[Brickcity]

My bad on Terry, I guess.  I didn't see anything in his freshman season that suggested to me that he was ready for the NBA by any stretch, so I just assumed that he must have been projected as one of those HS players who was perceived as having sufficient potential even before the season began to be considered a one-and-done [however many stars he got].  I don't think that disproves my point, though.  A "good recruiter" should also have the ability/intuition/gut feelings/whatever to know whether a recruit would be willing to stick around for more than one season even if he turned out to be better than projected in his freshman season.

And I don't think getting 5-star recruits [which, I confess, I used in a somewhat generic manner to mean recruits who liley had offers from several schools with a much better current b'ball rep than Stanford] is Haase's "bread and butter," although if you take away those, the "good recruiter" label seems to me to be a little less warranted.

Look, I'm not sure we actually disagree much, since I also see no strong evidence of Haase's ability to develop the players he does get.  You may be right:  getting one-and-dones, not developing them, and having them leave may not be all that different in the long run from [and might even be better than] getting less talented players, not developing them, and having them stick around for four years.

"A "good recruiter" should also have the ability/intuition/gut feelings/whatever to know whether a recruit would be willing to stick around for more than one season even if he turned out to be better than projected in his freshman season."

So, what you're describing is literally impossible. No one - either in the program or outside it - thought Terry would leave Stanford after one year. In fact, Terry was someone everyone assumed would stick around for four years. Any coach is going to go after the best admittable recruits he can get, as he should (assuming they don't show any signs of getting in trouble with the law or some such thing). That said, if most of his Haase's recruits were one-and-dones and didn't produce during their one year at Stanford, that would be a different story. But that simply ain't the case.

[Brickcity]

My bad on Terry, I guess.  I didn't see anything in his freshman season that suggested to me that he was ready for the NBA by any stretch, so I just assumed that he must have been projected as one of those HS players who was perceived as having sufficient potential even before the season began to be considered a one-and-done [however many stars he got].  I don't think that disproves my point, though.  A "good recruiter" should also have the ability/intuition/gut feelings/whatever to know whether a recruit would be willing to stick around for more than one season even if he turned out to be better than projected in his freshman season.

And I don't think getting 5-star recruits [which, I confess, I used in a somewhat generic manner to mean recruits who liley had offers from several schools with a much better current b'ball rep than Stanford] is Haase's "bread and butter," although if you take away those, the "good recruiter" label seems to me to be a little less warranted.

Look, I'm not sure we actually disagree much, since I also see no strong evidence of Haase's ability to develop the players he does get.  You may be right:  getting one-and-dones, not developing them, and having them leave may not be all that different in the long run from [and might even be better than] getting less talented players, not developing them, and having them stick around for four years.

"A "good recruiter" should also have the ability/intuition/gut feelings/whatever to know whether a recruit would be willing to stick around for more than one season even if he turned out to be better than projected in his freshman season."

So, what you're describing is literally impossible. No one - either in the program or outside it - thought Terry would leave Stanford after one year. In fact, Terry was someone everyone assumed would stick around for four years. Any coach is going to go after the best admittable recruits he can get, as he should (assuming they don't show any signs of getting in trouble with the law or some such thing). That said, if most of his Haase's recruits were one-and-dones and didn't produce during their one year at Stanford, that would be a different story. But that simply ain't the case.

[Goose]

I think drawing conclusions about "one and done" players at Stanford based on a sample size of 1 is a bad idea. It may may be that Haase made a bad choice in the particular guy he recruited. It is not a given that a "one and done" will be a disruptive force. It is also a risk that he might be. He is also taking a slot that has an opportunity cost. That has to be properly weighted with how good you think the player will be. It isn't a simple or easy task. I wouldn't recommend basing a program on the ability to recruit 5* players at Stanford, but it may be there are situations when it makes sense. It didn't work this time. Haase may have learned enough to do better in the future, or he may have learned it just won't work at Stanford.

