Jelly Transferring

Donate To GopherHole
Moonlight said:
So...here's the story.
Coaching staff recruited a ranked kid who has skills and then couldn't find any way to support him in being successful in entering a game. The person who has the power to control the story has made sure it reflects well on him. City ball kids are now much more suspect as they just got issues. The End?
Click to expand...

That’s your narrative, I saw if differently. “The person”, Pitino was coaching for his job and for the success of the team. If he thought for a moment Washington was going to be helpful you can be sure he would have played more. I don’t see IW as a victim, I don’t see Pitino as a coach with a vendetta. Things didn’t work out for Isaiah but the team ended up having a pretty good run. Sometimes things don’t work out and there’s no conspiracy. It just didn’t work out. I wish him well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Moonlight said:
So...here's the story.
Coaching staff recruited a ranked kid who has skills and then couldn't find any way to support him in being successful in entering a game. The person who has the power to control the story has made sure it reflects well on him. City ball kids are now much more suspect as they just got issues. The End?
Click to expand...

You have issues.
 


Moonlight said:
So...here's the story.
Coaching staff recruited a ranked kid who has skills and then couldn't find any way to support him in being successful in entering a game. The person who has the power to control the story has made sure it reflects well on him. City ball kids are now much more suspect as they just got issues. The End?
Click to expand...

Ridiculous post, especially that last line about "city ball". Not surprising considering the source, though.
 

sal said:
That’s your narrative, I saw if differently. “The person”, Pitino was coaching for his job and for the success of the team. If he thought for a moment Washington was going to be helpful you can be sure he would have played more. I don’t see IW as a victim, I don’t see Pitino as a coach with a vendetta. Things didn’t work out for Isaiah but the team ended up having a pretty good run. Sometimes things don’t work out and there’s no conspiracy. It just didn’t work out. I wish him well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

These type of rationa, conspiracy free posts have no place on this forum :p
 


jamiche said:
Neither did Stull and there was no upside.
Click to expand...

We don’t know what coach asked him to do. He went in and moved the ball, didn’t force it, or turn the ball over. Didn’t score, but for the most part he didn’t make negative plays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Stull's defense was nothing to write home about. Stull hit one shot all year that meant anything and was afraid to shoot most of the year, just like Hurt was.

Stull made several suspect passes and turned the ball over in a way that Coffey and Dupree almost never did with hundreds more touches. Stull just sucked, and his body language was crap as well.

All the excuses about Stull being clearly flabby and slow for a D1 athlete were sad as well. The guy was riding the gravy train, and had zero motivation - a bigger miss than Gas.

I will always contend if IW could have guarded anyone he would have played more. He was great at pushing the ball up the floor, and pretty rough in the half court. I think it is good for all that he is gone. I am even more thrilled that Stull is gone.

I saw one MIAC game in February where St. Thomas beat down a Hamline team by 40 points. The Hamline team did have a few OK players, this was not UMAC talent, but....

I would not be surprised , after magically putting Hurt and Stull on a lower rung MIAC team, if they still were crushed by St. Thomas. These guys just do not play with an confidence or work very hard at maximizing whatever skills they have. Both terrible recruiting misses.
 
Last edited:

oak_street1981 said:
I saw one MIAC game in February where St. Thomas beat down a Hamline team by 40 points. The Hamline team did have a few OK players, this was not UMAC talent, but....

I would not be surprised , after magically putting Hurt and Stull on a lower rung MIAC team, if they still were crushed by St. Thomas. These guys just do not play with an confidence or work very hard at maximizing whatever skills they have. Both terrible recruiting misses.
Click to expand...

I have all the respect in the world for MIAC talent, but please stop saying this. It’s been discussed enough but Hurt and Stull would dominate MIAC ball. St Thomas is very good and could still maybe beat them. St Thomas also lost to a UMAC team in the play offs this year. We watched Hurt and Stull struggle against B10 level talent. They both would be as Stull as proven to be very effective low major D1 kids. They’d own the MIAC.
 
Last edited:

Ozzy&Ray said:
We don’t know what coach asked him to do. He went in and moved the ball, didn’t force it, or turn the ball over. Didn’t score, but for the most part he didn’t make negative plays.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He didn't do anything, which meant that the other team could ignore him while on defense and blow by him on offense. I'm not a coach like you. If my choice is between those two guys for backup minutes (which was the case), I'm going with the player who can make some plays and I'll find a way to live with the mistakes.
 



manderson1984 said:
I have all the respect in the world for MIAC talent, but please stop saying the. It’s been discussed enough but Hurt and Stull would dominate MIAC ball. St Thomas is very good and could still maybe beat them. St Thomas also lost to a UMAC team in the play offs this year. We watched Hurt and Stull struggle against B10 level talent. They both would be as Stull as proven to be very effective low major D1 kids. They’d own the MIAC.
Click to expand...

This 100%. I think people forget just how good these kids actually are. Yes, relative to the competition, they do not light up the stat sheet, but let's not confuse the B1G for the MIAC for the love of God. Hurt was nationally ranked in the top 220 coming out his senior year. Now I'm not all about rankings, but when was the last time St. Thomas landed a top 1,000 recruit nationally. Probably never. No knock on St. Tom or the MIAC, let's just not forget how good these kids have to be. The Gophs, or any B1G team for that matter, do not just hand out jerseys.
 

jamiche said:
He didn't do anything, which meant that the other team could ignore him while on defense and blow by him on offense. I'm not a coach like you. If my choice is between those two guys for backup minutes (which was the case), I'm going with the player who can make some plays and I'll find a way to live with the mistakes.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. If you have a choice between a flawed player with a real observable skill set (particularly one that is in low supply on your team) and a player who, at best, doesn't make many mistakes of commission because he rarely asserts himself, I think it is best to find a place for the first choice.

Some people on this board mentioned that they had never seen a Minnesota player treated like Washington. I think they have short memories because Pitino has selected a player to doghouse in most of his years here. Washington may be simply the most conspicuous example. I'm not sure why Pitino does this; perhaps he thinks this is an effective leadership strategy but I disagree.

I do wonder if Hurt will be the upcoming season's doghouse player. The Hurt family no longer has any leverage here.
 

Moonlight said:
Is it really very simple for IW? What exactly do you think these other coaches will base their assessment on? Some of us are less obsessed with the business end of winning and more aware fo the developmental aspects of this level of the program - a university - and concerned about what this says about the ruthlessness of the leadership. After all, Rick Pitino predicted the whole unfolding of this season for IW in October of 2018. So how much room was there for him to prove himself?

Frankly, having been underestimated in the past by a 'superior' in an influential position, I can say that overcoming a negative overlay and excelling at a critical age was no slam dunk. And I wasn't a kid from Harlem with all my dreams on the line.
Click to expand...

Actually Pitino gave him opportunity when other coaches ran from that game along time ago. He laid out for IW ecactly what he had to do to play. He graded out very poorly as a defender and made bad decisions by being in no mans land. Hopefully his game grows into the High hoops IQ. At this level that is so critical.
 

Moonlight said:
Is it really very simple for IW? What exactly do you think these other coaches will base their assessment on? Some of us are less obsessed with the business end of winning and more aware fo the developmental aspects of this level of the program - a university - and concerned about what this says about the ruthlessness of the leadership. After all, Rick Pitino predicted the whole unfolding of this season for IW in October of 2018. So how much room was there for him to prove himself?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but ... bwahahahaha!

This isn't middle school.

