What kind of team will the cougs be?

[ElComanche]

In briefly skimming the PAC 12 s recruiting experts for 2017,it appears that most PAC 12 teams are either rebuilding or reloading.If one believes in recruiting services,the cougs are close to being at the bottom. If one believes in Kent s hyperbole the cougs will be much improved with several top players available for this year. He has called Chidom," almost unstoppable" and Ergas,the"best frosh in the West". Kent also has high hopes for R Gittens,a four star player with a complete game.The two jucos, Hinton and Cooper, may help with scoring and inside defense.Add in grad transfer ,Bernsteine ,who shined against the better D 1 teams last year..Lastly, will the trio of Flynn,Franks and Pollard show development and improvement after good frosh years?
So do the remaining players improve and build on their frosh campaigns? Will the new players live up to Kent s hype and have impacts? Will Bernsteine become consistent and shine against the PAC 12 power teams for a full season? There are many questions, but one good thing is that the team will have depth. it remains to be seen how good these players really are. The naysayers speak to the percentage of loss in stats by the departing players.They say the loss of these players and experience will insure that the cougs end up near the bottom of the PAC 12. The crimson glasses wearing set think that the cougs will be much improved,especially on defense,and will forge an NIT team at the end of the year. It should be a most interesting year with all the new coaches and seven new players.

 

[avabob1]

All those stats we lost from last year didn't keep us from near the bottom last season.

I would be a lot more concerned if we lost a group that took us to the NIT or NCAa last season

 

[7ICoug]

Well it will be interesting to see how things shake out next year for the team. NIT would be nice but I am not expecting it until the year following.

 

[avabob1]

6 or 7 conference wins plus hanging close in some of the games where we got taken to the wood shed last season. Non conference, offset any bad losses with a good win

 

[ElComanche]

I foresee a NIT bid and i am sticking my neck out on this one. I just think that last year s group had poor inside defense and they did not play with passion a some of of time. Sometimes the teamwork suffered when players did not share the ball .If the coaching staff can get these guys to play defense and share the ball,they will improve on last year s team. The potential is there but the coaching staff needs to bring it out

 

[jourdand]

All the problems we had last year, we very well could have this year. We really only have one proven player in Flynn. Every other player is basically new or needs to greatly improve inorder to contribute in a significant way. People say we had weak interior defense and I agree but what did we add that will significantly change that? We have tons of unanswered questions at almost every position. If all those questions were answered in the best possible way then an NIT bid is within reach. In reality however some or even possibly all those players will fall short of expectations. IMO we probably won't see a huge increase in the wins over last year but the season will be successful if we show progress building for the following year which is when I think we will start to see a better chance at the NIT

 

[ElComanche]

I was waiting for you opinion. Certainly it is quite possible that some of the players will fall short of expectations However. i like the mix and i think that Pollard and the 6'11 juco Cooper will provide better interior defense. It cannot be worse than what Hawkinson and the others provided .They would get occasional blocks but were routinely abused by many teams.It was almost an automatic 2 pts once the ball went inside. if the opponents bigs could shoot from the outside it made it worse.

 

[avabob1]

Another problem we had last year was that a lot of Cliffords scoring did not fit with the overall offensive scheme. Note how many of his higher scoring games were in overall blowout games against us. Exceptions for sure, but the big guy just did not fit well in the modern game. Great kid, hard worker but his offensive stats were mislesding. For whatever reason we did not get any benefit from an inside out game despite Clifford's low post scoring prowess. It seemed like he either got a good look or a turnover.

 

[ElComanche]

Despite their on court ability and personal qualities,i will not miss the players who graduated.The players that Kent now has are better suited to his offensive philosophy It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. I,of course,think that it will be an improved product on the court. As i have said before,i hope that the new coaches can develop a team with more intensity and fire.

 

[avabob1]

I think all of last years seniors were quality hardworking kids, but there were weaknesses in all. I really always loved Hawk but we had to run too much if the offense through him, and it detracted from Hus efficiency

 

[SaveFerris]

Bob reminds me of points in the season where Hawkinson was visibly getting frustrated. However, I really would have liked to see him next year (if he had redshirted year 1) and believe he would have complimented Franks, Pollard, Bernstine, and Cooper. Would have been a good mix in my mind.

I think next year all starts with Flynn in year 2 and whether he's ready to take over and run the team. I think he has the natural leadership qualities to do it. Then how do all the new faces especially in the backcourt work their way in? We need Gittens, Acquaah, Hinson, and Ergas to hit the ground running. We are more talented but obviously there is zero experience in that group.

