http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3wcnX4nqYA
Think he will add a great dimension to our game the next few years
Agreed. Can't wait to watch Jake score threes for MU!!!!
Dave Singleton declare for the NBA yet?
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 23, 2012, 05:39:17 PM
Dave Singleton declare for the NBA yet?
Nope. Just Rob.
That shooting was sick in that video. Looks like a walk-on destined to get a scholarship eventually if he can do that for us.
wow - range and unconscious shooting. hoe we can do that for MU...
I hope I don't jinx him, but I think his nickname should be "Zone Killer."
He might bring a bit of that mix of bucky. I think if you combined the styles a bit you'd have a pretty solid team.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on March 23, 2012, 07:53:58 PM
I hope I don't jinx him, but I think his nickname should be "Zone Killer."
Exactly what I was thinking he will spread out defenses so well.
Jake Thomas averages 10 per game next year. Book it.
The next Rob Logterman (will he wear the honorable #12?)
Jake displayed his abilities at Madness. He's got range.
Quote from: Spaniel with a Short Tail on March 23, 2012, 09:00:43 PM
Jake displayed his abilities at Madness. He's got range.
Four of those yesterday and we win.
He can shoot, but will he be a defensive liability?
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on March 23, 2012, 09:23:17 PM
He can shoot, but will he be a defensive liability?
That's the assumption, but he has the size and athleticism to be fine defensively. Moreover, the best defenders are made from effort and intelligence more than anything else. I think a walk-on is going to have more effort and determination than your average player. I also think Jake will have better intelligence than average for the mere fact that next year will be his 4th year in college.
I really like Jake's prospects. If he is as good of a shooter as I believe, it will be hard to keep him off the floor. Guys that can shoot as well as a Novak need to be on the floor and as I've said, I don't buy the assumptions that he will be horrible at defense.
Somebody on here with more initiative should find out from the South Dakota board more info on his game. Strictly going on his box scores, it definitely appears that he did much more than just shoot 3's. I would not be surprised at all, if he was a pretty complete player. I'm sure he's been playing his whole life......was VERY successful on the HS and low DI level. I doubt he's a one trick pony, but even at his "floor".......he is still the best shooter on the court at all times. That is valuable.
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 06:17:13 PM
That's the assumption, but he has the size and athleticism to be fine defensively. Moreover, the best defenders are made from effort and intelligence more than anything else. I think a walk-on is going to have more effort and determination than your average player. I also think Jake will have better intelligence than average for the mere fact that next year will be his 4th year in college.
I really like Jake's prospects. If he is as good of a shooter as I believe, it will be hard to keep him off the floor. Guys that can shoot as well as a Novak need to be on the floor and as I've said, I don't buy the assumptions that he will be horrible at defense.
Somebody on here with more initiative should find out from the South Dakota board more info on his game. Strictly going on his box scores, it definitely appears that he did much more than just shoot 3's. I would not be surprised at all, if he was a pretty complete player. I'm sure he's been playing his whole life......was VERY successful on the HS and low DI level. I doubt he's a one trick pony, but even at his "floor".......he is still the best shooter on the court at all times. That is valuable.
Cant wait to watch him
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 06:17:13 PM
That's the assumption, but he has the size and athleticism to be fine defensively. Moreover, the best defenders are made from effort and intelligence more than anything else. I think a walk-on is going to have more effort and determination than your average player. I also think Jake will have better intelligence than average for the mere fact that next year will be his 4th year in college.
I really like Jake's prospects. If he is as good of a shooter as I believe, it will be hard to keep him off the floor. Guys that can shoot as well as a Novak need to be on the floor and as I've said, I don't buy the assumptions that he will be horrible at defense.
Somebody on here with more initiative should find out from the South Dakota board more info on his game. Strictly going on his box scores, it definitely appears that he did much more than just shoot 3's. I would not be surprised at all, if he was a pretty complete player. I'm sure he's been playing his whole life......was VERY successful on the HS and low DI level. I doubt he's a one trick pony, but even at his "floor".......he is still the best shooter on the court at all times. That is valuable.
Man, how wasn't he a McD's All-American?
He's a one trick pony. He can shoot from distance. Don't expect more than that.
Quote from: Jam Chowder on March 23, 2012, 08:50:13 PM
Jake Thomas averages 10 per game next year. Book it.
10 what??? Points???
I think it's hilarious that people whine and cry about how bad Aaron Durley must be because he isn't getting playing time at his high school (while 1 of the 10 best overall players in the country plays center in front of him), yet we expect a walk-on to average 10 points per game for us? You realize he is a walk-on, which means Buzz would rather have Aaron Durley, the kid who can't get off the bench in high school, over this guy. There's a reason he was at the lowest of low-major schools last year, and there's a reason he's a walk-on. He won't see the court. Remember when Dave Singleton was going to come in and be a strong contributor?...
Singleton did contribute. Just wasn't on the basketball court. He was a team playa.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 24, 2012, 07:00:50 PM
I think it's hilarious that people whine and cry about how bad Aaron Durley must be because he isn't getting playing time at his high school (while 1 of the 10 best overall players in the country plays center in front of him), yet we expect a walk-on to average 10 points per game for us? You realize he is a walk-on, which means Buzz would rather have Aaron Durley, the kid who can't get off the bench in high school, over this guy. There's a reason he was at the lowest of low-major schools last year, and there's a reason he's a walk-on. He won't see the court. Remember when Dave Singleton was going to come in and be a strong contributor?...
Who thought Singleton was going to be a contributor? I don't remember anyone saying that. The fact is....Thomas will be the best shooter on the floor. The last guy we could say that about was constantly panned for his defense, yet he played and played a lot.
And I wouldn't use Durley in any argument of a player's worth. It's not definitive that he even will be at MU at this point. Someone won't be here. If you are able to read between the lines, Durley's (egregious lack of) playing time goes beyond playing behind Ridley. There is no way Ridley played EVERY minute in virtually EVERY game. It's pretty obvious that the Bush coach was plugging someone else in at center when Ridley was out. NEWSFLASH: Durley was most likely the 3rd string center. There is a lesser chance that he was the primary backup, but playing in just a few games all season doesn't give the backup distinction any worth.
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 07:21:16 PM
Who thought Singleton was going to be a contributor? I don't remember anyone saying that. The fact is....Thomas will be the best shooter on the floor. The last guy we could say that about was constantly panned for his defense, yet he played and played a lot.
And I wouldn't use Durley in any argument of a player's worth. It's not definitive that he even will be at MU at this point. Someone won't be here. If you are able to read between the lines, Durley's (egregious lack of) playing time goes beyond playing behind Ridley. There is no way Ridley played EVERY minute in virtually EVERY game. It's pretty obvious that the Bush coach was plugging someone else in at center when Ridley was out. NEWSFLASH: Durley was most likely the 3rd string center. There is a lesser chance that he was the primary backup, but playing in just a few games all season doesn't give the backup distinction any worth.
Where do you even see his stats? The wiki has like random game stats. How do we know those are accurate, and how do we know the games they don't have stats for (the large majority of the games) that he has been sitting on the bench?
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 07:21:16 PM
Who thought Singleton was going to be a contributor? I don't remember anyone saying that. The fact is....Thomas will be the best shooter on the floor. The last guy we could say that about was constantly panned for his defense, yet he played and played a lot.
And I wouldn't use Durley in any argument of a player's worth. It's not definitive that he even will be at MU at this point. Someone won't be here.
A number of people suggested that Singleton could be a contributor.
And why do you believe that "someone won't be here?"
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2012, 06:50:33 PM
Man, how wasn't he a McD's All-American?
He's a one trick pony. He can shoot from distance. Don't expect more than that.
You've seen him play how many times? I'm guessing 0-1 with the odds being closer to 0.
Jake was a very good all-around player at Racine St. Catherine's and while he may not be a major minute contributer for MU, he's a very heady player who can help MU the next 3 years. He may surprise some on this board.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2012, 07:40:31 PM
And why do you believe that "someone won't be here?"
Look at the scholarship table. I thought this was obvious. It should also be noted that someone either transfers or doesn't come every year under Buzz.
Quote from: TedBaxter on March 24, 2012, 07:45:51 PM
You've seen him play how many times? I'm guessing 0-1 with the odds being closer to 0.
Jake was a very good all-around player at Racine St. Catherine's and while he may not be a major minute contributer for MU, he's a very heady player who can help MU the next 3 years. He may surprise some on this board.
Ted, from the research I've done, he was quite good at St. Cat's. Do you have any info you can provide here?
I've only seen him in the preseason scrimmages. He looked quite athletic to me......not a Vander Blue, but more than enough to stay in front of his man if he were determined to do so. He also looked to be very well coordinated.
