Fran on OU's depth

[BigTime]

"Most depth since Final Four team, IMO"

Source = twitter

Boom.

 

[AdaSooner]

Fran is right, this OU team has more depth than any team in my recent memory. I'm not talking about bodies on our roster to fill bench space. This team has "quality" depth at every position. I think we may see Coach Kruger bring five players off of the bench to replace our starters early on. He has done that before, but this time he should be able to do it without a significant decline in talent, and in the score.

Even if Manyang can't go, I think we'll still go ten deep, with Hield, Cousins, Spangler, Woodard, Lattin, Buford, Odomes, McNeace, Walker and James seeing meaningful playing time.

 

[bgrch1350]

Fran is right, this OU team has more depth than any team in my recent memory. I'm not talking about bodies on our roster to fill bench space. This team has "quality" depth at every position. I think we may see Coach Kruger bring five players off of the bench to replace our starters early on. He has done that before, but this time he should be able to do it without a significant decline in talent, and in the score.

Even if Manyang can't go, I think we'll still go ten deep, with Hield, Cousins, Spangler, Woodard, Lattin, Buford, Odomes, McNeace, Walker and James seeing meaningful playing time.

I disagree with Fran's statement entirely. Going into the season, the next 3 years following the final 4, had better benches. Sampson brought in top 100 players to come off the bench and had several guys who played the previous year returned. Blake's freshman and sophmore years had pretty good benches.

This bench is nothing but unknowns and inexperience talent. Walker and Cole are the only returning bench players added with 2 redshirt freshmen that we expect to be good but don't know yet and freshmen that weren't ranked very high out of high school.

I think this team is going to be good but over the last 14 years there are several more teams who had way more proven depth going into the season that I would take going into a season.

 

[BigTime]

I disagree with Fran's statement entirely. Going into the season, the next 3 years following the final 4, had better benches. Sampson brought in top 100 players to come off the bench and had several guys who played the previous year returned. Blake's freshman and sophmore years had pretty good benches.

This bench is nothing but unknowns and inexperience talent. Walker and Cole are the only returning bench players added with 2 redshirt freshmen that we expect to be good but don't know yet and freshmen that weren't ranked very high out of high school.

I think this team is going to be good but over the last 14 years there are several more teams who had way more proven depth going into the season that I would take going into a season.

Buford was highly ranked. Don't forget him.

 

[bgrch1350]

Buford was highly ranked. Don't forget him.

I'm not but the teams following the final 4 had returning players and Alexander, Bookout, Turner, Foust, McKenzie, Tobias, Longar...just to name a few added to the roster. And we know how it turned out but going into the season we could have talked about that depth all day.

The last few years we have heard about how deep these teams are going into the season and it has yet to be true except maybe the 12-13 team.

 

[geeoh]

This is kind of a hard discussion to have considering we have the gift of hindsight for our previous teams and nothing to go on with this one.

That being said, Fran is basing his comments off of seeing a lot of these players live, so some stock should be put into his comments; how much stock you put in is up to you.

 

[skyvue]

This bench is nothing but unknowns and inexperience talent. Walker and Cole are the only returning bench players added with 2 redshirt freshmen that we expect to be good but don't know yet and freshmen that weren't ranked very high out of high school.

What matters more to you right now -- the number of stars Odomes had when he signed with OU or how he's played since? I can tell you I care much more about the latter.

How many practices have you been to this summer or fall? If, as I suspect, the answer is none, then you'll forgive me for trusting Fran, who has gotten to see Odomes on the court with his new teammates, over the recruiting ranking services you're relying on. I also trust his dominant performance in the Faith 7 game over those services.

Odomes was also ranked among the Top 100 incoming freshmen by a committee put together by ESPN.com, this also coming after he's spent time working out and scrimmaging with the team. Is that enough to satisfy you?

And Christian James? He was considered the top shooting guard in Texas before his injury. Of course his star rating dropped as a result but are you not aware of how he was ranked before that?

So we've got Buford, who was highly ranked and has had a year with the team; McNease, who was a three-star recruit and has been with the team for a year and by ALL reports has made great progress; James, who was a three-star recruit DESPITE his injury and Odomes (see above). And if he gets healthy, we've got an athletic 7-footer in the mix.

You know who else were three-star players? Woodard and Cousins, and they've done all right by us, haven't they? So was Lattin -- didn't he provide some solid depth last year?

