Cougs choke
- Thread starter YakiCoug
- Start date
Cougs hit just half of the 8,9 missed free throws during the last 3.5 minutes of regulation, and into overtime, and cougs win, despite dogs 3's.
Games like this are a must win for WSU to win 6,7,8,9 conference games.
Kent needs to drill free throw shooting into the players.
Cougs have a serious case of Dr Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde this season.
I see 14 to 17 wins. 15,16 wins, 8-4 non con, plus 6 to 9 wins, 7,8 wins in conference, 1 PAC 12 tourney win, CIT, CBI, at best.
If WSU was more consistent, more focused, rebounded better, hit more free throws, turn the ball over less, etc, I would predict more, but I don't see it.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe they will improve. Sure hope so, but don't think they will improve enough, so probably, what seeing is what get.
Also Kent seriously needs to stop playing Boese at the end of game in crunch time.
He is a defensive liability. He didn't do anything while in the game.
If Kent would have played Q, or King, instead of playing Boese for the 4 to 7 minutes Boese played at the end of the game, and in overtime, the cougs would have won, as the dogs would not have scored as many points, and would not have gotten as many rebounds.
Games like this are a must win for WSU to win 6,7,8,9 conference games.
Kent needs to drill free throw shooting into the players.
Cougs have a serious case of Dr Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde this season.
I see 14 to 17 wins. 15,16 wins, 8-4 non con, plus 6 to 9 wins, 7,8 wins in conference, 1 PAC 12 tourney win, CIT, CBI, at best.
If WSU was more consistent, more focused, rebounded better, hit more free throws, turn the ball over less, etc, I would predict more, but I don't see it.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe they will improve. Sure hope so, but don't think they will improve enough, so probably, what seeing is what get.
Also Kent seriously needs to stop playing Boese at the end of game in crunch time.
He is a defensive liability. He didn't do anything while in the game.
If Kent would have played Q, or King, instead of playing Boese for the 4 to 7 minutes Boese played at the end of the game, and in overtime, the cougs would have won, as the dogs would not have scored as many points, and would not have gotten as many rebounds.
I don't see the game as a "choke" at all. The Cougs competed well and were within an eyelash of beating a very talented, athletic Husky team. Yes, they could have made more free throws at the end which would have turned the tide in their favor, but they cannot be faulted for their effort and tenacity in keeping the game as close as they did. And no, I don't think playing Boese was a mistake. He hit some shots and competed well defensively. With Izundu out, the big rotation was limited and Boese was a reasonable, satisfactory substitute. I am pleasantly surprised by the play of this team and think they can compete well with anyone in the conference. Next year, with four senior starters and continued maturity of the JCs and Izundu, bodes very optimistically in the Cougs favor.
Boese was a strong positive factor in this game. If anything I was hoping he would get more looks. There are still guys on this team that do not understand the energy it takes to compete at the Pac 12 level. Boese isn't one of them. You can look at a game like this and blame the loss on free throw shooting. You wouldn't be wrong. You could blame it on not keeping UW off the offensive boards and you wouldn't be wrong. You could blame it on our half court offense getting to stagnant trying to force the ball inside in the second half and you wouldn't be wrong. No team in this league has much margin of error this season. I haven't seen Colorado, Stanford or ASU, but I don't think there is a really bad team in the conference.
Agree on Boese and on the parity in the conference. Sheesh, Arizona went 0-2 this week in L.A.. Why did Izundu sit out? I missed that.
King, 6-8, athletic, quick, speedy, plays good defense, high energy, a transfer, experienced, shoots better than Boese, plays better defense than Boese, Rebounds better than Boese.
Boese is like Harmeling, except doesn't shoot as well as Harmeling.
Harmeling was a semi defensive liability. His lateral side to side movement was SLOW.
He was to SLOW to play the 3 spot, and to SLOW, undersized, lacked strength, did not rebound well to play the 4 spot.
The only reason why Harmeling got playing time, was because of 30 team points per game, dick, Tony BENNET BALL.
Players like Harmeling, Lodwick, Boese, do NOT play well, in run gun, open, semi half court defense,should NOT play in run, gun, semi half court defense, offense games.
They are SLOW, do not run the court well. So in the run, gun game, if they are playing the 3 spot, they get BURNED off the dribble, schooled.
Heck I could beat Harmeling, Lodwick, Boese off the dribble, or could have back in the day.
And if you move them to the 4 spot, then they get posted up, out rebounded all day.
Harmeling, Lodwick, Boese, are no better then 6-7 Jeff Palmer who starred at Moses Lake High, played at Big Bend Community College, was recruited at first by WSU, but in the end wasn't recruited by WSU, because he was too much like Harmeling, Lodwick, Boese.
And I used to beat Jeff Palmer off the dribble all the time.
Now if I can beat a player like Jeff Palmer, a Harmeling, a Lodwick, a Boese, back in the day, I guarantee you that the PAC 12 3's lick their chops at beating them, and do beat them.
And Boese is worse because he is not taking, making shots.
If Boese was like a Steve Kerr 3 pt never miss specialist, then you give Boese 3 to 5 minutes per game, with 1 job, and that's to hit a 3 pointer, and then sit.
Boese is not doing anything. He doesn't take, hit shots. He gets beat off the dribble. He gets out rebounded. He gets posted up, scored on inside.
The ONLY thing Boese does well, is pass the ball well, not turn the ball over, leadership, hustle, floor burns, effort, heart, etc.
That's it. No scoring, No defense, No rebounding, getting beat off the dribble, getting beat inside.
At least Lodwick, scored a lot, played good defense, rebounded well, etc, his senior year.
At least Harmeling took,hit shots.
If Dick Bennet was the coach, and if used the Dick Bennet system of defense, offense, Boese, would be a good fit.
But this is run, gun ball, and Boese is not a good fit for run, gun ball.
King who is 6 foot 8, who is strong, athletic, quick, fast, jumps high, plays good defense, has good lateral quickness, hard to beat off dribble, takes charges, rebounds, hard to beat inside, shoots,makes shots well, shoots, makes 3 pointers well, runs court well, passes well, is a transfer, did well in noncon, has done better, is better than Boese.
King can play the 2,3,4, spots, well.
No way in HELL should Boese get more playing time, play over King, unless King is missing 3 pointer's, AND if Boese is not missing 3 pointer's.
No way in HELL, should Boese play a lot of crunch time minutes, UNLESS he is not missing 3 pointer's
Boese belongs on the bench, where he can cheer, be a good leader from the bench, UNLESS he can go in for 2 to 4 minutes, and hit a 3 pointer.
As far as Izundu not playing, lack of depth:
Hawk, Clifford, King,(6-8), Longrus, is plenty enough depth, and King, Longrus, Q, are way the hell better than Boese, and should play over Boese, at the 3,4 spots, unless King, Q, are missing, and Boese is hitting 3 pointers.
Just no way Boese should be playing at the 4 spot, in crunch time, over Clifford, King, Longrus, unless they are injured, resting for a minute or so, missing shots, and Boese is hitting 3 pointers
Now let's look at crunch time of the last game. Was Clifford, King, Longrus injured, resting, missing shots?
No.
Was Boese hitting shots? No.
Was Clifford, Longrus, King, playing bad defense?
No.
Was Clifford, Longrus, King rebounding badly?
No.
Was Boese rebounding well?
No
Was Boese playing good defense?
No.
Was Boese hitting shots?
No.
Then based on that Boese should not have been playing.
And Longrus, King, Clifford, should have played over Boese.
And if Boese would have been benched,
And if King, Longrus had been played over Boese.
Then WSU would have probably scored more, and the dogs would have probably scored less, and WSU would have probably won.
Kent probably made a mistake in playing Boese, and that's probably 1 of the reasons WSU lost the game.
Boese is like Harmeling, except doesn't shoot as well as Harmeling.
Harmeling was a semi defensive liability. His lateral side to side movement was SLOW.
He was to SLOW to play the 3 spot, and to SLOW, undersized, lacked strength, did not rebound well to play the 4 spot.
