Pat Baldwin Jr

[GatoLouco]

Lathon is a good point guard, a great passer. I'm a UTEP fan and I watched him both seasons. There was a confluence of factors (some personal/family issues, some apparent bullying from Nigel Hawkins who thought that he should be running the offense that was locker room poison behind the scenes) that contributed to a shooting slump his second season, but Lathon is still effective at running the offense, he shows big-time hustle, and he plays good defense. I think he will thrive.

That explains a lot. I watched a few games of UTEP just to see him play. He’s physically very very impressive. Always found it puzzling he wasn’t doing more

 

[Katatonic]

Because it’s basketball, not theoretical physics. Carmody, for all his faults, was a good in game tactician.

I also don’t think Collins is terrible in that regard. I just think Collins is terrible at talent identification, doesn’t know how to build a team, is mediocre at best at player development, and runs a below average program.

Talent identification and building a team/roster - 2 major areas where CC has fumbled after his initial 2 classes (the 2nd pretty much just hitting on Pardon).

Carmody was TERRIBLE at defensive adjustments. TERRIBLE. There was a game against Lickliter's 10-win Iowa team where it was clear that Iowa had prepared very well for the 1-3-1 zone and they blew NU out of the water with open shot after open shot. Carmody had no answer, no adjustments on defense; NU ran the 1-3-1 and they would die by it, damn it. A competent man-to-man defense would have stopped them. But Carmody's teams lacked the toughness to play man because he was too enamored with schemes.

It wasn't that he was enamored with schemes, it was that he didn't think he had the athletic talent to play man. He said as much on more than one occasion in interviews/pressers. I remember one in particular where he said something like "every coach would play man if they could."

Won't argue with you about defensive adjustments, though. That was not his strong suit, to put it kindly.

Pretty much this...

Altho, Carmody finally had a roster to play some man during his ill-fated last season (Crawford, Swop, Cobb, Hearn, Lumpkin and Demps).

Injuries, etc. to Crawford, Cobb, Swop, Lumpkin, etc. pretty much did away with that season.

But granted, BC's forte was on the other side.

At the same time, there were games when CC should have switched to the 1-3-1, but he didn't or did so too late.

Speaking of up-tempo, that's what CC tried to run with his first NU squad (Crawford, Olah, Cobb, etc), and it took him a while to realize that just tired his starters out (esp. as playing tough D was a team focus) when there wasn't much depth behind them.

BC had several teams that could/should have made the Tourney, but he never had quite the depth to make up for the inevitable injuries.

Coble, the Shurna (high ankle sprain), Cobb, Crawford, etc.

He did have a pretty good run of consecutive recruiting classes with an impact player.

Coble, Juice, Shurna, Crawford and Cobb.

Unfortunately, he couldn't ever seem to get 2 in a class, or a true difference maker at the 5 (Olah ended up being an above average center).

If BC had Pardon on those teams, would have been a different story (which is why regard Pardon as being CC's most important recruit).

Can you imagine a team with Juice, Shurna, Crawford, Cobb and Pardon?

Or Crawford, Swop, Cobb, Hearn and Pardon?

The latter one would be all plus defenders on the starting 5.

 

[Katatonic]

Lumpkin was a significant contributor on the tourney team. He improved a lot, particularly in his final year, and became an efficient (but limited) offensive player. He brought toughness to the team, was a good rebounder and could guard multiple positions. Before his final year, he was more of a luxury that only a team with multiple offensive weapons could afford to play much. It's hard to play a guy 30 minutes who is contributing 3 or 4 points a game, especially since he didn't generate a lot of steals or blocks and wasn't a dominant rebounder. The tourney team needed all the pieces to succeed. Even I. Brown made significant contributions in a few games.

And because he never had any depth when he was coaching at NU, there were never any debates about who should be playing like today. He had 5-7 guys each year at best who were B1G quality players and he had to play them as much as he could. A certain poster keeps talking about lineups and how Collins is the dumbest coach in America because of who he plays. And Carmody was such a great tactician. Like you said, he rarely made any in-game adjustments. He recruited some really good players - just not enough of them. Substitute Shurna, VV or Coble for Kopp or Beran last year and we would have had a very good year. The Shurna, Thompson, Crawford, Marcotullio team was very talented offensively. When they lost in the NIT in overtime, Thompson and Shurna played the entire game (you read correctly) and Marcotullio and Crawford played 42 and 43 minutes. Curletti played 12 minutes, Cobb played 4 and Capocci played 1 minute. If in-game coaching is primarily about exploiting matchups, Carmody didn't do much in-game coaching most seasons.

Without Lumpkin, alone, highly doubt that team would have made the Tourney, and maybe even without just Tap (the margin of error was that slim), but definitely without both of them (Lumpkin and Tap complemented each other).

Where both excelled that Tourney season was efficiency on O.

Sanjay had a .558 FG % and Tap .473 (.470 from 3).

Lumpkin also avg'd 5.4 rbds/gm - per 40 minutes translates to 7.8 per game.

Not much lower than Law's 5.8 rbds/gm, which over 40 mins was lower than Sanjay at 7.3.

Law's FG % was .403.

Lindsay was at .424 and BMac at .404.

While Sanjay and Tap weren't volume scorers individually (they combined for an avg of 10.5 ppg), their higher efficiency made a difference in close games.

Think you're underestimating Lumpkin's rebounding prowess (Pardon led the team at 10.4 per 40 min, followed by Lumpkin at 7.8), and Lumpkin and Law had the same blocking stat over 40 min.

 

[clarificationcat]

Without Lumpkin, alone, highly doubt that team would have made the Tourney, and maybe even without just Tap (the margin of error was that slim), but definitely without both of them (Lumpkin and Tap complemented each other).

Where both excelled that Tourney season was efficiency on O.

Sanjay had a .558 FG % and Tap .473 (.470 from 3).

Lumpkin also avg'd 5.4 rbds/gm - per 40 minutes translates to 7.8 per game.

Not much lower than Law's 5.8 rbds/gm, which over 40 mins was lower than Sanjay at 7.3.

Law's FG % was .403.

Lindsay was at .424 and BMac at .404.

While Sanjay and Tap weren't volume scorers individually (they combined for an avg of 10.5 ppg), their higher efficiency made a difference in close games.

Think you're underestimating Lumpkin's rebounding prowess (Pardon led the team at 10.4 per 40 min, followed by Lumpkin at 7.8), and Lumpkin and Law had the same blocking stat over 40 min.

Lumpkin was a 4. He is supposed to be one of our top 2 rebounders. That’s his job. He was not exceptional at it. Law was a wing and often guarded the other team’s quickest player. He was a great rebounder for his position and a great defender. Lumpkin was not a good shot blocker and didn’t generate a lot of steals. He was a good defender who could guard multiple positions, which was very valuable. And like I said, he became an efficient scorer in his last season. It’s also a lot easier to be efficient when you only take wide open shots generated by your teammates. For most of his career, Lumpkin was a huge offensive liability, especially in conference games.

 

[Sec.112]

Without Lumpkin, alone, highly doubt that team would have made the Tourney, and maybe even without just Tap (the margin of error was that slim), but definitely without both of them (Lumpkin and Tap complemented each other).

Where both excelled that Tourney season was efficiency on O.

Sanjay had a .558 FG % and Tap .473 (.470 from 3).

This annual need to build the Lumpkin myth and turn him into something he wasn't is forever perplexing.

You're really going to start the Lumpkin discussion with FG%? There an OBVIOUS reason he took 10+ shots per conference game than Law, Lindsey and McIntosh. So let's stop pretending he was similar to other players with some untapped potential on offense. That FG% takes a nose dive if the team depends on him for 10+ more shots per game.

The rest of the 40 m/game arguments don't matter if he can't get on the court because the offense is so mediocre.

I'm sure we're in ballpark that Lumpkin couldn't be replaced, so let's look at the conference stats AGAIN of Lumpkin's senior year and Gaines sophomore year.

Lumpkin (senior season)
5.1 p/game
28% from 3 (25 attempts)
62% FT (29 attempts)
67% from 2 (39 attempts)
9.3 TRB%
500 mins
9 steals
84 rebounds
4 blocks
11 turnovers
.105 win shares/40m
103.1 defensive rating

Gaines ('18-'19)
11 p/game
25% from 3 (36 attempts)
80% FT (65 attempts)
36% from 2 (88 attempts)
10.2 TRB%
527 mins
17 steals
94 rebounds
8 blocks
17 turnovers
.089 win shares/40m
102.1 defensive rating

Let's add a little something to it and see how Gaines did last year ... much of the same role for a bad team.

Gaines ('20-'21)
4 p/game
33% from 3 (24 attempts)
72% FT (22 attempts)
50% from 2 (36 attempts)
11.0 TRB%
409 mins
10 steals
74 rebounds
5 blocks
15 turnovers
.059 win shares/40m
108.4 defensive rating

If you don't see similar stats, I can't help you.

We can go ahead and compare Lumpkin's sophomore numbers to Gaines? One hint: Lumpkin's defensive rating was 112.7 in conference. Admittedly, the defensive number has a lot to do with the overall team.

I really don't want to start calling Lumpkin the most overrated player on this board. I don't want to do that to him. ClarificationCat nails his scouting report above without all the mythology.

I'm sorry, but Lumpkin was "a guy" ... one who developed to be decent at what he did for one season. Within two years, NU had a similar player.

 

[Sec.112]

And while I'm straightening out some of the silliness in this thread, do we really need the Billy C/Collins comparison? It's been eight years. I can't believe we're still trying to compare to the "lofty standards" of Billy C.

Carmody was below .400 in the Patriot League. You think that might tell you something about where he was when he was bounced out of NU.

It took him five years to understand that the B10 is not the Ivy League and you actually need players bigger than 6-8.

It took him several years (and probably Tavaras Hardy) before he put any value in rebounding or defense. I could go on and on.

But somehow, in the mind of this brilliant fan base, this is another myth that lives on.

The man coached 19 years after his two Carril-recruited Princeton tourney teams. What solid, on-court evidence is there that he was stunningly better than most other coaches? Maybe for a day or two. But at some point, somewhere in those 19 years, doesn't he need to have a program that was better than many other teams for a sizable period of time to have a strong reputation?

Comparing Collins to Carmody is like two neighbors arguing who's garbage smells worse. Can we accept both are average - at best - (hopefully CC proves otherwise) and move along?

 

[GatoLouco]

This annual need to build the Lumpkin myth and turn him into something he wasn't is forever perplexing.

You're really going to start the Lumpkin discussion with FG%? There an OBVIOUS reason he took 10+ shots per conference game than Law, Lindsey and McIntosh. So let's stop pretending he was similar to other players with some untapped potential on offense. That FG% takes a nose dive if the team depends on him for 10+ more shots per game.

What do you expect? His absence was one of the difference between the tournament team and the post tournament team.

So folks will want to find reasons:
- Lumpkin/Taphorn - even though Tap played significantly less - pointing out they were both recruited by BC!
-All-State OMG!
-Injuries - for reference, during tournament season, Lindsey and Pardon missed 12 games combined, in a total of 36 games: 33.3%. The following season Law and McIntosh missed 8 of 32: 25%.

Lumpkin was very good to us. But hyping him the way we do is just a consequence of our downfall and trying to find why it happened. And the explanation was in the off season following the tournament, I am quite confident of that.

 

[GatoLouco]

And while I'm straightening out some of the silliness in this thread, do we really need the Billy C/Collins comparison? It's been eight years. I can't believe we're still trying to compare to the "lofty standards" of Billy C.

Carmody was below .400 in the Patriot League. You think that might tell you something about where he was when he was bounced out of NU.

It took him five years to understand that the B10 is not the Ivy League and you actually need players bigger than 6-8.

It took him several years (and probably Tavaras Hardy) before he put any value in rebounding or defense. I could go on and on.

But somehow, in the mind of this brilliant fan base, this is another myth that lives on.

The man coached 19 years after his two Carril-recruited Princeton tourney teams. What solid, on-court evidence is there that he was stunningly better than most other coaches? Maybe for a day or two. But at some point, somewhere in those 19 years, doesn't he need to have a program that was better than many other teams for a sizable period of time to have a strong reputation?

Comparing Collins to Carmody is like two neighbors arguing who's garbage smells worse. Can we accept both are average - at best - (hopefully CC proves otherwise) and move along?

BC being good or bad has nothing to do with CC being good or bad. And vice versa.

 

[NUCat320]

It’s easier to believe that Lumpkin was the difference than to believe that the team went from final four prediction to crap because a) they had to take a bus to home games and b) they believed the final four prediction crap and c) two starters apparently didn’t like each other* and d) their coach couldn’t get those two to work together.

*I’ve inferred over the years that McIntosh and Lindsey didn’t like each other.

Basically, Lumpkin and Taphorn get disproportionate credit because “didn’t try hard enough and didn’t care enough to put their shit aside” really feels crappy to acknowledge.

 

[CappyNU]

It’s easier to believe that Lumpkin was the difference than to believe that the team went from final four prediction to crap because a) they had to take a bus to home games and b) they believed the final four prediction crap and c) two starters apparently didn’t like each other* and d) their coach couldn’t get those two to work together.

*I’ve inferred over the years that McIntosh and Lindsey didn’t like each other.

Basically, Lumpkin and Taphorn get disproportionate credit because “didn’t try hard enough and didn’t care enough to put their shit aside” really feels crappy to acknowledge.

Also BMac was never fully himself after the injury he suffered in the final nonconference game against Brown, though the team was already struggling well before that.

 

[GatoLouco]

Also BMac was never fully himself after the injury he suffered in the final nonconference game against Brown, though the team was already struggling well before that.

I was worried when the team allowed 92 points, at "home", against Creighton. Not so much because we lost, but because we had been tough on D the year before. In subsequent non-conference games, we allowed 85 from Texas Tech and 104 from Oklahoma.

 

[FeralFelidae]

I was worried when the team allowed 92 points, at "home", against Creighton. Not so much because we lost, but because we had been tough on D the year before. In subsequent non-conference games, we allowed 85 from Texas Tech and 104 from Oklahoma.

We caught Oklahoma at the worst possible time, at peak "Trae Young" when they were blowing everybody out of the water, before anybody figured out how to stop him. They made it into the top 5 in the rankings before they were figured out.

85 from that Elite Eight Texas Tech isn't anything to be ashamed about. Losing by over 30, though, I guess shows that we clearly weren't in their league that season.

 

[Catreporter]

McIntosh injury was a killer. Probably a borderline NIT team if he doesn't get hurt. I think they still were 15-10 when he went down for the second time (at Maryland) and then they proceeded to lose the last seven, including the game where they blew a 24-point halftime lead vs. MSU.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Just for fun, NU's longest losing streak and Big Ten record by season

2000-01 --- 8 --- 3-13 Carmody's first season at NU
2001-02 --- 4 --- 7-9
2002-03 --- 7 --- 3-13
2003-04 --- 4 --- 8-8
2004-05 --- 4 --- 6-10
2005-06 --- 4 --- 6-10
2006-07 --- 5 --- 2-14
2007-08 --- 7 --- 1-17 non-conference games break losing streaks
2008-09 --- 4 --- 8-10 NIT Shurna, Mirkovic play as freshmen
2009-10 --- 2 --- 7-11 NIT
2010-11 --- 3 --- 7-11 NIT
2011-12 --- 3 --- 8-10 NIT
2012-13 --- 9 --- 4-14 Carmody's last season, 9 game losing streak

2013-14 --- 7 --- 6-12 Collins' first season at NU
2014-15 --- 10 --- 6-12 Talented team somehow loses 10 straight
2015-16 --- 5 --- 8-10 no NIT despite 20-12 record? Good talent.
2016-17 --- 2 --- 10-8 NCAA
2017-18 --- 7 --- 6-12
2018-19 --- 10 --- 4-14
2019-20 --- 12 --- 3-17
2020-21 --- 13 --- 6-13

The 2014-15 season is interesting in that there were so many quality players on the roster. Tre Demps and Alex Olah led the team in scoring as juniors, while Bryant McIntosh averaged 11.4 ppg as a freshman. Freshmen Vic Law, Scottie Lindsey and Gavin Skelly played alongside Dave Sobolewski, Nathan Taphorn, Sanjay Lumpkin and Jershon Cobb. Only Skelly played less than 10 minutes per game (7 mpg). And yet we lost 10 straight.

In 2015-16, Dererk Pardon and Aaron Falzon arrived, Sobolewski and Cobb left, Vic Law missed the season due to injury and we didnt make the NIT, despite the talent on the roster. We lost 5 straight in January, including back to back 30 point annihilations by Indiana and Michigan State.

We have had a losing streak of at least 5 games in 7 of Chris Collins' 8 years running the team.
We have had a losing streak of at least 7 games in 6 of Chris Collins' 8 years running the team.

 

[ColumbusCatFan1]

What do you expect? His absence was one of the difference between the tournament team and the post tournament team.

So folks will want to find reasons:
- Lumpkin/Taphorn - even though Tap played significantly less - pointing out they were both recruited by BC!
-All-State OMG!
-Injuries - for reference, during tournament season, Lindsey and Pardon missed 12 games combined, in a total of 36 games: 33.3%. The following season Law and McIntosh missed 8 of 32: 25%.

Lumpkin was very good to us. But hyping him the way we do is just a consequence of our downfall and trying to find why it happened. And the explanation was in the off season following the tournament, I am quite confident of that.

Great post.

Sanjay was a very important member of the 2016-17 squad for a couple of
reasons (which have been discussed plenty), however, if that squad did not have BMac, Law, Pardon, or Lindsay on the roster, the ‘Cats are not in a position to be thinking NCAA tournament. Now it’s very possible that team doesn’t nab a bid without Lumpkin in the fold either (NU’s margins are incredibly slim), but his graduation certainly was not a driving factor in the team’s regression during the 2017-18 campaign.

It’s important not let one or two posters drive a narrative (one way or another)/get sucked into hyperbolic replies to said posters. Sanjay was a fun player to watch and a great representative of the university. I appreciate his contributions to program. Seems easy enough to leave it at that, regardless of how interesting statistical analysis can be at times.

 

[Sec.112]

... Sanjay was a fun player to watch and a great representative of the university. I appreciate his contributions to program.

I'd assume a great leader for that group as well as a valuable defensive piece of the team.

 

[Katatonic]

Lumpkin was a 4. He is supposed to be one of our top 2 rebounders. That’s his job. He was not exceptional at it. Law was a wing and often guarded the other team’s quickest player. He was a great rebounder for his position and a great defender. Lumpkin was not a good shot blocker and didn’t generate a lot of steals. He was a good defender who could guard multiple positions, which was very valuable. And like I said, he became an efficient scorer in his last season. It’s also a lot easier to be efficient when you only take wide open shots generated by your teammates. For most of his career, Lumpkin was a huge offensive liability, especially in conference games.

Only by necessity.

Lumpkin was a wing who played as an undersized 4; even after he bulked up (which was difficult for him to do since he was naturally lanky), he had less mass than the typical B1G 4, much less height.

So being the 2nd best rebounder (per 40 mins) is even more impressive.

Didn't you just downplay Sanjay's rebounding prowess in your prior post? Lol

You can't have it both ways.

Lumpkin had the same shot blocking per 40 as Law.

You don't think Lumpkin playing the 4 at 6-6 had a little something to do with not having more blocked shots?

Vic, otoh, was about avg,, if not above, in height for a 3.

During the time Pardon was out with injury, the Cats managed to scrape by Chicago (68-64) and Dayton. (67-64).

Sanjay went 9 pts/11 rbds and 14/14 in those games.

You think the Cats win either one without Lumpkin?

In the home win against IU (where Pardon was nursing another injury and in 24 mins scored 0 points), Sanjay made up for the lack of production from Pardon and scored 15 pts.

This annual need to build the Lumpkin myth and turn him into something he wasn't is forever perplexing.

You're really going to start the Lumpkin discussion with FG%? There an OBVIOUS reason he took 10+ shots per conference game than Law, Lindsey and McIntosh. So let's stop pretending he was similar to other players with some untapped potential on offense. That FG% takes a nose dive if the team depends on him for 10+ more shots per game.

I really don't want to start calling Lumpkin the most overrated player on this board. I don't want to do that to him. ClarificationCat nails his scouting report above without all the mythology.

I'm sorry, but Lumpkin was "a guy" ... one who developed to be decent at what he did for one season. Within two years, NU had a similar player.

