Harrison Twins, Cauley-Stein, Anthony-Towns, Lyles, Johnson, and Booker. Can't say I didn't expect it, but this has got to be a little frustrating for Cal. I know it is the culture he has created, but having a completely different team every year is just crazy. As a fan I would not like that much change every year. Three leaving after one year is tough enough for me.
Seven UK Players Declare For The Draft
- Thread starter hallside
- Start date
It's a 'serious' rebuilding year. When they won the SHIP he had a very serious rebuilding moment, granted Kanter was ineligible and Noel tore his ACL.
My thoughts exactly. This has to be crazy deflating as a fan and as Cal. I know it's a great tool for him to point to how many he sends to the draft and first round every year, but still.
We've all been saying of Tyus, Winslow and Jah, "They did all we could ask of them, so we're happy either way". Does 38-1 after the sting of the Wisconsin loss fades lead Kentucky fans to say the same of these 7(!)?
means that got room to get 3-4 more top recruits. They are predicted to get 6 top 15 guys coming in
Based on an interview that I saw that he gave early in the season he didn't reach his #1 goal for the season because he said in that interview that his #1 goal was to get 8 players drafted. So if he ends up with only 7 players getting drafted I wonder if he'll feel like this season wasn't a succes if only 7 players get drafted.
Wow. Seven guys. But they will reload. There was a reason so many players were undecided at the McDonald's game this past season.
The harrison aren't considered first round material, so they could come back. As far as reloading, I don't see the 15 class as a reloading type class. Maybe I'm wrong but I just haven't been super impressed with any of them to the point I'd rely on them to win with.
Wish the Harrisons did come back. They do an excellent job at stealing minutes from better players (see Ulis & Booker), and they might scare off some potential recruits if they stuck around another year. I will miss their sub 40% FG Shooting.
Can't really blame them given the bitter cloud hovering over the program after that Final Four lose. They aren't interested in the long road to competing for another NCAA Title. Millions are waiting in the Pros.
Time for Cal to Consider the NBA again. After some the stories surrounding the Academics and recruitment of Skal Labissirre they may be polishing the brass on the Titanic. It's about to go down
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevintrahan/2014/11/13/skal-labissieres-eligibility-issues-show-why-the-ncaa-needs-to-make-nuanced-decisions/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kevintrahan/2014/11/13/skal-labissieres-eligibility-issues-show-why-the-ncaa-needs-to-make-nuanced-decisions/
On the one hand, I'm sure Cal will trumpet how he's got 7 guys in the draft and will have 4 who likely go in the first round. On the other hand, it should be worth noting that 3 of the 7 guys are former top 5-10 ranked 5* recruits who are now going in the second round, and the UK roster includes 2 other former 5* kids (Poythress and Marcus Lee) who aren't even projected as 2nd round picks.
In that regard, I do wonder whether the poor draft stocks of some of these really highly regarded guys will start to impact the willingness of some of these kids to all commit to his one-and-done plan.
In the past 2 years, Duke has recruited 4 5* kids. Two of those guys will end up being top 2 picks, a third will be a top 5-10 pick (and almost certainly go higher than his HS ranking), and a 4th has done nothing but improve his NBA stock compared to where it was before the season. By contrast, in the past 2 classes, Kentucky has brought in 9 5* kids -- 7 of whom had composite 10 top rankings. Of that group, Towns, Randle, and Booker are really the only one who saw their NBA stock rise or at least stay near where it started. The rest either saw their NBA draft projections fall by 10 (Lyles, Young) to ~30 spots (Harrisons, Marcus Lee, Dakari Johnson). In other words, as good as UK's team was this year, I'm not sure how effectively Cal can use this platoon approach as a tool for recruiting this kind of depth of talent in the future. IMO, if I were a high-end 5* recruit, the lesson I'd take away is that you're probably better off going somewhere where you'll be featured over being the 5th-9th man on UK. In the end of they day, NBA scouts want to see kids produce in games -- and it's hard for a young kid to mature into a highly-productive player if he's not playing a lot and / or being asked to play a Matt Jones / Amile Jefferson type role on a team. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be a bit surprised if UK brings in Cal's going to be able to reassamble a 2013-type class. While they're assuredly not finished recruiting, my guess is next year will be a lot more akin to 2010-11 -- where they had a lot of good, young talent, but not necessarily much depth of talent beyond a top 7 or so.
