An interesting premise was postulated by Andrew Jones writing for Inside Carolina.
That brings up another problem few have discussed: Carolina isn’t that talented.
According to Scout.com, Marcus Ginyard was rated the 52nd best player in his recruiting class while Deon Thompson was No. 36, Will Graves No. 79, Larry Drew No. 68, Dexter Strickland No. 33, Leslie McDonald No. 53, and the Wears were Nos. 55 and 56.
Davis was No. 10, Zeller No. 21, John Henson No. 4, and they combined for nine minutes against Wake. Even still, this performance wasn’t about not having Davis and Zeller, as they have also underachieved, especially in recent weeks.
This is why a turnaround must be a collective deal. The 1997 team started out 0-3 in the ACC and last year’s squad was 0-2, but there are no Antawn Jamisons, Vince Carters, Tyler Hansbroughs or Ty Lawsons on this year’s roster.
And that is Carolina’s reality.
Now the first problem with Jones’ assertion is the glaring lack of a qualifier. The statement “UNC lacks talent” is far too broad. The question is less talented compared to who? Other teams in the ACC? Past UNC teams? The 2007-09 juggernaut? 2006? 2004? The list goes on. For the sake of argument here I decided to compare this team to the 2006 squad since the circumstances i.e. a post title year are the same. Here are those two teams and the recruiting rankings.
| 2006 Team | 2010 Team | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Player | Scout Ranking | Player | Scout Ranking |
| Tyler Hansbrough | #7(2005) | John Henson | #4(2009) |
| Danny Green | #24(2005) | Dexter Strickland | #33(2009) |
| Bobby Frasor | #41(2005) | Leslie McDonald | #53(2009) |
| Marcus Ginyard | #52(2005) | David Wear | #55(2009) |
| Quentin Thomas | #40(2004) | Travis Wear | #56(2009) |
| Reyshawn Terry | #70(2003) | Ed Davis | #10(2008) |
| David Noel | Walk-on | Tyler Zeller | #21(2008) |
| Wes Miller | Walk-on | Larry Drew | #68(2008) |
| Byron Sanders | Not ranked | Deon Thompson | #36(2006) |
| Will Graves | #79(2006) | ||
| Marcus Ginyard | #52(2005) | ||
Based on these numbers then you can argue the present team outstrips the 2006 team fairly easily. 2006 had one elite player, one very good player, a bevy of middle of the pack four star guys and two walk-ons. This team has player ranked 79th and up with three of them in the top 30, two of them top ten. In that respect this team has more talent, if you rely on the rankings as your sole source of evaluation. In some ways that is not the best measure since such rankings are almost a raw evaluation of a player’s skill sets as compared to his peers. Those evaluations are made in a myriad of different environments versus varying levels of competition. Now basketball rankings for high school kids are usually pretty good compared to say football, but they are not perfect as Josh McRoberts has long proven.
However, sticking with the rankings for a moment it is important to realize how “talent” is defined. For one, players being ranked against their high school peers obviously speaks to their talent as individual player as well as their abilities to do certain things at the prep/AAU level. It does not speak to how those players and their skills might fit into a team on the college level. In other words, the better way to phrase UNC’s situation is not so much that they lack “talent” as defined by the rankings but rather they lack “talent” of the right kind or in the right spots. For example, based on the rankings you could say that Tyler Hansbrough and Ed Davis are the same caliber player. In fact one could argue that Davis is actually a better player in terms of “talent” but ultimately both players have different strengths. Now think about UNC’s current situation and the manner in which they have lost so many games. Besides the turnovers, what is the chief complaint? UNC’s lack of post physicality despite having “talented” big men. To take it further, ask yourself how the Wake
