Is next year's class Mike Anderson's best? Is his best good enough?

[1highhog]

After they lose tonight they'll start off their SEC schedule 0-2.  However, I know that they didn't do us any favors this year with our schedule being so tough at the beginning, but we could go 0-5 easily to start off the SEC.  As I've said earlier, I wasn't for Mike being Coach here, I like him but knew it would come down to people just expecting the 2nd coming of Nolan and Mike has never filled those shoes and never will.  He doesn't have the fire that Nolan once had.  He did update at least his recruiting abilities by I think adding Thurman, who I think will make a great Coach one day.  But, I'm getting old, and the wait till next year thing doesn't fill me with any confidence anymore.  I'm tired of waiting on Mike and after this year, where I see us perhaps missing the NCAA Tourney again, I'd like to see some change.

[swinesation]

He drifted away from the basket and contact inside to show NBA scouts he could  stretch the floor as a big. Last game against Florida, he got himself back inside and put up 13 pts, 14 rebs, and 4 blocks against one of the strongest defensive Centers in the SEC.

Agreed. Hopefully he is back on track.

[niels_boar]

His record can actually be scrutinized just on its own. 

He was a 20-13 coach coming into this season at Arkansas.  If you take out his first two seasons, 22-12. 

SEC avg 9.6-8  SEC taking out first two seasons 10.6-7.3


Looking at his 14 year career before this season started:

21.6 - 11.6
Conf 9.5-6.9

Just UAB and Mizzou:

22.2 - 10.8
9.4 - 6.3


Take out his best (31-7) and worst season (16-16) and you end up with:

yep you may have guessed it 21-12

Blah, average, good enough... however you want to describe it.  He is who he is.  Personality, program branding, coaching, record.


What we are being asked now is to wait for something more than he has shown to be.  That the incoming talent is so good, it will transcend what he is.  Similar to Mizzou 2008-9 in terms of record + postseason success.  But its going to be sustainable.

This is what we are to buy into.

Considering that he had significant rebuilding jobs at all stops, taking out one best year and one worst year isn't quite fair.  At UAB he was coaching a mid-major program in what was equivalently a power conference at the time against FF programs like Memphis, Louisville, Marquette, and Cincinnati.  His run at UAB relative to the past and future of the program results plus the momentary step up in competition was quite impressive.  He took Mizzou as far as they had ever been and then left a team that could win 30 games under Haith, no small accomplishment.  There's a reason he got the job.  The job that he did at those programs was above average.  Look at what has happened to Missouri since he left.

[The_Iceman]

Considering that he had significant rebuilding jobs at all stops, taking out one best year and one worst year isn't quite fair.  At UAB he was coaching a mid-major program in what was equivalently a power conference at the time against FF programs like Memphis, Louisville, Marquette, and Cincinnati.  His run at UAB relative to the past and future of the program results plus the momentary step up in competition was quite impressive.  He took Mizzou as far as they had ever been and then left a team that could win 30 games under Haith, no small accomplishment.  There's a reason he got the job.  The job that he did at those programs was above average.  Look at what has happened to Missouri since he left.

Completely agree. Mike was worthy of this job based on his resume alone, his past with the program was just a bonus.

But I also believe he has underachieved here. Some of that is due to bad luck (Powell ACL, transfers, Qualls declaring, etc.), but the collapse at the end of year 3 kept us from back to back NCAA appearances.

[popcornhog]

Gafford is way ahead of Kingsley year 1. Believe it or not, Gafford is a better athlete than Portis or Kingsley. He just doesn't have Portis' skill year or Kingsley's experience. He will he better than Kingsley by the time he is done here.

https://twitter.com/ARHoops_South/status/794708209282019328

I agree completely. But he will be a temporary downgrade in all likelihood.

The question is how late no it'll take him to get to Moses Year 4 level.

[Atlhogfan1]

Considering that he had significant rebuilding jobs at all stops, taking out one best year and one worst year isn't quite fair.  At UAB he was coaching a mid-major program in what was equivalently a power conference at the time against FF programs like Memphis, Louisville, Marquette, and Cincinnati.  His run at UAB relative to the past and future of the program results plus the momentary step up in competition was quite impressive.  He took Mizzou as far as they had ever been and then left a team that could win 30 games under Haith, no small accomplishment.  There's a reason he got the job.  The job that he did at those programs was above average.  Look at what has happened to Missouri since he left.

Never said his resume didn't qualify him for our job. 

He took Mizzou to the same place Norm and Quin had. 

He did leave a team which won 30 games the season after he left.  A team that collapsed under him in his last season there.  Set them up for a complete roster rebuild after that 30 win season as well. 

We know what UAB is.  And that is getting to be a long time ago.  We also know he did it with players whom couldn't get into the UA. 

What would be fair?  Take out all seasons but 2008-9 and 14-15? 

Completely agree. Mike was worthy of this job based on his resume alone, his past with the program was just a bonus.

But I also believe he has underachieved here. Some of that is due to bad luck (Powell ACL, transfers, Qualls declaring, etc.), but the collapse at the end of year 3 kept us from back to back NCAA appearances.

He failed here.  Can't point to anything done as a success except the academics are apparently in order and the 1 NCAAT appearance.  Failed in building teams capable of playing how he wants to play.  Failed in recruiting.  Player retention.  Building excitement around the program.  Discipline.  Things we were told if we would hire him would all come almost immediately (till after he was hired and suddenly we were destitute and this was going to be a 6,7,8, however long he needs because of his connection to the program rebuilding job).  Scheduling has been intentionally ** to run up his win totals.  But he kept his job, which I agreed with, and that longevity may provide him the chance to have talented teams. 

[HawgHeadCheese]

I agree completely. But he will be a temporary downgrade in all likelihood.

The question is how late no it'll take him to get to Moses Year 4 level.

Fr. Gafford will be just as good as Sr. Kingsley. Kingley strengths are defensive rebounding and rim protection. Gafford is taller, longer wingspan, and more athletic. He will immediately be a great rim protector, great defensive rebounder, and will be an upgrade on the offensive glass. I honestly think their wont be any drop off in production at the 5 spot.

[ShadowHawg]

I think last year was a wake up call for Mike.  He realized he needs to get off his butt and get the job done.  The 2016, 17, and 18 recruiting classes are the fruit of this epiphany.  His next job is to figure out how to use all this talent for optimum results.

I think that the practice facility that many claimed wouldn't help is paying dividends. Also basketball classes ratings can be misleading. A class of 4 is going to be more highly rated than a good 2 signed class.

[Swinesong1]

I just think it's interesting that certain posters will defend one coach to the point of making absurd statements and then come here and say "no excuses". 

[farfromgroovins]

Cautiously optimistic is where I am at right now. CMA has the talent coming and I will give him credit for several players getting better during their time on the Hill. But watching 2 things in particular leave me skeptical. They don't know how to defend on a screen, and they don't set effective screens.

You have to fight over or get pulled through when defending screens. Stop switching because it leaves mismatches.
Timing and spacing is everything in a motion offense. When the ball gets to a side of the court, screens should be set on the opposite side to get guys flashing in the paint or top of the key.

It's the finer aspects of the game that take the elite talent and make them one of the best in the country.

[The_Iceman]

Cautiously optimistic is where I am at right now. CMA has the talent coming and I will give him credit for several players getting better during their time on the Hill. But watching 2 things in particular leave me skeptical. They don't know how to defend on a screen, and they don't set effective screens.

You have to fight over or get pulled through when defending screens. Stop switching because it leaves mismatches.
Timing and spacing is everything in a motion offense. When the ball gets to a side of the court, screens should be set on the opposite side to get guys flashing in the paint or top of the key.

It's the finer aspects of the game that take the elite talent and make them one of the best in the country.

We learned proper screening as part of our motion offense in junior high. It frustrates me to see how bad we are at it.

[FineAsSwine]

We learned proper screening as part of our motion offense in junior high. It frustrates me to see how bad we are at it.

We're 12-2 and coming off of a big road win in a game that Hogville almost unanimously declared that we would lose. So, our screening can't be that bad. If so, how do we manage to win 12 games and win at Tennessee when it was obvious to everyone that we would lose.

Can we get better at it? Yes.

[Letsroll1200]

Cautiously optimistic is where I am at right now. CMA has the talent coming and I will give him credit for several players getting better during their time on the Hill. But watching 2 things in particular leave me skeptical. They don't know how to defend on a screen, and they don't set effective screens.