The only reason why Harmeling got playing time, was because of 30 team points per game, dick, Tony BENNET BALL.
Players like Harmeling, Lodwick, Boese, do NOT play well, in run gun, open, semi half court defense,should NOT play in run, gun, semi half court defense, offense games.
They are SLOW, do not run the court well. So in the run, gun game, if they are playing the 3 spot, they get BURNED off the dribble, schooled.
Heck I could beat Harmeling, Lodwick, Boese off the dribble, or could have back in the day.
And if you move them to the 4 spot, then they get posted up, out rebounded all day.
Harmeling, Lodwick, Boese, are no better then 6-7 Jeff Palmer who starred at Moses Lake High, played at Big Bend Community College, was recruited at first by WSU, but in the end wasn't recruited by WSU, because he was too much like Harmeling, Lodwick, Boese.
And I used to beat Jeff Palmer off the dribble all the time.
Now if I can beat a player like Jeff Palmer, a Harmeling, a Lodwick, a Boese, back in the day, I guarantee you that the PAC 12 3's lick their chops at beating them, and do beat them.
And Boese is worse because he is not taking, making shots.
If Boese was like a Steve Kerr 3 pt never miss specialist, then you give Boese 3 to 5 minutes per game, with 1 job, and that's to hit a 3 pointer, and then sit.
Boese is not doing anything. He doesn't take, hit shots. He gets beat off the dribble. He gets out rebounded. He gets posted up, scored on inside.
The ONLY thing Boese does well, is pass the ball well, not turn the ball over, leadership, hustle, floor burns, effort, heart, etc.
That's it. No scoring, No defense, No rebounding, getting beat off the dribble, getting beat inside.
At least Lodwick, scored a lot, played good defense, rebounded well, etc, his senior year.
At least Harmeling took,hit shots.
If Dick Bennet was the coach, and if used the Dick Bennet system of defense, offense, Boese, would be a good fit.
But this is run, gun ball, and Boese is not a good fit for run, gun ball.
King who is 6 foot 8, who is strong, athletic, quick, fast, jumps high, plays good defense, has good lateral quickness, hard to beat off dribble, takes charges, rebounds, hard to beat inside, shoots,makes shots well, shoots, makes 3 pointers well, runs court well, passes well, is a transfer, did well in noncon, has done better, is better than Boese.
King can play the 2,3,4, spots, well.
No way in HELL should Boese get more playing time, play over King, unless King is missing 3 pointer's, AND if Boese is not missing 3 pointer's.
No way in HELL, should Boese play a lot of crunch time minutes, UNLESS he is not missing 3 pointer's
Boese belongs on the bench, where he can cheer, be a good leader from the bench, UNLESS he can go in for 2 to 4 minutes, and hit a 3 pointer.
As far as Izundu not playing, lack of depth:
Hawk, Clifford, King,(6-8), Longrus, is plenty enough depth, and King, Longrus, Q, are way the hell better than Boese, and should play over Boese, at the 3,4 spots, unless King, Q, are missing, and Boese is hitting 3 pointers.
Just no way Boese should be playing at the 4 spot, in crunch time, over Clifford, King, Longrus, unless they are injured, resting for a minute or so, missing shots, and Boese is hitting 3 pointers
Now let's look at crunch time of the last game. Was Clifford, King, Longrus injured, resting, missing shots?
No.
Was Boese hitting shots? No.
Was Clifford, Longrus, King, playing bad defense?
No.
Was Clifford, Longrus, King rebounding badly?
No.
Was Boese rebounding well?
No
Was Boese playing good defense?
No.
Was Boese hitting shots?
No.
Then based on that Boese should not have been playing.
And Longrus, King, Clifford, should have played over Boese.
And if Boese would have been benched,
And if King, Longrus had been played over Boese.
Then WSU would have probably scored more, and the dogs would have probably scored less, and WSU would have probably won.
Kent probably made a mistake in playing Boese, and that's probably 1 of the reasons WSU lost the game.
