moytoy12 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 vtime, are you saying that LM is equal to those players? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTIME Posted May 1, 2007 Author Share Posted May 1, 2007 No, he said he needs to be 6'9 and that's just not necessary. Bonner was not 6'9. Luke has done more than enough to not need to be 6'9. A. Tucker and P. Tucker were players of the year in the Big 10 and Big 12 respectively as 6'5 power forwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Exactly, LM is not equal to those players, therefore in order to be as effective he needs to be taller. When you say that LM is not the same as those players, your comparison starts to fall apart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTIME Posted May 1, 2007 Author Share Posted May 1, 2007 Was he not effective last year. 10pts and 5 rebounds on 20 win team. Look at your statement: "LM is not equal to those players, therefore in order to be as effective he needs to be taller." He was effective this year. He was more than effective and he registered the 6th highest FT% in school history. He also led the team in steals and shot 49% from the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 He was not as effective as those players would have been and you know it. I didn't say he wasn't effective at all. would you rather have a 6'5 LM or a 6'9 one? Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTIME Posted May 1, 2007 Author Share Posted May 1, 2007 It depends on which one is going to improve on the numbers Luke put up last year. 10pts 5boards, 49% FG's lead the team in steals, and 6th best FT in school history. Rebounding numbers probably would've been better if he didnt have probably the best rebounding guard in the nation Liddell on his team. Incredible numbers offensively and defensively for a 4th option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 Recall Brad saying last year, after the signing of AK, the medical improvement of OI and late addition of HD, that it would be a long year if LM was our best option at the 4. When the other 3 failed to step up, Brad praised LM and did everything he could (pack D, guard assist, chance after chance to JJ)to hide the failures of these 3. Still have great hope for AK in that I blame Brad for not giving him a chance to see what he can do. Face it. Not even Brad thinks LM can really play the 4. Hence, the signing of Relephorde, the addition of a tough kid like Mitchell and the efforts to sign additional bigs. I will say it again this year. It will be a long year if LM is our best option at the 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastSide Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 KL,TL,MR/LM,AK,BH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTIME Posted May 1, 2007 Author Share Posted May 1, 2007 It was a long 20 win season. Yes, there were a couple losses at the beginning of the conference season that killed the Bills and kept the record from being 22-11. Thats wasnt Luke's fault. No one from Duquesne ro St. Bonaventure dominated. He played the 4 very well. His year was great. If Luke would've missed the year with an injury and JJ averaged 10pts, 5 rebs, led the team in steals, shot 40% from the field, and had the 8th best FT in school history, the whole board would've been ecstatic and talked about JJ showing senior leadership. Luke did it as a 6'5 junior and people are still doubting. I guess if he continued to improve at put up 12pts 7 rebs, led the team in steals again, shot 51% and had another great year from the stripe, it still wouldnt be good enough because he's 6'5. What if you get your wish and get a 6'8 230 guys and he cant gaurd 4's any better than Luke or rebound better or lead the team in steals or shoot 49% from the field and being a historic FT shooter? Luke has made his case. He had a GREAT year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 plus, LM is not 6'5". I have stood right next to him many times, including yesterday. sight unseen, I am guessing MR to be a few inches taller, with longer arms and a higher vertical. I am president of the Luke fan club, practically, but he would be a such a great guy to bring off the bench -- or start alongside MR. For us to be better, I suspect RM will start, and mostly play, the 5 best players, whether they are freshmen or not. Again, sight unseen, I would have a hard time believing MR is not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 We have 10 schollie players assuming that Mitchell and MR do not ask for their releases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 The team on the floor suffers if LM has to play the 4, end of story. You can talk numbers all you want, but LM is not Falker. No one is saying they are disappointed with LM or that he didn't have a good year. But the problem with many of your arguments v is that you are so concerned with the individual's stats you don't reflect on the team's performance. I was down on LM to begin the year and did a 180. I love that this type of kid is on the team and love what he brings into the game, but he is not a 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastSide Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 We dont need an undersized PF we need an oversized ENFORCER PF. We need the Jamaal Tatum that enforced for Larry Hughes to come in an enforce for Tommie. Meyer's body is akward for the position he plays, too small for a foward, not athletic enough for a gaurd. His shooting ability, defense and hustle bring him into a starting position at a school like SLU but at any other serious program he would be on the bench because more capable players would have his spot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastSide Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 On this board. Some defend him like he is their son or little brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTIME Posted May 2, 2007 Author Share Posted May 2, 2007 >The team on the floor suffers if LM has to play the 4, end >of story. You can talk numbers all you want, but LM is not >Falker. No one is saying they are disappointed with LM or >that he didn't have a good year. But the problem with many >of your arguments v is that you are so concerned with the >individual's stats you don't reflect on the team's >performance. > >I was down on LM to begin the year and did a 180. I love >that this type of kid is on the team and love what he brings >into the game, but he is not a 4. Team performance? They won 20 games, should've been 22, but its not his fault they lost to 2 of the worst teams in D1. Luke is greatly responsible for the record. So many big plays. He was arguably the team's 3rd best player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Yep, the team suffered from not having a true 4. Try to wrap your brain around that one v. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC Billikens Fan Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Can't imagine Meyer not starting, at least initially. He was one of the most improved and consistent players on the team last year, and is a weight room guy and a scholar athlete, the type of player coaches like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.