My simply stating that the Cats would have missed out on the Tourney that year is not over-hyping Sanjay, but just stating reality.

This doesn't mean that Sanjay was the most important part of the team (maybe except from a leadership standpoint) as taking away any one of Pardon, BMac, Law or Lindsay would have had the same effect - no Dance.

Arguably, one can make a case that no Tap or Skelly would also mean no Tourney (the margin for error was that slim).

That Tourney team had balance on the scoring end - taking the other 4 starters and the Lumpkin/Tap combo, each spot saw double-digit scoring (but the core of that Tourney team was still its D, with Pardon manning the paint and the 3 wings defending the perimeter).

As for the Gaines comparison, he wasn't as valuable on the defensive end as he didn't have the versatility to defend all 5 positions and wasn't the leader Sanjay was.

And despite playing with a roster with multiple 4* recruits, the teams with Gaines haven't been able to even sniff the NIT, much less the NCAA (to be fair, that's more a CC issue).

It's bemusing to see the same old, same old trying to downplay Sanjay's contribution and value to that Tourney team, esp. since it's something CC would never do.

Exactly the same reason why I pushed back when the cabal predicted that Lumpkin would lose his starting spot and see his playing time deeply diminished (didn't exactly work out that way, did it?).

 

[willycat]

Only by necessity.

Lumpkin was a wing who played as an undersized 4; even after he bulked up (which was difficult for him to do since he was naturally lanky), he had less mass than the typical B1G 4, much less height.

So being the 2nd best rebounder (per 40 mins) is even more impressive.

Didn't you just downplay Sanjay's rebounding prowess in your prior post? Lol

You can't have it both ways.

Lumpkin had the same shot blocking per 40 as Law.

You don't think Lumpkin playing the 4 at 6-6 had a little something to do with not having more blocked shots?

Vic, otoh, was about avg,, if not above, in height for a 3.

During the time Pardon was out with injury, the Cats managed to scrape by Chicago (68-64) and Dayton. (67-64).

Sanjay went 9 pts/11 rbds and 14/14 in those games.

You think the Cats win either one without Lumpkin?

In the home win against IU (where Pardon was nursing another injury and in 24 mins scored 0 points), Sanjay made up for the lack of production from Pardon and scored 15 pts.






My simply stating that the Cats would have missed out on the Tourney that year is not over-hyping Sanjay, but just stating reality.

This doesn't mean that Sanjay was the most important part of the team (maybe except from a leadership standpoint) as taking away any one of Pardon, BMac, Law or Lindsay would have had the same effect - no Dance.

Arguably, one can make a case that no Tap or Skelly would also mean no Tourney (the margin for error was that slim).

That Tourney team had balance on the scoring end - taking the other 4 starters and the Lumpkin/Tap combo, each spot saw double-digit scoring (but the core of that Tourney team was still its D, with Pardon manning the paint and the 3 wings defending the perimeter).

As for the Gaines comparison, he wasn't as valuable on the defensive end as he didn't have the versatility to defend all 5 positions and wasn't the leader Sanjay was.

And despite playing with a roster with multiple 4* recruits, the teams with Gaines haven't been able to even sniff the NIT, much less the NCAA (to be fair, that's more a CC issue).

It's bemusing to see the same old, same old trying to downplay Sanjay's contribution and value to that Tourney team, esp. since it's something CC would never do.

Exactly the same reason why I pushed back when the cabal predicted that Lumpkin would lose his starting spot and see his playing time deeply diminished (didn't exactly work out that way, did it?).

So CC would bench Lumpkin. Got it. NOT!

Only by necessity.

Lumpkin was a wing who played as an undersized 4; even after he bulked up (which was difficult for him to do since he was naturally lanky), he had less mass than the typical B1G 4, much less height.

So being the 2nd best rebounder (per 40 mins) is even more impressive.

Didn't you just downplay Sanjay's rebounding prowess in your prior post? Lol

You can't have it both ways.

Lumpkin had the same shot blocking per 40 as Law.

You don't think Lumpkin playing the 4 at 6-6 had a little something to do with not having more blocked shots?

Vic, otoh, was about avg,, if not above, in height for a 3.

During the time Pardon was out with injury, the Cats managed to scrape by Chicago (68-64) and Dayton. (67-64).

Sanjay went 9 pts/11 rbds and 14/14 in those games.

You think the Cats win either one without Lumpkin?

In the home win against IU (where Pardon was nursing another injury and in 24 mins scored 0 points), Sanjay made up for the lack of production from Pardon and scored 15 pts.






My simply stating that the Cats would have missed out on the Tourney that year is not over-hyping Sanjay, but just stating reality.

This doesn't mean that Sanjay was the most important part of the team (maybe except from a leadership standpoint) as taking away any one of Pardon, BMac, Law or Lindsay would have had the same effect - no Dance.

Arguably, one can make a case that no Tap or Skelly would also mean no Tourney (the margin for error was that slim).

That Tourney team had balance on the scoring end - taking the other 4 starters and the Lumpkin/Tap combo, each spot saw double-digit scoring (but the core of that Tourney team was still its D, with Pardon manning the paint and the 3 wings defending the perimeter).

As for the Gaines comparison, he wasn't as valuable on the defensive end as he didn't have the versatility to defend all 5 positions and wasn't the leader Sanjay was.

And despite playing with a roster with multiple 4* recruits, the teams with Gaines haven't been able to even sniff the NIT, much less the NCAA (to be fair, that's more a CC issue).

It's bemusing to see the same old, same old trying to downplay Sanjay's contribution and value to that Tourney team, esp. since it's something CC would never do.

Exactly the same reason why I pushed back when the cabal predicted that Lumpkin would lose his starting spot and see his playing time deeply diminished (didn't exactly work out that way, did it?).

 

[clarificationcat]

Only by necessity.

Lumpkin was a wing who played as an undersized 4; even after he bulked up (which was difficult for him to do since he was naturally lanky), he had less mass than the typical B1G 4, much less height.

So being the 2nd best rebounder (per 40 mins) is even more impressive.

Didn't you just downplay Sanjay's rebounding prowess in your prior post? Lol

You can't have it both ways.

Lumpkin had the same shot blocking per 40 as Law.

You don't think Lumpkin playing the 4 at 6-6 had a little something to do with not having more blocked shots?

Vic, otoh, was about avg,, if not above, in height for a 3.

During the time Pardon was out with injury, the Cats managed to scrape by Chicago (68-64) and Dayton. (67-64).

Sanjay went 9 pts/11 rbds and 14/14 in those games.

You think the Cats win either one without Lumpkin?

In the home win against IU (where Pardon was nursing another injury and in 24 mins scored 0 points), Sanjay made up for the lack of production from Pardon and scored 15 pts.






My simply stating that the Cats would have missed out on the Tourney that year is not over-hyping Sanjay, but just stating reality.

This doesn't mean that Sanjay was the most important part of the team (maybe except from a leadership standpoint) as taking away any one of Pardon, BMac, Law or Lindsay would have had the same effect - no Dance.

Arguably, one can make a case that no Tap or Skelly would also mean no Tourney (the margin for error was that slim).

That Tourney team had balance on the scoring end - taking the other 4 starters and the Lumpkin/Tap combo, each spot saw double-digit scoring (but the core of that Tourney team was still its D, with Pardon manning the paint and the 3 wings defending the perimeter).

As for the Gaines comparison, he wasn't as valuable on the defensive end as he didn't have the versatility to defend all 5 positions and wasn't the leader Sanjay was.

And despite playing with a roster with multiple 4* recruits, the teams with Gaines haven't been able to even sniff the NIT, much less the NCAA (to be fair, that's more a CC issue).

It's bemusing to see the same old, same old trying to downplay Sanjay's contribution and value to that Tourney team, esp. since it's something CC would never do.

Exactly the same reason why I pushed back when the cabal predicted that Lumpkin would lose his starting spot and see his playing time deeply diminished (didn't exactly work out that way, did it?).

I must confess that I don't understand the point of your post. Sanjay played the 4. That was his position. It doesn't matter why. He wasn't skilled offensively enough to get many minutes at any other position. A power forward is expected to rebound because they frequently guard guys around the basket and are in a better position to defensive rebound than guys running around on the perimeter. They also have more opportunities to block shots helping down low. They are supposed to be tall. Sanjay was a pretty good rebounder and not a good shot blocker for his position. That seems pretty straight forward. I didn't know we were grading on a curve. Do less athletic guys get extra points on your scale because they are not as quick and can't jump as high ("he's a a phenomenal rebounder for a 6'1" guy that can't jump!")?

Two guys that Carmody recruited helped Collins take a team to the tournament in his 4th season as coach (something never accomplished before). Do folks think that is surprising or somehow diminishes the accomplishment?

 

[docrugby1]

I thought this thread was interesting until it turned into the age old anti BC opinions. I believe the talent CC has recruited was far better than the talent BC brought to NU. BC rarely had a team with two B1G level talent players. He had no depth, lacked athleticism and had very little size on most of his teams. Olah, was almost 7' but played like he was 6'7"-nice skills but as mobile as a telephone pole. Yet BC was able to be competitive and occasionally beat far superior teams. .BC was criticized for NU's lack of offensive rebounding but in reality NU couldn't defensively rebound either. NU would fall back to try and prevent transition baskets, a far better strategy than ineffectively trying to rebound when the physical/.athletic mismatches were impossible to overcome

BC was hamstrung by poor facilities and lack of administrative support. JP was never a big BC fan.

I hope CC can finally develop an offense that generates quality shots for the level of talent he has recruited. BC did the best he could with the talent available. If CC can do the same this controversy will finally disappear

If there was a coaching clinic and there were 2 rooms with ongoing lectures-one with BC and the other with CC. Which room do you think would have more coaches attending ?

 

[willycat]

I thought this thread was interesting until it turned into the age old anti BC opinions. I believe the talent CC has recruited was far better than the talent BC brought to NU. BC rarely had a team with two B1G level talent players. He had no depth, lacked athleticism and had very little size on most of his teams. Olah, was almost 7' but played like he was 6'7"-nice skills but as mobile as a telephone pole. Yet BC was able to be competitive and occasionally beat far superior teams. .BC was criticized for NU's lack of offensive rebounding but in reality NU couldn't defensively rebound either. NU would fall back to try and prevent transition baskets, a far better strategy than ineffectively trying to rebound when the physical/.athletic mismatches were impossible to overcome

BC was hamstrung by poor facilities and lack of administrative support. JP was never a big BC fan.

