The Utah Basketball Rebuild Project Thread: 2013 and after

I think we need a thread for watching/analyzing the process of rebuilding Ute basketball. I know the subject is painful and emotional, that as a result various message boards and blogs are littered with lively comments all over the map on this subject, and that the discussion can be bitter and divisive.

I find the subject so sad that I'd like to start a discussion that looks forward, and that simply accepts Tommy Connor's statement that the 2012-13 season is really Year One of the rebuild. Rather than talking about hiring mistakes, debatable decisions, and what might have been, this thread is for taking about what is.

My own humble take right now is that Krysko has shown he is a very good, maybe even excellent, X's and 0's coach, than he can develop players, and that he runs a tight, disciplined ship. He's also a coolly cerebral type of coach -- no drama. What he hasn't shown yet is that he can recruit. I think he can, but it's too early to say. He still has to overcome the chicken and egg problem for a coach taking over a program in turmoil: it's hard to win without good players, and it's hard to get good players without winning. Loveridge was his first big get and that is beginning to pay off. He needs the next big get now. It would be great if Chapman were that big one, but if not, Larry's got to find another somewhere.

Thoughts?

This IS year one in the basketball rebuild. Coach K didn't have any semblance of HIS kids last year, didn't have a full recruiting class, too many kids left, etc.

I've said this before. Last year we had zero PAC-12 players on the team. This year we have Loveridge, Olsen, Taylor, Tucker, Washburn has developed into one as well.

That is five. That is a HUGE leap in just one year, especially when you consider how terrible this team was last year. The hardest thing about this year is not only is Utah better, but the PAC-12 is much better as well. It may not feel that we are improving, but when you think back to last year, we have improved a TON.

This team is definitely on the up and up, and I am very excited to see where Loveridge, Taylor and Olsen are when they are juniors. Add in more depth and better recruits, and this will be a very, very good team. Add in one superstar...the sky is the limit. Once one of our young guys develops into, or we recruit "that" guy, we have at least 4 more wins this year, and everybody would be in love with the Kodiak and the rest of the running Utes.

We are some depth and a good PG away from 10 more wins this year. I don't mean that as a slam to our current PG's, but they simply cannot match the talent they face night after night. Coach has these guys playing hard, fighting the entire game and expecting to win. I love that. Ironically enough, those are the same traits Majerus showed us when he got here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Ute

I think we need a thread for watching/analyzing the process of rebuilding Ute basketball. I know the subject is painful and emotional, that as a result various message boards and blogs are littered with lively comments that all all over the map on this subject, and that the discussion can be bitter and divisive.

I find the whole subject so sad that I'd like to start a discussion that looks forward, and that simply accepts Tommy Connor's statement that the 2012-13 season is really Year One of the rebuild. Rather than talking about hiring mistakes, debatable decisions, and what might have been, this thread is for taking about what is.

My own humble take right now is that Krysko has shown he is a very good, maybe even excellent, X's and 0's coach, than he can develop players, and that he runs a tight, disciplined ship. He's also a coolly cerebral type of coach -- no drama. What he hasn't shown yet is that he can recruit. I think he can, but it's too early to say. He still has to overcome the chicken and egg problem for a coach taking over a program in turmoil: it's hard to win without good players, and it's hard to get good players without winning. Loveridge was his first big get and it is beginning to pay off. He needs the next big get now. It would be great if Chapman were that big one, but if not, Larry's got to find another somewhere.

Thoughts?

---

Its hard to say last year had zero PAC12 guys. Washburn was there, but not yet a PAC level talent, same as Martin.

We have certainly learned that Larry is not an aggressive "lets win by 40" kind of guy. Like KW, you could say they are both conservative to a fault with a lead.

I'm a big LK fan, I think things are on the up and up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SavaUte

Its hard to say last year had zero PAC12 guys. Washburn was there, but not yet a PAC level talent, same as Martin.

We have certainly learned that Larry is not an aggressive "lets win by 40" kind of guy. Like KW, you could say they are both conservative to a fault with a lead.

