What's best for Patrick?

[audacious1]

We all know that Patrick is Kentucky's #1 PF target and has been for some time. Then along comes Florida and now lately Coach K is putting in the effort to recruit him. Of course, as UK fans we want him to come toour programbut what's really best for Patrick?

One of the obvious things is playing time. Looking at Florida, Duke and Kentucky is seems pretty obvious which school needs him the most. That need would translate into the most minutes of PT. Heck, Florida has already got 5 verbals:


Adam Allen (SF)
Nick Calathes (PG)
Gary Clark (SG)
Chandler Parsons (SF/PF)
Alex Tyus (PF)And they're looking to add more forwards by recruitingJ.J. Hickson, James Anderson, Alexis Wangmene, in addition to Patrick Patterson. Plus,there's no guarantee that Joakim Noah (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=22154)and/or Al Horford (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/player/profile?playerId=24424)will be leaving. People thought they were crazy to stay this year. Now I know he's a Guard, not a forward, but can you imagine the scene ifO.J. Mayo went to Florida (which is still on his list)? It would be a circus.

Now let's look at Duke's currentroster:


Josh McRoberts (PF)
Lee Melchionni (SF/PF)
Jamal Boykin (PF)
David McClure (SF)
Patrick Johnson (PF/C)
Incoming aresome superstar frontcourt players like Gerald Henderson (SF), Lance Thomas (PF) and Brian Zoubek (C).

That means Patrick would need McRoberts to go pro, and then compete with5-star PF Lance Thomas (with a year under his belt)and 2 others for time at the 4. And then there'sMcDonald's All-American Henderson at the 3 spot, so if he wants to work on his game at the 3 for the NBA, those minutes would be few and far between.

Whereas, at Kentucky,our only Forwards with any experienceare Seniors: Bobby Perry (SF) and Sheray Thomas (PF) so they'll be gone. R. Morris plays the 5, so that leaves a single player at forward, Perry Stevenson, who's going to be a Freshman this coming season.

It really looks pretty clear, Patrick would get tons of minutes as of Day 1 at Kentucky and would be a center-piece in our team, whereas at Florida and Duke he'd have to battle for everyone minute.If I were Patrick's uncle or somebody,my advice would be to choose Kentucky.

What does everyone else think?

[WildFan]

UK seems to be the obvious choice for a top forward who wants to contribute right away. It has seemed that way for that last two years though.

[EricBigNally]

I agree with you and hope it unfolds so that Patterson is a Wildcat. My only concern is that if people thought as logically as that, how come there is a problem as to us being in such a HUGE need for a kid like this right now. I'm not pointing fingers or bashing anyone, I woul dlike a real answer to that other than "tubby can't recruit" or whatever someone wants to say against him. A school like Kentucky should be able to do most of the recruiting with all the exposure and now, available minutes with potentially the most loyal (and crazy) fan base in America. Things like this shouldn't be this hard. So how come it is?

[UKCATZFAN]

yes its an obvious choice based on playing time alone

but does Patterson want to play in a slow down plodding offense???

[trublue4life]

UKCATZFAN wrote: yes its an obvious choice based on playing time alone

but does Patterson want to play in a slow down plodding offense???

Great Question!!!:rolleyes:And, since that'sNOT the offense we run, he should not have a problem coming here.

[Art Vandelay]

Perhaps the high schoolcoach of PF recruit named Koshwal provides the answer. Koshwal is a highly rated PF that we recruited some, but seem to have backed off. His coach said Tubby's system is terrible for big men that are mobile, can put the ball on the floor, and can shoot from the outside. He said Koshwal wasn't interested because he coulnd't showcasehis talents in Tubby's system.

Lots ofTubby backers like to argue we don't have a "plodding system", but recruits disagree. The proof is theway all the big guys rejectthereadily available playing time.

Call it what you want, but we run a half court offense, that lacks movement, that forces the ball into the middle. Tubby tries very hard to limit the totalnumber of possessions per game. He plays a system that works wellwith inferior talent because it keeps most games close and gives you a chance to win. On the other hand, we've all seen highly regarded players struggle in this system.

[Will Lavender]

Buck Naked wrote: Perhaps the high schoolcoach of PF recruit named Koshwal provides the answer. Koshwal is a highly rated PF that we recruited some, but seem to have backed off. His coach said Tubby's system is terrible for big men that are mobile, can put the ball on the floor, and can shoot from the outside. He said Koshwal wasn't interested because he coulnd't showcasehis talents in Tubby's system.

Lots ofTubby backers like to argue we don't have a "plodding system", but recruits disagree. The proof is theway all the big guys rejectthereadily available playing time.

Call it what you want, but we run a half court offense, that lacks movement, that forces the ball into the middle. Tubby tries very hard to limit the totalnumber of possessions per game. He plays a system that works wellwith inferior talent because it keeps most games close and gives you a chance to win. On the other hand, we've all seen highly regarded players struggle in this system.

How do we recruit the guard position well? Seems that guards, not forwards, would be more suceptible to choosing other schools because of style of play.

[WildcatDan]

To contrast that you have the workhorse named Chuck Hayes who was VERY succesful in the system and the example of Tubby teams in the past which DID have strong interior players that the offense ran through. I seem to remember Sheray Thomas and Bobby Perry both taking the long shot when they were in at Power Forward. Tubby doesn't put any restrictions on that any more than any other coach - shoot it if youhave a good shot.

[Will Lavender]

WildcatDan wrote: To contrast that you have the workhorse named Chuck Hayes who was VERY succesful in the system and the example of Tubby teams in the past which DID have strong interior players that the offense ran through. I seem to remember Sheray Thomas and Bobby Perry both taking the long shot when they were in at Power Forward. Tubby doesn't put any restrictions on that any more than any other coach - shoot it if youhave a good shot.

Exactly.

Koshwal probably hasn't watched UK play. Maybe he logged on to the message boards and listened to disgruntled fans?

More power forwards under Tubby have shot the ball and "put it on the floor" than haven't. Heshimu Evans. Scott Padgett. Bobby Perry. Sheray Thomas. Marquis Estill. Jules Camara even had that 15-foot jumper perfected. All those guys operated away from the basket. Even Chuck Hayes had the freedom to put the ball on the floor, and he did his best work away from the basket as a set-up man for E. Daniels.

[WildcatDan]

Oh yeah, I also forgot about Rekalin Sims - he was the guy who was supposed to replace Chuck Hayes - he started last season as a HOT HAND from beyond the arc. Heck, even Hayes put up the occasional three pointer.

[KennesawCat]

It's not very hard for Billy, K, Roy, et al to convince recruits that UK runs a slower paced offense. In the last three years, UK has averaged 73.9, 73.6, 70.8 ppg. Last year, we didn't rank in the top 150 in ppg. Here's the rankings of others that we are trying to recruit against. To the big men who want to run the floor to get their points, and not bang underneath and have to rebound, 70 ppg doesn't look very good. Guardscan still score in a half court offense with the 3 pointers. We have to get our ppg up to the upper 70's to be able to recruit the fast, big men.



3. Duke (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=150) 82.5

8. Connecticut (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=41) 81.3

9. Tennessee (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=2633) 81.3

10. Memphis (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=235) 80.9

11. North Carolina (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=153) 80.4

14. Gonzaga (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=2250) 80.1

16. Florida (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=57) 79.3

26.Florida State (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=52) 77.4

37. Texas (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=251) 76.1

44. Kansas (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=2305) 75.2

48. LSU (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=99) 74.8

50. Ohio State (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=194) 74.7

78. Wake Forest (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=154) 73.5

90. Syracuse (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=183) 72.9

100. Pittsburgh (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/clubhouse?teamId=221) 72.5

[Will Lavender]

It's not very hard for Billy, K, Roy, et al to convince recruits that UK runs a slower paced offense. In the last three years, UK has averaged 73.9, 73.6, 70.8 ppg. Last year, we didn't rank in the top 150 in ppg. Here's the rankings of others that we are trying to recruit against. To the big men who want to run the floor to get their points, and not bang underneath and have to rebound, 70 ppg doesn't look very good. Guardscan still score in a half court offense with the 3 pointers. We have to get our ppg up to the upper 70's to be able to recruit the fast, big men.

I don't buy that argument at all.

The guards push the tempo. They get the ball to the big men. They dictate the style.

UCLA averaged 67 points a game last year, but somehow they assembled a very good front line. UCONN doesn't play at a breakneck speed, and they are always stacked with about six tremendous big men, most of whom are raw and get to the NBA based on their defensive acumen. Illinois averaged 70 points a game, and yet they had two or three forwards who could dominate the action, including draft pick James Augustine. There was Pitt, with the best frontcourt in the Big East outside of UCONN, at 72 ppg.

[audacious1]

Buck Naked wrote: Perhaps the high schoolcoach of PF recruit named Koshwal provides the answer. Koshwal is a highly rated PF that we recruited some, but seem to have backed off. His coach said Tubby's system is terrible for big men that are mobile, can put the ball on the floor, and can shoot from the outside. He said Koshwal wasn't interested because he coulnd't showcasehis talents in Tubby's system.

Lots ofTubby backers like to argue we don't have a "plodding system", but recruits disagree. The proof is theway all the big guys rejectthereadily available playing time.

Call it what you want, but we run a half court offense, that lacks movement, that forces the ball into the middle. Tubby tries very hard to limit the totalnumber of possessions per game. He plays a system that works wellwith inferior talent because it keeps most games close and gives you a chance to win. On the other hand, we've all seen highly regarded players struggle in this system.

Ok, guys, you've taken this thread off topic. What I hoped this thread could focus on is the matter of which school is the best fit for Patrick. Please don't use it to bash Kentucky or our coach, unless it's your goal to convince Patrick that UK is not the best place for him for a specific reason. Thank you.

[KennesawCat]

Will Lavender wrote: It's not very hard for Billy, K, Roy, et al to convince recruits that UK runs a slower paced offense. In the last three years, UK has averaged 73.9, 73.6, 70.8 ppg. Last year, we didn't rank in the top 150 in ppg. Here's the rankings of others that we are trying to recruit against. To the big men who want to run the floor to get their points, and not bang underneath and have to rebound, 70 ppg doesn't look very good. Guardscan still score in a half court offense with the 3 pointers. We have to get our ppg up to the upper 70's to be able to recruit the fast, big men.

I don't buy that argument at all.

The guards push the tempo. They get the ball to the big men. They dictate the style.

UCLA averaged 67 points a game last year, but somehow they assembled a very good front line. UCONN doesn't play at a breakneck speed, and they are always stacked with about six tremendous big men, most of whom are raw and get to the NBA based on their defensive acumen. Illinois averaged 70 points a game, and yet they had two or three forwards who could dominate the action, including draft pick James Augustine. There was Pitt, with the best frontcourt in the Big East outside of UCONN, at 72 ppg.




I'm not sure what argument you are not buying.

My argument is: "Other coaches can pull the stats and makethe case against us."

I'm not at all saying I agree with thecase that the other coaches can make, but if the recruits buy into it, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with it.

[Will Lavender]

KennesawCat wrote: Will Lavender wrote: It's not very hard for Billy, K, Roy, et al to convince recruits that UK runs a slower paced offense. In the last three years, UK has averaged 73.9, 73.6, 70.8 ppg. Last year, we didn't rank in the top 150 in ppg. Here's the rankings of others that we are trying to recruit against. To the big men who want to run the floor to get their points, and not bang underneath and have to rebound, 70 ppg doesn't look very good. Guardscan still score in a half court offense with the 3 pointers. We have to get our ppg up to the upper 70's to be able to recruit the fast, big men.

I don't buy that argument at all.

The guards push the tempo. They get the ball to the big men. They dictate the style.

UCLA averaged 67 points a game last year, but somehow they assembled a very good front line. UCONN doesn't play at a breakneck speed, and they are always stacked with about six tremendous big men, most of whom are raw and get to the NBA based on their defensive acumen. Illinois averaged 70 points a game, and yet they had two or three forwards who could dominate the action, including draft pick James Augustine. There was Pitt, with the best frontcourt in the Big East outside of UCONN, at 72 ppg.




I'm not sure what argument you are not buying.

My argument is: "Other coaches can pull the stats and makethe case against us."

I'm not at all saying I agree with thecase that the other coaches can make, but if the recruits buy into it, it doesn't matter if you or I agree with it.

Well, okay. I guess I agree with that. :D I sort of misread you.

I'm not sure that that is the particular argument used. Of course I don't know because I don't know how these kids are recruited. But I would say that instead of the ppg argument when you're trying to "sell" your program to a big kid, I would say you use the "I'll let you have offensive freedom" argument.

This is why Roy Williams has been so succesful. The big guys are North Carolina are the focal point of their offense. UNC is one of the few places in all of college basketball -- a guard-dominated game -- where that's true.

In his book on the UNC/Duke rivalry, author Will Blyth talks about the North Carolina guards in 2005 being upset that Williams favored the big men over them. One, guard Melvin Scott, told the author that he wished he would have gone to Duke because "Guards don't get to showcase their skills at North Carolina as much." This was in the national championship year.

[KennesawCat]

Will Lavender wrote:
UCLA averaged 67 points a game last year, but somehow they assembled a very good front line. UCONN doesn't play at a breakneck speed, and they are always stacked with about six tremendous big men, most of whom are raw and get to the NBA based on their defensive acumen. Illinois averaged 70 points a game, and yet they had two or three forwards who could dominate the action, including draft pick James Augustine. There was Pitt, with the best frontcourt in the Big East outside of UCONN, at 72 ppg.




One more point, Will, (and do respect your statements) The Hicksons, Pattersons, Andersons, etc. aren't looking at UCLA, Pitt, Uconn. It's between us and UF, Duke, UNC, TN. I am concerned that these particular recruits we are wiffing on this year are looking for a program that is big man offense oriented with a fast pace. It's too easy to argue that that isn't the way we play.

But I want to make this point, we can be a good half-court offense team and still be have a "push the tempo" mentality. I've seen us play that way, and I think Tubby would certainly like to see that type of game. But sometimes you can't run, like when the other team is scoring or is particularly good at defending the fast break, and you have to operate and score half-court.

I think our ppg was down because players were out of position, and not able to get comfortable with their offensive game. Rondo was at the 2 last year (he's a 1), and he couldn't hit a lick from outside. Pat was at the 1 (he's a 2), and he couldn't free himself up for a shot. Joe was at the three (he's a 2). Perry played 4 most of the time (he's a 3). Whenour guys get back to their natural positions this year, we can push tempo. I hope that's what we do.

[Buddah]

trublue4life wrote: UKCATZFAN wrote: yes its an obvious choice based on playing time alone

but does Patterson want to play in a slow down plodding offense???

Great Question!!!:rolleyes:And, since that'sNOT the offense we run, he should not have a problem coming here.
no, true, but it is the perception, the national perception and it is like tefelon... I think the choice is as obivous as the wall over there, but that really doesn't mean anything.. also i would probably bet my left eye and alot of money that noah, hartford, and brewer leave after this year... and if by some miracle they don't i am sure they could pay their own way. to get patrick to lexington he has to go through gainsville and durham. we are neck and neck with duke right now... patrick and his dad may like duke, but mom seems to like UK, but all are ACC fans from what i have read.. who knows ?

[Buddah]

Buck Naked wrote: Perhaps the high schoolcoach of PF recruit named Koshwal provides the answer. Koshwal is a highly rated PF that we recruited some, but seem to have backed off. His coach said Tubby's system is terrible for big men that are mobile, can put the ball on the floor, and can shoot from the outside. He said Koshwal wasn't interested because he coulnd't showcasehis talents in Tubby's system.

Lots ofTubby backers like to argue we don't have a "plodding system", but recruits disagree. The proof is theway all the big guys rejectthereadily available playing time.

Call it what you want, but we run a half court offense, that lacks movement, that forces the ball into the middle. Tubby tries very hard to limit the totalnumber of possessions per game. He plays a system that works wellwith inferior talent because it keeps most games close and gives you a chance to win. On the other hand, we've all seen highly regarded players struggle in this system.



good points. the proof is in the pudding, right, wrong or indifferent, perception is reality... also it should be common sense that tubby system is not really suited for truly mobilebig men who can shoot consistently from the arc.for afour who could shot. while estill, camra, and hayes may have shot an occasional shot from outside, they are no where near the mobile big men that some are trying to make them out to be... they, like tubby system is predicated on the 10 ft high percentage shot and are needed down low. you are right on the limit the poessesions per game.. but then again that is tubby's system and i doubt very seriously it is going to change.... contrasted with tn, or a memphis or even florida and you can see the differences... who knows ?

[poodoo]

One more point, Will, (and do respect your statements) The Hicksons, Pattersons, Andersons, etc. aren't looking at UCLA, Pitt, Uconn. It's between us and UF, Duke, UNC, TN. I am concerned that these particular recruits we are wiffing on this year are looking for a program that is big man offense oriented with a fast pace. It's too easy to argue that that isn't the way we play.

But I want to make this point, we can be a good half-court offense team and still be have a "push the tempo" mentality. I've seen us play that way, and I think Tubby would certainly like to see that type of game. But sometimes you can't run, like when the other team is scoring or is particularly good at defending the fast break, and you have to operate and score half-court.

I think our ppg was down because players were out of position, and not able to get comfortable with their offensive game. Rondo was at the 2 last year (he's a 1), and he couldn't hit a lick from outside. Pat was at the 1 (he's a 2), and he couldn't free himself up for a shot. Joe was at the three (he's a 2). Perry played 4 most of the time (he's a 3). Whenour guys get back to their natural positions this year, we can push tempo. I hope that's what we do. QUOTE by KennesawCat

___________

Excellent post, KennesawCat. Too, I have no doubt that Tubby had wanted us to be able to play at a fast tempo last season. I remember how Rondo had gone to Tubby and asked him to do that. I also remember how we were TRYING to do so early in the year and were not being successful. I was watching games, having wanted us to play at that fast tempo, but seeing that it was not working for us. :(

As Tubby once said on his radio show, no player on the team was fast enough to keep up with Rondo. I would have LOVED to have seen Rondo playing with some big men who could run the floor and finish. An additional problem for the team (one recently mentioned by Tubby in an article about Rondo) was that Rondo, as the point guard, was the team's leading rebounder. As he said, thatshowed that the team "had some other issues." While Tubby could not make these comments while the guys were playingbasketball last season,based on the quotes I have readfrom both Rondo and Tubby, I think even Rondo himself realizesnow that Tubby couldnot play at the fast tempo he had hoped to play at last season, BECAUSEof the other personel on the team.That was a shame. I would have loved for Azubuike to have been onlast year's team with Rondo at the point. I would be willing to bet the POINTS scored byTubby's offense last season wouldhave been WAY HIGHER, besides the number of winsfor the team and their length of time in the NCAATourney. :(

In regard to Tubby's teams' playing a "slow, plodding offense," that is the PERCEPTION, as Buddah commented.Unfortunately, some UK fans perpetuate that myth, potentially hurting recruitingandeither not recognizing that possibility, or refusing to realize it and accepting any responsibility for their actions.:(

Iremember how Dick Gabriel used to contradictfans' belief that Tubby was slowing down the players when Cliff Hawkins was at the point. Gabriel said he would often hear Tubby screaming toHawkins, "PUSH THE BALL." Go figure.Yes, perception often becomes reality.

