Talent, Next Season vs. the '00 Elite Eight Squad

The biggest difference is that everyone on that 00 squad was MUCH MUCH stronger than they 09-10 counterpart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cybsball20

The biggest difference is that everyone on that 00 squad was MUCH MUCH stronger than they 09-10 counterpart.

---

That's not the biggest difference... that's a difference and an important one, but the biggest difference is that the talent isn't as good. The coaching isn't as good, the guard play isn't as strong, the athleticism isn't as good, the defense isn't in the same arena as the 2000 team, and the shooting isn't in the same state as the 2000 team.

The big difference is that Craig isn't as good as Fizer and Colvin won't be as good as Tinsley in year 1. But yeah everything else is the same. We have role players and they have role players.

Also, if I remember, ISU pushed the ball up and down more so than we will with McD as coach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clonegrad07

That's not the biggest difference... that's a difference and an important one, but the biggest difference is that the talent isn't as good. The coaching isn't as good, the guard play isn't as strong, the athleticism isn't as good, the defense isn't in the same arena as the 2000 team, and the shooting isn't in the same state as the 2000 team.

---

Your right, I'll go back to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cybsball20

The biggest difference in the elite 8 team is all of those guys were well rounded basketball players. Our team now is full of specialist and one or two dimensional players, alot of whom struggled at their one dimension too much of the time.

---

but the strength was also a huge issue...

The fact that this is even being put out there for discussion is mind boggling for me. We have All-Americans being compared to players who have never set foot on a college campus. How do you assess talent without watching them play against other Big 12 players? We've moved past chugging the koolaid straight to beer bonging the koolaid while on LSD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cybsball20

Your right, I'll go back to



but the strength was also a huge issue...

---

Touche... you're right on both accounts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clonegrad07

That's not the biggest difference... that's a difference and an important one, but the biggest difference is that the talent isn't as good. The coaching isn't as good, the guard play isn't as strong, the athleticism isn't as good, the defense isn't in the same arena as the 2000 team, and the shooting isn't in the same state as the 2000 team.

---

That kinda sums it up. Plus, even with better shooters on that team, we were not satisfied with hoisting up threes, even when open. We attacked the basket to get fouled and go to the line...

How many "biggest differences" can one team have versus another? I thought biggest was used to illustrate one subject.

This thread is also as bad as any Hawk thread about the backup QB/RB/Skill player winning the Heisman next year...

Besides talent, toughness is the biggest diference between these two squads. The next floor burn one of the current Clones gets will be their first.

This team needs to play with a chip on their shoulders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aclone

I posted this elsewhere, but I figured that (with a few changes) it deserved it's own thread.

Talent? Yes. I didn't say anything about experience. Or even cohesiveness. Both of those are yet to be seen. But talent--most certainly. As I found when I looked more closely.

---

You just compared the best ever team in ISU history ( and will always remain the best ever team in ISU history) to our 15-17 team. I can't even begin to think how twisted that post was. Not even close.

I guess my mind worked 100% on wishful thinking instead of the 10% of common sense I have.

We have no guard on our team that comes even close to the three on that team. Most of our guards now would not have even been walkons to that team.


Besides talent, coaching, strength, play making, shooting, defense, speed, jumping ability they ARE nearly the same team. Otherwise, the team 10 years ago has this one floored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d4nim4l

How many "biggest differences" can one team have versus another? I thought biggest was used to illustrate one subject.

This thread is also as bad as any Hawk thread about the backup QB/RB/Skill player winning the Heisman next year...

---

"That's not the biggest difference... that's a difference and an important one, but the biggest difference is that the talent isn't as good."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aclone

I posted this elsewhere, but I figured that (with a few changes) it deserved it's own thread.

Talent? Yes. I didn't say anything about experience. Or even cohesiveness. Both of those are yet to be seen. But talent--most certainly. As I found when I looked more closely.

Let's see. What were the prominent players? I suppose I should look beyond the top of the food chain Fizer-Tinsley matchups...

Marcus Fizer = Craig Brackins
Easy. It remains to be seen whether CB will match (or exceed) Marcus' junior season, but I'd say his soph season was slightly ahead of Marcus' soph season. Talentwise, equal. Time will tell, you might end out being right about this.

Jamaal Tinsley = Chris Colvin
Remember, we (or I) said talent, and in the long run, Colvin might prove to be even better than Tinsley. But the talent is probably equivalent. At least. How it proves out is yet to be seen--just like Tinsley when he first signed. JT averaged 11 ppg, 6.6 apg 2.6 spg that season. I'd have a hard time comparing someone who hasn't played a minute of Big 12 ball to a runner up National Player of the Year from a talent standpoint.

Michael Nurse = Diante Garrett
Yes, Diante needs to continue to step up his game, become more consistent. We don't know yet how much improvement he'll make. But the talent is probably equal. At the least. Mike averaged 12.5 ppg that year, Diante 9.8 this season. I should note that perhaps the most important aspect that Mike (and Kantrail) added to that team was a secondary ballhandler. Nurse was every bit as quick as Diante, stronger than Diante, better on defense, and a much better shooter.

Stevie Johnson < Marquis Gilstrap
Sure, Stevie had a ton of heart, and is a great guy, always smiling. But this one isn't even close. Stevie averaged 9.1 ppg. I suspect that Marquis might better that. :jimlad: Time will tell, you might end out being right on this.

Kantrail Horton = Scott Christopherson, Lucca Staiger or Wes Eikmeier
Just guessing who to stick here. Any one of these guys might match Kantrail's 8.7 ppg. Of course, Lucca did average 8.2 ppg this year, but that wasn't Kantrail's only contribution. Perhaps I should have slotted Garrett here. By the way, considering the comparison, it's ironic that Kantrail was key to landing Marquis. Kantrail was much better than any of those 3...Kantrail benched 375lbs, guarded the other teams best player...played some point when Tinsley set, and had the ability to stroke it AND get to the hole (which none of those three have shown they can do yet).

Paul Shirley < Jamie Vanderbeken
Paul averaged 7.7ppg and 4.4 rpg. Anyone care to figure out Jamie's stats over the latter part of the season? Doesn't matter, because on talent, Jamie is well ahead (outside the classroom). We'll see on this...Vanderbeken needs to get a lot better on D for this to be true.

Martin Rancik < Justin Hamilton
I liked Martin, but this one isn't really close, either. And if JH can make even a moderate step up, he'll easily surpass Martin's 5.5ppg and 3.8 rpg. Hammy could end out surpassing Rancik by the end of his career, but that's an if.

Beyond that, we're down to the likes of Brandon Hawkins, Thomas Watkins, and Richard Evans, who all averaged 3.2 ppg or less. I already have Christopherson and Eikmeier on the board as wild cards, and still have a Buckley and a Pomlee up my sleeve.

Yes, if you wanted to evaluate the respective teams, you might shift the matchups around a little. For one thing, perhaps Tinsley should be matched against fellow juco Gilstrap. Or, if you went strictly positionally, Jamaal > DG--but then Colvin wins somewhere else, talentwise. As Gilstrap already does. I could flip some other matchups around, but I'm lazy. :biggrin:

However, my point was as to the respective talent, which was the point that I made in the first place, and I'd have to say that I'm pleased to me realize that next year's team might even be slightly more talented than that '99-00 squad.

With base talent being the argument that is being made. How everything meshes is yet to be seen. As well as the improvents of some players, and the contributions of newcomers.

And I'll also point of that that Elite Eight team was coming off a 15-15 season the year before. I can't say what changes and maturity this team will make and embrace in the ensuing months. Or how the newcomers will fare. But it's obvious that if CB returns, the talent is equal to that '99-'00 team.

So we'll see what happens.

---

A lot of the scoring and rebounding averages you are throwing out are somewhat slighted because of who their teammates are...Martin Rancik would've averaged a heck of a lot better numbers if he would've played on last year's team, than playing alongside Fizer, Tinsley, Horton and Nurse....Nurse, Horton, Johnson, and Rancik all would've been the second best player on last year's team, only behind Brackins...

I like some of our young guys' potential...but it's quite the stretch comparing them to the 2000 team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by d4nim4l

How many "biggest differences" can one team have versus another? I thought biggest was used to illustrate one subject.

This thread is also as bad as any Hawk thread about the backup QB/RB/Skill player winning the Heisman next year...

---

At least the majority of people are calling this guys bluff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mplscyclone

The big difference is that Craig isn't as good as Fizer and Colvin won't be as good as Tinsley in year 1. But yeah everything else is the same. We have role players and they have role players.


Also, if I remember, ISU pushed the ball up and down more so than we will with McD as coach.

---

The role players from the 2000 team would've been stars for last year's team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clonegrad07

"That's not the biggest difference... that's a difference and an important one, but the biggest difference is that the talent isn't as good."

---

I'll take that. Talent sums up a lot of areas.

To rephrase my earlier comment, at least we have dissenters here. A Hawk thread would have had 10 pages of agreement about their next Heisman winner.

At least we seem able to separate fact and fiction.