How many post touches would Bagley and Carter get in the UNC system?

[bfowler991]

I know there's a Dook BC thread already going but I thought this may deserve its own thread.

Bagley had 4 shots (i think) in the second half. 3 of them were 3s. Carter seemed to hardly play. Duval and Gracie didn't get the ball in the paint at all. It's not like BC is stacked with future NBA front court players.

Meanwhile the heels look to feed the post almost every time down the court. Even without top level front court talent.

I think Bagley puts up 30-40 point games routinely in our system.

Why an elite big would choose Dook is beyond my understanding. Manley has been more productive than 5 star Bolden.

 

[pln2013]

Bagley has been absolutely dominant, with almost all of his points coming inside.

He'd've thrived here, but he's not the best example for the point you're trying to make.

 

[gary-7]

I know there's a Dook BC thread already going but I thought this may deserve its own thread.

Bagley had 4 shots (i think) in the second half. 3 of them were 3s. Carter seemed to hardly play. Duval and Gracie didn't get the ball in the paint at all. It's not like BC is stacked with future NBA front court players.

Meanwhile the heels look to feed the post almost every time down the court. Even without top level front court talent.

I think Bagley puts up 30-40 point games routinely in our system.

Why an elite big would choose Dook is beyond my understanding. Manley has been more productive than 5 star Bolden.

Bagley's a bad example because he gets touches, if only because he spends time on the perimeter there (and no, he wouldn't score 30+ PPG in our system), BUT you could easily quadruple Carter's touches... and that's on the conservative side.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Bagley would score 20-25 points in every system! DES isn't walking through that door so nobody could keep him below 20! Bagley would spend more time in the post in our system so he probably would get more freethrows and blocks! Carter, Jeter, and Delaurier are the ones who would see their production quadruple instantly if they were in our system! By now Delaurier wouldn't be such a giant goof and Jeter would be able to dribble and breathe at the same time! Carter would be an absolute beast by now at UNC!

That must be some delicious Rat-aid!

 

[gary-7]

Bagley would score 20-25 points in every system! DES isn't walking through that door so nobody could keep him below 20! Bagley would spend more time in the post in our system so he probably would get more freethrows and blocks! Carter, Jeter, and Delaurier are the ones who would see their production quadruple instantly if they were in our system! By now Delaurier wouldn't be such a giant goof and Jeter would be able to dribble and breathe at the same time! Carter would be an absolute beast by now at UNC!

That must be some delicious Rat-aid!

DES never kept anyone below 20 . C'mon man.

 

[TPFKAPFS]

Just a reference to the Old urban legend that DES was the only person to hold MJ below 20! (supposed to get a lol)

(reading me you all know the respect I have for DES!)

 

[carolinablue34]

Yeah other than one half in BC, Bagleys getting all the touches he wants lol

 

[gunslingerdick]

Bagley has been absolutely dominant, with almost all of his points coming inside.

He'd've thrived here, but he's not the best example for the point you're trying to make.

But Bagley is going and getting the ball himself. I've watched duke play in 3 separate games (I haven't watched a full game yet) and they don't make a point of going inside to him. Or at least when I've watched they haven't. Most of the points I've seen him get were off offensive rebounds or garbage buckets of some sort that he made happen. They were not points off designed plays to get the ball down low to him. So the OP makes a good point. Bagley might not be the poster boy for this knock on duke but he's at least some evidence.

The bottom line is that Carter and Bagley are capable of being so dominant that they should be options 1 and 2 EVERY TIME DOWN THE FLOOR until the defense adjusts. At Carolina, they would be.

But the flip side of this is that both are average defenders at best. And they wouldn't be on the floor for 36-38 minutes per game under Roy playing that matador defense. This is what you get with OAD phenoms that have been groomed in AAU ball. No thanks.

 

[gary-7]

But Bagley is going and getting the ball himself. I've watched duke play in 3 separate games (I haven't watched a full game yet) and they don't make a point of going inside to him. Or at least when I've watched they haven't. Most of the points I've seen him get were off offensive rebounds or garbage buckets of some sort that he made happen. They were not points off designed plays to get the ball down low to him. So the OP makes a good point. Bagley might not be the poster boy for this knock on duke but he's at least some evidence.

The bottom line is that Carter and Bagley are capable of being so dominant that they should be options 1 and 2 EVERY TIME DOWN THE FLOOR until the defense adjusts. At Carolina, they would be.