I'll take a hard-working three-star player over four- or five-star guy with a swollen sense of entitlement every day of the week.

Honestly, I wish those ranking sites had never been created. They do far more damage to the culture of collegiate athletics than good. Every fan who reads them thinks he can judge a team's recruits just by checking the number of stars. If a coach relied on that method to decide who to recruit, he'd be out on his ass in short order, but somehow every fan with a subscription to one of those services thinks he's got it all figured out.

I very much look forward to all our new guys making you eat your words.

 

[bgrch1350]

What matters more to you right now -- the number of stars Odomes had when he signed with OU or how he's played since? I can tell you I care much more about the latter.

How many practices have you been to this summer or fall? If, as I suspect, the answer is none, then you'll forgive me for trusting Fran, who has gotten to see Odomes on the court with his new teammates, over the recruiting ranking services you're relying on. I also trust his dominant performance in the Faith 7 game over those services.

Odomes was also ranked among the Top 100 incoming freshmen by a committee put together by ESPN.com, this also coming after he's spent time working out and scrimmaging with the team. Is that enough to satisfy you?

And Christian James? He was considered the top shooting guard in Texas before his injury. Of course his star rating dropped as a result but are you not aware of how he was ranked before that?

So we've got Buford, who was highly ranked and has had a year with the team; McNease, who was a three-star recruit and has been with the team for a year and by ALL reports has made great progress; James, who was a three-star recruit DESPITE his injury and Odomes (see above). And if he gets healthy, we've got an athletic 7-footer in the mix.

You know who else were three-star players? Woodard and Cousins, and they've done all right by us, haven't they? So was Lattin -- didn't he provide some solid depth last year?

I'll take a hard-working three-star player over four- or five-star guy with a swollen sense of entitlement every day of the week.

Honestly, I wish those ranking sites had never been created. They do far more damage to the culture of collegiate athletics than good. Every fan who reads them thinks he can judge a team's recruits just by checking the number of stars. If a coach relied on that method to decide who to recruit, he'd be out on his ass in short order, but somehow every fan with a subscription to one of those services thinks he's got it all figured out.

I very much look forward to all our new guys making you eat your words.

Cousins has turned out pretty good...but he wasn't that good as a freshman. Woodard was though but Woodard as a freshman got us a first round loss to ND STate. (I'm not blaming Woodard for the loss)

You can take 3 star player over 4 or 5 star player any day of the week but what you want get is a National Championship. Actually we have yet to beat out Kansas for a big 12 championship. Those 4 and 5 star players have won 11 straight big 12 championships.

You say the stars don't matter, but until the outcome of having 3 star players results in a big 12 championship or a national championship then I'll continue to believe it does matter b/c i believe in results and 4 and 5 star players win championships. You can just ask UNC, Kentucky, Uconn, L'ville, Florida, Kansas, and Michigan State. And our best team in the last 10 years had 2 5 star players on our roster (Griffin and Warren) and had Griffin not had gotten hurt, Kansas's streak would have been broken.

Even Wisconsin who developed a 3 star player in Kaminsky into a great college player needed a 5 star Dekker to get them to the final 4.

 

[skyvue]

Cousins has turned out pretty good...but he wasn't that good as a freshman. Woodard was though but Woodard as a freshman got us a first round loss to ND STate. (I'm not blaming Woodard for the loss)

You can take 3 star player over 4 or 5 star player any day of the week but what you want get is a National Championship. Actually we have yet to beat out Kansas for a big 12 championship. Those 4 and 5 star players have won 11 straight big 12 championships.

You say the stars don't matter, but until the outcome of having 3 star players results in a big 12 championship or a national championship then I'll continue to believe it does matter b/c i believe in results and 4 and 5 star players win championships. You can just ask UNC, Kentucky, Uconn, L'ville, Florida, Kansas, and Michigan State. And our best team in the last 10 years had 2 5 star players on our roster (Griffin and Warren) and had Griffin not had gotten hurt, Kansas's streak would have been broken.

Even Wisconsin who developed a 3 star player in Kaminsky into a great college player needed a 5 star Dekker to get them to the final 4.

Plenty of players don't play up to their recruit rankings, and plenty of others outplay their rankings. You didn't factor in anything we've learned about our players in the months they've been in Norman (Buford and McNeace have been there a year and a half!). You just continue to focus on what some service said about them a year (or two) ago.