This post was edited on 4/9 4:13 PM by aah555
In that regard, I do wonder whether the poor draft stocks of some of these really highly regarded guys will start to impact the willingness of some of these kids to all commit to his one-and-done plan.
In the past 2 years, Duke has recruited 4 5* kids. Two of those guys will end up being top 2 picks, a third will be a top 5-10 pick (and almost certainly go higher than his HS ranking), and a 4th has done nothing but improve his NBA stock compared to where it was before the season. By contrast, in the past 2 classes, Kentucky has brought in 9 5* kids -- 7 of whom had composite 10 top rankings. Of that group, Towns, Randle, and Booker are really the only one who saw their NBA stock rise or at least stay near where it started. The rest either saw their NBA draft projections fall by 10 (Lyles, Young) to ~30 spots (Harrisons, Marcus Lee, Dakari Johnson). In other words, as good as UK's team was this year, I'm not sure how effectively Cal can use this platoon approach as a tool for recruiting this kind of depth of talent in the future. IMO, if I were a high-end 5* recruit, the lesson I'd take away is that you're probably better off going somewhere where you'll be featured over being the 5th-9th man on UK. In the end of they day, NBA scouts want to see kids produce in games -- and it's hard for a young kid to mature into a highly-productive player if he's not playing a lot and / or being asked to play a Matt Jones / Amile Jefferson type role on a team. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd be a bit surprised if UK brings in Cal's going to be able to reassamble a 2013-type class. While they're assuredly not finished recruiting, my guess is next year will be a lot more akin to 2010-11 -- where they had a lot of good, young talent, but not necessarily much depth of talent beyond a top 7 or so.
This post was edited on 4/9 4:13 PM by aah555
Lithuanian guards are tall, accurate shooters and smart. I guess 1 out of 3 will earn the twins a spot. Seriously, F those crackers.
The NBA draft is based on potential. Enes Kanter was drafted 3rd overall and he didnt play period, so I dont think rotating players is going to hurt anyone's draft stock, as long as they produce with the minutes they are on the court. Kyrie only played a handful of games for you guys, but even in limited time, still showed enough potential to be taken 1 overall.
Plus, you are trying to equate recruiting rankings with draft rankings. James Young for instance, who you mentioned, was ranked as the 8th best prospect in the 2013 freshman class according to ESPN rankings. He was taken 17th last year in the draft, which you equate to his stock dropping 10 places. But, he was the 8th freshman taken in the draft, so can you really say his stock fell? The NBA draft doesnt consist of only the top freshmen in the country, it consists of all classes and international players, so I don't think it is accurate to say Young's draft stock fell, I think he was drafted right around where he was projected to be drafted before his college career started.
Plus, you have to consider that by rotating and not getting the minutes that a player might have gotten at other schools, also prevents some of their weakness from being highlighted. Take Daniel Orton, who was Anthony Davis back up. He averaged 13 minutes a game at UK, but was still a late first round pick after his freshman year, and hasnt done anything at the pro level. If he had stayed another year, or gone to a place where he got more minutes, it is more than possible he isnt drafted in the first round. I get your overall point, but I think it goes a bit deeper and there is more to it than the things you pointed out.
This post was edited on 4/9 11:22 PM by Cubs79
It will be very interesting to see if all 7 get drafted. We are only talking about 60 picks total right? I will be shocked if both Harrison twins gets drafted, maybe even Johnson, he is very raw.
I think that's a fair point with regard to James Young (though I'd note that 6 of the one-and-dones went in the top 8, and then there was a huge drop off before Young's name came up). However, the rest of that analysis doesn't really explain the others. Unlike a Tyus Jones-type, whose NBA prospects out of high school were not nearly as good as his college ranking b/c of measurables (most weren't even projecting him in the 2015 draft), that sort of ranking disparity did not exist for the Harrison twins, Dakari, and Marcus Lee. They were all considered mid-first round picks when the original 2014 projections were coming out at the beginning of the 2013-14 season, and at least 3 of them were considered late first rounders at the beginning of 14-15. They have all clearly seen their stocks fall significantly -- and it's not b/c they've proven to lack the requisite athleticism, measurables, etc. -- but b/c they haven't been very productive and efficient players. Some of that may be specific to the players, but with the big guys particularly -- I think playing time has probably hurt them as well. Dakari, most notably, seems like a guy who's probably a mid-first round pick -- but nobody's going to take that chance on taking him that high b/c his play has been so erratic (which is what happens when you're getting inconsistent minutes).
And, to be clear, I'm not saying that Cal is struggling to get his star players to the NBA. He's certainly not. My point is that, regardless of the talent level, it's impossible to have 8-9 stars. What will inevitably happens is that some will emerge as the stars and look good in front of the scouts, and others are going to have to take a back seat. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is necessarily a bad thing -- particularly if the Harrisons and Dakari were the type of kids willing to stay in school 3-4 years until they too can have their moments as the undisputed team leaders. However, I think Cal was able to get all 9-10 guys to commit / stay at UK under the premise that everyone's draft stock would benefit from playing on such a talented squad -- and I just don't think that's been borne out. Something's off when you've got 4 5* kids from the 2013 class (3 of whom were top 10) that are probably more likely to go undrafted than be first rounders after 2 years of college.
Cal has 3 excellent returning players, an excellent 3-man recruiting class, and will probably sign 3-5 more stars.
This won't hurt them as much as it should.
This won't hurt them as much as it should.
At this point, I'm just surprised he hasn't pushed Poythress and Lee out the door. Even Dakari Johnson. He already tried to publicly push Alex out when he gave a statement saying he was leaving and his mom was like whoa. Cal's system doesn't work when guys try to stick around longer than two years. I wouldn't be surprised to see Poythress transfer this summer and it probably won't be his choice.
Well, that's the question -- do they sign about a 4/5 man class or a 6-8 man class (like they had in 2013). UK is currently listed as a finalist for 8 top 20 uncommitted recruits. Logically, IMO, the experience of the 2013 class would discourage the rest of these guys from committing to UK -- particularly if, for instance, Newman and Thon Maker were to commit (with the obvious caveat that one of their current commits may have some NCAA problems).
Either way, they won't be hurting. The big difference will be in scenario 1 they'd have a rotation of 7-8 highly regarded kids with a few elite kids intermixed (which is not atypical for the Duke / Kansas / UNCs of the world), whereas in Scenario 2 they would go into another crazy situation where they'd literally start the year with a 10 man rotation of former 5* recruits. As good as UK was this year, what really separated this group from past years was not the quality of their starting 5 (which was excellent, but not exceptional for an elite squad), but that they were basically impervious to most of the normal pitfalls that impact good teams -- i.e., injuries, foul trouble, fatigue, shooting slumps, bat matchups, etc.
This post was edited on 4/10 11:45 AM by aah555
You might have a point with Dakari needing more minutes for his stock to climb, but honestly, Dakari isn't a very skilled player. I would guess his recruiting ranking was based way more on his size than it was his actual skill. He might develop into a good player, it does sometimes take guys that size a while to grow into their body's so to speak, but I was never overly impressed with him.
I dont think you can make that claim with the Harrison's though. Both averaged around 32 minutes a game their Freshman years, and over 25 minutes this past year. I think they both got enough minutes as to not effect their draft stock. I just don't think they showed the improvement needed to do so. HS rankings are tricky when talking about the NBA, and it doesnt always pan out the way it is expected after playing against better competition at the college level. I am not sure their draft stock would be any higher had they played for Duke, UNC, Texas, Louisville etc.
Yes, hard to know -- though, with the Harrisons, I do think they were partly hurt by the composition / makeup of the UK roster. When I look at both of them, their best attribute is their relative size / physicality over most guards and their ability to muscle their way to the rim. If they played on a smaller team like Duke that had a lot of shooters who could spread the floor, I think they could have regularly used that size advantage to get easy looks around the rim -- either through drives or post-ups. I think what hurt them (+ why they were so inefficient) is that UK had such a huge frontline of guys who like to play near the rim that the lane was regularly clogged -- forcing them to either take a lot of jump shots or contested shots in traffic (b/c the other team's bigs were all still standing in the lane).
So, while its true they did get minutes, I think they were hurt by the fact that Calipari didn't put lineups out there that were designed to accentuate the Harrisons's skills -- overpower smaller guards. Now, I'm not saying that's wrong -- b/c I think UK was better off playing with such a big lineup. But, if the Harrisons were on a team where, for instance, the team used smaller lineups or, at a minimum, could shoot effectively, I think they would have probably been far more efficient scorers. I'd add that while I think Booker / Ullis are extremely good, I don't necessarily think they're much better than the Harrisons in a vacuum. I think the reason they often performed better is b/c their jump shooting accuracy more effectively complemented UK's bigs -- and, unlike the Harrisons, neither needed to get to the rim to be effective.
Similar threads
