AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Is this team more talented, or better coached?
- Thread starter GoBuffs!!
- Start date
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
I agree with both, but I would say Tad's biggest strength has been as a talent evaluator/recruiter. He is also an A+ defensive coach. His biggest weakness is his offense, something he can improve on with time.
The only reason I ask, is I think back to the early 2000's with the Harrison Brothers, Pelle, Morandis, etc. I really thought those teams were pretty talented, but underachieved consistantly.
I guess you also get into a definition of what is "talented", Patton had a ton of raw talent, but i dont think that he put together that telent in a way you need. Simular to what Bob Knight used to do all the time, he wouldnt necessarly have the most talented teams, but he made sure he had guys that did what he wanted to fit his style.
I guess you also get into a definition of what is "talented", Patton had a ton of raw talent, but i dont think that he put together that telent in a way you need. Simular to what Bob Knight used to do all the time, he wouldnt necessarly have the most talented teams, but he made sure he had guys that did what he wanted to fit his style.
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
IMO, Patton was a good recruiter, bad game coach/talent developer and poor at discipline
A lot of this is now program mentality.
The talent is continually improving and fitting better with Tad's priorities, but last night was the perfect example of how far away we are from out-talenting an opponent. We had a lineup of Talton, Stalzer, Chen, Adams and Mills on the court in the first half against the 1st place team in the conference. None of those guys had Power 6 conf. offers except Adams - and that was before diabetes, torn tendons in both knees and a serious foot issue. With that lineup on the court, the Buffs extended the lead heading into halftime.
That's a program.
And if Tad can keep that going as the talent (and egos that go with it) increase, this is going to be a national power program. We're already redshirting talents like Jenkins and Gordon. Next year our backups will include a number of 4* recruits. This is gonna be fun.
The talent is continually improving and fitting better with Tad's priorities, but last night was the perfect example of how far away we are from out-talenting an opponent. We had a lineup of Talton, Stalzer, Chen, Adams and Mills on the court in the first half against the 1st place team in the conference. None of those guys had Power 6 conf. offers except Adams - and that was before diabetes, torn tendons in both knees and a serious foot issue. With that lineup on the court, the Buffs extended the lead heading into halftime.
That's a program.
And if Tad can keep that going as the talent (and egos that go with it) increase, this is going to be a national power program. We're already redshirting talents like Jenkins and Gordon. Next year our backups will include a number of 4* recruits. This is gonna be fun.
Tad is recruiting talented players. In the past we have had talented individuals but it was always a case of one or a couple of highly talented guys mixed into a bunch of guys who weren't even recruited by other teams in our conference.
As if not more important though is that Tad is recruiting guys with the mentality and potential to grow as players and developing them. We are seeing players get better over the course of seasons and careers, something that didn't happen under Ricardo and most of his predicesors.
We still have some room to go. Our offense has lacked focus and we have had long stretches where if we couldn't run we couldn't score. I'm sure Tad is already working on dealing with that issue through both coaching and in the guys he is looking to bring in. We have also had trouble with teams that have a lot of bulk inside, again I trust Tad to deal with that issue as well.
The biggest thing I see is that he has instilled an attitude of winning on this team, exactly the opposite of what we had under Hawkins/Embree in football. When this team wins they leave with a "taking care of business" mentality, lose and they are truly disapointed since they go into every game with an expectation of performing well and giving themselves a chance to win.
Last nights game was a perfect example. It is near the end of the season, the final standings are pretty well set, the team is tired and beat up and was missing a key player in Dre. The opponent was nationaly ranked. In past years they would have mailed it in and justified it, this team went out and did what they had to to win.
As if not more important though is that Tad is recruiting guys with the mentality and potential to grow as players and developing them. We are seeing players get better over the course of seasons and careers, something that didn't happen under Ricardo and most of his predicesors.
We still have some room to go. Our offense has lacked focus and we have had long stretches where if we couldn't run we couldn't score. I'm sure Tad is already working on dealing with that issue through both coaching and in the guys he is looking to bring in. We have also had trouble with teams that have a lot of bulk inside, again I trust Tad to deal with that issue as well.
The biggest thing I see is that he has instilled an attitude of winning on this team, exactly the opposite of what we had under Hawkins/Embree in football. When this team wins they leave with a "taking care of business" mentality, lose and they are truly disapointed since they go into every game with an expectation of performing well and giving themselves a chance to win.
Last nights game was a perfect example. It is near the end of the season, the final standings are pretty well set, the team is tired and beat up and was missing a key player in Dre. The opponent was nationaly ranked. In past years they would have mailed it in and justified it, this team went out and did what they had to to win.
Creebuzz is calling out a national championship for basketball.
Tad could coach here for another dozen or more years. One of the things I love about the guy is that if that happened and no matter how much success he has, he will bring up the 2011 tourney snub in his retirement speech. His teams are playing with that same chip on their shoulders.
