Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
What were the doogman and spadoFS's excuses for why Zach Lavine never even sniffed UW?
DugtheDoog
Member Posts: 3,180
5star player in your backyard and barely gives us a look. Character issues? He was in on someone better, like Jamel Taylor?
Comments
Maybe that's what a 10 yr contract does to you.
Anyone with half a brain knew they weren't coming here.
Romar had back to back awful recruiting classes. The Wroten year you had him and 6 others with none of them being worth much(Andrews would be an 8th man on a good team). Then the following year brought in zero high school players.
Romar flat punted two classes and nobody in our media called him on it.
Griswald actually said Taylor would have a better career? I would hope he meant that Taylor would be a solid contributor for 3-4 years and LaVine was going to be one and done. In that sense, it's still stupid, but not quite as bad.
The number of people that still continue to wonder how the UW didn't make the conference tournament after winning the regular season title a few years ago flat out fucking amazes me.
When the lead analyst anywhere doesn't have a fucking clue what a good team looks like or what it takes to make or miss the NCAA tournament, you've got problems.
I also thoroughly enjoy the people that are giving Romar credit this year for essentially reaching what the preseason expectations for him while glossing over that those preseason expectations were a fucking dreckfest.
He had ZERO pts against the Cougs.
And He's white. Nuff said.
Lavine Lavine > Andrew Andrews
Nothing was ever as fucktarded as saying that we deserved to be in the NCAAs for winning the conference and then getting bounced by Oregon St with a terrible profile. I somewhat understand Larry Scott saying as much recently that UW should have been in that year ... because that's his job to put out positive PR for the conference ... but being realistic about what is going on is another story. That was a talented team that vastly underachieved throughout the year and in all honesty hadn't done anything (other than winning the regular season title in a BS conference) to warrant a selection. The fact that so many still get butthurt about that one is crazy.
IF it was obvious that Lavine was going to the NCAA after one year no matter what, then I can understand why Romar passed on him given the Tony Wroten experiment. However, to say that Lavine wasn't talented was ridiculous. He's got a very smooth stroke with his main problems being that of most freshman (not knowing how hard you have to work defensively and the nuances of playing basketball at a high level being tied more to what you are doing without the ball than what you are doing with the ball).
Also, the downright criticism and hatred of Miller is ridiculous. His track record as a coach both on and off the court is at a high level. He's built highly rated recruiting classes. He's advanced deep in the NCAAs with two different schools. If your biggest criticism of him is that he "might" be a bit dirty, how is that different than so many coaches in college basketball? If anything, criticizing Miller for "playing the game" more or less just tells you about how much Romar "won't play the game." And that's great if as a program you are prepared to have mediocre results and your fanbase supports such. But given the attendance levels this year and the general "sizzle" around the program, it sure doesn't strike me that most are content with those results.