Luke was a three star walk on. Clearly he is better than a three star freshman now. Would you trade him for a five star freshman? For a Zion?
When does a three star player become more valuable than a five star?
- Thread starter calvin1234
- Start date
99.9999999999999999% of 3 star walk on's are not Luke.
This is a bad example to use.
Better examples...I'd take freshman Zion over 3-star recruits like Jackson Simmons and Desmond Hubert when they were seniors.
This is a bad example to use.
Better examples...I'd take freshman Zion over 3-star recruits like Jackson Simmons and Desmond Hubert when they were seniors.
My thing is if ya wanna star watch buy a telescope, star ratings are entertainment in the off season chatter. Bottom line is if a kid can play he can play no matter how many or if he has any stars, Luke can and could play, Zion can play. Would you rather have a 5 star frosh or a senior that was a 3 star coming in, really it depends on the players involved and not their star ranking.
Example, when was Luke more important to his team than Harry Giles was for duke, answer pretty much day 1. Example 2, when will Platek be more vial to UNC than Bagley is to duke, answer very likely never.
Example, when was Luke more important to his team than Harry Giles was for duke, answer pretty much day 1. Example 2, when will Platek be more vial to UNC than Bagley is to duke, answer very likely never.
Call me crazy, but I wouldn't trade Luke for Zion. Luke is much more versatile. I also think Zion is a tad overrated, and Luke underrated.
I think the irony of ky and now duke way is that all the hype that comes with all the five stars create huge expectations that mostly can't be met.
The reason that gonzagas and villanovas can compete is because lesser rated players become upper classmen who are better than highly rated freshman.
I think Roy Williams is working the sweet spot. Occasional high rated ( nassir and coby) mixed with a healthy dose of Luke's and kennys.
The reason that gonzagas and villanovas can compete is because lesser rated players become upper classmen who are better than highly rated freshman.
I think Roy Williams is working the sweet spot. Occasional high rated ( nassir and coby) mixed with a healthy dose of Luke's and kennys.
True, but then again, there are a TON of 3* recruits playing and starting on very good teams... players who are way better than Simmons or Hubert.
Honestly the whole star thing isn't very informative. Perhaps a better question is would you take a 4-year player who contributes then eventually earns a starting position at Carolina over a one-year wonder?
Well put. It ain't always easy, but that's Roy's wheelhouse.
Cameron Johnson was a 3 star recruit. I would rather have Cameron Johnson next season than a 5 star FR.
1. He isn’t a walk on.
2. Calling him a 3 star is an insult. For pete’s sake he was in ESPNs top 100.
But no I wouldn’t trade him for a Zion. Now as much as I love him, if we’re talking a freshman Anthony Davis I’m going to have to sit here and contemplate.
2. Calling him a 3 star is an insult. For pete’s sake he was in ESPNs top 100.
But no I wouldn’t trade him for a Zion. Now as much as I love him, if we’re talking a freshman Anthony Davis I’m going to have to sit here and contemplate.
...and I'm glad we have him this season instead of 5* Kevin Knox.
Roy's wheelhouse at UNC has been building his teams on 4* players who will stay 3-4 years and continue to improve, they are the heart and soul of his teams. He will mix in the occasional 5* player, along with a few 3* players for continuity. Would he like to sign a few more 5* players? Most certainly. But you have to base your program on the types of players you can actually sign, not that you want to sign. He does as good a job of that as almost any coach out there in an extremely high profile position.
You just used a key word: "program". Building, learning and improving are inherent parts of a real program, and on those criteria, uk and dook basketball no longer really qualify.
dook is such a glaring example. As detestable as they were, k did run an actual program for a lot of years. Their players came up through their system, and although a good bit of what they learned was vile behavior, it was nonetheless a bonafide basketball program. Yesterday I referred to the modern incarnation over there as the "Durham Dookies of the D-League", and I did so with only a touch of sarcasm.
When the 3* player is on your team and the 5* isn't. 
Wasn't Cam Johnson a 3-star?
I'm assuming Cam sticks around and continues to improve and fit better into Roy's system.
In which case I'd rather have senior Cam over frosh Zion.
Which is not to say Zion wouldn't be really good to have.
