Originally Posted by
gumbomoop
I take this to be a flippantly serious comment [as opposed to seriously flippant, but possibly that, too], and also an accurate assessment.
IIRC, in the run-up to 2011-'12, there was a rough consensus that there were 3 likely-"great" teams - UK, UNC, tOSU - plus late-added-"great" UConn [Drummond's decision]. Going into 2012-'13, no likely greats. Any of 8-10 teams could impress and become a top-top team, as did 'Cuse last season, but no team is, on paper this early, as impressive looking as UK, UNC, tOSU last summer.
On UCLA, we have an early consensus on EK:
Moreover, there's a longer-standing consensus here, and probably on IC, that Drew is poisonous and not a very good PG because hilariously inconsistent.
But if I understand UCLA's returning roster and their fine recruiting class, Drew is the only legit PG on that team. That fact might in itself be thought to justify our skepticism re UCLA's super-high ranking. OTOH, have we - I'm asking - overstated Drew's flaws, even incompetence, as a high-high-major PG? Is it possible - I'm asking [and here I'd welcome especially any comments from our several trustworthy UNC posters] - that the bad chem in CH in 2010-'11 wasn't all Drew's fault, that it was more complicated, that Barnes and Bullock, in particular, made things worse by making it so clear how much they wanted their guy, Marshall, to take over?
Just how bad or, potentially, good is Drew, actually? Will he be relegated to 10-15 mpg, as Anderson takes over? Will Shabazz, like HB, make clear his preference for his guy, Anderson? Will Drew become poisonous again? Or will his speed, compared to Anderson's super slo-mo, win him some plaudits and plenty of PT?