Another swing and a miss on getting the point. Recruiting rankings are just fine in their context. Evaluating recruits. Recruting rankings are absolutly worthless and not relavent after they have played in college a couple of years.
It is also a good tool to see how a coach is doing in bringing his players along. If one top 100 kid isn't producing, maybe he was incorrectly ranked. If three top 100 kids are not producing, I'm inclined to blame that on coaching. 4 games into this season, and that is proving itself to be correct.
And you think those guys have talent. Well, relative to what? You need a reference point. How about we use top 20/25 basketball program. Virtually every other sport (mens and womens) are top 25 programs. If they are not. Joe C. fires the coach. I would agree that a top 25 mens basketball program is probably the hardest to maintain. But, Billy did it and Kelvin did it. So, that is the standard.
That would translate into beating all the weaker teams on the schedule and being competitive with all the better teams. The end result would be winning enough games to get to the tournament with a 5/6 seed.
What in the world do the other programs at OU have to do with evaluating the talent that OU's men's basketball program currently has? You are intermingling multiple different discussions here. Yes, OU's goal at some point should be a consistent top 25 team. Like we mostly were under Billy, and like we nearly always was under Kelvin. I agree.
Now, do we have talent relative to that objective? You can hope we do. You can wish we do. You can even say we do. But, you have no evidence that we do. The evidence seems to be that we currently do not have that level of talent. To just arbitrarily assign that level of talent to the starters from last years team seems to be a willfull suspension of disbelief.
My position from the start has been that to be a top 20/25 program again. Kruger will have to bring in better players. What is so controversial about that?
Do we have the talent to stay in the top 25 all season, and be a 5/6 seed in the Dance? Almost certainly we do NOT. I've never suggested otherwise. You are confusing long-term goals with what I believe we can do in the short term.
Here is where we differ though. I don't think our starters are far off from being that type of team. Absolutely I believe that. Basically, replace any one starter from our lineup (except maybe Pledger) with a "star" from that same position that played for Kelvin, and move that starter to the bench. That roster starts looking like a lot of the OU rosters that made the Dance for how many years? Stick Najera on this team, and move Fitz to the bench. Stick Brewer on this team, move Cam to the bench, and sign a guy like Johnny Gilbert, or Renzi Stone. That is how close we are. That is why I still think this team, as currently composed, has a shot to go Dancing, and almost certainly will be in the bubble discussion come the last 2-3 weeks of the season. Depth, and a solid post player is what kills us more than anything. Our starters.....or at least the majority of them, are talented enough to start on a top 25 team. The problem is, that we have a roster full of those guys. And while LK did a great job of trying to fill in the holes to make this a complete team, he didn't have time to do it all. Fitz will struggle having to start next to Osby. But what if he started next to Ace? Or even Jabahri Brown (think soph year)? Someone that could help him out inside, and in some cases (Brown), move him back to PF. This team has plenty of talent to have a solid season. Yes, LK needs to do more in recruiting to get us back in the top 3 of the Big 12. And next year's class is a major step in that direction.
You mentioned this earlier, but it is absolutely crazy to think Hield or Hornbeak are going to come in and start over Pledger. Nuts. There is zero percent chance of that happening.
Now, if you think that Fitz is an asset in reaching the objective. Well, GEEZ, that is stunning. Pledger seems to be the major point of contention here. You seem to take great offense when I said awile back that Pledger was a mid-major talent. I was surprised by that. I didn't say he was a mid-major hack or wannabe. I used the word talent. I'll stick with that assesment.
There area alot of players like Pledger around. Santa Clara had one about like him didn't they. That kid put on a pretty good show. Probably more impressive than Pledger's. He did it against a better team and Pledger did it againt a midmajor with undersized guards.
Players like Pledger will start and star for alot of teams. But, not the good teams. The good teams have guards that shoot like Pledger and are also quick defenders and athletes like Calvin. We woudn't have all that much to disagree on if you would just stop using Pledger's name in the same sentence with the good ones like Hollis.
Again, crazy. Fitz is fine if he is starting next to somebody that compliments him. That is this team's biggest problem, IMO, is that Osby and Fitz probably shouldn't be starting next to each other. I like them both individually, but as a post tandem, they don't really fit together very cleanly. That does not make it fair to bash either of them, Fitz in this case, and to say he isn't talented. He has A LOT of talent. It's not his fault the roster construction, or the way the current team is built, doesn't help him out any.
And you can keep calling Pledger mid-major all you want. And using some gunner that got hot during a blow out from Santa Clara is lame. That means nothing. It's like saying Hollis was a mid-major talent because Davidson had a guy like Curry. See how stupid that sounds?
Pledger is the closest thing this team has to a guy like Hollis/Brewer/Erdmann. He isn't there yet, and honestly probably won't ever get there. But OU had some pretty darn good teams with a guy like Nolan Johnson leading the way. Pledger is every big as good as Nolan. OU also had some pretty good teams with guys like Curry, Newton, Neal, Heskett, and Allison starting. Pledger is DEFINITELY as good as those guys.
You seem to be confusing individual talent, with team talent/roster construction. There is plenty of individual talent on this team. Enough to be a top 25 team? No. But plenty to get into the Dance like those early Kelvin teams. What this team lacks is depth, and a little talent in the post. Guys like Arent/Washington/Neal should be our 4th best bigs. Right now, they are fighting for the 3rd spot. Put Eduardo/Bookout/Taj on this team, and we'd be in great shape. And yes, those are good players, but Kelvin, a guy that isn't known as a recruiter, was able to have guys like that on the roster nearly every single season. LK will too. Starting next year, possibly.