You have to fight over or get pulled through when defending screens. Stop switching because it leaves mismatches.
Timing and spacing is everything in a motion offense. When the ball gets to a side of the court, screens should be set on the opposite side to get guys flashing in the paint or top of the key.

It's the finer aspects of the game that take the elite talent and make them one of the best in the country.

I thought ball movement and spacing was very good in the second half. We are at our best out in transition.

[The_Iceman]

We're 12-2 and coming off of a big road win in a game that Hogville almost unanimously declared that we would lose. So, our screening can't be that bad. If so, how do we manage to win 12 games and win at Tennessee when it was obvious to everyone that we would lose.

Can we get better at it? Yes.

Good fast breaks, good one on one play, and made free throws. I'm not saying we played bad all together, but if you think we screen effectively, you don't know basketball.

If we screened and came off of screens better, Macon and Hannahs would get more open looks. I did hear one time last night the announcer comment on how good of a screen was set for Hannahs and he got an open look. But just watching it in general, the screens and cuts are not crisp.

[FineAsSwine]

Good fast breaks, good one on one play, and made free throws. I'm not saying we played bad all together, but if you think we screen effectively, you don't know basketball.

If we screened and came off of screens better, Macon and Hannahs would get more open looks. I did hear one time last night the announcer comment on how good of a screen was set for Hannahs and he got an open look. But just watching it in general, the screens and cuts are not crisp.

Well, I did say we could get better at it.

[Youngsta71701]

I can't believe everybody is drooling over his future signees, cause I don't care how good they are, they will under achieve!

Sound like a hater to me. Did we underachieve in Bobby's second year when we went 27-9 and took UNC down to the wire in the NCAA tourney?

[Youngsta71701]

With regard to Anderson's tenure at Arkansas I think it might be useful to compare Anderson's numbers to Johnny Dawkins and Travis Ford. Both got eight years at their respective institutions with minimal results. Dawkins, just one NCAA tourney in eight seasons and, even though OSU went to the tourney several times during Ford's time there, Ford never got out of the first weekend of the tourney.

Also, I suspect Long will use their situations to gauge if and when to let Anderson go. He strikes me as the type of AD who might be more inclined to follow a model like Stanford and OSU, especially given the political dynamite associated with Anderson's ties to Nolan.

I'm curious to see how this season plays out, especially if the Hogs finish right around the .500 number in conference play.

Johnny Dawkins at Stanford:

2008–09   Stanford   20–14   6–12   9th   CBI Semifinals
2009–10   Stanford   14–18   7–11   T–8th   
2010–11   Stanford   15–16   7–11   T–7th   
2011–12   Stanford   26–11   10–8   7th   NIT Champions
2012–13   Stanford   19–15   9–9   T–6th   NIT Second Round
2013–14   Stanford   23–13   10–8   T–3rd   NCAA Sweet Sixteen
2014–15   Stanford   24–13   9–9   T–5th   NIT Champions
2015–16   Stanford   15–15   8–10   9th   
Stanford:   156–115 (.576)   66–78 (.458)   

Travis Ford at OSU:

2008–09   Oklahoma State   23–12   9–7   T–4th   NCAA Round of 32
2009–10   Oklahoma State   22–11   9–7   T–6th   NCAA Round of 64
2010–11   Oklahoma State   20–14   6–10   9th   NIT Second Round
2011–12   Oklahoma State   15–18   7–11   7th   
2012–13   Oklahoma State   24–9   13–5   3rd   NCAA Round of 64
2013–14   Oklahoma State   21–13   8–10   8th   NCAA Round of 64
2014–15   Oklahoma State   18–14   8–10   T–6th   NCAA Round of 64
2015–16   Oklahoma State   12–20   3–15   9th   
Oklahoma State:   155–111 (.585)   63–80 (.441)

Mike Anderson at Arkansas:
2011–12   Arkansas   18–14   6–10   9th   
2012–13   Arkansas   19–13   10–8   7th   
2013–14   Arkansas   22–12   10–8   5th   NIT Second Round
2014–15   Arkansas   27–9   13–5   2nd   NCAA Second Round
2015–16   Arkansas   16–16   9–9   T–8th   
2016–17   Arkansas   11–1   0–0      
Arkansas:   113–65 (.635)   48–40 (.545)

How in the world did Oklahoma State make the tourney in 2013-14 with a losing conference record and we didn't? Politics and perception huh...

