is this washpun stuff good or bad?

[coehawk1987]

is this washpun stuff good or bad? good.

I think this post most accurately reflects why people are disappointed with an offer to Washpun. How can Iowa recruit two players from a team that didn't even win state?
However, if you watch Washpun's highlights, you can see that he does have D1 talent, whether it is so called mid major or high major talent will depend on whether he improves his shooting while he's in college. I'm particularly interested in his ability to use his athleticism (hanging in the air) to create separation for his shot. I think he has potential to be solid to very good, depending on how hard he works.

As for people bemoaning Washpun as a fallback recruit, the truth is that ever since we lost out on Marcus Paige, pretty much every other PG we've offered has been a fallback. That's how it goes.

The sentence above in "bold" has been discussed ad nauseum. Oglesby and Washpun played 2 on 5 against every team they played. Washpun certainly has his shortcomings (read: shooting from outside 6 feet), but I honestly don't see a downside to recruiting him. I doubt Washpun will prevent another guard from coming to Iowa -- I really see a JUCO combo guard coming here now -- and I doubt he's being recruited to be the savior at PG once Bryce graduates. He could certainly fill a need as a role player. All teams need them.

Patience is a virtue and as much as I want Iowa to be in the top 20 again, I realize the Hawks have a very long hill to climb. It won't happen all at once.

 

[CAARHawk]

Re: is this washpun stuff good or bad? good.

The sentence above in "bold" has been He could certainly fill a need as a role player. All teams need them.

Yes, but do we need another "roll player" from Iowa? I mean don't we all see May, McCabe, and Ogelsby as likely roll players?

Pretty sure most of us are expecting a starting lineup that doesn't include ANY of these roll players at any point in the future.

I might be wrong, but don't we expect a line-up something like this in the near future?

Basabe, White, Hubbard/Miller, Meyer/Olaseni/Woodbury, and Carter/Jackson?

Next year I think we hope it will look like this: Basabe, White, Gatens, Cartwright, Brommer/Olaseni.

(Notice how I didn't put Katenda? That is, of course, who we really want.)

But also notice how you don't see the Iowa "roll players" there.

After saying all this, I think it might be possible that Washpun might be able to develop into more than a roll player.

 

[JHHawk]

There are 13 scholly players on a roster. There has to be some role players in a group...look at UNC..they just got a commit from a local kid,a pg,who is a 2 or 3 star player,who is not ranked anywhere....even they cannot have a total roster of top 150 kids...it will breed discontent and lead to transfers.
You need role players to actually have a real team.
Even in the NBA...the top two teams are the Spurs and Bulls...and they are full of role players...as are the Celtics. The Heat have too many ''stars'' that do not fit the team concept.
BB is a team game,so you need guys who are willing to play their specific role to mesh as a unit.
I admit that I am worried about getting a star or two,fine...but I still maintain that Iowa,like Wisky,will do fine with the McCabes,Mays and Oglesbys filling their proper roles,like Bruewitz,Jarmucz,Nankavil,ect at Wisky.

Iowa will never be like OSU,with top 30 players lined up on the bench,waiting their turn. Just give Fran a couple of top 75 guys to build around,and we will be in the hunt.

 

[Hawksel]

Re: is this washpun stuff good or bad? good.

The sentence above in "bold" has been discussed ad nauseum. Oglesby and Washpun played 2 on 5 against every team they played. Washpun certainly has his shortcomings (read: shooting from outside 6 feet), but I honestly don't see a downside to recruiting him. I doubt Washpun will prevent another guard from coming to Iowa -- I really see a JUCO combo guard coming here now -- and I doubt he's being recruited to be the savior at PG once Bryce graduates. He could certainly fill a need as a role player. All teams need them.

Patience is a virtue and as much as I want Iowa to be in the top 20 again, I realize the Hawks have a very long hill to climb. It won't happen all at once.

I was using that to describe what the detractors think, not necessarily what I think. I think Washpun reminds me a bit of a less developed Bryce Cartright, and I don't see why it wouldn't be good to have a player like that to develop for four years.

