hsmith19 Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 I have no argument with what you are basically saying but my point simply was that these 3 players certainly were good enough to contribute positively to this team. The problem is they were not able to do so under Crews for whatever the reason. Those four (including Carter) might not be very good, but outside Ash they would probably be the four best players on this team. More bizarro world reasoning to see posters like Clock who have defended the talent level of the players Crews brought in (only taking issue with their lack of "development") turn around and dismiss players like Barnett/Glaze/McBroom/Carter because they are not "upper D1 talents." It's beyond me how anyone could continue to argue our talent level is sufficient when a former walk-on is starting on a roster with six scholarship guards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 i agree completely. slu then got caught stuck with crews because the autopilot team succeeded bigtime during that interim year. while i dont like it, i dont fault slu with not changing horses at that time. i do fault the long term contract. should have been a year to year contract. but to clarify, no rickma did not want crews necessarily to be his replacement. he wanted him to be the caretaker till he got back. unfortunately he died before that happened. A year to year contract makes recruiting very difficult. Throw in that the kids we want have options at power 6 conferences, and we would have been just asking for crews to fail with the current sophomore class if he didn't have a long term deal. Now, it turns out he did fail with that class but that's hindsight and it would have been completely unfair to ask him to recruit with both the disadvantages of our conference and no assurance that he'd be coach more than one year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billikenboy Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Interesting that Hines has not played any better then Reynolds or Roby but has moved ahead of both in the rotation. Wonder how much of that has to do with lessening the value of those players on the transfer market. Therefore attempting to force them to return next season. Same can be said for sporadic playing time, etc of other sophomores. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 Interesting that Hines has not played any better then Reynolds or Roby but has moved ahead of both in the rotation. Wonder how much of that has to do with lessening the value of those players on the transfer market. Therefore attempting to force them to return next season. Same can be said for sporadic playing time, etc of other sophomores. How would you define "has not played any better"? While I am not a huge fan of Hines, I think he coexists with Bishop/Ash/Crawford better than those two. Roby brings nothing to the table beyond being able to hit an occasional 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted February 15, 2016 Share Posted February 15, 2016 i agree completely. slu then got caught stuck with crews because the autopilot team succeeded bigtime during that interim year. while i dont like it, i dont fault slu with not changing horses at that time. i do fault the long term contract. should have been a year to year contract. but to clarify, no rickma did not want crews necessarily to be his replacement. he wanted him to be the caretaker till he got back. unfortunately he died before that happened. Roy. You may, in fact, be correct that RM wanted Crews as his caretaker until RM returned. It makes sense. But, if so, then how does this square with your other theory that had already given up, no longer cared about recruiting, no longer was creaming the talent and had already checked out desiring to leave the program in shambles because RM was not coming back due to his feuds with Fr. Biondi. Why install a caretaker in a program he no longer cared about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Those four (including Carter) might not be very good, but outside Ash they would probably be the four best players on this team. More bizarro world reasoning to see posters like Clock who have defended the talent level of the players Crews brought in (only taking issue with their lack of "development") turn around and dismiss players like Barnett/Glaze/McBroom/Carter because they are not "upper D1 talents." It's beyond me how anyone could continue to argue our talent level is sufficient when a former walk-on is starting on a roster with six scholarship guards. Smith. I cannot tell is you have a reading comprehension problem or are just plain dumb. For now, I am going with the latter. Not once did I "dismiss" Barnett or even mention Carter. My comments about Barnett and McBroom suggested why their first years of basketball were so good statistically Also, I did not use the term "upper D1 talents". As your points that these guys would be our best on this year's time, I note you fail to give any support for your statements. Good stuff. And your big point of your most recent and worthless post summarizing what you consider my point to be t is again not what I am saying. Why do you keep trying to start fights with me for saying things I didn't or don't say? What's your petty agenda? If you want the spot light to shine on you, write something worthy. To date, I haven't read anything intelligent from you yet. Maybe one day... Here's what I actually said: our recruiting classes under Crews are not full of NBA talent but they are talented enough to win games -- 18+ games. Using words you probably better understand, the reason we "suck" and are starting a walk on is because the talent we do have on this roster have long quit on Crews. Why does it matter if we have a talent problem v. a player development problem? To better determine what we have now on the roster, who needs to stay or go from the roster and how long the rebuild will take. Again, these topics may be over your head.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Here's what I actually said: our recruiting classes under Crews are not full of NBA talent but they are talented enough to win games -- 18+ games. Using words you probably better understand, the reason we "suck" and are starting a walk on is because the talent we do have on this roster have long quit on Crews. I think most would say you are overrating the talent on this team. I guess my question would be; what do you base your opinion that "they are talented enough to win 18+ games" on? Are you saying that they are talented enough today to win 18+ games? If so, you are wrong. Maybe if they moved down to the Bahamas and competed against the bartenders and cabana boys. Ultimately it doesn't matter, this team flat out sucks from the players to the coaches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 But wasn't Woolard's "National Search" for a coaching candidate just limited to down the hall at West Pine to where Soderberg's cubbie was? How in the world did Brian Gregory try to pursue the job? Sit out on the quad? Woolard wanted to hire Gregory but Gregory wanted a significant financial commitment from the school, such as bigger recruiting budget, assistant salaries and facilities upgrades. Biondi wasn't willing to to do that so he vetoed Woolard and hired Soderberg who just wanted the job and was willing to take what SLU has to offer. Eventually Biondi came around but only because Chaifetz ponied up the dollars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheA_Bomb Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Sodie's interim season was not regarded as a success. Wisconsin had made the Final Four the prior season, yet Sodie went 16-10 as the Badgers barely got into the Dance. The Badgers lost in the first round of the Big Ten tourney and first round of the NCAA Tourney, making the decision not to hire him an easy one for Wisconsin. Please don't ruin revisionist history time. Diener Express all aboard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBFan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Smith. I cannot tell is you have a reading comprehension problem or are just plain dumb. For now, I am going with the latter. Not once did I "dismiss" Barnett or even mention Carter. My comments about Barnett and McBroom suggested why their first years of basketball were so good statistically Also, I did not use the term "upper D1 talents". As your points that these guys would be our best on this year's time, I note you fail to give any support for your statements. Good stuff. And your big point of your most recent and worthless post summarizing what you consider my point to be t is again not what I am saying. Why do you keep trying to start fights with me for saying things I didn't or don't say? What's your petty agenda? If you want the spot light to shine on you, write something worthy. To date, I haven't read anything intelligent from you yet. Maybe one day... Here's what I actually said: our recruiting classes under Crews are not full of NBA talent but they are talented enough to win games -- 18+ games. Using words you probably better understand, the reason we "suck" and are starting a walk on is because the talent we do have on this roster have long quit on Crews. Why does it matter if we have a talent problem v. a player development problem? To better determine what we have now on the roster, who needs to stay or go from the roster and how long the rebuild will take. Again, these topics may be over your head.. I agree with your point of the talent and to add to your point you can simply look at the players that have transferred and those players have played better with different coaching. The way Glaze and McBroom are playing in my opinion proves there is something wrong with the coaching of this team. I think Hines plays more because the offense runs so much better with Hines and Bishop playing. Look what happened the last game, when Hines and Bishop were both on the bench and Reynolds and Roby were in the offense stalled, and that is on the coach. I have not been happy with the Sophomore class and I have stated that it is a lost class but as the season goes on I think it is all on the coach now. We all will find out after the season is over and a new coach is chosen how good the players really are if they stay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I think the point of McBroom and Glaze can be a knock on the talent level. This group of talent can win 18 games in the Big Sky, but I don't see this group winning 18 games in the A10 barring bringing in another Majerus. I agree that the sophomore class has been a huge disappointment and just a flat-out loss. The offense does run better with a former walk-on in the game over Reynolds. Roby is greatly regressed from last year. Bartley still can't defend and if his shot isn't falling, he provides nothing. Jolly is D2. Gillmann is borderline D1. Yarbrough has the talent, but not the brain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 I think the point of McBroom and Glaze can be a knock on the talent level. This group of talent can win 18 games in the Big Sky, but I don't see this group winning 18 games in the A10 barring bringing in another Majerus. I agree that the sophomore class has been a huge disappointment and just a flat-out loss. The offense does run better with a former walk-on in the game over Reynolds. Roby is greatly regressed from last year. Bartley still can't defend and if his shot isn't falling, he provides nothing. Jolly is D2. Gillmann is borderline D1. Yarbrough has the talent, but not the brain. Right, maybe some of the current sophomores will transfer down to conferences (or a level like Lancona in the case of Jolly) that better fit their talent level and they can have more success too. I assume people are basing them being talented on the fact that they were largely 3 star recruits? The sophomore guards are just odd players, guys sold as combo guards who lack the skill/athleticism to really stand out at either position (more tweener guards than combo guards). The two bigs lack the athleticism/strength/skill to score/defend/rebound in the post and don't have the perimeter ability to truly be a matchup problem away from the basket, so they are just there when playing. And then that leaves a lazy tweener who makes the same mistakes game after game despite likely having the most talent on the team. Essentially a completely lost class, but this was a class on paper that never truly made sense as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Woolard wanted to hire Gregory but Gregory wanted a significant financial commitment from the school, such as bigger recruiting budget, assistant salaries and facilities upgrades. Biondi wasn't willing to to do that so he vetoed Woolard and hired Soderberg who just wanted the job and was willing to take what SLU has to offer. Eventually Biondi came around but only because Chaifetz ponied up the dollars. I did not know that at all. Wow. Great post, BL. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJumpUp Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Majerus actually told Lavin that he wanted him to be his successor at SLU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CBFan Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Majerus actually told Lavin that he wanted him to be his successor at SLU. You are doing a great job on selling Lavin, lol. I think Lavin would be great coach for SLU but he might have better offers. I never saw big Rick coming and that was one of my best days as a Billiken fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FromDaEastSide Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Majerus actually told Lavin that he wanted him to be his successor at SLU. I think you captured the wrong screen shot from that halftime report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soderball Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 The question isnt if we want Lavin, but rather if he wants to come here. I would be very excited to see him coaching here. Going from Crews to Lavin would be like going from Sodie to Majerus all over again(Uncle Brad was lightyears ahead of "Fire" Jim Crews.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MusicCityBilliken Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Could we afford Lavin? He could probably make more $ going back to ESPN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJumpUp Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Could we afford Lavin? He could probably make more $ going back to ESPN. No question we could afford him....the question is will they pay what it takes. Give him a contract worth 2.2-2.5 million a year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgeldmacher Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 Stansbury is at the top of my list right now. He had success as the head coach of a school where basketball was not the priority. Now he's an assistant at a school that is in the same situation that is having an outstanding year. I think he would thrive at a basketball is king school like SLU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 We are not going to pay a coach $2.0 -2.5 million. Lets just come back to earth. We will pay a fair salary based on who they hire. If we get a young coach from a smaller school/conference we will be very competitive. I would hope we could then be in a position to give a good increases if success follows rather than shoot the entire wad right away. If it is a up and coming asst then the salary will be accordingly based on who they are -ie experience level. If we go out an hire a big name who does not deliver then we will be hamstrung the next time. The money to buy out Crews will come but we can not expect that they will pony it up in 2-3 years later. This has to be a solid hire not simply a big splash. RM was a special case - he had been successful everywhere went once he left Marquette. To find a guy like that who never had a down period that cost him his job is very rare - they don't come around very often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 We are not going to pay a coach $2.0 -2.5 million. Lets just come back to earth. We will pay a fair salary based on who they hire. If we get a young coach from a smaller school/conference we will be very competitive. I would hope we could then be in a position to give a good increases if success follows rather than shoot the entire wad right away. If it is a up and coming asst then the salary will be accordingly based on who they are -ie experience level. If we go out an hire a big name who does not deliver then we will be hamstrung the next time. The money to buy out Crews will come but we can not expect that they will pony it up in 2-3 years later. This has to be a solid hire not simply a big splash. RM was a special case - he had been successful everywhere went once he left Marquette. To find a guy like that who never had a down period that cost him his job is very rare - they don't come around very often. Agree with this 100%. I'll add a few things: I've looked around for possible coaches. There isn't a Majerus in this bunch. I'll also take the guy who is solid and builds a program than just somebody whose hiring creates a splash now. Given that I don't think that the crop of veteran coaches would really make that big of a splash when hired, I'd be inclined to potentially go with a guy who might not command as high of a salary. Finally, I get the idea here that some think that because of Dr. Chaifetz and maybe 1 or 2 others as money behind the basketball program, it makes SLU some kind of a college basketball new money. It probably doesn't. Their support is tremendous, and I personally thanked Dr. Chaifetz when I had the chance, but I'm pretty sure a lot of programs have similar or more financial backing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyJumpUp Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 We need a big name that we know will bring success. Fμck the young, cheaper hire...we need someone who is gonna flip this program around quickly. The school needs to make a move, show they are all in with the program. Lavin has been successful everywhere he has coached. Give him an offer he can't refuse. IN LAVIN WE TRUST!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted February 16, 2016 Author Share Posted February 16, 2016 How about Tom Thibodeau? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted February 16, 2016 Share Posted February 16, 2016 How about Tom Thibodeau? Derek Fischer needs a job. 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.