ACE Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 It seems like the role of the small forward or the "3" is a source of debate. Looking at Billikens past and present, you can see that players with a wide variety of skills have effectively played the position. Let's look at Evans and Highmark... I consider DE a 3.5. He is a 3 and usually does a godd job guarding the opposing team's 3, but with his ability to score around the basket and nose for rebounding, he has some definite 4 tendencies, that's why I call him a 3.5. Highmark was also an effective 3, but a much different type of player. He had more guard tendencies. Not really quick enough to be a true 2 and could get enough rebounds to be a 3and defend, but he is like a 2.5. Liddell is the one Billiken player who I considered a prototypical 3. I'm not saying he is the best 3 in the history of the program, just that his variety of skills fits what I think of a 3 being. It is the one position that seems to allow for the most flexibility. I never bought the idea of Tommie being a point guard. Not sure if that was floated out there by Sodie or Tommie and his entourage, but that was dumb. He was a 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperdeckKid Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 I think Crawford is going to be a really good 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 It seems like the role of the small forward or the "3" is a source of debate. Looking at Billikens past and present, you can see that players with a wide variety of skills have effectively played the position. Let's look at Evans and Highmark... I consider DE a 3.5. He is a 3 and usually does a godd job guarding the opposing team's 3, but with his ability to score around the basket and nose for rebounding, he has some definite 4 tendencies, that's why I call him a 3.5. Highmark was also an effective 3, but a much different type of player. He had more guard tendencies. Not really quick enough to be a true 2 and could get enough rebounds to be a 3and defend, but he is like a 2.5. Liddell is the one Billiken player who I considered a prototypical 3. I'm not saying he is the best 3 in the history of the program, just that his variety of skills fits what I think of a 3 being. It is the one position that seems to allow for the most flexibility. I never bought the idea of Tommie being a point guard. Not sure if that was floated out there by Sodie or Tommie and his entourage, but that was dumb. He was a 3. Tommie Liddell III played point guard in high school. I remember watching him in the Shootout against Hazelwood Central with Grimes and Tyus, and he literally led the Flyers to victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted May 23, 2013 Author Share Posted May 23, 2013 Tommie Liddell III played point guard in high school. I remember watching him in the Shootout against Hazelwood Central with Grimes and Tyus, and he literally led the Flyers to victory. I could see it in high school because he was probably by far the best player on his team, so you would want the ball in his hands as much as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetorch Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 The all time prototypical Billikens SF was Roland Gray. Good size, could play in and out while guarding multiple positions. Has to not only score but make his teammates better. Evans is in the Adrian Dantley mold of a 3 man. That type of player is rare in college ball. Liddell could be called a 3 although he was undersized, but he played bigger than he was. Highmark was also a very nice 3 man. A perfect blend of shooting rebounding and ballhandling ability. Really I'd like us to move away from recruiting a typical SF. For sustained success at our level and the type of player we can recruit we should be going with 3 guard lineups. Our SF should be more SG than forward. Its so difficult to recruit really good SFs in the 6'5-6'7 range at our level. We miss on these kids way more than we hit, case in point Jared Drew. We'd be better off recruiting a bunch of guys 6'3 and under who can all shoot and handle and then make other teams match up with our guards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Really I'd like us to move away from recruiting a typical SF. For sustained success at our level and the type of player we can recruit we should be going with 3 guard lineups. Our SF should be more SG than forward. Its so difficult to recruit really good SFs in the 6'5-6'7 range at our level. We miss on these kids way more than we hit, case in point Jared Drew. We'd be better off recruiting a bunch of guys 6'3 and under who can all shoot and handle and then make other teams match up with our guards. I couldn't disagree more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 The all time prototypical Billikens SF was Roland Gray. Good size, could play in and out while guarding multiple positions. Has to not only score but make his teammates better. Roland Gray is the most underrated Billiken ever. Was overshadowed by Douglass as recruit and then Boner came and got most of the attention. But, Gray could flat out ball. Maybe the third best player of the modern Billiken era. He was that good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billikenboy Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Keep hearing that Evans 3 ball and shot off the dribble is looking very very good in pickup (Looks like perimeter game caught up with post game). He will be a very good small forward this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Keep hearing that Evans 3 ball and shot off the dribble is looking very very good in pickup (Looks like perimeter game caught up with post game). He will be a very good small forward this season. dude, HATE. his midrange shot is already rock solid, and we know that baby hook's going in