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 07:59:59 PM
Look at the scholarship table. I thought this was obvious. It should also be noted that someone either transfers or doesn't come every year under Buzz.
Learn to read the scholarship table. We are fine for 2012-13, and only are one over for 2013-14 if Otule is granted a sixth year.
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 08:06:03 PM
Ted, from the research I've done, he was quite good at St. Cat's. Do you have any info you can provide here?
I've only seen him in the preseason scrimmages. He looked quite athletic to me......not a Vander Blue, but more than enough to stay in front of his man if he were determined to do so. He also looked to be very well coordinated.
http://www.usdcoyotes.com/sports/mbball/bio.asp?PLAYER_ID=2987
Quote from: TedBaxter on March 24, 2012, 07:45:51 PM
You've seen him play how many times? I'm guessing 0-1 with the odds being closer to 0.
Twice. In the 2008-09 state tournament. He blew up for 30+ against some dinky rural team, and was held in check by Aquinas.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 24, 2012, 07:37:58 PM
Where do you even see his stats? The wiki has like random game stats. How do we know those are accurate, and how do we know the games they don't have stats for (the large majority of the games) that he has been sitting on the bench?
Totally valid point. Everyone, including myself, is going off the wiki game log. I think the prevalence of DNP's to games with accumulated stats leads one to think the games without stats to be assumed DNP's. Regardless, I think Bush HS had another guy playing minutes behind Ridley. He may have not been a "true" center, but he played when Ridley was out. Complete and total conjecture, but it is an educated guess that makes more sense than Ridley never leaving the game.....even when they were up double digits.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2012, 08:14:26 PM
Twice. In the 2008-09 state tournament. He blew up for 30+ against some dinky rural team, and was held in check by Aquinas.
I think he can help this program so we'll have to disagree I guess.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2012, 08:08:40 PM
Learn to read the scholarship table. We are fine for 2012-13, and only are one over for 2013-14 if Otule is granted a sixth year.
Otule is going to play a 6th year. That's why I said look at the scholarship table. Do you really think there will be no fluctuation on the roster or are you just arguing to argue??? If history is an indication......if common sense is taken into account.....there will be fluctuation in the roster. Again, this is obvious.
At some point is Otule just going to be sick of being at school? What if there's not a grad program he's interested in? What if DG advances to the point, next year, that he's playing all but a few minutes per game and Otule is riding the pine?
I'm not sure why there's so much confidence over what a young kid is going to do in two years. Would you guarantee you're going to be at your current residence in two years? Your job?
Otule is not a guarantee. Roster fluctuation is.
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 08:23:50 PM
Otule is going to play a 6th year. That's why I said look at the scholarship table. Do you really think there will be no fluctuation on the roster or are you just arguing to argue??? If history is an indication......if common sense is taken into account.....there will be fluctuation in the roster. Again, this is obvious.
No kidding.
But why would you say that "it's not definitive that (Durley) will even be at MU at this point?" Well, no kidding. You could say the same thing about Ferguson and the Taylors. But you know absolutely nothing about this...you are just pulling something out of your a**.
The only fact is this....IF we have no transfers after this year AND next year, AND all players we have signed to NLIs show up in 2012, AND the two verbal commitments sign their NLIs and show in 2013, AND Otule is granted a sixth year, THEN will will be one over. That is the only fact you or I know...Buzz may know how this is going to play out, he might not. But he has over a year to figure it out.
Probably already been figured out
Quote from: 4everwarriors on March 24, 2012, 09:17:35 PM
Probably already been figured out
Yep. And it may be Durley, but I would be tremendously surprised because his mom reiterated his commitment to MU when the JUCO comment first came out, and the dude tweets about #mubb regularly.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 24, 2012, 09:15:54 PM
But why would you say that "it's not definitive that (Durley) will even be at MU at this point?" Well, no kidding. You could say the same thing about Ferguson and the Taylors. But you know absolutely nothing about this...you are just pulling something out of your a**.
I was trying to be diplomatic. Steve Taylor has a much better chance of being in an MU uniform next season than Durley.
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 09:32:10 PM
I was trying to be diplomatic. Steve Taylor has a much better chance of being in an MU uniform next season than Durley.
Why are you so fixated on *next* year? Next year isn't the issue....2013 is.
Jake Thomas South Dakota Stats
Season- 09-10
Minutes-1042
MPG-32.6
FG-120-285
FG%-.421
3P-89-202
3P%-.441
PTS-13.3
FT%-.828
REB-4.0
AST-2.2
BLK-0.3
STL-1.0
Fouls-1.3
TO-1.8
Season- 10-11
Minutes-1018
MPG-32.8
FG-118-325
FG%-.363
3P-86-248
3P%-.347
FT%-.833
REB-4.9
AST-2.4
BLK-0.3
STL-0.9
Fouls-2.2
TO-1.6
Last year for him looked like a down year for him % wise but still think he is really good
I think Jake was the focal point of defenses his last year and that is why his percentages dropped. I do think he is a good shooter. I registered for the South Dakota forum and will ask for their insights on his game. It should be interesting to hear what they think of him.
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 10:08:25 PM
I think Jake was the focal point of defenses his last year and that is why his percentages dropped. I do think he is a good shooter. I registered for the South Dakota forum and will ask for their insights on his game. It should be interesting to hear what they think of him.
They are going to think he is a god. This is a team that is literally the lowest of low-majors. They moved up to D1 within the last 5 years (not sure exactly when it was). He was one of their better players. But he is not a Big-East caliber player, which is why he is walking on.
Quote from: wadesworld on March 24, 2012, 10:10:21 PM
They are going to think he is a god. This is a team that is literally the lowest of low-majors. They moved up to D1 within the last 5 years (not sure exactly when it was). He was one of their better players. But he is not a Big-East caliber player, which is why he is walking on.
Yes, I know to take a large grain of salt with the good. I'm most interested on their judgment of his ability on defense. Everyone here is judging the book by its cover.....
Quote from: MUFanatic4Life on March 24, 2012, 09:58:51 PM
Jake Thomas South Dakota Stats
Season- 09-10
Minutes-1042
MPG-32.6
FG-120-285
FG%-.421
3P-89-202
3P%-.441
PTS-13.3
FT%-.828
REB-4.0
AST-2.2
BLK-0.3
STL-1.0
Fouls-1.3
TO-1.8
Season- 10-11
Minutes-1018
MPG-32.8
FG-118-325
FG%-.363
3P-86-248
3P%-.347
FT%-.833
REB-4.9
AST-2.4
BLK-0.3
STL-0.9
Fouls-2.2
TO-1.6
Last year for him looked like a down year for him % wise but still think he is really good
The drop-off in percentages really don't concern me. That happens pretty frequently for various reasons. Check out Robb Logterman's stats.....pretty similar.
Stats
Year GP FG FGA FG% 3FG 3FGA 3PT% FT FTA FT% REB RPG AST APG PTS PPG
1990-91 Marquette 29 103 267 .386 54 148 .365 51 61 .836 69 2.4 89 2.3 311 10.7
1991-92 Marquette 29 124 257 .482 69 155 .445 39 55 .709 64 2.2 65 2.2 356 12.3
1992-93 Marquette 28 61 164 .372 46 124 .371 32 39 .821 53 1.9 61 2.1 200 7.1
1993-94 Marquette 41 49 .837
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 10:58:47 PM
The drop-off in percentages really don't concern me. That happens pretty frequently for various reasons. Check out Robb Logterman's stats.....pretty similar.
Stats
Year GP FG FGA FG% 3FG 3FGA 3PT% FT FTA FT% REB RPG AST APG PTS PPG
1990-91 Marquette 29 103 267 .386 54 148 .365 51 61 .836 69 2.4 89 2.3 311 10.7
1991-92 Marquette 29 124 257 .482 69 155 .445 39 55 .709 64 2.2 65 2.2 356 12.3
1992-93 Marquette 28 61 164 .372 46 124 .371 32 39 .821 53 1.9 61 2.1 200 7.1
1993-94 Marquette 41 49 .837
Even Robb back then played against better competition than Jake at Dakota.
He's a walk on for a reason, move along.
Quote from: PTM on March 24, 2012, 11:05:33 PM
Even Robb back then played against better competition than Jake at Dakota.
He's a walk on for a reason, move along.
Dismissing him because he's a walk-on is myopic. The guy scored 40 points going 11-16 for 3 in a DI game. He's not Jimmer, Reddick, or Diener, but he has talent and he will hit his share of 3's at MU. At the end of the day, you have to put the ball in the basket.......who on the team can shoot nearly as well???
Quote from: TheBuzzsaw on March 24, 2012, 11:13:48 PM
Dismissing him because he's a walk-on is myopic. The guy scored 40 points going 11-16 for 3 in a DI game. He's not Jimmer, Reddick, or Diener, but he has talent and he will hit his share of 3's at MU. At the end of the day, you have to put the ball in the basket.......who on the team can shoot nearly as well???
Any player that was smart enough to save his family $35,000 or a so a year and play for free.
Vander Blue was 1-5 vs. Murray St. and 1-7 vs. Florida. Jamil, Junior, and Todd.......all "offensively bankrupt" for the tail-end of the season. Jake will see the floor.
Jake has Novak range in a Diener frame.
Quote from: Blue Horseshoe on March 23, 2012, 09:23:17 PM
He can shoot, but will he be a defensive liability?
If Baylor can use Heslip as much as they do I'm not worried about Thomas.
All I'm saying is that Jake Thomas is not your normal D1 walk-on and he can help this team. He's more athletic than some give him credit for and with a year with Todd Smith, I'm sure he's increased his strength. Much of his time will depend on how much others develop their skills over the summer and if Jake is ahead of those players next fall, Buzz won't hesitate to use him.
Quote from: TedBaxter on March 25, 2012, 11:13:07 AM
All I'm saying is that Jake Thomas is not your normal D1 walk-on and he can help this team. He's more athletic than some give him credit for and with a year with Todd Smith, I'm sure he's increased his strength. Much of his time will depend on how much others develop their skills over the summer and if Jake is ahead of those players next fall, Buzz won't hesitate to use him.
Take out Thomas' name and put in Dave Singleton and this chorus has been sung before.
You can understand the skepticism, I'm sure.
Jake Thomas has yet to walk-on anywhere, earning three years of D1 scholarships already. MU could have and will have to use him against the zone. Not only is he a highly efficient player, he is one of the most prolific three point shooters in the land his first two years, his trey shooting % was #20 and # 194 nationally despite defenses keying on him. He is an 83% free throw shooter. At 6'3" he also grabbed 5 rebounds per game his sophomore year and had 2.4 assists per game. He is the only returning D1 double digit scorer on next year's roster, and his efficiency is second only to Gardner's.
Now, is he all BE? A starter? A person who averages double digit minutes? No. Is he a defensive liability? Most likely but so are some of our current guards. Having some height and length next season will protect MU defensively. But, having no shooters or scorers returning is a huge hole....meaning more and more zone. Think of the Badger line-up of shooters? Would he sit there or fit in?
He is a limited role player who will be a walk-on next year because he loves Buzz's style of play and wants to be close to home, but some of you are dismissing the specialized role the kid can play due to MU's roster make-up. Yes, it will be situational minutes but look at all the points leaving. With all the offense/defense substitutions Buzz makes, it won't take much for Jake to sit there and launch a three against a collapsing 2-3 zone or to be inserted to shoot free throws at the end of games.
Quote from: Dr. Blackheart on March 25, 2012, 12:02:28 PM
Jake Thomas has yet to walk-on anywhere, earning three years of D1 scholarships already. MU could have and will have to use him against the zone. Not only is he a highly efficient player, he is one of the most prolific three point shooters in the land his first two years, his trey shooting % was #20 and # 194 nationally despite defenses keying on him. He is an 83% free throw shooter. At 6'3" he also grabbed 5 rebounds per game his sophomore year and had 2.4 assists per game. He is the only returning D1 double digit scorer on next year's roster, and his efficiency is second only to Gardner's.
Now, is he all BE? A starter? A person who averages double digit minutes? No. Is he a defensive liability? Most likely but so are some of our current guards. Having some height and length next season will protect MU defensively. But, having no shooters or scorers returning is a huge hole....meaning more and more zone. Think of the Badger line-up of shooters? Would he sit there or fit in?
He is a limited role player who will be a walk-on next year because he loves Buzz's style of play and wants to be close to home, but some of you are dismissing the specialized role the kid can play due to MU's roster make-up. Yes, it will be situational minutes but look at all the points leaving. With all the offense/defense substitutions Buzz makes, it won't take much for Jake to sit there and launch a three against a collapsing 2-3 zone or to be inserted to shoot free throws at the end of games.
+1000000000 Buzz will find the best way to use him through offense-defense substitutions. I've heard from Juan Anderson that he keeps up with the players on the team just fine and he drains 3s in practice against the first team D. Take it for what its worth.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on March 25, 2012, 11:42:16 AMTake out Thomas' name and put in Dave Singleton and this chorus has been sung before.