JTG
 



builtbadgers said:
Actually Pitino gave him opportunity when other coaches ran from that game along time ago. He laid out for IW ecactly what he had to do to play. He graded out very poorly as a defender and made bad decisions by being in no mans land. Hopefully his game grows into the High hoops IQ. At this level that is so critical.
Click to expand...
Reasonable response.
Overall, this contributes to a concern I have about bench development. Its all well and good to say that these guys Pitino recruited turned out to be untrustworthy with the ball on the court at game time, but since the top blue chip players are unlikely to land here, how exactly are we going to improve if not through a team of player who are allowed on the court?
I've become negative this year, and its not really my style or usual stance. But despite the success of this year, the wildly inconsistent performances was hard to watch. This team often looked really bad.
 

Moonlight said:
Reasonable response.
Overall, this contributes to a concern I have about bench development. Its all well and good to say that these guys Pitino recruited turned out to be untrustworthy with the ball on the court at game time, but since the top blue chip players are unlikely to land here, how exactly are we going to improve if not through a team of player who are allowed on the court?
I've become negative this year, and its not really my style or usual stance. But despite the success of this year, the wildly inconsistent performances was hard to watch. This team often looked really bad.
Click to expand...

Please go and check the "bench development" or bench depth of any other mid tier power 5 team. Most are similar to us. Look at the final 8 teams this year. What teams had "great depth" and went 10 deep? Now having a competent player or two off the bench is necessary, but playing or having 10 guys doesn't happen anymore with the transfer portal. Guys don't typically stay and wait "their turn". Again plenty of things to be critical of Richard, I think his handling of the bench is not one. He's a players guy who gives them ample opportunity,
 

manderson1984 said:
Please go and check the "bench development" or bench depth of any other mid tier power 5 team. Most are similar to us. Look at the final 8 teams this year. What teams had "great depth" and went 10 deep? Now having a competent player or two off the bench is necessary, but playing or having 10 guys doesn't happen anymore with the transfer portal. Guys don't typically stay and wait "their turn". Again plenty of things to be critical of Richard, I think his handling of the bench is not one. He's a players guy who gives them ample opportunity,
Click to expand...
Good points. What would serviceable depth look like? Do you think we have that?
 

Moonlight said:
Good points. What would serviceable depth look like? Do you think we have that?
Click to expand...

No I think our bench guys could/should be better of course. That's part of why we were a mid tier team. I think for teams like ourselves, our bench guys need to be cost neutral. Positionally defend, rebound, and don't turn the ball over. It's nice if you can have one or two that shoot 35% from 3, but that's hard to find for bench depth anywhere. It really goes down to what you are willing to trade off and what your non-negotiable are. I think Richard is putting Defense and taking care of the ball as his non negotiates, which I'm a fan of. Other staffs may value the offense side of things more and are willing to take Defensive liabilities. For me to take that guy though, he needs to be a 40% 3 pt shooter and still rebound.

I think we will have serviceable depth next year with Omersa (Rebounds, improving defensively), Hurt (Takes care of the ball, smart), Tre Williams (Takes care of the ball, defends), Willis (35% shooter, Defends), Ihen (Haven't seen enough to know, but shooter for sure), and Curry/Post Grad Transfer (rebound and defends if healthy)
 

cjbfbp said:
I agree with that. If you have a choice between a flawed player with a real observable skill set (particularly one that is in low supply on your team) and a player who, at best, doesn't make many mistakes of commission because he rarely asserts himself, I think it is best to find a place for the first choice.

Some people on this board mentioned that they had never seen a Minnesota player treated like Washington. I think they have short memories because Pitino has selected a player to doghouse in most of his years here. Washington may be simply the most conspicuous example. I'm not sure why Pitino does this; perhaps he thinks this is an effective leadership strategy but I disagree.

I do wonder if Hurt will be the upcoming season's doghouse player. The Hurt family no longer has any leverage here.
Click to expand...

You may be right on Hurt. The distinction is that he has no observable skill set. OTOH, he doesn’t publicly sulk.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

The crowd on this board who thinks Jelly was mistreated here always point to Stull.

So let's be really clear on this, Stull was not good at all either.
Let's also break down the argument:
(1) Washington played 40% MORE minutes than Brock Stull. He got more run, considerably more run;
(2) They both played positions of absolute need. We were a horrible shooting team and Brock Stull shot over 40% on 3's. We didn't have a PG and Isaiah Washington was a point guard;
(3) The fact that NEITHER of them earned more minutes, despite being positions/roles of need, tells you that they struggled a bit;
(4) Playing a PG, a person who has the ball in their hand on every play, who is struggling is considerably more dangerous than playing a wing who is struggling.

Point #4 also applies to Michael Hurt.
 

cjbfbp said:
I agree with that. If you have a choice between a flawed player with a real observable skill set (particularly one that is in low supply on your team) and a player who, at best, doesn't make many mistakes of commission because he rarely asserts himself, I think it is best to find a place for the first choice.

Some people on this board mentioned that they had never seen a Minnesota player treated like Washington. I think they have short memories because Pitino has selected a player to doghouse in most of his years here. Washington may be simply the most conspicuous example. I'm not sure why Pitino does this; perhaps he thinks this is an effective leadership strategy but I disagree.

I do wonder if Hurt will be the upcoming season's doghouse player. The Hurt family no longer has any leverage here.
Click to expand...

I guess that skillset would be dribbling? I haven't seen anything in his game to suggest that he is capable of creating offense in the Big 10, he can't finish at the rim, he is not that quick and he can't shoot. So I guess you're equating the ability to dribble with the ability to run point?

Let's assume I agree with you that Washington has a real observable skill set, let's break down your scenario. You still play the first guy even if he is a PG? You seem to be doing a risk/reward analysis without analyzing any of the risk. I agree, Washington likely has a tad more upside than Michael Hurt (reward), however, he also absolutely kills you when he is in the game. He is a worse defender and he has the ball in his hand on every single possession.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
The crowd on this board who thinks Jelly was mistreated here always point to Stull.

So let's be really clear on this, Stull was not good at all either.
Let's also break down the argument:
(1) Washington played 40% MORE minutes than Brock Stull. He got more run, considerably more run;
(2) They both played positions of absolute need. We were a horrible shooting team and Brock Stull shot over 40% on 3's. We didn't have a PG and Isaiah Washington was a point guard;
(3) The fact that NEITHER of them earned more minutes, despite being positions/roles of need, tells you that they struggled a bit;
(4) Playing a PG, a person who has the ball in their hand on every play, who is struggling is considerably more dangerous than playing a wing who is struggling.

Point #4 also applies to Michael Hurt.
Click to expand...

People who love IW do not like stats or data because there truly is no way you can argue for him if you do.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
The crowd on this board who thinks Jelly was mistreated here always point to Stull.

So let's be really clear on this, Stull was not good at all either.
Let's also break down the argument:
(1) Washington played 40% MORE minutes than Brock Stull. He got more run, considerably more run;
(2) They both played positions of absolute need. We were a horrible shooting team and Brock Stull shot over 40% on 3's. We didn't have a PG and Isaiah Washington was a point guard;
(3) The fact that NEITHER of them earned more minutes, despite being positions/roles of need, tells you that they struggled a bit;
(4) Playing a PG, a person who has the ball in their hand on every play, who is struggling is considerably more dangerous than playing a wing who is struggling.

Point #4 also applies to Michael Hurt.
Click to expand...

Good post and I thought there were a few games were Stull played well enough to be a difference maker. He wasn't poor on defense and he didn't take bad shots.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
The crowd on this board who thinks Jelly was mistreated here always point to Stull.

So let's be really clear on this, Stull was not good at all either.
Let's also break down the argument:
(1) Washington played 40% MORE minutes than Brock Stull. He got more run, considerably more run;
(2) They both played positions of absolute need. We were a horrible shooting team and Brock Stull shot over 40% on 3's. We didn't have a PG and Isaiah Washington was a point guard;
(3) The fact that NEITHER of them earned more minutes, despite being positions/roles of need, tells you that they struggled a bit;
(4) Playing a PG, a person who has the ball in their hand on every play, who is struggling is considerably more dangerous than playing a wing who is struggling.

