Husky Basketball

[Tical21]

I think Chriss can be a really good NBA player. There just aren't many 6'9" kids on the planet with his tools.

Murray needs discipline and good advice. He needs to spend long hours in the gym developing at least a midrange game, or he's going to find himself overseas quickly. He strikes me as the type of kid that would rather find a game to go play in than spending those hours with a shooting coach. Either way he's going to be a millionaire, so you can't question his decision, but if he wants that second contract, he's got a ton of work to do. He's also going to fail pretty miserably in individual workouts. He may drop a bit.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

Well there goes all the hope I had for a Final 4 run. Back to the drawing board. The team will still be improved next year, but won't be anything special. And then it will likely be back to the drawing board once we lose Fultz to the NBA after one year. I think Romar may have to land Porter to save his job another year.

Murray and Chriss will get eaten up by the NBA. I have more hope for Chriss as he has a unique set of skills and athleticism that doesn't come around often. The NBA won't wait for Murray's jumper and body to develop. Got a feeling he ends up in Durope or hangs around the d-league for his career.

 

[Chapow]

UW ladies are up by 5 in the sweet sixteen against #3 Kentucky in Lexington at the half.

 

[Chapow]

UW ladies take out Kentucky 85-72. On to the Elite 8.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

Fultz is playing right now on ESPN in the McDonalds All American game.

 

[TwistedHusky]

The Huskies should go back and review just how we ended up leapfrogging UCLA and even AZ for a short while.

If you remember, UCLA was getting some stellar recruits - remember how we got the "other" Holiday? What about how we missed out on the great kid out of Oregon, who went to Kentucky, and we ended up getting his friend who ended up being better for us anyway (Ross).

We did have some high level recruits but most of them had fundamental flaws that limited the NBA's grade on them, which forced them to stay longer. Brockman was looked at as too short and a tweener for the position he played. While he was wicked strong, he was also looked at as not athletic enough. Isaiah AND Nate were both too short for their position that they played for us(off-guard) and had to take extra time to prove they could play point. Bobby Jones was another tweener type, and didn't have a strong jumper to be considered a good pick for small forward.

But all those issues helped the Huskies gell and get better, which made them rack up wins. Consider how many current NBA or past NBA players were on Husky teams. Then look at teams like UCLA that got some five star stud, had him leave at the end up of the year and not only leave a gaping hole where he was - but chase off recruits that year that could have filled that hole or cause new holes in subsequent years. The one and dones just seem like they murdered UCLA, and I seem to remember some key guys for AZ doing the same to their squad.

And then the Huskies go out and pull what UCLA was doing, resulting in very near what happened to UCLA happening to us. Oddly, the team pulling in 3 & 4 star guys (Oregon) ends up producing better than us. Using a bunch of guys that have some flaws but play well together. (with more actual plays and less street ball).

The idea that bringing in big recruits helps the team only if we keep that recruit for several years, otherwise it just hurts the development of someone we could have used for 2-3 years - if not chases them off entirely. The only team I have seen that can consistently do well with the one & dones is Kentucky.

 

[Tical21]

Decent points, but Ross never made the tournament here and also left after two years. Neither Murray or Chriss were considered automatic one-and-dones. Are you implying that A.) we should actively look for lesser recruits. B.). If a stud recruit wants to come here, we shouldn't offer them? I think your theory that you're going to be able to find a 5'8" hidden gem every few years is going to be a bit more difficult than you're possibly imagining. If you want to build around guys like Hikeem Steward and David Crisp, you're not going to have a job for very long.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

@TwistedHusky

I understand what you are saying, but if you know you can get a 5-star recruit, you are going to recruit them. If someone like Tony Wroten wants to come to your program, you are going to recruit them. It's easier said than done to say, "lets recruit lesser players who won't be one-and-dones." For instance, there is no chance Romar will give up on Michael Porter who is considered a top 3 prospect in next years class.

Ideally you want really good recruits who don't project to the NBA. Like you mentioned, Brockman was too short for the NBA, Pondexter wasn't ready for the NBA, IT was too small, etc. But your program can't survive on recruiting guys like David Crisp and Thybull. You need big name kids. And most of these 2-3 star kids don't become productive until their junior year.

I think Romar needs to go after the best available. But when he brings in a kid like Fultz, you have to make immediate plans to replace him, assuming he only stays one year. Murray and Chriss weren't suppose to be one-and-done's. Nobody thought they would. So they actually fit your mold, both were suppose to be here for at least 2-3 years.

On a side note, I'm still holding out hope one or both return. I know they said they plan on hiring agents, but until they do, I have hope that they return. I think Chriss is a lock for the first round, but I think Murray is in serious doubt of falling to the second round. Draft Express who has pretty accurate information, has Chriss as a mid first round pick and Murray as an early second round pick.

 

[CPHawk]

The Huskies should go back and review just how we ended up leapfrogging UCLA and even AZ for a short while.

If you remember, UCLA was getting some stellar recruits - remember how we got the "other" Holiday? What about how we missed out on the great kid out of Oregon, who went to Kentucky, and we ended up getting his friend who ended up being better for us anyway (Ross).

We did have some high level recruits but most of them had fundamental flaws that limited the NBA's grade on them, which forced them to stay longer. Brockman was looked at as too short and a tweener for the position he played. While he was wicked strong, he was also looked at as not athletic enough. Isaiah AND Nate were both too short for their position that they played for us(off-guard) and had to take extra time to prove they could play point. Bobby Jones was another tweener type, and didn't have a strong jumper to be considered a good pick for small forward.

But all those issues helped the Huskies gell and get better, which made them rack up wins. Consider how many current NBA or past NBA players were on Husky teams. Then look at teams like UCLA that got some five star stud, had him leave at the end up of the year and not only leave a gaping hole where he was - but chase off recruits that year that could have filled that hole or cause new holes in subsequent years. The one and dones just seem like they murdered UCLA, and I seem to remember some key guys for AZ doing the same to their squad.

And then the Huskies go out and pull what UCLA was doing, resulting in very near what happened to UCLA happening to us. Oddly, the team pulling in 3 & 4 star guys (Oregon) ends up producing better than us. Using a bunch of guys that have some flaws but play well together. (with more actual plays and less street ball).

The idea that bringing in big recruits helps the team only if we keep that recruit for several years, otherwise it just hurts the development of someone we could have used for 2-3 years - if not chases them off entirely. The only team I have seen that can consistently do well with the one & dones is Kentucky.

Oregon starting 5 Benson 3* but was also a two time Arizona POY, Dorsey 5*, Brooks 4* but reclassified to a SR as a JR in HS, so you have to guess he would have been a 5*, Boucher 4* JUCO POY last season, and Cook 3* after one year of JC. 6th man Bell was a 4*. So it's not like UO is built with a bunch of no body's that weren't recruited by anyone else.

 

[hawkfan68]

Wroten wasn't NBA ready when he left UW and I don't think Murray and Chriss are either. Chriss has an advantage because of his height and NBA teams drool over tall/athletic players. Both are going to get overwhelmed early on, hopefully they are drafted on patient teams.

 

[Hasselbeck]

On a side note, I'm still holding out hope one or both return. I know they said they plan on hiring agents, but until they do, I have hope that they return. I think Chriss is a lock for the first round, but I think Murray is in serious doubt of falling to the second round. Draft Express who has pretty accurate information, has Chriss as a mid first round pick and Murray as an early second round pick.

nbadraft.net has Murray in the lotto FWIW.

If he's getting lotto projections, there's no way he returns. I think they're both probably gone.

 

[Hawkfan77]

I'm hesitant to include Fultz in the "one and done" talk. He's on a completely different level than Murray and Chriss. It's nice to say one and dones haven't done anything for the UW program, but I don't think it tells nearly close to the whole story. There are 2 types of one and done players, IMO. The first is one and done based off potential and getting immediately paid to keep learning the game and the other is the one and done thats NBA ready.

Murray and Chriss fall into the first category. They aren't "NBA ready" and will most likely spend time in the D League. They struck while the iron is hot, which I don't blame them one bit for. But they were never supposed to be one and done type recruits. They were 4 star kids who have threw the roof potential.

Fultz, on the other hand (and Michael Porter Jr, a 207 kid UW is in the mix for), falls into the second category. Even if Chriss and Murray returned next year, I still believe Fultz would be the best player on the team. He's elite, period. A program changer, I believe.

So I think it's a little short sided and naive at best to compare a player of Fultz' level to Murray or Chriss, who are all tools but inconsistent.