Michael Snaer was a highly coveted 5-star recruit by Buzz. However, he chose Flordia State over us on decision day. Snaer is currently averaging 14.2 ppg, 4.6 rpg and 2.5 apg as a senior while Blue is averaging 15.0 ppg, 3.3 rpg and 1.7 apg as a Junior. Who has a higher upside?
Would we have been the better choice for Snaer? I personally believe Blue made up for missing out on Snaer. Snaer continues to be on several NBA Mock Drafts, which makes me believe that this year's draft will be weak and Blue has the potential to leave early and make it in this year's draft.
Quote from: TheFarEastMovement on February 21, 2013, 10:03:24 PM
Michael Snaer was a highly coveted 5-star recruit by Buzz. However, he chose Flordia State over us on decision day. Snaer is currently averaging 14.2 ppg, 4.6 rpg and 2.5 apg as a senior while Blue is averaging 15.0 ppg, 3.3 rpg and 1.7 apg as a Junior. Who has a higher upside?
Would we have been the better choice for Snaer? I personally believe Blue made up for missing out on Snaer. Snaer continues to be on several NBA Mock Drafts, which makes me believe that this year's draft will be weak and Blue has the potential to leave early and make it in this year's draft.
Don't forget Snaer is also a fricking awesome defender. He has to be considered one of the best 3-4 defensive wings in the country.
Snaer's had the better overall career thus far and is taller.
I agree MarquetteDano. Before this season, the things Vander Blue was known for was being a lock down defender, and his inability to shoot the 3 and finish around the rim. However, he has cleaned up those two negative aspects and is still considered to be a pretty good defender this year.
They both are listed as 6'4. The talent level at Marquette has been superior in comparison to FSU, making it hard for Blue to be a go to guy. Snaer has been the central figure for the past couple of years at FSU.
Blue is better period.
Quote from: TheFarEastMovement on February 21, 2013, 10:16:48 PM
I agree MarquetteDano. Before this season, the things Vander Blue was known for was being a lock down defender, and his inability to shoot the 3 and finish around the rim. However, he has cleaned up those two negative aspects and is still considered to be a pretty good defender this year.
They both are listed as 6'4. The talent level at Marquette has been superior in comparison to FSU, making it hard for Blue to be a go to guy. Snaer has been the central figure for the past couple of years at FSU.
Key point. I'm happy with Vander Blue.
Quote from: TheFarEastMovement on February 21, 2013, 10:16:48 PM
I agree MarquetteDano. Before this season, the things Vander Blue was known for was being a lock down defender, and his inability to shoot the 3 and finish around the rim. However, he has cleaned up those two negative aspects and is still considered to be a pretty good defender this year.
They both are listed as 6'4. The talent level at Marquette has been superior in comparison to FSU, making it hard for Blue to be a go to guy. Snaer has been the central figure for the past couple of years at FSU.
Snaer is listed at 6'5". Blue at 6'4"
Blue isn't going anywhere unless he leads Marquette to a National Championship this year. He is still a herky - jerky slasher to the basket, his outside shot still needs polish and he just flat-out needs another year before jumping to the NBA. He would be D League for sure or overseas. Plus, his mother will want him to graduate and finish what he starts.
Plus, you gotta think he would like to play one year with the studs we have coming in, esp to play wing off passes from Duane Wilson and Ox.
Snaer's hit 2 or 3 buzzer beaters this year right?
Through games played yesterday, Statsheet has Vander ranked 144th best played in college basketball and the 42nd best junior.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 22, 2013, 12:51:03 AM
Through games played yesterday, Statsheet has Vander ranked 144th best played in college basketball and the 42nd best junior.
I'm not sure how they do their rankings, but that list is all over the place. Blue is a better player than about half the guys ranked in front of him.
According to them, Devonte Newbill would be our 2nd best player.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 22, 2013, 12:51:03 AM
Through games played yesterday, Statsheet has Vander ranked 144th best played in college basketball and the 42nd best junior.
Interesting reading. Marquette has only Blue (144) and Gardner (248) in the top 300. Wisconsin has 4 - Bergeron (57), Brust (80), Evans (105) and Dekker (277). The only team that appears to have even a small shot at beating Indiana - Zeller (4) Oladipo (18) Watford (62) Hulls (126) and Farrell(208) is Michigan. The Hoosiers have head and shoulders better talent than everyone else.
Snaer has received lots of hype for his many buzzer-beaters. And it's hard to argue he doesn't deserve the hype because he hit those shots even though everybody in the arenas -- including the opposing coaches -- knew he was going to take them.
Vander has kind of burst onto the scene this season. Snaer already was on the scene.
I'd be happy to have either one. We have Vander, and I'm glad we do.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 22, 2013, 09:29:56 AM
Interesting reading. Marquette has only Blue (144) and Gardner (248) in the top 300. Wisconsin has 4 - Bergeron (57), Brust (80), Evans (105) and Dekker (277). The only team that appears to have even a small shot at beating Indiana - Zeller (4) Oladipo (18) Watford (62) Hulls (126) and Farrell(208) is Michigan. The Hoosiers have head and shoulders better talent than everyone else.
Which is really crazy since only one of those guys was a 5 star and most were three stars...I guess they "developed".
Of course we also know that with one and done tournament, the best team doesn't always win...in fact often doesn't. I believe there have been epic threads about this here in the past. I could bring one up, but I'm sure I would be accused of hooping.
Quote from: MU82 on February 22, 2013, 01:34:35 PM
Snaer has received lots of hype for his many buzzer-beaters. And it's hard to argue he doesn't deserve the hype because he hit those shots even though everybody in the arenas -- including the opposing coaches -- knew he was going to take them.
Vander has kind of burst onto the scene this season. Snaer already was on the scene.
I'd be happy to have either one. We have Vander, and I'm glad we do.
This is where it seems to me we have MU blinders on. Burst onto the scene that apparently only we notice. It's not like he has burst onto the national scene, and I'm not claiming you are saying that just to be clear. Maybe flying under the radar is a good thing. He's a solid player, having a nice junior year, but when I think of bursting onto the scene I do think of Snaer last year, Oladipo this year, Wade for MU, etc.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on February 22, 2013, 09:29:56 AM
Blue (144)
Evans (105)
LOL. I guess rebounds are worth more than points and being an embarrassing free throw shooter doesn't matter.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 22, 2013, 01:40:25 PM
Which is really crazy since only one of those guys was a 5 star and most were three stars...I guess they "developed".
You keep saying this, but it's a flat out lie.
Zeller, 5* McD's AA
Ferrell, 5* McD's AA
Hulls, RSCI top 100
Watford, RSCI top 100
Oladipo & Sheehy were 3* players, and yes, they have developed very nicely. One I would vote as NPOY, the other is an excellent 6th man. 2 out of the top 6 hardly constitutes "most." You have a point about those two, just leave it at that. The gross exaggeration is annoying and counterproductive to your cause.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on February 23, 2013, 09:52:22 AM
You keep saying this, but it's a flat out lie.
Zeller, 5* McD's AA
Ferrell, 5* McD's AA
Hulls, RSCI top 100
Watford, RSCI top 100
Oladipo & Sheehy were 3* players, and yes, they have developed very nicely. One I would vote as NPOY, the other is an excellent 6th man. 2 out of the top 6 hardly constitutes "most." You have a point about those two, just leave it at that. The gross exaggeration is annoying and counterproductive to your cause.
Excuse me for not seeing Yogi on the post. I stand by that
most were three stars.
Of the current team, 2 are five star players...last year it was one....care for me to pull up threads here from the last few years where you and others kept saying the talent wasn't good, overrated, kids wouldn't develop and the coach would be fired as a result. Happy to do that...it was comical then and more comical now. Even more comical how players "aren't developed" there.
Amazing to me the #1 team in the country only has two Five star players while Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc, etc with far more are doing worse. A majority of the team is three star designations. Must be the coaching?
Hulls...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Jordan-Hulls-82901
Sheehey...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Will-Sheehey-100760
Oladipo...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/basketballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Victor-Oladipo-84192
Etherington...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/indiana/basketball/recruiting/player-Austin-Etherington-96668
Abell...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Remy-Abell-100909
Jurkin....three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/indiana/basketball/recruiting/player-Peter-Jurkin-98671
Etc
Creek, a 4 star player playing with 2 knees blown out in two years...effectively a 2 or 3 star player now.
Quote from: chapman on February 22, 2013, 01:45:54 PM
LOL. I guess rebounds are worth more than points and being an embarrassing free throw shooter doesn't matter.
Maybe it's rebounds, blocks, assists, turnovers, etc
Offensively, no comparison. In those other stats, Evans does better. That's the only thing I can think of based on the comparison of the two. Depends on what you value, how they value it in their system of ranking a player.
Just a guess, not sure
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=vander-blue&p1=2-ryan-evans
Lets also remember that when we lost Snaer we ended up with a guy nicknamed DJO.
I would say it worked out pretty well for us even though Snaer is a very good player.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on February 23, 2013, 09:52:22 AM
You keep saying this, but it's a flat out lie.
Zeller, 5* McD's AA
Ferrell, 5* McD's AA
Hulls, RSCI top 100
Watford, RSCI top 100
Oladipo & Sheehy were 3* players, and yes, they have developed very nicely. One I would vote as NPOY, the other is an excellent 6th man. 2 out of the top 6 hardly constitutes "most." You have a point about those two, just leave it at that. The gross exaggeration is annoying and counterproductive to your cause.
Ferrel was 4-star in both ESPN and Scout.
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2012
http://espn.go.com/college-sports//basketball/recruiting/playerrankings/_/view/espnu100/sort/rank/class/2012
Maybe you looked at a different service--but that doesn't make it a "flat out lie."
Quote from: The Equalizer on February 23, 2013, 02:32:59 PM
Ferrel was 4-star in both ESPN and Scout.
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2012
http://espn.go.com/college-sports//basketball/recruiting/playerrankings/_/view/espnu100/sort/rank/class/2012
Maybe you looked at a different service--but that doesn't make it a "flat out lie."
Thank you sir
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 22, 2013, 01:42:28 PM
This is where it seems to me we have MU blinders on. Burst onto the scene that apparently only we notice. It's not like he has burst onto the national scene, and I'm not claiming you are saying that just to be clear. Maybe flying under the radar is a good thing. He's a solid player, having a nice junior year, but when I think of bursting onto the scene I do think of Snaer last year, Oladipo this year, Wade for MU, etc.
I get your point, Chicos, but I did say "kind of" burst onto the scene, indicating that I didn't really think he was a household name or anything.
Vander's less-than-spectacular outing against Nova just underscores that he still has a long way to go to even be considered draft-worthy.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 23, 2013, 11:12:56 AM
Maybe it's rebounds, blocks, assists, turnovers, etc
Offensively, no comparison. In those other stats, Evans does better. That's the only thing I can think of based on the comparison of the two. Depends on what you value, how they value it in their system of ranking a player.
Just a guess, not sure
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=vander-blue&p1=2-ryan-evans
He rebounds better because of height and his role, pound for pound I'd still go Vander. Same thing for Blocks. As for turnovers, it's easy not to turn the ball over when you don't have to create your own shot or opportunities for others. There is nothing in the game of Basketball that freakin Evans does better than Blue.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 23, 2013, 10:52:05 AM
Excuse me for not seeing Yogi on the post. I stand by that most were three stars.
Of the current team, 2 are five star players...last year it was one....care for me to pull up threads here from the last few years where you and others kept saying the talent wasn't good, overrated, kids wouldn't develop and the coach would be fired as a result. Happy to do that...it was comical then and more comical now. Even more comical how players "aren't developed" there.
Amazing to me the #1 team in the country only has two Five star players while Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc, etc with far more are doing worse. A majority of the team is three star designations. Must be the coaching?
Hulls...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Jordan-Hulls-82901
Sheehey...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Will-Sheehey-100760
Oladipo...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/basketballrecruiting/basketball/recruiting/player-Victor-Oladipo-84192
Etherington...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/indiana/basketball/recruiting/player-Austin-Etherington-96668
Abell...three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Remy-Abell-100909
Jurkin....three stars http://rivals.yahoo.com/indiana/basketball/recruiting/player-Peter-Jurkin-98671
Etc
Creek, a 4 star player playing with 2 knees blown out in two years...effectively a 2 or 3 star player now.
Sure, go ahead and cherry pick one rating service. And who cares about players like Etherington & Jurkin - they don't play.
Of the 6 players getting heavy minutes, Zeller was #10 RSCI & McDonald's AA, Ferrell was #25 RSCI & McDonald's AA, Watford was #45 RSCI, Jordan Hulls was #74 RSCI, Oladipo & Sheehy were 3*. That's 2/6 major rotation players at 3*. Both of those players developed very nicely. However, 2/6 is not MOST.
Three other players get minutes that are even worth mentioning (they play Juan Anderson/Steve Taylor/Derrick Wilson type minutes). Jeremy Hollowell was #45 RSCI, Remy Abell was a 3*, and Creek was #58 RSCI but like you said he has had some horrible luck and will unfortunatlely never be the same player. So 1/3 minor rotation players were 3*, and one that plays the least is a hard luck injury case.
In sum, of the nine rotation players, 2 were 5* burger boys, 3 more were top 75, 2 were 3* players way outplaying their ranking that fit your "developed" criteria, another was a 3* that is a role player, another was a top 75 injury case that gets fringe minutes.
How in the world does that fit your narrative that Crean is doing it with Zeller and MOSTLY 3* players? I agree with you wholeheartedly about Oladipo & Sheehy. Like I said, one would get my vote for national POY, the other for conference 6th man of the year. That's
very nice player development from those two players. Just leave it at that, no need to exaggerate.
Quote from: esotericmindguy on February 24, 2013, 11:09:30 PM
He rebounds better because of height and his role, pound for pound I'd still go Vander. Same thing for Blocks. As for turnovers, it's easy not to turn the ball over when you don't have to create your own shot or opportunities for others. There is nothing in the game of Basketball that freakin Evans does better than Blue.
I wouldn't say nothing, that's a bit too harsh. It's the only rating system of all players I am aware of. If there are other ratings systems, that would be great if someone could post them.
I did, however, find a juniors rankings of the top 100 (not all players) juniors and Vander is at 51 while Evans is not ranked. That's through Feb 14th. At 51, that would mean he isn't going to get drafted this year.
I used one recruiting service so you wouldn't accuse me of that...cherry picking. If I truly wanted to cherry pick, some of the 5 star players (Yogi) aren't rated 5 star by other services. But I didn't do that.
Hulls may have been RSCI #75, he was still a 3 star player. He also only made the RSCI list in the last edition, meaning someone found him as a diamond in the rough and then he got the rated. As Kelvin Sampson said, "Hulls would be a nice NAIA player". Incidentally, Erik Williams was rated AHEAD of Hulls in that RSCI.. Didn't work out so well, now did it?
Remy plays 13 minutes a game, seems you forgot him. Elston has been hurt most of the year, but played in 100 games.
While teams like Kentucky, Duke, UNC, etc all have more 4 and 5 stars than anything else. I didn't think this was that hard. They have only two Five Star players (one of whom was not unanimous 5 star), has more 3 stars than any other designation, yet has still performed better than those teams vastly higher rated players on their teams. Maybe that helps clarify things for you.
This just in ...
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Florida State's Michael Snaer's left-handed runner in heavy traffic with 4 seconds left lifted the Seminoles to a 53-51 win over Virginia Thursday after the Cavaliers had fought back from an 11-point deficit to take the lead in the game's final seconds.
It was the fourth game-winning shot by Snaer in Atlantic Coast Conference play this season and his sixth over the past two years.
And this is why Michael Snaer is considered a likely NBA draft pick, maybe even a first-rounder. The ability to step up and win games -- especially when everybody in the arena knows who is going to take the shot -- impresses the hell out of NBA people. It shows toughness, clutchness, confidence and obviously skill.
No disrespect to Vander Blue, who really hasn't been put in the position to attempt such shots. It's just a fact for those wondering what separates the two in the eyes of NBA scouts and honchos.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on February 25, 2013, 04:52:12 PM
Sure, go ahead and cherry pick one rating service. And who cares about players like Etherington & Jurkin - they don't play.
Of the 6 players getting heavy minutes, Zeller was #10 RSCI & McDonald's AA, Ferrell was #25 RSCI & McDonald's AA, Watford was #45 RSCI, Jordan Hulls was #74 RSCI, Oladipo & Sheehy were 3*. That's 2/6 major rotation players at 3*. Both of those players developed very nicely. However, 2/6 is not MOST.
