Clock_Tower

Members
  • Content count

    4,484
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Clock_Tower

  • Rank
    Listener of the Streets

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Chesterfield, Missouri

Recent Profile Visitors

7,437 profile views
  1. yes. the team certainly could have done worse. at the same time, this was not a good year by SLU standards.
  2. Abuse? Good stuff. No blame for hiring Jim Crews? Good stuff. And BTW our minimal revenue sport of soccer continues to underperform with a coach hired by AD May and yet no change there. Sorry if if have higher goals for SLU than just not to be SPUMAC and having a good baseball program.
  3. Sure he has. Also noteworthy was Chris May's hire of Jim Crews. Back then, the team was doing well with Crews at the helm on an interim basis, RM had recently died, our team made the NCAA Tourney again and Jim Crews was awarded National Coach of the Year. A good and strong Athletic Director would have stood up and thanked Jim for his loyalty and efforts but would have taken us in a different direction. That was my belief and I stated it quite strongly on this Board at that time. A strong AD would not have followed the trend of retaining Jim and his coaching staff. A strong AD would have realized that Jim was long past his prime, that this record at Army with Jim Platte was a better indicator of his future success than his run at SLU with RM's team. A strong AD would not have been afraid to take what could have been an unpopular stand in not hiring Crews as our permanent coach, and instead, hiring a Coach Ford type guy back then. Instead, Chris May chose the "safe" hire and went with the uneducated national media (and most on this Board) which lacked actual insight into our program and which was obviously biased with sentiment following the death of RM.
  4. Hooz. Reread my post. Nowhere do I claim superior knowledge to Coach. Superior knowledge to you? Of course, but most of this Board can claim the same so that's no big deal. Glad to hear that Coach says Welmer has very good post moves because I sure haven't seen them. Instead, I see a guy who is much more comfortable, on offense, playing on the perimeter than I do in the middle. Anyway, I get it, you probably were raving about Gillman too after he made a few 3 pointers his Freshman year. BTW, will every tall white guy who launches 3 pointers be compared to Rob Loe? I sure hope not. Rob Loe was a truly talented player. His JR year was great and his SR year even better. As to his Freshman year, yes, he struggled alot, yes he got pushed around on this interior, yes he lacked strength, yes he launched 3 pointers... but he also played hard on the inside and did not back away from contact on the interior. Unlike Welmer, Loe did not shy away from interior battles while still playing on the perimeter as well. Loe's negatives had more to do with his lack of strength his Freshman. When the improved strength and size came, along with increased technique and footwork, Rob Loe became a great player. Welmer not only lacks the strength (similar to Freshman RL) but also lacks the desire/effort/comfort level to play and defend the interior (unlike Freshman RL) -- and Welmer is much older than Rob Loe having both a extra year of high school plus a redshirt year. And comparisons to Cody Ellis? Again, I don't see it. Cody was always a forward who could rebound and defend on the interior while also being versatile enough to step outside and score. Welmer appears to be more of a tall guard who likes to shoot from the perimeter but not dribble, pass, etc. like most other guards.
  5. http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/sports/college/2016/12/14/lsus-guard-biedscheid-dismissed-team/95458384/ Dismissed from LSUS -- his 4th college!! What a piece of work!!
  6. Remind me again why it is good for our team to have one of our bigs try to be our outside perimeter threat? A one (1) dimensional (outside shooter) big who gets destroyed on the interior but who is a better outside shooter than most guys his size is good why? Shouldn't our goal be to put the best outside shooter we can find (at any size) out on the floor and to have him take most of our 3 point shots? Last I checked, a big (Welmer) who makes a 3 pointer gets just as many points as a guard who makes a 3 pointer and yet most guards shoot better than bigs/Welmer. Our guys bring the ball down the court, run the offense, look for the best/highest percentage shot -- and I would suggest that should not be Welmer most of the time. Welmer will never shoot like Scott Highmark or Kevin Lisch -- so why should he be on the floor (short of us being so short handed we have no else who can shoot) when he cannot be an interior threat, defend the post, rebound, block out, etc.
  7. If we want to give Union Station a boost... how about adding trains again, a Metro stop to go along with the hotel and restaurant.
  8. Agree. And yet the general toxicity of the campus is probably the number 1 reason why Anderson MIGHT actually be retained. Not that Anderson has done much to earn another year as head coach but Mizzou have actually be better off having Anderson stay another year to let the football program get back on its feet, let the campus wide scandals pass or at least die down, save the money you have to pay to buy him out, put Anderson on a short leash to ensure no further scandals and/or to clean house inside the program this year, consider firing Anderson halfway through next year to appease boosters and allow the program time to shop, market the program and land a big name or "splash" hire a year from now when toxicity levels are reduced and likelihood of sanctions/loss of scholarships is better known. The goal is to be better in 3 years from now and if waiting a year to make a head coaching change improves the selection of candidates, then wouldn't this be better than agreeing to a new 5 year plan now?
  9. +1 And I just think the synergy of the location by SLU, Cortex and the Grove, together with the Foundry (?) food mall and IKEA and all the other development going on to fill in the gap between Kingshighway and Grand, along with close proximity to both the downtown and CWE and yet still off Hwy 40 would make this a better location.
  10. Probably a good general rule for the MLS but not really applicable to St. Louis. The problem with St. Louis, unlike other cities, is that our people don't live downtown. Believe the mid-town could have resulted in a true niche, in more of the downtown feel/vibe that the MLS is really looking for and that mid-town has far more potential for taking hold and being more beneficial to both the team/league as well as to St. Louis generally. Another downtown stadium by our office buildings which empty at 5pm and are largely closed/quiet on weekends, will certainly help the failing Union Station but provide the downtown with very little real long team benefit. Still hope we can land an MLS team though.
  11. No. The other ownership group had floated a plan/stadium by Cortex/SLU but apparently this is not being considered. Too bad b/c no government handouts with that one.
  12. Sorry if wrong thread... but what is the real reason why the MLS has said that soccer will only come to St. Louis with the stadium by Union Station (public funding required) versus what appears to me to be the better stadium by SLU (no public funding required). We just have Dave Peacock and Mayor Slay to thank for this?
  13. Your nuts. The view is breath taking at Pepperdine (was on their campus this past July) but it is also small and built into a huge hill. Picturesque? yes. Practical and place where I would want to live and spend time? No way. And as nice as Stanford is, give me UCLA any day. UCLA>Stanford>USC>Pepperdine No ranking by me of Cal because I have never seen the campus.
  14. Jump. Thanks for the figures. Just so I am clear, and as Old Guy mentioned, there were 60 One and Dones over an 8 year period or 7.5 per year. Also, 184 Five Star players over that same 8 year period which means there were 23 Five Star players, on average, each year. If the same follows true to current day, then our Five Star recruit who just began play for Webster Groves is 1 of approximately 23 other players with the same Five Star ranking. While some One and Dones presumably were ranked as only Four Star players and some might not have been ranked because they are non-Americans, the chances of Mr. Gordon being a One and Done (from a numbers standpoint) is rather fair at 7.5 out of 23 or more. Mr. Tatum was a Five Star recruit but mostly one of the higher ranked of the 23 or so in his class -- believe he was ranked either #1 or #2 depending upon the polls. Further, he is playing well as Duke so it is probably reasonable to believe he will be 1 of the 7.5 One and Dones for his year. Thanks again to all.
  15. Believe Coach Ford is taking us (SLU) into new territory for us -- the recruitment and landing of 4* (star) and 5* players. While the norm for Kentucky and Duke, 4* and 5* players, we have our only experience with Larry Hughes. Even RM mostly landed 3* players. Now, I don't believe the current "star" rating system was used back in the day with Larry though believe most believe Larry Hughes would have been considered, by today's standards, a 5* player. As such, Larry is an example of a 5* player who played for us only 1 year - One and Done. At the same time, not all 5* players are really One and Done players. Is it possible that all 5* players be considered One and Done? I guess. Then, again, it is possible that 4* players also might be One and Done - though far less likely. Does anyone have some real numbers to better grasp this? How many 4* and 5* players are labeled such, on average, each year? How many college players players, on average, sign with the NBA after only one (1) year? After only two (2) years?