[farfromgroovins]

I thought ball movement and spacing was very good in the second half. We are at our best out in transition.

Yes, we are better in transition but against more athletic teams, they will be better than us at that type of game.

[farfromgroovins]

We're 12-2 and coming off of a big road win in a game that Hogville almost unanimously declared that we would lose. So, our screening can't be that bad. If so, how do we manage to win 12 games and win at Tennessee when it was obvious to everyone that we would lose.

Can we get better at it? Yes.

We can get better at it but that is why I am cautiously optimistic because we are 14 games into the season and I still see some of the same screening issues on both ends of the court. I don't see practices but I would like to think those type of things are worked on.

I heard a college coach once say something like, "You go out and make stupid mistakes that you're supposed to learn from. Instead you go out and make the same stupid mistakes."
You know they work on the mistakes but getting it to be habit in gametime takes work.

Cheers!
Here's to a successful season!

[The_Iceman]

Sound like a hater to me. Did we underachieve in Bobby's second year when we went 27-9 and took UNC down to the wire in the NCAA tourney?

That UNC team went to the title game the next year with most of the same players. So they were a team getting better by the game.

However, I think we would have had a better chance of beating UNC if Mike would have backed off the press. That played right into their hands as a team with great athletes. We could have won that game in the half court.

Overall, that team did not underachieve. The year before that they did.

[niels_boar]

Never said his resume didn't qualify him for our job. 

He took Mizzou to the same place Norm and Quin had. 

He did leave a team which won 30 games the season after he left.  A team that collapsed under him in his last season there.  Set them up for a complete roster rebuild after that 30 win season as well. 

We know what UAB is.  And that is getting to be a long time ago.  We also know he did it with players whom couldn't get into the UA. 

What would be fair?  Take out all seasons but 2008-9 and 14-15? 


He failed here.  Can't point to anything done as a success except the academics are apparently in order and the 1 NCAAT appearance.  Failed in building teams capable of playing how he wants to play.  Failed in recruiting.  Player retention.  Building excitement around the program.  Discipline.  Things we were told if we would hire him would all come almost immediately (till after he was hired and suddenly we were destitute and this was going to be a 6,7,8, however long he needs because of his connection to the program rebuilding job).  Scheduling has been intentionally ** to run up his win totals.  But he kept his job, which I agreed with, and that longevity may provide him the chance to have talented teams.

I see. Haith gets credit for Anderson's team, and Anderson gets credit for Haith's team.  Like Haith didn't have a chance to recruit two classes with his motivational way$. That Anderson team "collapsed" into 23 wins and an NCAAT bid as Anderson's name was being circulated for the Arkansas job. Would we be having this conversation had we collapsed into 23 wins and an NCAAT bid last season?  Besides, the "collapse" was 2 road losses to 22-win KSU and 19-win Nebraska, and then they lost their final home game to 35-win Kansas.  Shocking losses all. 

It's not that surprising that they would get better with virtually the entire roster returning.  If you get a good developmental group together, you ride them and then have to rebuild.  That's life in the big city at most programs. At Oklahoma Kruger went for 23, 24, and 29 wins with the Heild class.  Now they are rebuilding at 6-7 after a team chock full of senior starters graduated.  Guess Kruger is just an average coach.

It's not fair because you never get a steady-state signal if you take over rebuilding projects and then quickly move up the ladder to a better job once that project is completed.  The rebuilding years skew the record downward as compared to what it would have been had he stayed and enjoyed the fruits of a program humming along.

What an advantage Anderson had at UAB!  He could get in a few JUCOs that couldn't get into Arkansas.  That makes all the difference in elevating a program like UAB so that you can compete with Crean and Dwayne Wade at Marquette, Pitino at Louisville, Calipari at Memphis, and Huggy at Cincy.  I'm surprised UAB is not a perennial FF contender since he left.

