Duff Man Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I didn't cherry pick anything. Dillard wasn't a role player. I never tried to make a case for him being one of the greatest Billikens ever. He was a nice player. We don't need to split hairs in regards to what constitutes a role player. The context was his placement ahead of Brian Conklin in Broy's ranking. I'm calling that an absurd statement, and somehow I'm in the minority. Dillard's talent level was that of a role player. High energy, run the floor, crash the offensive glass, finish transition layups, hit open 3s. He wasn't a player who created scoring opportunities on his own. The only reason he became the leading scorer was because our other (better) player (Footes) had off the court issues. The following year, Dillard was the 2nd best player (behind Highmark) on the worst Billikens team of the last 25 years. Conklin was best player on one of the best teams of the last 25 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I agree with your point but I'm not sure I would call him our best player. Most inspirational yes, best??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Man Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I agree with your point but I'm not sure I would call him our best player. Most inspirational yes, best??? You should call him our best player for the 2011-12 season, because that's precisely what he was. http://www.sports-re...louis/2012.html Scroll down to the bottom. The advanced metrics think Conklin was our best player by a significant margin. A subjective panel of voters agreed with that assessment and voted him first team all conference. He had a monster year. We had more talented players (with Kwamain being the most obvious example), but over the course of the 34 games Brian Conklin was the most productive player. He scored in double figures in 30 of the 34 games, and the 4 exceptions were double-digit home victories. He scored 25 against Washington and Oklahoma, 20 at New Mexico, 19 at X, 19 vs the Bonnies, and 23 on his senior night vs X. Even when he struggled from the floor he still managed to get to the line where he shot 80% on the year. You have to go back to Mo Jeffers in 2000-01 to find a Billiken who eclipsed Conklin's 2011-12 production at the stripe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 In Dillard's junior season he led the team in averaging 14 pts, had effective field goal percentage of 48%, and led the team in averaging 5.7 rpg. His senior season when he was the focus of opposing teams, he still averaged 14.4 points a game, had an effective field goal percentage og 43%, and averaged 6.2 rpg. His talent level was above that of a role player. He suffered in the view of fans because he followed Bonner and wasn't close to Bonner's level. I would take Conklin over him, but you can definitely make an argument the other way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Man Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 In Dillard's junior season he led the team in averaging 14 pts, had effective field goal percentage of 48%, and led the team in averaging 5.7 rpg. His senior season when he was the focus of opposing teams, he still averaged 14.4 points a game, had an effective field goal percentage og 43%, and averaged 6.2 rpg. You want to talk effective FG percentage? Fine. Let's provide some context. 1990-91 1991-92 Note how he was amongst the worst eFG% of the regulars. Conklin's 4-year career eFG% was 51.1%. Only 2 regulars on last year's team had an eFG% under 50% (Evans 48.0% and Jett 47.9%). His talent level was above that of a role player. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. He suffered in the view of fans because he followed Bonner and wasn't close to Bonner's level. I'm not going to dispute that since I'm sure some people had unrealistic expectations (was he hyped as some kind of stud transfer?), but I never felt that way about him. I'm sure many fans appreciated him as a fairly decent athlete who played hard every minute he was on the floor. I would take Conklin over him, but you can definitely make an argument the other way. I have yet to see this argument. Broy doesn't seem interested in backing up his claim. I concede you can make an argument for Jamal Johnson on the basis that we was a skilled offensive player who could have been all conference had he been around for the 1994-95 run, but there is no such hypothetical scenario where Quitman Dillard could replicate what Conklin accomplished in 2011-12. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 He shot almost 41 percent from 3 pt range as a junior at the power foward spot. He led the team in 3pt %, rebounding and scoring as a junior. Yeah, he was just a role player. The fact that he was a 3 pt shooter is why you can't just look at fg% and have to look at efg%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbizzle09 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 DuffMan, you've made some quality arguments to support your assertion that Conklin had a better career and was more valuable than Dillard. I'm not really disputing any of that. However, I do feel you should walk back the statement that Dillard was a 'role player'. Perhaps you can make the case that he would be a role player on today's roster. Perhaps. However, you can't call a player who led his team in scoring two separate seasons, as well as also leading the team in rebounding, three point shooting and minutes played at various times, just a 'role player.