 

[cowboysooner]

I have been an invested fan of Ou basketball and followed it closely since the mid 1970s. Been to countless games, and if I wasn't there live, I have watched every televised game.

Just a lay opinion, but I believe Fran is right. In fact, I think this team is deeper and more talented than any team since 1988. I base this solely on my eyes, and not on any player rating system.

Historically, and with notable exception (griffin, king, grant etc), our inside players have been flawed in some ways. Tall but skinny, big but short, athletic but not skilled, skilled but not athletic or tall. This is essentially what has differentiated OU from the elite blue bloods. North Carolina and Kansas get the skill tall players, and this is all the edge they need to stay a step ahead.

I don't know what their stars were, but Lattin and McNease are, or certainly going to be, good bigs. By this, I mean legit 6'9 or better, athletic and skilled. They are or will be better than most of the bigs we have had, at least in my opinion. This might also apply to AK, we will see when and if we get to watch him play.

Outside, BUddy, IC and Woodard, collectively, are about as good as we have had. Better than most of the past years. Walker is a good player. Odomes and Jones certainly look the part. Jones can play. I've only seen him play once, at the scrimmage, but that was enough to know that he can really play. If Odomes' game is anything like he looks standing on the sideline, then he will be special.

This is something that is better discussed after the season. But, I'm with Fran, this is looks like the deepest team at OU in a long long time.

 

[bgrch1350]

Plenty of players don't play up to their recruit rankings, and plenty of others outplay their rankings. You didn't factor in anything we've learned about our players in the months they've been in Norman (Buford and McNeace have been there a year and a half!). You just continue to focus on what some service said about them a year (or two) ago.

Every year you build up our team and our new recruits and how well they are in practice going up against ourselves. Every team out there can say the same thing about the recruits they brought in and how well they look. I'm sure Texas Tech is just raving about how well their players look right now but come to the end of the season, they won't have much to show for it.

Obviously players don't always live up to their star or rank and others turn out to be way better than their ranking.

I don't focus on what they were 2 years ago. I focus on what they were 3 months ago before they got here. All of sudden, you act like the 3 star rank players are studs and are better than what every recruiting site says they were or that they are better than the 4 and 5 star players that chose not to come to OU.

 

[WaymanFan]

In fact, I think this team is deeper and more talented than any team since 1988. I base this solely on my eyes, and not on any player rating system.

No one would argue that the 1988 team was the best. However, no one should argue that the 1990 team was the deepest. Proof? Terrance Mullins was the only sub to play in the '88 title game (as a freshman). As a junior, he was usually the sixth man OFF THE BENCH. If my math is right, that would make him the 11th best player on that team. I have no delusions that this year's team is anywhere near that deep. I just hope it's "without a doubt" the deepest we've had since Coach Kruger arrived.

 

[Sooner04]

No one would argue that the 1988 team was the best. However, no one should argue that the 1990 team was the deepest. Proof? Terrance Mullins was the only sub to play in the '88 title game (as a freshman). As a junior, he was usually the sixth man OFF THE BENCH. If my math is right, that would make him the 11th best player on that team. I have no delusions that this year's team is anywhere near that deep. I just hope it's "without a doubt" the deepest we've had since Coach Kruger arrived.

Bingo. I'll be shocked if we EVER have a team deeper than the '90 squad. Wave upon wave.

 

[bgrch1350]

No one would argue that the 1988 team was the best. However, no one should argue that the 1990 team was the deepest. Proof? Terrance Mullins was the only sub to play in the '88 title game (as a freshman). As a junior, he was usually the sixth man OFF THE BENCH. If my math is right, that would make him the 11th best player on that team. I have no delusions that this year's team is anywhere near that deep. I just hope it's "without a doubt" the deepest we've had since Coach Kruger arrived.

The year after the final 4 is by far the best bench we had. Alexander, Gilbert, Johnston, Gipson, Turner, Szendrei, and Selvy. It was so good, they could afford to redshirt Detrick.

 

[Sooner04]

The redshirting of Detrick had nothing to do with Kelvin being proud of the depth. It had EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he was scared to death at how young the 2004 team was going to be, and that it signaled a legit chance at missing the NCAA Tournament for the first time here in his career.