every time. i was just laughing during that NM State game in the tourney. like body him up at the free throw line, that motherfuoker's not going to miss. SHAFT is going to ERUPT this year. some NBA team might take a chance on him. i don't think it would be wasted. at the very least, he would rudy some HATE into the hearts of some prima donnas in practice. HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I know this wasn't the conversation, but my favorite Billiken 3 was Maurice Jeffers in his Sr year. I like the slasher types from the 3. Explosive off the dribble, but enough of a 3 to keep you honest. I really enjoyed watching him play. I don't remember the exact stats but 16-17 ppg around 6 rpg and I believe he shot 40% from the 3 but only shot 50 -60 on the year. I think that yr from him is one of the monst under rated years from a BIlliken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 I know this wasn't the conversation, but my favorite Billiken 3 was Maurice Jeffers in his Sr year. I like the slasher types from the 3. Explosive off the dribble, but enough of a 3 to keep you honest. I really enjoyed watching him play. I don't remember the exact stats but 16-17 ppg around 6 rpg and I believe he shot 40% from the 3 but only shot 50 -60 on the year. I think that yr from him is one of the monst under rated years from a BIlliken. Couldn't agree more and his defense was fantastic and his overall game got him invited to some NBA camps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 It seems to me like the prototypical 3 is dying in the college game. It's turned into either another guard or a 3-point shooter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted May 24, 2013 Author Share Posted May 24, 2013 I know this wasn't the conversation, but my favorite Billiken 3 was Maurice Jeffers in his Sr year. I like the slasher types from the 3. Explosive off the dribble, but enough of a 3 to keep you honest. I really enjoyed watching him play. I don't remember the exact stats but 16-17 ppg around 6 rpg and I believe he shot 40% from the 3 but only shot 50 -60 on the year. I think that yr from him is one of the monst under rated years from a BIlliken. He was also a great defender, that's what attracted the interest of some NBA teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JettFlight5 Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 It seems to me like the prototypical 3 is dying in the college game. It's turned into either another guard or a 3-point shooter. The college game has become so dependent on the 3 ball that I agree with you 100% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milwaukeebill Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 Shooter, slasher, distributor, rebounder, hustle guy. I don't care what number they are, all those qualities need to be on the court. And one person can usually only excel at 2 of those at most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 The college game has become so dependent on the 3 ball that I agree with you 100% The college game has become so dependent on the 3 ball that I agree with you 100% A lot depends on the rest of the make-up of your team. As long as we trend toward the 4 that plays away offensively, we're better off with an Evans or a Jeffers. If we have 4 and 5's that play mostly inside then I'd agree with the 3 guard sets. In the end I'd recruit the best players I can and adopt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JettFlight5 Posted May 24, 2013 Share Posted May 24, 2013 A lot depends on the rest of the make-up of your team. As long as we trend toward the 4 that plays away offensively, we're better off with an Evans or a Jeffers. If we have 4 and 5's that play mostly inside then I'd agree with the 3 guard sets. In the end I'd recruit the best players I can and adopt. Yeah, you have to play to the talent you have. It would make no sense to have a guard-type 3 with a stretch 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Wouldn't you consider Kevin Footes a very tall 3 I'll never forget the cow Grawer had when KF dribbled from one end to the other; Grawer was at a loss to use his extraordinary talents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Is Crawford 6'3" or 6'5" - that really will determine if he is a 3 or a guard - unless he can jump off the charts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 Is Crawford 6'3" or 6'5" - that really will determine if he is a 3 or a guard - unless he can jump off the charts. He's white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 He's white. Enough with that already. I'm sure someone somewhere has some photos proving that, at least white chicks, can jump. I know of at least one high hurdler and a certain pole vaulter (not the underage twins you pervs.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drkelsey55 Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 He's white. does that mean he is 6'3" or 6' 5" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doowop Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 A lot depends on the rest of the make-up of your team. As long as we trend toward the 4 that plays away offensively, we're better off with an Evans or a Jeffers. If we have 4 and 5's that play mostly inside then I'd agree with the 3 guard sets. In the end I'd recruit the best players I can and adopt. Most coaches don't ADOPT the players they recruit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Most coaches don't ADOPT the players they recruit. I'm an idiot. Maybe the ones who really care about their players do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JettFlight5 Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 I'm an idiot. Maybe the ones who really care about their players do No, those guys buy them outright. 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.