2009-2010 CATS and beyond

by Blueobsessed on Apr 9, 2009 8:18 AM EDT Comment 17 comments

For a number of reasons the fellows who will make up the 2009-20010 Kentucky Wildcats basketball team will have been recruited by three very well known coaches and the seniors, will by the end of the year, have played under three different big name coaches. In the process the team composition has evolved into a group of very tough, long athletic players.

Two players sould have been ready to command huge dollars in the NBA by this time. However, due to injuries, lack of depth and a continual transition of coaches, Meeks and Patterson still lack some basic skills that keep them, IMO, from being high lottery picks. As a guard, Jodie needs to improve his handle and midrange shot. As a potential small forward in the pros, Patrick needs to improve his mid and long range shooting. As a power forward, Patrick must get bigger and stronger. He is currently a tweener like Chuck Hayes.

For the last few years, KY has been looking for an outstanding PG; and the quest continues. Physically and emotionally, I don't believe I have seen a tougher point guard than Porter. The problem was that he was really a shooting guard. He took a great deal of physical abuse on the floor from other players and a great deal of emotional abuse (criticism) from the fanbase. However, he rose to the challenge every game and played his heart out. Always the loyal soldier, he did what was asked of him. I hope is walks on, or at least is recognized on senior night. It will not be complete without him.

So now we are left with four additional seniors to lead the team. Galloway is a gifted athelete who has a great handle, but must develop his outside/FT shot, Meeks who I hope for his sake will return, Ramon who is the best defender coming back from last year's team who has to become more offensively minded and Stevenson who cannot not get lost in a game and must dominate.

To this class, we find three juniors. The beast Matt Pilgrim is finally unleashed. At 6'8" 233 lbs, he is claimed to be a great rebounder and quick enough to play SF. Along side of him is Stewart, who has may really florish under Coach Cal's system. At 6'8" and 218 lbs., Stewart is a fine athlete. Finally we come to Josh Harrellson(6'10" 260 lbs), one of my three sons(Patterson and Stevenson). These three big men along with Orton (265), Cousins(250) and Patterson(235) make the deepest and highest quality front court I can ever remember. No one, and I mean no one should push us around like Georgia did last year.

This leads me to the sophomores. Miller (6'7" 225lbs) can playt the 2 or 3 and sometimes brought the ball up the court last year.He is alredy getting high praise from Coach Cal. Liggins (6'6" and 208 lbs.) has shown some talent at the PG but will need to make better decisions. He also must become a team player, because the talent level around him has risen exponentially.

The freshmen on this class are among the most talented athletes on the team. That is both good and bad. Good in the case that by March, barring injuries, we will have a dynomite team. Bad in terms of most freshmen have games early in their career riddled with mental mistakes that cost games. Poor defense, missed FTs, or fouling the three point shooter late in the game are just examples of what can happen. Nevertheless, Cousins (6'10 250 lbs.) gives us the enforcer that this team desparately needs. Orton (6'10" 260 lbs.) (hope he stays) is another 5 star beast. Hood (high 4 star 6'6" 185 lbs.) is ranked higher than Meeks was when he graduated from HS.

With Coach Cal's system, I forsee a team that plays 9 players many of whom have years of experience and all who were ranked a four or five star coming out of high school. These players are backed up by four experienced two star players who are good athletes. Coach Cal can certainly "call off the dogs" and still increase the lead with this team. We will just keep coming.

Finally, if someone gives up their scholarship, and walks on, transfers or something else happens, we have the opportunite to add a quality PG to this equation. It is a very exciting prospect.

0 recs | Comment 17 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Here's How I'd Like To See Coach Calipari Recruit

1999 (Top 5 rated class)
Keith Bogans Top 5 McDonalds/Parade A-A – Fall
Marvin Stone Top 10 McDonalds/Parade A-A – F
Marquis Estill Top 100 All-State, Gatorade A-A – F (Prop 48 Redshirt)
Nate Knight Top 25 JC All-Region – Spring (replacement for John Stewart, who died)

1998 (Top 5 class)
Tayshaun Prince Top 10 McDonalds/Parade A-A – F
Jules Camara Top 50 All-State – F
Desmond Allison Top 75 All-State – F
Todd Tackett Top 100 All-State – S
JP Blevins Top 150 All-State – F

1997 (NR class)
Myron Anthony Top 50 Parade A-A – F
Michael Bradley Top 75 All-State, Gatorade A-A – S
Ryan Hogan Top 100 All-State – F
Saul Smith Top 200 All-State – S

1996 (NR class)
Jamaal Magloire Top 5 Foreign, Top 50 equivalent – S
Heshimu Evans Top 200 (transfer) All-NYC – S

1995 (Top 5 class)
Ron Mercer Top 5 McDonalds/Parade A-A, Naismith POY – S
Wayne Turner Top 10 McDonalds/Parade A-A – S
Oliver Simmons Top 100 All-State – F
Nazr Mohammed Top 100 All-State – S

1994 (Top 10 class)
Antoine Walker Top 10 McDonalds/Parade A-A – S
Allen Edwards Top 50 All-State, S&S All-America – F
Scott Padgett Top 150 All-State – F
Derek Anderson Top 75 (transfer) All-State – S
Cameron Mills Top 250 (walk-on, later on scholarship) All-State – S

1993 (NR class)
Jeff Sheppard Top 50 Parade A-A – F
Anthony Epps Top 200 All-State – S
Mark Pope Top 75 (transfer) All-State – S

1992 (#1 class)
Rod Rhodes Top 5 McDonalds/Parade A-A – F
Tony Delk Top 10 McDonalds/Parade A-A – F
Walter McCarty Top 25 Parade A-A – F Prop 48 redshirt
Jared Prickett Top 50 All-State, Gatorade A-A – F
Rodney Dent Top 25 JC JuCo A-A – S

1991 (NR class)
Andre Riddick Top 50 Parade A-A – F
Aminu Timberlake Top 200 All-City – F
Chris Harrison Top 250 All-State – F
Dale Brown Top 10 JC JuCo A-A – F

1990 (Top 20 class)
Jamal Mashburn Top 25 Parade A-A – F
Gimel Martinez Top 50 All-State – S
Travis Ford Top 50 Parade A-A (transfer) – S
Carlos Toomer Top 500 All-State – F

by FortyYearCatFan on Apr 9, 2009 11:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Forty, I'm with you. This type of scenario would be great.

by Blueobsessed on Apr 9, 2009 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

ratings accurate

Myron Anthony and Allen Edwards ended up overrated, and Epps and Nazr were slightly underrated, but otherwise these ratings seem to have held up fairly well

by bschoen on Apr 10, 2009 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Confirmation

I must say I’m surprised — perhaps I shouldn’t be considering your other preferences — by your recruiting standards for UK. It will be interesting to research those classes in comparison with the other elite programs.

by Wild Weasel on Apr 10, 2009 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

1990 - 97 Classes Were Signed By Pitino, 1998 And 99 Signed By Tubby

Ratings were by others, not me.

UK had the 2nd best W-L record to Kansas in the 1990’s and was 3rd best in NCAA results behind Duke and North Carolina in the 90’s.

If you don’t like Pitino’s recruits of the 90’s, you won’t like many recruits.

Sheesh!

by FortyYearCatFan on Apr 11, 2009 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe Cal

will set the standard here for recruiting. Consistantly top 5.

by Grasslands1 on Apr 9, 2009 12:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

Calipari will rival Joe Hall – who was the best recruiter EVER at UK (I think, anyway).

by FortyYearCatFan on Apr 9, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

IMO

Chuck Hayes is not a tweener. He is only suited to play the power forward and has played the four and even five for Houston but never the three. Patterson is certainly not a tweener and will never play small forward. He is two inches bigger than Chuck with a much better post game. Pat needs to develop his jumper and he will be set to go at the power forward. Pilgrim also will never play the small forward spot. He has a good shot but lacks the ball handling skills and mobiilty. All three of these guys are power forwards. While all three may be an acceptable height for a small forward in the NBA their build and game are all suited to the four. IMO I dont see any of these guys ever playing the three.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Apr 9, 2009 1:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

davw83

Good points. I is my hope that by staying at the college level one more year Pat’s game will change. I believe his current strengths are his mobility and moving without the ball. Unfortunately, we did not get him the ball enough. The runouts he showed us this year shows he has wheels, although he looked to me like he was not jumping as high this year after last year’s injury.

I used the word “tweener” because this year showed me that in a double team against two strong PFs Pat does not have the mass or strength to “take up a lot of space”. I believe, though younger, both Orton and Cousins will fare better in the middle this next year.

Patricks weight has always concerned me. Hayes outweighs Pat by 10-15 lbs of raw muscle. At nearly 250 lbs. that is why he can compete at the NBA level. I differ with you on Pat having the better post game, but that is a matter of opinion. I am just saying Pat would be a better PF with 10-15 lbs. of additional muscle and be considered a better overall player with better ball handling skills and an improved outside shot. He is too one-dimensional.

The statements about Pilgrim are probably exaggerations I have read in other posts. I suspect you are right and that he is also a PF. Although, this new coach likes them big and strong.

by Blueobsessed on Apr 9, 2009 2:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hayes

I love Hayes but think its very clear Pat has better moves in the post. Pat averages about 5 more ppg than Chuck ever did. Chuck also has 3 years of NBA training behind him. Pat will gain that weight whether in college or in the pros over the next couple of years as his body matures.

DEEETROIT BASKETBALLL!!!

by davw83 on Apr 9, 2009 4:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

OOPS! A very important part of the equation has not been mentioned.

While we all know that Coach Cal can coach, something very important has happened when Coach came to Kentucky. With the exception of the Assistant who stayed behind at Memphis, Coach Cal has brought with him an entire proven team of Assistant Coaches who have won big. Add this to the talented players who are currently here and those who are yet to come and it is an exciting formula for success.

by Blueobsessed on Apr 9, 2009 3:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

ROD STRICKLAND!!!

"If anything's worth doing, it's worth doing right."

by mrmondaynite on Apr 9, 2009 5:09 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

RSCI (Consensus) Top 100, Top 50, Top 10 Recruits BY SCHOOL

High School Basketball per www.rscihoops.com since 1998.

Top Recruits by College

The following lists show the number of Top 100, Top 50, and Top 10 recruits for each college since 1998.

Top 100 Team – Total – %
North Carolina 33 3.17%
Florida 33 3.17%
Duke 31 2.98%
Connecticut 29 2.79%
Kansas 28 2.69%
UCLA 28 2.69%
Arizona 27 2.60%
Michigan State 24 2.31%
Kentucky 23 2.21%
Louisville 22 2.12%
Alabama 21 2.02%
Memphis 21 2.02%
Syracuse 21 2.02%
Wake Forest 20 1.92%
Ohio State 19 1.83%
Georgia Tech 19 1.83%
NC State 18 1.73%
Georgetown 18 1.73%
Texas 18 1.73%
Villanova 18 1.73%
Tennessee 17 1.63%
Illinois 17 1.63%
Michigan 17 1.63%
Indiana 17 1.63%
Maryland 17 1.63%
Missouri 16 1.54%
Mississippi State 16 1.54%
DePaul 15 1.44%
USC 15 1.44%
Virginia 14 1.35%
Oklahoma 14 1.35%
Washington 14 1.35%
Florida State 13 1.25%
Stanford 13 1.25%
LSU 13 1.25%
Cincinnati 12 1.15%
Arkansas 12 1.15%
Notre Dame 11 1.06%
Pittsburgh 11 1.06%
Iowa 11 1.06%
California 11 1.06%
Miami (FL) 10 0.96%
Marquette 10 0.96%
Oklahoma State 10 0.96%
Rutgers 10 0.96%
Seton Hall 10 0.96%
Texas A&M 10 0.96%
Wisconsin 10 0.96%
Clemson 9 0.87%
Auburn 9 0.87%
Purdue 8 0.77%
Georgia 8 0.77%
Minnesota 8 0.77%
Baylor 7 0.67%
St. John’s 7 0.67%
Oregon 7 0.67%
Xavier 7 0.67%
Kansas State 7 0.67%
Charlotte 7 0.67%
Virginia Tech 6 0.58%
Arizona State 6 0.58%
Iowa State 6 0.58%
South Carolina 6 0.58%
West Virginia 5 0.48%
Gonzaga 5 0.48%
New Mexico 4 0.38%
Vanderbilt 4 0.38%
UNLV 4 0.38%
Colorado 3 0.29%
Temple 3 0.29%
Fresno State 3 0.29%
Boston College 3 0.29%
Providence 3 0.29%
South Florida 3 0.29%
UAB 3 0.29%
Louisiana Tech 3 0.29%
Dayton 2 0.19%
Massachusetts 2 0.19%
Texas Tech 2 0.19%
Nebraska 2 0.19%
Mississippi 2 0.19%
Oregon State 2 0.19%
Houston 2 0.19%
Brigham Young 2 0.19%
Fordham 2 0.19%
Southern Methodist 2 0.19%
UIC 1 0.10%
Tulsa 1 0.10%
Rhode Island 1 0.10%
Rice 1 0.10%
Valparaiso 1 0.10%
La Salle 1 0.10%
Florida International 1 0.10%
Utah 1 0.10%
Saint Louis 1 0.10%
Akron 1 0.10%
Missouri State 1 0.10%
Southern Illinois 1 0.10%
Eastern Michigan 1 0.10%
San Diego State 1 0.10%
Penn State 1 0.10%
George Washington 1 0.10%
Fairfield 1 0.10%
Richmond 1 0.10%
Iona 1 0.10%
New Mexico State 1 0.10%
Manhattan 1 0.10%
Bradley 1 0.10%
Marshall 1 0.10%
Toledo 1 0.10%
Washington State 1 0.10%
Hawaii 1 0.10%
Binghamton 1 0.10%
San Jose State 1 0.10%
Nevada 1 0.10%

Top 50 Team – Total – %
North Carolina 29 5.57%
Duke 27 5.18%
Florida 21 4.03%
UCLA 20 3.84%
Arizona 18 3.45%
Kansas 17 3.26%
Connecticut 17 3.26%
Kentucky 16 3.07%
Syracuse 16 3.07%
Michigan State 15 2.88%
Louisville 13 2.50%
Texas 12 2.30%
Alabama 11 2.11%
Missouri 10 1.92%
Memphis 10 1.92%
Ohio State 10 1.92%
DePaul 9 1.73%
Villanova 9 1.73%
Michigan 9 1.73%
Florida State 9 1.73%
NC State 9 1.73%
USC 9 1.73%
Georgetown 8 1.54%
Georgia Tech 8 1.54%
LSU 8 1.54%
Wake Forest 8 1.54%
Maryland 8 1.54%
Virginia 7 1.34%
Illinois 7 1.34%
Iowa 7 1.34%
Cincinnati 7 1.34%
Washington 6 1.15%
Mississippi State 6 1.15%
Oklahoma State 6 1.15%
Tennessee 6 1.15%
Indiana 6 1.15%
Seton Hall 5 0.96%
California 5 0.96%
Notre Dame 5 0.96%
Oklahoma 5 0.96%
Minnesota 5 0.96%
Arkansas 5 0.96%
Oregon 4 0.77%
St. John’s 4 0.77%
Rutgers 4 0.77%
Stanford 4 0.77%
Kansas State 3 0.58%
Texas A&M 3 0.58%
West Virginia 3 0.58%
Wisconsin 3 0.58%
Purdue 3 0.58%
Pittsburgh 3 0.58%
South Carolina 3 0.58%
Colorado 2 0.38%
Marquette 2 0.38%
Georgia 2 0.38%
Xavier 2 0.38%
Fresno State 2 0.38%
Houston 2 0.38%
Miami (FL) 2 0.38%
Arizona State 2 0.38%
Baylor 2 0.38%
Auburn 2 0.38%
New Mexico State 1 0.19%
San Jose State 1 0.19%
La Salle 1 0.19%
Southern Methodist 1 0.19%
UAB 1 0.19%
Temple 1 0.19%
Nevada 1 0.19%
UIC 1 0.19%
Charlotte 1 0.19%
Gonzaga 1 0.19%
Hawaii 1 0.19%
Brigham Young 1 0.19%
South Florida 1 0.19%
Eastern Michigan 1 0.19%
Massachusetts 1 0.19%
San Diego State 1 0.19%
Clemson 1 0.19%
Mississippi 1 0.19%
Iona 1 0.19%
Binghamton 1 0.19%

Top 10 Team – Total – %
North Carolina 13 15.12%
Duke 9 10.47%
Michigan State 6 6.98%
UCLA 5 5.81%
Kentucky 4 4.65%
Minnesota 3 3.49%
Florida 3 3.49%
Memphis 3 3.49%
Kansas 3 3.49%
Alabama 2 2.33%
USC 2 2.33%
Connecticut 2 2.33%
Georgia Tech 2 2.33%
Syracuse 2 2.33%
Wake Forest 2 2.33%
Indiana 2 2.33%
Arizona 2 2.33%
Ohio State 2 2.33%
NC State 2 2.33%
LSU 2 2.33%
Wisconsin 1 1.16%
Stanford 1 1.16%
Georgetown 1 1.16%
Louisville 1 1.16%
California 1 1.16%
Washington 1 1.16%
Mississippi State 1 1.16%
UAB 1 1.16%
Villanova 1 1.16%
Oregon 1 1.16%
Texas 1 1.16%
Kansas State 1 1.16%
DePaul 1 1.16%
Seton Hall 1 1.16%
Michigan 1 1.16%