PDA

View Full Version : Delvon Roe Mea Culpa



Patrick Yates
04-17-2007, 11:01 AM
ESPN is saying that Roe will choose MSU over UNC on Tues.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/briefingroom?playerId=43847

I had loudly predicted a UNC commit, largely becaus many others on this site and in the recruiting world had predicted this. Someone said MSU would get him, which I pooh-pooed. Well, looks like I was wrong and you were right.

If this is true, UNC might not get the haul that some (especially that UNC homer Gibbons) have predicted.

Score.

Cause after next year, when Lawson and Hans will be gone (barring injury or shockingly bad play next year) UNC will be desperate for players.

Patrick Yates

Classof06
04-17-2007, 01:35 PM
ESPN is saying that Roe will choose MSU over UNC on Tues.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/briefingroom?playerId=43847

I had loudly predicted a UNC commit, largely because many others on this site and in the recruiting world had predicted this. Someone said MSU would get him, which I pooh-pooed. Well, looks like I was wrong and you were right.


Haha, no worries, Patrick. Being in Cleveland, I was able to see that MSU had a better chance at getting him than most of the country realized, especially those in North Carolina. UNC is certainly the sexy choice, but after seeing Roe numerous times this past season, I could picture him in an MSU jersey hands down. He seems like an Izzo kind of kid; all about the team and never about himself, and he does everything from scoring to passing to defense. Also, from what I gather, Izzo put more effort into Roe than Ol' Roy. That's understandable as geography played a major role, but in reality, Williams doesn't need Roe as bad as Izzo and it kinda showed. As a Duke fan, I really do hope he chooses MSU, because that would make my life and yours a lot easier. For those who haven't seen Roe play, think Luol Deng. IMO, they have very similar bodies and all-around games. Playing summer pickup ball with LeBron and the rest of the Cavs can't hurt either. LeBron has already given Roe the King's stamp of approval...

Patrick Yates
04-17-2007, 02:43 PM
Many reputable recruitniks had Roe in the Pastel Blue truck for a while, and that may have been true, at one point. I beleive that circumstances changed, pusing Roe into MSU's open arms.

Close to home is a part, but many kids, and especially ones at Roe's level, understand that hoops is a business, and will go where the best situation for themselves is located. Often they can overlook distance, especially in Roe's situation because college might only be for 1 or 2 years.

I beleive the situation at UNC changed in Roe's eyes, for various reasons.

UNC did not dominate this year, in what should have been a banner year (at least the FF). It has been said before, can Roy win it all with kids he recruits, rather than kids he inherits?

Roy showed a tendancy to rely on older, more established players, rather than focusing on showcasing newer (better?) talent. Roe wants to, and probably deserves to, be a focus point from day one on campus. He has a better chance of that at MSU.

MSU will be stacked in two years, with a solid nucleus that needs a superstar or two to dominate.

In two years, UNC could be A: Depleted, or B: stocked with older players that Roy will favor.

Given the wide net Roy is casting, it is concievable, however unlikely, that Roe would not be the highest rated recruit in UNC's class, with another, higher ranked forward.

Finally, I think the coaching situation at MSU is now 98% stable, whereas before it was 85% stable. MSU's coach wasn't going anywhere, except maybe Kentucky. That now seems highly unlikely to occur, so the coach will not leave (2% chance of Pros imho, possible, but not bloody likely. Also, that is a possibility at every other program in reality)

Patrick Yates

ps As much as I love the recruiter's handbook and prepstars, I have to admit it is becoming more and more biased. Niether Lawson nor Ellington were as good as advertised, with Lawson being close, but not Ellington. Lawson was great running the team on O, but he couldn't shoot and refused to play defense. Ellington was nowhere near as good as the top 7-8 player he was listed at.

When a kid reports to UNC he goes up in rankings. Gibbons almost pushes the kids at UNC. Hate it.

gw67
04-17-2007, 03:10 PM
I’m not quite sure I agree with you that Roe will have a better chance to shine early on the Spartans. When he is a freshman, Michigan State will be a very experienced team. My memory is a little fuzzy but I don’t recall Izzo making a freshman the go-to guy. Ager and Neitzel didn’t even score in double figures until they were juniors and I believe the same was true for Davis, Mo Peterson and others. If anything, Izzo emphasizes his upperclassmen.

gw67

Wander
04-17-2007, 03:55 PM
ps As much as I love the recruiter's handbook and prepstars, I have to admit it is becoming more and more biased. Niether Lawson nor Ellington were as good as advertised, with Lawson being close, but not Ellington. Lawson was great running the team on O, but he couldn't shoot and refused to play defense. Ellington was nowhere near as good as the top 7-8 player he was listed at.

When a kid reports to UNC he goes up in rankings. Gibbons almost pushes the kids at UNC. Hate it.

The problem is not a bias in recruiting rankings, it's that recruiting rankings are overvalued by fans. They're not nearly as useful or accurate as a lot of people think they are. That's not the fault of the guys who make the rankings, it's just impossible to accurately predict how everyone will do in the college game.

Also, why are you so sure Hansbrough will leave after next year?

Patrick Yates
04-17-2007, 04:41 PM
The problem is not a bias in recruiting rankings, it's that recruiting rankings are overvalued by fans. They're not nearly as useful or accurate as a lot of people think they are. That's not the fault of the guys who make the rankings, it's just impossible to accurately predict how everyone will do in the college game.

Also, why are you so sure Hansbrough will leave after next year?

Since he announced his return this year, we can assume he was thinking about it this year, more so next year (when the draft will probably be weak on post players and be very guard heavy).

Also, if everyone come back like they say they will, UNC will be better next year than this year, as many of their national competition get weaker. [This depends on PP, who might push Duke into elite territory]. Who is thier real comp next year?

A young OSU, UCLA if SG gets locked down, MSU (MAYBE), and who else? Memphis is the likely No. 2, but UNC could have a year similiar to us in 99, with a strong run to the FF, followed by a mass bailout. At least, Lawson and Hans are very likely to go next year.

In conference, Duke is light in the post, NCSU is a year away, and I'll beleive clemson is strong when I see it.

Ga Tech will be comp, but I still think they lose a player or 2 to the draft this year.

It is not that UNC is as good as we were in 99 (but are close to it) but the nation and conference are weaker than 99. UCONN was a legitimate threat all season (boy howdy), but only Memphis is close in terms of talent/experience, and UNC will be much stronger in the post.

Also, Hans is a virtual lock for ACC POY next year, with a high liklihood of similiar national honors to follow. Nothing to come back for, potentially.

That is why I think he goes.

Patrick Yates

Wander
04-17-2007, 04:59 PM
You're jumping the gun like crazy. UNC should be very good next year, but it's nuts to hand them a Final Four appearance already. They're the favorite in the ACC and Hansbrough will be the favorite for POY honors in the conference but both are far, far from locks.

I kind of view Hansbrough as the UNC version of JJ. That's why I see him staying four years.

Classof06
04-17-2007, 06:12 PM
You're jumping the gun like crazy. UNC should be very good next year, but it's nuts to hand them a Final Four appearance already. They're the favorite in the ACC and Hansbrough will be the favorite for POY honors in the conference but both are far, far from locks.

I kind of view Hansbrough as the UNC version of JJ. That's why I see him staying four years.

Obviously anything can happen and not every team lives up to their hype, but if UNC returns Wright, there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't make the Final Four next year. There's no reason they shouldn't have made one this year, if you ignore the fact that Ol' Roy usually hacks it up when the pressure's on. If they don't return Wright, I think they'll still be strong, but they would have to show me a little more before I could label them an elite team. In March Madness, there is no such thing as a shoe-in, but UNC fans do and should feel very optimistic about next year.

yancem
04-17-2007, 09:06 PM
It is not that UNC is as good as we were in 99 (but are close to it) but the nation and conference are weaker than 99. UCONN was a legitimate threat all season (boy howdy), but only Memphis is close in terms of talent/experience, and UNC will be much stronger in the post.

Wow! Even if UNC convinces Wright to stay, I wouldn't put them in near the same category as Duke '99. Hansbrough should be their stronges player but he couldn't handle Brand. Wright is more offensively gifted than Battier (sophmore) but Battier was national defensive player of the year that year, probably a push. I'll take Carrawell over Green or Ginyard and Langdon over Ellington. Not sure who I'd take at the point. Avery was a better shooter and defender as well as a couple inches taller but Lawson is quicker and has some quality I can't put a finger on. Push or slight edge to Avery. And UNC doesn't have anyone like Maggette coming off the bench.

Patrick Yates
04-18-2007, 12:09 AM
Duke didn't have anyone to match Thompson and stephenson off the bench. What those two would have done to Burgess would rise to the level of battery.

Next year's ellington will be a good match for Langdon, in that WE is a worse shooter, but much better athlete.

TL could improve his shooting.

As for Green and Ginyard, they would do OK vs Maggette and Carawell (Jr version vs the Sr version)

Yes, Brand would eat up TH

But if wright puts on 10-20 lbs, he gives shane fits.

I think the 99 team wins, but it would be an epic game, even when compared to the other great Duke UNC games.

Patrick Yates

watzone
04-18-2007, 02:52 PM
Dancing Roy! Does anybody know what I am talking about?:)

blueduke59
04-18-2007, 06:39 PM
Dancing Roy! Does anybody know what I am talking about?:)

I hear Delvon Roe wasn't impressed with his "dance". ;)

yancem
04-18-2007, 07:44 PM
Duke didn't have anyone to match Thompson and stephenson off the bench. What those two would have done to Burgess would rise to the level of battery.

Next year's ellington will be a good match for Langdon, in that WE is a worse shooter, but much better athlete.

TL could improve his shooting.

As for Green and Ginyard, they would do OK vs Maggette and Carawell (Jr version vs the Sr version)

Yes, Brand would eat up TH

But if wright puts on 10-20 lbs, he gives shane fits.

I think the 99 team wins, but it would be an epic game, even when compared to the other great Duke UNC games.

Patrick Yates

Funny how someone not living up to expectations changes one's perspective. In 99 Burgess and Domzalski averaged a combined 9.2 points, 6.9 rebounds and 25.5 minutes compared to the UNC duo 6.8 points, 4.6 rebounds and 18.8 minutes this year. If Wright and Hansbrough are back next year, I don't see a significant change in their numbers, so Burgess and Domzalski would seem to be a fine match for them. I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about Thompson and Stephenson. I think they have potential but in comparison, Burgess scored only .4 points a game fewer than Thompson and out rebounded him by .7 his freshman year

Maggette and Carawell more than doubled Green and Ginyard's offensive out put from this year and again with UNC returning basically the same team, I don't see a marked improvent. Let's also not forget that Carawell was the ACC palyer of the year in 2000 which speaks to the strength of the 99 squad that he was only their 5th leading scorer. I don't think that he all of the sudden became a great college basketball player his senior year. It was more likely that he was always good but was surrounded by mega talent and blended for the good of the team.

As for Langon vs Ellington, Langdon scored at almost the same clip as Ellington during his freshman year while shooting a higher over all percentage and significatly higher 3 point percentage. So how do figure Ellington as a soph is a match for Langon as a senior. Also, I'm not sure that Ellington is that much better of an athlete, he was considered more of a shooter coming out of high school.

You are probably correct about Wright giving Battier fits if he packs on some muscle. Although I think having a more consistent focus would hurt more. Even still Battier's defense had a tendancy to drive people nuts.

keithg
04-18-2007, 09:02 PM
Funny how someone not living up to expectations changes one's perspective. In 99 Burgess and Domzalski averaged a combined 9.2 points, 6.9 rebounds and 25.5 minutes compared to the UNC duo 6.8 points, 4.6 rebounds and 18.8 minutes this year. If Wright and Hansbrough are back next year, I don't see a significant change in their numbers, so Burgess and Domzalski would seem to be a fine match for them. I'm not sure why everyone is so worried about Thompson and Stephenson. I think they have potential but in comparison, Burgess scored only .4 points a game fewer than Thompson and out rebounded him by .7 his freshman year

Maggette and Carawell more than doubled Green and Ginyard's offensive out put from this year and again with UNC returning basically the same team, I don't see a marked improvent. Let's also not forget that Carawell was the ACC palyer of the year in 2000 which speaks to the strength of the 99 squad that he was only their 5th leading scorer. I don't think that he all of the sudden became a great college basketball player his senior year. It was more likely that he was always good but was surrounded by mega talent and blended for the good of the team.

As for Langon vs Ellington, Langdon scored at almost the same clip as Ellington during his freshman year while shooting a higher over all percentage and significatly higher 3 point percentage. So how do figure Ellington as a soph is a match for Langon as a senior. Also, I'm not sure that Ellington is that much better of an athlete, he was considered more of a shooter coming out of high school.

You are probably correct about Wright giving Battier fits if he packs on some muscle. Although I think having a more consistent focus would hurt more. Even still Battier's defense had a tendancy to drive people nuts.

Gosh, when you put it that way you make the 99 choke look even more worse than I remembered it!

dukemsu
04-18-2007, 09:45 PM
Good day on both fronts for me-Roe to MSU, and Roe not going to UNC.

Now if Duke could just land PP....

dukemsu

yancem
04-19-2007, 12:06 AM
Gosh, when you put it that way you make the 99 choke look even more worse than I remembered it!

Yeah, I know what you mean but that UConn team was pretty loaded too.

Patrick Yates
04-19-2007, 09:53 AM
Yeah, I know what you mean but that UConn team was pretty loaded too.

I agree that Duke 99 would beat UNC 08, but that it would be a very good game, and no certain victory.

However, as you point out, that UCONN squad was rediculously good also. Had it not been for Duke's dominance that year, UCONN would have been looked upon (at the time) as one of the most talented teams in years.

Next year's UNC team (certainly with Wright, probably/possibly without him) has no UCONN. With the boom expected at OSU any day now, I do not see UNC's foil next year. OSU will be good due to the incoming talent, but they will be weaker in the post and at the PG.

FL is done for next year as far as elite status, with or without PP.

Same with Duke, who can be good next year, but not elite due to lack of interior size (barring huge leaps from LT and BZ, but that is iffy)

UCLA will be good, but Afflalo is a huge loss, and I still believe that Love will be a chemistry problem.

USC is losing a bunch of talent, despite their recruiting class.

Arizona will underachieve again, and are light in the post.

The only 3 legitimate, POSSIBLE, foils to UNC are Memphis, Kansas and Georgetown (which still puts UNC in the FF).

KS lost wright already, and will lose more before it is all said and done, eliminating them.

Georgetown may lose Green, and possibly Hibbert. One loss would be huge, both would be devastating. One is almost certain. It is possible that one the previous year's recruits could fill in for green, and they got a lot of help on the wing and at PG this offseason, so they could be solid if all they lose is green, but next year would be a minor step forward at best.

Memphis could be good. They could really give UNC a run for thier money, but I believe Mem has to play good vs UNC, and hope that UNC's threes aren't falling. Whereas in the UCONN game, UCONN could play us straight up, and just flat out beat us, which they did. I beleive if UNC and Mem next year have a good game, UNC wins, due to too much interior power, and capable wing defenders in Green and Ginyard.

Regardless, even though UNC is not quite as good as Duke's 99 team, there is no team nearly as good as that year's UCONN to challenge them.

So yes, I feel confidant that without Wright UNC is a FF team. With Wright, the NC trophy engraver will have the UNC written on the trophy by Christmas.

Patrick Yates

_Gary
04-19-2007, 10:03 AM
So yes, I feel confidant that without Wright UNC is a FF team. With Wright, the NC trophy engraver will have the UNC written on the trophy by Christmas.

My, what a pleasant thought. Perhaps I'll just skip next year all together. I can't bear the thought of UNC winning yet another title, or Roy Williams moving only one game behind Coach K for championships.

Gary

Wander
04-19-2007, 02:46 PM
I agree that Duke 99 would beat UNC 08, but that it would be a very good game, and no certain victory.


Comparing Florida '07 to Duke '92 can be fun to argue about, but it's ultimately pointless. But comparing a team from 8 years ago to a team that is months away from even playing a single game is about as dumb as it gets.



Regardless, even though UNC is not quite as good as Duke's 99 team, there is no team nearly as good as that year's UCONN to challenge them.

So yes, I feel confidant that without Wright UNC is a FF team. With Wright, the NC trophy engraver will have the UNC written on the trophy by Christmas.


Do you just not have the ability to learn? The amount of weight you place on your on-paper preseason predictions is laughable. Last year in the preseason, Florida, UNC, and Kansas were supposed to be light-years ahead of everyone else - how many of them made the Final Four? The year before, what were the preseason expectations of UCLA, LSU, George Mason, and Florida? How about Syracuse '03? There are well over a hundred teams that could "possibly" emerge as a legitimate Final Four threat during the season.

Patrick Yates
04-19-2007, 03:07 PM
What other team would you take? If you could take the whole team from any squad in the country, ignoring past affiliation (and therefore any UNC bias), who else would you take?

Also, as to your predictions from last year, FL, UNC, and KS were the predominant preseason favorites.

FL, perhaps the preseason favorite, turned in the most dominating Final Four in years. Did they ever trail in the FF?

So, if UNC is the preseason favorite (again, this is with Wright), then yes, it is reasonable, if not probable, to expect at the very absolute least a FF run.

The separation from them and everyone else is too great. It has been years since there was this type of separation involving a team relying solely on proven/experienced players.

In 06, our superiourity was based on unproven frosh who were supposed to provide depth and scoring to two great SRs, a talented but injury prone SO, and a group of also rans. The frosh were not as ready as we anticipated.

All of UNC's players are proven. Assume that they improve over the summer, all of them.

And I know that you can't rely on preseason projections. You can't rely on pregame predictions made while the team is walking out to the opening tap. You never know when a team or superstar won't be able to throw it in the ocean for some reason.

This board is where we come to project and guess. It is fun. It won't always go Duke's way. Next summer, assuming (I know) that we get the class we expect, and don't lose anyone, this board will be lit up with people trying to justify thier projections of an undefeated season in 08-09.

Be nice. Say I'm wrong (I hope so), politely. Sign your real name (some do I've heard) when you take a mean-spirited shot.

Oh, and go shoot down some of the dreamers who think:

A: we have a shot at PP
B: he would help that much if he came
C: Duke has a shot at the Elite Eight either way

They are making predictions based on nothing more than I have, and no one is jumping down thier throats.

Heck, I still think UNC loses Wright, Lawson, and Hans this summer.

Patrick Yates

yancem
04-19-2007, 04:15 PM
I agree that Duke 99 would beat UNC 08, but that it would be a very good game, and no certain victory.

However, as you point out, that UCONN squad was rediculously good also. Had it not been for Duke's dominance that year, UCONN would have been looked upon (at the time) as one of the most talented teams in years.

Next year's UNC team (certainly with Wright, probably/possibly without him) has no UCONN. With the boom expected at OSU any day now, I do not see UNC's foil next year. OSU will be good due to the incoming talent, but they will be weaker in the post and at the PG.

Patrick Yates

My point had less to do with your argument about the strength of the NCAA field next year than the comparison with Duke's 99 squad. That team is consistantly regarded as of of the all time most talented teams. If they had won it all, they may have been the top.

UNC with or without Wright will be very strong and their competion seems to be getting weaker with every passing day (Green and Hibert are gone by the way) but at this point I would not project them as truely great. I'm not sure that I would take them over UNC 2005. In fact, I don't think that I would, although they have the potential to surpass my sceptical expectations.

I wouldn't engrave the trophy just yet but it looks like they should be the odds on favorite.

Wander
04-19-2007, 04:40 PM
What other team would you take? If you could take the whole team from any squad in the country, ignoring past affiliation (and therefore any UNC bias), who else would you take?


You're missing the point. I agree UNC looks to be one of the favorites heading into the preseason. You're making the very, very common mistake of assuming that this automatically implies they'll make it to the Final Four. History shows that's not a reasonable assumption.