[Goose]

I think drawing conclusions about "one and done" players at Stanford based on a sample size of 1 is a bad idea. It may may be that Haase made a bad choice in the particular guy he recruited. It is not a given that a "one and done" will be a disruptive force. It is also a risk that he might be. He is also taking a slot that has an opportunity cost. That has to be properly weighted with how good you think the player will be. It isn't a simple or easy task. I wouldn't recommend basing a program on the ability to recruit 5* players at Stanford, but it may be there are situations when it makes sense. It didn't work this time. Haase may have learned enough to do better in the future, or he may have learned it just won't work at Stanford.

[Phogge]

Yep Bobbbbbbb. The NIT is a grave. Maples has been a morgue for more than a decade. Stanford is a skeleton of its former self. Can’t think of anymore cliches.

[Phogge]

Yep Bobbbbbbb. The NIT is a grave. Maples has been a morgue for more than a decade. Stanford is a skeleton of its former self. Can’t think of anymore cliches.

[BostonCard]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

[BostonCard]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

[burger]

Meanwhile, somewhat good news...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/status/1369444672062513157?s=19[/tweet]

[burger]

Meanwhile, somewhat good news...
[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/status/1369444672062513157?s=19[/tweet]

[Goose]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

I agree that "one and done" in general isn't a good model for Stanford basketball. I think Montgomery was fortunate to coach in the era he did. That past is no longer recent I'm afraid. It is now much more difficult to keep very talented players in college. If you are a first round pick, or think you are anyway, it is hard to argue staying in school is prudent. The downside risk to the player is too great. You could get injured, which may end your career or at the very least put a ? by your name. You could also demonstrate that your "potential" isn't nearly what people thought it was. If I am Tyrell Terry I go pro for sure. Right now, they think I am great. I may actually be just OK, but the stars aligned and I have a golden opportunity. There used to be a lot more "prove it" in the NBA draft. Staying around to do so made some sense. It doesn't anymore. If you expect to play professional basketball and can do so starting today, waiting makes no sense. If you can get paid proving you belong, why not do so? A prudent man might say "What if I don't make it?", but that isn't the mindset of these players.

Haase actually had a reputation as a "blue collar" coach who did more with less, at least when he first arrived. That is certainly the persona he projects. It may be that he isn't the guy to deal with the "one and done" types. He is an "I love you guys" coach. Maybe doesn't work so well with players who see the team as a stepping stone.

[Goose]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

I agree that "one and done" in general isn't a good model for Stanford basketball. I think Montgomery was fortunate to coach in the era he did. That past is no longer recent I'm afraid. It is now much more difficult to keep very talented players in college. If you are a first round pick, or think you are anyway, it is hard to argue staying in school is prudent. The downside risk to the player is too great. You could get injured, which may end your career or at the very least put a ? by your name. You could also demonstrate that your "potential" isn't nearly what people thought it was. If I am Tyrell Terry I go pro for sure. Right now, they think I am great. I may actually be just OK, but the stars aligned and I have a golden opportunity. There used to be a lot more "prove it" in the NBA draft. Staying around to do so made some sense. It doesn't anymore. If you expect to play professional basketball and can do so starting today, waiting makes no sense. If you can get paid proving you belong, why not do so? A prudent man might say "What if I don't make it?", but that isn't the mindset of these players.

Haase actually had a reputation as a "blue collar" coach who did more with less, at least when he first arrived. That is certainly the persona he projects. It may be that he isn't the guy to deal with the "one and done" types. He is an "I love you guys" coach. Maybe doesn't work so well with players who see the team as a stepping stone.

[winflop]

From the Rivals article: "He also singled out Spencer Jones as someone who took on more of a leadership role when there was a void to be filled in that regard." I wonder to whom he is referring when he talks about a "void"????

[winflop]

From the Rivals article: "He also singled out Spencer Jones as someone who took on more of a leadership role when there was a void to be filled in that regard." I wonder to whom he is referring when he talks about a "void"????

