Like him or not, Archie played his ass off. James? Not so much, but I did/do like JY.
Why can't James Young stick with a team in the NBA
- Thread starter smooth as butter
- Start date
He was way more capable? Of a passer I'm guessing because by no means could you possibly mean he was a better player. I always hear this Archie had no one to pass to and that's why we sucked, no, he had capable shooters to kick it out to, his absolute utter refusal to pass to the open man literally made the game zero fun for the entire team.
He might be a good dude, but as far as his play goes while here, it was very easy to see that he was sucking the fun out of the game for the rest of the players and therefor made the team as a whole not care much about playing hard since they had no way of shooting open shots due to the fact Goodwin absolutely REFUSED to pass to the open man.
If Goodwin kicked it out as often as he should've, we still wouldn't have been that good, but we sure as hell wouldn't have been NIT. And to say Young is a worse passer is ridiculous, because Goodwin never passed the ball so there's really no way of knowing if he could do a decent job at it or if he was just so terrible at it that he decided not to do it, but I feel like it had way more to do with him wanting to get his.
All this negative talk about Young who played great here is just ridiculous. He was a smooth criminal for us. I swear I feel like this thread would be describing goodwin's game as apposed to Young's with all the negativity. Young was great while at UK and I'm sure glad he decided to come to UK and not somewhere like Duke or MSU. He was a willie cauley stein missing and/or healthy Randle away from going down as a legend at UK.
Now I'm seeing this Archie was a good passer nonsense because he had 88 assists. What? Are you serious? He was one of the best guards in the cal era at breaking a player down off the dribble and forcing help defense. The thing is though, he never made defenses pay for helping on defense because he'd just shoot over a double team when there's a wide open man on the wing 10 times out of 10. He should've had 250 assists if he ever, ever ever ever ever. Kicked it out to the open man. I've never seen a player ignore a wide open shooter so much in my entire freaking life and on such a regular every game basis. Young was a way better player for us. Not even close.
Young’s problem was/is his attitude. At UK he wouldn’t play defense, was pretty selfish on the court and was wildly inconsistent. Sounds familiar? Can I see a player profile for Diallo?
Young probably made the right decision going bc he likely was never going to change his attitude and another year or 2 would of just exposed all his problems and he would of just gotten older. However, if he would dedicated himself at UK, worked on being a great defender for at least one more year, he might have a long NBA career like our own Keith Bogans
Young probably made the right decision going bc he likely was never going to change his attitude and another year or 2 would of just exposed all his problems and he would of just gotten older. However, if he would dedicated himself at UK, worked on being a great defender for at least one more year, he might have a long NBA career like our own Keith Bogans
NO, he was not.
Your complaints about Archie's passing are legitimate--Archie was the worst passer of anyone playing the point role here I can recall (although, in his defense, it was an out of position role he was forced into because of Harrow's "issues"). But Young was ALSO an awful passer, so it's not like that area is point in your guy's favor. They BOTH stunk as passers.
But in other areas, Archie was clearly better than Young. Archie was a better defender than Young (who could often be exceeding lazy on the defensive end), Archie was a better rebounder than Young (4.6 vs. 3.3) despite being smaller and playing point, Archie was a better ballhandler, Archie got more steals, and Archie played with more energy and effort.
FWIW, I think they are similar in terms of where they'd rank amongst past UK players. Neither is "way" or "not even close" better than the other, as you incorrectly put it. They ARE close. But, if I had to choose, I'd take Archie.
And, btw, I'm starting to wonder if you might be Young's mom with the way you've been exaggerating about him. There's several times I've now seen you use the word "great" to describe him, which is just absurd overstatement. Young had a lot of glaring flaws that you seem to have missed or forgotten. There's a reason he flamed out so miserably in the NBA.
Last edited:
Just silliness. Young was a great player at UK. I couldn't have been happier to see Goodwin stay in the draft. Young wasn't a chemistry killer, Goodwin was the definition of a player that destroys team chemistry. Goodwin threw up 5-7 boneheaded circus shots a game, Young usually took his shots within the flow of the offense and was a very money, streaky, but smooth three point shooter. Goodwin at times couldn't hit a three if his life depended on it. Defense Goodwin was better. But as far as players playing within there role on the team and how they produced from each others role. Young was a much better player. He hit clutch shots, he had a winners mentality, he knew when to pick his spots and when to go hard to the rim.
Goodwin didn't hit clutch shots, Goodwin had a me me me me and nothing else matters mentality, Goodwin didn't pick and choose his spots every time he touched the ball it was his time to shine and you could see it absolutely take all the fun away from the rest of the team. Young didn't destroy team chemistry and make the game not fun for the rest. Young's role was to be a scorer. He's not near as bad at D as what people are making him out to be as far as his time at UK, though he wasn't a firey loud player, he was a very competitive player. He was a key player that we don't reach the championship game without. As far as both players contributions to UK it's really not close.
Young should be a highly thought of player on a team that made a magical run to the title that wouldn't have happened without his contributions. Goodwin should be considered, IMO at least, a chemistry killer who was all bout himself. The ol you must be that players mom joke. How original. No. Young shouldn't be ridiculed at all for what he did during his time at UK as he was a very good player for us, unlike Goodwin.