But the flip side of this is that both are average defenders at best. And they wouldn't be on the floor for 36-38 minutes per game under Roy playing that matador defense. This is what you get with OAD phenoms that have been groomed in AAU ball. No thanks.

Truth is, there's not a good individual defender on that roster. The only way they get away with playing any Man at all is vs untalented opponents, or the fact their Bigs can clean up some whiffs by protecting the rim.

They can put out a very "long" Zone, but good lord, that thing leaks like a sieve. Easy gap exploitation.

 

[bfowler991]

But Bagley is going and getting the ball himself. I've watched duke play in 3 separate games (I haven't watched a full game yet) and they don't make a point of going inside to him. Or at least when I've watched they haven't. Most of the points I've seen him get were off offensive rebounds or garbage buckets of some sort that he made happen. They were not points off designed plays to get the ball down low to him. So the OP makes a good point. Bagley might not be the poster boy for this knock on duke but he's at least some evidence.

The bottom line is that Carter and Bagley are capable of being so dominant that they should be options 1 and 2 EVERY TIME DOWN THE FLOOR until the defense adjusts. At Carolina, they would be.

But the flip side of this is that both are average defenders at best. And they wouldn't be on the floor for 36-38 minutes per game under Roy playing that matador defense. This is what you get with OAD phenoms that have been groomed in AAU ball. No thanks.

This is the point I was trying to make. Bag gets plenty of touches but often on the perimeter and not traditional post ups on the block.

I get that he's probably trying to show some peremiter skills to the NBA but he just seems like a dominant inside force not being utilized the way he could.

When hansbrough was here you knew that dude was getting it on the block almost every possession.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I get that he's probably trying to show some peremiter skills to the NBA but ....

Another peril in recruiting OAD kids - their desire to "show themselves" to NBA scouts every night out instead of playing team ball within the system. We're fortunate that the one potentially OAD kid we have coming in next year is Little and his game is not one that he'll need to "show off". His game is one that works well within a system and he doesn't need the ball in his hands to be effective. It's no surprise to me that he's the one OAD kid we've signed. I doubt that's a coincidence. I highly doubt Zion will be coming to Chapel Hill because of this very reason. Roy ain't letting guys use his games as an audition for the draft.

 

[Archer2]

Jeter, DeLauroer, and Carter would flourish in our system. When all is said and done, statistically speaking, we’ll get more out of our 3*’s Manley/Brooks/Huffman than they will out of their higher ranked trio.

Why? Because our guys will play meaningful minutes.

 

[carolinablue34]

Jeter, DeLauroer, and Carter would flourish in our system. When all is said and done, statistically speaking, we’ll get more out of our 3*’s Manley/Brooks/Huffman than they will out of their higher ranked trio.

Why? Because our guys will play meaningful minutes.

Well they’ll certainly be around longer. You can bet your ass Carter and Bagley are bolting to the league after a year which I admit is a paradox with OAD kids: not enough time to develop them into a coherent unit on the floor. Which is why I’ve always wanted OAD kids mixed with our 3-4 year players here at UNC. The problem is that getting to the NBA is more of a priority nowadays. It’s more important to top 10 kids.

 

[Archer2]

Well they’ll certainly be around longer. You can bet your ass Carter and Bagley are bolting to the league after a year which I admit is a paradox with OAD kids: not enough time to develop them into a coherent unit on the floor. Which is why I’ve always wanted OAD kids mixed with our 3-4 year players here at UNC. The problem is that getting to the NBA is more of a priority nowadays. It’s more important to top 10 kids.

I didn't include Bagley because he's obviously a OAD, and Carter may be one as well. As for the NBA being more of a priority these days, I get it. But if a kid just wants to do his mandatory one year of college ball, I'd as soon he do it some other place.Give me a 4* kid who's going to stay for 3-4 years over a one year wonder any day.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Well they’ll certainly be around longer. You can bet your ass Carter and Bagley are bolting to the league after a year which I admit is a paradox with OAD kids: not enough time to develop them into a coherent unit on the floor. Which is why I’ve always wanted OAD kids mixed with our 3-4 year players here at UNC. The problem is that getting to the NBA is more of a priority nowadays. It’s more important to top 10 kids.

But that’s the problem with even “mixing in” one OAD kid; you hamper the development of the entire unit - especially on defense - by trying to work a OAD kid up to speed. Or you do what Roy does and bring them along slowly by giving them limited minutes off the bench and then you get the label of “where top 10 kids go to die” and you hear all about how “Roy killed his draft status” by him coming off the bench and not being the star of the team.

