In case anyone over here gives a shit, our Coug men cracked the top 25 in both polls this morning. 21 and 22.
Mik Ramble Thread
- Thread starter Loyal Coug1
- Start date
And they did it with what looks to me to be as good a team as we've had since I've been alive. Better than all the others? No. But as good as the best of them? Yes. Bearing in mind that the game has changed dramatically since Raveling's teams, and somewhat since the Bennetts...still, what we have this season is as good as I've seen.
Think about it. You have one of the most dynamic PG in the conference. Possibly the best duo of pure shooters from the SF position in Jaki and Wells. One of the best defensive post groups in the conference, two of which have above average offensive skillsets in jones and cluff. Outstanding team defense and size everywhere. Unselfishness and everyone understanding their roles and playing within the offense. This is a really tough team for anyone to match up with.
We were already a good team. The emergence of wells has made us really tough to beat. There are two things I’ve seen that can trip us up. Free throw shooting, and end of half/game game management.
I went to the basketball intro event at Beasley before the season and I sent a text to a buddy of mine that we had a team full of dudes that looked like they can play ball. They have exceeded my modest expectations.
As a team that combines athletics, BB skills including length and chemistry only the Raveling of 79-80 and 82-83 teams were at this level in my opinion. Not to bad mouth the Bennetts, but they were a "system" team, designed and drilled to accomplished "more with less" (in year two, they won 4 games in conference, and only 11 overall). This team has already won 11 conference games having played together for only 4 months. It kinda shows a difference in overall talent. The 93-94 Cougs were very undersized and overcame with guard play. And when you think about it, George's teams were only very good when senior dominated, the 78-79 and 81-82 Cougs were kinda ordinary. So this group of kids is very special, any way you cut it.
We rarely get offensively gifted/skilled bigs too. They are usually guys that need a ton of development and even then their ceiling is average offensively. Sure you can get big freak athletes like Casto and turn them into blocking and rebounding machines but the offensively skilled guys don’t usually come to WSU. Smith got two of them!
Baynes vs Cluff would be fun to watch.
You know, you all could take this over to the Beasley board. There are a few there that don't seem to come over here, and vice versa. The mighty Loyal one, of course, is everywhere....
This team has the POTENTIAL to be better then the other WSU teams, if the team goes 4-1, then wins 2,3 more in PAC tourny, and then if go to Elite 8.
Will that happen? I don't know. We'll see what happens.
You keep saying "In the conference", which is true, but I would change the wording from "In the conference", to "In the nation", which is equally true, as WSU's PG Rice is one of the better, best in nation, and WSU's SF's Wells, Jaki are among the better, best in nation, and Jones, Cluff, Chinyelu, as a group is one of the better, best Frontcourts in nation, which is why WSU is ranked #21.
Your right about WSU's Freethrow shooting, end of game management being 2 of WSU's weak points.
Another is altho WSU has HEATED up from 3, WSU still has one of the not good 3 point shooting percentages as a team in the nation.
If WSU is going to make a deep run, and or beat the #1,2,3 seeds in NCAA, etc, the team, is going to need to shoot better from 3, make more freethrows, and have good end game management, and limit turnovers, etc.
Smith got Efe, Gueye, Dischon Jackson, Jaki, Cluff, Jones, Chinyelu, so that's 6,7 he Smith got, not just 2.
Maybe, maybe not. We won't know until if WSU goes 4-1, 2 PAC tourny wins, Elite 8. If WSU does that and finishes 29-8, then Bennet's team would not likely be at that team, let alone by 10+
And even if Bennet's team would beat this team, would win by 10+, Rice, is more talented then Low, Rochestie, and Jones, Cluff, Chinyelu are more talented, athletic, then Cowgirl, etc, and Wells is better then Weaver, and Bennet had no NBA prospects, and Smith has Jones, Chinyelu, Wells, Rice as current or future prospective NBA prospects.
The Bennetts recruited Kyle Weaver, Aron Baynes, and Klay Thompson. All played or are playing multiple years in the NBA. I do like the fact that Smith has brought in several highly talented players who have the potential to play pro ball.
Glad Cougar
Weaver/Baynes, in college, either weren't NBA Prospects, and were not expected to either be drafted, play in NBA, or at best were FRINGE, BORDERLINE NBA PROSPECTS that might get drafted, play in NBA as a borderline, fringe, on and off, in and out of league, last off bench, might make a team, etc, which is pretty much what they were.
Also Weaver, Baynes, were 2.5 star recruits, that were not expected to make NBA. A NBA prospect is a person, player that has a high likelihood, is expected to make NBA. In that sense, Weaver, Baynes weren't the PROSPECTS that Smith has.
Klay, altho technically recruited by Bennet, was developed by, and was 99% under Bone, and so was a Bone player, not a Bennet player.
Jones, Chinyelu, Wells, Rice were, are 3.5 star, 4 star recruits, players, prospects that are likely NBA prospects, are more expected to play in NBA, then the 2.5 stars Low, Rochestie, Weaver, Cowgil, Baynes were.
Also you don't go by whether they made the NBA. A NBA PROSPECT is someone who is EXPECTED to make NBA. If you aren't EXPECTED, and still make NBA, then you were NOT a NBA PROSPECT.
Another example is Craig Ehlo. Even tho Craig Ehlo under Raveling, made, played in the NBA, he was NOT a NBA PROSPECT, AS NOBODY EXPECTED HIM TO MAKE NBA, AND HE WAS NOT LIKELY TO MAKE THE NBA.
If you took the pre NBA versions of Weaver, Baynes, and were then to ask Will Weaver, Baynes make NBA or Will Jones, Rice, Wells, Chinyelu make NBA or who is most likely to make NBA, Jones, Rice, Wells, Chinyelu or Weaver, Baynes?
Most people would answer Jones, Rice, Wells, Chinyelu, over Weaver, Baynes.
If you asked blue blood coaches like Coach K, which player would they recruit, rather have, draft, etc, and they would choose Jones, Rice, Wells, Chinyelu, Jaki, Cluff, over Low, Rochestie, Cowgil, Weaver, Baynes, and that's because Jones, Rice, Wells, Chinyelu, Jaki, Cluff, etc, is, are BETTER as recruits, players, NBA prospects, etc, then the PRE NBA versions of Low, Rochestie, Cowgil, Weaver, Baynes.
Really. In the nation?
Well let's see. Jones is at #24 in shooting %, but none of the others are in that top 50, or the top 50 in points, rebounds or assists. In the nation.
Low, Rochestie, Weaver, Cowgil, Baynes were 2.5 star recruits, players, that BENNETS SYSTEM made them MORE out of LESS, goto NBA, etc, even tho they were not EXPECTED to do that well.
Jones, Rice, Wells, Chinyelu, Jaki, Cluff, were, are 3.5 star, 4 star recruits, players that were, are more talented, had, have more expectations on, about them, then Low, Rochestie, Cowgil, Weaver, Baynes, etc, had before they went sweet 16, made NBA, UNDER BENNETS SYSTEM.
There is a DIFFERENCE BETWEEN being a MARGINAL at best player at best that is DEVELOPED BY A SYSTEM, that goes to Sweet 16, NBA BECAUSE OF A SYSTEM, and being a AWESOMELY TALENTED PLAYER, that is EXPECTED, IS LIKELY TO make NCAA, goto NBA, not because of a system, but because they are a AWESOMELY TALENTED PLAYER.
NOBODY EXCEPT BENNET WANTED LOW, ROCHESTIE, WEAVER, COWGIL, BAYNES.
BENNETS SYSTEM developed them into players that people MUCH LATER wanted.
ALMOST NOBODY EXPECTED MUCH OF ANYTHING OUT OF THEM.
LOTS OF PEOPLE WANTED JONES, RICE, WELLS, CHINYELU, JAKI, CLUFF, AND THATS BECAUSE THEY WERE, ARE MORE TALENTED, BETTER then, have more expectations, more better likelyhoods, etc, then the college, pre NBA versions of Low, Rochestie, Cowgil, Weaver, Baynes.
Mik, do you ever shut up? You've posted the same thing 9 times now in this thread. I'm going to rename it for you.
And what is your point anyway? Smith is a better recruiter than the Bennetts? Not a better coach if the Bennetts were able to take all these losers to the round of 32 in year 4 and the sweet 16 in year 5.
One or two identical rambles per thread should be adequate.
And Cluff better than Baynes? Whatever. Thats why he had to go to CC or Division II or wherever he came from.
Now get back to watching those 200 teams in College BB, since apparently do to be able to anoint our guys as the best in the nation. (and see my previous post about the top 50 in major categories)
Disagree. MAYBE one of those guys see substantial time in the NBA. It’s a really hard league to crack into, 12 guys to a roster and good players play 20 years. IMO Wells has the best NBA potential on the team. Rice’s size is going to be an issue, Jones is a really good player but there’s 20 + guts just like him around the country and they have to beat out equally talented guys already on NBA rosters. Chinyelu better get to work because he’s a long ways from MG, although has an NBA body. The chances of someone on this team having a career similar to Baines is probably slim.
