Clock_Tower

Love the reference 

Gonzaga has been able to maintain its high level following it being Cinderella in the NCAA Tourney - and has kept winning and winning and winning.  Keeping its coach and reinvestment of monies earned has been critical but being able to dominate its conference and get a bid every year by qualifying for the Tourney each year has been just as big.   Xavier made the NCAA Tourney each year mostly by winning the MCC and then the A-10.   Butler dominated the Horizon and got its opportunity each year as well.  I recall several years when Butler was simply not a good team... but somehow they won their Conference Tournament and kept the  NCAA Tourney streak going.  And no one goes back and re-examines how/why a team made the Tourney -- just that they went... so many times ... so many times in a row...  George Mason and Davidson had their runs... and recently Chicago Loyola has had theirs.   
Xavier is no longer winning their conference/conference Tourney each year, but have been good enough to get "at large" bids.  Butler is trying as well, has name recognition, continues to receive the prior NCAA Tourney paychecks, has re-invested its monies wisely, has mostly hired good new coaches...  but Davidson and George Mason are shells of their past.  Chicago Loyola will likely be the same.   Nonetheless, I prefer mediocre team/program in the Midwest (and Chicago in particular) than another mediocre team/program on the East Coast.   
Welcome aboard Loyola!

St Bonaventure has larger guards and we want to win the A10. So it is ok to get lit up by the good teams in your league?  
And every player has their strengths and weaknesses. And if they did not have weaknesses, they would not be playing for St. Louis University in the A10. But when you lack a perimeter game which results in the other team not guarding you and you also has trouble finishing in the lane, i part bc of your height which cannot change,  then yes it is hard to look the other way as to your defense. 
And yes, when scoring must come from the other 4 players, extra pressure is placed on the other 4.  If you want a 3.0 or B average for your academic semester but the best you can do in a given class is a 2.0 or C, then you cannot meet your goal with a 3.0 or B in your other 4 classes. And if you goal is a 3.5 or B+ average, then there need to be quite a few 4.0 or A’s in your other 4 classes. And IMO, this pressure was too much for a youngster like Jimerson. Upper class leadership can handle such pressure but unfortunately our upper class leaders could not shoot from the perimeter either. 

So another 2 guard without a strong perimeter shot playing next to a PG without a perimeter shot?

So another 2 guard without a strong perimeter shot playing next to a PG without a perimeter shot. 

So another 2 guard without a strong perimeter shot playing next to a PG without a perimeter shot. 

Yes.  DE became a more well rounded player each year for us - something that French never did.  At the same time, I still contend he was not stretch anything - as you suggest.  And while he had a mid range game and improved his handles each year, he still did his best work with his back to the basket.  And when he had his back to the basket, our 4 (CE) and 5 (RL) were often threats lining up on the 3 point line.  And when CE and RL were playing inside or when DE was guarded by a larger, less mobile big, as you mention, DE could take advantage, draw his man out and hit the mid range.  And yes, if DE struggled while playing with French, it would be French's fault as opposed to DE's..
Most 6'5" guys who play the 3 are more guard than forward.  They are guys can shoot can hit the 3, handle the ball and be more comfortable on the perimeter.  Not DE -- he was more a traditional small forward than a wing -- more comfortable with his back to the basket.   

TJ ‘s path is through becoming a guard as opposed to a forward. Will he make it?  Not sure. Some improvement already though. 2 guard, 3, 4/PF?  Thought modern basketball got rid of this and went to putting our your best 5?😂. I say otherwise. 
And no, Dwayne Evans was not a stretch 4 or a stretch anything. He was a traditional but undersized forward who played w his back to the basket, who had alot of success for us but who tried to improve his guard skills over his 4 years, who found open space in the lane, who took advantage of odd matchups caused by our lineup  and who benefited from the stretching of our stretch 4 (Cody Ellis) and our stretch 5 (Rob Loe). DE did not stretch and IMO he would have struggled playing with similar, non-stretch players like French and JGood. 

