slufan13 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm saying we don't need a true PG. But we do need better than what we have now. Reynolds can get fouled and has quick hands on defense and Bartley can shoot, but neither one them are good enough at controlling the offense and creating for others. And neither are good enough to average 12+ ppg and be a scoring point guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'm saying we don't need a true PG. But we do need better than what we have now. Reynolds can get fouled and has quick hands on defense and Bartley can shoot, but neither one them are good enough at controlling the offense and creating for others. And neither are good enough to average 12+ ppg and be a scoring point guard. Exactly and even if one develops to be that kind of player; you need more than one of those guys on your team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I think we need more guards period. The last few years we got away with only three real guards because they were Mitchell/McCall/Jett and McCall/Jett/McBroom. The Roby/Bartley/Reynolds trio will not a lot more help going forward. I just don't really understand the emphasis on the "true PG" stuff. I'd like to see more guards instead of stockpiling more and more big men, regardless of whether they would fall under the label of a PG or SG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Was Cassity a "true PG" then? If so, would he radically transform this team? I doubt it. If not, then who exactly qualifies as a "true PG," then? The original statement was we hadn't had a true PG make an impact as a freshman in over 20 years, but I'm not sure we've even had a "true impact PG" (of any class) meeting that definition in that timeframe except for Waldman. Getting another Mitchell or Waldman is a longshot. But after reading this discussion I'm not sure anymore what exactly we are/should be looking/hoping for in terms of this mythical true PG. I thought it was common knowledge what the difference was between a true point (Waldman) and a scoring point (Mitchell). Maybe not. There is something like 50 guys averaging over 5 apg in Division 1. Since they never end up at SLU I think we forget that they exist. But yeah, I'd take a scoring point in a heartbeat. I said as much in my initial post. Update: number of guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I think we need more guards period. The last few years we got away with only three real guards because they were Mitchell/McCall/Jett and McCall/Jett/McBroom. The Roby/Bartley/Reynolds trio will not a lot more help going forward. I just don't really understand the emphasis on the "true PG" stuff. I'd like to see more guards instead of stockpiling more and more big men, regardless of whether they would fall under the label of a PG or SG. I apologize for using the term true pg. This debate was never my intention nor meant to be controversial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Mitchell/Jett/McCall is the ideal set of guards for me. Maybe Roby/Bartley/Reynolds could be that, but they don't seem to be as balanced as those 3. At least not yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I thought it was common knowledge what the difference was between a true point (Waldman) and a scoring point (Mitchell). Maybe not. There is something like 100 guys averaging over 5 apg in Division 1. Since they never end up at SLU I think we forget that they exist. But yeah, I'd take a scoring point in a heartbeat. I said as much in my initial post. I see the difference. I just don't buy that the difference means you ever need a "true" point or that "trueness" is even necessarily desirable. Not accusing anyone of having bad intentions, but whenever the term "true PG" gets brought up it seems to deteriorate into splitting hairs on position rather than overall quality of guard play. Dwayne Polk was a "true point" in the sense that he played the 1 and he certainly wasn't a "scoring point." He just wasn't very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I see the difference. I just don't buy that the difference means you ever need a "true" point or that "trueness" is even necessarily desirable. Not accusing anyone of having bad intentions, but whenever the term "true PG" gets brought up it seems to deteriorate into splitting hairs on position rather than overall quality of guard play. Dwayne Polk was a "true point" in the sense that he played the 1 and he certainly wasn't a "scoring point." He just wasn't very good. In the future I will specifically discuss skill sets that we are lacking and not position. We need to add a player capable of being a primary ball handler (is that better and less controversial) with the quickness to guard other 1s. I see the argument for that not being as much of a need as a scorer though. Maybe we could get both and find a kid like Pat McCaw, Marque Perry, or Kwamain Mitchell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 We haven't had a "true point" be an impact player in his first year in over 20 years. I'd say the chances of finding that player in the spring is practically nil. Bonawelding had a freshman PG averaging 10 ppg and 4 apg. Why couldn't we have landed a player of that caliber last year or land one similar this spring? BTW, this kid was a spring recruit in 2014 out of Baltimore. And regarding jucos, Posley signed with Bona out of Indian Hills CC, so there is another example of an impact player signing with a private school in a mid-major program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 In the future I will specifically discuss skill sets that we are lacking and not position. We need to add a player capable of being a primary ball handler (is that better and less controversial) with the quickness to guard other 1s. I see the argument for that not being as much of a need as a scorer though. Maybe we could get both and find a kid like Pat McCaw, Marque Perry, or Kwamain Mitchell. For the record, I had no issue with your original post. It was only when I saw the "we haven't had an impact freshman PG" post that I started to get confused. If we could get a freshman like Kwamain Mitchell every four years, we'd be a long way toward being set. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 For the record, I had no issue with your original post. It was only when I saw the "we haven't had an impact freshman PG" post that I started to get confused. If we could get a freshman like Kwamain Mitchell every four years, we'd be a long way toward being set. Yeah, I replied to your post since I didn't want to bait the poster with the most signficant issue with the term into continuing to post about it. I should have just said find me a player capable of handling the 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 In the future I will specifically discuss skill sets that we are lacking and not position. We need to add a player capable of being a primary ball handler (is that better and less controversial) with the quickness to guard other 1s. I see the argument for that not being as much of a need as a scorer though. Maybe we could get both and find a kid like Pat McCaw, Marque Perry, or Kwamain Mitchell. I think Cody Doolin and UNLV fans would be surprised to find out Pat McCaw is their primary ball handler :-) Would be interesting to see how McCaw would do in that role, though. You have to really protect the ball when you're 6'5/6'6 or little guys will take it from you. Liddell used to have that problem when he would fill in at point guard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBroom luvs McDonalds Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Welmer looks at least 2 years away... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slubillikens43 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Welmer looks at least 2 years away... Skinny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Welmer looks at least 2 years away... SO underwhelmered by welmer. i predict he's going to be an incredible fuoking washout of husakian or manningian (pronounced my-ninja-ian) proportions. why the fuok can't we recruit a tall, muscular black guy??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmbilliken Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 SO underwhelmered by welmer. i predict he's going to be an incredible fuoking washout of husakian or manningian (pronounced my-ninja-ian) proportions. why the fuok can't we recruit a tall, muscular black guy??? This staff has a fetish for slow, tall, thin white guys who can't defend, rebound or score. We will have at least 4 of them next year making up a third of our scholarship players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwayne's_World Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Doesn't look like he will contribute at all next season. Don't understand how recruiting another tall skinny power forward helps us in any way.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I'm sure they'll all turn out to be like Seth Tuttle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 The only 2 things I've seen about Welmer is that he's a willing rebounder despite his lack of strength and that he struggles at free throws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I could understand us not getting flashy, athletic gunner guards that want as many possessions as possible at a big school. But fuok, wouldn't you think that we could some bangers that just want to slow things down and hurt people? I mean FUOK. So sick of these pu$$y bigs. We score virtually no points in the paint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billboy1 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Agree-other schools seem to have no problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I think Welmer has a chance to become a good contributor. I really think Nuefeld will be an outstanding player for us. It won't be next season for either. The big thing with both is the staff will have to develop them. As it stands right now, next season won't be much better than this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 This staff has a fetish for slow, tall, thin white guys who can't defend, rebound or score. We will have at least 4 of them next year making up a third of our scholarship players. I will be disappointed if Jolly is back. After a year of prep school, he gave it a shot, but it should be clear to the kid he doesn't have a future at this level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLU_Nick Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I dont see contributions from either of these guys next year. What schools did we beat out for Neufeld? Washington St and St Mary's?....Hello Tanner Lancona. When a message board cannot get excited about a recruit's youtube highlights, that is when you know there is a problem. Crews can preach staying the course all he wants...but he better realize that this years roster, a year older, does not win more than 15 games next year. I know nothing drastic will ever happen in the positive bc we are SLU, but I hope Crews has something up his sleeve for 2015... Respectfully, Nick aka "Mr. Doom and Gloom" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I think Neufeld will be pretty good for us although like brianstl said, maybe not in year one. I think both of his parents were Olympic athletes and although he needs to put on weight, he probably will come in with a better frame than most big guys we're used to seeing. Like I said, I really don't know much about Welmer. He seems to maybe be another try at a Cody Ellis replacement. He needs weight and strength so I'll be patient with him. He at least seems to be skilled. That said, neither of these guys seem to be game-changers next year. Hopefully I'm proven wrong on that. Just because freshmen become sophomores doesn't mean that they become better players, but I do think we'll see improvement out of most of the guys. The key will be for that to be more than average improvement. 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.