Back to basketball. For 50 points, who is the first person who can satisfactorily answer the question, “If Tech had this much talent, why couldn’t they play better as a team?”
Was it coaching? Team chemistry? What?
When we had Jose, Moses, Mike, and Ush we were the third best team in the conference and you could make an argument that by the end of the season we were playing as well as anyone in conference (Beating FSU in the final two matchups and UVA struggled a bit at the end). The year before that We went 11-9 in conference and had we had Ush the entire year and Jose not gotten injured would have likely been better.
But you say if Tech had this much talent like we were particularly noteworthy talentwise. Those 4 all went undrafted. Ush and Mike are playing well in the summer league but haven't played in an NBA game. Moses got 15 minutes and then went over to China last year. Obviously Jose is clearly the most successful but I wouldn't say he was more talented than Moses or Ush. I think his success is more a product of other attributes although that can be debated I'm sure. We had talent. But not so much that it would be successful on its own. We needed to combine it with experience and chemistry and when we did we had a good amount of success as a team. But we lacked both the top end talent to overcome some of the issues the team had against better teams and lacked the depth to withstand a major personnel loss as seen both with Jose's injury and Moses not being available.
There were other issues at play like some weird coaching decisions in terms of how to approach the offense at times, but we haven't had a particularly noteworthy team talentwise since the year Favors was here in my opinion. There were years where the talent level was "good enough" if we also had the other aspects like experience, a well balanced roster, and chemistry, but often lacked one or more of those.