It will be really interesting to see what happens with Little next year.

 

[superstar57]

First Bagley and Carter are looking pretty good in there current situation.

How would they look playing for us? Great because as was stated we always feed the post. Bagley 21 and 13 and Carter 12 and 9. We would push the pace constantly with those guys grabbing boards

 

[carolinablue34]

But that’s the problem with even “mixing in” one OAD kid; you hamper the development of the entire unit - especially on defense - by trying to work a OAD kid up to speed. Or you do what Roy does and bring them along slowly by giving them limited minutes off the bench and then you get the label of “where top 10 kids go to die” and you hear all about how “Roy killed his draft status” by him coming off the bench and not being the star of the team.

It will be really interesting to see what happens with Little next year.

GSD, you have a really weird aversion to OADs. Yes they can be hit or miss but are you going to turn down that kind of talent? Hell no. Brandan Wright was OAD, did he hamper team chemistry? Was Bradley or Marvin a detriment to the team? Lawson, Ellington and Barnes were all top 5 and started, and each had the potential to be one and done. Barnes would have were it not for the lockout that year.

My point is, sometimes a player is just that good. And make no mistake, Nassir Little is that good. You and others around here have to really get rid of the idea that anyone with that potential is automatically a detriment to team development.

 

[pln2013]

GSD, you have a really weird aversion to OADs. Yes they can be hit or miss but are you going to turn down that kind of talent? Hell no. Brandan Wright was OAD, did he hamper team chemistry? Was Bradley or Marvin a detriment to the team? Lawson, Ellington and Barnes were all top 5 and started, and each had the potential to be one and done. Barnes would have were it not for the lockout that year.

My point is, sometimes a player is just that good. And make no mistake, Nassir Little is that good. You and others around here have to really get rid of the idea that anyone with that potential is automatically a detriment to team development.

My outlook is this:

1) An elite OAD can be a tremendous asset. Someone like Bagley or Brandan Wright can plug a hole on an almost-complete team. E.g., add an elite C to this year's team and we're arguably the favorite. That's hopefully what Little will be --- he'll ideally step in and replace Theo's production (better in some ways, worse in others) on a team led by Williams, Maye, and Felton.

2) A non-elite OAD with a defined skill-set who plays within himself can helpful, too, though they're less ideal. Tony Bradley was a nice player to have, though we probably couldn't've relied on him if we hadn't had Meeks. If you get these players in years when you're not a real contender, it's basically wasted development.

3) An OAD without a defined skill-set who doesn't know how to fit in is potentially harmful. Think Jaylen Brown or Dejounte Murray - crazy tools, but didn't start putting them together until their 2nd years in the NBA (and still a ways to go for Murray).

 

[Archer2]

My outlook is this:

1) An elite OAD can be a tremendous asset. Someone like Bagley or Brandan Wright can plug a hole on an almost-complete team. E.g., add an elite C to this year's team and we're arguably the favorite. That's hopefully what Little will be --- he'll ideally step in and replace Theo's production (better in some ways, worse in others) on a team led by Williams, Maye, and Felton.

2) A non-elite OAD with a defined skill-set who plays within himself can helpful, too, though they're less ideal. Tony Bradley was a nice player to have, though we probably couldn't've relied on him if we hadn't had Meeks. If you get these players in years when you're not a real contender, it's basically wasted development.

3) An OAD without a defined skill-set who doesn't know how to fit in is potentially harmful. Think Jaylen Brown or Dejounte Murray - crazy tools, but didn't start putting them together until their 2nd years in the NBA (and still a ways to go for Murray).

Well stated. I concur.

 

[gunslingerdick]

GSD, you have a really weird aversion to OADs. Yes they can be hit or miss but are you going to turn down that kind of talent? Hell no. Brandan Wright was OAD, did he hamper team chemistry? Was Bradley or Marvin a detriment to the team? Lawson, Ellington and Barnes were all top 5 and started, and each had the potential to be one and done. Barnes would have were it not for the lockout that year.

My point is, sometimes a player is just that good. And make no mistake, Nassir Little is that good. You and others around here have to really get rid of the idea that anyone with that potential is automatically a detriment to team development.

First of all, BWright and Marv were before the OAD era in that guys went pro after one year but it certainly wasn't the same culture then as it is now where blue chip athletes know they're leaving after one year and are even vocal about their desire to leave as fast as they can. The current culture endorses a "gotta get mine" attitude with many blue chip athletes and a laissez faire outlook on defense and general team play.

Secondly, while BWright was a nice player, did he make us markedly better? Maybe. But I'm not sure we accomplished anything that season that we couldn't have without him.

Marv was the real deal, sure. A great player. He is what all OAD players should aspire to be - a bench player that's willing to learn behind established upperclassmen leadership and if he can step in and be a difference maker when called upon and people recognize his potential and want to select him in the NBA draft after one year, then so be it. But very few OAD players have the mindset of Marv - a true team first attitude and approach. More times than not these days, OAD players have been set on being OAD since they were in 8th grade when people on the AAU circuit started telling them that they're good enough to be OAD. And it often causes those players to develop bad habits and massive flaws in their games with regard to team play.

As far as Little goes, I hope he's a really good player. As I stated in another thread, he's a bit different that many potentially OAD players in that he's not a guy who's game is predicated on having the ball in his hands or getting a certain amount of shots. He likes playing defense and he's kind of a juiced up garbage man type player (Gerald Wallace-like). And as I've stated many times here, I don't believe he'll be OAD with us.

I don't automatically assume every OAD player is going to be a detriment to team ball. But I know Roy and I know our style of play and our program culture. And all of that is just not conducive to OAD players. It's just not. And when I look at what Roy has been able to do without OAD players, why would I desire to have them? In other words, they're not moving the needle for us as much as they might for another program. Why? Because our needle is already almost maxed out at the top. So why take the risk by bringing them in when we can probably accomplish as much or almost as much without them? That's all.

 

[gary-7]

My outlook is this:

1) An elite OAD can be a tremendous asset. Someone like Bagley or Brandan Wright can plug a hole on an almost-complete team. E.g., add an elite C to this year's team and we're arguably the favorite. That's hopefully what Little will be --- he'll ideally step in and replace Theo's production (better in some ways, worse in others) on a team led by Williams, Maye, and Felton.

2) A non-elite OAD with a defined skill-set who plays within himself can helpful, too, though they're less ideal. Tony Bradley was a nice player to have, though we probably couldn't've relied on him if we hadn't had Meeks. If you get these players in years when you're not a real contender, it's basically wasted development.

3) An OAD without a defined skill-set who doesn't know how to fit in is potentially harmful. Think Jaylen Brown or Dejounte Murray - crazy tools, but didn't start putting them together until their 2nd years in the NBA (and still a ways to go for Murray).

Agreed on all points here, except the distinction between "elite" contributions. For example, if say, Tony Bradley came in as a freshman THIS season he would be a huge addition and would start every game and make us even better than we are now. Last season, he was indeed a complementary piece behind Meeks and Hicks. Obviously, had he returned this season as a Soph that would have been huge, but he was still good enough as a frosh to impact a team that had that specific need. Last year we didn't have that need so much --- this season we do. In other words, much of it is timing.

Also, Jaylen Brown is a very good example of your 3rd point --- it's one I've used before --- and that is exactly why I was not keen on him coming here. I saw him play in HS, and while he's an exciting raw talent, he just wasn't gonna be polished enough as a college frosh at any one skill to help us --- and in fact, I believe his presence for one season would have actually been detrimental to our team, in that he's talent that would demand minutes but without the production to match.

 

[pln2013]

Agreed on all points here, except the distinction between "elite" contributions. For example, if say, Tony Bradley came in as a freshman THIS season he would be a huge addition and would start every game and make us even better than we are now. Last season, he was indeed a complementary piece behind Meeks and Hicks. Obviously, had he returned this season as a Soph that would have been huge, but he was still good enough as a frosh to impact a team that had that specific need. Last year we didn't have that need so much --- this season we do. In other words, much of it is timing.

Yeah, Bradley kinda straddles the elite/non-elite line because he was so solid in his limited role (grab every offensive board, protect the basket, occasionally score in the post). FR Bradley would be an awesome 3rd/4th option on this team.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Agreed on all points here, except the distinction between "elite" contributions. For example, if say, Tony Bradley came in as a freshman THIS season he would be a huge addition and would start every game and make us even better than we are now. Last season, he was indeed a complementary piece behind Meeks and Hicks. Obviously, had he returned this season as a Soph that would have been huge, but he was still good enough as a frosh to impact a team that had that specific need. Last year we didn't have that need so much --- this season we do. In other words, much of it is timing.
.

That's a great point.

 

[pln2013]

I'll always wonder how good the '12-'13 team could've been with a C like FR Bradley (or even better, SR Kennedy or Brice). Hairston-Bullock was lowkey one of the best wing pairings we've ever had. But that front court was awful. If that team had a dominant, efficient big, it could've made major noise.

 

[gunslingerdick]

I'll always wonder how good the '12-'13 team could've been with a C like FR Bradley (or even better, SR Kennedy or Brice). .

Just ask your buddy Kenpom. He knows all.

 

[pln2013]

Just ask your buddy Kenpom. He knows all.

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that.

 

[trestyles]

The problem is that getting to the NBA is more of a priority nowadays. It’s more important to top 10 kids.

Top 30 kids. All these high ranked kids have been told they're going to play in the nba in HS.

Not to mentioned, some of these kids parents/guardians/coaches want them in the NBA faster then the kid.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that.

Get back to me, if you would. I’d be curious as to what he said. Who knows, maybe his answer will make me a believer.

 

[trestyles]

My point is, sometimes a player is just that good. And make no mistake, Nassir Little is that good. You and others around here have to really get rid of the idea that anyone with that potential is automatically a detriment to team development.

I agree. I see fans belittled OADs every chance they get. Of course, a lot of fans ALREADY saying Little not that good to be OAD. Simply for the fact they don't want him to be.

 

[gary-7]

I agree. I see fans belittled OADs every chance they get. Of course, a lot of fans ALREADY saying Little not that good to be OAD. Simply for the fact they don't want him to be.

Well... that's a little simplified (no pun intended). I think Nas has a world of NBA potential, but is he someone who should be OAD?... lessee how he continues his development over the next 8-10 months. It'll be pretty apparent one way or another.

Tony should have never been OAD. and he and his dad knew that and came in on a wiser 3/2 yr plan... until someone got in their ear. On the other hand, guys like Bagley have nothing to gain by staying around.

Honestly, from my personal view, I don't like the OAD system because it's bad for the quality of the game of college basketball. I could live with a 2AD or a baseball rule of go outta HS or stay so many years in college. But let's say the rule doesn't change. I will rarely if ever fret over UNC not signing a OAD kid. The occasional well-timed OAD can help us --- I would've loved an elite 5-man for this team --- but I never, ever want to rely on them. Roy doesn't and shouldn't dumb-down his system.

 

[carolinablue34]

Some of you guys are forgetting guys like Lawson, Ellington, Henson, Barnes, Davis, even Hansbrough were easily good enough to go after a year. They didn’t but they were all top 10. I understand the idea of not becoming a revolving door like at dook or Kentucky, but some on this board are way too elitist, even snobby when it comes to shunning OAD types. If the talent is there, take it. Yes we want it to fit the style of play we favor but nonetheless if you guys had this attitude back a decade ago, you would have spurned some of the best players to ever play at UNC.

 

[gary-7]

Some of you guys are forgetting guys like Lawson, Ellington, Henson, Barnes, Davis, even Hansbrough were easily good enough to go after a year. They didn’t but they were all top 10. I understand the idea of not becoming a revolving door like at dook or Kentucky, but some on this board are way too elitist, even snobby when it comes to shunning OAD types. If the talent is there, take it. Yes we want it to fit the style of play we favor but nonetheless if you guys had this attitude back a decade ago, you would have spurned some of the best players to ever play at UNC.

Literally none of the guys you mentioned came in with any intent to be OAD. It's not where they're "ranked" that matters, it's how they approach their time in college.

 

[carolinablue34]

Literally none of the guys you mentioned came in with any intent to be OAD. It's not where they're "ranked" that matters, it's how they approach their time in college.

I agree it matters how they approach college, but you’re telling me none of those guys had any intent on leaving early? Especially Harrison Barnes. Lawson and Ellington almost left after their sophomore years.

 

[gary-7]

I agree it matters how they approach college, but you’re telling me none of those guys had any intent on leaving early? Especially Harrison Barnes. Lawson and Ellington almost left after their sophomore years.

Easy. Because none of them came in with the intent of being OAD (not even HB, who certainly had that option available). And I didn't say anything about leaving "early", it's about leaving after one year.

 

[Archer2]

Some of you guys are forgetting guys like Lawson, Ellington, Henson, Barnes, Davis, even Hansbrough were easily good enough to go after a year. They didn’t but they were all top 10. I understand the idea of not becoming a revolving door like at dook or Kentucky, but some on this board are way too elitist, even snobby when it comes to shunning OAD types. If the talent is there, take it. Yes we want it to fit the style of play we favor but nonetheless if you guys had this attitude back a decade ago, you would have spurned some of the best players to ever play at UNC.

I sometimes wonder if you’ve lost your mind. None of those guys, with the possible exception of Barnes, was good enough to go after one year, at least not in the coveted first round.

The fact is that most of us aren’t as concerned that we don’t sign as many OAD’s as you and Trestyles wish. And it has nothing to do with elitism. If anything, your obsession with OAD’s is much more elitist.

So you continue to hope for more OAD’s, I’ll continue to wish for more guys like Marcus, Brice, Kennedy, Theo, Isaiah, Joel, etc...

 

[carolinablue34]

I sometimes wonder if you’ve lost your mind. None of those guys, with the possible exception of Barnes, was good enough to go after one year, at least not in the coveted first round.

The fact is that most of us aren’t as concerned that we don’t sign as many OAD’s as you and Trestyles wish. And it has nothing to do with elitism. If anything, your obsession with OAD’s is much more elitist.

So you continue to hope for more OAD’s, I’ll continue to wish for more guys like Marcus, Brice, Kennedy, Theo, Isaiah, Joel, etc...

You really think Lawson, Ellington or Ed Davis weren’t good enough to go? And if you don’t think Harrison was ready then you’re the one out of your mind.

Look, I’m really not one of those guys that wants all OADs. I want them mixed with our long term guys. It’s a formula that has worked for Roy. I believe that our coach is correct in recruiting the top guys because it will not only get us wins, but really bump up our brand.

So to conclude, I want guys like Bagley, Zion, etc. and I also want guys like Marcus, Brice and Joel. The two aren’t mutually exclusive

 

[bax4444]

If I'm "elitist" so be it. Nothing wrong w having high standards. While I don't want a team full of oad, having great talent is very fun to watch in Roys system. Also, a lot of those guys being discussed definitely could've left earlier.

 

[gary-7]

You really think Lawson, Ellington or Ed Davis weren’t good enough to go? And if you don’t think Harrison was ready then you’re the one out of your mind.

Look, I’m really not one of those guys that wants all OADs. I want them mixed with our long term guys. It’s a formula that has worked for Roy. I believe that our coach is correct in recruiting the top guys because it will not only get us wins, but really bump up our brand.

So to conclude, I want guys like Bagley, Zion, etc. and I also want guys like Marcus, Brice and Joel. The two aren’t mutually exclusive

Neither Lawson nor Ellington would have been drafted in the first round, if at all, had they tried OAD. Psycho and HB would have, but again, IT WAS NOT THEIR INTENT WHEN THEY CAME TO UNC, and that is a good and all too rare thing.

Moreover some of you loud OAD boosters consistently misstate the consensus opinion among UNC fans., i.e., that an OAD here and there is fine as long as it doesn't set back the development of players in our system.

 

[Archer2]

I’m sure some of you would love to join d00k and UK in bringing in multiple one year wonders every year. Personally, I don’t give two hoots whether those schools win the annual battle for the best recruiting class. I also don’t give two hoots about “building our brand” by emphasizing getting kids to the pros ASAP. You can have those honors. They mean nil to me.

I want kids who want to go to college, who aren’t just doing their obligatory one year sentence. I want kids who want to be at Carolina and be a part of our fine university, traditionally, academically and athletically.

And there are still plenty of those young men around who happen to be damn good basketball players. In fact, they still comprise the vast majority of college players, save those few “elites”.

 

[carolinablue34]

Neither Lawson nor Ellington would have been drafted in the first round, if at all, had they tried OAD. Psycho and HB would have, but again, IT WAS NOT THEIR INTENT WHEN THEY CAME TO UNC, and that is a good and all too rare thing.

Moreover some of you loud OAD boosters consistently misstate the consensus opinion among UNC fans., i.e., that an OAD here and there is fine as long as it doesn't set back the development of players in our system.

Okay, enlighten me since you seem absolutely sure if it. How do you know those guys had no intention of leaving after a year? Genuinely curious.

I want talent regardless of how long the player stays. I love the Luke Mayes of the world, but on some level the fact that our top rated players stayed longer than anyone else was a factor as to why it’s taken us this long since Harrison Barnes to sign a top 5 player nationally.

Fact of the matter is, Roy is recruiting a lot of the same kids UK and dook are getting. Would anyone really be complaining that much if more of those kids came our way? I doubt it. We are North Carolina, one of the top programs in history, why shouldn’t we go after the best?