[Atlhogfan1]

I see. Haith gets credit for Anderson's team, and Anderson gets credit for Haith's team.  Like Haith didn't have a chance to recruit two classes with his motivational way$. That Anderson team "collapsed" into 23 wins and an NCAAT bid as Anderson's name was being circulated for the Arkansas job. Would we be having this conversation had we collapsed into 23 wins and an NCAAT bid last season?  Besides, the "collapse" was 2 road losses to 22-win KSU and 19-win Nebraska, and then they lost their final home game to 35-win Kansas.  Shocking losses all. 

It's not that surprising that they would get better with virtually the entire roster returning.  If you get a good developmental group together, you ride them and then have to rebuild.  That's life in the big city at most programs. At Oklahoma Kruger went for 23, 24, and 29 wins with the Heild class.  Now they are rebuilding at 6-7 after a team chock full of senior starters graduated.  Guess Kruger is just an average coach.

It's not fair because you never get a steady-state signal if you take over rebuilding projects and then quickly move up the ladder to a better job once that project is completed.  The rebuilding years skew the record downward as compared to what it would have been had he stayed and enjoyed the fruits of a program humming along.

What an advantage Anderson had at UAB!  He could get in a few JUCOs that couldn't get into Arkansas.  That makes all the difference in elevating a program like UAB so that you can compete with Crean and Dwayne Wade at Marquette, Pitino at Louisville, Calipari at Memphis, and Huggy at Cincy.  I'm surprised UAB is not a perennial FF contender since he left.

Demario Eddins wasn't a Juco. 

Obviously you don't see.  Didn't remove any responsibility from Haith. Just acknowledged Mike setup the situation.

I see you stopped at the reg season losses and didn't mention the back to back 15pt losses in the postseason.  Lost 5 of their last 6. 

[Letsroll1200]

I see. Haith gets credit for Anderson's team, and Anderson gets credit for Haith's team.  Like Haith didn't have a chance to recruit two classes with his motivational way$. That Anderson team "collapsed" into 23 wins and an NCAAT bid as Anderson's name was being circulated for the Arkansas job. Would we be having this conversation had we collapsed into 23 wins and an NCAAT bid last season?  Besides, the "collapse" was 2 road losses to 22-win KSU and 19-win Nebraska, and then they lost their final home game to 35-win Kansas.  Shocking losses all. 

It's not that surprising that they would get better with virtually the entire roster returning.  If you get a good developmental group together, you ride them and then have to rebuild.  That's life in the big city at most programs. At Oklahoma Kruger went for 23, 24, and 29 wins with the Heild class.  Now they are rebuilding at 6-7 after a team chock full of senior starters graduated.  Guess Kruger is just an average coach.

It's not fair because you never get a steady-state signal if you take over rebuilding projects and then quickly move up the ladder to a better job once that project is completed.  The rebuilding years skew the record downward as compared to what it would have been had he stayed and enjoyed the fruits of a program humming along.

What an advantage Anderson had at UAB!  He could get in a few JUCOs that couldn't get into Arkansas.  That makes all the difference in elevating a program like UAB so that you can compete with Crean and Dwayne Wade at Marquette, Pitino at Louisville, Calipari at Memphis, and Huggy at Cincy.  I'm surprised UAB is not a perennial FF contender since he left.

It's amazing how good Missouri and UAB are doing since Coach Anderson left. I know some Mizzou fans that admit it's been down hill since Mike left.

[rude1]

Completely agree. Mike was worthy of this job based on his resume alone, his past with the program was just a bonus.

But I also believe he has underachieved here. Some of that is due to bad luck (Powell ACL, transfers, Qualls declaring, etc.), but the collapse at the end of year 3 kept us from back to back NCAA appearances.

Agree that Mike's resume was more than sufficient to warrant getting this job. But I don't believe luck has played any part in his underachieving here. It falls on one thing, recruiting. Simply hasn't done a good job up to this point at all in landing high school kids he can develop. Six years in and he is about to get his second player in Kingsley who made it from high school to senior, and we aren't talking about this being because he has recruited such high level players that he can't keep for four years. Has failed miserably trying to keep the program afloat with transfers and jucos.

[niels_boar]

Demario Eddins wasn't a Juco. 

Obviously you don't see.  Didn't remove any responsibility from Haith. Just acknowledged Mike setup the situation.

I see you stopped at the reg season losses and didn't mention the back to back 15pt losses in the postseason.  Lost 5 of their last 6.

