Date: 20/08/25 - 00:52 AM   48060 Topics and 694399 Posts

Author Topic: Spot the Wooldridge recruit in this photo  (Read 1434 times)

March 23, 2006, 10:16:15 AM
Read 1434 times

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584

March 23, 2006, 10:28:00 AM
Reply #1

WILDCAT NATION

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 1999

March 23, 2006, 10:28:32 AM
Reply #2

michigancat

  • All American

  • Offline
  • ******

  • 23713
  • Personal Text
    You can't be racist and like basketball.

March 23, 2006, 10:29:55 AM
Reply #3

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584
Duh.

I know... I just think it's funny that EVERY kid Wooly ever brought in that was worth a crap, with the exception of Martin, has bailed after one season.

I'm glad Nick Williams got to play for Huggins... Too bad it wasn't in Manhattan.

March 23, 2006, 10:41:25 AM
Reply #4

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
actually, i would say that with the exception of peete (and he is still up in the air based on future performance), every wooldridge transfer proved himself to be no great loss.

which i suppose is sort of a different way of saying that wooldridge recruited pretty poorly.
"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

March 23, 2006, 10:43:15 AM
Reply #5

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584
actually, i would say that with the exception of peete (and he is still up in the air based on future performance), every wooldridge transfer proved himself to be no great loss.

which i suppose is sort of a different way of saying that wooldridge recruited pretty poorly.

the youngster in the photo above turned out to be a damn fine player for Cincinnati, and was pretty salty as a true frosh for us.


March 23, 2006, 10:45:36 AM
Reply #6

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

March 23, 2006, 10:49:32 AM
Reply #7

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584
define damn fine player.

Better than everybody we had, but not as good as LeBron.

Hope that helps.
 :tongue:

March 23, 2006, 10:56:09 AM
Reply #8

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
pretty broad category :).

i still disagree.  williams wasn't better than many of the players ksu had in 2003-2005.

a few of his senior year ucinn stats:
8.9 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 1.8 apg, .396 fg%.
"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

March 23, 2006, 11:08:18 AM
Reply #9

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584
a few of his senior year ucinn stats:
8.9 ppg, 2.4 rpg, 1.8 apg, .396 fg%.


You do realize that he was playing on a Top 25 team that actually had OTHER good players, don't you?

No offense intended, but I don't think you realize just how far below Cincinnati our talent level has been.


March 23, 2006, 11:21:43 AM
Reply #10

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
ucinn wasn't that great while williams was there.  and some of his stats are pretty average and are not greatly affected by teammate prowess (shooting %, a:t ratio).  but sure, if all you are saying is williams would have gotten more than 20 minutes a game at ksu then i agree with that.

on the other hand better than 2005 peete - no, better than 2005 martin - no, better than 2005 massey - no, better than 2005 harris no.  better than 2004 massey - no, better than 2004 ellis - no, better than 2004 hart - debatable, better than 2004 martin - probably, but only barely.
"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

March 23, 2006, 12:05:03 PM
Reply #11

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584
ucinn wasn't that great while williams was there.  and some of his stats are pretty average and are not greatly affected by teammate prowess (shooting %, a:t ratio).  but sure, if all you are saying is williams would have gotten more than 20 minutes a game at ksu then i agree with that.

on the other hand better than 2005 peete - no, better than 2005 martin - no, better than 2005 massey - no, better than 2005 harris no.  better than 2004 massey - no, better than 2004 ellis - no, better than 2004 hart - debatable, better than 2004 martin - probably, but only barely.

All that player comparison is subjective, and I'm guessing that you see a lot of it through purple shades...  But, that's just my assumption.

You almost lost ALL credibility with me in saying that Ellis and Hart were better ball players than Williams, but again, it's all subjective.

With that said, I think Williams was a comparable talent to Peete, but don't forget that Peete was a well seasoned 20 yr old JR at KSU and Williams an 18 yr old true frosh.  Peete also departed, btw.  Comparing Williams and Massey is a moot point.  Apples vs Oranges, but I do agree that Massey was a far bigger part of a poor team than Williams played on a good team. 

You're crazy if you think that Harris is better than Nick Williams.  Williams actually played both ends of the floor.  Harris just might blossom under Huggins once he realizes that playing hard on defense will actually HELP his offensive game, not to mention his teammates.

At the end of the day, I'm just glad that our quality of play & players is going to take a dramatic upturn.

 :beerchug:


March 24, 2006, 06:09:33 PM
Reply #12

sys

  • Second String Wildcat

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 10936
  • Personal Text
    gmafb
not subjective.  those ksu players were better than williams at cincy in his senior year (the year i used for comparison) in the years listed for each ksu player based on their statistics.

if i wanted to include subjective criteria, i would include that williams was a poor defender too.  really, i would consider him the most overrated wooldridge era player.  for some reason he assumed some sort of prodigal son like status as the (first) one that got away in ksu fans' minds.
"these are no longer “games” in the commonly accepted sense of the term. these are free throw shooting contests leavened by the occasional sprint to the other end of the floor."

March 24, 2006, 07:01:10 PM
Reply #13

Bookie Pimp

  • Classless Cat
  • Cub

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 1584
Ok... Here's a REAL contradiction in terms:

Nick Williams played 20 minutes a game for Huggins, yet was a "poor defender".

 :rolleyes:

Maybe he was a poor defender under Wooly, but you don't see the floor much for Huggins if you don't saddle up and play some D.   Williams played on NCAA Tournament teams with Cinci, not 4-12 to 6-10 bottom of the big XII teams like at KSU. 

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, but I don't think you can go strictly by "statistics" in judging a players merits.  Akeem Wright was arguably our second best player this year, however that's not necessarily what the 'stat sheet' shows.

HTH

March 24, 2006, 08:16:20 PM
Reply #14

Wildcat Jack

  • Cub

  • Offline

  • 887
Williams was probably the best player we had in the Wooldridge period.  As a frosh, he was better than any of those you listed.  Believe he made all-Frosh team (not sure)...he was a gamer.