I think there's room for Washpun and either another wing or another combo guard, especially if the second recruit is a JC to balance the classes. On the other hand, if Iowa ends up with Washpun and Katenda and Olesani I'm not going to complain at all about this class.

 

[Hawksel]

Re: is this washpun stuff good or bad? good.

Yes, but do we need another "roll player" from Iowa? I mean don't we all see May, McCabe, and Ogelsby as likely roll players?

Pretty sure most of us are expecting a starting lineup that doesn't include ANY of these roll players at any point in the future.

I might be wrong, but don't we expect a line-up something like this in the near future?

Basabe, White, Hubbard/Miller, Meyer/Olaseni/Woodbury, and Carter/Jackson?

Next year I think we hope it will look like this: Basabe, White, Gatens, Cartwright, Brommer/Olaseni.

(Notice how I didn't put Katenda? That is, of course, who we really want.)

But also notice how you don't see the Iowa "roll players" there.

After saying all this, I think it might be possible that Washpun might be able to develop into more than a roll player.

I think the likely starting lineup no matter who we recruit will be:

Cartwright, Gatens, Marble or May, Basabe, Brommer.

I could see White maybe winning the SF position, but I haven't seen him play for Iowa yet so I don't know. I'm sure we all want anyone else to start but Brommer (at least the Brommer we've seen so far), but it's tough for me to imagine a true freshman beating him out (Katenda, maybe?). I can see White (or Katenda) and Basabe in a smallish frontcourt before I can imagine White beating Marble and May and McCabe for SF. If he does, that's either a good sign for him or a very bad sign for the development of those other three players.

The best part of these recruits is that they will help develop the bench, and also give Coach Fran more options as far as lineup combinations during the game go. A PG recruit (any PG recruit, really) is important this year so Marble won't have to play PG anymore unless in emergencies.

I will also note that if Iowa fills its final three scholarships it will be the first time Iowa has had a full roster since...I can't even remember.

 

[smoot27]

"Even in the NBA...the top two teams are the Spurs and Bulls...and they are full of role players...as are the Celtics. The Heat have too many ''stars'' that do not fit the team concept."


Haha, oh please! The Celtics have a top 10 PF, a top 10 SF, maybe the best pure shooter in the game in Allen, and a top 5 PG. To say they are full of "roll players" is ridiculous. Miami is also 0.5 games behind the Celtics so you would be stupid to write them off. And don't even compare these teams to Iowa's recruitment of marginal roll players and mid major prospects. You delusional homers need to get in through your heads that we suck and our recruiting is not all that positive at this point in time.

I'll at least give Hoiberg some credit for taking some risks acquiring talented players like White, Allen and eventually Korie Lucious ('12). If they stay out of trouble, they will likely be the best team in the state next year and beyond bar none. I've seen White play several times live and he is instantly better than anyone on our roster including Basabe. Criticize Hoiberg for taking these guys all you want, but don't be hypocritical defending Tom Brands letting Marion compete this year.

 

[CAARHawk]

That is going way further than I would go. It is hard to completely write off Iowa's recruiting, at least until we see the results of the spring signing period. But if that doesn't end well, then I think it could be time to start making some stronger negative assessments and might lead to some changes in strategy.

 

[Hawkstrat]

The thing about Washpun, and again, I'm not necessarily excited about the offer, he could come in next year and serve a purpose, but could develop into something more.

This isn't a Looby or an Archie, where you recruit a kid who is so raw he can't play, and then you hope he develops into a role player. This is a guy who fills a role now, but might end up something better.

Washpun, despite being a fallback recruit, would instantly be the best athlete and best perimeter defender on the team, which is something you can't say about most fallback types.

 

[smoot27]

The thing about Washpun, and again, I'm not necessarily excited about the offer, he could come in next year and serve a purpose, but could develop into something more.

This isn't a Looby or an Archie, where you recruit a kid who is so raw he can't play, and then you hope he develops into a role player. This is a guy who fills a role now, but might end up something better.

Washpun, despite being a fallback recruit, would instantly be the best athlete and best perimeter defender on the team, which is something you can't say about most fallback types.