Gittens, Acquaah, Ergas, Pollard, and Chidom are far from finished products and have to develop but with Flynn that gives us 6 underclassmen to work with moving forward with what looks like an upgraded staff especially in terms of recruiting. Pretty exciting to me even though we are going to take our fair share of lumps.

 

[avabob1]

Agree on Flynn. He showed a lot of leadership last year considering we had 4 seniors .

 

[ElComanche]

Well it will be his team and he has the chance to develop as a leader. He has the sensibilities and good decision making ability.. He has also has Acquah,Gittens and perhaps Chidom to help as play makers who can ease some of the burden Gittens and Chidom are very good passers.

 

[7ICoug]

Gittens will be a starter.

 

[avabob1]

Gittens, Acquaah, and Hinson will all be in the hunt for two spots

 

[ElComanche]

Perhaps it was the competition but i thought that Gittens should have been rated higher than he was. Perhaps his attitude problems,or grades, early in the season may also had something to do with it.He has great physical ability and court awareness.What may set him apart are his passing and defensive abilities.He showed more of a complete game that the two Garfield products who went elsewhere. How he reacts to college ball ,better competition,and coaching will determine how good,he will become.I think that the right coaching staff is in place to help him make the transition.

 

[jourdand]

With the addition of Gittens and probably even more so the additions on the coaching staff, Cougar basketball imo is finishing up one of the best summers in recent memory. I think the last time I felt this positive about changes made from one year to the next was when we beat out GU and UW for the services of Q. With his being ineligible as a Frosh and subsequently his not being as good as advertised dampened my enthusiasm but I still felt really good about that recruiting cycle. Again I feel this summer WSU basketball took huge steps in the right direction but I still feel a huge on court improvement is going to come the following year. I'm ok with that as long s the program is moving in the right direction.

 

[ElComanche]

I always felt that Q was a "lazy" basketball player. He had loads of potential and athletic ability,but seemingly never improved.Many players have great athletic ability but never work hard to develop their game. It takes hard work,many reps and a burning desire to succeed for a player to develop.

 

[avabob1]

Q was always puzzling to me. He certainly didn't look like a high energy guy for most of his time in Pullman. Part of it was that he just wasn't as quick as we thought. However, beyond that it drove me nuts how he would not move without the ball to look for a shot. He was kind of the anti Derrick Low who ran defenders legs off during the course of a game without being super quick.

 

[jourdand]

I alway felt Q "settled". He was good enough to start and play and that seemed good enough for him, he didn't seem to want more even though the potential might have been there. His lack of movement without the ball is a common trait of players who were always just athletically superior to their competition coming up. They don't have to play without the ball because once they get it they can score at will. Then as they move up they can't. I had a former D-1 player as an assistant for a few years and he used to tell kids "just blow by him" it took along time to get it through his head he needed to work with what he had and not all players were as good as he was. I used to kid him that if all I had to do was tell my post player "be taller" I'd be coach of the year every year lol

 

[ElComanche]

That is so true. Many players somehow think that they will always be physically superior to other players. As they move up,they are shocked that there are players who can "just blow by them". One soon realizes that unless they put in effort the entire time on the court,that other players will out play them. In many cases,they do not work on their ball handling,passing skill,rebounding skills,movement without the ball, and defensive effort.As i said before,it takes a burning desire to be the best to develop. as a player.I hope that the cougs have recruited these kinds of players.

 

[triscuit one]

All the problems we had last year, we very well could have this year. We really only have one proven player in Flynn. Every other player is basically new or needs to greatly improve inorder to contribute in a significant way. People say we had weak interior defense and I agree but what did we add that will significantly change that? We have tons of unanswered questions at almost every position. If all those questions were answered in the best possible way then an NIT bid is within reach. In reality however some or even possibly all those players will fall short of expectations. IMO we probably won't see a huge increase in the wins over last year but the season will be successful if we show progress building for the following year which is when I think we will start to see a better chance at the NIT

I agree. I think this year's record will be similar to 2005-06 or 2009-10 when we had very young teams. 4-6 conference wins and a overall record flirting with .500 with enough ups to leave us feeling positive about a post season chance the follwong season is my guess.

