way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Talk XU Men's basketball here...
kyzrex
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:35 am
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby kyzrex » Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:33 am

The best TEAMS generally have players that play the best TOGETHER. If it was all about HIGH SCHOOL recruiting rankings, then KY would win the championship every year. Sheer individual talent will only take teams so far. Recruiting rankings only measure POTENTIAL. How the players develop as individuals and, even more importantly, as a GROUP is much more important than where they start out.

A very clear example of this was the recent UC-Norte Dame football contest. How did UC, with its 2 and 3 star players easily defeat ND with its 4 and 5 star players? Or just look at the great teams X has had in the past. Not a 5 star in the bunch but they outplayed teams with them.

Stop letting some “experts” recruiting rankings determine your expectations for a season and just look at the players that you have actually seen in action. Can anyone honestly say that the actual play of the Xavier players over the last few years has been championship caliber? Have the players overall lived up to their recruiting rankings? No way. Can they? Will they? Maybe. But to my mind they have A LOT to prove. Some of that we can blame on the coaching. But not all of it. Could it be that some of these players were just over ranked as recruits? Could it be that some of them haven’t developed as well as they could have? (Injuries to some of them have definitely effected this) Whatever the reason(s) for there failings, they certainly have not lived up to their lofty rankings.

To my mind recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but mean actually nothing once the players actually start playing against college competition.
#WHYNOTX?
User avatar
muskieman
Posts: 23794
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby muskieman » Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:31 am

kyzrex wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 7:33 am
The best TEAMS generally have players that play the best TOGETHER. If it was all about HIGH SCHOOL recruiting rankings, then KY would win the championship every year. Sheer individual talent will only take teams so far. Recruiting rankings only measure POTENTIAL. How the players develop as individuals and, even more importantly, as a GROUP is much more important than where they start out.

A very clear example of this was the recent UC-Norte Dame football contest. How did UC, with its 2 and 3 star players easily defeat ND with its 4 and 5 star players? Or just look at the great teams X has had in the past. Not a 5 star in the bunch but they outplayed teams with them.

Stop letting some “experts” recruiting rankings determine your expectations for a season and just look at the players that you have actually seen in action. Can anyone honestly say that the actual play of the Xavier players over the last few years has been championship caliber? Have the players overall lived up to their recruiting rankings? No way. Can they? Will they? Maybe. But to my mind they have A LOT to prove. Some of that we can blame on the coaching. But not all of it. Could it be that some of these players were just over ranked as recruits? Could it be that some of them haven’t developed as well as they could have? (Injuries to some of them have definitely effected this) Whatever the reason(s) for there failings, they certainly have not lived up to their lofty rankings.

To my mind recruiting rankings are fun to talk about, but mean actually nothing once the players actually start playing against college competition.
I agree that ranking can be deceiving but when a team gets a 5 star the talent level shows example was Drew Lavander when he was with X. No one in the arena could fail to pick out the best player when he was on the floor and he made a number of players look and play better than maybe they would be capable of playing. Look at the kid from Marquette last year when he got touches he created positive results. I think when a team is made of all 5 stars the ego factor gets in the way of production and your own KY might be an example. When they played together they were good but most of the time they were auditioning for a pro career (not that they didn't want to win but they were all trying to be the one that made the winning shot and together they fail to win games). So as you said correctly as a group the way they develop, the jell factor, proves the game is a team support. When great players make others better players then you have a winning formula.
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em.
skyhops
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby skyhops » Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:13 am

I agree with your assessment of the team Kyzrez especially since this years team is made up mainly of players from last year that went for 19 wins and a below average coach. I will disagree on the UC ND game. I was there and it was clear from the beginning of the game that UC seemed to have more playmakers and speed. unfortunately I was in the UC section and there fans were obnoxious and heard way too many comments on my X hat. Typcial
kyzrex
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:35 am
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby kyzrex » Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:52 pm

skyhops wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:13 am
I agree with your assessment of the team Kyzrez especially since this years team is made up mainly of players from last year that went for 19 wins and a below average coach. I will disagree on the UC ND game. I was there and it was clear from the beginning of the game that UC seemed to have more playmakers and speed. unfortunately I was in the UC section and there fans were obnoxious and heard way too many comments on my X hat. Typcial
I also was there and while I wasn’t wearing any X gear, as soon as the tailgate neighbors found out I was an X grad, they did give me some good natured kidding. No big deal. If I was to wear X gear to a UC game I would expect to be hassled. That’s why I don’t. :D
#WHYNOTX?
longliveskip
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby longliveskip » Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:08 am

kyzrex wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:05 pm
I don’t see how anyone can say that this team is “loaded” and mean that in a positive sense. Yes it’s loaded, it’s loaded with question marks. There are several players coming off of injuries. There is a question of leadership. The coaching is still a question. There are only 2 players that showed to be consistent last year, and both of them still have questions regarding either defense or staying healthy for the end of the season. There is still the hole in the middle to be filled.

