Turn the Jett's on

[Billsrmajic]

Yes. I know that you know that the return of WR and KM will NOT make us a Top 25 team. We will NOT be "stacked" or dominate with just them. Instead, we will need 3 other players to step up and carry the load. Since I have followed the Bills, we have really never had that. Last year, with only KM and WR, we won some games but lost several as well. It was not until CE started playing that defenses realized that they needed to change. With scoring coming from all three, our win totals started to increase but we still were not Top 25. Sure, on a given day we could beat some Top 25 teams but that does not make a team truly Top 25. I can go back to every Billiken team that I recall and show 3 really good players are needed to win 20+ games. Douglas, Bonner and Gray. Claggs, Highmark and Waldman. Hienrich, Baniak and Tatum. TL, KL and IV. Believe many are looking only at our depth of available options (which is greater than it has ever been) as opposed to can we actually get 5 scoring threats on the floor at the same time. If that happens, then RM will have truly achieved something. Then, the next step would be to see if we could keep this going beyond 1 or 2 years. If so, SLU will become relevant again in college basketball.

If Willie comes back next year, we've got a legit shot at being a Top 25 team. Mitchell, McCall, Cassity, Loe and Reed are a starting five that can all score (and all but Loe are or can be above average defenders). The bench of Jett, Ellis, Evans, and Barnett will all be able to score as well. It's been said over and over, but losing your top two guys is devastating to a basketball team. Adding two stars improves the team immensely. We're going to be really good next year (if Willie comes back).

[dlarry]

Yes. I know that you know that the return of WR and KM will NOT make us a Top 25 team. We will NOT be "stacked" or dominate with just them. Instead, we will need 3 other players to step up and carry the load. Since I have followed the Bills, we have really never had that. Last year, with only KM and WR, we won some games but lost several as well. It was not until CE started playing that defenses realized that they needed to change. With scoring coming from all three, our win totals started to increase but we still were not Top 25. Sure, on a given day we could beat some Top 25 teams but that does not make a team truly Top 25. I can go back to every Billiken team that I recall and show 3 really good players are needed to win 20+ games. Douglas, Bonner and Gray. Claggs, Highmark and Waldman. Hienrich, Baniak and Tatum. TL, KL and IV. Believe many are looking only at our depth of available options (which is greater than it has ever been) as opposed to can we actually get 5 scoring threats on the floor at the same time. If that happens, then RM will have truly achieved something. Then, the next step would be to see if we could keep this going beyond 1 or 2 years. If so, SLU will become relevant again in college basketball.

If you have 3 really good players wouldnt that put you at a 5-4 or 4.5 player disadvantage?

[slufanskip]

Yes. I know that you know that the return of WR and KM will NOT make us a Top 25 team. We will NOT be "stacked" or dominate with just them. Instead, we will need 3 other players to step up and carry the load. Since I have followed the Bills, we have really never had that. Last year, with only KM and WR, we won some games but lost several as well. It was not until CE started playing that defenses realized that they needed to change. With scoring coming from all three, our win totals started to increase but we still were not Top 25. Sure, on a given day we could beat some Top 25 teams but that does not make a team truly Top 25. I can go back to every Billiken team that I recall and show 3 really good players are needed to win 20+ games. Douglas, Bonner and Gray. Claggs, Highmark and Waldman. Hienrich, Baniak and Tatum. TL, KL and IV. Believe many are looking only at our depth of available options (which is greater than it has ever been) as opposed to can we actually get 5 scoring threats on the floor at the same time. If that happens, then RM will have truly achieved something. Then, the next step would be to see if we could keep this going beyond 1 or 2 years. If so, SLU will become relevant again in college basketball.

Cassity is averaging 10 ppg shooting 47% from the field and 39 from the 3. Name me the teams that have 4 players scoring more than that? You don't need nor do you want 5 go to type scorers on the floor at the same time. Kyle is a scoring threat in that if you leave him open or give him a lane he'll take it and his shooting percentages tell you he'll do a good job of scoring. I agree it's be good to have another guy in double figures, but that is what CE, MM, JB, and RL were recruited to be. Let them be that and let Kyle be Kyle.

[Clock_Tower]

While I think you bring up an interesting point about depth vs. scoring options, are you saying that Cassity is not a scoring threat? I think he is very much a "scoring threat," he just shouldn't be the #1 option, which is what he's been forced to become this year.

