Now That Jordan is Gone

[SShoe]

Shoe and Skip, your points ignore the specifics in my post. Where are the minutes for Jett during the next two years? KM is doing just fine at the Point and reports are that MM can also play there. Look at the minutes available in my post-where do you see me going wrong? There just isn't enough time for Jett to play/contribute for two years. If we must get another PG, fine, but not now and not Jett.

My point is that I don't care about Jett's minutes the next two years. If he's really good, he'll find plenty of time on the floor. If not, he can spend two years on the bench and be a solid pg by his junior and senior years. Point is, good teams don't rely on underclassmen to carry the load and I want to see us get into a position where we're reloading and not rebuilding. To me, bringing in a pg who is two years behind KM helps us do that.

[Hawk]

Marquette didnt want him. nor did any marquette fans 2 years ago.

That was my point. He was deemed "too small" to play with the big boys. It's not unreasonable to say he would have gone to a high major like Marquette. If he was 6'1'', Marquette would have taken him. He almost went to UW-GB, so it's not crazy to say he would have stayed local.

[NH]

Yes, because he can shoot and I feel that real pg's shouldn't shoot and if they do they should be spanked by the entire team.

He doesn't really run the offense, I wouldn't call him a great passer either. He's a 2 guard in a pg's body who has good handles and can play the point.

And ... even if we disagree and you think he is, Jett would be 2 years behind him.

So according to your logic Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Sherron Collins, Kalin Lucas, Evan Turner, John Wall, Jon Scheyer, Jay Williams, Derrick Rose etc. are not good PGs because they can shoot? I dont understand that.

I don't know what your basis is for saying he doesn't run the offense?

Honestly, I would call him a great passer. He is at least the second best passer on our team and I think he is the first. (Kyle would be the other guy in consideration). Kwamain also IMO has the highest bball IQ.

I guarentee we will see more of a true PG out of KM now that he finally has some teammates who can score.

[b.hayes]

First I think he was being sarcastic. I don't think he really wants PGs that shoot to be spanked...Second, I didn't watch a lot of OSU ball this year, but at 6'7 Evan Turner is a mighty big point guard.

[Hawk]

First I think he was being sarcastic. I don't think he really wants PGs that shoot to be spanked...Second, I didn't watch a lot of OSU ball this year, but at 6'7 Evan Turner is a mighty big point guard.

Turner played point out of necessity as I understood it. I don't think it's his natural position. He did everything for that team.

[milwaukeebill]

That was my point. He was deemed "too small" to play with the big boys. It's not unreasonable to say he would have gone to a high major like Marquette. If he was 6'1'', Marquette would have taken him. He almost went to UW-GB, so it's not crazy to say he would have stayed local.

agreed.perhaps a little quicker too. marquette really could've used him when Dominic James went down.

[Clock_Tower]

So according to your logic Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Sherron Collins, Kalin Lucas, Evan Turner, John Wall, Jon Scheyer, Jay Williams, Derrick Rose etc. are not good PGs because they can shoot? I dont understand that.

I don't know what your basis is for saying he doesn't run the offense?

Honestly, I would call him a great passer. He is at least the second best passer on our team and I think he is the first. (Kyle would be the other guy in consideration). Kwamain also IMO has the highest bball IQ.

I guarentee we will see more of a true PG out of KM now that he finally has some teammates who can score.

NH.

Believe Skip was being sarcastic as well about the good shooting pgs.

The rest of your post, though, I totally agree with. Good passers and pgs look much better with someone who can catch it and make the shot. Great form and near misses by KC and others don't count. When your best player logs 32.8 mpg and single-handedly wins games with him second half performances, yes, it is important to try and use other guys (especially if they are not effective scoring, etc.) to handle the point duties. I stood up for KC all year long and I patiently watched as CS developed and JJ tried his best, but our glaring weakness this past year was at the 2 and 3 position. CE hid some of this weakness with his outside shot albeit from the 4 position. Yes, KM can score but he not like the protypical 2 (shooting) guard. IMO, shooting guards (a 2 guard) buries the shot off a screen. Instead, KM broke the press, started the offense, created his own shots, got open on his own and scored probably half his points inside the lane with layups and floating shots in the lane. We have not run screens for KM like with did for Claggett, Highmark, Lisch and others. I sure have not seen KM play like a shooting guard these past 2 years. Reggie Bryant was more of 2 guard in a pg's body. IMO, KM is a PG and a damn good one at that.

