College game reports: 2016/2017 season

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#1
I thought I'd start a thread where those that watch college basketball could give their opinion. I'll try and keep you posted on upcoming games of note. The season starts for real this friday, Nov 11th. Some games of note are Kentucky vr's Steve Austin on the SEC channel at 4 pm pacific. Arizona vr's Michigan St on ESPN at 4 pm pacific, and Kansas vr's Indiana on ESPN at 6 pm. There are some others that I'll add later.

Ok a couple of other games of interest on friday. Marquette vr's Vanderbilt at 3:30 PM pacific on CBSSN. And for those UCLA fans (Capt) we have UCLA vr's UOP at 6 PM pacific on the Pac 12 channel.

Duke plays Grand Canyon on saturday at 2:30 PM pacific on ESPN.
 
Last edited:

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#2
For those interested in seeing the top players look no further than Kentucky and Duke. Kentucky has De'Aaron Fox, (ranked 5th in the class) a 6'3" PG, who has been compared to John Wall athletically. They also have Bam Adebayo, (ranked 7th in the class) a 6'10" athletic PF, who is mostly a post player at this stage of his career. A sleeper to keep your eye on at Kentucky is Wenyen Gabriel, (ranked 17th in the class) a 6'9" combo forward. He can play both inside and out. Good shotblocker, and he can shoot the three. Derek Willis, one of my favorites is back for his senior year and they've also added another top highschooler (ranked 6th in the class) in Malik Monk, a 6'3" combo guard.

Duke Has Jayson Tatum, (ranked 3rd in the class) who at 6'8" is one of the top SF's in the 2016/17 class. They also have one of the top big men in Marquez Bolden, (ranked 16th in the class) a 6'11" Center. At PG they've added 6'3" Frank Jacksoon who is ranked as the 10th best player in the class. Add in returning sharp shooters Grayson Allen and Matt Jones, both 6'5" SG's, along with PF, Amile Jefferson, and you have a team favored to win the NCAA title. Who I haven't mentioned is a player, if healthy, may be the best player in the entire class. Harry Giles, (ranked 2nd in the class) a 6'10" PF. Giles is a surpremely talented player that can do just about everything. Unfortunately, he's had two knee injuries. One on each knee, and in one, he tore just about every ligament in the knee.

That's the bad news. The good news is that he's still very young, and history is on his side of recovery. How much, or even whether he'll play this year is unknown. Supposedly, his recovery in one track, so we'll see. But if he can return to his former self, he could be the number one pick in the draft. Speaking of number one picks, the other player being currently considered for that honor is Josh Jackson (ranked 1st in the class) a 6'8" SF playing for Kansas. He's a terrific athlete who is the complete package. At least on paper right now. Kansas has been producing some duds out of the gate. Sorry Scott!

Quickly some other players of note. Arizona has Rawle Alkins, (ranked 9th in the class), a 6'5" SG, and Kobi Simmons, (ranked 19th in the class), a 6'5"PG. They also have Allonzo Trier, another 6'5" SG returning for his sophmore season. UCLA has Lonzo Ball, (ranked 8th in the class), a 6'6" PG who I really like. They also have T. J. Leaf, (ranked 15th in the class) a 6'10" PF. Another player to keep your eye on at UCLA is Prince Ali, a 6'3" combo guard returning for his sophmore season. Michigan St. has added Miles Bridges, (ranked 11th in the class, a 6'7" SF, and Josh Langford, (ranked 18th in the class) a 6'5" SG. At Indiana keep and eye on sophmore SF, O. G. Anthony. He's 6'8" with a reported 7'6" wingspan. Anthony is a player that could start rising up the draft boards. They also have Thomas Bryant, a 6'10" PF/C. Lastly, at Vanderbilt, I like Mathew Fisher-Davis. A 6'5" SG.
 
#3
For those interested in seeing the top players look no further than Kentucky and Duke. Kentucky has De'Aaron Fox, (ranked 5th in the class) a 6'3" PG, who has been compared to John Wall athletically. They also have Bam Adebayo, (ranked 7th in the class) a 6'10" athletic PF, who is mostly a post player at this stage of his career. A sleeper to keep your eye on at Kentucky is Wenyen Gabriel, (ranked 17th in the class) a 6'9" combo forward. He can play both inside and out. Good shotblocker, and he can shoot the three. Derek Willis, one of my favorites is back for his senior year and they've also added another top highschooler (ranked 6th in the class) in Malik Monk, a 6'3" combo guard.
Where do you think Kentucy gets their 3pt shooting from this year? Seems like Fox, Monk, and Briscoe all struggle from behind the arc. I think Kentucky is going to be in it for an up and down season if they can't find consistent 3pt shooting from one of these guys.

Bam is really intriguing. I'm really curious to see his defensive impact. He has the athleticism and length to disrupt everyone in college, but I read some reports from H.S. that he was only average as an interior defender. His upper body strength looks extremely impressive. He has almost the same built as Dwight.
 
#4
TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY OF COLLEGE BASKETBALL!!!!
Key freshman prospects to watch out for:

#10 Arizona vs. #12 MSU
Miles Bridges- SF/PF
Lauri Markkane- PF

Kobi Simmons- PG ?
Rawle Alkins- SG ?

#3 Kansas vs. #11 Indiana
Josh Jackson- SF

NC State vs. Georgia Southern
Dennis Smith Jr.- PG
Omer Yurtseven- PF/C

UCLA vs. Pacific
Lonzo Ball- PG
TJ Leaf- SF

Little side note, but am I the only one who feels uneasy about lots of freshman who reclassify? For ex, Josh Jackson is already 19 as a freshman who will turn 20 in February. Jonathan Issac is already 19. Bam is 19.

This comes completely to their advantage, but we're seeing a lot more older freshman every year. Basically, these are guys who should've been in college a year earlier, but they stayed another year in HS.
 

Capt. Factorial

Cantry Member
Staff member
#5
Little side note, but am I the only one who feels uneasy about lots of freshman who reclassify? For ex, Josh Jackson is already 19 as a freshman who will turn 20 in February. Jonathan Issac is already 19. Bam is 19.

This comes completely to their advantage, but we're seeing a lot more older freshman every year. Basically, these are guys who should've been in college a year earlier, but they stayed another year in HS.
I'm not quite sure where you're coming from with "feeling uneasy". I think that from a standpoint of an NBA scout (or in our case, an amateur "NBA scout") that older freshmen are more polished and give you a better chance to see their game and how it will translate. As long as kids are one-and-done (and that's apparently not going to change any time soon with the current CBA negotiations going very well and reports are that there will be no change to draft entry rules) then one-and-done at 19 results in a more mature and lower-risk draft pick than one-and-done at 18. And frankly, the number of kids who are physically ready to contribute in the NBA at 18 or 19 or even 20 is pretty small - just look at Brandon Ingram getting pushed around. So an older draft pick probably isn't so bad. You have a better chance of getting their "prime years" cheap and not having to sit through several years of on-the-job training, sending them to Reno, etc. From the NBA standpoint it just seems like a win-win.

From the college standpoint, I guess there's the thought that some of these guys could play in college for that extra year instead of in a prep school. That would probably be good for college basketball, and we'd see more of them, but only if they didn't go the one-and-done route after that first year. And I don't know if they would. So maybe there wouldn't be much benefit to college programs for that either. I think that there's even a pretty decent argument for colleges to want their freshmen to be a bit more mature as well. There are certainly long lists of freshmen who have underperformed in college and still gone off to the draft. You could expect that many of them would have done much better in their single college season if they had done a year of prep school.

So, anyway, I'm not really sure what you're uneasy about.
 
#6
I'm not quite sure where you're coming from with "feeling uneasy". I think that from a standpoint of an NBA scout (or in our case, an amateur "NBA scout") that older freshmen are more polished and give you a better chance to see their game and how it will translate. As long as kids are one-and-done (and that's apparently not going to change any time soon with the current CBA negotiations going very well and reports are that there will be no change to draft entry rules) then one-and-done at 19 results in a more mature and lower-risk draft pick than one-and-done at 18. And frankly, the number of kids who are physically ready to contribute in the NBA at 18 or 19 or even 20 is pretty small - just look at Brandon Ingram getting pushed around. So an older draft pick probably isn't so bad. You have a better chance of getting their "prime years" cheap and not having to sit through several years of on-the-job training, sending them to Reno, etc. From the NBA standpoint it just seems like a win-win.

From the college standpoint, I guess there's the thought that some of these guys could play in college for that extra year instead of in a prep school. That would probably be good for college basketball, and we'd see more of them, but only if they didn't go the one-and-done route after that first year. And I don't know if they would. So maybe there wouldn't be much benefit to college programs for that either. I think that there's even a pretty decent argument for colleges to want their freshmen to be a bit more mature as well. There are certainly long lists of freshmen who have underperformed in college and still gone off to the draft. You could expect that many of them would have done much better in their single college season if they had done a year of prep school.

So, anyway, I'm not really sure what you're uneasy about.
I meant it terms of both college and the NBA. For the NBA, I think you'd rather have an 18yearold prospect go and develop in college for 2 years rather than that 18yearold prospect staying in highschool 1 extra year, and only developing in college for 1 year.

The thing that it boils down to is that I don't think they're getting any meaningful development while staying in highschool an extra year.

I guess the counter argument could be that they sometimes reclassify in 7th grade to get more exposure. Aside from that, I think it's a bit bad for the NBA. Age is a big number, and I don't think it's something that can be understated. The younger you are, the more years you have left to develop. 2/3 of our rookies are already 20, while Papagiannis barely turned 19 this summer.
That's 1 less year of development we could've received, since both were 1 and Done. I don't feel like Richardson nor Skal developed their maturity by the judge of their freshmen years. They played just as raw as 18yearold freshmen. I don't see much benefits of it, especially if you are a highly touted recruit

I don't know...maybe it's silly-nitpicking, but seeing the amount of 19yearold highschool basketball players increase this much, is just a little weird.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#7
Where do you think Kentucy gets their 3pt shooting from this year? Seems like Fox, Monk, and Briscoe all struggle from behind the arc. I think Kentucky is going to be in it for an up and down season if they can't find consistent 3pt shooting from one of these guys.

Bam is really intriguing. I'm really curious to see his defensive impact. He has the athleticism and length to disrupt everyone in college, but I read some reports from H.S. that he was only average as an interior defender. His upper body strength looks extremely impressive. He has almost the same built as Dwight.
I watched Bam play in Kentucky's warm up exhibition game, and he was pretty impressive as was Fox. At his point, I'm not going to make any predictions. Ask me questions after 15 or 20 games. One think Kentucky should excel at this season is defense. They were really getting after it in that warm up game. One player that impressed me with his outside shot was Gabriel the freshman PF/SF. Derek Willis can shoot the rock as well. Keep your eye on Mulder as well.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#8
I meant it terms of both college and the NBA. For the NBA, I think you'd rather have an 18yearold prospect go and develop in college for 2 years rather than that 18yearold prospect staying in highschool 1 extra year, and only developing in college for 1 year.

The thing that it boils down to is that I don't think they're getting any meaningful development while staying in highschool an extra year.

I guess the counter argument could be that they sometimes reclassify in 7th grade to get more exposure. Aside from that, I think it's a bit bad for the NBA. Age is a big number, and I don't think it's something that can be understated. The younger you are, the more years you have left to develop. 2/3 of our rookies are already 20, while Papagiannis barely turned 19 this summer.
That's 1 less year of development we could've received, since both were 1 and Done. I don't feel like Richardson nor Skal developed their maturity by the judge of their freshmen years. They played just as raw as 18yearold freshmen. I don't see much benefits of it, especially if you are a highly touted recruit

I don't know...maybe it's silly-nitpicking, but seeing the amount of 19yearold highschool basketball players increase this much, is just a little weird.
I'm going to agree with the Capt on this one. Now if they would stay in college for two years, than I might agree with you, but they don't. Plus, you have to remember that most of these prep schools are basketball factorys. It's not like staying at Del Campo for another year. It may be highschool, but it's the best that highschool can offer in the way of training and preparation. Simmons moved to the US simply so he could go to one of those schools. Really irritates me that he's injured.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#9
Don't know if anyone watched the Arizona/Mich St. game, but Bridges was very very impressive in a losing effort. He's a terrific athlete.
 

Capt. Factorial

Cantry Member
Staff member
#10
Don't know if anyone watched the Arizona/Mich St. game, but Bridges was very very impressive in a losing effort. He's a terrific athlete.
He was pretty darn eye-opening. I think he needs quite a bit of work on his jumper, but he looked far readier than Josh Jackson did.
 
#11
I dont get to watch as much college games as i would like. I have been very interested in Lonzo Ball among a few others. What are your thoughts on his highly unorthodox shot mechanics? How much of a hinderance will it be if it remains the same?
 
#12
Don't know if anyone watched the Arizona/Mich St. game, but Bridges was very very impressive in a losing effort. He's a terrific athlete.
I think he's an amazing athlete who has good vision for a wing. It's only the first game, but there's lots to like about him. I think he just needs to calm down and let the game come to him sometimes.
I'd really like to see him go up against wings instead of PFs though. He exploited his matchups, and I doubt any NBA teams would put someone like Domantas Sabonis on him... just like Arizona did. Shooting and basketball IQ might be the only things I'm questioning right now.

He was pretty darn eye-opening. I think he needs quite a bit of work on his jumper, but he looked far readier than Josh Jackson did.
Josh Jackson had a bad outing. Despite being in foul trouble, he just didn't stand out in the 1st game. Didn't even look like a lotto pick. I think it's just first game jitters.

I dont get to watch as much college games as i would like. I have been very interested in Lonzo Ball among a few others. What are your thoughts on his highly unorthodox shot mechanics? How much of a hinderance will it be if it remains the same?
Very very impressed by Lonzo Ball. I think he's a top PG prospect in this class. However, I think he 100%%% needs to change his shot. I just don't see him being able to get away with his jumper in the NBA level.
 

Capt. Factorial

Cantry Member
Staff member
#13
Josh Jackson had a bad outing. Despite being in foul trouble, he just didn't stand out in the 1st game. Didn't even look like a lotto pick. I think it's just first game jitters.
There are 30+ games in the season. I don't want to make it sound like I came to a judgment based on the first one. But Jackson needs to show a bit more in the next 29+ games. Bridges, on the other hand, had a very nice debut.
 
#15
Markelle Fultz showed everyone why he's going to be special in the NBA, while Romar showed everyone why he's one of the most underachieving college coaches.

If the Kings want a franchise PG, Fultz is going to be that player. He has a great feel for the game, and completely took over in the 2nd half when he needed to, even if it's against Yale:
1st half: 6 pts, 2asts, 3rebs, 2tos on 3-7 shooting
2nd half: 24pts, 4asts, 4rebs, 1to, on 8-10 shooting.
Finished the game with 30pts, 6asts, 7rebs, 3tos, 1blk, 9-12 from 2pt, 2-5 from 3pt, and 6-10 from FT.
He's a great athlete who uses his physical tools along with his ball handling to get everywhere on the court. He's great at attacking the rim and drawing contact. His vision looks really solid. His overall shooting stroke looks smooth and good. This was a big question mark coming into the season, and it remains up in the air if he can continue to consistently knock down the 3 ball for the entire season. On defense, he has all of the tools to become a great defender. It's really hard to knockdown on his 1st game. Aside from missing his key FTs, there's nothing that he didn't show.

I guess as a completely other sidenote, when I evaluate PGs, I personally highly value FTAs. It seems like it could be a statistically way to measure some of their aggressiveness at the rim, and as a scorer in general. With low FTs, I assume that A) they don't attack the basket as much as they should or B) they're not drawing contact at the rim, which means they struggle around the rim. When it comes to PGs, anytime I see a low FTA it goes in one of the negative columns for me. The only real exception I have to this list are combo guards who play a considerable amount of time as the off-guard, like D'Angelo Russell did at OSU.
This is also a very small/minimal factor common in some failed NBA PGs: Marquis Teague, Kendall Marshall, Nolan Smith, and Tyler Ennis. I'm not saying that if your FTA/FTR is low, you'll fail as a NBA PG. In fact, Reggie Jackson has one of the lowest FTR in all 3 years at BC, yet he's become a near top 10 PG (His FTR is still extremely low in the NBA). I just put it down as a personal negative to their game.

Any thoughts on this? I'm not a big stats guy at all, but I've always personally valued FTs in PGs.
 
#16
Watching DeAron Fox, I think he'd be a top 5 prospect in this class if he had a consistent jumper.
He's an intriguing player because of his size, playmaking ability, quickness, ball handling, and overall defensive potential.

However, at this point, he doesn't seem to be much of a scorer. From his first 2 games, he was able to get to the rim at ease even if it was against non-stellar opponents. Does a great job drawing contact and getting fouled. His FT shooting gives lots of hope that he'll be able to extend his range out to the 3pt line.

If he can find his jumpshot throughout the season, I think he's a potential top 5 pick. The intangibles are all there. He reminds me a little bit of Dejounte Murray.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#17
I'm not going to comment too much on the usual suspects until they get a few games under their belt and against better competition. I'am looking for surprises though, and although I expect big things out of Fultz, he was better than I expected. Just one game though. I agree on Romar. Good recruiter, but not the best X's and O's guy. Reminds me of the the ex-coach of Texas, whose name excapes me right now. Great recruiter, but his teams always underachieved.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#18
Markelle Fultz showed everyone why he's going to be special in the NBA, while Romar showed everyone why he's one of the most underachieving college coaches.