I hope CC can finally develop an offense that generates quality shots for the level of talent he has recruited. BC did the best he could with the talent available. If CC can do the same this controversy will finally disappear

If there was a coaching clinic and there were 2 rooms with ongoing lectures-one with BC and the other with CC. Which room do you think would have more coaches attending ?

Likely the one where the younger coach was lecturing. At least we can agree that Carmody didn't recruit very well and actually seemed uninterested .

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I thought this thread was interesting until it turned into the age old anti BC opinions. I believe the talent CC has recruited was far better than the talent BC brought to NU. BC rarely had a team with two B1G level talent players. He had no depth, lacked athleticism and had very little size on most of his teams. Olah, was almost 7' but played like he was 6'7"-nice skills but as mobile as a telephone pole. Yet BC was able to be competitive and occasionally beat far superior teams. .BC was criticized for NU's lack of offensive rebounding but in reality NU couldn't defensively rebound either. NU would fall back to try and prevent transition baskets, a far better strategy than ineffectively trying to rebound when the physical/.athletic mismatches were impossible to overcome

BC was hamstrung by poor facilities and lack of administrative support. JP was never a big BC fan.

I hope CC can finally develop an offense that generates quality shots for the level of talent he has recruited. BC did the best he could with the talent available. If CC can do the same this controversy will finally disappear

If there was a coaching clinic and there were 2 rooms with ongoing lectures-one with BC and the other with CC. Which room do you think would have more coaches attending ?

If 100 college coaches showed up, 90 would listen to BC, 10 would listen to CC. Midway thru the presentations it would be 95-5.

Have to disagree with your assessment of Olah somewhat. Yes he was slow, quite slow, lumbering up and down the court. But he was more intimidating than you give him credit.
Using conference games only, here are the numbers per 40 minutes. For Pardon and Olah I used their last 2 seasons. For Nance and Young, I only used last year. (points, rebounds, blocks, assists)

Olah 17.4 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 2.1 bpg, 2.3 apg
Pardon 14.8 ppg, 8.65 rpg, 1.8 bpg, 1.75 apg
Nance 16.5 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 0.9 bpg, 2.5 apg
Young 15.3 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 0.9 bpg, 2.6 apg

So Olah didnt rebound quite as well as the others, but he appears to have been the best at altering shots.

 

[willycat]

If 100 college coaches showed up, 90 would listen to BC, 10 would listen to CC. Midway thru the presentations it would be 95-5.

Have to disagree with your assessment of Olah somewhat. Yes he was slow, quite slow, lumbering up and down the court. But he was more intimidating than you give him credit.
Using conference games only, here are the numbers per 40 minutes. For Pardon and Olah I used their last 2 seasons. For Nance and Young, I only used last year. (points, rebounds, blocks, assists)

Olah 17.4 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 2.1 bpg, 2.3 apg
Pardon 14.8 ppg, 8.65 rpg, 1.8 bpg, 1.75 apg
Nance 16.5 ppg, 9.3 rpg, 0.9 bpg, 2.5 apg
Young 15.3 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 0.9 bpg, 2.6 apg

So Olah didnt rebound quite as well as the others, but he appears to have been the best at altering shots.

The problem with your thought, is that Carmody would fail to show up!

 

[CatJones]

You missed him; he came through the back door.

 

[Katatonic]

So CC would bench Lumpkin. Got it. NOT!

Weren't you one of those who predicted that Lumpkin's role and minutes would diminish significantly with all the talent CC was bringing in?

I must confess that I don't understand the point of your post. Sanjay played the 4. That was his position. It doesn't matter why. He wasn't skilled offensively enough to get many minutes at any other position. A power forward is expected to rebound because they frequently guard guys around the basket and are in a better position to defensive rebound than guys running around on the perimeter. They also have more opportunities to block shots helping down low. They are supposed to be tall. Sanjay was a pretty good rebounder and not a good shot blocker for his position. That seems pretty straight forward. I didn't know we were grading on a curve. Do less athletic guys get extra points on your scale because they are not as quick and can't jump as high ("he's a a phenomenal rebounder for a 6'1" guy that can't jump!")?

Two guys that Carmody recruited helped Collins take a team to the tournament in his 4th season as coach (something never accomplished before). Do folks think that is surprising or somehow diminishes the accomplishment?

He wasn't a good shot blocker because he was undersized at 6-6.

Who's to say that Law (taller frame, longer wingspan) couldn't have played the 4?

Swop did a pretty good job at that at a slight 210 lbs.

Lumpkin was actually the more prolific scorer of the 2 in high school.

Who's to say he wouldn't have been a decent scorer in his natural position as a 3/wing?

Can definitely see him as a Hearn type - using his physicality to bully past weaker opponents on the way to the basket.

By that same token - why wasn't Pardon a better rebounder and shot blocker at his position (he was pretty good, but wasn't "exceptional")?

Could it have been that he was also undersized for his position, altho his longer wingspan did make up for it a bit?

There's a reason why the 6-11 Esch is the career leader in rebounds and the 7 ft Olah, the career leader in block shots.

I thought this thread was interesting until it turned into the age old anti BC opinions. I believe the talent CC has recruited was far better than the talent BC brought to NU. BC rarely had a team with two B1G level talent players. He had no depth, lacked athleticism and had very little size on most of his teams.

BC had a pretty good run with his recruiting classes landing at least 1 B1G starting caliber player who made an impact as a frosh.

Coble, Juice, Shurna, Crawford and Cobb.

So his teams (during the consecutive NIT runs) had at least 3 B1G caliber players (you don't make the postseason out of the B1G without at least 3 such players).

But the problem was, you had players at various stages of their careers (Sr Juice, frosh Cobb) and when the inevitable injuries arose (only Juice out of the 5 was.able to avoid any prolonged//serious injury), there wasn't enough starter depth to make up for it).

We never got to see a team with Coble, Juice and Shurna, much less one with Coble, Juice, Shurna and Crawford (that would have been the most explosive Cats team in the modern era).

Even after Juice and Johnny graduated, the team with Crawford, Cobb, Hearn, Swop and Olah had the talent to make it to the Dance, esp. with the 4 non-centers being + defenders, but we all know how that season went down the drain.

Players like the aforementioned Hearn, Moore, Nash, Demps, Lumpkin, Olah, etc. became B1G caliber players as upperclassmen.

But the problem was still not having enough depth to overcome the inevitable injury bug.

That's where not having any classes with 2 immediate impact recruits hurts, or not having an athletic and skilled 5 like Pardon (like had stated, Pardon was the biggest difference-maker from prior teams).

 

[willycat]

Weren't you one of those who predicted that Lumpkin's role and minutes would diminish significantly with all the talent CC was bringing in?




He wasn't a good shot blocker because he was undersized at 6-6.

Who's to say that Law (taller frame, longer wingspan) couldn't have played the 4?

Swop did a pretty good job at that at a slight 210 lbs.

Lumpkin was actually the more prolific scorer of the 2 in high school.

Who's to say he wouldn't have been a decent scorer in his natural position as a 3/wing?

Can definitely see him as a Hearn type - using his physicality to bully past weaker opponents on the way to the basket.

By that same token - why wasn't Pardon a better rebounder and shot blocker at his position (he was pretty good, but wasn't "exceptional")?

Could it have been that he was also undersized for his position, altho his longer wingspan did make up for it a bit?

There's a reason why the 6-11 Esch is the career leader in rebounds and the 7 ft Olah, the career leader in block shots.




BC had a pretty good run with his recruiting classes landing at least 1 B1G starting caliber player who made an impact as a frosh.

Coble, Juice, Shurna, Crawford and Cobb.

So his teams (during the consecutive NIT runs) had at least 3 B1G caliber players (you don't make the postseason out of the B1G without at least 3 such players).

But the problem was, you had players at various stages of their careers (Sr Juice, frosh Cobb) and when the inevitable injuries arose (only Juice out of the 5 was.able to avoid any prolonged//serious injury), there wasn't enough starter depth to make up for it).

We never got to see a team with Coble, Juice and Shurna, much less one with Coble, Juice, Shurna and Crawford (that would have been the most explosive Cats team in the modern era).

Even after Juice and Johnny graduated, the team with Crawford, Cobb, Hearn, Swop and Olah had the talent to make it to the Dance, esp. with the 4 non-centers being + defenders, but we all know how that season went down the drain.

Players like the aforementioned Hearn, Moore, Nash, Demps, Lumpkin, Olah, etc. became B1G caliber players as upperclassmen.

But the problem was still not having enough depth to overcome the inevitable injury bug.

That's where not having any classes with 2 immediate impact recruits hurts, or not having an athletic and skilled 5 like Pardon (like had stated, Pardon was the biggest difference-maker from prior teams).

NO!

 

[Hungry Jack]

With all due respect, I never understand why sports debates on these boards start wandering into the realm of personal insults. It just seems so unnecessary. Gordie has consistently been a supporter of Collins. There's nothing wrong with that. Collins seems like a good guy overall. Now, I probably tend to come down on your side more in the should he stay or should he go debate. However, those of us who support moving on are mostly banking on the somewhat irrational thinking that if the status quo isn't good, then any change must be good.

None the less, let's stick to making basketball points and not personal ones, you big jerk! 😜

Fliping #&^! Reds' fans!

 

[TheC]

Fliping #&^! Reds' fans!

3rd place, baby!!

 

[EagerFan]

We never got to see a team with Coble, Juice, Shurna and Crawford

Man, I've always wanted to see that season.

 

[NUera]

This is the future. And if they produce a Top-5 pick this year, the flood gates will open.

I doubt it. G league isn’t on espn every night like the college blue bloods. The exposure could be worth millions when it comes to future endorsements.

G League Ignite is now mocked to have 2 of the top 5 picks. They’re only mocks, but if they play out it’s proof-of-concept that the college route isn’t necessary to be a high-end lottery pick.

 

[NUera]

Why would NIL destroy college sports?

Keep watching. The Supreme Court ruling, NCAA white flag waiving and wild west of cheap social media endorsements is only just the end of Act One.