Page 15 of 15
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:49 pm
by Rebel10
Harry0569 wrote:Rebel10 wrote:hoopmanx wrote:Let me ask you old school guys a question; in college ball today, what percentage of programs are truly inside/out?
SMU was last year. I hope we play Maryland in the big dance next year since they have a good big because bigs are not necessary to win the national championship according to you. Maryland really only needs a 6'6 center to do it.
Go watch the Warriors. There are extended periods of time when Draymond Green, who is 6'6, is playing Center and they seem to be doing alright.
Read Kirk's article on grantland today.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/kevin ... -pelicans/
You have convinced me. Let's go for 6'6 centers from this point on. No need for bigs to win a national championship nor for SMU to compete in the AAC.
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:11 pm
by Stallion
Or we could pretend that there are still top big men recruits that are still available and continue to [deleted] about it. Look you try to sign the Top players available-but then you move on to get the best remaining available. Look at the offer lists-we've offered big guys-just haven't hit on any one
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:09 pm
by hoopmanx
Rebel10 wrote:hoopmanx wrote:Let me ask you old school guys a question; in college ball today, what percentage of programs are truly inside/out?
SMU was last year. I hope we play Maryland in the big dance next year since they have a good big because bigs are not necessary to win the national championship according to you. Maryland really only needs a 6'6 center to do it.
MAryland won it w/a 6'6 big man winning regional MVP and dominating the low blocks.
IF Maryland played SMU next year, the issue isn't how many bigs we have or the size, it's that Maryland will start two incredibly thick and skilled McD AAs down low w/the best PG in America keeping everyone honest. Not about size, it's about talent
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:28 pm
by Rebel10
hoopmanx wrote:Rebel10 wrote:hoopmanx wrote:Let me ask you old school guys a question; in college ball today, what percentage of programs are truly inside/out?
SMU was last year. I hope we play Maryland in the big dance next year since they have a good big because bigs are not necessary to win the national championship according to you. Maryland really only needs a 6'6 center to do it.
MAryland won it w/a 6'6 big man winning regional MVP and dominating the low blocks.
IF Maryland played SMU next year, the issue isn't how many bigs we have or the size, it's that Maryland will start two incredibly thick and skilled McD AAs down low w/the best PG in America keeping everyone honest. Not about size, it's about talent
Maryland also had a starting 6'9 center and 2 or 3 other 6'9 guys coming off the bench (Chris Wilcox a lottery pick). Lonnie Baxter is 6'8 even though you will probably say he was 6'6' or 6'7 to try to prove your point and he did not play center. Note I said 6'6 center. I noticed how you where partying like a kid in a candy store when you guys got Stone. I think talented size helps and I think you would agree, But two 6'6 post players can win the national championship according to you which is not what Maryland started in 2002. Kind of seem like you are a hypocrite in implying SMU didn't need Diamond Stone nor Thon Maker but jumping for joy when Maryland got Stone. Sometimes it sounds like you are you saying poor little ole SMU should accept whatever they get while big bad Maryland could have the best them sense 2002 after getting Stone. The question is if Maryland and SMU played who would you be rooting for.
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:03 pm
by hoopmanx
Rebel10 wrote:Maryland also had a starting 6'9 center and 2 or 3 other 6'9 guys coming off the bench (Chris Wilcox a lottery pick). Lonnie Baxter is 6'8. Note I said 6'6 center. I noticed how you where partying like a kid in a candy store when you guys got Stone. I think talented size helps and I think you would agree, But two 6'6 post players can win the national championship according to you which is not what Maryland started in 2002. Kind of seem like you are a hypocrite in implying SMU didn't need Diamond Stone nor Thon Maker but jumping for joy when Maryland got Stone. Sometimes it sounds like you are you saying poor little ole SMU should accept whatever they get while big bad Maryland could have the best them sense 2002 after getting Stone. The question is if Maryland and SMU played who would you be rooting for.
Congrats, that's the single worst post ever. It comprehends not one point anyone has made, chock full of inaccuracy, not to mention a JV attempt at trolling.
They didn't have a McD AA on that entire team and their biggest performers were underdogs or undersized. Check what Baxter measured, not what he was listed. Hell, I've stood next to the guy, more than double digit times, so STFU. Wilcox was the highest rated recruit on the entire team, roughly top 30 coming out. He also didn't play a ton as a frosh and really didn't come into his own as a soph until March. He was a legit 6'9 and crazy athlete, drafted on potential not production. Next years Maryland team dwarfs that team. The frontline depth is now frightening and i'm a Turgeon critic.
I didn't say SMU or any basketball program on the planet didn't need Stone or Maker. They are world-class elite bigs. Every program wants them. I said we weren't in the picture and never ever were for those particular kids. Why even mention them? Stone had schools that made sense and his apparel company's flagship. He chose what he chose. None of that has anything to do w/SMU who hasn't been actively recruiting him in 15 months or so.
SMU shouldn't take what they can get. That's your mentality, b/c you need a big so bad, you'll take kids that don't deserve the ride. You value height over skill
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:35 pm
by Rebel10
Bottom line is that you know a lot of hip basketball lingo but your analysis and predictions are not any more accurate than anyone else on the board. You have been wrong as much or more than you have been right. Your opinions are just that opinions. I said we need a talented big so don't twist what I said. No one wants a stiff. But just wish well had gotten a talented big in the first signing period. If Kennedy comes back that gives SMU an extra year to get some talented bigs. Now who would you root for if SMU and Maryland played?
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:05 am
by hoopmanx
Rebel10 wrote:Bottom line is that you know a lot of hip basketball lingo but your analysis and predictions are not any more accurate than anyone else on the board. You have been wrong as much or more than you have been right. Your opinions are just that opinions. I said we need a talented big so don't twist what I said. No one wants a stiff. But just wish well had gotten a talented big in the first signing period. If Kennedy comes back that gives SMU an extra year to get some talented bigs. Now who would you root for if SMU and Maryland played?
Lol, coming from the guy who is so chicken****, he has a different screen name for most every board you post on, not including twitter etc. You're a know nothing kid who has followed me around like a cyber lap dog for years, when you weren't annoying EJ, Billy etc. Lots of folks want to go to war w/me on various boards and that's ok, but bring some relevant knowledge. At least my opinions are mine and based on years of working in and around the industry. You're just a loudmouthed simpleton who never offer anything fresh unless a retweet counts as scoop in your world.
Tell me again how awesome Simeon Carter is in year two of playing organized basketball. How he's a difference-maker for this squad at 6'7 a no ability to turn over either shoulder. We get it, you want a big. We also get it, I don't want one unless they can actually go. You don't know the difference, just have an itchy trigger finger
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 9:08 am
by hoopmanx
hoopmanx wrote:Rebel10 wrote:Bottom line is that you know a lot of hip basketball lingo but your analysis and predictions are not any more accurate than anyone else on the board. You have been wrong as much or more than you have been right. Your opinions are just that opinions. I said we need a talented big so don't twist what I said. No one wants a stiff. But just wish well had gotten a talented big in the first signing period. If Kennedy comes back that gives SMU an extra year to get some talented bigs. Now who would you root for if SMU and Maryland played?
Lol, coming from the guy who is so chicken****, he has a different screen name for most every board you post on, not including twitter etc. You're a know nothing kid who has followed me around like a cyber lap dog for years, when you weren't annoying EJ, Billy etc. Lots of folks want to go to war w/me on various boards and that's ok, but bring some relevant knowledge. At least my opinions are mine and based on years of working in and around the industry. You're just a loudmouthed simpleton who never offer anything fresh unless a retweet counts as scoop in your world.
Tell me again how awesome Simeon Carter is in year two of playing organized basketball. How he's a difference-maker for this squad at 6'7 a no ability to turn over either shoulder. We get it, you want a big. We also get it, I don't want one unless they can actually go. You don't know the difference, just have an itchy trigger finger. As for the Terps vs SMU, anyone who I actually share info with here and who shares w/me, knows that answer and why. You would need clearance, which you don't have
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:22 pm
by ClickClack
hoopmanx wrote:Rebel10 wrote:Bottom line is that you know a lot of hip basketball lingo but your analysis and predictions are not any more accurate than anyone else on the board. You have been wrong as much or more than you have been right. Your opinions are just that opinions. I said we need a talented big so don't twist what I said. No one wants a stiff. But just wish well had gotten a talented big in the first signing period. If Kennedy comes back that gives SMU an extra year to get some talented bigs. Now who would you root for if SMU and Maryland played?
Lol, coming from the guy who is so chicken****, he has a different screen name for most every board you post on, not including twitter etc. You're a know nothing kid who has followed me around like a cyber lap dog for years, when you weren't annoying EJ, Billy etc.
LOL...bowl4us, ft5...
Re: Losing some height next year but gaining some shooters
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 4:27 pm
by SMU 86
Who is the best available players out there now that we have a realistic shot at?