This is going to be a very long season
- Thread starter How_did_this_happen?
- Start date
Who was the last coach at WSU to lose to Idaho two seasons in a row? That was a poorly coached game.
Nonsense the talent is there. What was plainly missing was the effort and teamwork to win the game. The cougs had far more talent than the Vandals. Kent needs to shorten the rotation and the players need to light a fire under themselves. One can not win at the D 1 level without a full effort. They did not do that last night.
"Talent" only becomes "talent" when it shows up on the court/field. Idaho's guards (45 points) dominated the Cougar guards. The potential label only lasts so many years (Que) and I'm still waiting to see it on any consistent basis.
The Pac-12 media choice of a 12th place finish for WSU looking pretty safe at this point. Things could improve though, IF it shows up on the court.
The Pac-12 media choice of a 12th place finish for WSU looking pretty safe at this point. Things could improve though, IF it shows up on the court.
I disagree.... because other than a few posters on this board, no one really thinks this roster has that much talent. We have a bunch of lightly recruited HS and JC players. Hence the media poll had us dead last in the PAC 12. Recruiting suffered under Bone and Kent has done little to improve that yet in his tenure. I think Kent is a very good coach when he has the passion/desire to coach (which he currently does), so I think we will win some games this season despite our lack of PAC 12 talent... but to be overrated someone has to rate our players highly to begin with. Truth is that most of our roster would struggle to make the 12 deep at other PAC 12 schools. Many of the player assessments on this board are along the same lines as those who justified the terrible football recruiting under the previous coaching staff... the same 3 or 4 internet forum experts explaining why a new commit who was lightly recruited is simply "under the radar" and a hidden talent or a freak athlete who just needs time to develop.
He'll have a big recruiting class coming up. This will determine whether Kent can recruit or not.
I still think he needs to show he can coach. Start with basics on defense and blocking out. Last night was pathetic.
Coaching? Sorry, but Clifford needs to play no less than 24 minutes. He seems very out of shape. The Cougars have some depth and need to press for 40 minutes. Guards who don't go to the boards need to be at far end of the bench. Guards who don't defend need to be further down the bench.
Kent needs to be very close to the hot seat with this kind of dog appearance by his Team. Its coaching when you team doesn't try, looks like deer in the head lights, doesn't seem to even work at defense.
Here come the Boners again. Kent did well last year without much talent The team has many newcomers who have to learn to play together. it is silly to make these kinds of statements this early in the season Kent "on the hot seat" give me a break. These kids of guys were Bone -er supporters when the program was a complete and dismal failure in all aspects.The team so far has a winning record. The true tests will come as the season progresses.
The winning record the Cougs have were against cream puffs at best. I agree the true tests will come as the season progresses. For whatever reason, WSU played pitiful basketball against Idaho.
AND Bone was a worthless coach at the Pac-12 level. I, for one, was never a fan of his program.
Maybe I'm just tired of WSU being a bottom feeder in the Pac-12.
AND Bone was a worthless coach at the Pac-12 level. I, for one, was never a fan of his program.
Maybe I'm just tired of WSU being a bottom feeder in the Pac-12.
Tired of it to but I wasn't expecting much last year and while I expect more this year it's still relatively low. The talent has improved but there is still a gap between us and a lot of the Pac 12 especially in the backcourt. We just aren't there yet.
Rebounding is about effort and position. Idaho played that way, the Cougs seemed to not care. Especially poor considering how much we outsized them. I am not real pleased with several players, and agree the bench should be shortened. Redding makes me cringe every time he checks in. How can you be that bad at both scoring and ball security and still get minutes? Boese is only good at one thing and refuses to do it while on the floor. Ike has his moments, but man does he play out of control, will he ever figure it out? Same with Que. just disappointed overall.
I slammed Bone incessangly too, so don't go down that road.
What I saw vs Idaho was a team that was not well-coached.
Guys that make that kind of money deserve criticism for poor performance. Don't cover for the 1%-ers anywhere.
Time for some logic, common sense, truth.
1. Talent vs no talent vs lack of talent vs improved Talent:
a. Talent has improved, and is mostly D1, PAC 12 talent, with a couple, few, some like Boese, who not D1, PAC 12, and is therefore bench, practice player, with little to almost no minutes.
The players:
Ike: 4 star. 4 star means is, should be D1, PAC 12 talent. He has the Talent, is out of control, and needs to get under control. Speedy, athletic, quick, runs, can shoot, court vision Ave to below ave, same for passing, defense PG skills, more of a combo 1,2 guard.
Que: 4 star, underachiever, unrealized talent, skill. Should average 9.9+ ppg. Athletic, speedy, quick, tall, shooter.
Callison: A 3 star transfer from a JC, or another college. D1, PAC 12 talent.
Renard Suggs, a 3 star JC transfer, PAC 12, D1 talent.
Nye Redding 3 star, should be a PAC 12, D1 talent, but doesn't seem to be realizing, achieving talent, doesn't seem to be improving talent, so should be benched.
Vionte Daniels is a 3 star, who is a PAC 12, D1 talent, awesome shooter.
Boese, not a D1, PAC 12 talent, should be benched.
Longrus a 3 star, should be a PAC 12, D1 talent, but isnt, so should come off bench.
Clifford is a 3 star transfer, should be, probably is a PAC 12, D1 talent, but just out of shape, should come off bench.
Valentine Izundu, is a 3 star transfer, should be, probably is a PAC 12, D1 player, has freakish athleticism, jumping ability, blocking shots ability, should start, Co start, Co come off bench with clifford, izundu platooning, starting, coming off bench.
Hawkinson is a PAC 12, D1 player.
the starters should be 1.Callison 2. Ike 3. Que
4. Hawkinson 5. Izundu, or Clifford.
with Suggs, Vionte Daniels, Nye Redding coming off the bench, at guard, and Izundu, Clifford, Longrus coming off bench at forward, 4,5 spots.
The rotation should be a 8,9 man rotation of
1. Hawkinson.
2. Ike
3. Callison
4. Que
5. Izundu
6. Suggs
7.Clifford
8. Long rid
9. Daniel, or Redding.
10. Daniel, or Redding should be benched, only play very limited minutes in garbage time off bench.
11. Same for Boese.
12. Same for the rest of the team.
Now the reason why it seems the talent isn't there, is because like El C said the team has a lot of raw, talented, athletic, semi lower PAC 12, D1 talent, that are NEWCOMERS, that haven't had a chance to fully develop, play together, work together, have chemistry, focus, work hard AS A TEAM.
Keep in mind that if WSU had shot it better, and if Wiltjer wasn't in never ever miss a 3 pointer mode, that WSU would have beat Gonzaga, and despite that still came close to almost beating Gonzaga, and played Gonzaga TOUGH. Keep in mind that Gonzaga is ranked 13th in nation. A untalented, unskilled, non good team doesn't play a 13th ranked team that toughly, like WSU did.
The reason why WSU lost to Idaho, is that WSU forgot about last year vs the Vandals, and probably thought, hey its the Vandals. They are 5-5 record, in whatchamacallit midmajor league, and is practically a big Sky like FCS like team. They probably thought that hey their players are more talented than Idaho players.
And they are right, but that caused them to not focus on the Vandals.
WSU made a lot of UNFORCED errors, turnovers, etc. WSU didn't box out, get position to rebound well. No way in hell should Idaho's shorter, less athletically gifted
big men, guards, have out rebounded WSU's big men guards, especially since WSU rebounded competitively against the Zags, and since the Zags, would totally out rebound Idaho.
Also keep in mind that Idaho almost beat USC, on the road, at USC. Now did that happen because Idaho as good as USC?, Hell no. USC has a lot of D1, PAC 12 talent, and is way the hell better than Idaho. The only reason why USC almost lost is that both USC, and WSU, weren't focused on Idaho.
So now WSU knows how Arizona, UCLA, felt when Dick Bennet, Tony Bennet beat them with way the hell less talented players.
Basically Idaho Dick Benneted, Tony Benneted, beat WSU with way the hell less talented players.
