I don't think Mick would ever want to deal with dog and pony show that is the Lawson family.

Someone will take a flyer to get the Lawson talent and risk bringing that circus into their program. Probably a good idea for a hot-seat coach with little to lose.

god i hope they go to xavier!

I'd take them, better than some 2* stiff like Jamaree Strickland. Let's open a spot on the staff for Daddy.

(04-06-2017 09:32 AM)jarr Wrote:  I'd take them, better than some 2* stiff like Jamaree Strickland. Let's open a spot on the staff for Daddy.

Disagree. Our team chemistry right now is at the top of the country. The last thing we need is two headcases ruining it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

having a headache father and kid seems to be what UCLA wants.. so bring the Lawson boys out there..

Given how good our chemistry is I'd be okay with Mick taking a chance on a guy who doesn't necessarily fit our character profile but not two from the same family.

(04-06-2017 09:32 AM)jarr Wrote:  I'd take them, better than some 2* stiff like Jamaree Strickland. Let's open a spot on the staff for Daddy.

**** no. We already have better wings than KJ Lawson and as much as Dedric puts up stats against **** competition, he is a drama queen.

I don't want to prejudge these kids. If our coaches like what they bring to the table and have a shot to bring them in I'd be fine with it. The importance of talent cannot be understated and I trust the staff to evaluate how that talent would fit. No idea if we have a shot or we are interested but I would have no issue if we are.

(04-06-2017 09:09 AM)Lush Wrote:  god i hope they go to xavier!

(04-06-2017 10:53 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I don't want to prejudge these kids. If our coaches like what they bring to the table and have a shot to bring them in I'd be fine with it. The importance of talent cannot be understated and I trust the staff to evaluate how that talent would fit. No idea if we have a shot or we are interested but I would have no issue if we are.

I'm mostly in trust Mick mode, but I do wonder if he's missing the boat on 5th year transfers. Like a lot of schools, Xavier's had some nice success there and now they are the only school so far scheduled to get a visit from WI Green Bay 5th year grad transfer Kerem Kanter (yeah Enes is his brother) who is getting a lot of big-time interest:

Quote:Kanter told ESPN he's also heard from Kansas, Michigan State, UConn, NC State, Purdue, Baylor, Seton Hall, Pittsburgh, BC, URI, K-State, etc

maybe we are one of the "etc."

I would be surpised with Washington, Clark, Brooks, Scott and Nsoeseme that they would add a 1 year front court player. A sit out transfer yes, but a one and done, it would have to be a wing guy in my view.

I don't know if bringing in the Lawsons would be good for our program right now, but I do feel that sometimes you have to play the game to get the best talent. Maybe a parent is crazy, maybe the kid is a little full of himself... but it can bring much needed talent into a program. And raw talent has arguably been our greatest weakness in recent years.

Even blue bloods like UCLA and Duke can't manage to fill their entire rosters with Oscar Robertsons, who act like Ned Flanders, with Andy Griffith and Aunt Bee as parents. Don't you think every coach would love to have Grayson Allen with the attitude of Kevin Johnson? Or LaVar Ball with the personality of mama Caupain?

Of course they would, silly, there just aren't enough to go around, even for the bluest of blue bloods. Are we really that much better than UCLA and Duke, in that we should expect to have the best in both regards?

If we want to finally take that next step, we might have to sometimes reach for that gold nugget that has some dirt to brush off, instead of grabbing the shiny piece of bronze that will only ever be bronze.

(04-06-2017 12:17 PM)TubaCat Wrote:  Even blue bloods like UCLA and Duke can't manage to fill their entire rosters with Oscar Robertsons who act like Ned Flanders. Don't you think any coach would love to have Grayson Allen with the attitude of Kevin Johnson? Or LaVar Ball with the personality of mama Caupain?

I hear your point, but actually I would take a Troy Caupain with the attitude of a LaVar Ball. I think his lack of selfishness held him back from taking over games when he should have as a senior.

This reversal doesn't apply to Grayson Allen - he's just a punk.

(04-06-2017 12:17 PM)TubaCat Wrote:  If we want to finally take that next step, we might have to sometimes reach for that gold nugget that has some dirt to brush off, instead of grabbing the shiny piece of bronze that will only ever be bronze.

Agree completely with this. Nobody is saying it's terrible, but right now UC is a program that gets to the tournament and is out by the end of the first weekend. I'm perfectly fine with taking a risk on a talented player to try and get the program to that next level. Yes it can be a risk, but I think it's worth taking a few.

People, we already went through this with Lance Stephenson and he didn't have a crazy father. To have not one but two black holes? I mean no offense, but they didn't exactly set the world on fire with either of their two previous coaches. So why then, are we pretending that having them means anything toward our success? Yes, they're talented, but individual talent means squat if it can't be harnessed toward the teams endeavor.

(04-06-2017 12:17 PM)TubaCat Wrote:  I don't know if bringing in the Lawsons would be good for our program right now, but I do feel that sometimes you have to play the game to get the best talent. Maybe a parent is crazy, maybe the kid is a little full of himself... but it can bring much needed talent into a program. And raw talent has arguably been our greatest weakness in recent years.

Even blue bloods like UCLA and Duke can't manage to fill their entire rosters with Oscar Robertsons, who act like Ned Flanders, with Andy Griffith and Aunt Bee as parents. Don't you think every coach would love to have Grayson Allen with the attitude of Kevin Johnson? Or LaVar Ball with the personality of mama Caupain?

Of course they would, silly, there just aren't enough to go around, even for the bluest of blue bloods. Are we really that much better than UCLA and Duke, in that we should expect to have the best in both regards?

If we want to finally take that next step, we might have to sometimes reach for that gold nugget that has some dirt to brush off, instead of grabbing the shiny piece of bronze that will only ever be bronze.

If the player is willing to come to UC, Mick will take him. One word - Lance Stephenson (Nevermind - Recluse beat me to it)

(04-06-2017 11:42 AM)dsquare Wrote:  I would be surpised with Washington, Clark, Brooks, Scott and Nsoeseme that they would add a 1 year front court player. A sit out transfer yes, but a one and done, it would have to be a wing guy in my view.

Fair point, but what about raising the competition bar? No complaints about Clark. Washington had a fine year, but picked an awful time to have his worst game of the season. Brooks flashed, but I'm not sure we know what else we really have with the other two. There's room for frontcourt competition imo, especially when you consider the possibility of injuries.

As a coach, I subscribe to the 1 and half "jerk" theory (at least that is the word I use when explaining it to parents)

A successful team can get away with having one "jerk" as long as the rest of the group is strong.

The moment you get two "jerks", it doesn't matter how strong the rest of the group is, the team isn't going to perform up to expectations.

I believe with Broome at the point next year there will be a tendency to get out and run a lot more. I see a need for as many 2's and 3's as you can get your hands on. There are big kids who run the court well, but with one scholly, that's where my money goes. A runner.

(04-06-2017 02:25 PM)cpawfan Wrote:  As a coach, I subscribe to the 1 and half "jerk" theory (at least that is the word I use when explaining it to parents)

A successful team can get away with having one "jerk" as long as the rest of the group is strong.

The moment you get two "jerks", it doesn't matter how strong the rest of the group is, the team isn't going to perform up to expectations.

So you're saying that one jerk is fine, but after two jerks you essentially lose control?