Now, IF all those questions are answered in a positive sense, THEN they have a good chance of becoming a really good team. IF players can come back healthy, stay healthy, and shoot better than they have in the past. IF players don’t fade during February and March. IF the freshman from last year don’t get caught in the dreaded sophomore slump. IF X somehow figures out a way to control the defensive boards and not give up easy put backs. IF X can shot at least in the high 70’s % from the line.

After the way that this team has played over the last 3 seasons, they do not deserve any benefit of the doubt. They need to show it before we should expect it. I don’t care one bit what anyones recruiting rankings were. That don’t mean $hit anymore.
i think the expectation of this team being an NCAA tourney team is FINE. maybe even a little below the line. yes, all the "IFs" you bring up are the same "IFs" that apply to pretty much ANY team - if that player stays healthy is the most common one that applies. all the others are simply basketball related that yes, if they happen, we should be better.

you have a team from last year that returns pretty much everyone - that team WAS an NCAA tourney before two COVID pauses and a few injuries derailed that. so yes, the "IFs" are fine, but this team is an NCAA tourney team, barring any major catastrophic injuries. they showed that last year when they were healthy so it's reasonable to assume, with additions that the program has acquired, that they can be even BETTER.

i don't think it's OVERestimating to expect that.

but hey, roll the ball out and play the games and we will see what they're made of.
skyhops
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby skyhops » Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:37 am

We have been expected to make the tourney the last three seasons and have won 19 games, I think it is realistic to be skeptical especially with the used car salesman leading the way.
WestCoastMuskie
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2008 11:22 pm
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby WestCoastMuskie » Thu Oct 14, 2021 2:38 pm

I was dismayed listening to Coach Steele in the Fanta interview. Defense and toughness - does he know anything else? It's not like we defend well anyway. Coach, our OFFENSE is the problem. We look like we have no clue if the first 3 does not fall. Ay team that struggles to score like ours is going to have defensive issues. Long rebound, fast break, transition defense breakdowns. All come from shooting bricks.
Xavier2005
Posts: 579
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2016 3:58 pm
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby Xavier2005 » Thu Oct 14, 2021 5:35 pm

at the next UC football game, just wear a Xavier shirt that proclaims Xavier Football Undefeated since 1973.
thecoach
Posts: 1456
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 11:52 am
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby thecoach » Fri Oct 15, 2021 1:30 pm

skyhops wrote:
Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:13 am
I agree with your assessment of the team Kyzrez especially since this years team is made up mainly of players from last year that went for 19 wins and a below average coach. I will disagree on the UC ND game. I was there and it was clear from the beginning of the game that UC seemed to have more playmakers and speed. unfortunately I was in the UC section and there fans were obnoxious and heard way too many comments on my X hat. Typcial
I follow football recruiting, and to be honest when you compare the past several ND classes to UC's there is not near as much spread ratings wise as people think. Fickell has consistently been pulling high 3 star kids who are honestly not ranked much different than the 4 star kids ND gets more often. Throw in transfers like the kid at RB they got from Bama, and several impact WR's, and it's really right along your point. Their skill position kids are very good, and ND (as most teams in the country are right now) does not have a stud offensive weapon which is really a difference maker. What they(UC) do have, and is most important is experience playing together and for an intact coaching staff. Basketball is very similar in that other than several players yearly, teams that have experience should and often get better. If X doesn't improve in year 4, that's on the coaching staff, and honestly their inability to produce a serviceable 5 if the big kid from Iowa doesn't pan out or has injury bugaboos. I'll reserve judgement until I see him play 10 or 12 games, but I believe they will live and die with what they get out of that position.
skyhops
Posts: 3011
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: way too early Field of 68 for 2021-22

Postby skyhops » Sat Oct 16, 2021 8:01 am

Agree coach, UC was more talented than ND. I was excited to hear from Steele that we were taller this year.

Return to “Xavier Men's Basketball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests