Old vs New

by **Pony_Fan** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 1:58 pm

I read a lot of posts about how much "talent" this current team has. Let's put it into perspective......the '99/'00 Lineup of Sasser, Woods, Hancock, Davis, Floyd, Ross, and Kelley was pretty darn good vs......Isham, Castro, Simpson, Hopkins, Lowe, Voc, Miller

IMO that old lineup looks awful tough/better compared to now. That team would be in 1st/2nd in the WAC. I hope Tubbs can get us back to that point with athletic players in all positions. SMU was one great inside player away from the dance.

by **Stallion** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 5:22 pm

I don't think its even close. Don't know what some of you people are basing your comments like next year will be the most talented team in 10 years. Its a mystery to me because other than Hopkins and Simpson-the others weren't highly recruited.

by **Charleston Pony** » Sun Mar 28, 2004 5:51 pm

to be fair to some of our guys who were signed in the early period the past couple of years, they may have attracted more interest after their senior seasons. Derrick Roberts may be a good example. Not sure how many offers he had when he signed with us, but after his senior showing...it's a good thing we got him in early because he would have had plenty of options. I think Castro in particular would have attracted more interest, because he's a big guy who moves pretty well and has a nice touch.

by **HorsePower** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:22 am

I would think Castro would have gotten more offers, because while he isn't overly explosive, he's a big body and a fundamentally sound player. I think we were lucky to get him when we did.

And from everything I've read, Roberts shot up every coach's wish list after he signed with us. He sounds like one of those pure scorers that every coach covets. Thank god we got him first.

by **Stallion** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:49 am

Castro is the 8-9th man off the bench on a NCCAA Tournament team -sorry but come on let's be truthful here.

by **Higher Authority** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:42 am

8th or 9th off the bench? At UConn, maybe. I'm not saying he could start for Kentucky or Maryland or Stanford, but don't you think 8th or 9th off the bench is a bit harsh? We realize no player is great unless he went to junior college, but Castro is a fine player. Great? No. But he'd make a hell of a lot of teams.

by **EastStang** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:18 am

The cupboard is not empty, by any means. This is virtually the same team next year that beat Nevada, TT, and Purdue. That took WF and UTEP to the end of the game. Add Roberts who is a pure shooter and you may suddenly find a team that has an inside out game. Castro is serviceable. Simpson is a solid 4 when he wants to be. Isham can be a decent 3 with a little more confidence. Hopkins has the talent to be a star and if Roberts, Rackulskas, Peason, Rhey develop at all next year, we no excuses at all. Sure we would lose to OSU 8 out of 8 games. But so would St. Joes. BTW, I'm glad we played them, my bracket is looking real good right now.

by **OldPony** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:44 am

My real point was that many of you who have been yelling for Dement's job have been saying that he has the talent, he just can't coach. Well, now Tubbs has the talent. Let's see if he can coach. Let's hold him to the same standard as we held Dement to this year.
Truthfully, I know Dement had to go because he had burned out trying to win on an uneven field. Tubbs maybe the answer. I sure hope so but I'm not ready to annoint him just yet and, I think, that in order to be fair, we need to see him produce with this talent before we call him a great coach.
I'm not willing to go another 10 years and then fire a coach. I want it to be clear that if Tubs doesn't win with this "great" talent that it is not a reflection on Tubbs and that it just might NOT be the coach. This is a mature team with as good of athletes as we have had since joining the WAC. Simpson, Castro and BHop were all good gets for SMU and now all have experience. We have several good role players and an incoming freshman who can shoot lights out.

by **Hoop Fan** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:19 am

you are counting on an incoming freshman and calling him a lights out shooter at the college level without ever having seen him play? I'd expect that from some people but not you OP. You wanted your Kansas boy Roberts, which is fine, but lets be reasonable. Tubbs cant fix a shooting and rebounding problem overnight.

by **OldPony** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:29 am

I believe I have said on many occasion that I thought Tubbs was probably our best choice. I don't remember recommending Roberts but I did make the statement that he had coached for better coaches than Tubbs and that this was a difficult decision.
I guess you must think that these current SMU guys are all basketball players who have never had any coaching. Simpson and Castro had a year under Tubbs didn't they? Now they don't know how to rebound? But Tubbs could teach them but it takes too long? How did Dement forget how to coach? His teams were pretty good until he had to compete with half a deck at SMU. I am very hopeful with Tubbs. Without changes in the admin of our program though he will lose. I hope he'll recruit better since he got the Dallas coaches to go to bat for him. That is by far his strongest suit and the Dallas HS coaches should be put on notice in subtle ways that this is their guy and if they want credibilty they need to help. Many are placing a huge burden on Tubbs to make SMU Dallas' team. I hope he can improve the relationship between south Dallas and SMU but this is an unfair burden and expecation to place on his shoulders. Winning with the group we have in place right now isn't. Your right abpout a freshman. I got a little carried away but i don't remember any recruits who were the shooter in HS that this guy Roberts appears to be.

