DP3113 Wrote:UC was a TON of talent.

They don't execute and play dumb.

I repeat, they are as talented as any team in the country.

What, we are not talented.
Maxiell is not talented, he is just a beast and always gives 100%.
Hicks is the same way.
Are best talent is Kirkland and White. We need a playmaker.
We don't have one, Chris Paul has talent, we don't have a chris paul.

DP3113 Wrote:I repeat, they are as talented as any team in the country.

In the immortal words of the great John Macenroe, "you must be joking, dust flew up". :laugh:

Hicks and Maxiell have no size. They are as talented and athletic as any big men in the country. They just can't put it all together and execute. I'm not saying their skill level is elite, their raw talent is very high though.

DP3113 Wrote:Hicks and Maxiell have no size. They are as talented and athletic as any big men in the country. They just can't put it all together and execute. I'm not saying their skill level is elite, their raw talent is very high though.

Talent doesn't miss easy put backs from 2 and 4 feet away, they are just athletic and thick.

I am in no way saying that we are one of the most talented teams in the country, but we have a lot of talent.

No, we do not have one dominant individual such as Chris Paul, but collectively we are a talented team.

What we lack is size, depth, and many times, any semblance of an offensive strategy.

We have a ton of talent but to say we have as much as anyone in the country is absolutely ludicrous. We have two 4's (at best) playing as 5's. To say that Max and Hicks just aren't putting it together is laughable. Take Williams away from Wake and replace him even with a 6'6" stud and UC wins by 10 yesterday. There is no replacement for big time talent AT THE RIGHT POSITION, and depth. UC has issues with the first and way too little of the second.

Is that Huggs' fault? The curse of CUSA? Media bias? Who cares, they have to play the cards they are dealt. Please read Paul Daugherty's column today. I don't often agree with him but I definitely did this time. Even Huggs said the same thing on the radio last night and in the article and again on his coach's show today.

<a href='http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050123/COL03/501230382/1064/SPT0101' target='_blank'>UC Was Just Out Talented vs. Wake</a>

Paul Dougherty pretty much said it all today which means I am right :laugh: Yikes, I hate it when he agrees with me.

You folks really should read the following article and then, Possibly, get a life:

<a href='http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050123/COL03/501230382/1063/SPT' target='_blank'>http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...230382/1063/SPT</a>

Per the title of this thread, we must ask ourselves these questions:

If UC's talent level was upgraded, would that translate to the "next level" of success (in-season and post-season)? Or would we simply find ourselves watching more talented players operate in a system that frequently appears to generate no coherence or consistency on offense -- and be subject to the same mental errors, defensive lapses, odd play-calls, etc. that sometimes vex us -- just perpetrated by better players? Would this "better talent" also get yanked when their man gets past them once? Would we be even more frustrated? (Certainly, with "better talent," our expectations would be even higher, and we seem to have trouble with managing our expectations now.)

I wonder what would happen if a Dee Brown or a Chris Paul did come here (assuming they're good examples of what we might call "more talented"). Would they be the same players we see today? They have been immersed in Illinois' and Wake's systems since the day they signed their LOIs. If they had come to UC, I feel confident that they would be able to lift more in the weight room than they do now, but I don't know if they'd be the same basketball players. I don't know if they'd lift the games of their teammates. I'm not ripping anyone ... I just don't know the answer. I don't want to hear that they'd be grittier players, better defensive players, more competitive players, per the popular UC profile. UC has no monopoly on hard work, defensive toughness, and overall competitiveness. Everyone in the Top 25 (and beyond) works just as hard as the Bearcats.

Talent, coaching and teaching, recruiting strategy and execution, offensive and defensive systems, scouting and game-planning, in-game adjustments, attention to the fundamentals, instilling teamwork and responsibility in young men, exemplifying a culture of winning and confidence ... Success is a mad mix of all these things -- some you can put your finger on, some you can't.

There is an awful lot that's right about Bearcat basketball these days, and it's too easy to skip over that when we're all gnashing our teeth. Still, we all sense that we're not quite all we could be, and of course, that is usually reinforced each spring, sad to say.

How do you all feel about this? What is fundamentally "right" about things now, what isn't, and what might realistically be done to go forward? After all, the pace is about to quicken.

Read it. Some of it I agree with, some of it I disagree with. It doesn't change anything. Daugherty is saying that we UC fans should be satisfied with just making the NCAA tournament, and to expect to get beyond the second round is unrealistic. That sounds all too familiar, like Mike Brown's goal of being "competetive".

Yesterday's game with Wake was relatively unimportant in the great scheme of things. UC lost to a team with more talent and more size inside. I thought UC played a great game and I applaud Huggs for getting as much out of the players as he could as they almost pulled it out. To imply, as Daughterty does, that Wake is a superior program to UC and will always be is bullsh*t. The contract with Wake which was just completed ended in a 2 game to 2 game split. Overall, UC owns a 5 game to 2 advantage over Wake.

In the great and storied ACC, there are only 2 and possibly 3 programs with basketball histories and traditions that are superior to UC's. Those would be Duke, North Carolina, and possibly North Carolina State. I don't think there is any other program in the ACC with more Final Four appearances or National Championships than UC has.

The Big East Conference that UC joins next year has the potential to be one of the greatest collegiate basketball conferences of all time. That in itself, coupled with UC's tradition and it's excellent coaching staff, will enable the recruitment of better players. For Paul Daugherty to say that UC will never get a player of the quality of Chris Paul and that they have to settle for juco's and lower level high school players is just absurd.