All Three Bruin Rookies Get Recognition
Bumped. GO BRUINS. -N
Many teams lost 1 player to the NBA last year, many lost 2 (Stanford and Memphis come to mind), but as far as I can tell, only UCLA and Kansas lost more than 2. But all 3 of UCLA's NBA rookies have established themselves in the league, which is remarkable. BAsketball Prospectus seemed to be the first to notice how well our Bruins are doing in the transition to professional basketball, and that continued with BP naming Kevin Love and Russell Westbrook to its All-Rookie first team and Luc Richard Mbaha a Moute to the All-Rookie second team. The same article put Love 2nd in the rookie of the year balloting (behind Brook Lopez). I am not sure I agree with that lofty position for Love because of his relative difficulty scoring, but Love certainly was a beast on the glass,
We all knew that Luc was an excellent defender. I used to rewind and replay action from games when he would make a play that made my jaw drop. The dive-steal at the end of the Gonzaga game (which is still on my tivo) and plays against LSU and Oregon (home 2007) where he covered 15 feet in two steps to steal a pass and block a shot, respectively, are in the category of plays I had to see again and again to believe that they actually happened. We saw on this year's Bruins team the difference between having an otherworldly defender at the 4 and an ordinary defender at the 4.
Still, I am surprised that Luc took no time to establish himself as one of the top defensive power forwards in the NBA. Usually, getting noticed for defense takes several years. But Luc is receiving all kinds of recognition for his defense. At Basketball Prospectus, he received honorable mention on the all defensive team at the power forward position. BP noted the enormity of his accomplishment:
Rare is the rookie who can step into the NBA and become an elite defender right away. Mbah a Moute has been just that at both forward positions for the Bucks, helping Scott Skiles turn the Bucks from one of the league's worst defenses into an average one overnight.
John Hollinger of ESPN noticed as well, naming Luc to his 3rd team all-defense at power forward:
It's rare for a rookie to crack this list, much less move into the upper tier of the league's frontcourt defenders, but Mbah a Moute was that good. The 6-9 forward from UCLA guarded 2s, 3s and 4s, and with his quickness, long arms and surprisingly developed knowledge, he proved adept no matter the assignment.
SI.com also ranked Love and Westbrook in their top 5 rookies of the season.
What does this mean? First, congratulations to all three Bruins to their success in the NBA. Second, when the NCAA season started, I don't think anybody fully contemplated at the time just how significant the loss of these 3 players would be to the 2008-09 Bruin team. Despite what Collison, Aboya and Shipp meant to the team, only Collison is an NBA player, and it is doubtful (to me at least) that he will have the kind of impact that any of the 3 2009 NBA rookies.
In 2008, we were all disappointed that we did not win a national championship. Looking at the 3 players from that team who succeeded in the NBA this year, I understand the disappointment. However, that 2008 team lacked an important quality that ultimately led to its downfall: depth. Beyond the 3 who left last year and Collison, the 2008 Bruins had no future pros. With Shipp struggling mightily at the 3 and no backups at the point guard or two wing positions, we really were playing with 4 excellent collegiate players. We had solid backups at the 4 and 5 spots, but Luc and Love were so good that the drop off to the bench in those spots was severe.
Why did we lack depth and can it be remedied? If we go back to 2003, we may have the answer why. Howland arrived in Westwood when UCLA was at an all-time low in recruiting circles. He immediately brought in some guys, but it takes time to build a depth of talent. Many local guys will commit based on faith that success will come (JF, AA, JS, LMR, thank you), others, namely nationally prominent recruits, want to see the success before they sign. The 2005 class (Collison's), which was signed before Howland had a winning season at UCLA, was excellent, but it did not have any recruits that were getting offers from what were then the national powers. The 2006 class, signed before Howland had an NCAA tourney win at UCLA (Keefe, Westbrook and Dragovic) included one player who could have gone elsewhere but signed on faith (Keefe), one foreigner who wasn't highly recruited, and one rising star who signed after the season we went to the NCAA finals.
