Will the real "PG U" please stand up!

by BlueReign on Jul 12, 2008 9:30 AM PDT Comment 9 comments

Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N

I read the Lute article in the LA Times just to see how much he continues to “lose it” when I read Arizona being described as “PG U”. It got me wondering a bit if this is still an accurate description. There is no denying that Arizona produced a plethora of high quality PG’s during the 90’s and beyond. Arizona is widely known as “PG U” on a national level due to this. However, I think about all the PG’s UCLA has produced and we haven’t done to shabby ourselves (Actually, we'd blow them out of the water). When I think about what is happening under CBH and what I see in the future, I think “PG U” will be changing hands.

There is no doubt that we produced some great PG’s during the Wooden era but the “PG U” description is related to what has happened in more recent times. Thus, I’m excluding them for this hypothetical. I tried using some concrete parameters such as being “All Pac 10” and/or a high NBA pick but I couldn’t find the information I was looking for and I forgot to program my brain to remember such things.

Thus, I’m just going to include guys that 1) were pretty good (don’t need to be great) in college and 2) made the NBA. I’m also including the “Tweeners” as well just to make it a bit easier although you can argue it either way.

Arizona (8)

Steve Kerr (83-88)

Kenny Lofton (85-89)

Damon Stoudamire (91-95)

Jason Terry (95-99)

Mike Bibby (96-98)

Gilbert Arenas (99-01)

Salim Stoudamire (01-05)

Jerryd Bayless (07-08)

Notes: Lofton would have been a very good pro IMO if he stuck with the roundball. The guy that really started this was Damon IMO. But if you take a closer look, they really haven’t produced anybody of substance since Arenas left because Bayless barely was there and as for his pro potential, who knows what is going to happen. Currently with Jennings heading off to Europe, the de-commit of Gaddy, Nic Wise isn’t going to have scouts drooling over his pro potential. Thus, I don’t see anybody on their roster to carry the mantle unless Gaddy re-commits (very possible) or they go get another stud.

***Jason Gardner (99-03) – Really tough leaving him out considering how good he was and all the accolades he accumulated during his college career but he did not get drafted. IMO he got caught when teams were drafting Euro’s in the 2nd round to stash them away. [See UA's Official Site: 100 Years Of UA Basketball]

UCLA (8)

Pooh Richardson (85-89)

Darrick Martin (88-92)

Gerald Madkins (88-92)

Tyus Edney (91-95)

Baron Davis (97-99)

Earl Watson (97-01)

Jordan Farmar (04-06)

Russell Westbrook (06-08)

Notes: We’ve been a bit helter-skelter due to going through 3 regimes (Harrick, Lavin & Howland). But the PG’s that CBH is producing are top notch kids who know how to play the game the right way. Take a peek at what is being written about RW at the WWL.

In addition, we all know DC will be a 1st rounder next year. CBH restoring UCLA basketball and his ability to develop players (no matter how many stars or your ranking) has gotten the preps attention, especially PG’s. We have 3 guys coming in the fall that are being projected as PG’s in the NBA (If they develop and make it) as well as Kendall Williams for 2010. Not to mention being in it for Avery Bradley (possibly another RW) and Gaddy.

UCLA is on an upswing whereas Arizona’s cupboard looks a bit empty. So…..who really is “PG U” again?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

5 recs | Comment 9 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Mustafa Shakur ...

was a huge miss for AZ.

He had a great rep coming in and really, well, he pretty much sucked.

Go Bruins

by Achilles on Jul 11, 2008 12:08 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup

left Shakur off the list for the reasons you stated.

by BlueReign on Jul 11, 2008 12:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, that guy sucked

Super hyped coming out of HS and he did nothing for the Mildcats. Which makes me kind of glad.

But, part of me wonders, what if Shakur was a few youngers and came to UCLA under CBH; I suspect his potential would not have been wasted.

Just a thought.

by norcald503 on Jul 11, 2008 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think he was just a bust ...

everyone liked him, so it wasn’t like Olson mis-evaluated. He just wasn’t that good, no feel, streak shooter at best, weak on defense.

I think it would be a mistake to completely write Olson off and put Shakur’s lack of development on him. Maybe - maybe - Howland could have gotten a little more out of him, but I think Shakur was just one of those guys who was overrated.

Go Bruins

by Achilles on Jul 11, 2008 3:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but...

...but Shakur would have either became a lock-down defender under CBH or he’d be sitting on the bench. At least he would have had something going for him. Offense is hard to coach, that I’ll give Lute (LRMAM never has been able to master that mid-range jumper). But defensive intensity comes from good coaching and the fact Shakur didn’t cut it on either end of the court does say something about Lute. And I’m not saying Lute mis-evaluated the kid. I’m just saying the kid never developed once he got out of HS.

Not every Bruin on our roster can score. LMR, LRMAM, AA2, ND, and MR are not our “go-to” guys when it comes to offense. Likewise, there are nights when JS, DC, and RW are just flat-out, stone-cold from the field. But every night you can count on every Bruin on the floor to play tough, in-your-face defense, even if his offense just isn’t clicking.

Look at JS. Dude couldn’t find his shot for the whole last few months of the season. But he still gave us good defensive effort and did all the little things. I think the fact Shakur didn’t do anything, not even defense or the little intangible basketball things indicates that at some level, the kid was not coached properly.

by norcald503 on Jul 11, 2008 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What are the odds the odds that

Lute actually sticks to his word of “no more 1 and dones” 1:1000? If so then we would most definitely become the point gaurd U of teh future, we’re already adding DC tot he list next year

O.A.

by Ollie on Jul 11, 2008 12:13 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

In the 90's...

“PG U” is pretty fitting for U of A – Damon, Terry, Bibby, and Arenas. One thing that does strike me about this group though, is that they all could be classified as ‘chuckers’. I don’t remember any of these guys (perhaps Damon in his early NBA years) being talked about as great point guards – more like great scorers.

Going forward though, I wouldn’t be surprised if CBH continues to recruit and produce better guards (point guard or otherwise) than Lute. CBH is clearly ahead in that regard since taking over UCLA.

by cabz on Jul 12, 2008 10:22 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

i think as far as non chucker nba point guards ucla wins.

i mean, baron davis is probably a chucker. but he has averaged over 8 assists, which terry, arenas etc have not. bibby might have but im too lazy to look it up.

farmar probably could start for some bad teams in the nba, and watson averaged 6 assists last year (he cant shoot though). westbrook is already destroying summer leagues, and collison im sure will play somewhere at least as a backup.

but westbrook will be playing point guard not as a scorer. collison for sure wont be a scorer. i think ucla for the most part produces more “set up” type point guards.

by hans007 on Jul 12, 2008 3:56 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs