STLHI

[slufanskip]

I clearly said maybe. I think he's a better shooter than Mitchell and a better distributor than Cotto. He is a GREAT ballhandler and he is nearly impossible to press. If you dont think he's better at the very least he's on par with those guys and I saw Drew play all 4 years.

You're entitled to your opinion, but be aware you're the only one that has it including the majority if not all the college coaches.

[Guest BillikenReport]

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think Ron is the best out of those guys and I think he just made some difficult decisions that kept him from maximizing his potential.

I would have said you wouldn't find a bigger Waller fan than me, but apparently you are a bigger fan.

Again, I like Ron, but I don't think he's better than the guys you mentioned. Yes, he made some bad decisions. He could have been a starter on Webster's state championship team and the Statesmen would have been much better than they were.

I hope he works hard and makes the most of his opportunity at SWIC.

[STL Hoops Insider]

You're entitled to your opinion, but be aware you're the only one that has it including the majority if not all the college coaches.

Drew at one point had at least 10 division I offers. most of them mid-major, but I'm sure you knew that and I'm sure you know what the college coaches think. He went to Belmont because he liked the coaches and they were the consistent tournament team among his choices. How many times have you seen Hanlen play because I'm trying to figure out what part of his game you think is inferior to Cotto's or Mitchell's.

[billiken_roy]

I clearly said maybe. I think he's a better shooter than Mitchell and a better distributor than Cotto. He is a GREAT ballhandler and he is nearly impossible to press. If you dont think he's better at the very least he's on par with those guys and I saw Drew play all 4 years.

whoa whoa whoa cotto is a fabulous passer. i have seen him get passes to teamates that were just h waldman like. the fact he maybe didnt dominate the stat sheet with assists might have something to do with the fact he had to score and score a lot for alton to win games.

i personally think cotto is a tremendous talent of all around talent that we havent seen since probably love or hughes. he shoots like claggett, passes like h, and has the body right now of randy pulley.

if rickma can instill all out defensive effort work ethic he is the complete package. he has shown he can play defense, but i must admit he appeared to pick his times to exert that skill. so if he has a weakness, in my eyes, that is it. otherwise, i think cotto could do some great things at slu.

if waller is better than cotto, well then waller is going to go to a bcs school after swic. he would have to be that good. i am convinced cotto has bcs skills. rickma did a great job winning him over.

[Taj79]

TO FOOTSIE:

You are right, I am all over the place because the response to the statement takes me there. I know Kern never played for SLU but I think his inclusion on the list is a valid point namely because not all St. Louis basketball studs are readily available to this instituiton. We have gone over majors, wanting to get away from home, lack of a winning tradition and so on but there is also the issue with the kids and their eligibility as well. Leon Powell is the latest Nick Kern. I threw Nick in there because, at least in Nick's case, I recall a LOI or a verbal or something that does mean he was more in our fold then not.

I agree that Mimlitz and Renken were here and probably on that team which a short check of the records will confirm, but what I am saying is that they had little if any effect on the success of that team in terms of production. The teams were indeed successful, and maybe being a part of that team means that individual was indeed successful, but as a valued contributor living up to the hype of being an All St. Louis Metro perfomer or at minimum a Division 1 level recruit, I'd say no. Which is my point in refuting some of the statements --- All St. Louis Metro recognition doesn't mean much in the long run if you ask me. To me, that says the annual talent developed in the city is woefully thin --- not a group that one can readily rely upon to equate into any success, guaranteed or imagined. Roder was a good point guard, yes, and one can easily ask if he made Gry and Bonner better and was therefore a success in the team aspect. Same with Hudson. The ying of Hudson has to have some affect on the yang of Bonner --- maybe Anthony is where he is in the legends of St. Louis University because Reditt at least occupied one or two men, allowing Anthony to clean up the boards as he did. The bottom line is that yes --- you can win with St. Louis talent. Just not all the time because the pipeline does not produce a regular and consistent output.

I did not mean to imply they were the ONLY decent recruits then --- they were the cases where we got them and actually won. Based on my limited list of those who came from St. Louis and were less than stellar, I think I've shown that the talent, even when its all metro or whatever, does NOT equate to success. Success is a combination of a number of things, and one of the those things is a talented roster. I'm saying taking even all-metro talent out of St. Louis does not mean much as a stand alone. You need more.