If the Kings want a franchise PG, Fultz is going to be that player. He has a great feel for the game, and completely took over in the 2nd half when he needed to, even if it's against Yale:
1st half: 6 pts, 2asts, 3rebs, 2tos on 3-7 shooting
2nd half: 24pts, 4asts, 4rebs, 1to, on 8-10 shooting.
Finished the game with 30pts, 6asts, 7rebs, 3tos, 1blk, 9-12 from 2pt, 2-5 from 3pt, and 6-10 from FT.
He's a great athlete who uses his physical tools along with his ball handling to get everywhere on the court. He's great at attacking the rim and drawing contact. His vision looks really solid. His overall shooting stroke looks smooth and good. This was a big question mark coming into the season, and it remains up in the air if he can continue to consistently knock down the 3 ball for the entire season. On defense, he has all of the tools to become a great defender. It's really hard to knockdown on his 1st game. Aside from missing his key FTs, there's nothing that he didn't show.

I guess as a completely other sidenote, when I evaluate PGs, I personally highly value FTAs. It seems like it could be a statistically way to measure some of their aggressiveness at the rim, and as a scorer in general. With low FTs, I assume that A) they don't attack the basket as much as they should or B) they're not drawing contact at the rim, which means they struggle around the rim. When it comes to PGs, anytime I see a low FTA it goes in one of the negative columns for me. The only real exception I have to this list are combo guards who play a considerable amount of time as the off-guard, like D'Angelo Russell did at OSU.
This is also a very small/minimal factor common in some failed NBA PGs: Marquis Teague, Kendall Marshall, Nolan Smith, and Tyler Ennis. I'm not saying that if your FTA/FTR is low, you'll fail as a NBA PG. In fact, Reggie Jackson has one of the lowest FTR in all 3 years at BC, yet he's become a near top 10 PG (His FTR is still extremely low in the NBA). I just put it down as a personal negative to their game.

Any thoughts on this? I'm not a big stats guy at all, but I've always personally valued FTs in PGs.
I think FTA's can be an indicator you look at, but it all depends on the overall game of the player and their particular skill level. Take Marquis Teague for instance. Didn't get to the line a lot, but the question is why? He was a very good ball handler, as a matter of fact, coming out of highschool, he was one of the best ballhandlers out there. So it wasn't as though he didn't have the skills to get to the basket. I was pretty high on him at that point, but he certainly underachieved. I think lack of strength was a factor. He tended to shy away from physical contact, which affects your ability to finish at the basket, and to some extent, limits how often you go to the basket or get into the lane.

Of course those things are correctable. If a player is willing to put in the work, and has the skill level, he can overcome those things. Or he can fade into oblivion. Marshall's problem was lack of athleticism, and not having the ballhandling skills to compensate for that lack. Very skilled passer with very good court vision though. I really liked Smith, but for some reason he got labeled an afterthought, and couldn't shake that image. He played extremely well in summer league a few years ago, but it didn't seem to matter. Sometimes its nothing more than being in the right place and the right fit at that time. There is the element of luck for the fringe guys.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#19
Really disappointed in Oregon last night. I know they didn't have Brooks, but they got their heads handed to them and one player shouldn't make that big a difference. Duke was missing three of their best players, got out rebounded by 9 boards and still almost beat a healthy Kansas team, losing by two points. Oregon just went into a fetal position and started crying. OK, I exaggerate a bit, but I expected more from one of the most talented teams in the Pac 12.

The freshman big man for Baylor, 7 foot Jo Lual-Acuil was impressive. He grabbed 14 boards and blocked 7 shots. Someone to keep your eye on going forward. The diminutive PG for Baylor had a very nice game as well. The 5'11" Lecomte scored 18 pts on 6 of 9 shooting overall, and when 4 for 5 from the three. He also had 7 assists and 2 steals. I'm sure that Lecomte will get some looks come draft time. His lack of size will hurt him a bit, but he's very talented and I could see him getting picked in the 1st round, depending how well he plays the rest of the season. Johnathan Motley, the 6'9" PF for Baylor also had a very nice game.

I covered the Kentucky/Michigan St. game in the Players to watch thread, so I won't go over it again. Duke almost upset Kansas losing by two points. Of course if Duke had its top players back it wouldn't have been considered an upset. But their top three recruits, Jayson Tatum, Harry Giles, and Marques Bolden were all sitting on the bench in street clothes. That would be like the Kings playing the Spurs without Cousins, Gay, and Collison. So the game probably came down to how well Grayson Allen played, and last night, he couldn't hit a wall with a dart, and yet, Duke only lost by two. This says more about the Kansas team than it does the Duke team. I think that if Duke has it's big three, they easily trounce Kansas. Luke Kennard and Matt Jones did everything they could, but Chase Jeter isn't Bolden. Kentucky may have the number one ranking after last night.
 
#20
After 2 games, Fultz is making a great case for being the best player in this class. There's not a single thing he can't do on offense. He has all of the tools to be a really good defender.

The biggest knock on him could be his lack of leadership qualities. He's not much of a vocal guy at all, but he's still only 18. I'd compare it to more of Kawhi Leonard or Tyreke Evans. He's always calm and collective, with spurts of energy. That's how Fultz is. He drains a contested 3, and goes back on defense like it's nothing.

Aside from that, it's really hard to find flaws in his game. He looks like a star in the NBA.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#21
After 2 games, Fultz is making a great case for being the best player in this class. There's not a single thing he can't do on offense. He has all of the tools to be a really good defender.

The biggest knock on him could be his lack of leadership qualities. He's not much of a vocal guy at all, but he's still only 18. I'd compare it to more of Kawhi Leonard or Tyreke Evans. He's always calm and collective, with spurts of energy. That's how Fultz is. He drains a contested 3, and goes back on defense like it's nothing.

Aside from that, it's really hard to find flaws in his game. He looks like a star in the NBA.
I'm not sure why in the hell you even bring up the leadership qualities of an 18 year old that's averaging over 30 points and 6 assists a game. Your right about one thing. If he can continue to play like this he'll definitely be the number one pick in the draft, whether he's vocal or not. At this stage, don't overthink this stuff. Right now, he looks terrific. Lets see how long he can maintain, once the competition gets better. Like what I'm seeing so far though.
 
#22
I'm not sure why in the hell you even bring up the leadership qualities of an 18 year old that's averaging over 30 points and 6 assists a game. Your right about one thing. If he can continue to play like this he'll definitely be the number one pick in the draft, whether he's vocal or not. At this stage, don't overthink this stuff. Right now, he looks terrific. Lets see how long he can maintain, once the competition gets better. Like what I'm seeing so far though.
I just brought that up as the only real criticism to his game. He's such a dominant prospect to the point where his only real concern comes down to whether his demeanor will end up more like a Durant or more like a Westbrook. I don't expect any guys straight out of highschool as true freshman to come out and lead, but I think it's an overall fair thing to critique when you're talking about a franchise player at PG.

You're right about the competition part. It's a shame we'll have to wait till 2017 to see UW play the big guys in the conference. WKU and TCU should be a fun one leading up to Gonzaga.
 

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#23
I haven't seen enough of Fultz to even comment on his demeanor, but if I had to, so far I would say that he's a very calm player who always seems to be in control. He doesn't make a lot of mistakes, and if I have a problem with him at all, it's that he's too unselfish. I wish he would look for his offense a little sooner in the game. Based on what I've seen, and that's not much (three games), my criticism would be his lack of focus on defense at times. or seemingly a lack of effort. There are times when he's very focused and is determined to keep his man in front of him, and there are other times when he man easily takes him off the dribble.. Not that unusual for a player right out of highschool. Offensively, there's not much he can't do. He seems to be able to score anytime he wants, whether it's pulling up for a three, or going to the basket. He's a very good athlete. Not quite the athlete Fox is, but still above average.

Speaking of Fox, he's been impressive along with Ball. I can see the comparison of Fox to John Wall, but I think Fox is a better outside shooter than Wall was at Kentucky. Ball is the real deal. Very good passer with great size foe the PG position. If you need a PG, this is the draft to pay attention to. It's loaded with PG's and SF's. Decent draft for PF's as well.

Another kid that's been impressive, defense aside, is Lauri Markkanen. I'm not sure yet just what position he plays, but he one talented offensive player. You can tell that he was a guard at one point in his career with the way he handles the ball for a seven footer. Arizona is going to be fun to watch this year. Hell, the whole Pac 12 is so much better this year. Hey Capt, I think UCLA has finally arrived. If they get their defense together, they can make some noise this year. They can score with anyone.