That would be.... at "best" they go undefeated......not at worst they go undefeated.

 

Undefeated would be the best they could go.

 

I detect this post is laced with sarcasm.

 

You think?

I do.

That would be.... at "best" they go undefeated......not at worst they go undefeated.

 

Undefeated would be the best they could go.

 

I detect this post is laced with sarcasm.

I may have a typo....but I do firmly believe they'll finish out the regular season and the SEC tourney undefeated, and go into the tournament as the overall #1 seed.

John Wall is the best PG in school history. ...

 

You feel it's that clear cut that he's better than Tony Delk?

You feel it's that clear cut that he's better than Tony Delk?

 

I didn't think that Tony Delk was a PG. Wasn't Epps the PG during those years?

I didn't think that Tony Delk was a PG. Wasn't Epps the PG during those years?

 

Yeah....you're probably right.....I'm not that savvy in positioning for UK at that time.

For people saying this team has more talent, I think its more of a case of them seeing what this team has now. If we were back in 1996 and watching that team every game, I think most would end up picking the 96 team then.

 

That 96 team had an inside game, they had slashers, they had guys who could flat out shoot, they had ball handlers, and they had better guys on defense. This years team has a lot of the same, they have inside guys, they have slashers, they have ball handlers, and they have some guys who could shoot.

 

However there slashers are not as good. Guys like Miller, Dodson, etc. don't even come close to what Mercer, and Anderson brought to the table. When it comes to shooting, this years team also doesn't has as many good shooters. Defensively the 96 team guys were better IMO. Ball handling the 96 team had all kinds of great ball handlers, this years team turns the ball over A LOT! This years team does have probably the best player though in John Wall. However when it comes to overall talent, that 96 team was more talented and if we got to watch that 96 team every day we all would remember that. I mean we had guys on that 96 team who as freshman and sophomores didn't even get to play that much, and those guys ended up winning a title of their own in 98. That 96 team was just loaded from top to bottom. This years team is very talented, but as a whole they are not as talented IMO.

More talented. This is the most talented team UK has had in my lifetime. But, they're not better than the '96 squad. Maybe they'll get there, but they aren't yet.

 

John Wall is the best PG in school history. And, DeMarcus Cousins may be the most physically gifted big they've had.

 

Just my two cents...

 

They may have two guys who are more talented that any guy on that 96 team. However as a whole that 96 team is more talented IMO. That 96 team seriously had it all. I think the two things that really give the edge to the 96 team, is the amount of guys that could not only get to the basket but could shoot the basketball from the outside. This team has a lot of guys who can get to the basket, but not nearly as consistent when it comes to having guys who can knock down outside shots. Not to mention the 96 team also had the talent on the defensive end.

I agree with those who think the 97 team was better than the 98 team. I really like the 98 team as people. Shep and Mills were strong in their faith and not bashful about showing it. The 98 team had nobody as talented as Mercer or Anderson and were very fortunate to beat Duke and Stanford. It took alot of good fortune for them to win.

 

Yes it did. That 98 team was not the most talented team in the country that year, not top 5 talent and maybe not even top 10 talent. That team for the talent they lost, and what they had that year definitely overachieved. That is why I hate when people call its Pitino's championship. There is no way to know if we still would have won it that year. Shoot if Pitino never left, we don't know for sure if we would even have as many titles as we do now. We might have more final fours than we do now, but who knows maybe wouldn't have as many titles.

I guess it just depends on how you define "success". Mercer, Pope, Anderson, McCarty, and Delk all had really solid careers. Walker once made an all-star team. Nazr is still in the league and has been a solid backup (primarily) in his years.

 

I excluded Walker, though I think Patterson could maybe get there. I wouldn't bank on it but I think it could be possible. I think Patterson could be a good starter in the NBA for most of his career. I didn't think the other guys where ever in that category. Some have started, but it just wasn't (or didn't seem like it was) al the time for their careers. Mercer had a lot of opportunities because he was such a high pick, but I remember him as more of a role guy off the bench.

 

More talented. This is the most talented team UK has had in my lifetime. But, they're not better than the '96 squad. Maybe they'll get there, but they aren't yet.

 

John Wall is the best PG in school history. And, DeMarcus Cousins may be the most physically gifted big they've had.

 

Just my two cents...

 

I agree. :thumb:

 

They may have two guys who are more talented that any guy on that 96 team. However as a whole that 96 team is more talented IMO. That 96 team seriously had it all. I think the two things that really give the edge to the 96 team, is the amount of guys that could not only get to the basket but could shoot the basketball from the outside. This team has a lot of guys who can get to the basket, but not nearly as consistent when it comes to having guys who can knock down outside shots. Not to mention the 96 team also had the talent on the defensive end.

 

I think that Walker and Patterson could be a push. I don't know if anyone else feels like that but I really like PP's game now.

 

Talent wise Bledsoe and Orton, IMO have the potential to be better than the players on the '96 squad at their positions.

 

And John Wall also counts for about 3 or 4 players on the '96 roster IMO. He's just a special, special player and no one at UK that I've seen (or watched old tape of) is even close IMO.

At this point UK looks un-beatable to me.....I think at worst they go undefeated, to the Elite 8....it would be an upset of major, major proportions for them to lose before then....they are the top dog....

"An upset of major proportions"

 

Laying all the foundations for a big "I told you so" moment I see. Look, the chances of Kentucky going undefeated and winning the title are highly unlikely and in your favor to throw it back in everyone's face. For 30+ years no team has gone unblemished or even lost 1 game and still won the title. 2 losses is the minimum. Basically you have laid your money on every red and black number on the roulette table and UK has the green. It would be "an upset of major proportions" if UK is able to run the table just to the Elite 8.

They lost Mercer, Anderson and Epps from the '97 runner-up team. I don't think there is any doubt that the 1997 team had more talent.

Had they not lost Anderson to a knee injury-the 97 team would have won the title as well.

"An upset of major proportions"

 

Laying all the foundations for a big "I told you so" moment I see. Look, the chances of Kentucky going undefeated and winning the title are highly unlikely and in your favor to throw it back in everyone's face. For 30+ years no team has gone unblemished or even lost 1 game and still won the title. 2 losses is the minimum. Basically you have laid your money on every red and black number on the roulette table and UK has the green. It would be "an upset of major proportions" if UK is able to run the table just to the Elite 8.

And it takes luck as much as being good to go undefeated. UK had Indiana beat at Indiana that year but Kent Benson was able to tie the game with a shot to put it into OT. The thing about Benson's shot was that he slapped at it as he was falling backwards to the floor. A prayer, but it went in, and IU went on to win.

 

That's how I remember it from listening to Cawood on the radio. If I got some of it wrong someone can correct me, but that's how I remember it.

Edited January 14, 201016 yr by bugatti

You feel it's that clear cut that he's better than Tony Delk?

 

Yes. I do. I don't think there's any question of who would be picked if you lined up all the PG's in UK's history.

 

BTW, if I remember correctly, while Delk was primarily a 2-guard during his a career, he did play the point at one time. So, that may be why you thought of him. :idunno:

Yes. I do. I don't think there's any question of who would be picked if you lined up all the PG's in UK's history.

 

BTW, if I remember correctly, while Delk was primarily a 2-guard during his a career, he did play the point at one time. So, that may be why you thought of him. :idunno:

He played PG the first few games of the title year. I believe Epps was inserted in around the time of the Georgia Tech game when things took off. They were not winning big until that point. I would say it was for only 5 games or so.