Love was the first senior to commit to UCLA after it had national recognition, the first to sign with UCLA over a national power (UNC), and he was the recruit who stamped "national player" on UCLA hoops recruiting. We probably arrived too late to the scene to get Harden (whose close friend Glasser was already at ASU), but we had arrived.
Since Love's signing, we have brought in 10 top-100 players (according to scout.com) in 2 years (5 each season). In the 4 years ending with Love's signing, we brought in 10 (out of 14 total recruits), and no more than 3 in any season (AA, JF, LMR, DC, Ryan Wright, Roll, Keefe, RW, KL, Stanback). Prior to Love's signing, we signed fewer players (3.5 per season) and fewer top 100 players (2.5 per season).
It is clear from the above data that being a top-100 recruit is not everything (Luc was not in the top 100, Stanback and Wright were). However, I think it's fair to say that top-100 recruits have better odds than those who are not. Now that UCLA is locked a loaded in recruiting circles, I think it's safe to expect that no one will turn down UCLA because it lacks national cache or fails to produce pros. Academic and fit requirements will be challenging for Howland, but with the national presence, he should continue to find top players willing to come to UCLA.
With the last two classes, UCLA appears poised to counter the lack of depth of the 2008 team, which was only magnified when Farmar and Afflalo, two of the 10 top-100 recruits who would have been eligible on the 2008 team, left early for the NBA and Mike Roll, a 3rd top 100 recruit, was lost for the season due to his plantar tendon injury.
I am not certain whether the frosh-soph talent on next year's team will develop quickly enough for us to win a Pac-10 title next year, but I'm looking forward to watching it unfold and I have a lot of optimism about the next several seasons.
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.
6 recs |
6 comments
Comments
OUTSTANDING POST.
"In this program your passion bucket must be full to play SC." -- CRN, to Dan Patrick, 1/2008
by Meriones on Apr 17, 2009 6:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Do you think that...
bringing mainly if not entirely high-profile recruits will lead to a high turnover rate and end up compounding the problem of down seasons? What I mean is that maybe these more talented recruits are ready to leave Westwood after one or two years instead of three or four. Our team might perpetually be on the young side, and we might have an amazing team loaded with talent one year and a down team full of freshman the next because the talent has left.
Do you think there is a need for balance between high-profile recruits and kids like JS and LRMAM that might hang around a little longer. I would love to hear your take on this BruinsRule.
by Sideout11 on Apr 18, 2009 1:19 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Balance
I don’t think we need to balance between getting high-profile kids and under-the-radar kids. Luc was merely an unknown quantity, and I think that Howland probably felt that Shipp was as well. In other words, I don’t think that Howland was saying, “I’ve got to get these two. They’ll be really good but not good enough to go pro.” He evaluated them and believed that they could play for the Bruins at this level, and he was right.
I think that Howland should accumulate the most talented players possible that fit into his vision of the team concept and qualify academically. If that means taking 5 top 25 recruits, then by all means take them. Not everyone will be good enough or play enough to go pro after one or even two seasons. Some who fit into the team concept may even want to stay longer than they have to.
Bottom line is that it is about accumulating talented players who fit and taking your chances. When he’s accumulating talented players, I do hope that he finds guys that are underrated. Those guys, like Luc and RW were fun to watch as they grew into complete studs.
by BruinsRule on Apr 19, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do you think there is a need for balance between high-profile recruits and kids like JS and LRMAM that might hang around a little longer.
No way. The PURPOSE of college is to get prepared to get a good job, or find good work, or get educated for ones career. EDUCATION for one’s goal. If Hospitals plunked premed students from campus to pay them $1mil + per year based on their “potential”, we’d call that kid a phenom. Once a student has VALUE, it’s time for them to go to the next level… whatever the ambition of the student.
As for as our having 3 players on our own starting squad who were TOP ROOKIES in the NBA… it makes me happy for them as individuals, but extremely bleak about getting Number 12 anytime soon. I use to think that the most disappointing team were the "M"’s: Maclean, Madkins,Murray,Martin,Mitchell. In football, Terry Donahue’s 20 years of headcoaching should of brought us way more National limelight in light of the super NFL talent he squandered over the years. Ben Howland will likely never have a better team to get a title. We’ve seen Ben’s best effort with a loaded team. Sure, we may be “in the conversation”… but as for a National Title? Not with OUR approach to TODAY’S REALITIES of College Basketball. This is NOT Wooden’s Era. This is the MONEY Era.
Gotta adjust for THIS era. Hansbourgh’s, and Noah’s (kids who stick around) will always be rare from here on out.
On the bright side, our campus is located in the best place in America. I wouldn’t mind UCLA Basketball transforming into the WE MAKE NBA STARS and PLAY AN NBA STYLE GAME to sell to the best recruits in America (Globally), and find a way to market our kids way different (take advantage of our locale). THIS would be an adjustment for the current era/times. THIS puts us ahead of the curve in college basketball. This EXTENDS Wooden’s legacy as far as being a LEADER OF HIS GENERATION. Pauley would always be packed. Bring SHOWTIME to WESTWOOD. I can dig it. One and dones are here to stay. Unless, you know, things change to two and done. Don’t fight it. LEAD THE FIELD!
Any THOUGHTFUL takes? Please refrain from sophmoric gutteral knee-jerk replies please. I think MONEYBALL 2009 is worthy of thoughtful takes. Isn’t our own so called shooting guard (maybeshouldbepointguard) trying to do MONEYBALL? And HE hasn’t really impressed many of us. If THAT’S the direction… let’s lead it!
by iwantnumber12 on Apr 18, 2009 8:40 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
I Respectfully Disagree
With your basic premise regarding the “purpose of college.” Mexibruin’s points are well-taken: The true purpose of college is to further one’s education, and, particularly, to expand one’s world. I believe that education can include many, many things, including sports; it is still a broad learning experience, and one of self-discovery.
UCLA is so much more than its basketball program. It is not the University of California Basketball Academy. Neither is it a farm team program for the NBA.
Just ask Alfred Aboya.
Love My Bruins
by Bruingirl83 on Apr 21, 2009 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
Great Commentary, BruinsRule.
Reading your comments on the recruiting cycle before and after Howland beat Gonzaga and got us into the NC game was downright enlightening. (One reason I love BN is how often somebody’s post makes me react by thinking, “I never thought of it that way.”) This insight also underscored the difference early defections (to the NBA) have made on our (and other) programs. I often wonder what a difference in depth we would have had if Trevor Ariza, Jordan Farmar, Kevin Love, or Russell Westbrook had stayed for only one more year.
IWANTNUMBER12: I’m going to disagree with you on a couple of things. One, you are straight up wrong to say we will not win another championship with this coach or this system. Two, the purpose of college is not to get a good job it is to educate and expand one’s base of knowledge and experiences. That it has largely become a step before landing that career choice is incidental in my book. Grad school on the other hand . . . Three, UNC had what you proposed in terms of producing highlight reel NBA players for years. Giving us the likes of Vince Carter, Jerry Stackhouse, Rasheed Wallace, and Antwan Jamison; UNC failed to produce any national Championships. It wasn’t until they produced lesser talents in Rashad McCants, Sean May, Tyler Hansborough that they have produced their 2 most recent National Championships.
The difference in these 2 recent UNC eras was the emphasis on team over individual performance. I would like to point out that it is exactly this “No I in team” approach that Howland is being criticized for by yourself and others. Returning to my point on the PURPOSE of an education, I prefer to see old school John Wooden style basketball being played at UCLA. If I wanted to watch a bunch of one on one highlight reel basketball with poor fundamentals and nobody diving for loose balls I would watch the NBA.
In closing, I’m going to point out that the main reason Florida won 2 National Championships back to back is PRECISELY because members of that team elected to stay and play when they could have gone pro. And, I’m not talking about the second championship either.
A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden
by MexiBruin on Apr 19, 2009 9:21 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

by 