 

[avabob1]

Can't really argue with that assessment. A lot of us fell in love with the idea that Klay would carry us back to the next level in 9-10, ignoring the total absence of upper class experience. No Klay on this team, but way more quality depth. Watson Harthun Witherall and Brown did not have the have the high d-1 upside. Maybe Chitum, Acquaah, Gittens and Ergas don't either, but my guess is a couple of them will be very good. Also, Flynn as soph is ahead of where Moore and Thames were as true frosh. I just won't to stay away from those blowout losses that plagued us several times last year

 

[SaveFerris]

We have a good base of young players in the system now but will probably see some blowout nights. Hinson and Cooper having a pulse would definitely help in that area along with Bernstine of course. They will probably take their lumps this year but will improve and hopefully get over the hump the following year.

 

[avabob1]

I expect a couple, but we had at least 4 or 5 like that Stanford game

 

[YakiCoug]

I expect a couple, but we had at least 4 or 5 like that Stanford game

We really have no idea what kind of team this is until it plays about 10 games.

 

[avabob1]

We have gotten off to very slow starts in each of the first 3 years. Even with a lot of new faces, I am looking to see us jell a little better early than in the past. Maybe a better way to say it is that I am hoping the improved talent will allow us to over power some early conference opponents a little more decisively while we jell.

 

[jourdand]

Are we sure we have improved talent? We all hope and most of us like to presume new players will shine but do we really know? Many of us, myself included have high hopes for Chidom. However he only averaged 12 pts and 6 reb a game at prep school and 10 points 5 reb as a senior in high school. To replace Hawkinson's numbers he would have to greatly improve these numbers vs substantially higher level of competition. I believe we all like to look at WSU thru rose colored glasses but this team has very few proven players and a ton of unanswered questions. 90 more days and we will start getting the answers

 

[ElComanche]

I agree with what you are saying. The hopes are because we have about 10 players who will all compete for starting positions and playing time. I believe that people sense a change and the new players all seem to have promise. If two or three of the new seven players break out then the cougs will be a much better team with some depth for a change.The answers will be soon as the season starts in less than 90 days. I do not know when teams can start practicing but it will be interesting to see the players compete and how the new coaching staff jells.Actually,this is the first team and players whom i feel can be a competitive team under Kent.The offense has been too predictable and the defense slow and bad in the other years

 

[SaveFerris]

I think we are more talented on paper, will have more depth but we lose a lot of experience. We haven't had many good teams with the lack of experience this group will have heading into next year. Doesn't mean they can't win but it's a lot to ask. Just the guards alone look as talented as we have seen in a long time but again that's on paper. Adding Bernstine inside was such a good get just for his experience alone.

With Chidom, he probably will need a few years to develop but could be a nice piece off the bench at some point next year.

 

[ElComanche]

Sometimes being experienced at getting your ass kicked does not add up to good experience. If the new coaching staff can work and push them to achieve as a team and individually,they will be fine.They may have enough talent to surprise a few people. But it is all conjecture at this point.Players like Pollard,Franks,Flynn,Daniels, and Bernsteine all have experience playing at the D 1 level.The players like Acquaah,Chidom and Ergas have had a year to acclimate them selves to college life. The juco players have two years behind them. So the "experience"factor may not be as negative as one first thinks.

 

[SaveFerris]

Flynn and Bernstine are the only players with D1 starting experience although I would think the adjustment period for a player like Hinson might not be as deep as for some given the competition for Tyler CC. Pollard, Franks, and Daniels have experience but none have seen starter minutes.

Really like Flynn leading the way next season and the potential versatility and depth on the wings. Need some patience most likely with this young team though.

 

[jourdand]

One of the positives as mentioned by EL is the apparent depth. As unlikely as it is that all players will live up to expectations, it is also unlikely that all the new players will fall short of expectations. This leaves us with many potential starting lineups and many potential rotations. Which of these players rise up and which fall short is only conjecture at this point but it makes for interesting discussions.

Another thought... when tying to determine if a team will have success it is not only important to look at its talent but how that talent matches up to its upcoming opponents. All our players are good, but are they better than UCLA's, OSU or UW's? We could make a run for Big Sky champions but we don't play in the Big Sky, the question is do we have the talent to compete in the PAC 12?

 

[ElComanche]

Yes the PAC 12 is a talented league. However,many of the teams do not have a lot of returning starters , so that will not be an excuse. Yes it remains to be seen if the players are really talented enough to play competitively all season long in the PAC 12? I think that they have a chance but saying it and doing it are two different matters.