Yes. Just this last game, KC hit his first 3 shots (3 pointers) which was really great. He came out strong and got the team off to a good start and helped build a lead. But then, he hit nothing thereafter. I left early with my young kids (4 minutes to go) and from the the box score, KC got another basket to finish with 11 points. In between, he probably played 20 minutes. I can list a number of games where KC scores no points in an entire half and, as we know, our Bills routinely have stretches of 4 to 9 minutes where we cannot get a basket. KC alone is not to blame for our scoring droughts. To me, though, experienced players (whether the first option or not) need to be able to step up and hit a shot at key times of games. A guy can only have 2 or 3 baskets per game but each one can be a clutch shot. Winning teams have such a guy. I recall almost no clutch shots by KC in his 3 years of play. Curious. Why do people think that only our number 1 or number 2 scoring options must make all clutch shots. Have we all followed SLU basketball so longer that we have been conditioned to believe that we only count on our stars (our 2 to 3 star players) these past 40 years to carry the team? Top 25 teams have 5 guys scoring - and more coming off the bench. I get that we are w/o our best two scoring threats. I get that we should not expect to run a clearout for KC to win the game like we did with Marquis Perry. I get that KC is not capable of scoring 20 ppg and making us forget about KM and WR. But don't tell me KC does not have normal chances to score over his 30 minutes of play. Why am I so tough on KC, b/c we have no SRs, I've stopped expecting anything from BC and I am giving our Frosh and Sophs b/c of their youth and inexperience. If we had 4 really good "go to" scoring guys, I guess we could get away with a guy who scores little compared to the number of minutes he plays. We don't. Sorry, I just don't think we can give 30 mpg to a guy who doesn't produce enough.

[SShoe]

Yes. Just this last game, KC hit his first 3 shots (3 pointers) which was really great. He came out strong and got the team off to a good start and helped build a lead. But then, he hit nothing thereafter. I left early with my young kids (4 minutes to go) and from the the box score, KC got another basket to finish with 11 points. In between, he probably played 20 minutes. I can list a number of games where KC scores no points in an entire half and, as we know, our Bills routinely have stretches of 4 to 9 minutes where we cannot get a basket. KC alone is not to blame for our scoring droughts. To me, though, experienced players (whether the first option or not) need to be able to step up and hit a shot at key times of games. A guy can only have 2 or 3 baskets per game but each one can be a clutch shot. Winning teams have such a guy. I recall almost no clutch shots by KC in his 3 years of play. Curious. Why do people think that only our number 1 or number 2 scoring options must make all clutch shots. Have we all followed SLU basketball so longer that we have been conditioned to believe that we only count on our stars (our 2 to 3 star players) these past 40 years to carry the team? Top 25 teams have 5 guys scoring - and more coming off the bench. I get that we are w/o our best two scoring threats. I get that we should not expect to run a clearout for KC to win the game like we did with Marquis Perry. I get that KC is not capable of scoring 20 ppg and making us forget about KM and WR. But don't tell me KC does not have normal chances to score over his 30 minutes of play. Why am I so tough on KC, b/c we have no SRs, I've stopped expecting anything from BC and I am giving our Frosh and Sophs b/c of their youth and inexperience. If we had 4 really good "go to" scoring guys, I guess we could get away with a guy who scores little compared to the number of minutes he plays. We don't. Sorry, I just don't think we can give 30 mpg to a guy who doesn't produce enough.

Man, that's a whole lot of writing without really answering the question. I asked if you thought he was a scoring threat and you wrote a lot of mumbo jumbo about clutch scorers, go-to guys, etc. To me, these are very different things and all you're doing is changing the criteria for your criticsms of KC.

The thing is, most college basketball teams, even the best ones, still rely heavily on 2 or maybe 3 go-to guys. Duke still leans heavily on Nolan Smith and Kyle Singler. Ohio State leans very heavily on Sullinger and Lighty. And the list goes on and on. Today, we lost to a good team that also leaned heavily on its best players down the stretch - Lyons and Holloway. You're right that these teams normally have 5 "scoring threats" always on the floor, but nobody has a group of five players they lean evenly on when the game is on the line.

Do we need to have 5 guys who can hit the big shot at the end of the game to be top 25? Absolutely not. In fact, I would assert the best basketbal teams (pro and college) are built around 2 or 3 very good players with a strong "supporting" cast around them. Those past SLU teams and players you mentioned previously (the baniak, heinrich, tatum example excluded) were built around 3 good players, but their supporting casts were terrible.

[slufanskip]

Man, that's a whole lot of writing without really answering the question. I asked if you thought he was a scoring threat and you wrote a lot of mumbo jumbo about clutch scorers, go-to guys, etc. To me, these are very different things and all you're doing is changing the criteria for your criticsms of KC.

The thing is, most college basketball teams, even the best ones, still rely heavily on 2 or maybe 3 go-to guys. Duke still leans heavily on Nolan Smith and Kyle Singler. Ohio State leans very heavily on Sullinger and Lighty. And the list goes on and on. Today, we lost to a good team that also leaned heavily on its best players down the stretch - Lyons and Holloway. You're right that these teams normally have 5 "scoring threats" always on the floor, but nobody has a group of five players they lean evenly on when the game is on the line.

Do we need to have 5 guys who can hit the big shot at the end of the game to be top 25? Absolutely not. In fact, I would assert the best basketbal teams (pro and college) are built around 2 or 3 very good players with a strong "supporting" cast around them. Those past SLU teams and players you mentioned previously (the baniak, heinrich, tatum example excluded) were built around 3 good players, but their supporting casts were terrible.

and if you don't think Kyle is a "scoring threat" than few if any team has 5 scoring threats on the floor at the same time.

[Clock_Tower]

Man, that's a whole lot of writing without really answering the question. I asked if you thought he was a scoring threat and you wrote a lot of mumbo jumbo about clutch scorers, go-to guys, etc. To me, these are very different things and all you're doing is changing the criteria for your criticsms of KC.

The thing is, most college basketball teams, even the best ones, still rely heavily on 2 or maybe 3 go-to guys. Duke still leans heavily on Nolan Smith and Kyle Singler. Ohio State leans very heavily on Sullinger and Lighty. And the list goes on and on. Today, we lost to a good team that also leaned heavily on its best players down the stretch - Lyons and Holloway. You're right that these teams normally have 5 "scoring threats" always on the floor, but nobody has a group of five players they lean evenly on when the game is on the line.

Do we need to have 5 guys who can hit the big shot at the end of the game to be top 25? Absolutely not. In fact, I would assert the best basketbal teams (pro and college) are built around 2 or 3 very good players with a strong "supporting" cast around them. Those past SLU teams and players you mentioned previously (the baniak, heinrich, tatum example excluded) were built around 3 good players, but their supporting casts were terrible.

SShoe. Reread this whole thread. It is full of "go to guy" references (Skip's term). Don't flatter yourself. Was not responding on this public board only to you.

As to "a lot of mumbo jumbo", what part of my first sentence -- one word "Yes." did you not understand? How more direct could I have been than to lead off with a one word direct response? Care to try a different argument?

Also, not limiting my comments regarding the nummber of minutes KC should play to only "is KC a scoring threat?" Depending upon your definition of scoring threat, but again: Yes. But to what degree? Compared to prior Billikens like DP, yes KC can be considered a scoring threat. DP was not b/c no one guarded him or needed to guard him. In contrast, if KC is left open or is forgotten, he can and will burn the defense. As Skip mentioned, 11 points is nothing to sneeze at and, as I have mentioned, KC is more productive than other guys on this team. Would KC be a weak link? Yes.

Disagree with me if you want. That's fine. Not seeking your approval. IMO, though, KC will not deserve 30 mpg as he is not productive enough and not consistent enough at such a key position, and year, the other 4 players (especially the 2 other than KM and WR) have not demonstrated the ability to consistently score. This was our big problem last year. Also, IMO, the other players (JJ, MM, DE and possibly JB) appear to have far more upside than KC. If you define "scoring threat" as a player capable of scoring 20 points in a given game, then No, KC is not a scoring threat but JJ, MM DE and by all accounts JB are. Disagree if you want. Free country.

BTW, your points about most teams with 3 key players is same that I already said. The difference, though, is the extent or degree of production from the other starters and bench. And, again, your wrong. The Baniak and Heinrich team was not a Top 25 team.