You can understand the skepticism, I'm sure.
Umm...no, I can't. Is there any reason Singleton couldn't have been more than your average walk-on? It's not like his departure from the program had anything to do with his ability to play basketball. He was a scholarship starter at a D1 program. Would have have been successful here, or even have contributed significantly? Who knows. But there's nothing to indicate that he couldn't have. And considering Jake had even more success in his 2 years starting, there's nothing to indicate he can't either.
Skepticism about an incoming player who hasn't yet played is fine, but there's no reason to doubt Jake Thomas any more than there is reason to doubt Steve Taylor, Deonte Burton, or Aaron Durley.
Can't wait to watch Jake play the next two years.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 25, 2012, 12:45:11 PM
Umm...no, I can't. Is there any reason Singleton couldn't have been more than your average walk-on? It's not like his departure from the program had anything to do with his ability to play basketball. He was a scholarship starter at a D1 program. Would have have been successful here, or even have contributed significantly? Who knows. But there's nothing to indicate that he couldn't have. And considering Jake had even more success in his 2 years starting, there's nothing to indicate he can't either.
Skepticism about an incoming player who hasn't yet played is fine, but there's no reason to doubt Jake Thomas any more than there is reason to doubt Steve Taylor, Deonte Burton, or Aaron Durley.
In the beginning, you write that you can't understand the skepticism.
At the end, you write that it's fine to have skepticism about an incoming player.
So, is it okay for people to be skeptical of Thomas or not?
are we arguing
about the ninth or tenth man
our problems are few
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on March 25, 2012, 03:36:41 PMIn the beginning, you write that you can't understand the skepticism.
At the end, you write that it's fine to have skepticism about an incoming player.
So, is it okay for people to be skeptical of Thomas or not?
Your skepticism seems to stem from Thomas being a walk-on, considering you specifically named Singleton. Citing Singleton isn't really fair since he never played on the court and could very well have been successful. Do you have the same skepticism about what Taylor or Burton can do? I'm saying that if you're skeptical, why not be critical of everyone coming to Marquette, rather than just the guys that are paying to come here.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 26, 2012, 05:44:04 AM
Your skepticism seems to stem from Thomas being a walk-on, considering you specifically named Singleton. Citing Singleton isn't really fair since he never played on the court and could very well have been successful. Do you have the same skepticism about what Taylor or Burton can do? I'm saying that if you're skeptical, why not be critical of everyone coming to Marquette, rather than just the guys that are paying to come here.
It's fair to have skepticism over any player who hasn't yet played in your program. (As you no doubt agree)
It's also fair to have skepticism about any player who attempts to walk-on at a much higher level with your program than they previously played at. (As you no doubt should agree)
In the end, the game of parsing our skepticism is truly an irrelevant exercise given the other issues in the program. (As you no doubt won't agree)
My main point is that comparing Thomas to a Frozena or Sichting is simply silly, and using Singleton as an example of why Thomas won't work out is senseless because his on-court performance had nothing to do with his departure.
To guess at Jake's abilities, maybe we need to consider this:
Who is more likely to be effective:
An 18year old incoming top 100 recruit, or a guy who who averaged 13pts against lower level D1 comp. and is a junior (age-wise).
I don't say this as a 100% belief that Jake is going to have a huge impact, but he's played against good players and had some success. It's not insane to think that he could contribute.
I think writing him off is naive. He's got a skill that nobody else on the roster currently possesses, he can shoot. Buzz likes to mix and match line-ups, so I think he'll get a chance. He might only average 5 or 6pts, but if it's a super efficient 5-6 pts, that could be a big help.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on March 26, 2012, 11:14:07 AM
To guess at Jake's abilities, maybe we need to consider this:
Who is more likely to be effective:
An 18year old incoming top 100 recruit, or a guy who who averaged 13pts against lower level D1 comp. and is a junior (age-wise).
I don't say this as a 100% belief that Jake is going to have a huge impact, but he's played against good players and had some success. It's not insane to think that he could contribute.
I think writing him off is naive. He's got a skill that nobody else on the roster currently possesses, he can shoot. Buzz likes to mix and match line-ups, so I think he'll get a chance. He might only average 5 or 6pts, but if it's a super efficient 5-6 pts, that could be a big help.
Well said. He will be a niche player and I'm happy to have him.