[VB Card]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

I agree that "one and done" in general isn't a good model for Stanford basketball. I think Montgomery was fortunate to coach in the era he did. That past is no longer recent I'm afraid. It is now much more difficult to keep very talented players in college. If you are a first round pick, or think you are anyway, it is hard to argue staying in school is prudent. The downside risk to the player is too great. You could get injured, which may end your career or at the very least put a ? by your name. You could also demonstrate that your "potential" isn't nearly what people thought it was. If I am Tyrell Terry I go pro for sure. Right now, they think I am great. I may actually be just OK, but the stars aligned and I have a golden opportunity. There used to be a lot more "prove it" in the NBA draft. Staying around to do so made some sense. It doesn't anymore. If you expect to play professional basketball and can do so starting today, waiting makes no sense. If you can get paid proving you belong, why not do so? A prudent man might say "What if I don't make it?", but that isn't the mindset of these players.

Haase actually had a reputation as a "blue collar" coach who did more with less, at least when he first arrived. That is certainly the persona he projects. It may be that he isn't the guy to deal with the "one and done" types. He is an "I love you guys" coach. Maybe doesn't work so well with players who see the team as a stepping stone.

 

BC I agree with your assessment but like Goose said, that is just not how college basketball, or our society in general, works nowadays. The goal for college basketball players now is to get to the NBA. That means leaving as soon as you get a draft grade you deem high enough. You won't find a guy who stays all four years that was a bonafide first round draft pick after his freshman season, it just doesn't happen anymore. If they really love their college experience, there are cases where guys return for a second season to enjoy it more and chase a ring, but after that the risk of losing out on millions is too great. This is not a Stanford problem, this happens everywhere. You are right though in that Haase needs to have several great role players who won't sniff the NBA to build the team around. Michael O'Connell is one who will be here for his entire college career. Harrison Ingram coming in next season is a 5 star but he is not a perceived one-and-done (although he could have a great season, which would be great for us, and declare) and Isa Silva and Jarvis Moss are two high upside recruits who should be here for 4 years.

[VB Card]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

I agree that "one and done" in general isn't a good model for Stanford basketball. I think Montgomery was fortunate to coach in the era he did. That past is no longer recent I'm afraid. It is now much more difficult to keep very talented players in college. If you are a first round pick, or think you are anyway, it is hard to argue staying in school is prudent. The downside risk to the player is too great. You could get injured, which may end your career or at the very least put a ? by your name. You could also demonstrate that your "potential" isn't nearly what people thought it was. If I am Tyrell Terry I go pro for sure. Right now, they think I am great. I may actually be just OK, but the stars aligned and I have a golden opportunity. There used to be a lot more "prove it" in the NBA draft. Staying around to do so made some sense. It doesn't anymore. If you expect to play professional basketball and can do so starting today, waiting makes no sense. If you can get paid proving you belong, why not do so? A prudent man might say "What if I don't make it?", but that isn't the mindset of these players.

Haase actually had a reputation as a "blue collar" coach who did more with less, at least when he first arrived. That is certainly the persona he projects. It may be that he isn't the guy to deal with the "one and done" types. He is an "I love you guys" coach. Maybe doesn't work so well with players who see the team as a stepping stone.

 

BC I agree with your assessment but like Goose said, that is just not how college basketball, or our society in general, works nowadays. The goal for college basketball players now is to get to the NBA. That means leaving as soon as you get a draft grade you deem high enough. You won't find a guy who stays all four years that was a bonafide first round draft pick after his freshman season, it just doesn't happen anymore. If they really love their college experience, there are cases where guys return for a second season to enjoy it more and chase a ring, but after that the risk of losing out on millions is too great. This is not a Stanford problem, this happens everywhere. You are right though in that Haase needs to have several great role players who won't sniff the NBA to build the team around. Michael O'Connell is one who will be here for his entire college career. Harrison Ingram coming in next season is a 5 star but he is not a perceived one-and-done (although he could have a great season, which would be great for us, and declare) and Isa Silva and Jarvis Moss are two high upside recruits who should be here for 4 years.

