Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
2023-24 Season Countdown
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lv20gt" data-source="post: 951979" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>If you think that team success is a bad evaluative measure of individual talent then that's perfectly fine and I would agree. I didn't talk about team success at all in my initial breakdown. But you were the one who brought team success in with "4 of the guys that only won a few games for us last year" as a response to my starting line up. I think the point is flawed on its own because I think by and large our returning players weren't the issues plaguing our team last year. But it also doesn't make sense if you apply the same standard to the incoming transfers. I do have a problem with seemingly using team success only to one group of players though. </p><p></p><p>You say logic tells you we won't be starting the same players as last year. Logic tells me we will start the best players we have. I said I thought Abram had higher potential than Sturdivant but I think Sturdivant was a better player at the end of last year (and so would expect him to be better to start next year) and provided stats to justify that. If you think Abram is going to be better day one than Sturdivant then go ahead and make the argument. But don't use a standard for one player that you aren't willing to apply to another. </p><p></p><p>Same with Reeves. If you think he's better than Coleman/Terry than argue it. To me, I see a player who shot more frequently than anyone in our rotation last year at %s worse than anyone in our rotation last year while also having a sub .5 assist to turn over ratio. His rebounding and defensive numbers look okay but nothing noteworthy. He has a ton of athletic potential but that doesn't seem like it's translating to effective play yet. If you see something different then what?</p><p></p><p>I don't agree with the whole change for the sake of change premise. The changes need to make sense and address issues the team had. The biggest issue we had last year was with interior defense and rebounding. That got somewhat better once Franklin hit his stride but was still an issue. I don't see Abram or Reeves really helping with that though. I also don't think we have a particularly good answer for that issue at the moment. But IMO if you're looking at a newcomer to actually make a big difference with a change that will address the issues it wouldn't be Reeves or Abram. It'd be Ndongo. But he's a true freshman and it's notoriously hard to project how well recruits will adjust to the college game even if they are highly thought of.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 951979, member: 2299"] If you think that team success is a bad evaluative measure of individual talent then that's perfectly fine and I would agree. I didn't talk about team success at all in my initial breakdown. But you were the one who brought team success in with "4 of the guys that only won a few games for us last year" as a response to my starting line up. I think the point is flawed on its own because I think by and large our returning players weren't the issues plaguing our team last year. But it also doesn't make sense if you apply the same standard to the incoming transfers. I do have a problem with seemingly using team success only to one group of players though. You say logic tells you we won't be starting the same players as last year. Logic tells me we will start the best players we have. I said I thought Abram had higher potential than Sturdivant but I think Sturdivant was a better player at the end of last year (and so would expect him to be better to start next year) and provided stats to justify that. If you think Abram is going to be better day one than Sturdivant then go ahead and make the argument. But don't use a standard for one player that you aren't willing to apply to another. Same with Reeves. If you think he's better than Coleman/Terry than argue it. To me, I see a player who shot more frequently than anyone in our rotation last year at %s worse than anyone in our rotation last year while also having a sub .5 assist to turn over ratio. His rebounding and defensive numbers look okay but nothing noteworthy. He has a ton of athletic potential but that doesn't seem like it's translating to effective play yet. If you see something different then what? I don't agree with the whole change for the sake of change premise. The changes need to make sense and address issues the team had. The biggest issue we had last year was with interior defense and rebounding. That got somewhat better once Franklin hit his stride but was still an issue. I don't see Abram or Reeves really helping with that though. I also don't think we have a particularly good answer for that issue at the moment. But IMO if you're looking at a newcomer to actually make a big difference with a change that will address the issues it wouldn't be Reeves or Abram. It'd be Ndongo. But he's a true freshman and it's notoriously hard to project how well recruits will adjust to the college game even if they are highly thought of. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
2023-24 Season Countdown
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top