I believe the best way to Judge 5 star talent against 3 star veteran players is going to be Virginia vs Dook , not just head to head but through the course of an 18 game ACC schedule... If UVA wins the ACC this year in the regular season you have your answer right there.. UNC is not a good comparison because they sprinkle 4 and 5 star players with the 3 star players, UVA is a pretty good example..
I'll throw the franchise tag on Luke. No trade, no free agency. He's untouchable.
I know some folks on here are a bit upset that Zion didn’t come to UNC. And more upset that he went to Duke. Understand. But some folks saying he didn’t come here because he wouldn’t find a spot? Ridiculous. That he isn’t better than Cam? I like Cam, but let’s face facts. He is a one trick pony. Doesn’t really help unless he is drilling the three, which makes him pretty easy to cover unless you are Clemson and let him have open shots. Is Zion overrated? We will see. But to say a guy with his talents would struggle to start over a few guys already in this program is folly.
I think UNC fans are biased because the strategy of getting 3-4 year guys has worked out great for us. However, we haven't had a freshman that was immediately a top 5 player in the country since Tyler Hansbrough. So if Zion has a freshman year like Tyler did... I'd probably take Zion.
Also, Luke is a hero at UNC and will forever be. So that's a loaded question...
Would you take Isaiah Hicks for 4 years or Marvin Bagley for 1? Hicks took 3 years to become an impact player. You knew Bagley was going to be a stud the second he played, but you only get him for one season... I lean Bagley for Roy's teams because each one of Roy's teams that don't go deep into the tournament are typically teams that are one stud one-and-done player away from perhaps winning it all.
Also, Luke is a hero at UNC and will forever be. So that's a loaded question...
Would you take Isaiah Hicks for 4 years or Marvin Bagley for 1? Hicks took 3 years to become an impact player. You knew Bagley was going to be a stud the second he played, but you only get him for one season... I lean Bagley for Roy's teams because each one of Roy's teams that don't go deep into the tournament are typically teams that are one stud one-and-done player away from perhaps winning it all.
I don't think it was a negative post really.
If we take away the hero status of Luke Maye and just look through the broadest lens of what he is... The question essentially becomes, do you take a 4 year guy who will go undrafted? Or do you take a top 5 pick for 1 year? If it's asked that simply, I think the vast majority would take the one and done and wouldn't even really debate it.
Once you add in... Would you take a 4 yeear guy who will go undrafted:
- he will hit the second biggest shot in program history
- he will average a double-double his junior season and be all-ACC
It gets tough because we know how much Luke means to this program. But again, if we're debating Isaiah Hicks or Marvin Bagley (or Ayton, or Young, or Bamba), I think very few take Hicks and some of the few that would may have an internal bias against one-and-dones or sentimentally value the 4 year player over the freshman.
As a fan I want Unc to win. As an alum I want to win the right way.
I think in many ways Unc teams do exactly that.
For the most part I think duke does the same thing. I think k has evolved his methods to accommodate the current environment while Roy Williams has evolved differently.
I realize that Luke is an outlier but there are others who fit in the same category - good players out of high school not recruited by the dukes / kentuckys of the world. I like the Unc / Roy Williams method. But then I think I would be happy with the k method if I were a duke fan.
I think in many ways Unc teams do exactly that.
For the most part I think duke does the same thing. I think k has evolved his methods to accommodate the current environment while Roy Williams has evolved differently.
I realize that Luke is an outlier but there are others who fit in the same category - good players out of high school not recruited by the dukes / kentuckys of the world. I like the Unc / Roy Williams method. But then I think I would be happy with the k method if I were a duke fan.
Roy isn't just missing on these oad players because of some lack of available playing time because of experienced players. He makes them learn and play complete team basketball. dook and kensucky don't force them to do that. Most oad players want to coast through the year playing aau type of basketball with limited defensive requirements. Roy would retire rather than change his approach to teaching and coaching. So conjecture about how these oad players would really do at UNC needs to take into account on why they likely didn't choose us to begin with. Bagley and the others would mainly have to play D and don't see many oad want to do that along with other team aspects.
This just isn't true. Maybe for the last few yers there's some semblance of truth to it but no, Roy builds his teams around five stars who we have managed to keep around for 3-4 years somehow.
Felton(ray)
Mccants
May
Marvin wil
Manuel?
All 5 stars-title
Hans
Ellington
Lawson
Ed Davis
(I'm sure I'm
Missing someone)
Zeller?