Bottom line this is a collection of good college players who are really well coached and play well together.
Dude, you don't have to be a statistical leader in the nation to be one of the better, best in nation.
Especially with a team like WSU.
If WSU was a 1 man team, then WSU would have a player that would probably statistically be one of the top players in nation statistically.
But WSU is not a 1 man team. Jones, Wells, Rice, HAVE PRETTY GOOD STATS DESPITE THAT THERE IS ABOUT 4,5,6 PLAYERS ON THE TEAM THAT HAVE PRETTY GOOD STATS, THAT TAKE AWAY STATS THAT JONES, WELLS, RICE, COULD BE ADDING TO THEIR STAT TOTALS.
A example of this kind of thing: JRUE HOLIDAY. He played for UCLA. He scored 8.5 ppg, and had about 4.5 rebounds, and had about 4 assist per game, as about a 6-5 HYBRID POINT GUARD, SHOOTING GUARD, COMBO GUARD. He was a NBA DRAFT LOTTERY PICK. HE WAS ONE OF THE BEST IN THE NATION, EVEN THO HIS STATS WERE NOT GREAT.
Likewise, even tho Jones, Rice, Wells only average about 14,15,16 points per game, etc, and don't have stats that lead the nation, Jones, Wells, Rice's talents, athleticism, skills, etc, are among the better players in the nation. If Rice were to HOG the STATS, he would lead the nation statistically. Same with Wells, Jones.
Rice has had 7, SEVEN FRESHMAN OF THE WEEK AWARDS. Only USC's EVAN MOBLEY(IN THE NBA)(LOTTERY PICK)(EITHER THE BEST PLAYER IN NATION, OR ONE OF BEST IN NATION)HAS EVER DONE THAT.
ONLY TOP PLAYERS IN NATION DO THAT KIND OF STUFF.
Jones has gotten PAC 12 PLAYER OF WEEK 4 TIMES.
ONLY ONE OF THE BETTER PLAYERS IN NATION DO THAT KIND OF STUFF.
You can't, shouldn't only go by stats, as that does not always tell the whole story.
Jones, Rice, Wells are 3 of the better players in nation, not just conference, and that's why WSU is doing so good, and that's part of why there isn't 1,2 WSU players with 19 ppg, 11 rebounds per game, 7 assist per game, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO SHARE THOSE STATS WITH 5,6 OTHER PRETTY DAMN AWESOME PLAYERS ALSO ON WSU'S TEAM.
WSU and Jones, Wells, Rice is basically kinda like Jrue Holiday, and his UCLA team, this season
I said AS A GROUP, THAT JONES, WELLS, RICE, CLUFF, IS BETTER THEN WEAVER, BAYNES, ETC.
I DID NOT SAY THAT CLUFF AS A INDIVIDUAL PLAYER WAS BETTER THEN BAYNES.
OF COURSE BAYNES IS BETTER THEN CLUFF.
BUT BAYNES AND WEAVER AND LOW AND COWGIL PRE NBA, WERE NOT, AREN'T BETTER THEN JONES, RICE, WELLS, CLUFF AS A GROUP.
YOU TOOK WHAT I SAID OUT OF CONTEXT.
BECAUSE YOUR READING COMPREHENSION NEEDS WORK.
PLEASE WORK ON YOUR READING COMPREHENSION.
Aaron Baynes played in the NBA for 9 seasons and won a championship. I don't care what his star ranking was as a recruit.
The reality is that most of these guys are at WSU because the elite schools in the country did not seriously consider them to be NBA level players during recruiting. We have a team full of "dudes" but there's a big gap between being a dude who can play ball and a dude who can play ball in the NBA....and it's an unforgiving gap.
If I was a coach, I'd focus on recruiting kids who I didn't think were NBA players. I'd rather have kids who play team basketball. The game the NBA plays only slightly resembles basketball.
Sure, his 2018-2019 National Champion Virginia team. But not his teams at WSU. They won a lot of games, but they didn't blow out a lot of teams in conference.
Oh Mik. Yes I always act like an idiot. I did so for my entire moderately successful 38-year career, which allowed me to retire a bit early, and start funding my grandchildren's educations. Wanna compare 401k's? Or cash in bank?
And, per your ramble above (do you like the new thread name?), in all of your previous posts you used the word "group" exactly zero times. And multiple times you favorably compared your current list of Cougs, including Cluff, to the Bennett Cougs, including Baynes, as PLAYERS. Not as groups of players.
So no, I did not take any of your ramblings out of context, and my reading comprehension does not need any work.
And you have yet, after a dozen rambles, to articulated what your points are by ragging on one of the most successful Coug teams in history and making up BS about how our current players are the best in the nation.
If anyone else on the board cares to interject about my idiocy - ok skip that - or reading comprehension please feel free to opine.
I'm not sure who I would take, but a fun matchup to think about on both ends:
Rotchestie / Rice
Low / Wells
Weaver / Jakimovski
Cowgill / Jones
Baynes / Cluff
Benches: Harmeling, Forrest, Koprivica / Houinsou, Chinyelu, Watts
Man vs. Zone. Tony's team was incredibly efficient. I'm sure the last 12 games this team has been as well.
Not only was Klay "technically" recruited by Bennett, he played his freshman season for Tony. Klay played 3 seasons for the Cougs. My math tells me that Bennett gets at least 33% credit for Klay's development, not 1%.
Glad Cougar
Tony's best team, by far, was at Virginia? Coaching in the ACC. Won a national championship? Your point is? If you are talking about Tony's best WSU team, weren't they 11-7 in conference, weren't they swept by UCLA, Arizona and Stanford. Best non-conference win was against #17 Gonzaga (never ranked that high again), best conference win was against #24 ASU (never ranked again). If you aren't talking about UVa, I think you might be wearing your rose color glasses about how "10+" that team actually was.
Frankly, Kyle Smith is a better recruiter than George Raveling, and until now George was the gold standard!
FWIW, that 2008 team played a lot of really good teams. Using Massey's ratings as a guide (easiest method), following is a list of teams that the 2008 squad lost to:
#4 UCLA
#31 Arizona
#60 Cal
#13 Stanford (OT)
#4 UCLA
#31 Arizona
#13 Stanford
#13 Stanford
#2 North Carolina
Top 50 wins against: Baylor, Gonzaga, USC, Oregon, USC, Oregon, Oregon, Notre Dame. The only bad loss that season was against #60 Cal. Schedule was rated #30
The 2024 team?
Losses to:
#35 Miss State
#102 Santa Clara
#52 Utah
#47 Colorado
#40 Oregon
#121 Cal
Top 50 wins: Boise State, Arizona, Colorado & Oregon. Arizona is the only Top 50 opponent left. Schedule is rated #83. This year's team is pretty solid and it's great to see us get ranked, but I'd have to say that the 2008 team would grind this team to pieces and win ugly 8 times out of 10.
Well Steve Puidokas (and others) and I might beg to differ. But you know what? So what? Why do we have to go back 45 years and talk about who recruited better? Thread was supposed to be about this team, not the ghosts of Cougs past........
Even Tony's best WSU team was kinda semi designed to beat any team that was slightly above average, or lower, which was about 59% to 63% of teams.
They did that through TONY'S SYSTEM, which NEUTRALIZED the talent deficit, by SLOWLY dribbling ball to halfcourt set, then passing ball around perimeter until 1 second left in shot clock, then taking a midrange jumpers, 3 point shots, etc, and then not rebounding, and then getting back in defense, shutting down opponent transition fast break offense, then playing great half court D, then getting rebound, then rinse, wash, repeat, until either win by 1 point, or lose by 1 point in a close game.
Bennets system is designed to shut down fast breaking teams, and teams that drive a lot, get a lot of lay ups, made created inside shots.
Bennets system is weak against BIG MONSTER FRONT COURTS and teams that can still score inside despite Bennet's PACK IT IN DEFENSE.
Bennets system is also weak against 3 POINT SHOOTING, because of their PACK IT IN DEFENSE, leaving 3 point shooters more open.
Now Smith's team isn't that great of a 3 point shooting team, which seems to play into Bennet's strengths and weaknesses, BUT SMITH MONSTER FRONTCOURT, OVERALL TEAM SIZE, QUICKNESS, ATHLETICISM, JUMPING ABILITY, LENGTH, ETC, would let Smith PUNCH IT, SCORE INSIDE, even against Bennets pack it in defense, and then get wide open midrange, 3 point shots, that Smith's would despite not being great shooters, would still make enough because Smith's defense would be good enough to shut down Bennet's offense long enough to Smiths better offense then Bennet's offense to score more then Bennet's team and win.
6,7,8 times out of 10, Smiths team would beat Bennet's best WSU team in what would be very close games.
Altho Bennet's best WSU teams OCASSIONALLY beat the UCLA's, Arizona's, Kentuckies, Dukes, North Carolina's, Kansas's, etc, MOST of the time, Bennet's best WSU teams, would USUALLY lose to those teams.
Smith's team this season, can more easily beat those top, best teams, then Bennet's best WSU team.
As far as match ups go, Rice would beat Rochestie or Low. Wells would beat Low Weaver. Jaki would beat Harmeling, but lose to Cowgil, Jones would beat Cowgil, but lose to Baynes, Cluff would beat Cowgil, but lose to Baynes, Chinyelu would beat Baynes defensively but would lose to Baynes offensively, Chinyelu would beat Cowgil
Overall WSU players would be BETTER then Tony's players. Tony's SYSTEM is better then Smith's, and that would make the game extremely close.
Dude you were being extremely rude, insulting, a hole ish, jerkish, etc, which is what is, was, etc, MAKING YOU THE IDIOT.
YES YOU DID TAKE OUT OF CONTEXT
AND YOUR READING COMPREHENSION NEEDS WORK, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU DENY IT.
And no I am not ragging on Tony's best WSU team, players, etc.
What Tony, and his players did DUE to Tony's SYSTEM, and development, was AWESOME.
But COMPARATIVELY, Smith's players(Jones, Wells, Rice, Cluff, Jaki) are BETTER then Tony's Low, Rochestie, Weaver, Cowgil, Baynes, OVERALL AS A GROUP, and as individuals, EXCEPT BAYNES, who is better then Smith's Jones, Wells, Rice, Cluff, Jaki
And Comparatively Tony's SYSTEM is better then Smith's.
That's not ragging on either Tony, or Smith, or either of their players. ITS A COMPARISON.
And I did NOT say WSU's players are the BEST OF THE BEST IN NATION.
I SAID THAT THEY ARE AMONG, SOME OF THE BETTER PLAYERS IN NATION.
ONLY PLAYERS LIKE EVAN MOBLEY, THAT ARE SOME OF THE BETTER PLAYERS IN THE NATION DO STUFF LIKE WIN 7 PAC 12 FRESHMAN OF THE WEEK IN 1 SEASON, OR 4+ PAC 12 PLAYER OF THE WEEK IN 1 SEASON, LIKE JONES, RICE.
I EXPLAINED HOW JRUE HOLIDAY, ONLY HAD 8.5 PPG, AND WAS STILL ONE OF THE BETTER PLAYERS IN NATION, AND WAS A LOTTO PICK IN NBA DRAFT.
THAT SHOWS WHY, HOW THAT DESPITE JONES, WELLS, RICE NOT LEADING NATION STATISTICALLY, THEY ARE STILL SOME OF THE BETTER PLAYERS IN NATION.
Again you take out of context, and still need to work on your reading comprehension.
Last edited:
You do realize that Smith's earlier bad losses were during the Noncon, earlier PAC 12 schedule back when Smith's 9, NINE NEW REPLACEMENT players that replaced the 10, TEN LOST players, was busy taking time to JELL, DEVELOP CHEMISTRY, LEARN HOW TO PLAY TOGETHER, WIN, ETC.
You do realize that Tony's team had been together for 3,4,5 years.
You do realize that since the noncon, earlier PAC 12 schedule, Smith's team has won the last 9,10, 11, out of the about last 10,11,12 games in a row.
Compare the last 10 to 13 games of this season's Smith's team to Tony's best WSU team.
Throw out this seasons noncon, it does not, should not apply.
Tony's best WSU team, they weren't winning ABOUT 99% of their later season games, like Smith is doing.
That said we won't truly know how the compare until the end of the last 5 games of this season, until after the PAC TOURNY, until after the end of the NCAA tourny, etc.
But so far, Smith seems to be having a better last 10 to 13 games of regular season, before PAC tourny, before NCAA tourny, then Bennet's best WSU team.
Good point. But the reason for the comparisons, etc, is that 1. People are going to naturally compare this season's Smith's team that has done something that hasnt been done since 1941(learned that from Chaz, the radio announcer), to Tony's Best WSU team.
Then others furthered those comparisons, by saying that Tony Bennet would beat Smith's team this season by 10+ points.
And since then the debate, comparison has gone back and forth.
Kinda comparing apples and oranges. This team is has been together for 4 months. They got off to a rocky start, as you would expect with basically a brand new roster. This team already has a higher quality win than did 2008. The thing about the 2008 team is that the lost to the high end competition every time, because they didn't that the horses to compete. This team may not win against Arizona today, but announcers remark about their talent level to beat virtually anyone.
