Georgetown's stud guard was a Scout 4-star who hardly played as a freshman (9.7 mpg). Each succeeding year he played more, scored more, contributed more. Turned himself into a heck of a college guard.
There are plenty of similar examples, but I had to look up Starks after I saw Raftery's pregame interview of him in which Starks' career development was highlighted.
I like to think JJJ, Duane, Dawson and even Burton can develop like this, too.
If I could trade one player in the BE for one of our players it'd be Markel Starks for Derrick Wilson. We'd be easily dancing and a legit sweet 16 or better team this season.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 05, 2014, 12:14:11 AM
If I could trade one player in the BE for one of our players it'd be Markel Starks for Derrick Wilson. We'd be easily dancing and a legit sweet 16 or better team this season.
IDK, Bryce Cotton and Semaj Christon make compelling cases as well
That kind of trade would also require several first round picks and cash considerations
Quote from: MU82 on March 05, 2014, 12:11:21 AM
Georgetown's stud guard was a Scout 4-star ...
Really? I watched the second half of the Georgetown game before ours last night and the announcers said that Georgetown was the only school to offer him, so I just assumed he was no 4 star. Anyway, that is a heckuva player.
Markel Starks is a great college guard... I always disliked him, but that's more a compliment to him than anything else.
Bryce Cotton is awesome and very entertaining to watch. I would love having a player like that on the team I root for.
But that's what this team was missing was a strong senior leader in the backcourt... so of course we would welcome them with open arms.
Per Rivals in 2010:
Starks: #80 overall, 4 star
Cotton: Not ranked. Now that was a find......
Quote from: MarsupialMadness on March 05, 2014, 12:01:37 PM
Markel Starks is a great college guard... I always disliked him, but that's more a compliment to him than anything else.
Bryce Cotton is awesome and very entertaining to watch. I would love having a player like that on the team I root for.
But that's what this team was missing was a strong senior leader in the backcourt... so of course we would welcome them with open arms.
That being said, I'd probably take Vander over them both.
Quote from: MarsupialMadness on March 05, 2014, 12:04:32 PM
That being said, I'd probably take Vander over them both.
Not me. Not taking anything away from Vander, who was a great SG last year, but my favorite kind of player is the guy that can control the game from the PG position. Watching those guys and Napier at UConn really makes me jealous. We had that great run of PGs from Tony Miller through DJ, I loved all those guys.
College is a point guard league, our point guard has gotten burned by every point guard he is against. People talk about his D, sure it might be fine, but against good points the scoring is 25 for the other team and 4 or 5 points for Derrick. Change that around and we would be a good team. Secondly, if Dawson D is not that good, so maybe the point would get 28 against him, but
he would score 10-12 so the imbalance would be better playing Dawson.
Quote from: BCHoopster on March 05, 2014, 04:56:38 PM
College is a point guard league, our point guard has gotten burned by every point guard he is against. People talk about his D, sure it might be fine, but against good points the scoring is 25 for the other team and 4 or 5 points for Derrick. Change that around and we would be a good team. Secondly, if Dawson D is not that good, so maybe the point would get 28 against him, but
he would score 10-12 so the imbalance would be better playing Dawson.
Would have been interesting to see how Duane Wilson would have turned out this year had he not been injured. One silver lining is has given Dawson more of a chance to develop this year.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 05, 2014, 12:14:11 AM
If I could trade one player in the BE for one of our players it'd be Markel Starks for Derrick Wilson. We'd be easily dancing and a legit sweet 16 or better team this season.
Starks, eh?
I don't know, I think Doug McDermott would be pretty good too.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 05, 2014, 11:57:54 AM
Really? I watched the second half of the Georgetown game before ours last night and the announcers said that Georgetown was the only school to offer him, so I just assumed he was no 4 star. Anyway, that is a heckuva player.
Markel went to Georgetown Prep. He dreamed of playing at Georgetown his entire life. I wouldn't be surprised if no one else bothered to offer since he was always a lock for Georgetown. He was decently rated at points in his high school career but he committed to us and his stock dropped as a result.
Starks was #94 in the composite RSCI rankings for 2010, just ahead of UW star Evan Anderson (:P) and Syracuse standout C.J. Fair So, I would say he was a 4 star. ( MU's Jamail Jones was #74).
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 05, 2014, 11:57:54 AM
Really? I watched the second half of the Georgetown game before ours last night and the announcers said that Georgetown was the only school to offer him, so I just assumed he was no 4 star. Anyway, that is a heckuva player.
I didn't watch the GT game, but they announcers were saying the same thing about Cotton...he had 1 D1 offer.
Quote from: PTM on March 06, 2014, 08:01:13 AM
Starks, eh?
I don't know, I think Doug McDermott would be pretty good too.
McDermott is a great player of course, yet for this MU team...we need a Cotton or Starks a lot more than a McDermott. Put Starks or Cotton in place of Derrick....and the team is a Final Four LOCK. To think we've been as competitive as we have been, with arguably the most challenged PG in the Top 100 of college basketball teams..trading him out with a guy who can score 18-24 and break down a defense off the dribble...with Davante down low...Jamil on wing...Jake as a great 3 point shooter when given time to load and fire...
Wow...Final Four LOCK..
Quote from: Ners on March 06, 2014, 10:08:00 AM
McDermott is a great player of course, yet for this MU team...we need a Cotton or Starks a lot more than a McDermott. Put Starks or Cotton in place of Derrick....and the team is a Final Four LOCK. To think we've been as competitive as we have been, with arguably the most challenged PG in the Top 100 of college basketball teams..trading him out with a guy who can score 18-24 and break down a defense off the dribble...with Davante down low...Jamil on wing...Jake as a great 3 point shooter when given time to load and fire...
Wow...Final Four LOCK..
NCAA lock for sure...Final 4..well, that takes good matchups and some luck as well as some good fortune along the way
Quote from: Ners on March 06, 2014, 10:08:00 AM
McDermott is a great player of course, yet for this MU team...we need a Cotton or Starks a lot more than a McDermott. Put Starks or Cotton in place of Derrick....and the team is a Final Four LOCK. To think we've been as competitive as we have been, with arguably the most challenged PG in the Top 100 of college basketball teams..trading him out with a guy who can score 18-24 and break down a defense off the dribble...with Davante down low...Jamil on wing...Jake as a great 3 point shooter when given time to load and fire...
Wow...Final Four LOCK..
Ners, you have made some good (and not so good) arguments on this board. Except for when you're beating the same dead horse hundreds of times I look forward to reading your posts. But to suggest that a "starting 4" team of Jake Thomas, Todd Mayo, Jamil Wilson and Davante with John D, JA, Deonte and Chris in reserve would be a lock final four team with Martel Starks or Bryce Cotton at the point is insane. Would any of Jamil, Davante, Todd or Jake even start on Kansas, Florida or many other talented teams? No way. The only guy on our team who is above average at his position for a top 75 team is Davante and he only plays one end of the court. Making the Final four with a top 20 point guard, an outstanding offensive post, two average starters and one below average starter would be a pipe dream rather than a lock. I seriously hope you were kidding.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 06, 2014, 10:42:14 AM
Ners, you have made some good (and not so good) arguments on this board. Except for when you're beating the same dead horse hundreds of times I look forward to reading your posts. But to suggest that a "starting 4" team of Jake Thomas, Todd Mayo, Jamil Wilson and Davante with John D, JA, Deonte and Chris in reserve would be a lock final four team with Martel Starks or Bryce Cotton at the point is insane. Would any of Jamil, Davante, Todd or Jake even start on Kansas, Florida or many other talented teams? No way. The only guy on our team who is above average at his position for a top 75 team is Davante and he only plays one end of the court. Making the Final four with a top 20 point guard, an outstanding offensive post, two average starters and one below average starter would be a pipe dream rather than a lock. I seriously hope you were kidding.
All due respect Lenny - I think you greatly undervalue, the value of a great point guard - or even just a good one. We made the Elite 8 last year with the same cast minus Blue, Cadougan and Lockett. Mayo essentially has replaced what Blue did last year - see new thread post. Burton would be better than anyone who came off the bench last year. Starks or Cotton would be a very big upgrade from Cadougan. Lockett, drove most everyone here crazy for 3/4s of the season - and was a glue guy.
My post was dead serious. I just don't think you realize how much Derrick's limitations have handicapped the other 4 guys on the floor with him - mostly DAvante, Jamil, but also Todd and Jake.
Added comparison between Vander, Cotton, Starks and Cadougan here....pretty startling how good Starks and Cotton are in comparison to Junior, and Vander - but to a lesser extent Vander..
http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare?add=junior-cadougan&i=1&p1=vander-blue&p2=bryce-cotton&p3=markel-starks
Quote from: Ners on March 06, 2014, 10:08:00 AM
McDermott is a great player of course, yet for this MU team...we need a Cotton or Starks a lot more than a McDermott. Put Starks or Cotton in place of Derrick....and the team is a Final Four LOCK. To think we've been as competitive as we have been, with arguably the most challenged PG in the Top 100 of college basketball teams..trading him out with a guy who can score 18-24 and break down a defense off the dribble...with Davante down low...Jamil on wing...Jake as a great 3 point shooter when given time to load and fire...
Wow...Final Four LOCK..
That's an interesting point you raise. A lot of those stupid blame threads have come up, and in those, some have blamed Buzz. I would say Buzz does deserve some blame for the playing time, and roster make-up. But, if our roster/playing time is so bad, then doesn't he deserve ridiculous praise for making us this competitive with such player shortcomings?
Quote from: jesmu84 on March 06, 2014, 11:04:36 AM
That's an interesting point you raise. A lot of those stupid blame threads have come up, and in those, some have blamed Buzz. I would say Buzz does deserve some blame for the playing time, and roster make-up. But, if our roster/playing time is so bad, then doesn't he deserve ridiculous praise for making us this competitive with such player shortcomings?
Yes and no...because he is at the helm and has full control over how he doles out playing time. After so much evidence the season was going to be a struggle if a change wasn't made at PG - I'd say that's on him for not making the change. Yet given then, that he hasn't made the change - yes, I'd say he does deserve credit for the team being as competitive as it has been in that he himself acknowledges we are playing 4 on 5 on the offensive end.
Now, if Derrick's D were of a superhuman value that it essentially resulted in us playing 6 on 5 on the defensive end...I'd have no problem/criticism. Yet as we know, there is such a thing as "help defense." No such thing as "help offense." Defensive limitations can be hidden/helped a lot more easily than offensive...and there is no more important position on a basketball court on the offensive end of the game than PG...
Final Four lock is a stretch. I'd put money on at least a S16 repeat with Starks at the helm though. And Davante would have put up monster numbers.
Quote from: Jajuannaman on March 06, 2014, 12:09:24 PM
Final Four lock is a stretch. I'd put money on at least a S16 repeat with Starks at the helm though. And Davante would have put up monster numbers.
HUGE stretch.
Quote from: mu-rara on March 06, 2014, 01:15:51 PM
HUGE stretch.
Like, 7th inning stretch? Or Armstrong, Stretch?
Quote from: mu-rara on March 06, 2014, 01:15:51 PM
HUGE stretch.
How so? Put an all-american caliber PG on this team along with Davante, Mayo, Jamil, Burton? HUGE stretch..especially considering team reached Elite 8 with a mediocre PG last year?
Quote from: Ners on March 06, 2014, 01:54:28 PM
How so? Put an all-american caliber PG on this team along with Davante, Mayo, Jamil, Burton? HUGE stretch..especially considering team reached Elite 8 with a mediocre PG last year?
Because Buzz won't play anyone who can score that much.
I wouldn't call us a final four lock. But I would call us a tournament lock and a final four contender
A Georgetown team with the eventual No. 3 pick in the draft (Porter) AND Starks AND Smith-Rivera lost in the first round last year to Fla. Gulf Coast. Just a year earlier, a Duke team loaded with future NBA players lost in the first round to Lehigh. Hell, a Marquette team with three future pros, including one of the superstars of his generation, almost lost to Holy Cross in the first round in 2003.
So no, I don't think adding Starks to this year's MU team would have made us a Final Four lock.
But yes, I'd trade Derrick for Starks (or any of dozens upon dozens of other college PGs) and take my chances.
It isn't necessary to use hyperbole to make a point.
Quote from: MU82 on March 06, 2014, 03:21:05 PM
It isn't necessary to use hyperbole to make a point.
A piece of wisdom that is lost on many a scooper
Quote from: MU82 on March 06, 2014, 03:21:05 PM
A Georgetown team with the eventual No. 3 pick in the draft (Porter) AND Starks AND Smith-Rivera lost in the first round last year to Fla. Gulf Coast. Just a year earlier, a Duke team loaded with future NBA players lost in the first round to Lehigh. Hell, a Marquette team with three future pros, including one of the superstars of his generation, almost lost to Holy Cross in the first round in 2003.
So no, I don't think adding Starks to this year's MU team would have made us a Final Four lock.
But yes, I'd trade Derrick for Starks (or any of dozens upon dozens of other college PGs) and take my chances.
It isn't necessary to use hyperbole to make a point.
Good point...yet as we saw FGCU was a pretty dang good team...and we'd be adding Starks or Cotton to team that did advance to Elite 8 - and returned all but 3 guys - and you are trading out one of the 3 - Junior - for 2 guys who are a lot better...
But yes, I agree it could have been a bit of hyperbole to say LOCK...but I'd put the chances at 80+%...
Quote from: Ners on March 06, 2014, 04:08:12 PM
Good point...yet as we saw FGCU was a pretty dang good team...and we'd be adding Starks or Cotton to team that did advance to Elite 8 - and returned all but 3 guys - and you are trading out one of the 3 - Junior - for 2 guys who are a lot better...
But yes, I agree it could have been a bit of hyperbole to say LOCK...but I'd put the chances at 80+%...
You are obviously unfamiliar with the laws of probability. To figure out a teams chances of winning 4 straight games to reach the Final Four one multiplies their probability to win game 1 by the probability to win game 2 by the probability to win game 3 by the probability to win game 4. If a team had a 94% chance to win each of the 4 games (never gonna happen, teams are never that big a favorite in Sweet 16 or Elite 8 games) their probability (.94x.94x.94x.94) would be approximately 78.08%. The #1 seed in this year's tournament will almost assuredly have significantly less than a 50% chance of making the Final Four. Adding a non NBA point guard to a group of non NBA players would not result in MU being the most prohibitive favorite in the history of the NCAA tournament (which is what it would take to be an 80% lock). Your math is just way,way off.
We did make the Elite 8 last year, but the odds against us were almost 10-1. We had a 70% chance to beat Davidson, a 55% chance against Butler and (at most) a 30% against Miami. .7x.55x.3 = 10.65% chance of winning all three.
Given your penchant for turning longshots into locks, I'm feeling pretty good about our two rather substantial wagers ;)
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 06, 2014, 11:10:47 PM
You are obviously unfamiliar with the laws of probability. To figure out a teams chances of winning 4 straight games to reach the Final Four one multiplies their probability to win game 1 by the probability to win game 2 by the probability to win game 3 by the probability to win game 4. If a team had a 94% chance to win each of the 4 games (never gonna happen, teams are never that big a favorite in Sweet 16 or Elite 8 games) their probability (.94x.94x.94x.94) would be approximately 78.08%. The #1 seed in this year's tournament will almost assuredly have significantly less than a 50% chance of making the Final Four. Adding a non NBA point guard to a group of non NBA players would not result in MU being the most prohibitive favorite in the history of the NCAA tournament (which is what it would take to be an 80% lock). Your math is just way,way off.
We did make the Elite 8 last year, but the odds against us were almost 10-1. We had a 70% chance to beat Davidson, a 55% chance against Butler and (at most) a 30% against Miami. .7x.55x.3 = 10.65% chance of winning all three.
Given your penchant for turning longshots into locks, I'm feeling pretty good about our two rather substantial wagers ;)
You're absolutely correct with your math, but let's not pretend like there was any NBA talent on last year's roster either.
Vander Blue is not NBA material over the long haul. At this point I'd still say Jamil with his length and size has a better chance to not get drafted and play himself onto an NBA roster other than a 10 day call up than Blue.
Wes and Jimmy both have size that Vander lacks and are much better shooters. In the NBA you have many 6'3" to 6'5" guys playing PG.
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 06, 2014, 11:24:07 PM
You're absolutely correct with your math, but let's not pretend like there was any NBA talent on last year's roster either.
Vander Blue is not NBA material over the long haul. At this point I'd still say Jamil with his length and size has a better chance to not get drafted and play himself onto an NBA roster other than a 10 day call up than Blue.
Wes and Jimmy both have size that Vander lacks and are much better shooters. In the NBA you have many 6'3" to 6'5" guys playing PG.
depends how you define "nba talent". players drafted? players who got a contract? players who made a roster? players who played in a game? players who played in a regular season game?
Quote from: mattyv1908 on March 06, 2014, 11:24:07 PM
You're absolutely correct with your math, but let's not pretend like there was any NBA talent on last year's roster either.
Vander Blue is not NBA material over the long haul. At this point I'd still say Jamil with his length and size has a better chance to not get drafted and play himself onto an NBA roster other than a 10 day call up than Blue.
Wes and Jimmy both have size that Vander lacks and are much better shooters. In the NBA you have many 6'3" to 6'5" guys playing PG.
I don't think I said anything about NBA talent on last year's team, though I do think that Vander has already outdone DJ Newbill's NBA future with his one 10 day contract.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on March 06, 2014, 11:10:47 PM
You are obviously unfamiliar with the laws of probability. To figure out a teams chances of winning 4 straight games to reach the Final Four one multiplies their probability to win game 1 by the probability to win game 2 by the probability to win game 3 by the probability to win game 4. If a team had a 94% chance to win each of the 4 games (never gonna happen, teams are never that big a favorite in Sweet 16 or Elite 8 games) their probability (.94x.94x.94x.94) would be approximately 78.08%. The #1 seed in this year's tournament will almost assuredly have significantly less than a 50% chance of making the Final Four. Adding a non NBA point guard to a group of non NBA players would not result in MU being the most prohibitive favorite in the history of the NCAA tournament (which is what it would take to be an 80% lock). Your math is just way,way off.
We did make the Elite 8 last year, but the odds against us were almost 10-1. We had a 70% chance to beat Davidson, a 55% chance against Butler and (at most) a 30% against Miami. .7x.55x.3 = 10.65% chance of winning all three.
Given your penchant for turning longshots into locks, I'm feeling pretty good about our two rather substantial wagers ;)
Thanks for the math lesson Lenny - it wasn't my strong suit. Your point is well made. LOCK was too strong of word, yet I really would like this team's chances with a guy like Cotton on it.
And got a good laugh out of your last sentence. Well played. Should be interesting to see how that plays out..
Quote from: Ners on March 07, 2014, 08:48:30 AM
Thanks for the math lesson Lenny - it wasn't my strong suit. Your point is well made. LOCK was too strong of word, yet I really would like this team's chances with a guy like Cotton on it.
Thanks for admitting the error of your ways, and I do agree with your general thesis that a superior PG would have meant the world to this team.
Also thanks for taking a thread about JJJ and the other young guards and turning it into another opportunity to bash Derrick. It was an important step because there aren't quite enough Derrick-bashing threads out there.
Quote from: MU82 on March 07, 2014, 09:15:05 AM
Thanks for admitting the error of your ways, and I do agree with your general thesis that a superior PG would have meant the world to this team.
Also thanks for taking a thread about JJJ and the other young guards and turning it into another opportunity to bash Derrick. It was an important step because there aren't quite enough Derrick-bashing threads out there.
Come on man...I didn't hijack the thread into the PG discussion...it went there on Post number 2...and as with most threads they evolve all over the place..
But...to comment on your original post/point - I do think it is a very good point to have made, and I sure hope all of the freshman see it through at MU, as think they could evolve into a VERY good team. It doesn't happen immediately for every 4-5 star recruit...just think JJJ's case is an interesting one, as he's really gotten buried on the bench, and I'm sure he had higher expectations coming into MU...and when you also are sitting behind a guy, Jake, who you are more talented than, overall - that can be a bitter pill to swallow...
Quote from: Ners on March 07, 2014, 09:24:46 AM
Come on man...I didn't hijack the thread into the PG discussion...it went there on Post number 2...and as with most threads they evolve all over the place..
But...to comment on your original post/point - I do think it is a very good point to have made, and I sure hope all of the freshman see it through at MU, as think they could evolve into a VERY good team. It doesn't happen immediately for every 4-5 star recruit...just think JJJ's case is an interesting one, as he's really gotten buried on the bench, and I'm sure he had higher expectations coming into MU...and when you also are sitting behind a guy, Jake, who you are more talented than, overall - that can be a bitter pill to swallow...
I think it's like other positions, situations on the team. JJJ might be more talented now, definitely more potential than Jake, but Jake has more understanding and plays better within Buzz's system.
Is that Buzz's fault for not bringing JJJ along enough? Maybe. Is it JJJ's fault for not understanding quick enough? Maybe. Either way, JJJ will be a MUCH better player than Jake, eventually.
Quote from: MU82 on March 05, 2014, 12:11:21 AM
Georgetown's stud guard was a Scout 4-star who hardly played as a freshman (9.7 mpg). Each succeeding year he played more, scored more, contributed more. Turned himself into a heck of a college guard.
There are plenty of similar examples, but I had to look up Starks after I saw Raftery's pregame interview of him in which Starks' career development was highlighted.
I like to think JJJ, Duane, Dawson and even Burton can develop like this, too.
Starks' freshman year he came in ranked 94th in RSCI and was the backup to a McDonalds All American (Chris Wright, 28th in the RSCI). His playing time generally increased toward the end of the season (averaging 17 mpg in the last 5 games of the season), showing some confidence he was ready to step up.
JJJ was the #30 in RSCI, playing behind a former walk-on transfer from a low-major. I'm not sure that his end of season play (4 DNPs in the last 7 games and 1.6 mpg in the 3 games in which he did play) inspires the same sense of confidence that he's ready to make a big leap.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on March 05, 2014, 01:25:03 AM
IDK, Bryce Cotton and Semaj Christon make compelling cases as well
That kind of trade would also require several first round picks and cash considerations
Probably would cost us Diamond Stone!
Quote from: The Equalizer on March 07, 2014, 10:38:57 AM
Starks' freshman year he came in ranked 94th in RSCI and was the backup to a McDonalds All American (Chris Wright, 28th in the RSCI). His playing time generally increased toward the end of the season (averaging 17 mpg in the last 5 games of the season), showing some confidence he was ready to step up.
JJJ was the #30 in RSCI, playing behind a former walk-on transfer from a low-major. I'm not sure that his end of season play (4 DNPs in the last 7 games and 1.6 mpg in the 3 games in which he did play) inspires the same sense of confidence that he's ready to make a big leap.
Good info.
Still, the point stands that Starks didn't walk right in and become a stud.
I agree that JJJ might be disappointed, and he might have legit reason to be. I've generally defended Buzz, but his burying of JJJ has been a real head-scratcher to me, as have some of his other PT decisions.
As I've said in other threads, if Jake is making 3s as he did against GT, OK, ride the hot hand and let him play big minutes. But when Jake is throwing bricks and the team is falling behind, it would seem time to give JJJ at least a few minutes.
Quote from: hoyasincebirth on March 06, 2014, 09:17:53 AM
Markel went to Georgetown Prep. He dreamed of playing at Georgetown his entire life. I wouldn't be surprised if no one else bothered to offer since he was always a lock for Georgetown. He was decently rated at points in his high school career but he committed to us and his stock dropped as a result.
So Hoya, is there any player on our roster you'd like to see on Georgetown roster?
Quote from: BCHoopster on March 05, 2014, 04:56:38 PM
College is a point guard league, our point guard has gotten burned by every point guard he is against. People talk about his D, sure it might be fine, but against good points the scoring is 25 for the other team and 4 or 5 points for Derrick. Change that around and we would be a good team. Secondly, if Dawson D is not that good, so maybe the point would get 28 against him, but he would score 10-12 so the imbalance would be better playing Dawson.
So, your argument is that lost offensive possessions due to turnovers are immaterial?
Quote from: Ners on March 06, 2014, 10:47:35 AM
All due respect Lenny - I think you greatly undervalue, the value of a great point guard - or even just a good one. We made the Elite 8 last year with the same cast minus Blue, Cadougan and Lockett. Mayo essentially has replaced what Blue did last year - see new thread post. Burton would be better than anyone who came off the bench last year. Starks or Cotton would be a very big upgrade from Cadougan. Lockett, drove most everyone here crazy for 3/4s of the season - and was a glue guy.
My post was dead serious. I just don't think you realize how much Derrick's limitations have handicapped the other 4 guys on the floor with him - mostly DAvante, Jamil, but also Todd and Jake.
So, how do you explain Georgetown being in seventh place in the Big East, then?
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 08, 2014, 08:31:43 AM
So, how do you explain Georgetown being in seventh place in the Big East, then?
They sure as hell don't have their typical, signature big man....put Gardner on GTown and they are an absolute nightmare. They also have had notable injuries and one of their better players being ineligible.
BUT - They still have been able to get the best out of conference wins of any Big East School....and as a result, will likely get the 4th bid out of Big East, and we will be sitting at home having beat them twice.
Quote from: Ners on March 08, 2014, 08:41:26 AM
They sure as hell don't have their typical, signature big man....put Gardner on GTown and they are an absolute nightmare. They also have had notable injuries and one of their better players being ineligible.
BUT - They still have been able to get the best out of conference wins of any Big East School....and as a result, will likely get the 4th bid out of Big East, and we will be sitting at home having beat them twice.
Great answer, Ners.
QB is the most important position in the NFL, but there have been many teams that have had great QBs and have had trouble winning because they didn't have enough talent around the QBs. That doesn't mean it's unimportant to have a great QB.
Same is true of PG. If I could build a college team, I'd start with the very best PG I could get and build around him. I don't think this is a revolutionary theory!