All 5 stars-title
Pinson
Berry
Jackson
Hicks
Meeks
Bradley
(Not all 5 stars but all McDonald aa)
Title
And I'm not even mentioning the 2012 team that had about 8 different 5 star guys on it.
Last edited:
If all you care about is winning games, then yeah, you'd probably take Bagley for one year over Hicks for 4. But that's not all I care about. It disappoints me that winning is all some of our fans care about. I care about watching fun basketball with guys I've come to know - guys I can root for because I've watched them develop over a period of time. Guys that came in and made mistakes and now I'm happy to see them succeed on the biggest stage. That's why I watch Carolina basketball. If Bagley and duke win the title, I'm sure duke fans will enjoy it. But I promise you they won't enjoy it as much as they did those championships in the 90s that were built with guys that grew up in the program. So Bagley came in, dominated, wins a championship and goes pro. I'm sure he valued his time at duke. Boy, that was a lot of fun - rooting a guy that was simply using the program they love as a springboard for the NBA and has virtually no investment in the program or respect for its history and values. No thanks.
Respect that opinion. But don’t fool yourself. Winning IS what it is all about. They don’t pay Roy and these other coaches millions of dollars a year to develop relationships. Football, and men’s basketball are big business. Roy has done well by bringing three national championships during his tenure at UNC. Also understand that many get antsy watching this years squad struggle at times. You need some glue guys that stay for four years, but you need the ones that are going to leave early also.
This roster going forward needs a long athletic defensive minded 5 man that doesn't need the ball to score all the time. Who that is I don't know from a recruiting standpoint. Don't really keep up with it like I use to.
More athletic and quick. Doesn't need to be as big. But yea that is what this group is missing.
...there aren't that many bigs as athletic and quick as Tony was as a freshman.
If Roy teaches all his guys to play complete basketball... why don't they really end up being big time NBA players? There are 2 current UNC players in the NBA that are averaging double figure scoring (one is Harrison Barnes who probably becomes a quality NBA player without his second college year) and there are 5 total players that start consistently. Where is this tremendous teaching and development that people always bring up? Is it exclusively just college development? Isn't college something that should prepare you for your first job in your career after college?
But this is a bigger picture question... Does a college coach (who will be coaching future pros) have a duty to develop his players for the NBA? Or does a college coach only have to care about his college program?
A reason why I don't care for Jim Boeheim at all is I believe his system does his talented players a tremendous dis-service in their NBA readiness. Playing exclusively zone in college doesn't prepare you to play defense in the NBA. I think that's wrong because I believe a big time CBB coach should get his players ready for the next level.
But that's an interesting debate in it of itself.
Roy can't teach Meeks to jump more than 3", can't get Berry to grow 3 inches, can't make Paige into a 6'6" shooting guard etc... When he has NBA level athletes he produces NBA level basketball players. Who is the UNC player with real NBA level athleticism and mentality that Roy did not develop?
I think most players end up where they should be. But...
The above post pose an interesting question. Does Roy Wiiiliams actually inhibit NBA readiness? Would Theo be an NBA starter by now had he gone to duke or ky?
Just as importantly do the elite recruits feel that the best path to the NBA runs through Lexington or Durham?
The above post pose an interesting question. Does Roy Wiiiliams actually inhibit NBA readiness? Would Theo be an NBA starter by now had he gone to duke or ky?
Just as importantly do the elite recruits feel that the best path to the NBA runs through Lexington or Durham?
In some ways, yes. The NBA heavily influences the P&R, which we basically never run.
I think Roy inhibits players from becoming successful in the NBA, like Cal and Kay make NBA players...very, very little if at all. Look at all the NBA greats who went to small schools with no-name coaches: Malone, Dr J, Pipen, etc. I just don't buy it.
Why I said smaller. More like an Ed Davis type of mold. Tony needed to bulk up some but was already a pretty big kid. Hell I would take a kid like Jordan Bell from Oregon last year in a heart beat.
Tony Bradley was a better player than Ed Davis as freshmen.
Jordan Bell was the 100th ranked recruit coming out of HS. NO ONE knew he was going to be the force he was.
What I'm saying is no one has a crystal ball. I'm going to assume that Roy thought Tony was going to be here when he was filling this class and Tony would have been that guy for us. Nothing we can do.
