I was sure that we would win two national titles with Courtney. I think Mulkey was sure that she would win three with Griner. But, it takes more than a great player. It takes fitting them together (something Baylor did in 2005) and a little luck (Baylor, 2005: Maryland when Courtney should have won it).
But, some of these player predictions seem to be made by non-professionals. I find it interesting that some prospects that are not rated so highly are recruited by most schools. Even UConn doesn't have all superstars. They do learn it.
But, I get the impression that the scouts see a player and think how great she will be without looking at the exact situation. I've seen players who look great in ragged basketball, street ball situations. But, in a set, they shouldn't even be on the court. I've seen players who look great against one team, and bad against another team. This is often based on nothing more than size rather than quality. I've seen players who shoot lights out, for about five shots. Then, they disappear for the rest of the game.
I tend to be more interested in a prospect that seems to play well under all circumstances. They don't have to be the leading scorer. But, they have to look competent. I think the scouts are wrong on some prospects. But, I could also be wrong. I thought San Toi DeBose would be the best halfback ever at OU. I see a couple of players that I just don't see how they would contribute at OU.