[For-DaLove]

That was my point. He was deemed "too small" to play with the big boys. It's not unreasonable to say he would have gone to a high major like Marquette. If he was 6'1'', Marquette would have taken him. He almost went to UW-GB, so it's not crazy to say he would have stayed local.

You do realize Minnesota offered him, right? He could have played with the "big boys", but thank goodness he chose SLU.

[Hawk]

You do realize Minnesota offered him, right? He could have played with the "big boys", but thank goodness he chose SLU.

Maybe Nate can clear that up, but I really can't find any evidence of that... In any case, thank god he's here.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Maybe Nate can clear that up, but I really can't find any evidence of that... In any case, thank god he's here.

Well, he did de-commit for a brief flirtation with Minnesota after Tubby Smith left Kentucky for there.

[For-DaLove]

Maybe Nate can clear that up, but I really can't find any evidence of that... In any case, thank god he's here.

This is from a story Nate did on Kwamain towards the end of last season...

“I decommitted because I wanted to explore my options,” he said. “Minnesota did offer me. I went back home and talked to my parents I decided Saint Louis is where I wanted to be at.”

http://saintlouis.scout.com/2/952412.html

[milwaukeebill]

You do realize Minnesota offered him, right? He could have played with the "big boys", but thank goodness he chose SLU.

I know Tubby was going to Minnesota. But really i consider marquette about a level or 2 histoically and currently above minnesota basketball. They have won 2 conference championships since 1938. and basically all their good years since then (besides that last 2 tourney appearances) have been forfeited due to sanctions.

[For-DaLove]

I know Tubby was going to Minnesota. But really i consider marquette about a level or 2 histoically and currently above minnesota basketball. They have won 2 conference championships since 1938. and basically all their good years since then (besides that last 2 tourney appearances) have been forfeited due to sanctions.

My point was simply that he could have played BCS ball if he wanted to. BTW- for what it's worth I read that Marquette was getting into his recruitment at about the same time as Minnesota and a couple of other schools, although they didn't offer.

[Clock_Tower]

I know Tubby was going to Minnesota. But really i consider marquette about a level or 2 histoically and currently above minnesota basketball. They have won 2 conference championships since 1938. and basically all their good years since then (besides that last 2 tourney appearances) have been forfeited due to sanctions.

Do you really think there is a 17 year old in America that either knows or cares about some conference championship in 1938? Heck that was 20 years BEFORE Hoosiers.

Also, I doubt many 17 year olds even know who Al Maguire even was much less about his/MU's championship seasonin 1977. Get real.

Minnesota v. Marquette basketball?? Excuse me..... Yawnnnnnnnn

Plain and simple. RM found KM and got a verbal from him before his Senior year and before the big boys (originally not excited b/c of his height). After his Senior year, ALOT of schools wanted and would have wanted him.

[slufanskip]

So according to your logic Steve Nash, Deron Williams, Chris Paul, Sherron Collins, Kalin Lucas, Evan Turner, John Wall, Jon Scheyer, Jay Williams, Derrick Rose etc. are not good PGs because they can shoot? I dont understand that.

I don't know what your basis is for saying he doesn't run the offense?

Honestly, I would call him a great passer. He is at least the second best passer on our team and I think he is the first. (Kyle would be the other guy in consideration). Kwamain also IMO has the highest bball IQ.

I guarentee we will see more of a true PG out of KM now that he finally has some teammates who can score.

I just like any sentence where I can add spanking to it.

I would agree he was probably the 2nd best passer on our team. However, using my supersonic eye test, had he even been the best passer on our team he wouldn't be a great passer.

KM's first thought is to score, and he's good at it.

[Clock_Tower]

I just like any sentence where I can add spanking to it.

I would agree he was probably the 2nd best passer on our team. However, using my supersonic eye test, had he even been the best passer on our team he wouldn't be a great passer.

KM's first thought is to score, and he's good at it.

Second best passer on the most talented Bills team since MaCauley and that makes him a not very good passer?

PGs whose first thought is to score are really 2 guards. Got it.

[ACE]

Like I expected, the Jordan and Jett announcement were made on the same day. I know it was rumored, but sorry to see Smith go. He's got some potential. I would try to grab another big if there is a decent one out there.