[oldalum]

Calling recruiting Terry as a one-and-done seems to me to be rewriting history. No one thought he would be a one-and-done, including himself."
He was a "consensus 4-star" according to his Stanford roster bio, which if anything has a bias toward hyping its players. He improved greatly in his time at Stanford (credit to coaching and system?!), and as the linked article explains, he improved his draft stock greatly with the extra months he had to prepare for the draft--at a professional training center with no student obligations.

My take on Haase's recruiting is that the deficiency is that he hasn't recruited/developed enough of the very good but non-NBA-bound role players that BC lists (Lottich, Hernandez, etc.), especially decent big men who can defend, rebound, and chip in a little scoring. As a result we've been very thin and unable to field a good enough team at times in each season, especially toward the end of seasons.

[oldalum]

Calling recruiting Terry as a one-and-done seems to me to be rewriting history. No one thought he would be a one-and-done, including himself."
He was a "consensus 4-star" according to his Stanford roster bio, which if anything has a bias toward hyping its players. He improved greatly in his time at Stanford (credit to coaching and system?!), and as the linked article explains, he improved his draft stock greatly with the extra months he had to prepare for the draft--at a professional training center with no student obligations.

My take on Haase's recruiting is that the deficiency is that he hasn't recruited/developed enough of the very good but non-NBA-bound role players that BC lists (Lottich, Hernandez, etc.), especially decent big men who can defend, rebound, and chip in a little scoring. As a result we've been very thin and unable to field a good enough team at times in each season, especially toward the end of seasons.

[BillBradley]

ZW won't come back to the Farm because it ages him another year. If you are a mega-athletic talent and a first round pick, going back to college makes no sense. The most important thing is age. Look at players like DeAndre Jordan, Zach Lavine, or even Jaden McDaniels (off the top of my head) all who came out after a not-very-impressive freshman year. NBA teams now know they can develop  players for the NBA game much faster than Jarod Haase will and they have enough evidence they should select those players in the draft vs. passing and taking a less athletic but better performing college player. The only thing that keeps ZW in college for another year is if he actually isn't the freak athlete everyone says he is and he isn't a first round pick. He finds that out when he works out for teams. I'm pretty sure we know the answer already.

On the "how does Stanford right the ship" question, I am on the side of building the program with non one and done types, and especially with great perimeter shooters.

[BillBradley]

ZW won't come back to the Farm because it ages him another year. If you are a mega-athletic talent and a first round pick, going back to college makes no sense. The most important thing is age. Look at players like DeAndre Jordan, Zach Lavine, or even Jaden McDaniels (off the top of my head) all who came out after a not-very-impressive freshman year. NBA teams now know they can develop  players for the NBA game much faster than Jarod Haase will and they have enough evidence they should select those players in the draft vs. passing and taking a less athletic but better performing college player. The only thing that keeps ZW in college for another year is if he actually isn't the freak athlete everyone says he is and he isn't a first round pick. He finds that out when he works out for teams. I'm pretty sure we know the answer already.

On the "how does Stanford right the ship" question, I am on the side of building the program with non one and done types, and especially with great perimeter shooters.

[terry]

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

[terry]

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

[Farm93]

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

IMHO that's the worry honestly.  The talent is so clear that even NBA types are willing to imagine their potential after they leave the Haase system.

Stanford will get another McD AA next season, so that will be three players with NBA potential in back-to-back-to-back seasons.   Even if all three are one and done types that's too much talent to come in to be bubble teams that fade in late February.

At this point Stanford fans can only dreaming of a season where future NBA talent takes the team to an at-large 12 seed and a likely loss in the ultra low profile Tuesday play-in game.

[Farm93]

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

IMHO that's the worry honestly.  The talent is so clear that even NBA types are willing to imagine their potential after they leave the Haase system.

Stanford will get another McD AA next season, so that will be three players with NBA potential in back-to-back-to-back seasons.   Even if all three are one and done types that's too much talent to come in to be bubble teams that fade in late February.

At this point Stanford fans can only dreaming of a season where future NBA talent takes the team to an at-large 12 seed and a likely loss in the ultra low profile Tuesday play-in game.

[VB Card]

ESPN just updated their big board this morning and Ziaire fell from #8 to #24.

[VB Card]

ESPN just updated their big board this morning and Ziaire fell from #8 to #24.

[Goose]

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

One of the two evaluations is incorrect. The "projected" one or the "actual" one. I pick actual. A guy who is really transcendent will show it no matter who his coach is. Remember the old saying that the only person who could hold MJ to below 30 points a game was Dean Smith. Even under those conditions, it was clear MJ was an NBA caliber player. It is not clear that Mr. Williams is, at least based on what he has shown so far. Somebody may take a flyer, but it is no "sure thing" IMHO. Any freshman that averages 10.7 ppg isn't chopped liver, but a first round draft pick??? He also didn't make everybody around him better, which is what one would expect from a player "to be reckoned with". WYSIWYG.

[Goose]

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

One of the two evaluations is incorrect. The "projected" one or the "actual" one. I pick actual. A guy who is really transcendent will show it no matter who his coach is. Remember the old saying that the only person who could hold MJ to below 30 points a game was Dean Smith. Even under those conditions, it was clear MJ was an NBA caliber player. It is not clear that Mr. Williams is, at least based on what he has shown so far. Somebody may take a flyer, but it is no "sure thing" IMHO. Any freshman that averages 10.7 ppg isn't chopped liver, but a first round draft pick??? He also didn't make everybody around him better, which is what one would expect from a player "to be reckoned with". WYSIWYG.

[burger]

Back to the original topic, Oscar Da Silva was named Pac-12 scholar athlete of the year.  Not much doubt about this one.

He's our 5th winner since 2010 (Fields, Randle, Powell, and Pickens).

Sorry for the interruption.  You may now return to doom and gloom posts about the state of the program.

[burger]

Back to the original topic, Oscar Da Silva was named Pac-12 scholar athlete of the year.  Not much doubt about this one.

He's our 5th winner since 2010 (Fields, Randle, Powell, and Pickens).

Sorry for the interruption.  You may now return to doom and gloom posts about the state of the program.

[lex24]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

I agree that "one and done" in general isn't a good model for Stanford basketball. I think Montgomery was fortunate to coach in the era he did. That past is no longer recent I'm afraid. It is now much more difficult to keep very talented players in college. If you are a first round pick, or think you are anyway, it is hard to argue staying in school is prudent. The downside risk to the player is too great. You could get injured, which may end your career or at the very least put a ? by your name. You could also demonstrate that your "potential" isn't nearly what people thought it was. If I am Tyrell Terry I go pro for sure. Right now, they think I am great. I may actually be just OK, but the stars aligned and I have a golden opportunity. There used to be a lot more "prove it" in the NBA draft. Staying around to do so made some sense. It doesn't anymore. If you expect to play professional basketball and can do so starting today, waiting makes no sense. If you can get paid proving you belong, why not do so? A prudent man might say "What if I don't make it?", but that isn't the mindset of these players.

Haase actually had a reputation as a "blue collar" coach who did more with less, at least when he first arrived. That is certainly the persona he projects. It may be that he isn't the guy to deal with the "one and done" types. He is an "I love you guys" coach. Maybe doesn't work so well with players who see the team as a stepping stone.

One and done doesn’t and won’t work for Stanford. Obviously Zaire had some extenuating circumstances.  But if, as expected, he leaves, you have to chalk up his Stanford “career” as disappointing, at best. 

Look at programs that do well outside a one and done model. Iowa comes to mind. Wisconsin also.  And, of course, Gonzaga. That should be Stanford’s model.

[lex24]

There is an opportunity cost to recruiting one-and-dones.  They obviously pay off if they can provide transformative production in their one year (Mobley, for example), but merely very good production has to be weighed against the loss of continuity, the uncertainty unless you know for a fact that the player is not coming back, fact that you have to recruit to re-fill the hole, etc.  I agree with whoever it was that "No coach in the country would have passed on ZW." but that's not what happened; Williams wasn't just there to be taken or passed upon.  Haase was writing Williams a handwritten letter every day.  I could imagine other productive things Haase could have done with the time that would have provided a more long-lasting benefit to the program.