It was a decision he lamented later, especially after Detrick was injured on the Costa Rica trip.

 

[BruinSooner]

The year after the final 4 is by far the best bench we had. Alexander, Gilbert, Johnston, Gipson, Turner, Szendrei, and Selvy. It was so good, they could afford to redshirt Detrick.

Selvy was not on the 2002-3 team.

Alexander and Gilbert were solid bench players. Johnston, Gipson and Szendrei were ok but not spectacular at all. Turner hardly played.

I really hope this year's bench is better, or we're in trouble.

 

[TheMont]

Also Selvy had already graduated in 02-03!

 

[DenverSooner]

Selvy was not on the 2002-3 team.

Alexander and Gilbert were solid bench players. Johnston, Gipson and Szendrei were ok but not spectacular at all. Turner hardly played.

I really hope this year's bench is better, or we're in trouble.

Additionally, Alexander, Turner and Gipson were freshman which is one of his knocks on this year's bench. Gilbert and Johnston were sophomore but had no more experience than Walker or Lattin.

My personal opinion is that OU is deeper this year. I think that team was solid 8 guys deep with Szedrei not hurting you. I think this team is going to be solid 10-11 guys deep, with Mankin and Cole not hurting (but I think Szedrei was better than Mankin or Cole).

 

[bgrch1350]

Selvy was not on the 2002-3 team.

Alexander and Gilbert were solid bench players. Johnston, Gipson and Szendrei were ok but not spectacular at all. Turner hardly played.

I really hope this year's bench is better, or we're in trouble.

You are right...Selvy wasn't on the team.

But we are talking about going into the season and Johnston, Szendrei, and Gipson were all players returning from a final 4 run and then you add turner, Gipson and Alexander to that bench. And were talking about going into the season with a bunch of unknown talent and saying this bench is going to be better than that team with the only bench player returning that contributed to the sweet 16 run last year is Walker.
And then the following year we had McKenzie, Turner, Tobias, Foust, Gilbert, and Williams on that bench. Foust and Mckenzie were top 100 players and Gilbert was a solid returner.

I'm not saying that this years team can't have the best bench, I'm just saying that i'm not going to believe it until I see it with only Walker returning from last years bench.

 

[skyvue]

Every year you build up our team and our new recruits and how well they are in practice going up against ourselves. Every team out there can say the same thing about the recruits they brought in and how well they look. I'm sure Texas Tech is just raving about how well their players look right now but come to the end of the season, they won't have much to show for it.

No, I don't. I live out of state and don't even get to see them practice. Am I happy to hear positive reports out of practice (especially from those outside the program, like Fran)? Sure, and it's kind of strange that you aren't.

But I don't make predictions of greatness or pump up the team. I never even predict scores of individual games when those threads are posted.

But even if I did build up the team, I'd be ccorrect more often than you. Last season turned out pretty well, no? And the season before that? And even the season before that, compared to what came before it. I can assure you that, in viewing the team in a positive manner over the past three seasons, I've been right far more often than you with your doom-and-gloom "realism."

What's more, you were the one relentlessly trashing Coach Kruger during the 2012-13 season for playing the freshmen who are now our stars. It's a good thing he did, too. We went from 15-16 to 20-12 that season, and Buddy and Isaiah have continued to improve. Had Buddy spent most of his freshman year on the bench, as you would have had him do, it's a pretty safe bet he wouldn't have been conference player of the year last season.

I don't focus on what they were 2 years ago. I focus on what they were 3 months ago before they got here.

You're not focusing on three months ago. The rankings you place so much stock in (so much that you dismiss everything that comes after) happened much longer ago than three months. Three months ago was August 6, for pete's sake.

Is Fran Fraschilla praising Tech's depth? Have any Tech players been included in ESPN's Top 100 freshmen of 2015? Did any of their freshman guards score 37 points and grab 11 boards in the Faith 7 game in early June (five months ago)?

The answer to all of those is no. But you've factored none of that into your "expert analysis" regarding these players. All you care about is some recruiting service's star ranking, "info" that is many months old. James and Odomes both signed their letters of intent a year ago and have been working out with the team for five months. Buford and McNeace signed theirs two years ago and have been getting coached up by Kruger and Co. for nearly 18 months.

I wonder when Rivals or any of your services last updated their ranking of any of those four players. It's been much, much longer than three months, of that I'm certain.