East Coast Mustang wrote:If Gu is starting, we're in trouble.
McDowell should probably look around; we have at least three and more likely four more talented guards coming on board next year with Whitt, McMurray, Douglas, and Landrum. The fact he could barely crack the lineup for a minute or two a game when we had one one of the thinnest rosters in the country says a lot.
Think about how much better jarrey was this year compaired to freshman year. McDowell clearly has the athleticism and size, he just needs polish. He gets a whole year to work on exactly what the coaches are telling him.
East Coast Mustang wrote:If Gu is starting, we're in trouble.
McDowell should probably look around; we have at least three and more likely four more talented guards coming on board next year with Whitt, McMurray, Douglas, and Landrum. The fact he could barely crack the lineup for a minute or two a game when we had one one of the thinnest rosters in the country says a lot.
Think about how much better jarrey was this year compaired to freshman year. McDowell clearly has the athleticism and size, he just needs polish. He gets a whole year to work on exactly what the coaches are telling him.
Not even remotely comparable. Yes, Jarrey improved a lot this year but he was more than serviceable as a freshman- played in every game and averaged over 17 minutes per game. With our scholarship restrictions in the upcoming seasons, no need to keep a guy if he cant cut it here
2005 PonyFans.com Rookie of the Year Award Recipient
East Coast Mustang wrote:If Gu is starting, we're in trouble.
McDowell should probably look around; we have at least three and more likely four more talented guards coming on board next year with Whitt, McMurray, Douglas, and Landrum. The fact he could barely crack the lineup for a minute or two a game when we had one one of the thinnest rosters in the country says a lot.
Think about how much better jarrey was this year compaired to freshman year. McDowell clearly has the athleticism and size, he just needs polish. He gets a whole year to work on exactly what the coaches are telling him.
Not even remotely comparable. Yes, Jarrey improved a lot this year but he was more than serviceable as a freshman- played in every game and averaged over 17 minutes per game. With our scholarship restrictions in the upcoming seasons, no need to keep a guy if he cant cut it here
Beat me to it ECM. Jarrey was much better than McDowell in every aspect as a freshman. Also, Part of the reason I think Jarrey took such a big step is he was playing his first live action in almost a full season since he missed his entire senior year with an ACL tear. I think Jarrey is more of an exception than something that is easily copied. I'm not all aboard the lets chase off McDowell train, because he could be an upperclassmen Gu type player/contributor, but in no way should he be compared to Jarrey.
MFFL, Shake isn't going to be moving off-guard next year. He will play PG again. Hopefully we will have a solid backup PG in one of the frosh or in McMurray.
You guys and your Shake off the ball craziness. He's our PG, an all league one w/an NBA future. He was recruited to be the lead guard, he only played the 2 out of necessity as a frosh. Kid can play either position, but he's our PG and was very good at it this year
hoopmanx wrote:You guys and your Shake off the ball craziness. He's our PG, an all league one w/an NBA future. He was recruited to be the lead guard, he only played the 2 out of necessity as a frosh. Kid can play either position, but he's our PG and was very good at it this year
This, it halarious that people think he is better off the ball. He had a great assist to turnover ratio this year, he had great handles and he is a nightmare matchup at the point at 6'5. He's a stud. If he can finish a little better in the lane and get's aggressive he will be Conference player of the year next year.
Shake and Whitt are so similar. Both strive to play PG but neither is very adept at it. No one questions Shake's measurables or potential, but u cant deny that he is a very passive player, not a good quality as the lead PG.
Lebanese4Life wrote:Shake and Whitt are so similar. Both strive to play PG but neither is very adept at it. No one questions Shake's measurables or potential, but u cant deny that he is a very passive player, not a good quality as the lead PG.
I hope we have a 2 headed monster at point next year; love Shake doing most of the handling, but would like someone else to compliment him so he might see more open looks with basically 2 points on the floor together. Of course, I want the "other point" to be a sniper as well
BleedSMUPride wrote:Gu absolutely should not start. yes he got 6th man of the year, and yes he shot ok in conference play, but he didnt even look like he belonged on the court vs USC which is why he didn't play in the 2nd half. He doesn't consistently bring it enough on the offensive end to start. He is an ok defensive guy off the bench and thats about it.
Gu gave this team a nice 2nd handler when Shake was out of the lineup or needed a break and he's a more than adequate defender who can guard the other team's 2 or 3, but I agree he should not be starting because we are still going to be smallish and we need offense from every starter. I would love to see him return to the form he showed as a FR at Virginia Tech where he was a 40% shooter including 37% from three (compared to 31% and 28% since he arrived at SMU). Would love to see him win that 6th man award a 2nd consecutive year
One of the things i liked most about this year's team was that you had plenty of guys who could score. Any one or two of the starters could carry the team for a stretch or get hot right from the tip. Before last year you had only Nic and you hoped somebody else would go off if he didn't immediately.
If Semi returns I could easily see Gu starting because we'd have 3-4 good starting scorers. If Semi doesn't return a guy like MCMurray (when eligible) or Douglas (when ready) might be better suited to start.
Shake is a combo. Size of a 2, handling of a 1. Vision and creativity isn't great, which will restrict his upside as a 1. He runs a "safe" point, but not a dynamic point.
All that said, keep in mind he grew 2 inches last summer. A little more growth might make all of this a moot point.
JasonB wrote:Shake is a combo. Size of a 2, handling of a 1. Vision and creativity isn't great, which will restrict his upside as a 1. He runs a "safe" point, but not a dynamic point.
All that said, keep in mind he grew 2 inches last summer. A little more growth might make all of this a moot point.