Obviously we have a small n here, so it is possible that it was bad luck or an unavoidable bad situation this year.  Maybe Ingram will be a transformative player and we will conclude that the risks of an underperforming one-and-done are worth the benefits of being able to recruit a superstar that elevates the program.  Still, in the end, the buck stops on the coach's desk.  It is worth noting that in the recent past we did have a coach who managed to consistently get us to the NCAA tournament.  That coach didn't entirely eschew superstar players who declared early, but he also didn't count on them, and his teams contained a mix of very good college players, a handful of future NBA draftees, and a bunch of role players who complemented each other well and generally made the whole greater than the sum of its parts.  Guys like Kris Wheems, Matt Lottich, Peter Sauer, Art Lee, Nick Robinson, Rob Little, Chris Hernandez... these guys were all four-year players who never played in the league and formed the backbone of the Mike Montgomery teams.  Montgomery mixed in superstars like the Collins twins and Josh Childress (and an occasional lucky break on a flier from East Orange, NJ), but the key is that he didn't depend on them, and he didn't mortgage the team to land them.

For better or for worse, Haase has attracted guys who are looking to leave at their earliest possible opportunity.  I don't know if it has to do with what he is selling them or who he is selecting, but it feels like guys like Terry and Okpala could have been the backbone of a very good Stanford team, and that those are the kinds of guys who would have stayed another season or two in years gone by, perhaps because there was evidence that those players developed, improved their draft stock and moved up from being marginal first round picks.  The biggest indictment of Haase in my opinion is that after one year in college Terry did the math and didn't think he'd improve from being the 31st pick or that Okpala after two didn't think he'd move up from the second round.  To be honest, one of the reasons that I am convinced Williams will declare is because he, not unreasonably, probably thinks that the longer he stays at Stanford, the worse his draft prospects are.

I think of all the players that Haase has recruited, the only one who consistently developed and improved every year, long enough to become an all-conference player is Da Silva (a high 3* player).  We need more Da Silvas and if the opportunity cost of that is fewer Williamses, I think we will still come out ahead.

BC

I agree that "one and done" in general isn't a good model for Stanford basketball. I think Montgomery was fortunate to coach in the era he did. That past is no longer recent I'm afraid. It is now much more difficult to keep very talented players in college. If you are a first round pick, or think you are anyway, it is hard to argue staying in school is prudent. The downside risk to the player is too great. You could get injured, which may end your career or at the very least put a ? by your name. You could also demonstrate that your "potential" isn't nearly what people thought it was. If I am Tyrell Terry I go pro for sure. Right now, they think I am great. I may actually be just OK, but the stars aligned and I have a golden opportunity. There used to be a lot more "prove it" in the NBA draft. Staying around to do so made some sense. It doesn't anymore. If you expect to play professional basketball and can do so starting today, waiting makes no sense. If you can get paid proving you belong, why not do so? A prudent man might say "What if I don't make it?", but that isn't the mindset of these players.

Haase actually had a reputation as a "blue collar" coach who did more with less, at least when he first arrived. That is certainly the persona he projects. It may be that he isn't the guy to deal with the "one and done" types. He is an "I love you guys" coach. Maybe doesn't work so well with players who see the team as a stepping stone.

One and done doesn’t and won’t work for Stanford. Obviously Zaire had some extenuating circumstances.  But if, as expected, he leaves, you have to chalk up his Stanford “career” as disappointing, at best. 

Look at programs that do well outside a one and done model. Iowa comes to mind. Wisconsin also.  And, of course, Gonzaga. That should be Stanford’s model.

[SamuelMcF]

Back to the original topic, Oscar Da Silva was named Pac-12 scholar athlete of the year.  Not much doubt about this one.

He's our 5th winner since 2010 (Fields, Randle, Powell, and Pickens).

Sorry for the interruption.  You may now return to doom and gloom posts about the state of the program.

Congrats to Oscar!

---

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

One of the two evaluations is incorrect. The "projected" one or the "actual" one. I pick actual. A guy who is really transcendent will show it no matter who his coach is. Remember the old saying that the only person who could hold MJ to below 30 points a game was Dean Smith. Even under those conditions, it was clear MJ was an NBA caliber player. It is not clear that Mr. Williams is, at least based on what he has shown so far. Somebody may take a flyer, but it is no "sure thing" IMHO. Any freshman that averages 10.7 ppg isn't chopped liver, but a first round draft pick??? He also didn't make everybody around him better, which is what one would expect from a player "to be reckoned with". WYSIWYG.

The 4th pick in last year's draft, Patrick Williams from FSU, didn't start a single game and his stats on the season were 9/4/1. He is now averaging more points per game for the Chicago Bulls than he did in his single year in college. Has started every game.

[SamuelMcF]

Back to the original topic, Oscar Da Silva was named Pac-12 scholar athlete of the year.  Not much doubt about this one.

He's our 5th winner since 2010 (Fields, Randle, Powell, and Pickens).

Sorry for the interruption.  You may now return to doom and gloom posts about the state of the program.

Congrats to Oscar!

---

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

One of the two evaluations is incorrect. The "projected" one or the "actual" one. I pick actual. A guy who is really transcendent will show it no matter who his coach is. Remember the old saying that the only person who could hold MJ to below 30 points a game was Dean Smith. Even under those conditions, it was clear MJ was an NBA caliber player. It is not clear that Mr. Williams is, at least based on what he has shown so far. Somebody may take a flyer, but it is no "sure thing" IMHO. Any freshman that averages 10.7 ppg isn't chopped liver, but a first round draft pick??? He also didn't make everybody around him better, which is what one would expect from a player "to be reckoned with". WYSIWYG.

The 4th pick in last year's draft, Patrick Williams from FSU, didn't start a single game and his stats on the season were 9/4/1. He is now averaging more points per game for the Chicago Bulls than he did in his single year in college. Has started every game.

[CTcard]

The only possible reason he wouldn't go is that he has been told his draft stock has cratered ...

Well, another possible reason is that he sees a value in school.

[And no, I have no indication that is the case here.]

I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, 

I find the player development issue complex.
There is no doubt some players have developed well. Delaire winning most improved player is exhibit A. Da Silva, Jones, and even Kisunas individually have come along quite well.
For others that is less so. 

I don't find his schemes that bad.
On offense they move the ball well and get lots of open shots. Even though they cannot shoot well, they still have the second highest FG percentage in the conference.
On defense, they play tough on-ball defense, force the ball to the baseline, and have a usually effective double team on the opponent's big. Their FG percentage defense is #2 in the conference.
In fact, it's amazing that the team can be that efficient on offense and defense and still be this poor.

There are issues, of course. Stanford has kept its spot as worst in the league in TOs per game (though only second worst in conference only games). Stanford has stayed solidly in last place in three point shooting, despite being #2 in FG percentage overall. Those are two areas that hurt.

[CTcard]

The only possible reason he wouldn't go is that he has been told his draft stock has cratered ...

Well, another possible reason is that he sees a value in school.

[And no, I have no indication that is the case here.]

I'm more concerned with Haase's player development, scheme, and use of personnel than his recruiting, 

I find the player development issue complex.
There is no doubt some players have developed well. Delaire winning most improved player is exhibit A. Da Silva, Jones, and even Kisunas individually have come along quite well.
For others that is less so. 

I don't find his schemes that bad.
On offense they move the ball well and get lots of open shots. Even though they cannot shoot well, they still have the second highest FG percentage in the conference.
On defense, they play tough on-ball defense, force the ball to the baseline, and have a usually effective double team on the opponent's big. Their FG percentage defense is #2 in the conference.
In fact, it's amazing that the team can be that efficient on offense and defense and still be this poor.

There are issues, of course. Stanford has kept its spot as worst in the league in TOs per game (though only second worst in conference only games). Stanford has stayed solidly in last place in three point shooting, despite being #2 in FG percentage overall. Those are two areas that hurt.

[DenverCard]

I seem to recall a push to return to draft eligibility after high school, as was the case when LaBron James was drafted.  Perhaps starting in 2022.  (I quickly Googled the topic and did not find any recent articles on the topic.)  Such a change would increase the chances that a player who comes to Stanford stays longer than one year, although as pointed out, if he rockets up the draft during his freshman year like Tyrell Terry, he'd still be a one-and-done.

[DenverCard]

I seem to recall a push to return to draft eligibility after high school, as was the case when LaBron James was drafted.  Perhaps starting in 2022.  (I quickly Googled the topic and did not find any recent articles on the topic.)  Such a change would increase the chances that a player who comes to Stanford stays longer than one year, although as pointed out, if he rockets up the draft during his freshman year like Tyrell Terry, he'd still be a one-and-done.

[lex24]

Back to the original topic, Oscar Da Silva was named Pac-12 scholar athlete of the year.  Not much doubt about this one.

He's our 5th winner since 2010 (Fields, Randle, Powell, and Pickens).

Sorry for the interruption.  You may now return to doom and gloom posts about the state of the program.

Congrats to Oscar!

---

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

One of the two evaluations is incorrect. The "projected" one or the "actual" one. I pick actual. A guy who is really transcendent will show it no matter who his coach is. Remember the old saying that the only person who could hold MJ to below 30 points a game was Dean Smith. Even under those conditions, it was clear MJ was an NBA caliber player. It is not clear that Mr. Williams is, at least based on what he has shown so far. Somebody may take a flyer, but it is no "sure thing" IMHO. Any freshman that averages 10.7 ppg isn't chopped liver, but a first round draft pick??? He also didn't make everybody around him better, which is what one would expect from a player "to be reckoned with". WYSIWYG.

The 4th pick in last year's draft, Patrick Williams from FSU, didn't start a single game and his stats on the season were 9/4/1. He is now averaging more points per game for the Chicago Bulls than he did in his single year in college. Has started every game.

They are different games.  Player of the year should be Garza  from Iowa.  He is, at best, a back of the bench guy in NBA.  Lacks speed and explosion.  Which is what the NBA game is about.

[lex24]

Back to the original topic, Oscar Da Silva was named Pac-12 scholar athlete of the year.  Not much doubt about this one.

He's our 5th winner since 2010 (Fields, Randle, Powell, and Pickens).

Sorry for the interruption.  You may now return to doom and gloom posts about the state of the program.

Congrats to Oscar!

---

I just checked a few NBA draft projections. Almost all of them had Z. Williams projected in the range of 8th to 12th in the first round.

Seems like we should have seen more production from a player like that. He had 10.7 points/game, 4.6 reb/game, 37.4% FG pct., 29.1% 3-pt pct.

One of the two evaluations is incorrect. The "projected" one or the "actual" one. I pick actual. A guy who is really transcendent will show it no matter who his coach is. Remember the old saying that the only person who could hold MJ to below 30 points a game was Dean Smith. Even under those conditions, it was clear MJ was an NBA caliber player. It is not clear that Mr. Williams is, at least based on what he has shown so far. Somebody may take a flyer, but it is no "sure thing" IMHO. Any freshman that averages 10.7 ppg isn't chopped liver, but a first round draft pick??? He also didn't make everybody around him better, which is what one would expect from a player "to be reckoned with". WYSIWYG.

The 4th pick in last year's draft, Patrick Williams from FSU, didn't start a single game and his stats on the season were 9/4/1. He is now averaging more points per game for the Chicago Bulls than he did in his single year in college. Has started every game.

They are different games.  Player of the year should be Garza  from Iowa.  He is, at best, a back of the bench guy in NBA.  Lacks speed and explosion.  Which is what the NBA game is about.