by **Pony_Fan** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 11:46 am

OldPony wrote:My real point was that many of you who have been yelling for Dement's job have been saying that he has the talent, he just can't coach. Well, now Tubbs has the talent. Let's see if he can coach. Let's hold him to the same standard as we held Dement to this year.
Truthfully, I know Dement had to go because he had burned out trying to win on an uneven field. Tubbs maybe the answer. I sure hope so but I'm not ready to annoint him just yet and, I think, that in order to be fair, we need to see him produce with this talent before we call him a great coach.
I'm not willing to go another 10 years and then fire a coach. I want it to be clear that if Tubs doesn't win with this "great" talent that it is not a reflection on Tubbs and that it just might NOT be the coach. This is a mature team with as good of athletes as we have had since joining the WAC. Simpson, Castro and BHop were all good gets for SMU and now all have experience. We have several good role players and an incoming freshman who can shoot lights out.

Where are you getting this is "great talent". If you look at my original post, the 2 teams I compare aren't even close in terms of talent. Hopkins measures up to the others in the group but hardly anyone else. And they were competing against Fresno with Courtney Alexander and Chris Herron if I remember correctly.

by **Hoop Fan** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:08 pm

OldPony wrote:I guess you must think that these current SMU guys are all basketball players who have never had any coaching. Simpson and Castro had a year under Tubbs didn't they? Now they don't know how to rebound? But Tubbs could teach them but it takes too long? How did Dement forget how to coach?

I personally know how to rebound, was good at it in high school and on the playground, but that doesn't mean I could be an effective rebounder in a D-1 game. Extreme case, but I am saying the issue here with rebounding is not really coaching at all. Sure, Dement could tell a guy how to rebound, ie he box out technique. But the guys have to have the strength, ability and knack to be a rebounder. I am saying Castro and Simpson just have not shown that knack. They are good players who do other things well, but that doesnt take away from the fact that its a problem for this team that we have no natural born boarders. Tubbs might kick it up a notch through motivation and focus, but that only goes so far. I don't see SMU being a good or even adequate rebounding team until Tubbs recruits a couple guys who have the bodies and personalities to do it.

by **The Falcon** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:12 pm

Devon Pearson has shown me rebounding ability and desire in the few minutes he was allowed to play this year. He is muscular and a leaper, so I will go on record as saying he is the kind of player that Tubbs will like and on whom he may have a very positive impact.

I'm not sure what was wrong with Bryan Miller at the end of the year but rumors were that his back was ailing again. He is a hard worker who can shoot better than we have seen if he is well. He is the kind of worker that Tubbs can build on.

Bennett is a question mark; however, he has shown flashes of being a scorer (San Diego game was about 25 pts if I remember correctly.)
If he will work hard for Tubbs he might be a contributor.

Unless Simpson improves greatly next year he may find more time on the pine. He has a great natural wingspan of 7ft plus; however, his intensity and work habits need an injection of octane for him to be the type of player that will succeed with Tubbs - he will want more rebounding, more
shotblocking, and tougher play around the basket.

Isham's the same way. Tubbs will try to get him to play with more intensity and more aggressiveness next year. If he is as inconsistent next year, he may have to come off the bench.

Obviously, Hop was better this year, especially at the end of the season, but he isn't pro material yet. If you've been watching the Dance - there
must have been 50-100 guards that would be ahead of him in the Draft.
Tubbs may be able to shArpen his skills, and the uptempo game may be very beneficial to Hop. Castro improved last year too, but he needs to play less minutes with more intensity. I think fatigue got him several times last year.

Chris Reay showed flashes of being very active for a big man; however, he didn't play enough minutes to show what he can do. He is a hard worker and very coachable, so maybe the kind of guy that Tubbs will like.

As others have already pointed out, Roberts and the new point guard from Martin H.S. should help. Roberts for scoring and possibly rebounding and the Martin kid to spell Hop and give him more juice at the end of games.

It is easy to get too optimistic, and we should not have unrealistic expectations; however, I think we will see definite improvement in this team under Tubbs - because of the work ethic, attention to defense, the more upbeat offense, and the teamwork that he will instill in this group.

Back to my first point. I think Devon Pearson will surprise most of you on this board next year - mainly because nobody seems to mention him and he has a great upside and just the kind of player that will fit Coach Tubbs' system.

by **EastStang** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:16 pm

On rebounding it might also be impacted by moving to man-to-man. Some people find it easier to block out in man, others harder. In a zone, you really have to look for a body to block out and some players never figure that one out. Although Simpson could get moved around quite a bit in the paint in man. Somebody introduce Castro to Wes Unseld. The only 6'7 inch center in the NBA who never had to jump (he got tons of rebounds on the first bounce) and yet was able to successfully guard Kareem Jabbar. He's the best I've ever seen at blocking out and throwing the outlet pass.

by **OldPony** » Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:31 pm

OK- Let's do this simpler. How many of you thought that this team should have gone to the Dance or the NIT this year? Be honest so we don't have to look it up.
Now, for those of you who thought so, why aren't you consistent with that view for next year?

Old vs New

Old vs New

Re:

Re:

Very Few Have Mentioned Pearson

Who is online