If were to take WSU's players, and Idaho's players in a line, and then pick players for WSU's team, I would pick WSU's players over Idaho's players, with the exception, I would leave Boese for Idaho, and take Sarbaugh for WSU.
WSU is a work in project, progress. As the season goes along, WSU will gradually get better.
I project, predict the cougs will only lose 3 games, 1 more loss against oklahoma, and maybe against 1 more loss against Utep,in nonconference.
And in conference I think WSU wins 5 to 7 games in conference.
And I think WSU wins 1 PAC 12 tourney games.
And I think WSU will win 14 to 18 wins, most likely 15,16, 15.5 wins, and a CIT, CBI berth, NIT bubble.
Next year I think WSU will win 18,19 games before losing almost the whole team, and having to rebuild, reload the team the year after that.
So I don't think Kent is on the hot seat yet.
Hopefully the cougs will learn from the Idaho game
I do get why people are concerned, frustrated though.
But despite that it's time to stop knee jerking, panicking, etc, and calmly wait and see what happens.
1. Talent vs no talent vs lack of talent vs improved Talent:
a. Talent has improved, and is mostly D1, PAC 12 talent, with a couple, few, some like Boese, who not D1, PAC 12, and is therefore bench, practice player, with little to almost no minutes.
The players:
Ike: 4 star. 4 star means is, should be D1, PAC 12 talent. He has the Talent, is out of control, and needs to get under control. Speedy, athletic, quick, runs, can shoot, court vision Ave to below ave, same for passing, defense PG skills, more of a combo 1,2 guard.
Que: 4 star, underachiever, unrealized talent, skill. Should average 9.9+ ppg. Athletic, speedy, quick, tall, shooter.
Callison: A 3 star transfer from a JC, or another college. D1, PAC 12 talent.
Renard Suggs, a 3 star JC transfer, PAC 12, D1 talent.
Nye Redding 3 star, should be a PAC 12, D1 talent, but doesn't seem to be realizing, achieving talent, doesn't seem to be improving talent, so should be benched.
Vionte Daniels is a 3 star, who is a PAC 12, D1 talent, awesome shooter.
Boese, not a D1, PAC 12 talent, should be benched.
Longrus a 3 star, should be a PAC 12, D1 talent, but isnt, so should come off bench.
Clifford is a 3 star transfer, should be, probably is a PAC 12, D1 talent, but just out of shape, should come off bench.
Valentine Izundu, is a 3 star transfer, should be, probably is a PAC 12, D1 player, has freakish athleticism, jumping ability, blocking shots ability, should start, Co start, Co come off bench with clifford, izundu platooning, starting, coming off bench.
Hawkinson is a PAC 12, D1 player.
the starters should be 1.Callison 2. Ike 3. Que
4. Hawkinson 5. Izundu, or Clifford.
with Suggs, Vionte Daniels, Nye Redding coming off the bench, at guard, and Izundu, Clifford, Longrus coming off bench at forward, 4,5 spots.
The rotation should be a 8,9 man rotation of
1. Hawkinson.
2. Ike
3. Callison
4. Que
5. Izundu
6. Suggs
7.Clifford
8. Long rid
9. Daniel, or Redding.
10. Daniel, or Redding should be benched, only play very limited minutes in garbage time off bench.
11. Same for Boese.
12. Same for the rest of the team.
Now the reason why it seems the talent isn't there, is because like El C said the team has a lot of raw, talented, athletic, semi lower PAC 12, D1 talent, that are NEWCOMERS, that haven't had a chance to fully develop, play together, work together, have chemistry, focus, work hard AS A TEAM.
Keep in mind that if WSU had shot it better, and if Wiltjer wasn't in never ever miss a 3 pointer mode, that WSU would have beat Gonzaga, and despite that still came close to almost beating Gonzaga, and played Gonzaga TOUGH. Keep in mind that Gonzaga is ranked 13th in nation. A untalented, unskilled, non good team doesn't play a 13th ranked team that toughly, like WSU did.