The rumors surrounding Anderson probably didn't help that team, and it was a lousy stretch of games. They were the clear underdog against @Kansas St., Kansas, Texas A&M, and in a #6-#11 NCAAT game against Cincy.  Cincy lost to UConn, who won the NC.  It's not like the loss at Nebraska was particularly surprising either.  Doc Sadler's style was a bad matchup.  Anderson's EE team lost both at Nebraska and at KSU as well.  Then they finish up the regular season with one of Self's better Kansas teams.  One of the Jayhawks' 3 losses on the season was a 16-point blowout at KSU in February.  That wasn't a particularly surprising 3-game losing streak, which could easily send a team into a tailspin with the coach having one foot out the door.  Their other postseason loss was  to A&M, who won 23 games and was in the NCAAT.  A&M had a bye in the Big12T, whereas Mizzou won an 88-84 game against Texas Tech the day before. The consecutive day format of conference tournaments has never been a particularly favorable format for Hawgball.  A lot of NCAAT teams could have gone through that stretch with one or two wins.  One loss was at home to a 35-win team.  Three of the other four were road/neutral games against at-large NCAAT teams. The other loss was a road conference game in a gym that had been a house of horrors for Mizzou.

[Youngsta71701]

That UNC team went to the title game the next year with most of the same players. So they were a team getting better by the game.

However, I think we would have had a better chance of beating UNC if Mike would have backed off the press. That played right into their hands as a team with great athletes. We could have won that game in the half court.

Overall, that team did not underachieve. The year before that they did.

I totally agree with this part. I was saying that the whole game. They got way to many easy baskets after breaking our press. Play half court defense and trap them out of the half court if you wanted to trap and play pressure defense.

Which is the way we have to play against Kentucky if we want to stay in the game and give ourselves a chance to win the game. DO NOT PRESS!!! I repeat DO NOT PRESS!!!

[Atlhogfan1]

The rumors surrounding Anderson probably didn't help that team, and it was a lousy stretch of games. They were the clear underdog against @Kansas St., Kansas, Texas A&M, and in a #6-#11 NCAAT game against Cincy.  Cincy lost to UConn, who won the NC.  It's not like the loss at Nebraska was particularly surprising either.  Doc Sadler's style was a bad matchup.  Anderson's EE team lost both at Nebraska and at KSU as well.  Then they finish up the regular season with one of Self's better Kansas teams.  One of the Jayhawks' 3 losses on the season was a 16-point blowout at KSU in February.  That wasn't a particularly surprising 3-game losing streak, which could easily send a team into a tailspin with the coach having one foot out the door.  Their other postseason loss was  to A&M, who won 23 games and was in the NCAAT.  A&M had a bye in the Big12T, whereas Mizzou won an 88-84 game against Texas Tech the day before. The consecutive day format of conference tournaments has never been a particularly favorable format for Hawgball.  A lot of NCAAT teams could have gone through that stretch with one or two wins.  One loss was at home to a 35-win team.  Three of the other four were road/neutral games against at-large NCAAT teams. The other loss was a road conference game in a gym that had been a house of horrors for Mizzou.

I'm sure they didn't along with having Kim English in the mix. 

Thought the narrative once was the depth and style and wearing teams down was made for tourney formats.  Not that the consecutive day thing has mattered for Anderson teams over his last 7 conference tourneys where in 6 of them he won 1 total game with 5 one and done exits. 

[Youngsta71701]

I'm sure they didn't along with having Kim English in the mix. 

Thought the narrative once was the depth and style and wearing teams down was made for tourney formats.  Not that the consecutive day thing has mattered for Anderson teams over his last 7 conference tourneys where in 6 of them he won 1 total game with 5 one and done exits.

That's the key. Win the first game. lol

[FineAsSwine]

We can get better at it but that is why I am cautiously optimistic because we are 14 games into the season and I still see some of the same screening issues on both ends of the court. I don't see practices but I would like to think those type of things are worked on.

I heard a college coach once say something like, "You go out and make stupid mistakes that you're supposed to learn from. Instead you go out and make the same stupid mistakes."
You know they work on the mistakes but getting it to be habit in gametime takes work.

Cheers!
Here's to a successful season!

"Practice makes perfect" is what I heard my grandmother say many times. Practice does make one better usually. However, practice occurs when there is nothing on the line and without the stress of "game pressure". When under stress, people often forget what they were practicing and revert back to former bad habits or behaviors.

