Last years team had 1 bad game in the Dance. They would have beat WVU 9 outta 10 times, but on that night they played horrible and were still in the game at the end. Last years team should have won the whole thing and were better than this years team.

 

:thumb: I absolutely love this year's team, but it's not like last year's team was a bunch of selfish guys going out and playing street ball. They played well together and played good defense too. I'm not downplaying the accomplishments of the guys on this team at all, especially because they've had a really tough route to the Final Four, but the main difference (other than style of play, 3pt shooting, etc.) is that the 2010 version played a bad game on the wrong day.

Knight is a lock for first round and Jones probably is as well.

Sometimes really good teams lose an unexpected game in the tournament. Ohio State lost to UK. Pitt lost to Butler. Duke lost to Arizona. Kansas lost to VCU. It's the tournament & these things happen. They will continue to do so while the talent level evens out across the college basketball landscape.

 

What we should not forget is that last year's UK team lost to West Virginia--a #2 seed that could have made a case for a #1 seed. It's not like we got knocked off by Cornell or something.

 

I will say that I think this year's team is doing well because of the team emphasis. They remind me a lot of the last UK Final Four team with Sheppard, Padgett, Nazr, Heshimu, and that bunch, in that 2-3 guys can really kill you but all five can contribute in big ways (ala North Carolina game) too. But I will add that guard play has been very solid for the Cats. When you have guys who can both drive & shoot the ball, you can go far in a one-and-done type of scenario.

The difference ... one game. Kentucky shot poorly against West Virginia and panicked a bit when they fell behind. This year, they shot lights-out in the regional final.

The difference ... one game. Kentucky shot poorly against West Virginia and panicked a bit when they fell behind. This year, they shot lights-out in the regional final.

And WVU, a notoriously bad shooting team, was on point that night. If memory serves me correctly, every FG they made in the first half was a three point bucket.

Miller has a ton of athleticism, although he doesn't show it much. His all-around game has the potential to make it in the NBA. Can play from under the basket to out on the perimeter. We've all seen glimpses, and even a streak of consistency.

 

I definitely don't think that we've seen Miller reach his full potential at UK yet. I'm excited to see what type of player he'll become next year after continually working hard with Cal and the coaching staff.

It has been proven over time in the NCAA Tournament that a team with good shooters, guards and wings, and a serviceable inside guy is more apt to make a title run than a team with a dominant inside game but no one reliable on the perimeter. So, I would say...

 

1. The ability to shoot

2. They value the ball more i.e., less turnovers

3. The emergence of Josh Harrelson into a real force, not just a serviceable body

4. Leadership from upperclassmen - Miller, Harrelson and Liggins are giving this team more leadership than Patterson could last year. They're playing like guys who are refusing to let their team lose.

The difference ... one game. Kentucky shot poorly against West Virginia and panicked a bit when they fell behind. This year, they shot lights-out in the regional final.

 

Exactly. To act like last year's team wasn't capable of getting to the Final Four is ridiculous. One bad game cost them. If the tourney was a best of 3 for each round, UK would have been extremely difficult to knock out. This year's team has survived close games, they were one shot from getting knocked out by an Ivy League team in the first round. Sometimes the ball bounces your way, and some times it doesn't. Doesn't mean that UNI or VCU are better than Kansas, or that Zona is better than Duke just because they won one game. Anything can & will happen in the tourney, often times the best team doesn't win. I'm not saying that was the case last year, but I want someone to honestly and unbiasedly tell me that UK was not one of the 4 best teams in the country last year.

Shooting (3p and FT) and luck. Lets not forget that this year's team has almost 3 times as many losses overall.

 

3P - 33.3% vs 40.0%

FT - 66.9% vs 71.6%

Harrellson, Lamb, Knight, Jones and Miller and Liggins should be second round picks...and then Kanter

 

Okay there is some confusion about my post it reads in my mind that Harrellson, Lamb, Jones and knight would be first founders while liggins and miller have a chance to be drafted in round two...anyone would be crazy to think knight and jones wouldn't go in the first

I don't think this team is getting enough talent for how talented they are. Knight and Lamb might be better college players than Wall and Bledsoe. Simply because ofvtheir ability to shoot. College teams can help offset guys like Wall and Bledsoe by clogging the lane.

 

Though it is true that 5 UK players were selected in the first round of last years draft let's be honest it should have been 4. Would anyone trade Jorts for a healthy Orton right now?

I don't think this team is getting enough talent for how talented they are. Knight and Lamb might be better college players than Wall and Bledsoe. Simply because ofvtheir ability to shoot. College teams can help offset guys like Wall and Bledsoe by clogging the lane.

 

Though it is true that 5 UK players were selected in the first round of last years draft let's be honest it should have been 4. Would anyone trade Jorts for a healthy Orton right now?

 

We do not know what Orton could do playing 30 minutes a game. His talent level is much higher than Jorts. Your argument would only hold up IF you assume he would not have hustled or would have had a bad attitude.

We do not know what Orton could do playing 30 minutes a game. His talent level is much higher than Jorts. Your argument would only hold up IF you assume he would not have hustled or would have had a bad attitude.

 

I don't think we have to assume anything about Ortons attitude. Just look at how he exited.

 

So would you make the trade?

Really my point in the thread has more to do with this team going to the final 4 because they have to work harder than last years team. Also more to do with hard work and sacrifice over talent.

 

Last year's team didn't work hard and sacrifice because they didn't make the Final Four? I don't buy it.

 

I have seen several people knock last year's team this week for this or for that and I think it is all garbage. They had an extremely poor shooting night, that is why they didn't make the Final Four.

Last year's team didn't work hard and sacrifice because they didn't make the Final Four? I don't buy it.

 

I have seen several people knock last year's team this week for this or for that and I think it is all garbage. They had an extremely poor shooting night, that is why they didn't make the Final Four.

 

Last years team was great, they had good chemistry, and played good defense too. The area's where they sometimes struggled was in the half court, with turnovers and sometimes not being able to make shots. They were so talented that even if they shot bad, they were still very tough to beat. They were a GREAT team, and your right to say otherwise is wrong.

 

This years team is just really set up well for the tournament. This years team has talent, but also does not turn it over much, play good defense, and can make shots. So they just might have been as a team a team better suited for the tournament. However if this years team played last years team, last years team probably wins AT LEAST 7 out of 10 times. The days they would lose would be days they struggled shooting the ball and turning it over. If they don't do that though, last years team win every time. Last years team is overall the better team, however this years team is set up with exactly what you need for the tournament.