The reason why WSU lost to Idaho, is that WSU forgot about last year vs the Vandals, and probably thought, hey its the Vandals. They are 5-5 record, in whatchamacallit midmajor league, and is practically a big Sky like FCS like team. They probably thought that hey their players are more talented than Idaho players.
And they are right, but that caused them to not focus on the Vandals.
WSU made a lot of UNFORCED errors, turnovers, etc. WSU didn't box out, get position to rebound well. No way in hell should Idaho's shorter, less athletically gifted
big men, guards, have out rebounded WSU's big men guards, especially since WSU rebounded competitively against the Zags, and since the Zags, would totally out rebound Idaho.
Also keep in mind that Idaho almost beat USC, on the road, at USC. Now did that happen because Idaho as good as USC?, Hell no. USC has a lot of D1, PAC 12 talent, and is way the hell better than Idaho. The only reason why USC almost lost is that both USC, and WSU, weren't focused on Idaho.
So now WSU knows how Arizona, UCLA, felt when Dick Bennet, Tony Bennet beat them with way the hell less talented players.
Basically Idaho Dick Benneted, Tony Benneted, beat WSU with way the hell less talented players.
If were to take WSU's players, and Idaho's players in a line, and then pick players for WSU's team, I would pick WSU's players over Idaho's players, with the exception, I would leave Boese for Idaho, and take Sarbaugh for WSU.
WSU is a work in project, progress. As the season goes along, WSU will gradually get better.
I project, predict the cougs will only lose 3 games, 1 more loss against oklahoma, and maybe against 1 more loss against Utep,in nonconference.
And in conference I think WSU wins 5 to 7 games in conference.
And I think WSU wins 1 PAC 12 tourney games.
And I think WSU will win 14 to 18 wins, most likely 15,16, 15.5 wins, and a CIT, CBI berth, NIT bubble.
Next year I think WSU will win 18,19 games before losing almost the whole team, and having to rebuild, reload the team the year after that.
So I don't think Kent is on the hot seat yet.
Hopefully the cougs will learn from the Idaho game
I do get why people are concerned, frustrated though.
But despite that it's time to stop knee jerking, panicking, etc, and calmly wait and see what happens.
No one's panicking. Stating that Kent is not getting his team ready against a lower-level team is not panicking.
Not sure about Idaho almost beating USC. Trojans won by 19 even though the score was tied at halftime.
A couple of other notes, WSU isn't the only team with a bunch of new players that are learning to play together for the first time. UW and OSU are facing tougher competition and doing better incorporating new players. Cougars start three and sometimes four upperclassmen who have started before, so they really aren't all that young.
For that matter, Idaho has 5 new starters this year even though they've been in the program for more than a year.
Bottom line for me is one game...a loss to Idaho....is not going to define the season, yet. But when I saw the soft non-conference schedule before the season, I thought it would be disappointing to have more than two losses. We'll see how it goes, the team will get better. But the same can be said for other Pac-12 schools. WSU needs to improve at a greater, faster rate than the others in order to pick up a bunch of wins.
The UTEP game will be a good indicator of where this team is at. A bounceback win is needed. Another poor effort will be a bad sign....and yes, the effort vs. Idaho was poor.
Glad Cougar
A couple of other notes, WSU isn't the only team with a bunch of new players that are learning to play together for the first time. UW and OSU are facing tougher competition and doing better incorporating new players. Cougars start three and sometimes four upperclassmen who have started before, so they really aren't all that young.
For that matter, Idaho has 5 new starters this year even though they've been in the program for more than a year.
Bottom line for me is one game...a loss to Idaho....is not going to define the season, yet. But when I saw the soft non-conference schedule before the season, I thought it would be disappointing to have more than two losses. We'll see how it goes, the team will get better. But the same can be said for other Pac-12 schools. WSU needs to improve at a greater, faster rate than the others in order to pick up a bunch of wins.
The UTEP game will be a good indicator of where this team is at. A bounceback win is needed. Another poor effort will be a bad sign....and yes, the effort vs. Idaho was poor.
Glad Cougar
The Vandals are better than many of you are giving them credit for (especially in the Kibbie).
Obviously there is no excuse for getting outrebounded 37-21. The Vandal guards are decent but the Cougs should have been able to dominate underneath. I agree with many of you that Q is underachieving but I tend to blame Ike who just hasn't learned to distribute the ball. Against the Zags most of Q's points came with Ike on the bench.
Obviously there is no excuse for getting outrebounded 37-21. The Vandal guards are decent but the Cougs should have been able to dominate underneath. I agree with many of you that Q is underachieving but I tend to blame Ike who just hasn't learned to distribute the ball. Against the Zags most of Q's points came with Ike on the bench.
I agree ,sometimes Ike hurts the team as much as he helps them. If he is on,he is hard to stop but when he is not hitting his outside shot,he keeps firing them up.If he can adopt a better team concept ,it would really help
How did this happen, there were some who were semi panicking, knee jerking, etc, and doing more than just saying the truth that Kent did not get the team ready for Idaho, a lower level team.
There was post that was saying that WSU didn't have PAC 12, D1 talent, when it does have PAC 12, D1 talent.
There was post saying that Kent should be on hot seat, that losing to Idaho means WSU will have a long, bad season.
Saying, posting things like that is knee jerking panicking.
There was post that was saying that WSU didn't have PAC 12, D1 talent, when it does have PAC 12, D1 talent.
There was post saying that Kent should be on hot seat, that losing to Idaho means WSU will have a long, bad season.
Saying, posting things like that is knee jerking panicking.
Glad, I am pretty sure I heard the radio announcer say that Idaho beat USC. So I guess the announcer was either told wrong, or made a mistake, or I misheard what he said.
Still, Idaho even being tied at the half at USC, shows that USC took the first half off, before deciding to actually play the 2nd half.
Which is what WSU did just like USC, except didn't play the 2nd half, like USC did.
Still, Idaho even being tied at the half at USC, shows that USC took the first half off, before deciding to actually play the 2nd half.
Which is what WSU did just like USC, except didn't play the 2nd half, like USC did.
Coug Vandal Idaho's 6-5 noncon record doesn't show that Idaho's players are better than what most of us are saying.
Maybe your right. Maybe Idaho's players are better than what giving them credit for.
But even if Idaho's players are better, deserve more credit, they are still NOT better than WSU'S starters, 8,9 player rotation, and only better than Boese, Redding, bench players.
Because of that, there simply is just no excuse for WSU'S players, who are better than Idaho's players, having 30 UNFORCED errors, turnovers, and getting out rebounded, out hustled, out floor burned, on the boards to the tune of 37 to 21.
If it wasn't for that WSU would have won by 8 to 16 points easily.
Idaho just dick benneted, Tony Benneted, beat WSU, with better coaching, better focus, effort, and with lesser talent, which is what WSU used to do to teams like Arizona, UCLA, with lesser talent, better effort, better coaching, with the Bennets.
As Arizona, UCLA, was to WSU, and the Bennets, WSU is that to Idaho.
So WSU got Benneted by Idaho, and now know what Arizona, UCLA felt like when they got Benneted beat by WSU, the Bennets.
Just no excuse for WSU to lose to Idaho.
Maybe your right. Maybe Idaho's players are better than what giving them credit for.
But even if Idaho's players are better, deserve more credit, they are still NOT better than WSU'S starters, 8,9 player rotation, and only better than Boese, Redding, bench players.
Because of that, there simply is just no excuse for WSU'S players, who are better than Idaho's players, having 30 UNFORCED errors, turnovers, and getting out rebounded, out hustled, out floor burned, on the boards to the tune of 37 to 21.
If it wasn't for that WSU would have won by 8 to 16 points easily.
Idaho just dick benneted, Tony Benneted, beat WSU, with better coaching, better focus, effort, and with lesser talent, which is what WSU used to do to teams like Arizona, UCLA, with lesser talent, better effort, better coaching, with the Bennets.
As Arizona, UCLA, was to WSU, and the Bennets, WSU is that to Idaho.
So WSU got Benneted by Idaho, and now know what Arizona, UCLA felt like when they got Benneted beat by WSU, the Bennets.
Just no excuse for WSU to lose to Idaho.
Glad, I am not saying WSU is young. Being new can be being young inexperienced. But being newcomers, doesn't necessarily have to mean that young, inexperienced.
WSU is not young, inexperienced. Most of the team is Juniors, with 1 to 3 seniors, 1 to 3 sophmores, 1,2 freshman. A LOT of junior will graduate after next season.
But even tho WSU is experienced, a lot of the experienced players, like Callison, Clifford, Suggs, Izundu, are transfers, newcomers, that haven't played together, who are still learning how to play as a TEAM.
And the rest of the team like IKE, QUE, Hawkinson, are still learning how to play with the newcomers as a Team.
This is not to excuse them on what happened at Idaho, just a fact.
And yes other teams like OSU, UW, others are Jelling, learning, improving faster than WSU is.
And yes WSU does need to Jell, learn, improve faster.
I still think 15.5, 15,16 wins, only 3 noncon losses, 5 to 7 PAC 12 wins, 1 PAC 12 tourney win, CIT,CBI tourney, NIT bubble, but not making NIT, 14 wins at worst, 17 wins at most, is a reasonable, logical expectation, projection, prediction.
And if that happens, I am ok with that. And if WSU doesn't get at least that, that would be semi frustrating, disappointing.
So we will wait and see what happens.
WSU is not young, inexperienced. Most of the team is Juniors, with 1 to 3 seniors, 1 to 3 sophmores, 1,2 freshman. A LOT of junior will graduate after next season.
But even tho WSU is experienced, a lot of the experienced players, like Callison, Clifford, Suggs, Izundu, are transfers, newcomers, that haven't played together, who are still learning how to play as a TEAM.
And the rest of the team like IKE, QUE, Hawkinson, are still learning how to play with the newcomers as a Team.
This is not to excuse them on what happened at Idaho, just a fact.
And yes other teams like OSU, UW, others are Jelling, learning, improving faster than WSU is.
And yes WSU does need to Jell, learn, improve faster.
I still think 15.5, 15,16 wins, only 3 noncon losses, 5 to 7 PAC 12 wins, 1 PAC 12 tourney win, CIT,CBI tourney, NIT bubble, but not making NIT, 14 wins at worst, 17 wins at most, is a reasonable, logical expectation, projection, prediction.
And if that happens, I am ok with that. And if WSU doesn't get at least that, that would be semi frustrating, disappointing.
So we will wait and see what happens.
UTEP, is often a CBI, NIT, NCAA tourney team, and is probably that good this year. So when combine that with how WSU did at Idaho, I am projecting, predicting a loss vs Oklahoma, in the noncon tourney, and a loss vs UTEP.
I think the cougs will beat everyone else on noncon schedule, so that's why I think WSU loses 3,4 games during noncon record. I was projecting predicting a 2,3 loss noncon schedule, with the only losses at Zags, Oklahoma, but with loss to Idaho, cougs probably end up with losses to Zags, Idaho, Oklahoma, and maybe even UTEP, for a 3,4 loss noncon schedule.
I think the cougs will beat everyone else on noncon schedule, so that's why I think WSU loses 3,4 games during noncon record. I was projecting predicting a 2,3 loss noncon schedule, with the only losses at Zags, Oklahoma, but with loss to Idaho, cougs probably end up with losses to Zags, Idaho, Oklahoma, and maybe even UTEP, for a 3,4 loss noncon schedule.
I think Redding had been giving some decent minutes but is primarily a bench player, Boese is a shooter who is not shooting and missing when he does so he is a bench player. Other than Hawkinson WSU's team is basically made up of marginal PAC 12 talent. coach needs to get the most he can out of these guys this year and next year and hopefully bring in a nationally ranked class when all the juniors leave. I personally think he has improved the talent with this years class but we still are getting bench level players. That big class needs to bring a different level of player in or his stool will start to heat up. Remember recruiting starts very early now days and Kent didn't come from another school where he had been recruiting, he has had to start from basically scratch. I was disappointed losing to a Big Sky team picked to finish in the middle of their league and expressed as much but I think we are trending in the right direction
The best player by far and away on this team was recruited by Bone. At least 3 times as good as any Kent has brought on.
Sour grapes. Bonehead did not really want him. He fattened him up by 35 pds and wanted him to set picks Posters here have tried to marginalized players and Kent and were way off in their predictions. I said that the cougs would win because of Kent and these "marginal" PAC 12 players. A satisfying win in more ways than one.
I'm not sure what makes you think Bone didn't want Hawkinson? Bone was one of the few who recruited him, and I believe the only PAC 12 coach who offered. I'm not sure about 35 that seems way to much but Hawkinson would probably benefit from 10 or 15 pounds of muscle to help his future pro prospects.
WHen Hawkinson visited mhis parents ,who were friends of Bone,were upset when Bone did not offer him a schlorship before they concluded their visit. Hawkinson said that Bone told him to gain weight so he could set picks underneath the basket. He said that he put on 35 pds of fat and it slowed him sown Kent came in told him to lose weight . He has worked very hard and is now more athletic than he has ever bee nKent has coached him up and he still has work to do Perhaps he can put on 10-15 -ds of muscle but he cannot add more weight or it will effect his mobility
El C illustrated Bone's problem, and why Kent is good.
Bones problem was not lack of ability to win recruiting competition battles over recruits, players, with other colleges. He didn't lack ability to recruit supposed high end ranked 3 stars, lower end ranked 4 stars.
Examples: Bone beat out stanford for Longrus. Bone got Moore: high end 3 star, Isabell: high end 3 star, should have been 4 star ON PAPER, Q: low end 4 star. IKE: low end 4 star. Aden: high end 3 star, Royce: High End 3 star. Hawkinson: Low end 3 star. And a slew of high end 2 stars, to low to mid end 3 stars.
Average stars wise Bone won more recruiting battles, and got more higher star recruits on star average, then any WSU coach since Sampson, Raveling.
So what was the problem then? That should have been good right?
The problem was to many of Bone's high average star average wise recruits were ending up like Moore, Isabell, Dominic Ellison(got kicked out).
Bones recruits weren't panning out, they weren't developing, they weren't being coached up.
Hawkinson was proof of that. Hawkinson didn't get good until Kent took over, and Kent asked him to lose weight, and then coached him up.
Now yes Bone developed coached up Klay well. But Bone did not develop, coach up his recruits well.
And so it doesn't matter if Bone had recruited nothing but 5 star blue chip recruits, if they don't pan out, if they get kicked out, if they don't develop, get coached up, if they don't make grades, and don't get in because of that.
That's what doomed Bone, and why his last 2 years were so extremely horribly bad, when his 1st year was ok, his 2nd year great, almost awesome, his 3rd year ok, his last 2 years horrible.
Bone did not retain, develop, coach up recruits well, despite recruiting well.
And Hawkinson, Isabell, Moore, are, were proof of that. Moore underachiever didn't reach potential got kicked out. Hawkinson didn't do much his 1st year under Bone, then blossomed his 2nd, 3rd years under Kent.
Kent is a proven coach, and has his fire back, led Oregon to 2 elite 8's in NCAA tourney, and knows how to and can recruit, and importantly knows how to RETAIN, KEEP, DEVELOP, COACH UP recruits, which is why in the long term Kent will be more successful at WSU, then Bones success his first 3 years, and his horribly bad last 2 years, which rightly got him fired.
Bones problem was not lack of ability to win recruiting competition battles over recruits, players, with other colleges. He didn't lack ability to recruit supposed high end ranked 3 stars, lower end ranked 4 stars.
Examples: Bone beat out stanford for Longrus. Bone got Moore: high end 3 star, Isabell: high end 3 star, should have been 4 star ON PAPER, Q: low end 4 star. IKE: low end 4 star. Aden: high end 3 star, Royce: High End 3 star. Hawkinson: Low end 3 star. And a slew of high end 2 stars, to low to mid end 3 stars.
Average stars wise Bone won more recruiting battles, and got more higher star recruits on star average, then any WSU coach since Sampson, Raveling.
So what was the problem then? That should have been good right?
The problem was to many of Bone's high average star average wise recruits were ending up like Moore, Isabell, Dominic Ellison(got kicked out).
Bones recruits weren't panning out, they weren't developing, they weren't being coached up.
Hawkinson was proof of that. Hawkinson didn't get good until Kent took over, and Kent asked him to lose weight, and then coached him up.
Now yes Bone developed coached up Klay well. But Bone did not develop, coach up his recruits well.
And so it doesn't matter if Bone had recruited nothing but 5 star blue chip recruits, if they don't pan out, if they get kicked out, if they don't develop, get coached up, if they don't make grades, and don't get in because of that.
That's what doomed Bone, and why his last 2 years were so extremely horribly bad, when his 1st year was ok, his 2nd year great, almost awesome, his 3rd year ok, his last 2 years horrible.
Bone did not retain, develop, coach up recruits well, despite recruiting well.
And Hawkinson, Isabell, Moore, are, were proof of that. Moore underachiever didn't reach potential got kicked out. Hawkinson didn't do much his 1st year under Bone, then blossomed his 2nd, 3rd years under Kent.
Kent is a proven coach, and has his fire back, led Oregon to 2 elite 8's in NCAA tourney, and knows how to and can recruit, and importantly knows how to RETAIN, KEEP, DEVELOP, COACH UP recruits, which is why in the long term Kent will be more successful at WSU, then Bones success his first 3 years, and his horribly bad last 2 years, which rightly got him fired.
Also during Bones last 2 years, it was not just lack of retaining, keeping, developing, coaching up, it was also his horribly bad coaching during games, lack of good timeout management, lack of pace of game management, lack of not killing momentum of his own team, and lack of killing momentum of other team, and lack of not losing his players, locker room, and lack of not having his players give up, quit, just like with, during wulf's first 1,2 years.
If a Bone team ever made a run, the opposing coach never had to call a timeout. Bone did it for him.
I know, that was so frustrating when Bone did that.
It's makes you appreciate Kent, how when if WSU makes a run, he doesn't call a timeout, and when the other team makes a run, he doesn't call a timeout either too soon, or way to late, or not at all, but calls a timeout at about the right time during a opponents run.
It's makes you appreciate Kent, how when if WSU makes a run, he doesn't call a timeout, and when the other team makes a run, he doesn't call a timeout either too soon, or way to late, or not at all, but calls a timeout at about the right time during a opponents run.
Yes. This. Exactly. Precisely.
I've never seen a coach destroy his OWN team's momentum like Bone could do. It was mindbogglingly stupid and he seemed to be the only guy who didn't see it.
I think you are 100% correct, Mikalas. The good coaches....Ernie Kent and the Bennetts, etc....know how to coach players up and most of those players constantly improved their games. Bone seemed to suck the confidence out of players, which is really what Ernie needed to restore when he arrived in Pullman. As for Klay Thompson, I think my 10-year old cat would have been able to coach him up after his freshman season simply because Klay has so much talent.
To date, while I think Bone's recruiting is actually better than Ernie's so far, there is no doubt which coach is able to do more with what they have. While I never saw a bright future as long as Bone was the coach, there at least is some hope with EK. It's still important for him to bring in a stellar recruiting class in 2017 and I'm hoping for at least a couple of impact players as part of that class.
Glad Cougar
To date, while I think Bone's recruiting is actually better than Ernie's so far, there is no doubt which coach is able to do more with what they have. While I never saw a bright future as long as Bone was the coach, there at least is some hope with EK. It's still important for him to bring in a stellar recruiting class in 2017 and I'm hoping for at least a couple of impact players as part of that class.
Glad Cougar
EK's 2014 clearly didn't count, but I think 2015 was a low normal year with a couple of interesting JC's. Clifford was a very nice get. Preps not so much. His third class 2016 has of course yet to arrive but I like to a limited extent on paper. We shall see. 2017 he has some high level offers out but also some low level players with offers. We shall see who signs.
Similar threads