The separation from them and everyone else is too great.


How? UNC may or may not be the favorite coming into the season, but there doesn't look to be this huge separation that you're talking about. Memphis and UCLA are right there - I'm not sure who I'd pick of the three as the favorite right now. And maybe Georgetown, Ohio State, and Kansas depending on who returns.

And, no, all of UNC's players are not proven. Just because you're not a freshman doesn't mean you're proven.

As for your other comments, I do appreciate the fact that you're not just blindly praising Duke in all your posts, which a lot of people on these boards have a tendency to do. However, you're still saying unreasonable things.

Classof06
04-19-2007, 06:04 PM
I think UNC will has a great chance to make the final four next year, but it's definitely not a lock and I don't think they're a shoe-in to win the National Title. I also don't think they have substantial separation over other teams. Even if Oden leaves, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised at how good Ohio State is next year. Even though they lose Afflalo, UCLA should still be strong with Love. And neither Georgetown or Kansas lose much either, depending on what Green and Hibbert decide. Bottom line is that I expect UNC to be an elite team next year, but I don't think they're head and shoulders above the rest of the nation, whatsoever.

kjo3444
04-20-2007, 12:56 PM
They'll be good, but predicting something as far off and as random as a Final Four (or even a championship) is a meaningless exercise. As someone else stated, historically it is shown that pre-season favorites don't go to the Final 4 more often than not.

And in the NCAA format, one game can change everything. Would anyone have predicted when the "Super Six" committed to Duke (and upon hearing that Redick and Shelden Williams would stay for all four years) that Duke wouldn't get past the Sweet Sixteen 3 out of 4 years, and flame out? Definitely not.

SilkyJ
04-20-2007, 01:10 PM
Last year in the preseason, Florida, UNC, and Kansas were supposed to be light-years ahead of everyone else - how many of them made the Final Four?

Well they all got 1 seeds, and all made it to the elite 8. Are you going to fault Kansas for losing to UCLA (#1 for a good portion of the year) or UNC for losing to a tremendous G-town team?

OK- we can fault UNC, but only cause thats fun no matter what

Patrick Yates
04-20-2007, 04:13 PM
I think UNC will has a great chance to make the final four next year, but it's definitely not a lock and I don't think they're a shoe-in to win the National Title. I also don't think they have substantial separation over other teams. Even if Oden leaves, I think a lot of people are going to be surprised at how good Ohio State is next year. Even though they lose Afflalo, UCLA should still be strong with Love. And neither Georgetown or Kansas lose much either, depending on what Green and Hibbert decide. Bottom line is that I expect UNC to be an elite team next year, but I don't think they're head and shoulders above the rest of the nation, whatsoever.

Kansas has already lost Wright, with many expecting Rush to follow. OSU is not only losing Oden, but Cook (may return) and Conley (gonzo) are declaring also. G-Town may still lose Green and Hibbert.

Of the three, only G-Town is not definitely losing a major talent.

UNC will probably lose Wright, but they were the deepest team last year. Of all the teams discussed here, UNC has the greatest potential to make up the production based on returning players improving.

I am sorry, but I see a great deal of separation next year. It is certainly greater than the 99 separation between Duke and UCONN.

Patrick Yates

Wander
04-20-2007, 05:59 PM
Well they all got 1 seeds, and all made it to the elite 8. Are you going to fault Kansas for losing to UCLA (#1 for a good portion of the year) or UNC for losing to a tremendous G-town team?


I'm not "faulting" anybody. I'm pointing out that last year many, many people considered UNC, Florida, and Kansas to be "locks" for the Final Four. And only one of three made it.

Wander
04-20-2007, 06:04 PM
I am sorry, but I see a great deal of separation next year. It is certainly greater than the 99 separation between Duke and UCONN.


Convenient that you leave UCLA and Memphis out of your post. I don't see much separation between these three teams right now. Assuming Wright leaves, I don't even know how to order these three teams.

I think Georgetown is about as well equipped to lose Jeff Green than UNC is to lose Wright - Georgetown has quality depth inside, as good or better than UNC's. If they lose Hibbert though, that's another story.