleted so they're basically guaranteed a slot, or there's nobody at their position. If you went back and looked at the 5* who had upperclassmen at their position who've started for 2 years that may be a bit more fair comparison. (Richardson/Hubbs scenario)

I think it's very likely/possible Hubbs will be starting by conference play, but I don't think he's guaranteed a starting spot simply because he's a 5* like some have pretty much said...that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Richardson will be hard to keep on the bench next season if he can find some offensive consistency.
He shot .544 at home this season and .365 on the road.
Fix that and Hubbs will have to have a helluva defensive game to displace him.
 
Last edited:
#164
#164
Both. Now the question becomes who is more competent running a team. An offseason full of ball-handling drills for these two & Jordy.
 
#167
#167
bleedingTNorange said:
No
Click to expand...

Hubbs is a better than average ballhandler and passing is one of his better skills. That being said I agree that it would be a bad thing to make this kid play the point. its not his natural position and would be the kind of thing that could kill a young guys confidence.
 
#168
#168
wtorange said:
Hubbs is a better than average ballhandler and passing is one of his better skills. That being said I agree that it would be a bad thing to make this kid play the point. its not his natural position and would be the kind of thing that could kill a young guys confidence.
Click to expand...

If a freshman is going to play PG, it ought to be the one you recruited to play there. That's Thompson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#170
#170
bleedingTNorange said:
Bingo. And if it's gonna be a wing playing PG it should be the guy who has played that position before (McRae).
Click to expand...

I would hate to move McRae because it would take away much of his offense which was hugely responsible for our late season run. From what I saw of Thompson I don't think he is anywhere close to being ready for the PG slot except for short minutes. With all that being said we have to go somewhere for a ballhandler and despite the drawbacks I will reluctantly say we have to go in McRae's direction.
 
#171
#171
wtorange said:
I would hate to move McRae because it would take away much of his offense which was hugely responsible for our late season run. From what I saw of Thompson I don't think he is anywhere close to being ready for the PG slot except for short minutes. With all that being said we have to go somewhere for a ballhandler and despite the drawbacks I will reluctantly say we have to go in McRae's direction.
Click to expand...

I suppose we could try Lopez and see how that goes first...
 
#175
#175
bleedingTNorange said:
Bingo. And if it's gonna be a wing playing PG it should be the guy who has played that position before (McRae).
Click to expand...

Playing PG really zapped McRae's energy and it disallowed him to create offensively last year. It was a disservice to him to make him run point. it led to a lot of his TOs and hurt his confidence IMO. If all we need them to do is get the ball up the court, I say learn 2-3 zone and start Lopez. Assuming we sign no one.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top