I would also disagree that there was "PLENTY" of talent in the St. Louis area as you noted. Was there TALENT? Absolutely. Was it PLENTIFUL? I don't know. I once went back and compiled the St. Louis All-Metro players list for about 20 years or so, going all the way back to Douglas and Gray. i got rid of it recently in a file clean up so I can't share it here. Otehr than to paraphrase the numbers and say that over those years, the number of players on there having "success" in college was not that great. What I am disputing is the belief that just recruiting St. Louis talent (and of cours esigning it) means you will create a winning legacy as Mr. St. Louis Hoops Insider continues to espouse.

Have good players come out of St. Louis? Yes. On a regular basis? Yes --- if one or two a year is your definition of regular. Enough of a basis to sustain a Divison 1 program? Maybe. On a consistent basis? I don't think so ---- so my answer is No. Given that, as you say, it isn't realistic to thing SLU is going to get each and every one of these players, can you win recruiting ONLY St. Louis kids year in and year out? Again, I say No.

Put another way, I think Brandenburg and Harrelson will have less than stellar careers in the ACC and the Southeastern Conference. I don't care if I'm proven wrong. But that's my statement from the current perch and I base that on the fact that their fundamentals will be lacking based on competition while growing up. AAU notwithstanding.

[STL Hoops Insider]

whoa whoa whoa cotto is a fabulous passer. i have seen him get passes to teamates that were just h waldman like. the fact he maybe didnt dominate the stat sheet with assists might have something to do with the fact he had to score and score a lot for alton to win games.

i personally think cotto is a tremendous talent of all around talent that we havent seen since probably love or hughes. he shoots like claggett, passes like h, and has the body right now of randy pulley.

if rickma can instill all out defensive effort work ethic he is the complete package. he has shown he can play defense, but i must admit he appeared to pick his times to exert that skill. so if he has a weakness, in my eyes, that is it. otherwise, i think cotto could do some great things at slu.

if waller is better than cotto, well then waller is going to go to a bcs school after swic. he would have to be that good. i am convinced cotto has bcs skills. rickma did a great job winning him over.

Since Love or Hughes? I strongly disagree. I think you've missed a lot of ball on this side of the River and you're putting him ahead of Lisch and Liddell from your side.

[billiken_roy]

Since Love or Hughes? I strongly disagree. I think you've missed a lot of ball on this side of the River and you're putting him ahead of Lisch and Liddell from your side.

cotto is a better long range shooter than both probably right now. he has better court vision than kevin as well. kevin is better overall simply because kevin's killer instinct, court vision and courage is off the court and never takes a second off when he is on the floor.

liddell has more overall athletic ability than cotto and is taller. but i'd take cotto in that game of horse.

if i had to pick between the three as they came out of high school i'd rank them cotto, lisch and liddell in that order.

[willie]

TO FOOTSIE:

You are right, I am all over the place because the response to the statement takes me there. I know Kern never played for SLU but I think his inclusion on the list is a valid point namely because not all St. Louis basketball studs are readily available to this instituiton. We have gone over majors, wanting to get away from home, lack of a winning tradition and so on but there is also the issue with the kids and their eligibility as well. Leon Powell is the latest Nick Kern. I threw Nick in there because, at least in Nick's case, I recall a LOI or a verbal or something that does mean he was more in our fold then not.

I agree that Mimlitz and Renken were here and probably on that team which a short check of the records will confirm, but what I am saying is that they had little if any effect on the success of that team in terms of production. The teams were indeed successful, and maybe being a part of that team means that individual was indeed successful, but as a valued contributor living up to the hype of being an All St. Louis Metro perfomer or at minimum a Division 1 level recruit, I'd say no. Which is my point in refuting some of the statements --- All St. Louis Metro recognition doesn't mean much in the long run if you ask me. To me, that says the annual talent developed in the city is woefully thin --- not a group that one can readily rely upon to equate into any success, guaranteed or imagined. Roder was a good point guard, yes, and one can easily ask if he made Gry and Bonner better and was therefore a success in the team aspect. Same with Hudson. The ying of Hudson has to have some affect on the yang of Bonner --- maybe Anthony is where he is in the legends of St. Louis University because Reditt at least occupied one or two men, allowing Anthony to clean up the boards as he did. The bottom line is that yes --- you can win with St. Louis talent. Just not all the time because the pipeline does not produce a regular and consistent output.

I did not mean to imply they were the ONLY decent recruits then --- they were the cases where we got them and actually won. Based on my limited list of those who came from St. Louis and were less than stellar, I think I've shown that the talent, even when its all metro or whatever, does NOT equate to success. Success is a combination of a number of things, and one of the those things is a talented roster. I'm saying taking even all-metro talent out of St. Louis does not mean much as a stand alone. You need more.

I would also disagree that there was "PLENTY" of talent in the St. Louis area as you noted. Was there TALENT? Absolutely. Was it PLENTIFUL? I don't know. I once went back and compiled the St. Louis All-Metro players list for about 20 years or so, going all the way back to Douglas and Gray. i got rid of it recently in a file clean up so I can't share it here. Otehr than to paraphrase the numbers and say that over those years, the number of players on there having "success" in college was not that great. What I am disputing is the belief that just recruiting St. Louis talent (and of cours esigning it) means you will create a winning legacy as Mr. St. Louis Hoops Insider continues to espouse.

Have good players come out of St. Louis? Yes. On a regular basis? Yes --- if one or two a year is your definition of regular. Enough of a basis to sustain a Divison 1 program? Maybe. On a consistent basis? I don't think so ---- so my answer is No. Given that, as you say, it isn't realistic to thing SLU is going to get each and every one of these players, can you win recruiting ONLY St. Louis kids year in and year out? Again, I say No.

Put another way, I think Brandenburg and Harrelson will have less than stellar careers in the ACC and the Southeastern Conference. I don't care if I'm proven wrong. But that's my statement from the current perch and I base that on the fact that their fundamentals will be lacking based on competition while growing up. AAU notwithstanding.

Taj. What do you do for a living? Do you get paid for every word written?

[jimbofive]

Taj. What do you do for a living? Do you get paid for every word written?

Now that would be a job. Keystroke software that only detects keystroke count, not content. I would set up a team of these guys

and watch the cash roll in. Taj does type about 4 times more on average, per post, than anyone else. At least it's highly cogent, which is more than some (myself included) can say.

[slufanskip]

Drew at one point had at least 10 division I offers. most of them mid-major, but I'm sure you knew that and I'm sure you know what the college coaches think. He went to Belmont because he liked the coaches and they were the consistent tournament team among his choices. How many times have you seen Hanlen play because I'm trying to figure out what part of his game you think is inferior to Cotto's or Mitchell's.

3-4 times and I know what most college coaches think, because I believe they are clued in to the obvious.

[GOSLU68]

Taj. What do you do for a living? Do you get paid for every word written?

Mimlitz was the Luke Meyer of his team, Roeder was only interested in passing the ball to a scorer and had a great game that did not includ scoring;

I believe Mimlitz had a knee problem or something that kept his numbers down especially his seniour year but he was totally in the game headwise and

could be counted on not to turn it over. Mimlitz was an above average contributor that was missed when he graduated. There have been lots of players in the last 20 years that I couldn't wait for them to graduate

[Guest BillikenReport]

P,V,B,S,

Majerus scouted Hanlen but didn't think he was worthy of a scholarship offer. A couple months later, Majerus offered Cotto.

[jimbofive]

P,V,B,S,

Majerus scouted Hanlen but didn't think he was worthy of a scholarship offer. A couple months later, Majerus offered Cotto.

I'm sure Hanlen will turn out to be a fine player, but yeah, there's no place for him with Mitchell, Cotto and Eckerle. He and Eckerle would probably match up well in practice since

(PaulEckerle.Size == DrewHanlen.Size && PaulEckerle.Color == DrewHanlen.Color == SystemColor.White && SystemColor.Stereotypes.RealMode == TRUE)

but from here on out we need 6'6" slashers and big men. Waller, though, is interesting because of his size and skill set, for sure.

[GOSLU68]

I'm sure Hanlen will turn out to be a fine player, but yeah, there's no place for him with Mitchell, Cotto and Eckerle. He and Eckerle would probably match up well in practice since

(PaulEckerle.Size == DrewHanlen.Size && PaulEckerle.Color == DrewHanlen.Color == SystemColor.White && SystemColor.Stereotypes.RealMode == TRUE)

but from here on out we need 6'6" slashers and big men. Waller, though, is interesting because of his size and skill set, for sure.

the talking heads on TV are reffering to this as talking in code: they may not have to do this at Liberty

who is on our schedule but I am sure I know more black and white people who can't play basket ball than

can play basketball.

[kevinfootes]

TO FOOTSIE:

You are right, I am all over the place because the response to the statement takes me there. I know Kern never played for SLU but I think his inclusion on the list is a valid point namely because not all St. Louis basketball studs are readily available to this instituiton. We have gone over majors, wanting to get away from home, lack of a winning tradition and so on but there is also the issue with the kids and their eligibility as well. Leon Powell is the latest Nick Kern. I threw Nick in there because, at least in Nick's case, I recall a LOI or a verbal or something that does mean he was more in our fold then not.

I agree that Mimlitz and Renken were here and probably on that team which a short check of the records will confirm, but what I am saying is that they had little if any effect on the success of that team in terms of production. The teams were indeed successful, and maybe being a part of that team means that individual was indeed successful, but as a valued contributor living up to the hype of being an All St. Louis Metro perfomer or at minimum a Division 1 level recruit, I'd say no. Which is my point in refuting some of the statements --- All St. Louis Metro recognition doesn't mean much in the long run if you ask me. To me, that says the annual talent developed in the city is woefully thin --- not a group that one can readily rely upon to equate into any success, guaranteed or imagined. Roder was a good point guard, yes, and one can easily ask if he made Gry and Bonner better and was therefore a success in the team aspect. Same with Hudson. The ying of Hudson has to have some affect on the yang of Bonner --- maybe Anthony is where he is in the legends of St. Louis University because Reditt at least occupied one or two men, allowing Anthony to clean up the boards as he did. The bottom line is that yes --- you can win with St. Louis talent. Just not all the time because the pipeline does not produce a regular and consistent output.

I did not mean to imply they were the ONLY decent recruits then --- they were the cases where we got them and actually won. Based on my limited list of those who came from St. Louis and were less than stellar, I think I've shown that the talent, even when its all metro or whatever, does NOT equate to success. Success is a combination of a number of things, and one of the those things is a talented roster. I'm saying taking even all-metro talent out of St. Louis does not mean much as a stand alone. You need more.

I would also disagree that there was "PLENTY" of talent in the St. Louis area as you noted. Was there TALENT? Absolutely. Was it PLENTIFUL? I don't know. I once went back and compiled the St. Louis All-Metro players list for about 20 years or so, going all the way back to Douglas and Gray. i got rid of it recently in a file clean up so I can't share it here. Otehr than to paraphrase the numbers and say that over those years, the number of players on there having "success" in college was not that great. What I am disputing is the belief that just recruiting St. Louis talent (and of cours esigning it) means you will create a winning legacy as Mr. St. Louis Hoops Insider continues to espouse.

Have good players come out of St. Louis? Yes. On a regular basis? Yes --- if one or two a year is your definition of regular. Enough of a basis to sustain a Divison 1 program? Maybe. On a consistent basis? I don't think so ---- so my answer is No. Given that, as you say, it isn't realistic to thing SLU is going to get each and every one of these players, can you win recruiting ONLY St. Louis kids year in and year out? Again, I say No.

Put another way, I think Brandenburg and Harrelson will have less than stellar careers in the ACC and the Southeastern Conference. I don't care if I'm proven wrong. But that's my statement from the current perch and I base that on the fact that their fundamentals will be lacking based on competition while growing up. AAU notwithstanding.

As I mentioned, SLU will always need to go beyond the metro area for players. However, there ARE good players who come out of here regularly that could be the backbone of the program. SLU has done pretty well in the past recruiting Chicago and the rest of the midwest. Part of the advantage of being in a conference and satying there is that it can build a presence for you in those areas. Maybe we're seeing some of that with the Ohio kid.

BTW, I'm not trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, but Hudson was a starter and averaged something like 7 or 8 points a game for his career. Mimlitz started less than half of the time and averaged about 6 PPG. Roder was a pretty good PG, but not much of a scorer. I'd group all three of those guys together as local kids who had a positive impact on the program. It also goes to show the power that Rich Grawer had, as Roder transferred back from K-State and Mimlitz from Missouri. If SLU had screwed Grawer over Craig Upchurch, there would have been a different story.

[brianstl]

3-4 times and I know what most college coaches think, because I believe they are clued in to the obvious.

His problem was STLHI didn't have enough time to pump him up to college coaches across the country. Halen is a good player and if we didn't have Cotto and Mitchell coming in he would have been a decent get. That said..........I would take Kramer before Halen.

[STL Hoops Insider]

His problem was STLHI didn't have enough time to pump him up to college coaches across the country. Halen is a good player and if we didn't have Cotto and Mitchell coming in he would have been a decent get. That said..........I would take Kramer before Halen.

He didnt need any pumping he had over 10 division offers. Mid-majors all over the country offered this kid.

[mcglotherirvin]

vtime - i respect your opinions and think you, at times, provide valuable insight. however, sometimes i just don't know where you are coming from. to say that hanlen is even on the same planet as cotto or mitchell is just ridiculous. i've seen each of them play. hanlen is an improved paul eckerle. cotto and mitchell are lisch and liddell. who would you rather have, lisch and liddell or an improved paul eckerle.

hanlen is not big enough, quick enough, or creative enough with the ball to be a solid pg at slu. and he certainly could not play the 2 guard.

He didnt need any pumping he had over 10 division offers. Mid-majors all over the country offered this kid.

[STL Hoops Insider]

vtime - i respect your opinions and think you, at times, provide valuable insight. however, sometimes i just don't know where you are coming from. to say that hanlen is even on the same planet as cotto or mitchell is just ridiculous. i've seen each of them play. hanlen is an improved paul eckerle. cotto and mitchell are lisch and liddell. who would you rather have, lisch and liddell or an improved paul eckerle.

hanlen is not big enough, quick enough, or creative enough with the ball to be a solid pg at slu. and he certainly could not play the 2 guard.

I'm not going to argue any further because I dont want it to come off as me taking a shot at two current billikens and thats not my intention. I really do hope that both Cotto and Mitchell are the next great backcourt of the Billikens. I'll leave it at that.

[stlsfinest]

vtime - i respect your opinions and think you, at times, provide valuable insight. however, sometimes i just don't know where you are coming from. to say that hanlen is even on the same planet as cotto or mitchell is just ridiculous. i've seen each of them play. hanlen is an improved paul eckerle. cotto and mitchell are lisch and liddell. who would you rather have, lisch and liddell or an improved paul eckerle.

hanlen is not big enough, quick enough, or creative enough with the ball to be a solid pg at slu. and he certainly could not play the 2 guard.

Simply ridiculous. Hanlen is a terrific talent and was easily the best true PG in the area last year. Let it be noted that Miami - FL made a trip to Webster the same week he committed. He wasn't their first option, but they were interested in getting him after some of their other choices fell through. This is just a case of fans showing bias towards the signed talent over the talent that went elsewhere. And I can't blame you guys. You should be looking towards the future. Hanlen was very pleased with his decision and you guys are pleased with Cotto and Mitchell. Let's leave it at that.

[slufanskip]

Simply ridiculous. Hanlen is a terrific talent and was easily the best true PG in the area last year. Let it be noted that Miami - FL made a trip to Webster the same week he committed. He wasn't their first option, but they were interested in getting him after some of their other choices fell through. This is just a case of fans showing bias towards the signed talent over the talent that went elsewhere. And I can't blame you guys. You should be looking towards the future. Hanlen was very pleased with his decision and you guys are pleased with Cotto and Mitchell. Let's leave it at that.

It is ridiculous .... at least you are right about that.

[mcglotherirvin]

the best true point guard in the area last year had offers from the following:

School Interest Level Offer? Visit Date Signed LOI?

Belmont Verbal Yes 09/01/2007

Arkansas-Little Rock No Interest Yes None

UNC-Greensboro No Interest Yes None

Yale No Interest Yes 09/22/2007

do you really think he's better than cotto and mitchell, who were recruited by some big time programs?

he's a good player but i would not take him over cotoo or mitchell.

Simply ridiculous. Hanlen is a terrific talent and was easily the best true PG in the area last year. Let it be noted that Miami - FL made a trip to Webster the same week he committed. He wasn't their first option, but they were interested in getting him after some of their other choices fell through. This is just a case of fans showing bias towards the signed talent over the talent that went elsewhere. And I can't blame you guys. You should be looking towards the future. Hanlen was very pleased with his decision and you guys are pleased with Cotto and Mitchell. Let's leave it at that.

[mcglotherirvin]

He didnt need any pumping he had over 10 division offers. Mid-majors all over the country offered this kid.

According to Scout.Com, that's simply false. he had offers from Belmont, ark-little rock, yale and greensboro. where do you come up with 10 offers?

[slufanskip]

But who had more dunks?

[brianstl]

Simply ridiculous. Hanlen is a terrific talent and was easily the best true PG in the area last year. Let it be noted that Miami - FL made a trip to Webster the same week he committed. He wasn't their first option, but they were interested in getting him after some of their other choices fell through. This is just a case of fans showing bias towards the signed talent over the talent that went elsewhere. And I can't blame you guys. You should be looking towards the future. Hanlen was very pleased with his decision and you guys are pleased with Cotto and Mitchell. Let's leave it at that.

You and your brother can never admit you are wrong about anything. It is not just a case of fans showing bias. Cotto had Kentucky, Purdue, and others trying to get in on him late. Tubby tried to steal Mitchell after he already verbally committed. Lastly, locally Kramer was a better player than Hanlen. Hanlen was the third best pg in the area. Hanlen is a good player and he would have been a really nice option for the Billikens if some other things hadn't worked out. Nobody is trying to take shots at Hanlen, but rather people are trying to be honest about him as a player.