Three other players get minutes that are even worth mentioning (they play Juan Anderson/Steve Taylor/Derrick Wilson type minutes). Jeremy Hollowell was #45 RSCI, Remy Abell was a 3*, and Creek was #58 RSCI but like you said he has had some horrible luck and will unfortunatlely never be the same player. So 1/3 minor rotation players were 3*, and one that plays the least is a hard luck injury case.
In sum, of the nine rotation players, 2 were 5* burger boys, 3 more were top 75, 2 were 3* players way outplaying their ranking that fit your "developed" criteria, another was a 3* that is a role player, another was a top 75 injury case that gets fringe minutes.
How in the world does that fit your narrative that Crean is doing it with Zeller and MOSTLY 3* players? I agree with you wholeheartedly about Oladipo & Sheehy. Like I said, one would get my vote for national POY, the other for conference 6th man of the year. That's very nice player development from those two players. Just leave it at that, no need to exaggerate.
Thanks for an honest, factual representation.
Quote from: MU82 on March 07, 2013, 09:37:06 PM
This just in ...
And this is why Michael Snaer is considered a likely NBA draft pick, maybe even a first-rounder. The ability to step up and win games -- especially when everybody in the arena knows who is going to take the shot -- impresses the hell out of NBA people. It shows toughness, clutchness, confidence and obviously skill.
No disrespect to Vander Blue, who really hasn't been put in the position to attempt such shots. It's just a fact for those wondering what separates the two in the eyes of NBA scouts and honchos.
I'm not saying he does it a lot. Or does it well, but didn't Vander just hit a 3 to tie and FT to secure our win against Rutgers?
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 08, 2013, 08:27:39 AM
I'm not saying he does it a lot. Or does it well, but didn't Vander just hit a 3 to tie and FT to secure our win against Rutgers?
It's difficult to have this conversation without sounding like I'm ripping on Vander. That certainly isn't what I'm doing, just stating facts.
Yes, Vander had that 3 and those FTs, and yes, he has made other important buckets this season. But I think everyone would agree with me that there's a pretty big difference between hitting an important 3 with a few minutes remaining and hitting a game-winning, buzzer-beating shot. Which Snaer has done repeatedly even though every single person in the arena knew he'd be taking those shots. That's beyond impressive; it's Jordanesque.
Quote from: MU82 on March 08, 2013, 10:14:03 AM
It's difficult to have this conversation without sounding like I'm ripping on Vander. That certainly isn't what I'm doing, just stating facts.
Yes, Vander had that 3 and those FTs, and yes, he has made other important buckets this season. But I think everyone would agree with me that there's a pretty big difference between hitting an important 3 with a few minutes remaining and hitting a game-winning, buzzer-beating shot. Which Snaer has done repeatedly even though every single person in the arena knew he'd be taking those shots. That's beyond impressive; it's Jordanesque.
Fair point.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 07, 2013, 10:58:56 PM
Thanks for an honest, factual representation.
It wasn't more factual at all....oh the irony. Nothing I said was wrong...oh the irony. It started with a stars rating and then he didn't like that so he went to the RSCI....you know, the great service that says Erik Williams is the 67th best player and Hulls was 74th (Oladipo 143 LOL). Junior Cadougan 47th...uhm, ok.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 08, 2013, 11:41:37 AM
It wasn't more factual at all....oh the irony. Nothing I said was wrong...oh the irony. It started with a stars rating and then he didn't like that so he went to the RSCI....you know, the great service that says Erik Williams is the 67th best player and Hulls was 74th (Oladipo 143 LOL). Junior Cadougan 47th...uhm, ok.
Here's a recap:
Using the survey that YOU provided, I listed the five (5) Indiana players listed in the top 300. They included Zeller, Oladipo, Watford, Hulls and Farrell.
You replied that the amazing thing about it was that only one (1) of those guys was a 5 star and that MOST of them were 3 stars.
Wrong on both counts. (if the shoe were on the other foot you wouldn't say wrong but rather accuse me of lying) And that's even granting you your very dubious insistance on the #74 consensus player being a 3 star guy, something I've never seen before.
Obfuscate, bring up red herrings (what in the wide, wide world of sports does Erik Williams or Junior Cadougan have to do with where the Indiana guys are/were rated?) If you want me to provide you with a breakdown of the percentages of minutes top 10, top 25, top 50 and top 100 players provide at IU and MU I'll be glad to.
But nothing you said was wrong. LOL