Why not? He's recruiting national championship caliber players. He has them playing smart and peaking at the right time. This team could be scary good for the next 5 years. I'm glad I have my season tickets. This is going to be fun to watch.
I think it's going to be damn hard to get season tickets after next year if you're not a student or faculty. Glad I have my three seats in a decent location, but I'm thinking it might be a while before there are seatbacks available for our tix.
With parity in the college ranks like never before, it's frankly not that outlandish for a good coach to get talented players to play above themselves for six games. Butler played in the Big Game just 3 years ago, and even though they were a 5th seed no one would have pegged them to actually beat Duke, which they almost did. It will not be long before a 16 seed takes down a 1 seed, either. Could happen this year, although I doubt it.
Your last sentence is right. Spencer, Scott and XJ are probably all first-round locks (at some point).
I was wrong earlier - the 2002-2003 team was the team I thought was more talented than this year. That team had Harrison (SO) and Copeland (FR), who both have long NBA histories, and Pelle and Morandais, who each got NBA looks. Not to mention Blair Wilson. Kid could absolutely light it up. We were HUGE inside between Pelle and Harrison and destroyed a couple of top ten teams at home that year. Next year, we'll be more talented than that team. But I don't think we are now.
EDIT: We are 100% for sure better coached now. There should be no doubt about that.
Didn't Mizzou lose to a 16 seed last year?
#2 Mizzou lost to #15 Norfolk State
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NCAA_Men's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament
Last edited:
Ah thanks, remember watching it on the bus in ABQ but couldn't remember if it was a 16 vs. 1 or what. Rep
Since the tourney has gone to 64 (and now above) no 16 has ever beat a #1 and I don't see it happening this year either. Normally the #16s are the auto qualifiers from conferences that play D1 but truthfully aren't close in talent to the major conferences. There rosters tend not to have a single player recruited to a major conference school unless that player later transfered out because he wasn't good enough to play at that level. These games become a glorified scrimmage since on their best day the #16s don't have the talent to beat the #1s. There have only been two games that came down to last shot with Princeton (early days of the Princeton offense) losing 50-49 to Georgetown in 1989 and Oklahoma beating Eastern Tennessee 72-71 the same year. Two other games have been within 5 points, none in the past 18 years.
If a school is good enough to pose a threat to a top conference team or even if they have a player who comes out of nowhere to be an NBA type talent who could lead an upset the school gets moved into at least a #15 or better seed. #2 seeds have won six times including two last year (including against #2 Mizzou) and #14 seeds have won 16 times.
Hoops Fan
Well-Known Member
It is improving, but at this point, with a couple of exceptions, just about every team in the PAC 12 has more raw talent suited up to play every game than CU. Some (like Arizona and UCLA) have several recruiting classes with top 5 star talent. When I watch the warm ups ... on the basis of the "eye test", most of the PAC 12 teams look better than CU. But, you can only play five guys as at time ... and basketball is a team game first and foremost. Sometimes with "talent" comes high ego needs and self absorption. I think that CU beats the PAC 12 teams mostly because they play as a team and buy into the coaching and philosophy of Tad Boyle. So, at this point, they might be characterized as "overachievers". But I think really it is a about realizing team potential ... and that is what great coaches enable teams to do. They will continue to get better talent and Boyle will continue to stay centered and grounded in his values and leadership capability. We are in for a lot of fun going forward ... it is about Boyle first and foremost as a leader ... and then the kind of players that come in, buy into the team system, work hard and improve.
I don't think “most" PAC 12 teams have more talent. We're probably middle of the pack and I do think we're out playing our talent a little bit, but this team has the potential to have 1st round draft picks each of the next 3 or 4 years. How many teams in the conference can say that? Now depth is another story...
btbuff
It's an inside joke
I am in between on this issue. I too have watched shoot around. We are probably the worst shooters in the PAC-12. It is hilarious how bad many of our players are at just shooting. I once counted the number of shots Chen made in shoot around. It was bad. I want to say like 2-12 from three point range, and one of the makes was from the corner.
Last edited:
Nobody puts Chen in a corner.
Shootarounds aren't the best way to evaluate overall talent though. Growing up, I went to a lot of Nuggets games and I can't tell you how many times I watched some of the best shooters in the league miss everything in warm ups, only to dominate the actual games.
Stars win games, and there are a number of PAC 12 teams that would kill for Mayor and Dre. We're more talented than WSU, Utah, ASU, Stanford and OSU (that one's close though). We're pretty equal with Oregon, Cal, Washington and USC. I think UCLA and Arizona are the only two teams who are clearly more talented.
DrunkPanda
Well-Known Member
I think it's mostly coaching. Under Boyle, we've regularly upset teams with more talent