Coming into UCLA i had high expectations for this kid. at 6'10 and a toned 275, his post game is refined and he was a great rebounder. I expected him to ride the pine a little bit as a freshman, but expected much more of him this year, now he has been dismissed from the team...what went wrong?
freshman year was in terrible shape. Got into better shape as a sophomore, but he never showed any major skills in limited playing time. Not much of a loss in less he just had skills that were being held back that i dont know about. As far as what went wrong in him leaving, im sure it had to do with minutes more then anything.
Thats what went wrong. Wasn't starting up till now, and wasn't going to start over Smith.
man i liked josh smith when i watched him. when you first see him you think "man that kid is tall and fat" then he catchs the ball with a 6'11 kid on him who looks like a athletic freak and he turns jumps cocks it back and dunks on the athletic freak for a and one and you wonder how the hell did he do that with all that weight. he will probably always have a weight problemt(pretty much every bigman in hs always has there weight probablem all the way through there nba career)
These things happen when big programs fall apart. Gordon left the team early in the year. Morgan has been dismissed, and there are those who believe Malcolm Lee will go pro. Add in that Roll, Dragocevic, and Keefe were seniors, it will not be surprising if you see a very different looking UCLA team. The same thing is happening at Oklahoma. Gordon will land at New Mexico, and we'll see how Morgan fares when he lands at some Texas or SEC school. Just looking at what the reports were on him as an incoming freshman, he was highly acclaimed but also regarded as raw. Maybe a new situation will be a better environment for him to improve.
yea..let them all transfer so stranford can have less good teams to deal with
I have UCLA as the second best team in the pac next year. They are gonna be way better. They dont lose anybody early. Morgan, keefe, roll, dragovic, not one of those guys was nba caliber player or major difference maker. Honeycutt, nelson, lee, josh smith, all 4 of those guys are gonna be very good players next year. And they have a lot of depth coming off the bench.
If UCLA finishes second in the Pac 10 next year, then they are going to have a few one-and-done freshmen. Nelson wasn't really all that impressive. The fact that Lee is ever mentioned as a guy capable of leaving early and getting taken goes against everything he has done on the floor over the past two years. Honeycutt is a candidate to break out, but that is about it.
According to this article, the writer seems to think UCLA will have two or maybe three incomers starting next year. I don't know of how many teams who start three new players have a ton of success unless these are guys who are in the NBA within a year.
i dont think they will need to have one and done freshmen to be that good in the pac-10. its not like that conference is packed full of talent and all they would have to do is have a bunch of guys to play well. the freshmen dont have to come in and play great in order for them to finish number 2
yeah, the pac 10 is not that great. Reeves nelson was not impressive? Dude was a beast and people all over the west coast are calling him the next jon brockman. The fact he was playing center at 6-7 and now will have josh smith starting at center will only help his game. Lee and honeycutt are both very solid players and i think honeycutt will break out big time. Dpeth jerime andersen, branden lane and the freshman coming in. Arizona and washington are the only teams i see having maybe a better roster next year.