I'm a big LK fan, I think things are on the up and up!

---

I remember watching Majerus's teams, and there was a combination of score and time where you could predict that the offense would go into a stall to eat the clock. The offense would just pass the ball until about 8 seconds on the shot clock, then attempt to get a shot. It didn't matter if that combination occurred 5 minutes into the second half, he would start chewing up the clock. I always hated it, because if they game got closer, all of the rhythm on offense (that got that big lead to begin with) would be gone. I remember this happening in the 2002 loss to BYU in Provo (20ish point halftime lead slowly erased), but I also witnessed plenty of games that were wins that became painfully uncomfortable down the stretch.

Krystowiak does the same thing with this team, and it can happen prematurely. You have seen big leads erased against Sac State, CS-Northridge, and Colorado (off the top of my head, there may be more). Some of the issues with this team when they go into the stall: a) they wait too long to start executing to get a shot (inexperience for sure) b) execution is lacking, which leads to turnovers and easy baskets for the other team.

I have always hated the stall tactic. I understand the math behind it, but maybe the point/time combo needs to adjust for a) the talent/experience level of your team and b) the talent/experience difference competing in the PAC-12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Ute

I think we need a thread for watching/analyzing the process of rebuilding Ute basketball. I know the subject is painful and emotional, that as a result various message boards and blogs are littered with lively comments all over the map on this subject, and that the discussion can be bitter and divisive.

I find the subject so sad that I'd like to start a discussion that looks forward, and that simply accepts Tommy Connor's statement that the 2012-13 season is really Year One of the rebuild. Rather than talking about hiring mistakes, debatable decisions, and what might have been, this thread is for taking about what is.

My own humble take right now is that Krysko has shown he is a very good, maybe even excellent, X's and 0's coach, than he can develop players, and that he runs a tight, disciplined ship. He's also a coolly cerebral type of coach -- no drama. What he hasn't shown yet is that he can recruit. I think he can, but it's too early to say. He still has to overcome the chicken and egg problem for a coach taking over a program in turmoil: it's hard to win without good players, and it's hard to get good players without winning. Loveridge was his first big get and that is beginning to pay off. He needs the next big get now. It would be great if Chapman were that big one, but if not, Larry's got to find another somewhere.

Thoughts?

---

I think Ute fans need to get used to the idea that this renovation is going to take longer than they want, and a big reason is due to the level of competition (not to disparage the MWC, as they have been wildly successful in hoops as of late). The only way to eat this elephant is one bite at a time, and getting some new facilities for the basketball teams (men and women) will help immensely.

I think it has been established that Krystowiak and his staff can coach. I was sold on that when the team they had last year beat ANYBODY in the PAC-12. Now they have to sell this to recruits. To me, a realistic recruiting class (of four) would have one difference maker (multiyear starter), one maybe two solid contributors (bench players, possibly starters when Jr/Sr), and the rest are probably milk carton guys. Last years class was Coach K's first real class, and at first glance this pattern holds true, except for the fact that there are so many new faces, and so few returning contributors that everyone got a look of some sort.

I know there is the possibility that this years squad could actually win fewer conference games than last years team. I don't take that as a failure, because the PAC-12 is must better than it was last year, and when competition is tougher, some nights your best isn't good enough.

I was thinking of starting this thread over here this morning.

I agree that Coach K has acquitted himself well as an X's & O's coach so far. A few things that give me this belief:

-Almost always hold the opposing team's leading scorer in check (think Haws for BYU or Carson for ASU and many other examples); this was a Majerus staple
-Good defense in general--I believe Utah has been leading the PAC 12 in FG % defense most of the season
-Individual improvement; Look at Washburn's improvements - probably somewhat due to maturity but also some skills and fundamentals that he has learned in the last year that he hadn't before, see also Cedric Martin who was a JC non-recruit and is now a solid role player that contributes
-Keeping a team that is almost universally agreed to be below PAC 12 standards in talent competitive in almost every game

Having said that, those good qualities won't mount to a hill of beans if the talent level is improved. Can this staff recruit at a PAC 12 level? That is the question on which the Krystko era will hinge. I think there should be three recruiting initiatives:

1). Excluding BYU legacies (and heaven knows there are a ton of them), get the best players in the state. Loveridge and Van Dyke were wins in this regard (Loveridge especially--no reason for an LDS kid to commit to the recent U of U hoops dumpster fire but the staff sold him). Needless to say, Chapman is absolutely monumental here.

2). Compete for solid second tier talent in the west (California, specifically). We are not in position to compete with the likes of UCLA and Arizona for the elite talent right now, but we do need to go toe-to-toe with the lower half of the PAC 12 and win our share of recruits as well as against the MWC and even WCC--there are players at SDSU, UNLV and even St Mary's from California that would have been very good for Utah. From the last class, Utah signed Taylor and Tucker who I think only had WCC offers. Now I think these guys can help (see point #3) but they aren't going to be cornerstones.

3). Find some diamonds in the rough, regardless of location. This may mean getting back into the foreign recruiting game, which was very good for Majerus and Giac. Aside from Loveridge and Olsen (Boylen recruit), this freshman (and sophomore) class is composed of the diamond in the rough type. We have seen how good Bachynski can be with his head on right. Taylor and Tucker seem like they can at least be solid role players that contribute in the PAC. Seymour is a bit of a mystery to me right now--he seems like a diamond in the rough with some real upside to be a quality player but is really struggling to put it all together. Ahmad Fields (assuming he signs) from the current class is someone that seems to have some real diamond in the rough potential.

With the current recruiting class, I can't pinpoint any one player that I would not have recruited, but on the whole it lacks star power to compete with what most of the conference is bringing in. One way or another, recruiting is going to need to be elevated for Utah to succeed.

I have to prep for a few meetings, if y'all are good I might return with some more thoughts on the current roster and direction of Utah basketball this afternoon.

One thing is certain: K can get the guys to play defense. I love the new wrinkles that I've never seen before, such as playing zone for the first N number of passes, then switching to man-to-man. It throws the offense out of rhythm when the get set up to attack one defense, then just as they start, it switches to another.

Landing Loveridge was huge. It legitimized the program. Landing Champman would accelerate the rebuilding process exponentially. The biggest problem for us right now is not having enough P12 size/talent on the team. For example, in the pre-season, I thought we looked pretty good. I thought DuBois had decent size/length to be a consistent scorer. But as soon as the conference season began and we started playing P12 teams, DuBois suddenly looked 3" shorter than he did in the pre-season. I underestimated the size and length of the P12 guards.

If K can land some more talent, we know he can get them to play defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by U-Ute

One thing is certain: K can get the guys to play defense. I love the new wrinkles that I've never seen before, such as playing zone for the first N number of passes, then switching to man-to-man. It throws the offense out of rhythm when the get set up to attack one defense, then just as they start, it switches to another.

Landing Loveridge was huge. It legitimized the program. Landing Champman would accelerate the rebuilding process exponentially. The biggest problem for us right now is not having enough P12 size/talent on the team. For example, in the pre-season, I thought we looked pretty good. I thought DuBois had decent size/length to be a consistent scorer. But as soon as the conference season began and we started playing P12 teams, DuBois suddenly looked 3" shorter than he did in the pre-season. I underestimated the size and length of the P12 guards.

If K can land some more talent, we know he can get them to play defense.

---

these are great points. this team is excellent defensively. the 2 coaches from the arizona schools both alluded to that last week.

i love the speed at guard that CoachK has recruited. Taylor is a great find. he has amazing accelleration and reminds me of LaMichael James with how quickly he can start and stop and also cut. Loveridge is a terrific player as well. i like the future and it's being built on hard played defense.

i also don't get the feeling that this team has a lot of locker room problems. the last few years, it seemed like there were significant personality issues on the team. i have nothing to base that on, and it is just a gut instinct comment, but it feels like we have guys that know they are on a good (but young and developing) team and want to see this through. i could be wrong but really hope that i am not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

i love the speed at guard that CoachK has recruited. Taylor is a great find. he has amazing accelleration and reminds me of LaMichael James with how quickly he can start and stop and also cut.

---

Taylor has really made me a believer. I think he's hit a bit of a wall as he's trying to live up to the expectations he set, but given how he has worked his way up, I have no doubt this kid will succeed. He looked utterly and completely lost in the preseason and I had written him off for the season as another undersized PG. I have to give the kid all the credit in the world.

Quote:

---

i also don't get the feeling that this team has a lot of locker room problems. the last few years, it seemed like there were significant personality issues on the team. i have nothing to base that on, and it is just a gut instinct comment, but it feels like we have guys that know they are on a good (but young and developing) team and want to see this through. i could be wrong but really hope that i am not.

---

I think that this is an underrated point. Outside of the Bachynski issue, there has been no drama. At that, the resolution was the team coming together and rallying behind Dallin. Very positive signs indeed.

I agree with a lot of what's said here, or enough not to nitpick. Two things that I cannot let slide:

1. The rebuild will be slow and we have to accept it. For a program that's not on probation, it's an argument that just doesn't hold water and is emphatically refuted in multiple programs across the country every year. Even in our own league, for as much as Utah has improved, Arizona State and USC have improved much more quickly from last year. And the latter even fired its coach in midseason. The most startling disparity between USC and Utah is USC is 7-2 in games decided by 5 points or less. Utah is 3-8. (That we've had 11 such games, as opposed to six all of last year, is probably the greatest testament to the "improvement" of the team, but another such season would put Larry in the same class as Boylen and Giac in that category).

Eventually, for Larry to be extended past the life of his deal, there is going to have to be that one huge jump year. The sad thing, is it could have been this year. We've left a ton of wins on the floor. As things stand, we have all of four more wins vs. D-1 opponents than last year. Let's say we finish with 5, for a total of 10. The right coach long-term would get us to 18-20 next year. In any event, regression of any kind is not acceptable next year.

2. Larry can coach and knows his Xs and Os. Of course he can, but there's a caveat. We know he gets his players to execute his scheme and the dedication and effort is there. What worries me greatly is that Larry can't outcoach opposing coaches. We've seen that in the huge blown leads and the frequent inability to draw up plays late that make the difference in games.

As long as we're on the short end of the talent stick, we need a coach who not only can make up that difference, but can make opposing coaches/teams pay for their mistakes or lapses to detail. Being capable isn't enough. Hell, Craig Robinson is capable. So is Ken Bone. But they're not good enough to make up that difference in talent, which is why they're at the bottom of the league.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCalPat

I agree with a lot of what's said here, or enough not to nitpick. Two things that I cannot let slide:

1. The rebuild will be slow and we have to accept it. For a program that's not on probation, it's an argument that just doesn't hold water and is emphatically refuted in multiple programs across the country every year. Even in our own league, for as much as Utah has improved, Arizona State and USC have improved much more quickly from last year. And the latter even fired its coach in midseason. The most startling disparity between USC and Utah is USC is 7-2 in games decided by 5 points or less. Utah is 3-8. (That we've had 11 such games, as opposed to six all of last year, is probably the greatest testament to the "improvement" of the team, but another such season would put Larry in the same class as Boylen and Giac in that category).

Eventually, for Larry to be extended past the life of his deal, there is going to have to be that one huge jump year. The sad thing, is it could have been this year. We've left a ton of wins on the floor. As things stand, we have all of four more wins vs. D-1 opponents than last year. Let's say we finish with 5, for a total of 10. The right coach long-term would get us to 18-20 next year. In any event, regression of any kind is not acceptable next year.

2. Larry can coach and knows his Xs and Os. Of course he can, but there's a caveat. We know he gets his players to execute his scheme and the dedication and effort is there. What worries me greatly is that Larry can't outcoach opposing coaches. We've seen that in the huge blown leads and the frequent inability to draw up plays late that make the difference in games.

As long as we're on the short end of the talent stick, we need a coach who not only can make up that difference, but can make opposing coaches/teams pay for their mistakes or lapses to detail. Being capable isn't enough. Hell, Craig Robinson is capable. So is Ken Bone. But they're not good enough to make up that difference in talent, which is why they're at the bottom of the league.

---

I agree with most of what you have said. Where I often disagree in these discussions is with what I believe is implied in these critiques: that there are binders full (ha!) of coaches who could easily fit that bill waiting to be snapped up and that somehow we just end up with the wrong ones. I don't think that is true or at least I don't think they are so easily identified. If it turns out that K is not the next Majerus, but is a guy who gets us to that guy, that is not the worst thing and it is probably important that the coaching fraternity not view Utah as an impatient revolving door.

The success of KrystoMeth will hinge on the next two recruiting cycles and how the young kids develop. I'm not sold on Olsen as a Pac-12 caliber starting center yet: his reminds me a lot of self-proclaimed "lego maniac" Nate Althoff--a fundamentally sound, but frustratingly limited big man. It is also WAY too early to declare Dakari Tucker as Pac-12 material. Taylor has been impressive, but his size will always limit the offensive capability of this team. Loveridge is going to be really good, but he has to work over the next three years if he wants to become a star.

Next year's recruiting class has some potential. Delon Wright has good bloodlines and size, but JC point guards are risky bets; they haven't seen the size and speed of DI action. I'm not enamored with Brandon Miller of Parker Van Dyke, although I know some people are. I expect Kovacevic to be a backup his entire career - if he can contribute 15 solid minutes off the bench, that would be great. The D.C. kid (Ahmad Fields) is a total unknown to me.

Getting Brekkot Chapman would be hugely significant, but I'm not betting on it. He has some great offers out of state. Unless Krsty can polish up his Loveridge "cornerstone-of-rebuilding-a-great-program" pitch, I think that kid is a Bruin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCalPat

I agree with a lot of what's said here, or enough not to nitpick. Two things that I cannot let slide:

1. The rebuild will be slow and we have to accept it. For a program that's not on probation, it's an argument that just doesn't hold water and is emphatically refuted in multiple programs across the country every year. Even in our own league, for as much as Utah has improved, Arizona State and USC have improved much more quickly from last year. And the latter even fired its coach in midseason. The most startling disparity between USC and Utah is USC is 7-2 in games decided by 5 points or less. Utah is 3-8. (That we've had 11 such games, as opposed to six all of last year, is probably the greatest testament to the "improvement" of the team, but another such season would put Larry in the same class as Boylen and Giac in that category).

Eventually, for Larry to be extended past the life of his deal, there is going to have to be that one huge jump year. The sad thing, is it could have been this year. We've left a ton of wins on the floor. As things stand, we have all of four more wins vs. D-1 opponents than last year. Let's say we finish with 5, for a total of 10. The right coach long-term would get us to 18-20 next year. In any event, regression of any kind is not acceptable next year.

2. Larry can coach and knows his Xs and Os. Of course he can, but there's a caveat. We know he gets his players to execute his scheme and the dedication and effort is there. What worries me greatly is that Larry can't outcoach opposing coaches. We've seen that in the huge blown leads and the frequent inability to draw up plays late that make the difference in games.

As long as we're on the short end of the talent stick, we need a coach who not only can make up that difference, but can make opposing coaches/teams pay for their mistakes or lapses to detail. Being capable isn't enough. Hell, Craig Robinson is capable. So is Ken Bone. But they're not good enough to make up that difference in talent, which is why they're at the bottom of the league.

---

I agree with some of this. The team lacks talent and/or experience, top to bottom, versus our peers. I think this is the result of the roster almost completely rolling over the roster in 09-10' (graduation of Nevill et al), 10-11' (Boylen's panick pick-ups and Brown/Henderson defections), 11-12' (Boylen leaves, players don't come back, Krysto blows up the roster), and 12-13' (three returning scholarship players). Each of those events in and of themselves are a setback, but four consecutive years is not good for recruiting, continuity, and public perception.

Due to the talent that is available, the offense has few dimensions, lacks punch, and lacks consistency. If teams cannot take one away (i.e. ASU's inability to guard Washburn), then the team can have success. But far too often, it is easy to take this team out of what they want to do offensively. Defensively, they need guys on the wing that are longer. Watching Crabbe completely take over the game in SLC was frustrating to watch, but he could simply elevate over anyone that attempted to guard him.

This next year will be a huge indication of the direction of the program. The team loses three big contributors (Washburn, Dubois, Martin). Some of the young guys show promise, but if they don't develop sufficiently to at minimum replace the production of those three, next year will be frustrating to watch again. If the staff can develop the players in the program (and by proxy, the players in the program have the attitude and work ethic), I think next year will be a pleasant surprise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Applejack

The success of KrystoMeth will hinge on the next two recruiting cycles and how the young kids develop. I'm not sold on Olsen as a Pac-12 caliber starting center yet: his reminds me a lot of self-proclaimed "lego maniac" Nate Althoff--a fundamentally sound, but frustratingly limited big man. It is also WAY too early to declare Dakari Tucker as Pac-12 material. Taylor has been impressive, but his size will always limit the offensive capability of this team. Loveridge is going to be really good, but he has to work over the next three years if he wants to become a star.

---

Olson and Tucker are putting up dynamite numbers in limited action. If anything, those two deserve 15-20 minutes per game to see if their production carries over to an extended workload.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Applejack

I'm not sold on Olsen as a Pac-12 caliber starting center yet: his reminds me a lot of self-proclaimed "lego maniac" Nate Althoff--a fundamentally sound, but frustratingly limited big man.

---

I've become very curious about Olsen. He's surprised me with his offensive skills, and Krysko speaks highly of his work ethic and his rapid progress post-mission. What I wonder about is whether he can play defense at the PAC-12 level, especially 10-15 feet away from the basket.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCalPat

Olson and Tucker are putting up dynamite numbers in limited action. If anything, those two deserve 15-20 minutes per game to see if their production carries over to an extended workload.

---

I think Tucker can replace what Martin does for us defensively. He has a higher ceiling offensively as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoCalPat

I agree with a lot of what's said here, or enough not to nitpick. Two things that I cannot let slide:

1. The rebuild will be slow and we have to accept it. For a program that's not on probation, it's an argument that just doesn't hold water and is emphatically refuted in multiple programs across the country every year. Even in our own league, for as much as Utah has improved, Arizona State and USC have improved much more quickly from last year. And the latter even fired its coach in midseason. The most startling disparity between USC and Utah is USC is 7-2 in games decided by 5 points or less. Utah is 3-8. (That we've had 11 such games, as opposed to six all of last year, is probably the greatest testament to the "improvement" of the team, but another such season would put Larry in the same class as Boylen and Giac in that category).

Eventually, for Larry to be extended past the life of his deal, there is going to have to be that one huge jump year. The sad thing, is it could have been this year. We've left a ton of wins on the floor. As things stand, we have all of four more wins vs. D-1 opponents than last year. Let's say we finish with 5, for a total of 10. The right coach long-term would get us to 18-20 next year. In any event, regression of any kind is not acceptable next year.

2. Larry can coach and knows his Xs and Os. Of course he can, but there's a caveat. We know he gets his players to execute his scheme and the dedication and effort is there. What worries me greatly is that Larry can't outcoach opposing coaches. We've seen that in the huge blown leads and the frequent inability to draw up plays late that make the difference in games.

As long as we're on the short end of the talent stick, we need a coach who not only can make up that difference, but can make opposing coaches/teams pay for their mistakes or lapses to detail. Being capable isn't enough. Hell, Craig Robinson is capable. So is Ken Bone. But they're not good enough to make up that difference in talent, which is why they're at the bottom of the league.

---

My only issue is your slow rebuild paragraph. I do agree with you...to a certain extent. For whatever reason, Utah basketball was an expansion team last year. We had nothing. It was pathetic how bad that team was. Could have very well been the worst team in Division I football.

So, I do think the rebuild should be quicker rather than slower, but I think the clock started at the end of last season. If there aren't major improvements by the end of next year, then we have a problem.

The good news is that we have made major improvements already, have some good players to build off of, and just need to keep going on the trajectory that we are headed on.

http://championships.pac-12.com/mens...y-krystkowiak/

Here's a Des News article that includes some info on Delon Wright.

Quote:

---

The 6-foot-5, 175-pound guard has signed a letter of intent to play for the Utes next fall.

“I’m really excited about coming down and playing for coach K,’’ he said as he greeted Ute players after Sunday’s game at Maples Pavilion. “I’m really looking forward to it.’’


Wright is the younger brother of Philadelphia 76ers guard Dorrell Wright, who has played in the NBA for nine years. He calls himself “a late-bloomer” who wasn’t recruited out of high school.


“I just try to play an all-around game,’’ the 20-year-old said when asked about the strength of his game. “People tell me I have a high basketball IQ.’’
He said he chose Utah over Gonzaga, Washington and Washington State.


“They were recruiting me from the beginning,’’ Wright said of Utah. “This was the best fit for me. A lot of minutes might be available for me from the beginning.’’


This season, Wright is averaging 16 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists and 4 steals per game on 51 percent shooting and 48 percent from 3-point range. His team is 28-0 and currently playing in the California Community College Athletic Association postseason tournament and won its first playoff game Saturday night.

---

So it looks like he can shoot. That's good. At 6'5' and 175lbs., it also looks like he can afford to eat a sandwich or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SavaUte

We have certainly learned that Larry is not an aggressive "lets win by 40" kind of guy. Like KW, you could say they are both conservative to a fault with a lead.

---

Have we? Or could his current game planes have more to with not having the horses rather than Larry being conservative like KW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by USS Utah

Have we? Or could his current game planes have more to with not having the horses rather than Larry being conservative like KW?

---

Seems to me he's changed his game plan with a lead, like Kyle does. But (thankfully) I haven't seen all the games in which the Utes have blown leads this season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Ute

Here's a Des News article that includes some info on Delon Wright.



So it looks like he can shoot. That's good. At 6'5' and 175lbs., it also looks like he can afford to eat a sandwich or two.

---

If this cat can get to the line a lot, he'll be the best backcourt offensive threat we've had since Marc Jackson.

This thread seems like a good place to post Krysko's initial press conference on being announced as Utah's new head coach in April 2011:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3oaafZVv7g

Some interesting statements.

"I want to bring the pride back."

"There's no doubt in my mind we can get top 100 players."

"I love practice."

"Mike Montgomery was one of the coaches who affected me most as a player. Playing for Phil Jackson at Chicago was very enlightening."

In response to a question about how he planned to increase attendance: "If you build it, they will come."

It's interesting to compare the video just below with this one, two years later:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CvjJDZJ5AJc

This is a look back at 1998. Hard to believe it's been 15 years.

The 1998 Runnin' Utes, looking back 15 years

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LA Ute

This is a look back at 1998. Hard to believe it's been 15 years.

The 1998 Runnin' Utes, looking back 15 years

---

It's an insipid summary, missing a lot of great deatails, color and drama. For example, how can it not mention that Arizona as the defending NC and had everybody back, that North Carolina had future NBA superstars Jamieson and Carter, these two teams' no. 1 seedings and 30 plus win records, and that everyone's brackets picked either of these two teams to win it all. Utah was actually an underdog against Arkansas and its 40 minutes of hell. Also, Utah led most of the second half against Kentucky. There's no better write up than this anywhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

It's an insipid summary, missing a lot of great deatails, color and drama. For example, how can it not mention that Arizona as the defending NC and had everybody back, that North Carolina had future NBA superstars Jamieson and Carter, these two teams' no. 1 seedings and 30 plus win records, and that everyone's brackets picked either of these two teams to win it all. Utah was actually an underdog against Arkansas and its 40 minutes of hell. Also, Utah led most of the second half against Kentucky. There's no better write up than this anywhere?

---

The world cries out for you to do the write-up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LAUte

The world cries out for you to do the write-up.

---

Obviously.