If you thought Boese played bad defense in that game, you just lost...half of, some of, most of, nearly all of your credibility. He hasn't played well for most of this year but if you look at when he was in the game against UW thats when we made our runs, this was by far his best game of the season and he was a big part of WSU being in that game. Not hitting his shots? He was 2-2 with 6 points. Longrus had 4 blocks but he also had 2 turnovers and 4 rebounds to Boese's 3 rebounds. How many points did Longrus have ? 00000 ZERO!!
In crunch time, I saw Boese left behind in the dust, off the dribble.
And during the run the cougs made when down 10, Boese did nothing. The cougs made that run with basically 4 players, despite Boese. Boese was just there along for the ride. About no crunch time rebounds. No crunch time points. No crunch time assist. No crunch time defense, as he got badly beat off the dribble about 2,3,4 times in crunch time.
No taking charges during crunch time.
The only thing Boese did during crunch time, was hustle, effort, passing ball.
What Boese ' s weaknesses, is he is SLOW, unathletic, SLOW lateral movement on defense, gets easily beat off dribble, has to be able to hit 3 point shots at least semi consistently to be useful.
Boese ' s strong points, is that he has high energy, motor, hustles, has heart, is all floorburn team, passes well, doesn't turn ball over.
He plays FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND, POSITIONAL, BENNETBALL LIKE DEFENSE.
What I mean by that. Is there are some players who play good defense because of skill, talent, athleticism, speed, quickness, etc.
Some like Boese don't have talent, athleticism, speed, quickness to play defense, so they try to compensate thru hustle, being in the right position, spot at the right time, not thru talent, athleticism, quickness, but thru KNOWLEDGE, ANTICIPATION, ETC.
Now altho Boese plays good help side, team, positional defense at times, thru his knowledge, anticipation, etc, he does not play good defense, gets beat off dribble in crunch time, by faster, quicker, more athletic, etc players.
And that's a liability.
It's not enough to play positional defense, while getting beat off dribble because of lack of athletic, speedy, quicker.
What makes Longrus, King better than Boese, is that they are quick, fast athletic enough to play good defense, and can play positional defense well, and not get beat off the dribble in crunch time.
And during the run the cougs made when down 10, Boese did nothing. The cougs made that run with basically 4 players, despite Boese. Boese was just there along for the ride. About no crunch time rebounds. No crunch time points. No crunch time assist. No crunch time defense, as he got badly beat off the dribble about 2,3,4 times in crunch time.
No taking charges during crunch time.
The only thing Boese did during crunch time, was hustle, effort, passing ball.
What Boese ' s weaknesses, is he is SLOW, unathletic, SLOW lateral movement on defense, gets easily beat off dribble, has to be able to hit 3 point shots at least semi consistently to be useful.
Boese ' s strong points, is that he has high energy, motor, hustles, has heart, is all floorburn team, passes well, doesn't turn ball over.
He plays FUNDAMENTALLY SOUND, POSITIONAL, BENNETBALL LIKE DEFENSE.
What I mean by that. Is there are some players who play good defense because of skill, talent, athleticism, speed, quickness, etc.
Some like Boese don't have talent, athleticism, speed, quickness to play defense, so they try to compensate thru hustle, being in the right position, spot at the right time, not thru talent, athleticism, quickness, but thru KNOWLEDGE, ANTICIPATION, ETC.
Now altho Boese plays good help side, team, positional defense at times, thru his knowledge, anticipation, etc, he does not play good defense, gets beat off dribble in crunch time, by faster, quicker, more athletic, etc players.
And that's a liability.
It's not enough to play positional defense, while getting beat off dribble because of lack of athletic, speedy, quicker.
What makes Longrus, King better than Boese, is that they are quick, fast athletic enough to play good defense, and can play positional defense well, and not get beat off the dribble in crunch time.
King is closer to 6-6 than 6-8 and I think he can be a really good player. However he is still physically weak, and is more like a freshman in many respects including defense. He didn't have the energy to help in a very physical game yesterday, and that is the reason he didn't get more minutes. Boese played a really good game at both ends and left it all on the floor.
You can point to free throw shooting in almost every close game. UCLA missed a free throw with seconds left against UW that would have won the game in regulation. Arizona missed more free throws down the stretch than USC in that 4 ot game.
You can point to free throw shooting in almost every close game. UCLA missed a free throw with seconds left against UW that would have won the game in regulation. Arizona missed more free throws down the stretch than USC in that 4 ot game.
Mikalas: Your vociferous negative takes on Boese's game makes me really wonder why we hired such a dummy in Kent, who continues to play him over such obviously better talent.
Boese didn't get burned once off the dribble in crunch time and got his hands on several balls, the announcers commented several times on his good defense. The one who kept getting burned off the dribble was Que, that led to foul trouble in the first half and to his limited playing time. Boese passed up a shot in the corner and hit a cutter for a basket and chance at a three point play,( freethrow was missed). Watch him block out his guy towards the end of the game, twice he put a guy on his butt almost into the stands with hard block outs, he didn't get the rebound but did his job not allowing his guy a chance. Also during the the 10 -0 run Boese hit a three... thats 1/3 of the run. Mikalas you really might want to watch that game again.
Didn't see this game as a choke. I thought in a lot of ways we were the better "team" but the UW out talented us during stretches. They overplayed and hit a lot more 3s than I expected plus their foul shots. Callison has shown he's a Pac 12 player but couldn't find his range in this game.
Agree with Ava on King. He's going to be a good one but he's physically weak and has some trouble staying in front of his man. Que picking up an early second foul was unfortunate especially considering both were of the unnecessary variety.
Clifford is never going to be an athletic player but he found a way to not only score but wasn't the defensive liability he was against SC.
Overall, Ike had a nice game. The missed late free throw from him was surprising but other than that a good job. Still would like to see him finish his drives but hard to fault a career high 28 (11-18 from the field 2-3 from 3) point game even with the 4 TOs.
Agree with Ava on King. He's going to be a good one but he's physically weak and has some trouble staying in front of his man. Que picking up an early second foul was unfortunate especially considering both were of the unnecessary variety.
Clifford is never going to be an athletic player but he found a way to not only score but wasn't the defensive liability he was against SC.
Overall, Ike had a nice game. The missed late free throw from him was surprising but other than that a good job. Still would like to see him finish his drives but hard to fault a career high 28 (11-18 from the field 2-3 from 3) point game even with the 4 TOs.
Boese is a D11 player. He negatively affects the cougs efforts. He is not a reasonable alternative. I still cannot understand why a few posters would rathe the cougs lose as long as Boese gets to play.That is complete madness.
Just don't get it your favorite Hoops coach Kent plays Boese yet he is a D2 player. Are you calling Kent out? Can't say that I do totally understand some of Kent's substitution patterns but sounds like you are calling for his head.
I would much rather win than have Boese play one second of the game. What is madness is blaming a 20 pt loss on the fact that a senior bench player played 2 mins. Then when that player is called upon by his coach to play 20 plus mins and does reasonably well, he is again the reason for the loss. This team will never win or lose based on Brett Boese. Rather than questioning why coach Kent plays Boese maybe the question should be. Why do we have no half court offense a year and a half into the Kent era? Or is the offense really to have Callison dribble the shot clock down and take a bad shot? I seem to remember a former coach getting a lot of flack on this board for similar tendencies, the only real difference between Bone and Kent is recruiting, WSU is starting to get a higher level of player and hopefully that will continue and push the program upward.
Just remember the poster making the D-11 player evaluation also posted that Hawkinson was not worthy of a D-1 scholarship and that Aaron Cheatum would be an instant starter.
Just remember the poster making the D-11 player evaluation also posted that Hawkinson was not worthy of a D-1 scholarship and that Aaron Cheatum would be an instant starter.
I keep waiting to see this "higher level of player" EK has brought in. This pack of JCs might be a bit better but aren't raising WSU much higher in the Pac-12. At this point is the Cougar basketball program better than any other in this conference? Losing 7 players next year is not going to help either.
I have been puzzled by our half court offense too. I think there is no question that Kent has upgraded us in terms of speed and athleticism. We can really get up and down the court, but too many late poor shots against the shot clock. It seems to me that we don't really have any drop dead 3 point shooters. Que is close, but just doesn't get in the flow of the game enough to be dependable. Suggs King and Ike are all good enough to keep people honest, but not the type of guys that can spot up and knock down 3s on a regular basis. Also with a guy like Hawkinson you have to get him all the touches you can. Against UCLA we had great off the ball movement and showed some inside out game. Not so much against the Huskies. On the other hand our shooting percentage is the best in years and we put up 95 against the Dawgs
Enter Brett Boese. His shooting potential has been needed. He's still one of the few players that has shown he can consistently knock down 3s.
I agree Ferris. Boese really has the best spot up mechanics on the team. That and his toughness will continue to earn him minutes. Despite the fact that the pure inside half court game worked against UW had we made a few more free throws, we need an inside out game that keeps us from having to take tough contested shots late in the clock.
Honestly, I think the difference was that the game was played in Pullman when the students were out of town on Winter break. It's fair to assume that several thousand students would have attended under normal circumstances, and in an overtime game, that's the difference between UW missing a couple of 3 pointers and a few extra free throws.
The first 3 conference games showed we are capable of competing and winning games. If we aren't ready to play and locked in (SC) or we don't do the little things (UW) we aren't going to win many games. Our margin for error is relatively thin. We don't have the athletic ability and talent like SC, UCLA, and the UW to lean on. In a year we will be more ready but as most are aware Kent better come through with a monster class next year.
Recruiting is spotty at best, offense is so 1990's, defense is pretty much horrible. Next years monster class is not happening. We loose recruit after recruit and settle for folks with potential but not a single 4 or 5 star in sight.
Time to clean out a few more players. Suspect we will add 1 or 2 in the late period.
Time to clean out a few more players. Suspect we will add 1 or 2 in the late period.
I wonder why we aren't able to pull in a few 4-year transfers looking for another spot or are we in that market? If the high school 4/5 stars aren't in sight then I think they have to use some of the available spots on JCs.
2017 is going to be a rebuild for the simple reason that we got so unbalanced. Nobody is bringing any one and dones to WSU, so that means rebuild. My guess is that we bring in as many as 3 JC kids in that class. I would also love to see a quality transfer from a 4 year school. I think Daniels and Franks both have the upside to be solid contributors as juniors. The two kids coming in next season also look like solid contributors as sophs or juniors.
There just isn't any way to avoid down seasons at WSU. 2016 looks like it could be really good. Maybe Kent can grab the brass ring with a Terrance Lewis type JC kid and a really good frosh or two in 17. Still would be a drop off from 2016, but not a dumpster fire type of season.
There just isn't any way to avoid down seasons at WSU. 2016 looks like it could be really good. Maybe Kent can grab the brass ring with a Terrance Lewis type JC kid and a really good frosh or two in 17. Still would be a drop off from 2016, but not a dumpster fire type of season.
Problem with JC's are just what we are witnessing. At WSU they nearly often take a year to grasp the system. So really then just one year left.
Not really sure about next year's 2 players. One is clearly a reserve type player with not big numbers. The other a combo guard who is more of a scorer than a PG. Problem continues no PG. I think Kent goes hard after a JC Point.
Not really sure about next year's 2 players. One is clearly a reserve type player with not big numbers. The other a combo guard who is more of a scorer than a PG. Problem continues no PG. I think Kent goes hard after a JC Point.
Transfers go to winners if the current trend continues we will more than likely finish at the bottom of the Pac-12 6-12.
Seems to me the trend is up. Bone got some good players, but not enough. Ernie is getting more good players. Like I said WSU is always going to have some down seasons. Not getting any good frosh in his first class hurt, but he got a late start. This years new group is actually a pretty good class, even though top heavy with JC talent. If the 2017 class is as good as this group we could be decent by their second year.
I think there will be some attrition after the season, there always seems to be anyway. It wouldn't surprise me to see Redding and possibly Franks move on. As for the incoming recruits thus far, Pollard I think will be a solid role player but I don't see much more than that from him at this point. The point guard Acquaah, i'm excited about. He is a score first point guard, that I think will play as a back up next year and the be inline to probably start his soph year. If attrition does occur I would like to see coach go after a scoring wing player. Que just doesn't seem to have the competitive drive night in and night out. A player similar to Suggs but with more size, 6-6 to 6-8. King also has shown the potential to fill that role down the road.
I just hope the inability to recruit a real good, immediate impact freshman this past year doesn't put WSU farther behind the rest of the conference. Most everyone else has at least one, if not more, excellent freshmen who would be expected to stick around for a few more years:
UW: 6 of the top 7 scorers are freshmen with Murray leading the way at 15 ppg, 6 rebounds per game, 5 assists per game.
OSU: Tinkle, Thompson, and Eubanks are making major contributions this year with Tinkle a budding star.
UO: Dorsey averaging about 15 ppg and a big-time player already.
CAL: Jaylen Brown and Ivan Raab are double digit scorers with Raab averaging nearly 9 rebounds a game.
STAN: Marcus Sheffield making some solid contributions off the bench (6th leading scorer) on a very veteran team.
USC: Bennie Boatright averaging 12 ppg and 5 rpg on an already very young team.
UCLA: Aaron Holiday at 10+ ppg and nearly 4 assists per game.
ARIZ: Allonso Trier leads the team in scoring at nearly 15 ppg (out hurt now)
ASU: No impact freshmen at this time.
UTAH: No impact freshmen at this time.
COL: No impact freshmen at this time.
WSU: Daniels and Franks having no impact at this time and seeing little playing time.
I really don't want us to get into a habit of relying heavily on JCs every year and I'd be disappointed if any more than 2 of the upcoming 7 scholarships are spent on JCs. Of course, if Kent can't bring in good enough HS talent to fill at least 4-5 of those open spots, he may have no choice but to go junior college route. The program really does need to bring in at least a couple of impact HS players who won't have to sit on the bench for 1-2 years, IMO. Ernie was able to do that at UO, hoping he can replicate things at WSU.
Glad Cougar
UW: 6 of the top 7 scorers are freshmen with Murray leading the way at 15 ppg, 6 rebounds per game, 5 assists per game.
OSU: Tinkle, Thompson, and Eubanks are making major contributions this year with Tinkle a budding star.
UO: Dorsey averaging about 15 ppg and a big-time player already.
CAL: Jaylen Brown and Ivan Raab are double digit scorers with Raab averaging nearly 9 rebounds a game.
STAN: Marcus Sheffield making some solid contributions off the bench (6th leading scorer) on a very veteran team.
USC: Bennie Boatright averaging 12 ppg and 5 rpg on an already very young team.
UCLA: Aaron Holiday at 10+ ppg and nearly 4 assists per game.
ARIZ: Allonso Trier leads the team in scoring at nearly 15 ppg (out hurt now)
ASU: No impact freshmen at this time.
UTAH: No impact freshmen at this time.
COL: No impact freshmen at this time.
WSU: Daniels and Franks having no impact at this time and seeing little playing time.
I really don't want us to get into a habit of relying heavily on JCs every year and I'd be disappointed if any more than 2 of the upcoming 7 scholarships are spent on JCs. Of course, if Kent can't bring in good enough HS talent to fill at least 4-5 of those open spots, he may have no choice but to go junior college route. The program really does need to bring in at least a couple of impact HS players who won't have to sit on the bench for 1-2 years, IMO. Ernie was able to do that at UO, hoping he can replicate things at WSU.
Glad Cougar
Hope is fine and I hope so as well, but frankly his assistants sure wouldn't motivate me to sign. Two out of three are major antiques. Ernie himself seems unable to land a major frosh player. Pretty good on JC's. I suspect we will see many more.
Ernie has already signed 3 classes.
2014 Dunbar, Davis, Cheatum all gone. Redding far down the bench
2015 Clifford Callison Daniels Suggs Franks King 2 frosh TBD 5 JC's.
2016 Pollard Acquah TBD
That's 12 players and not a "pro" like Glad indicated most Pac12 schools are
getting. Rather a big disappointment.
Ernie has already signed 3 classes.
2014 Dunbar, Davis, Cheatum all gone. Redding far down the bench
2015 Clifford Callison Daniels Suggs Franks King 2 frosh TBD 5 JC's.
2016 Pollard Acquah TBD
That's 12 players and not a "pro" like Glad indicated most Pac12 schools are
getting. Rather a big disappointment.
We have signed exactly 1 player of the caliber referred to in the above posts over the last 20 years. I don't see that trend changing with Kent or any other coach. You win in Pullman by finding guys with upside ( Low, Weaver Cowgill, Baynes Motum Lacy Hawkinson Iroegbu ), and getting them to be juniors.
Nobody hates depending on a bunch of JC guys more than me, but we are going to have to find at least 2 or 3 more of them in the 2017 class. Also I haven't given up on Daniels or Franks yet. Daniels would be getting minutes but for same back problems. Franks is raw, but looks to have the kind of upside some of the guys in the prior paragraph possessed ( see Motum, Hawkinson ).
Nobody hates depending on a bunch of JC guys more than me, but we are going to have to find at least 2 or 3 more of them in the 2017 class. Also I haven't given up on Daniels or Franks yet. Daniels would be getting minutes but for same back problems. Franks is raw, but looks to have the kind of upside some of the guys in the prior paragraph possessed ( see Motum, Hawkinson ).
Kent hasn't been at WSU long enough to be in the running for any serious freshmen recruits. 2017 and 2018 will be the real evaluation years. Recruiting starts so young now days and with Kent being completely out of coaching he doesn't have the relationships built with the guys from the last 2 years, but i'm sure he is getting ready for a big push.
Ava, I agree that it's unrealistic to expect WSU, no matter who is coaching, to pick up a Tres Tinkle, Dorsey, Jaylen Brown type star frosh. But it's not unrealistic to expect Kent to bring in a freshman or two who can play some serious minutes right away. That's really what I'm hoping for. Most other teams in the conference are able to work in some freshmen into the playing rotation. Too much reliance on JCs doesn't really build long term success in most cases, IMO. I can see the JC route as a bridge, but as I mentioned, I'm really hoping the big 2017 class includes at least 4 freshmen (5 would be better) of which at least a couple are good enough to play serious minutes right away.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
No issue with what anyone has posted. I have had the same concern as 7I when it comes to staff. Curtis Allen is the only young assistant. I was concerned with the staff choices from the start but that's obviously who Kent was confortable hiring.
Agree with Bob that we aren't getting a Boatright or Holliday to come through Pullman. Getting a Washington kid like Murray is probably less likely at this point. The one-or-two-and-done is unrealistic. What we need is more of the fringe NBA or sure Euro type talent. Weaver, Baynes, and Motum were able to get NBA looks. Baynes was able to stick. I assume Rotchestie is still playing overseas. I don't know whether any of the high school players will approach that level before they are done at WSU.
I don't like to rely on JCs but I think we have to at this point. With 7 to give next year it's almost required they find 2 or 3 in the class to bring back the balance.
Agree with Bob that we aren't getting a Boatright or Holliday to come through Pullman. Getting a Washington kid like Murray is probably less likely at this point. The one-or-two-and-done is unrealistic. What we need is more of the fringe NBA or sure Euro type talent. Weaver, Baynes, and Motum were able to get NBA looks. Baynes was able to stick. I assume Rotchestie is still playing overseas. I don't know whether any of the high school players will approach that level before they are done at WSU.
I don't like to rely on JCs but I think we have to at this point. With 7 to give next year it's almost required they find 2 or 3 in the class to bring back the balance.
Let me just add that with a class of 7 to be filled, there is little doubt that any freshmen in that class will be getting serous minutes, if not starting....just out of necessity if nothing else.
Glad Cougar
Glad Cougar
