Hubert Davis Catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter LeoBloom
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 31K
  • UNC Sports 
superrific said:
Yes. But not the disastrous disappointment that the "#1 ranking -> missing tournament" implies.
Click to expand...
You're technically correct but the difference isn't that great.

I mean, if a bomb vaporizes you into nothingness or it blows you into only 40 distinct pieces, you're pretty grossly dead either way.
 
Dixon next to Mingo should be no problem and seems like a combo that can be really high level in two seasons

Still have to try for another guard in the portal. Evans's weaknesses a little too similar to Dixon's imo
 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
Meh - the miss tournament as preseason #1 and last year's play in team are the main factors.

Next level are the wild swings within the season.

Lastly is style of play... from the rosters to style of play(bunch of 3s and combo guards)... not aesthetically pleasing but fine if it works.

I think all of those are ahead of race.
Click to expand...
I agree for reasonable people it's about merit, but I've read plenty of post that make it clear there's nothing he can do to be good enough. Not here, mostly on the other boards.
 
heelinhell said:
So on this Hubie Davis thread do we keep Coach Davis for another year based upon how the team has done this year ?
Click to expand...
(Ending the season now.) I think he’s going to be back next year. He’s had a good year, by his standards. I think next year must be a good year by UNC standards. He’s going to have to be a legit contender, through the entire season, in year six.

I do think it’s taken a lot of support to get these results, and I am not sure if we can spend top 3-5 money every year, along with the highest paid GM in the country, if the return is what we’re seeing this year.
 
stankeylegjones said:
(Ending the season now.) I think he’s going to be back next year. He’s had a good year, by his standards. I think next year must be a good year by UNC standards. He’s going to have to be a legit contender, through the entire season, in year six.

I do think it’s taken a lot of support to get these results, and I am not sure if we can spend top 3-5 money every year, along with the highest paid GM in the country, if the return is what we’re seeing this year.
Click to expand...
Actually, with a 24-6 record at this point is a good year by UNC standards, historically...
 
SnoopRob said:
You're technically correct but the difference isn't that great.

I mean, if a bomb vaporizes you into nothingness or it blows you into only 40 distinct pieces, you're pretty grossly dead either way.
Click to expand...
Well, now we're just arguing about position on a line segment. You could also say it's the difference between dying and losing a limb.
 
superrific said:
Well, now we're just arguing about position on a line segment. You could also say it's the difference between dying and losing a limb.
Click to expand...
Failing to make the tournament at Carolina is beyond losing a limb territory and someone’s definitely dead.
 
heelinhell said:
Actually, with a 24-6 record at this point is a good year by UNC standards, historically...
Click to expand...
that's a good record with a tougher schedule.

with our schedule its good for about #20 in the polls and @ # 30 in the analytic rankings and a #5 NCAAT seed.
 
SnoopRob said:
Failing to make the tournament at Carolina is beyond losing a limb territory and someone’s definitely dead.
Click to expand...
All right. I'm not going to argue this point. I've been trying to stay out of the ultimate conclusion and I don't want to get into it now.

I'm just making observations and those can cut both ways at times. This observation was that framing that season as "preseason #1 -> no tourney" is unfair. If you want to consider "no tourney" on its own and find that wholly unacceptable, that's your choice and I have nothing to say about it. But it also doesn't ineluctably follow, either.
 
superrific said:
This observation was that framing that season as "preseason #1 -> no tourney" is unfair.
Click to expand...
I'm befuddled as to what it's unfair. One, that's a simple factual statement. Two, as SnoopRob says, even if it was "top 5 -- no tourney" it would still be an equally disastrous result.
 
rodoheel said:
I'm befuddled as to what it's unfair. One, that's a simple factual statement. Two, as SnoopRob says, even if it was "top 5 -- no tourney" it would still be an equally disastrous result.
Click to expand...
Because it wasn't top 5 either. The team shouldn't have been ranked top 10 preseason. It had been an 8 seed the year before. There wasn't a lot of depth on that team to begin with. The entire case for top 5 was a) Pete Nance doing a Brady Manek and b) Caleb's second half was real progress and not a hot streak.

That's the profile of a team in the 12-15 range with "if Pete can do a Brady, this team could have top 5 potential."

Sportswriters always overemphasize tourney results when predicting the next season, forgetting that the NCAA is a huge crapshoot and anyway it's only 6 games.

And yes, top 15 -> no tourney is not a good look, but it is an ordinary failure. It's not the extraordinary failure implied by the preseason #1 ranking. You can't pin that on HD.
 
Enigma94 said:
I agree with this. If I'm Tanner my number one priority is Veesaar and I'd throw a massive bag at him. Late first round is roughly $5 million guaranteed over two years. I'd go to him with $5 million to stay another year and pitch him on a weaker draft next year. Sure it delays the second contract, but getting all his guaranteed money upfront would be a pretty sweet deal and there's no guarantee he doesn't slip into the second round where nothing is guaranteed. It would be so much easier to have him in the fold to build around.
Click to expand...
$5M for 1 year
 
CRHeel94 said:
He's been rising in draft projections. Last mocks I've seen have him in the late first round, which is always a dangerous territory. Very easy to slip from first round gurateed money to second round (less money, no guarantee). I would rule him out coming back. Can make good money, get stronger and be better positioned in a weaker draft the following year.

If Luka returns, he will start over Powell. Personally, I hope we keep him (and Dixon and Stevenson). I believe in the benefit of continuity.

We will still need another banger inside. If Vasaar stays, that gives us flexibility position wise. If Vasaar leaves, it will need to be a 5.
Click to expand...
He 7ft tall , productive, and shoots a great % from 3.

Also, i'm not sure he comes back in the situation where his efficiency could go down.
 
stankeylegjones said:
(Ending the season now.) I think he’s going to be back next year. He’s had a good year, by his standards. I think next year must be a good year by UNC standards. He’s going to have to be a legit contender, through the entire season, in year six.

I do think it’s taken a lot of support to get these results, and I am not sure if we can spend top 3-5 money every year, along with the highest paid GM in the country, if the return is what we’re seeing this year.
Click to expand...
With Wilson/Big V gone, expectations will be lower next year...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top