The trick to bringing the practice to the game is developing mental toughness, focus , unit cohesiveness and having the ability to execute and display these traits under pressure. The same as if it were a soldier on the battle field or a hotshot rookie salesman out in the field. When situation normal is all effed up, you have got to remain main calm and be able to execute.

[hogwood]

If 247 didn't have Hall and Garland rated so low and were more similar to ESPN, then our class might be ranked 3rd or 4th in the SEC.

[hogwood]

Despite losing Kingsley, Hannahs, and Watkins I think next year's team will be better than this year's. We will have a ton of seniors. Macon, Beard, and Barford as seniors will be more than enough to replace Hannahs and Watkins. I think Kingsley will be the most missed, but Gafford will help us out quite a bit and Thomas and Cook as seniors should also help alongside a senior Thompson. Then bring in Garland and Hall and our bench will be much deeper than it is currently. So overall we will have more experience and better athleticism while adding a bonafide scorer in Garland. I think we'll be better than this year, not by far, by we'll be better.

[Corkscrew Johnson]

I have heard a lot on here about how Nolan's hawgball won't work anymore in today's game due to officiating, tv timeouts, better ballhandlers/more parity, etc.  Some of that has merit.  Most of it doesn't. 

The biggest difference I've seen comparing MA vs. Nolan is that Nolan's teams had ballers.  Day, Mayberry, the Big O, Corliss, Darnell Robinson, Hood, Reid...those guys were all elite.  Go down the line and you had Huery, Howell, Hawkins, Shepherd, McDaniel, Thurman...these weren't roll players, they were scrappy as hell and could compete against the best.  When you look at Nolan's later teams, they were missing the same level of talent.  And the record slipped accordingly.

This system isn't going to succeed without talent.  We've had one comparable player in Anderson's tenure who could compete with the national elite, Bobby Portis.  It was our best team and we played some enjoyable basketball.  But we can't do it with one top 10 player every four years, especially when he's not backed up with other talent that is capable of competing against the best.  And while top 40 talent is great, that means there are 39 other players out there who are deemed equal or better. 

The 2017 class looks pretty good.  The 2018 class looks better.  I hope MA can use those as a launching point to improve our national perception and hopefully lock us in as a perennial tournament team, so that we can take the next step.   Nolan's teams were bad dudes, our opponents were scared.  I don't see that in our roster right now. 

[FineAsSwine]

I have heard a lot on here about how Nolan's hawgball won't work anymore in today's game due to officiating, tv timeouts, better ballhandlers/more parity, etc.  Some of that has merit.  Most of it doesn't. 

The biggest difference I've seen comparing MA vs. Nolan is that Nolan's teams had ballers.  Day, Mayberry, the Big O, Corliss, Darnell Robinson, Hood, Reid...those guys were all elite.  Go down the line and you had Huery, Howell, Hawkins, Shepherd, McDaniel, Thurman...these weren't roll players, they were scrappy as hell and could compete against the best.  When you look at Nolan's later teams, they were missing the same level of talent.  And the record slipped accordingly.

This system isn't going to succeed without talent.  We've had one comparable player in Anderson's tenure who could compete with the national elite, Bobby Portis.  It was our best team and we played some enjoyable basketball.  But we can't do it with one top 10 player every four years, especially when he's not backed up with other talent that is capable of competing against the best.  And while top 40 talent is great, that means there are 39 other players out there who are deemed equal or better. 

The 2017 class looks pretty good.  The 2018 class looks better.  I hope MA can use those as a launching point to improve our national perception and hopefully lock us in as a perennial tournament team, so that we can take the next step.   Nolan's teams were bad dudes, our opponents were scared.  I don't see that in our roster right now.

Lot of truth in that post. For me, the recent recruiting success is the only time I have started to believe that we will have the top to bottom talent that will get a CMA team in the conversation with those teams that Nolan had.

Nolan had Rosie Wallace coming off the bench. I loved Rosie's game and this guy couldn't manage to start or even stay in the top seven, that's how deep the bench went. CMA has never had a bench like CNR during his peak at Arkansas but he is getting there with what he has coming. However, there is still that pesky issue of the additional big to go with Gafford next year. Still need to add that piece to the future puzzle.

[HawgHeadCheese]

Despite losing Kingsley, Hannahs, and Watkins I think next year's team will be better than this year's. We will have a ton of seniors. Macon, Beard, and Barford as seniors will be more than enough to replace Hannahs and Watkins. I think Kingsley will be the most missed, but Gafford will help us out quite a bit and Thomas and Cook as seniors should also help alongside a senior Thompson. Then bring in Garland and Hall and our bench will be much deeper than it is currently. So overall we will have more experience and better athleticism while adding a bonafide scorer in Garland. I think we'll be better than this year, not by far, by we'll be better.

I agree. One thing for sure is we immediately become a lot more athletic. I truly believe Gafford will post similar numbers as Kingsley his Fr. yr. He is taller, longer, and more athletic. All he has to do is box out, get garbage points, and block shots.

[Youngsta71701]

I have heard a lot on here about how Nolan's hawgball won't work anymore in today's game due to officiating, tv timeouts, better ballhandlers/more parity, etc.  Some of that has merit.  Most of it doesn't. 

The biggest difference I've seen comparing MA vs. Nolan is that Nolan's teams had ballers.  Day, Mayberry, the Big O, Corliss, Darnell Robinson, Hood, Reid...those guys were all elite.  Go down the line and you had Huery, Howell, Hawkins, Shepherd, McDaniel, Thurman...these weren't roll players, they were scrappy as hell and could compete against the best.  When you look at Nolan's later teams, they were missing the same level of talent.  And the record slipped accordingly.

This system isn't going to succeed without talent.  We've had one comparable player in Anderson's tenure who could compete with the national elite, Bobby Portis.  It was our best team and we played some enjoyable basketball.  But we can't do it with one top 10 player every four years, especially when he's not backed up with other talent that is capable of competing against the best.  And while top 40 talent is great, that means there are 39 other players out there who are deemed equal or better. 

The 2017 class looks pretty good.  The 2018 class looks better.  I hope MA can use those as a launching point to improve our national perception and hopefully lock us in as a perennial tournament team, so that we can take the next step.   Nolan's teams were bad dudes, our opponents were scared.  I don't see that in our roster right now.

Nolan's teams had plenty of shooters also. Just about everybody could at least make the mid-range jump shot. At least half of them could make the 3 look like a lay up.

His best teams that is.

[root_hawg]

Same thing could be said for 2018, we have the number 1 class because we have the most recruits.... only 2 kids currently ranked in the top 30 in the country have committed to teams in 2018 so that will change a bunch by then.  Also 2017 we are ranked top 25 but their are only about 10 teams ahead of us which we could pass even if we added another player and it would have to be a 4 star or better

[hogwood]

I agree. One thing for sure is we immediately become a lot more athletic. I truly believe Gafford will post similar numbers as Kingsley his Fr. yr. He is taller, longer, and more athletic. All he has to do is box out, get garbage points, and block shots.

I could totally see Gafford averaging 8 & 8 his freshman year. He is an amazing rebounder and all he will have to do is put them back up with that 7'2" wingspan.

[The_Iceman]

I could totally see Gafford averaging 8 & 8 his freshman year. He is an amazing rebounder and all he will have to do is put them back up with that 7'2" wingspan.

8 pts, 7 rebs, and 2 blks per game would be an excellent freshman year for him.

[HawgHeadCheese]

I agree completely. But he will be a temporary downgrade in all likelihood.

The question is how late no it'll take him to get to Moses Year 4 level.

I think he is already there. Moses strengths are rebounding and shot blocking. Gafford is taller, longer, and more athletic. He will pick right up where Kingsley left off.

[The_Iceman]

I think he is already there. Moses strengths are rebounding and shot blocking. Gafford is taller, longer, and more athletic. He will pick right up where Kingsley left off.

Gafford doesn't have Moses's 15 foot jumper yet, but Gafford will finish stronger at the rim than moses.

[cableguy]

I watch Darious Hall play last year without knowing anything about him and I was impressed. Darious Hall can finish at the bucket as good as anyone but his biggest asset is his mid-range jumper. He is 6'6" with an extraordinary wing span.  He doesn't have extraordinary quickness but it is good.  If he hits the weight room, I think he could ends up in the NBA.