Five Things is a handful (i.e., five) of thoughts about a single topic. Hopefully, discussion ensues.

Scoring Options

Typically, Knight coached teams have had a player that is the bonafide team leader, especially in terms of scoring. This exercise is to take a look at those scoring options and whether or not I think there's a legitimate number one threat or if this season is more likely to be by committee.

1: John Roberson

To me, John Roberson is the obvious first choice because he lead the team in scoring last year at 13.9 points a game, which was 0.1 more than Alan Voskuil. The thing about Roberson is that he lead the team in scoring, while shooting 38% from the field. That's not what you need from your leading scorer, and I tend to think that Pat Knight and Texas Tech would be better served if the leading scorer, whoever that is, is able to shoot closer to 50% from the field rather than 38%. I know, this is a relatively easy statement to make, but a high-volume shooter like Roberson, who can get hot, isn't ideal in my opinion. Not to mention, Roberson, in two years at running the point, has not been able to figure out how to score while getting to the rim. Addinig this to his game, would obviously be a great benefit to that scoring percentage, but he's just never been able to get off his shot around the rim.

2: Mike Singletary

I really like Mike Singletary's potential. When I watched him with D'Walyn Roberts and John Roberson in the Global Games, I thought he would be a tremendous addition to Texas Tech because he seemed to be that fiery player that could play inside and out. Thus far, of the available options, Singletary has been the most consistent and although he hasn't been perfect. To his credit, Singletary shoots 49% from the field and last year averaged 12.2 points a game. The biggest problem with Singletary is that he tends to disappear in games, to the extent that he's not a factor in the least. There were eight games where he scored 6 points or less, and this is coming from your second leading scorer. Sometimes this is a matchup problem with Singletary as he can be really good inside, but if the matchup isn't right, then he's not as effective. Another gripe of Singletary is his propensity to turn the ball over in bunches. Eight games last year, Singletary turned the ball over 4 times or more and for a guy that's not handling the ball all that often, that's too many. Granted, Singletary was better much later in the season, but over two turnovers a game is too much.

3: Nick Okorie

When I first saw Nick Okorie, I could not have been more impressed with what he did in his first few games as a Red Raider. In only 19 minutes, Okorie put up 16 points in only 19 minutes against St. Francis (PA), 18 points against Sam Houston and 15 points against E. Central OK. Not the best competition, but still, a really nice opening set of games. Okorie struggled a bit after that, but he also hurt his ankle and this seemed to take a good portion of the season for Okorie. But then Okorie got healthy. In a string of eight games during the end of the season, Okorie average 18 points a game on 49% from the field and this was against some fairly major opponents (@ K-State; @ OU; OSU; TAMU; @ Texas; OU; Kansas and @ ISU). To add to that, Okorie was also getting to the charity stripe during this stretch over 5 times a game. If Okorie could be this type of player, and I think he can, then I think as good as shot as anyone else.

4: Robert Lewandowski

As a true freshman center last year, Robert Lewandowski finished the year averaging 6.6 points a game and shot 58% from the field. There was a streak of games during the middle of the season where he scored in double figures five straight games (@ Missouri; @ TAMU; Nebraska; and @ Oklahoma State) but faded into inconsistency after that. Lew would finish the year having trouble with fouls and being a consistent threat on the floor. Of course, what I like about Lew is that he's really young and I think he's very much capable of being a real scoring threat next season. Of course, much of that depends on how much Lew has worked over the summer. Another advantage that Lew has is that college basketball is not necessarily littered with big men who are highly skilled. Lew isn't perfect by any means, but he certainly displayed enough ability to me to be a guy that has a few post moves and can score on a consistent basis. I'm not sure if he's ready to lead this team in scoring next year, but by his junior year, he's my bet to be the guy on the floor.

5: Brad Reese and Theron Jenkins

It's difficult to put a ton of stock into JUCO guys, but of the three JUCO players that Texas Tech signed, the other being David Tairu, I think Brad Reese and Theron Jenkins have the best opportunity to lead this team in scoring. Reese averaged 16.4 points a game on 46% from the field. Reese was an all-around scorer as he took over 5 free throws a game and made a little under two three-pointers a game. Reese didn't lead his JUCO team in scoring so that may indicate that he may be a guy that is better suited to be a secondary scorer than a true leading scorer for this team. Jenkins averaged 13.25 points game for Itawamba CC 43% from the field and 30% from beyond the arc, averaging one per game and only averaged two free throws a game. Probably not ideal for leading the 2009-10 version of Texas Tech in scoring.

Five Things is a handful (i.e., five) of thoughts about a single topic. Hopefully, discussion ensues.

The Disappearance of the Defense

1: Being More Offensive

At the beginning of last year, Pat Knight made it clear that he wanted his team to be able to run a little more freely, get some easy buckets and push the ball up the court. In theory, this is a great idea, but the problem with the actual implementation of this plan means that the defense suffered, considerably last year. What I actually saw was a team that was willing to run, but struggled to do so, mainly because of turnovers or just poor play that eventually led to a team that was looking for easy buckets, but it simply wasn't happening.

Last year, Pat Knight helped his team go from an adjusted offensive efficiency of 107.4 (97th in the country) to 108.5 (70th in the country) (stats via KenPom). In fact, I think it could be argued that even with less talented offensive players (i.e. no Zeno) it was quite an accomplishment to go up almost 30 spots when there was no clear-cut scorer on last year's team.

2: Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

So Pat Knight did a pretty good job offensively last year, but looking back at the defensive statistics, the defense was a sieve last year, ranking 138th in the country in adjusted defensive efficiency. Hide the small children:

Traditionally, Texas Tech has been better than average (BTW, 2004 is the earliest these statistics are provided), having some decent defensive teams in the past, despite some rough moments in 2009, 2008 and 2007. I think it's also important to point out that in 2009 in the Big 12 conference 138th ranks 11th, with only Colorado worse. In conference in 2008, it was 9th, still good for an overall winning record (16-15), 2007 it was 10th, but Knight had a pretty efficient offensive team, in 2006 7th with a losing record overall, in 2005 6th in the conference winning over 20 games and in 2004 Texas Tech was 5th in the conference, again winning over 20 games.

Who else is noticing a trend here?

3: Defense Breeds Success?

I hardly think that I'm one to speak to a coach whose father is the all-time winningest college basketball coach in the history of ever, however, it's painfully clear to me that being good offensively will only get you so far, at least if you're Texas Tech, but being in the top half of the conference defensively means that Texas Tech is probably playing in the NCAA Tournament. Despite what everyone's expectations are in regards to success at Texas Tech, my simple definition is to at the very least make the NCAA Tournament. That's my very simple definition of success.

Putting all the figures together, it's pretty clear, at least to me, the direction that Pat Knight needs to take moving forward, save and except the 2007 season that we will merely chalk up to an aberration or the outstanding play of Andre Emmett and Martin Zeno on the offensive end of the floor:

4: Being Your Own Man

I don't think I've ever thought, despite some fairly famous tirades that Pat Knight is at all like his father, Bob Knight. PK seems personable and a decent fellow. I'm not advocating that PK be at all like RMK from a personality standpoint, but what I am advocating that rather than focus on the offense at the beginning of the year, let's spend all of that time teaching defensive perfection. The motion offense isn't rocket science and running for the sake of running isn't going to improve this team by leaps and bounds. The concept of a motion offense is relatively simple, but teaching a team to be defensively dominant may be immensely more important to the future success of Pat Knight than any else that he may do while coach at Texas Tech. Or perhaps it's more appropriate to say that it may be more important for Pat Knight to teach, again and again, as well as reward players with minutes on the court, the importance of man-to-man defense in the concept of the team game rather than being more adept offensively.

5: Heading that Direction

We've already talked about how Pat Knight has recruited some long and lean wing-athletes and I'm hoping that part of the reason for this is that he saw last year, the mis-matches that the Red Raiders faced last year. I wish I had a nickel for every time that an opposing player was able to drive and get to the bucket against a defender with little or no help. As mentioned above, there's going to be competition for minutes, no matter how you divide them, and if that's the case, then it's my hope that PK rewards players who are outstanding defenders. My dream team consists of guys that are competent offensively, but tremendous defensively. And the offense is able to revolve around guys who are bigger than their counter-part and as a result, is able to get an easier shot as a result.

Five Things is a handful (i.e., five) of thoughts about a single topic. Hopefully, discussion ensues.

The 1989 Illini Basketball and Playing With a Bigger Lineup

1: Stepping Outside of the Box

One of my first basketball memories is watching Big Ten basketball and being absolutely infatuated with the Illinoi Illini's 1989 team that consisted of Kendall Gill, Nick Anderson, Steve Bardo, Marcus Liberty and Kenny Battle. Disclosure, I have no illusions that any current member is as talented as that Illini team, however, it's the concept that's important. My thoughts here deal with the idea of Pat Knight assembling a similar team next year in the Big 12.

For whatever reason, I remember the discussion being about those teams that what Illinois was doing was a new concept. A number of wing-type of players that could play multiple positions. Just to refresh your memory, he's what I remember the best five Illini that were on the floor for most of the game:

I think Bardo was essentially the team's point guard, Gill was at shooting guard, Anderson at small forward while Battle and Liberty played the post (it's been a long time, so don't quote me on this). The idea here is that Texas Tech has a similar situation when we discussed the small forward and power forward situations. There is a collection of players that are in this range. The question is finding time for these guys and how do they all fit.

There are a ton of players that fit into this range of swing player for Texas Tech that could play multiple positions, but has some height and athleticism to get away with it. Brad Reese (6-6/200), Theron Jenkins (6-6/211), Jaye Crockett (6-7/205), Mike Singletary (6-6/230) (although I think he's purely a small forward unless he can lose some weight and add a consistent jumpshot), D'Wayln Roberts (6-7/194), Corbin Ray (6-7/225), David Tairu (6-3/177) and Aaron-Mike Davis (6-3/190). That's a heck of a collection of talent and players that have potential, although I realize that Reese, Jenkins, Crockett, Tairu and Davis have yet to play a game in the Big 12.

I just keep thinking that there's got to be a method to Pat Knight's recruiting efforts, and as best I can tell, I think this is where he wants to go. More athletic at as many positions possible. There's also the issue of only having a limited number of big men to recruit and in order to combat that Knight may be thinking that it's to his benefit to be bigger at every other position (see more below) to offset the lack of a traditional big-man.

The quandary that PK faces is that we know he has some talented players who do return that may not fit this scenario. We know that some of Texas Tech's best players are John Roberson and Nick Okorie, with the thought that David Tairu is going to get serious consideration for playing time immediately. Minutes are the biggest obstacle to this entire plan. Roberson will probably see at least 25 minutes a game, Okorie could conceivably see 20 minutes and another 15 or so to Tairu.

I think Roberson has been okay, but there's still room to improve, aside from the fact that he's undersized, which has caused him issues offensively finishing around the basket or guarding bigger perimeter players. However, Roberson is adept offensively and he can be a big asset on that end of the court. It's just a matter of finding the minutes OR adjusting the mindset and playing a team with bigger athletes.

2: A Collection of Athletes

To reiterate above, one of my memories about that Illini team was that this was a tremendous collection of athletes. I think that almost every one of those players was drafted, so there was obviously quite a bit of skill there as well, but I vividly remember this Illinois having a true collection of athletes that handled most other teams. But what about Texas Tech. As discussed above, Pat Knight has recruited and signed a nice collection of athletes that are in and around the range of the '89 Illini team.

The hard part about all of this is trying to figure out minutes, which is a tad bit infuriating. There's only 200 minutes to go around for a college basketball team. With a traditional lineup, it's pretty easy, but there's no doubt that someone in that small forward category is not going ot play, or play very little. Someone is going to be the odd-man out in a traditional lineup, unless of course Reese or Jenkins can swing to the shooting guard, although I get the feeling that this is where Tairu comes in the picture.

With a non-traditional lineup, it squeezes minutes of the smaller guys, like Roberson and Okorie, who may be a little bit one dimensional in terms of what they can give you, although I would argue that Okorie is a pretty good defensive player.

3: The Best Players Play

I have a hard time seeing players out on the court that can't play. I'm not going to name names, but there were times last year where I grew incredibly frustrated. Sometimes these players played out of necessity and other times I think there weren't very many options. Ignoring the traditional method of how lineups should be (PG, SG, SF, PF & C) is perhaps Pat Knight's biggest obstacle.

Due to the fact that the team struggled so much last year, I think it's appropriate for Pat Knight to state at the beginning of the season that every position is open. There are no handouts. I'm tempted to say no one has earned the absolute right to say that a particular position is theirs. Granted, certain players played extremely well, but there were no all-conference performers and this past year's team was littered with inconsistent performances. Some days it was great. Others . . . not so much. If Texas Tech ends up with a starting lineup of Tairu, Reese, Jenkins, Roberts and Lewandowski then so be it. In my opinion, every position is open.

4: Man in the Middle

The downside to this type of lineup is that this may force a guy like Robert Lewandowski out of the picture, but I think that Lewandowski is such a unique player that I'm not at all worried about his time. One of the advantages of having an athletic lineup is that there's a tremendous amount of defensive versatility. Switching back and forth on screens without compromising defense could be a tremendous advantage. Most likely, any opposing team is going to have a traditional post player and Lewandowski is agile enough to cover most post players. It would also be nice to have a defensive anchor, so at the very least, I don't want to see Lewandowski's minutes dropped at all, but would in fact prefer to see him play at least 30 minutes a game.

5: Being Bigger in Other Places

One of the things that I've constantly harped on about all of Knight's teams is that there was this perpetual disadvantage rebounding the ball. Convention logic says that if you're going to throw out a smaller lineup, much like the lineup I'm proposing, then you're probably thinking that this type of disadvantage will continue. I do remember that 1989 Illini team being better than average rebounding (I couldn't find stats to back this up, just have to rely on memory), but I thought that one of the advantages was that by having bigger guards and forwards play is that you would be bigger in different places like point guard and shooting guard. It's not much, but it's better than what's been happening, which is essentially being undersized or opposing players being better athletes at almost every position.

Center

Robert Lewandowski; 6-10/240; Sophomore

Positives: There's a ton of good things to say about Lewandowski, considering he played a fairly major role on this team as a true freshman. The stat sheet is going to show a guy that only averaged 6.6 points a game and 3.7 boards, but the truth of the matter is that early in the season Lewandowski saw very little time, but as Big 12 action started, so did Lewandowski, averaging 2 points a game in December, but averaging 7 points a game in March. The key here is that Lewandowski actually looks like a player. He's got nice moves in and around the basket, including back to the basket moves. I thought Lew did a better than decent job of rebounding for the time spent on the floor and I'm truly excited about how he progresses next year.

Negatives: It's tough for me to pull too many negatives for Lewandowski, although I'll say that I think being a fairly athletic 6-10 center, he should be a better rebounder than 3.7 a game. I'm looking for Lewandowski to average close to 7 boards a game next year and despite playing good low post defense, I think with time he's going to have fewer silly fouls and hopefully be a more effective defender. I'd also like for Lewandowski to extend his range a bit, perhaps free throw line, just to have that in his arsenal and make opposing bigs come out and guard him.

Darko Cohadarevic; 6-9/242; Senior

Positives: I'm going to try and stay as positive as I possibly can, however, Cohadarevic struggled mightily coming from junior college. I was expecting a relatively polished post player with a European game, i.e. good passer, good outside shooter, and a little defense, but that's not what we got. I know this is the positive portion of the review, so I'll say this . . . I think Cohadarevic has quite a bit of pride and I think he knows that he's got to improve significantly over the summer. My biggest hope is that he's working on his game every day, because he now knows what to expect. I recall reading that Cohadarevic has a little bit of a chippy side to him, which would have played out well if he were good for more than a few minutes a game, but if he wants to back up his attitude on the court, he's got to improve his play.

Negatives: Absolutely nothing like I expected. I've mentioned a number of things in the preceeding paragraph, but Cohadarevic needs to improve his defense significantly. Darko tends to foul too much. Improve outside shooting, passing, and simply his overall game. I'm trying really hard not to be overly critical of Cohadarevic, but the truth be told, I think he saw time last year because of the injury to Trevor Cook. Had Cook been healthy, I think you actually see very little of Darko. I have no doubt that Cohadarevic knows he has to get better and I'm sure that Pat Knight knows this too.

Power Forward

D'Walyn Roberts; 6-7/194; Junior

Positives: There is no one more athletically gifted than D'Walyn Roberts on Texas Tech's roster. Roberts has the ability to go above the rim and get to the basket. Roberts is very long and can cause matchup problems for opponents. Defensively, Roberts has the ability guard bigger opponents because of his length and should be one of Texas Tech's best defenders. Again, Roberts has the physical gifts to be a matchup nightmare. Long arms. Decent outside shot. Athletic ability. He's got it all, it's just a matter of translating this to the court against Big 12 competition.

Negatives: Much like Singletary, I think Roberts needs to improve his consistency. There were too many times last year that Roberts would have 3 or 4 turnovers and that would lead Pat Knight to take out Roberts and his minutes would be limited, despite all of his athletic gifts. Obviously, I'd love to see Roberts add some more weight and putting him in the category of power forward rather than small forward is perhaps an indication that PK, who recruited Brad Reese, Theron Jenkins and Jaye Crockett (all small forwards), needs Roberts to be a bigger force on the boards and defensively. I'm hoping that Roberts can add some weight and be a bigger player next year.

Trevor Cook; 6-9/241; Senior

Positives: Unfortunately for Cook, there weren't many positives last year, in part because a fairly serious back injury sidelined him for almost the entire year. I think people tend to forget that Cook missed to much time and as a result, I think Texas Tech's frontcourt struggled a bit, especially when players weren't performing on the court. I really like Cook's game: outside shooting, athletic ability, ability to block shots and rebounding. Damn, I missed Cook last year.

Negatives: Cook's biggest negative is that he can rack up early and silly fouls. It's been over a full year since I watched him play, but as a sophomore, there were times that he lost his man inside while helping out and when that happens, it can get ugly. I'd like to see Cook be a better rebounder, especially considering his size and leaping ability. For Cook, it has to be about attitude on the court.

Corbin Ray; 6-7/225; Sophomore

Positives: Pretty small sample size last year, but when Ray did play, there were some positives. I was pleasantly surprised by Ray's strength. He was much bigger than expected, which is part of the reason I have him as a power forward. Ray may lack the height, but he has the size and he's a good enough athlete to compete with most Big 12 power forwards. I was impressed with Ray's outside shot, but I don't remember him mixing it up inside much. Other than having a relatively smooth offensive game, I could see how Ray could be one of those glue guys that every team needs, a little like Michael Prince.

Negatives: As briefly mentioned above, I thought that considering Ray's size and strength he could have been a little more effective inside. Again, we're talking about a really small sample size when Ray was on the floor, but I'm hoping that other than the outside game, that Ray maybe worked on some post moves and spent quite a bit of time inside the paint during his offseason.

Small Forward

I'm going to have a lot more on how this team is currently structured later in the summer and a lot of my thoughts has to do with the high number of forwards and athletes in that 6-6 range that are on this club. By my count, I've got four small forwards on this team and it could be argued that there are actually six. Mike Singletary, Brad Reese, Theron Jenkins and Jaye Crockett in my opinion are all small forwards and you could have an argument that D'Walyn Roberts and Corbin Ray should also be at the small forward position. For now, Roberts and Ray will be considered as power forwards, although they may not fit that position and I think that Pat Knight is going to try something a little different this year.

Mike Singletary; 6-6/230; Junior

Positives: When he puts it together, he's really tough to stop. Singletary brings an excellent combination of size and scoring ability with Texas Tech. Singletary can score in numerous ways, but perhaps he's best suited in and around the rim, against a smaller opponent. Even then, Singletary seems to have some nifty moves around the bucket to either get in a position for an easy bucket or to shoot free throws. Defensively, Singletary is more than adequate, although he could be better. He has the athleticism to compete on the Big 12 level, I think it's a matter of concentration more than anything else.

Negatives: Consistency and concentration. Those are my two biggest complaints about Singletary. There are times that it seems like he completely loses focus, which can come in the form of careless turnovers, losing his defensive assignment or not going after an opposing defender like he's capable. The consistency issue is something that Singletary has got to improve, which includes improving his three-point shot, like he utilized it late last year.

Brad Reese; 6-6/200; JUCO

Positives: I've looked high and low for video on Reese and come up empty handed (and Jenkins). From what I've read, Reese is your typical wing player. Very athletic, can shoot the three and is capable of getting to the bucket. Anytime you can improve your team athletically you do it and Reese and Jenkins fit that bill. If I had to guess, Reese and Jenkins are similar to Zeno in terms of athlete and I'm hoping that they both offer a little more offensively than the current team, which doesn't have a guy that can take the ball to the bucket with much success.

Negatives: How quickly can Reese adjust to playing major college basketball. I get the feeling that both Reese and Jenkins are gifted basketball players, it's just a matter of getting down their offensive and defensive schemes and let them play.

Theron Jenkins; 6-6/211; JUCO

Positives: Much like Reese, Jenkins, is a wing athlete, a definite upgrade athletically over previous Texas Tech teams. He's got a more mature body than Reese's, which could mean that he might be a little more versatile as far as what Pat Knight can do with him on the floor.

Negatives: See above.

Jaye Crockett; 6-7/205; Incoming Freshman

Positives: When Crockett first committed to Pat Knight, he was probably 6-5/185, early in his junior year. As the months have rolled by, Crockett is still growing, being listed by ESPN as being 6-7/205, and possibly still growing. Crockett is the best player on his high school team, plays both inside, out of necessity, and outside. There seem to be a few stories that I've read where Crockett would lead his team all over the court, rebounding, blocking shots, hitting threes. The nice thing about Crockett is that he still appears to be growing into his frame and from what little I've seen of him, he's a guy that's extremely athletic.

Negatives: As you can imagine, Crockett has a relatively slight frame when compared with his counterparts and it would do him some real good to put on a few pounds, continue to hone his outside game and redshirt his first year. I know it's something that Pat Knight doesn't tend to do, but I think with Crockett, with the players in front of him, it would do us all some good to have Crockett sit out a year and learn the game.

Shooting Guard

Nick Okorie; 6-1/195; Senior

Positives: When Nick Okorie is completely healthy, he's incredibly good and incredibly athletic. When Okorie first started I thought that he could add a dimension that Texas Tech hasn't quite had, which is an athletic shooting guard that can play defense and make plays on his own. If Okorie can improve his shot, as detailed below, I think he has the opportunity to be named to an all-conference team. There's going to be some slack that he has to pick up with the loss of Alan Voskuil, but the talent is there.

Negatives: When Okorie wasn't healthy, he looked slow and his shot was not even close. Again, that's not healthy, but Okorie does need to continue to fine tune his shot, as he only connected on 41% of his field goals and a solid 37% of his three-point shots. Okorie isn't asked to be a distributor, but if Aaron-Mike Davis isn't ready to take over point guard duties then Okorie may have to pick up the slack. I'm not real comfortable with Okorie playing the point. From what I can remember, Voskuil would take the ball up the court if Roberson was out and Okorie strictly played off the ball.

Wally Dunn; 6-4/194; Junior

Positives: I'm not sure that I saw enough of Dunn to really give you any idea what he can and what he can't do. I think he's a pretty good shooter, but I don't think he gets much time next year.  I think Dunn could serve to stretch the court a bit and if Pat Knight decides to utilize a zone, to hide Dunn's defensive liabilities, but right now there's a lot of competition at the shooting guard and small forward positions and there could be a lot of players swing between both positions..

Negatives: Dunn is a tad slow and as a result, a bit of a defensive liability. Not awful, but he's going to struggle to keep pace with Big 12 players.

David Tairu; 6-3/177; JUCO Transfer

Positives: When you think of Tairu, think of Nick Okorie, but a little more lean and with a little more height. He's not as bulky as Okorie, but he's got some serious talent. The one thing that I noted about Okorie's game last year was that he knew how to play defense and considering both Tairu and Okorie played for South Plains College, I'm hoping he shows up at Texas Tech with the same type of defensive intensity.  I'm hoping that Tairu is a bit more of a combo-guard, with the ability to play both the shooting guard spot as well as the point.  Someone has got to take some time away from Roberson, and although there are rumblings that Pat Knight may sign a point guard with this year's class, I think a more mature player might be beneficial at this time.

Negatives: With any JUCO player, there's always the question as to whether or not the player is going to be able to adjust to playing at the Big 12 level. Luckily, there seems to be a surplus of guards and small forwards available, but Tairu has the talent to play immediately, he's just got to work.

Point Guard

John Roberson; 5-11/165; Junior

Positives: Roberson can be a terrific scorer and there are times during games where he seems to dominate, is able to get off his shot against most defenders, and can really control a game. The fact that he averaged almost 14 points a game as a true sophomore on a team that lacked other scorers is pretty remarkable, and most teams aren't asking their sophomore point guard to virtually lead them in scoring.

Negatives: Roberson's problem this year was the inability to be consistent as a passer and as a point guard. I think Pat Knight and the fanbase would love to see Roberson become the point guard that is able to calm his team down when there's Perhaps the most frustrating part of his game is when things would go bad for a period of time, having a calming point guard to settle the team is invaluable. I don't blame Roberson entirely, but he's got to be the coach on the floor and he's got to do a better job of leading. No silly passes, reduce the turnovers and let his game just happen.

Just for grins and giggles, I thought I'd include an interesting look at Roberson's impact from last year to this year.

Aaron-Mike Davis; 6-3/190; Incoming Freshmen

Positives: Davis is the wildcard and honestly, despite the not overly impressive offer list (at least according to Rivals:  Navy, San Diego, Texas State, SFA, etc.), I think he can play and I think he's going to have to play relatively quickly. Davis led Wheatley HS to a 32-5 record, led his team in scoring by a mile and was more than likely saw the opposing team's best defender. For the year, Davis averaged 23.6 points, shot over 55% from the field, 3.4 boards, 2.86 steals and 1.08 assist for every turnover. There's a reason why Pat Knight wanted this guy. Wheatley was a running team and I think the Wheatley coach is an institution at Wheatley at the very least, I'm guessing that Davis has a pretty good understanding of how to run without being sloppy. Davis did not lead his team in assists, but he was second. Davis is also one of the things that Roberson is not, or has not yet mastered, which is the ability to get to the basket with some frequency and score. Whether it's Roberson's height or just inability to create his own shot at the collegiate level, I don't think that Davis has this problem. Davis' ESPN profile states that he's definitely a shooting guard, however, I just don't see that happening, especially with the complete lack of depth behind Roberson.

Negatives: As concerned as I am about Roberson's ability to handle the ball, I'm even more conserned about handing over the reins to a combo-guard who didn't display the ability to get a ton of assists in high school. Again, this is a scary proposition, but I think this is what Pat Knight wanted when he signed Davis, despite his short-comings. I think he's got plenty of guys who can shoot coming in, it's getting into the paint, driving and dishing is what needs to happen and I hope like hell that Davis can do that.