In answer to the question, I sincerely believe that choosing UK is the BEST for Patrick Patterson. Why?One reason is the obvious playing time. Another is that Patrick Patterson is in the mold of a Chuck Hayes, according to what I have read, in his work ethic, desire to play defense,and team attitude. Tubby Smith has loved no player like Chuck Hayes, besides how well his teams played with Chuck Hayes on the floor, so Patrick would likely be very happy at UK and his team successful.A third reason is that Tubby DOES develop players for the NBA,including several big men, and the evidence is inthe number of players who have overachieved under Tubby and have gone on the NBA and also comments from NBA coaches. A fourth reason is that the power forward position is the missing link for a UK team that can go on to win a national championship. Tubby Smith, from 2003-2005, won more games than any other coach, but was not nearly as successful last season with the lack of a top power forward. With Patrick and the current freshmen, in particular, that dream is very possible, and Patrick would be playing for a man who has not only won a national championship, but has barely missed three additional Final Fours and the chance to win another one. Finally, Mrs. Patterson would know that her son would be loved and cared for by a man ofgreat integrity and class, one who would not just say something during recruiting and then not keep his promise. She would know that her son was playing fora coach who is an even better human being than a coach, while being a great coach (according to those who know him well).

That's my FIVE reasons that UK isthe best place for Patrick Patterson. No, I'm not commiting a recruiting violation as a UK fan, for I'm only answering Tre's question in an honest fashion and not speaking to the player or Mrs. Patterson, Yet, I admit that I only wish Patrick (and his mom)were reading them, for they have surely read and heard someof the negativity we ourselves have read from Mr. Cheeks, etc., which in no way can be helpful to recruiting Patrick Patterson. :(

[audacious1]

poodoo wrote: In answer to the question, I sincerely believe that choosing UK is the BEST for Patrick Patterson. Why?One reason is the obvious playing time. Another is that Patrick Patterson is in the mold of a Chuck Hayes, according to what I have read, in his work ethic, desire to play defense,and team attitude. Tubby Smith has loved no player like Chuck Hayes, besides how well his teams played with Chuck Hayes on the floor, so Patrick would likely be very happy at UK and his team successful.A third reason is that Tubby DOES develop players for the NBA,including several big men, and the evidence is inthe number of players who have overachieved under Tubby and have gone on the NBA and also comments from NBA coaches. A fourth reason is that the power forward position is the missing link for a UK team that can go on to win a national championship. Tubby Smith, from 2003-2005, won more games than any other coach, but was not nearly as successful last season with the lack of a top power forward. With Patrick and the current freshmen, in particular, that dream is very possible, and Patrick would be playing for a man who has not only won a national championship, but has barely missed three additional Final Fours and the chance to win another one. Finally, Mrs. Patterson would know that her son would be loved and cared for by a man ofgreat integrity and class, one who would not just say something during recruiting and then not keep his promise. She would know that her son was playing fora coach who is an even better human being than a coach, while being a great coach (according to those who know him well).


Thank you! That's what this thread was supposed to be about. :D

Coach Smith's integrity is 2nd to none. There is no more trustworthy man in college basketball. I agree that Mrs. Patterson would be very pleased to put her son under his guidance.

[poodoo]

You are welcome,Tre. Too, I had thought you might appreciatea post about why UK IS the best for Patrick. :lol:

[audacious1]

Just learned this:

Duke's #1 priority is Kyle Singler at this position. Patrick is a backup plan.

Kentucky's #1 priority for all positions is Patrick Patterson.

One more piece of evidence that Kentucky is best for Patrick.