French improved his first 2 years. Got stronger. Developed a spin move. Developed a 2 or 3 dribble power move. Improved ball handling. Showed us a baby hook.... but then never developed a mid range shot, became predictable and his FTs appeared worse his Junior and Senior year than his Freshman year.i place most of this on the player rather than coach all of which I said the same previously. 

Yes.  DE became a more well rounded player each year for us - something that French never did.  At the same time, I still contend he was not stretch anything - as you suggest.  And while he had a mid range game and improved his handles each year, he still did his best work with his back to the basket.  And when he had his back to the basket, our 4 (CE) and 5 (RL) were often threats lining up on the 3 point line.  And when CE and RL were playing inside or when DE was guarded by a larger, less mobile big, as you mention, DE could take advantage, draw his man out and hit the mid range.  And yes, if DE struggled while playing with French, it would be French's fault as opposed to DE's..
Most 6'5" guys who play the 3 are more guard than forward.  They are guys can shoot can hit the 3, handle the ball and be more comfortable on the perimeter.  Not DE -- he was more a traditional small forward than a wing -- more comfortable with his back to the basket.   

TJ ‘s path is through becoming a guard as opposed to a forward. Will he make it?  Not sure. Some improvement already though. 2 guard, 3, 4/PF?  Thought modern basketball got rid of this and went to putting our your best 5?😂. I say otherwise. 
And no, Dwayne Evans was not a stretch 4 or a stretch anything. He was a traditional but undersized forward who played w his back to the basket, who had alot of success for us but who tried to improve his guard skills over his 4 years, who found open space in the lane, who took advantage of odd matchups caused by our lineup  and who benefited from the stretching of our stretch 4 (Cody Ellis) and our stretch 5 (Rob Loe). DE did not stretch and IMO he would have struggled playing with similar, non-stretch players like French and JGood. 

Roy.  Sorry for the delay in responding. As to Hargrove in high school, let me start by saying I never saw him play in high school and I defer to you and others on this Board who actually have gone and watched Hargove and the other players play. My comments are based upon what I have read about him. Please, correct me if I have made the wrong conclusions but I understand that he was coached by multiple coaches, that the coaching he received may not have been the best, that discipline, structure and defense was not emphasized and yet he helped lead his team to a State Championship his Senior year.  During that time, he seems to have relied heavily upon his amazing yet raw athletic ability. And while he appeared to have scored from every part of the court, it does not appear he had a high percentage of shooting and while he made 3 pointers in high school, I have yet to read accounts about him being a real perimeter threat, a 3 point shooter. And from reading other posters, they indicated his dribbling was not a strength.  And furthermore, he appeared to have been more a small forward than a guard.
Now, I have seen Hargrove play here at SLU these past two (2) years.   And I agree with Taj that Hargrove is halfway up the mountain with a long way to go. The development, or change, I see in Hargrove is with his defense and embracing of coaching.  I see an improvement in fundamentals and footwork.  While I did not see him play defense in high school, I did see him play early on at SLU.  I saw bad fundamentals, I saw him let his man pass by him to either score or sometimes see him somehow block the shot from behind with his unreal jumping and athletic ability.  Now, I see his feet moving and much better technique not letting his guy pass by him easily.   Also, I see an improvement on his perimeter shooting, structure and playing without the ball.  Whether he is truly better or not, he is certainly more confident and his head is no longer spinning.
But to me, the biggest change, and I stress the word I used "appears" to be Hargrove is becoming a guard and a 3 point threat.   Sure, his percentage may be increasing, or may not, but I don't put much stock in percentages when the amount of shots is few and when there are so many variables -- was he left open? was the pass good/bad? was the shot off a screen? was the shot off a dribble?  was the shot on the break? did he have a hand in his face? was the defense expecting the 3 pointer? So many factors.  But to me, if you agree that midrange and perimeter shooting threats were not coming from Yuri, JGood and French, and if those 3 played alot of minutes, then mid range and perimeter had to come from Perkins and someone else.   And if Hargrove ended the year having earned playing time over Jjimerson, a guard and a 3 point shooter, then that tells me that Hargrove must have impressed in practice. Of course, I am not at practice but it sure appears that a change is taking place.   We will soon find out.
 

More back hand slams on our head coach - Coach Ford. You must really detest him. Not an original thought in that empty head of yours.  Unlike you, I think Ford has done a remarkable job of developing talent.  And while I have the highest respect for RM, he had alot of misses and gave up on players rather than develop them. RM made up for this by showing many, many players the door. Ford doesn’t. Yes, RM developed his own players (BC, KM, Jett, etc) but he did very little with Liddell and Lisch - both of whom would have flourished themselves under Brad rather than RM. 
In fact, I believe Coach Ford has been an exceptional developer of talent as I give him credit for Roby, Bess, Isabel, JGood and Perkins. And while RM would not have recruited the same players that Coach Ford recruited, I have no doubt that RM would have shown the door to Jacobs after 1 year - and yet he developed greatly under Ford. And if we are patient, we will see real development in Yuri, Hargrove and Jimerson - all 3 who are light years ahead of when they first set foot on campus. 
Like an asshxole, everyone has one - an opinion. But just like your ridiculous prediction that Ford will never win an NCAA  Tournament game, you are wrong on Ford’s ability to develop talent and you will soon be proven wrong on Ford’s ability to win an NCAA Tourney game. 
 

Alot of prior discussions about our players and coaches, player development and how hard it is to change one’s game. Doesn’t appear to have been much development of Watson by Cuonzo Martin or by Watson himself. Not seeing much development of other players in Columbia either. And when I read your comments about Watson being a 6’4”, talented, 4 star guy struggling in high level D1 with limited dribbling and perimeter skills still relying upon what worked in high school, I think of a different 6’4” talented guy of our own who appears to be excelling in high level D1 by changing himself into a completely different player than the successful one he was in high school - Terrance Hargrove. 
 

Alot of prior discussions about our players and coaches, player development and how hard it is to change one’s game. Doesn’t appear to have been much development of Watson by Cuonzo Martin or by Watson himself. Not seeing much development of other players in Columbia either. And when I read your comments about Watson being a 6’4”, talented, 4 star guy struggling in high level D1 with limited dribbling and perimeter skills still relying upon what worked in high school, I think of a different 6’4” talented guy of our own who appears to be excelling in high level D1 by changing himself into a completely different player than the successful one he was in high school - Terrance Hargrove. 
 

Alot of prior discussions about our players and coaches, player development and how hard it is to change one’s game. Doesn’t appear to have been much development of Watson by Cuonzo Martin or by Watson himself. Not seeing much development of other players in Columbia either. And when I read your comments about Watson being a 6’4”, talented, 4 star guy struggling in high level D1 with limited dribbling and perimeter skills still relying upon what worked in high school, I think of a different 6’4” talented guy of our own who appears to be excelling in high level D1 by changing himself into a completely different player than the successful one he was in high school - Terrance Hargrove. 
 

Goodwin ended up 61 in the 2017 Rivals rankings and Nesbitt is 79 on the 2021 list. However, I think that was the highest Goodwin was rated, whereas Nesbitt peaked at 46.
247sports has Nesbitt 48th; Goodwin was 46th in 2017.
Goodwin was 55th per ESPN, which had/has Nesbitt 81st.
Goodwin trended up over time and his final rankings were his peak ratings in HS. I think Nesbitt's numbers went down after he actually left midseason for college; his numbers through the first 9 games for STLCA were also so-so. Bottom line is they're in the same tier: 4-star, borderline top 50.
Nesbitt would probably be considered to have a higher ceiling. He's taller and a better shooter. Goodwin is a truly unique player as a guard who rebounds like he does, but doesn't have the complete guard skill set and more well rounded scoring ability Nesbitt has.

There sure is a lot of inconsistency on this Board.
Either the 34 day mid-season COVID-19 shut down hurt or did not?  I have yet to read a post from anyone who says that we returned to our pre-shut down form afterwards.  Instead, I read posts about (insert any key player's name here) shooting percentage decreased, steals decreased, assists per game decreased and just did not look the same. Objectively, the entire team seemed to struggle, good shooters suddenly "lost" their shot, turnovers increased, rebounding dominance lessened and we lost some key games - several of which blowout losses in which we flat out looked bad.  Stamina issues and tired legs appeared prevalent.  During this stretch, we played some guys more (Hargrove), we went with newcomers (Linssen) over proven veterans (French), we tried to shorten the bench, we went back to the proven veterans, we looked like we turned the corner but then not.  In short, nothing fully worked.  We looked horrible against a bad LaSalle team, an average Dayton team and lost to a depleted and average VCU team.  The same "experts" who crowned Jim Crews "National Coach of the Year" ingnored the real effects of COVID and `1 guy apparently told us that players should resume to 100% after 2 games.  It did not happen, and this promising NCAA Tournament year evaporated right in front of our eyes, just like last year, anger and disappointment mounted and someone had to be blamed.  Surely it could not be something out of our control, such as COVID 19, which took away last year's postseason and I suggest this year's as well.  And look no further than our own conference rival, Dayton, which was to be an NCAA #1 seed last year - and instead did not play an NCAA Tourney game last year or this year.  Assume their coach is on the "hot seat" as well.
No, 40,000 Frenchmen cannot be wrong, and likewise, this Board and its conventional wisdom that this year's team was the most talented team in Billiken history, that this year's roster is proof that Coach Ford is a great recruiter and that this season's lack of success is proof that Coach Ford is a bad "x's and o's" coach, a bad "in game" coach, cannot win an NCAA Tournament game - and even further - Coach Ford won't win an NCAA Tournament game.  Some are the same clowns (A Bomb) spreading such nonsense two years ago.  Instead of responding back with facts or arguments, just more repeated "back hand" shots at Coach Ford and a "bad post" to me no matter what I write - a badge of honor.  Also, there are other posters who never supported Coach Ford in the first place and are now intent on taking "back hand" shots at him and the program whenever the team loses a game, struggles... while acting like the biggest and best Billiken fan.  Fake.
Has Coach Ford made some mistakes? Of course. Should Coach Ford be questioned and second-guessed? Of course.  But again, put me in the small minority who questions this Board's conventional wisdom.  And at the risk of providing any type of response, and being taken out of context to questions such as "which of your children do you like best?", how "great" of a recruiter are you if you recruit a wing who is not a very good shooter and even worse at the free-throw line? How "great" of a recruiter are you If you recruit a 6' 7" forward who cannot shoot beyond 5 foot or make a free-throw?  How "great" of a recruiter are you if your PG these past two years doesn't score, isn't very good at free throws and doesn't draw a defender?  How "great" of a recruiter are you if none of your 3 "bigs" can stretch defenses? How "great" of a recruiter are you if your wings cannot create their own shot off the dribble?   How realistic is it to expect a college coaching staff to "develop" players at the upper D1 level -- meaning to become "a shooter", to become a "scorer", to become a guy "with good handles", to learn how to dribble like a guard?  Despite the wisdom of a respected poster on this Board who tried to remind us that players generally are who they are when they arrive on campus - with a few exceptions, and yet improvement of who they are is probable, this Board's conventional wisdom is that our players are all "elite" , presumably because they chose us over our competition, and that the major deficiencies in their games are the result of proper "player development" by the coaching staff and poor "x's and o's" by the coaching staff.  I say false. 
Has anyone thought about how difficult it is to assemble a team with so many "unique" players?   if "match ups" are so important and critical (and they are) against opposing teams, has anyone thought about "matchups" among our own players.  For instance if we have too many players that bring skill A but not enough players that bring skill B, isn't this a recruiting issue as opposed to a "player development" and an "x's and o's" deficiency?  
I say that a coaching staff can only do so much.  Coaches can improve a player's footwork, spacing, technique, knowledge of the game and put them In a position to succeed.  Also, a coaching staff can put them through a good off-season strength and conditioning programs to increase their size ( or decrease in the case of Bell), strength, shooting range (outside shooting is greatly dependent upon leg strength), quickness, agility and jumping ability; however, there are limits as to what a player can do and not do. Polishing up a player is far different than creating a player. Just because our team has a need for a certain player to possess a certain skill does not mean that the coaching staff failed if the player does not develop this skill.   To say otherwise is false.
And further, who determines which player must have a complete game from day 1 and which player does not? Why is it okay for our Freshman PG to only pass and not score, play defense or rebound and yet our freshman wing not be allowed to only be a three point shooter?   Why, as a Freshman, does he need to create his own shot, shoot off the dribble and shut down the other team's wing?  I too can point to national championship teams who had role players as a three-point specialist.  Maybe because the team lacks someone else to stretch the defense because our "bigs" cannot?  and because our wings can score but cannot shoot? Because our PG has some skills but not others?  And why are we missing such players with such skills?  More lack of player development?  Or "x''s and o's" ?  bad recruiting?  And let's not bring up S2 again.

Apparently 6 of the Cincy basketball players didn't like their head coach either and all went into the transfer portal triggering an investigation despite no allegations of abuse or a rules violation...  Article says they won their championship last year with a 20-10 before this year's disaster season...

More back hand slams on our head coach - Coach Ford. You must really detest him. Not an original thought in that empty head of yours.  Unlike you, I think Ford has done a remarkable job of developing talent.  And while I have the highest respect for RM, he had alot of misses and gave up on players rather than develop them. RM made up for this by showing many, many players the door. Ford doesn’t. Yes, RM developed his own players (BC, KM, Jett, etc) but he did very little with Liddell and Lisch - both of whom would have flourished themselves under Brad rather than RM. 
In fact, I believe Coach Ford has been an exceptional developer of talent as I give him credit for Roby, Bess, Isabel, JGood and Perkins. And while RM would not have recruited the same players that Coach Ford recruited, I have no doubt that RM would have shown the door to Jacobs after 1 year - and yet he developed greatly under Ford. And if we are patient, we will see real development in Yuri, Hargrove and Jimerson - all 3 who are light years ahead of when they first set foot on campus. 
Like an asshxole, everyone has one - an opinion. But just like your ridiculous prediction that Ford will never win an NCAA  Tournament game, you are wrong on Ford’s ability to develop talent and you will soon be proven wrong on Ford’s ability to win an NCAA Tourney game. 
 

I agree but don't bother.   Minds are set in stone.  Stating that the NCAA shut down last season's conference tournaments and NCAA Tourney is an excuse.  Using COVID and a 34 day pause this year too is an excuse.  Mentioning a guy with a severe, life altering, debilitating disease is an excuse.  Mentioning gyms were closed and Spring/Summer leagues were shut down last year is an excuse. Being lied to about 4 of your players who possessed the skills which the team had been lacking before them being railroaded out of town is an excuse.   Ignore it all.   And simply say, Coach Ford's teams lack cohesion, his guys aren't developed, are poorly coached and just cannot win. 
And all on the heels of watching the likes of Okoro and Nesbitt in only 6 short months?

Lying?  Really?  I never said anything about your opinions on Ford and recruiting, motivating - both true.  From your repeated comments about him not developing players, not playing the proper tempo, not using players properly, not being a good x's and o's guy..., your comments sure give the impression that you don't like Coach Ford generally but that you are tolerating him and that you give him limited props as to recruiting and motivating while being smart enough to know that our program likely cannot do much better than him.
As to your mother, you yourself have brought her up in the past with Crews (and I agree with you on that).  The point then was that RM had built and developed such a good, sound, well-oiled machine that anyone could win with that team.  The point now is that when I hear the exhorbant praise regarding Coach Ford's recruiting, how great our players are, how much talent we have, the most talented team in Billiken history, the deepest team in Billiken history, then all that is happening is that Coach Ford is being set up for failure and to not meet such lofty expectations.  You are correct that we have no NBA talented players - even though we have had some in the past.   I contend these past few years have been extremely difficult to put a cohesive team together and to blend unusual talent (yes there has been a good amount of talent and French and JGood are part of that), to hide major flaws in players (and French and JGood are part of that), to rebuild from scratch and to rebuild twice after a kick in the teeth due to S2.  
Speaking of Perkins, sure he had some great JUCO stats.   But I recall his early days in which he did not appear to know what defense was much less to play defense.   I also recall him having a silky smooth shot but no clue how to play without the ball.   In short, the development I have seen in Perkinis has been huge -- and yet you only want to give Ford credit for recruiting him?  And in support is his good JUCO stats?  Am I mistating your position?
JGood and French were not developed past their Freshman year?  Wow.   Don't know what to say about that, so I won't.

I agree but don't bother.   Minds are set in stone.  Stating that the NCAA shut down last season's conference tournaments and NCAA Tourney is an excuse.  Using COVID and a 34 day pause this year too is an excuse.  Mentioning a guy with a severe, life altering, debilitating disease is an excuse.  Mentioning gyms were closed and Spring/Summer leagues were shut down last year is an excuse. Being lied to about 4 of your players who possessed the skills which the team had been lacking before them being railroaded out of town is an excuse.   Ignore it all.   And simply say, Coach Ford's teams lack cohesion, his guys aren't developed, are poorly coached and just cannot win. 
And all on the heels of watching the likes of Okoro and Nesbitt in only 6 short months?

Lying?  Really?  I never said anything about your opinions on Ford and recruiting, motivating - both true.  From your repeated comments about him not developing players, not playing the proper tempo, not using players properly, not being a good x's and o's guy..., your comments sure give the impression that you don't like Coach Ford generally but that you are tolerating him and that you give him limited props as to recruiting and motivating while being smart enough to know that our program likely cannot do much better than him.
As to your mother, you yourself have brought her up in the past with Crews (and I agree with you on that).  The point then was that RM had built and developed such a good, sound, well-oiled machine that anyone could win with that team.  The point now is that when I hear the exhorbant praise regarding Coach Ford's recruiting, how great our players are, how much talent we have, the most talented team in Billiken history, the deepest team in Billiken history, then all that is happening is that Coach Ford is being set up for failure and to not meet such lofty expectations.  You are correct that we have no NBA talented players - even though we have had some in the past.   I contend these past few years have been extremely difficult to put a cohesive team together and to blend unusual talent (yes there has been a good amount of talent and French and JGood are part of that), to hide major flaws in players (and French and JGood are part of that), to rebuild from scratch and to rebuild twice after a kick in the teeth due to S2.  
Speaking of Perkins, sure he had some great JUCO stats.   But I recall his early days in which he did not appear to know what defense was much less to play defense.   I also recall him having a silky smooth shot but no clue how to play without the ball.   In short, the development I have seen in Perkinis has been huge -- and yet you only want to give Ford credit for recruiting him?  And in support is his good JUCO stats?  Am I mistating your position?
JGood and French were not developed past their Freshman year?  Wow.   Don't know what to say about that, so I won't.

Lying?  Really?  I never said anything about your opinions on Ford and recruiting, motivating - both true.  From your repeated comments about him not developing players, not playing the proper tempo, not using players properly, not being a good x's and o's guy..., your comments sure give the impression that you don't like Coach Ford generally but that you are tolerating him and that you give him limited props as to recruiting and motivating while being smart enough to know that our program likely cannot do much better than him.
As to your mother, you yourself have brought her up in the past with Crews (and I agree with you on that).  The point then was that RM had built and developed such a good, sound, well-oiled machine that anyone could win with that team.  The point now is that when I hear the exhorbant praise regarding Coach Ford's recruiting, how great our players are, how much talent we have, the most talented team in Billiken history, the deepest team in Billiken history, then all that is happening is that Coach Ford is being set up for failure and to not meet such lofty expectations.  You are correct that we have no NBA talented players - even though we have had some in the past.   I contend these past few years have been extremely difficult to put a cohesive team together and to blend unusual talent (yes there has been a good amount of talent and French and JGood are part of that), to hide major flaws in players (and French and JGood are part of that), to rebuild from scratch and to rebuild twice after a kick in the teeth due to S2.  
Speaking of Perkins, sure he had some great JUCO stats.   But I recall his early days in which he did not appear to know what defense was much less to play defense.   I also recall him having a silky smooth shot but no clue how to play without the ball.   In short, the development I have seen in Perkinis has been huge -- and yet you only want to give Ford credit for recruiting him?  And in support is his good JUCO stats?  Am I mistating your position?
JGood and French were not developed past their Freshman year?  Wow.   Don't know what to say about that, so I won't.