Grabbing a 6th guard makes sense. It is not too many. Remember how this past season ended with the injuries? The depth was needed. We entered this past season with 6 guards (I consider Femi more of a 3). All we are doing is replacing Reid with McCall and Jordan with Jett. Majerus loves point guards. Remember Andre Miller . He is described as physical and a great defender. We recruited and missed on a kid who fit that description last year... Irving, who wound up at Kansas State. There are a lot of high level players who come out of this prep school league Jett played in. I think Majok also plays in that league. This appears to be a really good signing.

[slufanskip]

Second best passer on the most talented Bills team since MaCauley and that makes him a not very good passer?

PGs whose first thought is to score are really 2 guards. Got it.

I think you're changing my words to fit your agenda. No problem though it happens a lot on this board, probably all boards. Can you find where I said he wasn't a very good passer?

Traditionally a pg is the player whose objective is to set up the offense and whose main focus is to put his teammates in the best possible scoring position while making the offense flow smoothly. A player who sees opportunities on the floor that most players don't. For much of this season that guy on the Bills was Kyle.

I don't see that from KM. What I see from him is a guard with good handles, excellent quickness allowing him to get to the rim almost at will. A decent 3 pt shot and imo incredible toughness. I think he's a good leader who can command respect from his team. Btw ... KM was considered by many coming in to be a combo guard, a guard with a knack for scoring but could also play the point some. I'd be fine with KM taking the role of pg on our team for the next 2 years, but when we get a chance to add a player whose strengths are important traits that our team doesn't currently have ... I say go for it.

From what I've read about Jett, he seems to be a player whose strong points are his court vision and his ability to make the great pass.

[Clock_Tower]

Skip.

Why yes I can find where you said KM is not a very good passer.

Post #17 of this thread. You wrote "He doesn't really run the offense, I wouldn't call him a great passer either. He's a 2 guard in a pg's body who has good handles and can play the point."

No one is changing your words and I have no agenda. If you want to take back your comments about KM, go for it. If not, that's fine, but just don't blame me.

[Pick and Roll]

Skip.

Why yes I can find where you said KM is not a very good passer.

Post #17 of this thread. You wrote "He doesn't really run the offense, I wouldn't call him a great passer either. He's a 2 guard in a pg's body who has good handles and can play the point."

No one is changing your words and I have no agenda. If you want to take back your comments about KM, go for it. If not, that's fine, but just don't blame me.

Just having some late night fun here but you said a very good passer and Skip said a great passer. You did in fact change his words.

[slufanskip]

Skip.

Why yes I can find where you said KM is not a very good passer.

Post #17 of this thread. You wrote "He doesn't really run the offense, I wouldn't call him a great passer either. He's a 2 guard in a pg's body who has good handles and can play the point."

No one is changing your words and I have no agenda. If you want to take back your comments about KM, go for it. If not, that's fine, but just don't blame me.

Are you serious?

Lets pretend we're on Sesame Street.

Are these 2 statements the same or different

He's not a great passer

He's not a very good passer. Saying soneone is not very good at something is usually taken as saying they are poor at it.

My statement saying he wasn't a great passer is correct. He's a good passer, I wouldn't throw great around so easily.

If I said he wasn't a great 3 pt shooter would I be correct? Does that mean he's not very good at it?

This is silly, I find it hard to believe you didn't understand the difference.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Are you serious?

Lets pretend we're on Sesame Street.

Are these 2 statements the same or different

He's not a great passer

He's not a very good passer. Saying soneone is not very good at something is usually taken as saying they are poor at it.

My statement saying he wasn't a great passer is correct. He's a good passer, I wouldn't throw great around so easily.

If I said he wasn't a great 3 pt shooter would I be correct? Does that mean he's not very good at it?

This is silly, I find it hard to believe you didn't understand the difference.

Actually, Skip, you're not exactly correct. The two statements CAN be synonymous, depending on the context and tone. If someone were trying to hook you up with a woman and he said, "She's not great-looking," do you take it to mean that she may still be cute or okay-looking? Well, you might, if there were some emphasis or lowering in tone on "great." If the emphasis were on "not" or "looking," you might think she may be ugly but may have some other redeeming qualities (in the case of the emphasis on "looking").

Even on Sesame Street there's a way to interpret tone, as opposed to in plain written communication. Since you didn't italicize "great" or otherwise qualify the "not a great passer" statement, Clock Tower is justified in interpreting it to mean, "not very good."

[slufanskip]

Actually, Skip, you're not exactly correct. The two statements CAN be synonymous, depending on the context and tone. If someone were trying to hook you up with a woman and he said, "She's not great-looking," do you take it to mean that she may still be cute or okay-looking? Well, you might, if there were some emphasis or lowering in tone on "great." If the emphasis were on "not" or "looking," you might think she may be ugly but may have some other redeeming qualities (in the case of the emphasis on "looking").

Even on Sesame Street there's a way to interpret tone, as opposed to in plain written communication. Since you didn't italicize "great" or otherwise qualify the "not a great passer" statement, Clock Tower is justified in interpreting it to mean, "not very good."

Here's his original statement

Skip.

Why do you keep saying that KM is not a true pg? B/c he can also shoot from the outside? He handles the ball quite well, he breaks the press, he runs the offense, he dribble penetrates, he's a great passer - and he can score. If he is not a true PG, who is??

Here is my response

Yes, because he can shoot and I feel that real pg's shouldn't shoot and if they do they should be spanked by the entire team.

He doesn't really run the offense, I wouldn't call him a great passer either. He's a 2 guard in a pg's body who has good handles and can play the point.

And ... even if we disagree and you think he is, Jett would be 2 years behind him.

My meaning is pretty clear.

But for the ones with difficulty (which by the way, makes me question the value of a SLU education) By not a great passer, I meant not a "great" passer. As in not one of the very best. Meaning not fantastic or awesome, or super duper good.

Also, I didn't actually want the entire team to spank him. I just want to be clear so the slow don't get confused.

[Clock_Tower]

Are you serious?

Lets pretend we're on Sesame Street.

Are these 2 statements the same or different

He's not a great passer

He's not a very good passer. Saying soneone is not very good at something is usually taken as saying they are poor at it.

My statement saying he wasn't a great passer is correct. He's a good passer, I wouldn't throw great around so easily.

If I said he wasn't a great 3 pt shooter would I be correct? Does that mean he's not very good at it?

This is silly, I find it hard to believe you didn't understand the difference.

OK President Clinton, it depends upon what you mean by "is"

Skip. Seriously, I have reread your above explanatioin and still find it difficult to understand. Maybe that's b/c you conveniently dropped the word "very" when describing KM as only a "good passer." Your explanation is possible but not probable. Maybe you thought one thing and typed another. Who knows. And yes, if you say someone is not a great 3 pt shooter, then that is a negative comment as it implies he is sub-par. If instead, you say that someone is a good but not great 3 pt shooter, then that (which is what I believe you are trying to say) is completely different. Come and get serious. Sesame Street?? Who is the one being silly. If I say that some is not a great student then you would think that means he is a very good student. I would think, and I'd suggest that most would agree with me, that if someone is not a great student then that would mean the student is struggling academically and not that the he is a "very good" student.

Semantics aside, I say you are flat out wrong about KM. KM is a great pg. He passes, runs the offense, handles the ball and even scores -- all very well, good, great - whatever words you want. Why you are not that high upon KM amazes me.

[slufanskip]

OK President Clinton, it depends upon what you mean by "is"

Skip. Seriously, I have reread your above explanatioin and still find it difficult to understand. Maybe that's b/c you conveniently dropped the word "very" when describing KM as only a "good passer." Your explanation is possible but not probable. Maybe you thought one thing and typed another. Who knows. And yes, if you say someone is not a great 3 pt shooter, then that is a negative comment as it implies he is sub-par. If instead, you say that someone is a good but not great 3 pt shooter, then that (which is what I believe you are trying to say) is completely different. Come and get serious. Sesame Street?? Who is the one being silly. If I say that some is not a great student then you would think that means he is a very good student. I would think, and I'd suggest that most would agree with me, that if someone is not a great student then that would mean the student is struggling academically and not that the he is a "very good" student.

Semantics aside, I say you are flat out wrong about KM. KM is a great pg. He passes, runs the offense, handles the ball and even scores -- all very well, good, great - whatever words you want. Why you are not that high upon KM amazes me.

Look up great in the dictionary. Being not great doesn't make you poor.

Look

It's pretty simple. You seem to read only what you want to.

You said He's a great passer

I said I wouldn't call him a great passer

You followed with why would you say he isn't a very good passer. Which isn't what I said. I said he wasn't "great" in response to your statement that he was.

How can you not get that your saying I said he wasn't very good was wrong. If you don't get it, do yourself and me a favor and put me on ignore.

I never said I wasn't high on Kwamain. In fact I love Kwamain, I just don't feel he's a "great" passer.

I loved Marquee Perry and H Waldman also even though I didn't feel they were great dunkers.