I think part of the criticism, at least for me, is that fans were expecting more especially after seeing that Fran was able to bring in our best 2 players (Cartwright and Basabe) with very little time to recruit. I think I raised the bar for expectations thinking he might pull in some Basabe-like players given he has time to recruit this time around. I'm not going to write off Washpun completely and I don't think he's a Stokes or Brownlee type player that doesn't really have an upside other than filling practice squad. I'm just a little disappointed we couldn't get a higher rated prosepect with the ability to contribute immediately.

 

[jo12208]

Re: is this washpun stuff good or bad? good.

I think the likely starting lineup no matter who we recruit will be:

Cartwright, Gatens, Marble or May, Basabe, Brommer.

If this is the lineup next year I don't see many more wins than this year

 

[CAARHawk]

Re: is this washpun stuff good or bad? good.

I think the likely starting lineup no matter who we recruit will be:

Cartwright, Gatens, Marble or May, Basabe, Brommer.

If this is the lineup next year I don't see many more wins than this year

I believe White will step into that Marble/May slot at some point during the season. That will help, because his length will help a bit with Basabe's lack of size. However, the biggest issue is that C position. Just can't trust Brommer to be able to stay in the game. Also, having to rely on Archie for extended minutes every game is a very risky endeavor. Really, really need to get one of the available power players, because that player has a good chance of playing starter minutes.

 

[tm3308]

"Even in the NBA...the top two teams are the Spurs and Bulls...and they are full of role players...as are the Celtics. The Heat have too many ''stars'' that do not fit the team concept."


Haha, oh please! The Celtics have a top 10 PF, a top 10 SF, maybe the best pure shooter in the game in Allen, and a top 5 PG. To say they are full of "roll players" is ridiculous. Miami is also 0.5 games behind the Celtics so you would be stupid to write them off. And don't even compare these teams to Iowa's recruitment of marginal roll players and mid major prospects. You delusional homers need to get in through your heads that we suck and our recruiting is not all that positive at this point in time.

I'll at least give Hoiberg some credit for taking some risks acquiring talented players like White, Allen and eventually Korie Lucious ('12). If they stay out of trouble, they will likely be the best team in the state next year and beyond bar none. I've seen White play several times live and he is instantly better than anyone on our roster including Basabe. Criticize Hoiberg for taking these guys all you want, but don't be hypocritical defending Tom Brands letting Marion compete this year.

Rondo is a star player. Garnett is a fading star. He's still in the top 10 at his position, but he's not a superstar anymore. Pierce is still one of the more underrated players in the NBA, IMO. But Ray Allen is "maybe the best pure shooter in the game"? That's true. That is the DEFINITION of a role player. He's not the same player he was in Seattle or Milwaukee anymore. He is basically a shooter.

The rest of the team? Role players. You don't win in the NBA with just a handful of superstars. Even a couple years ago when the Big Three were younger, the Celtics got a lot of key contributions from their role players, including Rondo (who was a role player to begin with).

You need a superstar or two, but you've also got to have good role players. The Celtics, Bulls, Lakers and Spurs all have that.

 

[smoot27]

Rondo is a star player. Garnett is a fading star. He's still in the top 10 at his position, but he's not a superstar anymore. Pierce is still one of the more underrated players in the NBA, IMO. But Ray Allen is "maybe the best pure shooter in the game"? That's true. That is the DEFINITION of a role player. He's not the same player he was in Seattle or Milwaukee anymore. He is basically a shooter.

The rest of the team? Role players. You don't win in the NBA with just a handful of superstars. Even a couple years ago when the Big Three were younger, the Celtics got a lot of key contributions from their role players, including Rondo (who was a role player to begin with).

You need a superstar or two, but you've also got to have good role players. The Celtics, Bulls, Lakers and Spurs all have that.

Calling Garnett a fading star might be a little premature. He's putting up the same numbers this season as he did when he first arrived in Boston.

It's also a little extreme to say that Ray Allen who averages almost 17 ppg on a contender while shooting 45% for 3 is just a roll player. That's like saying Dennis Rodman was just a roll player even though he's in the Hall of Fame and I think Rodman isn't nearly as talented overall as Ray Allen. If you referred to Allen as a fringe All-Star caliber player I'd give that to you. A roll player is more like Glen Davis or Jeff Green.

The people you describe as roll players for the Bulls, Lakers and Spurs would all be star players on most of the middle of the road teams in the NBA. Relating this back to the Iowa debate, we don't have the luxury of having "roll players" of that caliber. It's pretty hard to argue that Washpun will be the Luol Deng, Lamar Odom, Ray Allen of the Hawkeyes. Most of our starters would be bench players for most of the Big Ten teams. Heck, even our star, Basabe, should be at best a #2 or #3 on a good team. Like I said in a previous post, Basabe would be the 3rd best player on our last decent team (05-06) behind Brunner and Haluska.

 

[JHHawk]

Calling Garnett a fading star might be a little premature. He's putting up the same numbers this season as he did when he first arrived in Boston.

It's also a little extreme to say that Ray Allen who averages almost 17 ppg on a contender while shooting 45% for 3 is just a roll player. That's like saying Dennis Rodman was just a roll player even though he's in the Hall of Fame and I think Rodman isn't nearly as talented overall as Ray Allen. If you referred to Allen as a fringe All-Star caliber player I'd give that to you. A roll player is more like Glen Davis or Jeff Green.

The people you describe as roll players for the Bulls, Lakers and Spurs would all be star players on most of the middle of the road teams in the NBA. Relating this back to the Iowa debate, we don't have the luxury of having "roll players" of that caliber. It's pretty hard to argue that Washpun will be the Luol Deng, Lamar Odom, Ray Allen of the Hawkeyes. Most of our starters would be bench players for most of the Big Ten teams. Heck, even our star, Basabe, should be at best a #2 or #3 on a good team. Like I said in a previous post, Basabe would be the 3rd best player on our last decent team (05-06) behind Brunner and Haluska.

It is starting to bug me that folks in this thread continue to use ''roll'' in a context that should spell ''role''. You'all do know that,right? Role,as in ''role in a play or movie''...as opposed to roll as in '' roll over,rover''.

I am an NBA-phile,so I have watched a ton of NBA ball over the years,and when I say that the Bulls are loaded with role players,that would be Ronnie Brewer,Kyle Korver,Omer Asik,Keith Bogans,Kurt Thomas, and CJ Watson. Now,they are not stars,but without them,the Bulls would not have the best record in the East. The Bulls second unit with Deng replacing Korver,is rated as the single best 5 man unit in the league defensively,by the numbers,when they are on the floor together.

When I say the Celtics are a great TEAM,it is not because of individual stars,as the Big 3 are clearly past their prime,but because they operate as a unit together so well. As Doc has said,their starting 5,when it included Perkins,was never beaten in the playoffs...and he is right. If Perkins does not get hurt last year in game 5 of the Finals,they win the title.
Point is, they do not need to be in their prime,if they execute their offense to perfection,which they did. They ground teams to dust with their offensive execution,which means hard,solid,clean picks,..sharp cuts,smart quick passing,and making open shots. No spectacular forays to the hoop necessary.
And team defense....as many have pointed out,individually,the Bulls do not have any real elite defenders,cept maybe Deng,but as a unit,they are the best in the league,because Thibs is doing the same thing for the Bulls as he did for the Celts....creating team defense.

Long story short, that is why BB is a team game,and can be won with a team of role players,with a couple of above average talents...but you need the right coach,and the right attitude among the players.

Wes might be the Iowa version of Al Nolen,who was not a good shooter either,but led the league in steals as a true frosh,and whose importance was hightlighted this year when he got injured...Minny fell completely to pieces...not because he was a stud scorer,but he filled his role as a ball handler,distributer,and defender.

 

[smoot27]

It is starting to bug me that folks in this thread continue to use ''roll'' in a context that should spell ''role''. You'all do know that,right? Role,as in ''role in a play or movie''...as opposed to roll as in '' roll over,rover''.

I am an NBA-phile,so I have watched a ton of NBA ball over the years,and when I say that the Bulls are loaded with role players,that would be Ronnie Brewer,Kyle Korver,Omer Asik,Keith Bogans,Kurt Thomas, and CJ Watson. Now,they are not stars,but without them,the Bulls would not have the best record in the East. The Bulls second unit with Deng replacing Korver,is rated as the single best 5 man unit in the league defensively,by the numbers,when they are on the floor together.

When I say the Celtics are a great TEAM,it is not because of individual stars,as the Big 3 are clearly past their prime,but because they operate as a unit together so well. As Doc has said,their starting 5,when it included Perkins,was never beaten in the playoffs...and he is right. If Perkins does not get hurt last year in game 5 of the Finals,they win the title.
Point is, they do not need to be in their prime,if they execute their offense to perfection,which they did. They ground teams to dust with their offensive execution,which means hard,solid,clean picks,..sharp cuts,smart quick passing,and making open shots. No spectacular forays to the hoop necessary.
And team defense....as many have pointed out,individually,the Bulls do not have any real elite defenders,cept maybe Deng,but as a unit,they are the best in the league,because Thibs is doing the same thing for the Bulls as he did for the Celts....creating team defense.

Long story short, that is why BB is a team game,and can be won with a team of role players,with a couple of above average talents...but you need the right coach,and the right attitude among the players.

Wes might be the Iowa version of Al Nolen,who was not a good shooter either,but led the league in steals as a true frosh,and whose importance was hightlighted this year when he got injured...Minny fell completely to pieces...not because he was a stud scorer,but he filled his role as a ball handler,distributer,and defender.

You're right about roll vs role. I'm texting from my droid and not paying very much attention. I don't dispute the importance of role players to winning championships, but feel that the NBA is dominated by star players more than balance. There are very few occurrences of teams winning championships without a true star player. I guess you could maybe say the Detroit Pistons, but they had 5 fringe all-star level players. It's not quite as important as in football or baseball where depth is more important than having one or two superstars. A team with both in the NBA like the Bulls is ideal, but if I had to choose a team with 10 role players of the Korver, CJ Watson caliber verse a team with 2-3 superstars and a bunch of scrubs, I would take the second.

I think this whole topic started due to some complaining of the Washpun criticism saying we need some players like him to fill roles. The problem is, Washpun might be considered a solid role player on our team as is, but on a great team he's not even suiting up. I consider players like Oglesby a role player prospect on a good team. Now, we need to find a star player or two.

 

[smoot27]

BTW, I'm also an NBA-fanatic. Unfortunately, I'm a T-wolves fan. It's a tough life.

 

[JHHawk]

OK, I agree on the need for a couple of truly talented guys to really be successful.
And yes, the Pistons are the exception.
But,I do think the paradigm is changing a bit,even in the NBA.
On paper,Kentucky had the most talent last year with 5 1st round players,but did not quite make the FF.
In the NBA,the Spurs,whose stars,like the Celts in 08,are past their prime,really,but have managed the top record with numbers,and 3pt shooting,and defense.
Celts did the same thing...defense is the common thread...Bulls are #1 in defense this year,with Celts #2. Defense does not really demand skilled stars,just hustle,athleticism,and discipline.
The Butler,VCU and George Mason phenonom cannot be ignored...veteran teams stocked with average to good talent that operate as a unit can succeed in bb.
It is not easy,but it can be done.
Lets hope Fran can get it done at Iowa.

 

[smoot27]

OK, I agree on the need for a couple of truly talented guys to really be successful.
And yes, the Pistons are the exception.
But,I do think the paradigm is changing a bit,even in the NBA.
On paper,Kentucky had the most talent last year with 5 1st round players,but did not quite make the FF.
In the NBA,the Spurs,whose stars,like the Celts in 08,are past their prime,really,but have managed the top record with numbers,and 3pt shooting,and defense.
Celts did the same thing...defense is the common thread...Bulls are #1 in defense this year,with Celts #2. Defense does not really demand skilled stars,just hustle,athleticism,and discipline.
The Butler,VCU and George Mason phenonom cannot be ignored...veteran teams stocked with average to good talent that operate as a unit can succeed in bb.
It is not easy,but it can be done.
Lets hope Fran can get it done at Iowa.

BTW, I do appreciate your opinions. My posts can seem condescending and arrogant at times unintentionally. I have to apologize for being the contrarian fan. I have a tendency to think the worst and hope for the best.