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Wow, this post has strayed off into la la land. How'd we get from the woes of the Tall blacks into posting detailed scoring stats for a Bills team that played 20 years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 I have yet to see this argument. Broy doesn't seem interested in backing up his claim. I concede you can make an argument for Jamal Johnson on the basis that we was a skilled offensive player who could have been all conference had he been around for the 1994-95 run, but there is no such hypothetical scenario where Quitman Dillard could replicate what Conklin accomplished in 2011-12. fine make conklin 5th and dillard 6th for best billiken power forwards over the last 30 years. i dont think there is a great difference and neither are in bonner or dobbs class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 AB certainly is the top all timer. Dobbs, Harris and a few others had better stats throught their careers. Conklin was nails all four years, but for one yr, Conklin was better than the rest (except AB). He contributed much, much more than his ppg and rebounds, he was the only inside physical force when we were overmatched, he neutralized the other team in those cases. He was fierce, terrorized some teams. That's a rare Billiken. He led the way, inspired the whole team, and we went to the 2nd round of the NCAA's. We'll never really know how much Conk was held back by injuries his soph and jr years. His senior year, he was THE difference maker, he was the one that took us to the dance, everyone else did about what we expected (well, you could argue both ways on KM, he was doomed to be "off" but the last 1/3 of the season he came back to form). So the debate is moot, could Conk have played as well if he was healthy his soph and jr yr and been up there productivity wise with Dobbs and the others? Unknown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Dillard was not a 4 for the Billikens, so I don't know why there's an argument of Dillard vs. Conklin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetorch Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Dillard was not a 4 for the Billikens, so I don't know why there's an argument of Dillard vs. Conklin. ++ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Man Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 DuffMan, you've made some quality arguments to support your assertion that Conklin had a better career and was more valuable than Dillard. I'm not really disputing any of that. However, I do feel you should walk back the statement that Dillard was a 'role player'. I already backed off my original statement...which was an exaggeration...and clarified my point "Quitman Dillard was a good kid who played hard, but he was never more than a role player on a average dysfunctional team. He was never the kind of impact player that Conklin evolved into his senior year." "I guess technically speaking he was more than a role player...but when you lose 14 of your last 15 games, and shoot 38.8% from the field on the year, what difference does it make?" "Dillard's talent level was that of a role player." "We don't need to split hairs in regards to what constitutes a role player. The context was his placement ahead of Brian Conklin in Broy's ranking. I'm calling that an absurd statement, and somehow I'm in the minority." and to be clear, I don't mean "role player" to be a diss...merely a distinction that a player was not a 'star' or 'difference maker'. Perhaps you can make the case that he would be a role player on today's roster. Perhaps. I should have said Dillard would have been a role player on a good team. That's really what I meant but I failed to articulate it properly. When I call someone a role player who is obviously more than that (e.g. Kyle Cassity in 2010-11) I'm really saying they're better suited to play a supporting role rather than a lead role. A more apt term to describe Dillard's contribution those 2 seasons would be that he was a 'good soldier'. Wow, this post has strayed off into la la land. How'd we get from the woes of the Tall blacks into posting detailed scoring stats for a Bills team that played 20 years ago? a. the tall blacks got bounced b. it's july, and there's a drought of actual news to discuss, thus it's only a matter of time before a wildfire of debate erupts regarding the merits of Billiken players past/present/future fine make conklin 5th and dillard 6th for best billiken power forwards over the last 30 years. moving on to the case of Jamal Johnson v Brian Conklin.../sarcasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Dillard was not a 4 for the Billikens, so I don't know why there's an argument of Dillard vs. Conklin. if you're 6'5" or taller and not really skinny ... you are deemed a 4 in billiken land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 if you're 6'5" or taller and not really skinny ... you are deemed a 4 in billiken land or our center....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Man Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 or our center....... back in Dillard's day, we had the twin towers of Big Mel and Travis Tadysak 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.