Point #4 also applies to Michael Hurt.
Click to expand...

All three of these players would be considered defensive liabilities! And of the three, only Hurt ever looked like he was truly trying as hard as he could. Matador defense will always keep you on the bench.

I am encouraged by Hurt's play against Louisville in the tourney game. I feel he really came through on the biggest stage of the year! Now take a few shots Michael!
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
I agree, Washington likely has a tad more upside than Michael Hurt (reward), however, he also absolutely kills you when he is in the game. He is a worse defender and he has the ball in his hand on every single possession.
Click to expand...

Look, Washington is gone. If you wanted a debate about Washington, you picked the wrong guy. I felt the situation was mismanaged here, I believe Pitino has mismanaged other players as well, and that was more the point of my post than a defense of Washington.

I don't agree that Washington killed us whenever he was in the game. Seems like you remember only the worst moments without acknowledging the good ones.
 
Last edited:

Moonlight said:
So...here's the story.
Coaching staff recruited a ranked kid who has skills and then couldn't find any way to support him in being successful in entering a game. The person who has the power to control the story has made sure it reflects well on him. City ball kids are now much more suspect as they just got issues. The End?
Click to expand...

Wut?

I really like Washington. Seems like a good kid and is fun to watch when he's playing well. He was given opportunities, but for whatever reason he just couldn't get out of his own way. If he wanted more playing time, he could have had it. All he had to do was stop taking terrible shots and taking odd layups that almost looked like he was intentionally getting blocked. For as much talent as he had, he shot 31.1%. There's no conspiracy here, he just wasn't reliable enough. If he makes better decisions at his next school, he has a chance to put up some really good numbers. I hope he does.
 

Has anyone heard which schools have been recruiting him? Seems like that would be a good barometer of how other coaches view his talent / potential.
 

SPEGOPHER said:
Has anyone heard which schools have been recruiting him? Seems like that would be a good barometer of how other coaches view his talent / potential.
Click to expand...

I've heard Iona and Albany.

I'm not at all saying we should have predicted he wasn't going to work out here, but if you look at his offers from when he was initially recruited they look a little light to me for a guy ranked #62 in his class. Other than us his main offers were Georgia Tech, Providence, and Seton Hall. I remember being a little surprised at the time.
 

I hope for the best for Isaiah. Summary: it just didn't work out here for a variety of reasons. This is the danger of getting too excited about kids before they show up and play. So many examples. Stull is a good one; I for one, based on his stats and tape from time at UWM, was pretty excited. He looked like a serious player with some athleticism and ball-handling, and could shoot it (obvious need). Anyone remember Devron Bostick? Coming in, even Tubby said he would probably be their leading scorer; didn't exactly work out that way. He looked like the second coming of Jerry Stackhouse and people on this board were proclaiming it.

College basketball is about 2 things: 1) recruiting; and 2) player development. Ideally both of those line up but even for the blue bloods, sometimes they don't. I was pretty excited about him and it just didn't work out here; let's all move along...

Let's chalk up Isaiah to a case where we hope he improves and has a great experience, gets a degree, and is an upstanding young adult.
 

You don’t practice hard, you don’t play. PERIOD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

gopherlaney said:
You don’t practice hard, you don’t play. PERIOD.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So true. Plus, when a player is given his evaluation for where he stands and what he needs to work on in the off season is critical. That is where huge jumps occur because that is individual skills enhancement. The season is 90% team but if your skills are lacking you will be exposed. Crazy lay ups with loads of english are worthless compared to working in floaters and getting up 500 shots per day. I hope the kid does great but a ton of coaches ran away from that game when they saw it. And no, i do not consider it a recruiting miss. It had good upside for what coach wanted and there is not a coach who hits them all.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom