Basketbill Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Sports Nov 15, 10:48 AM EST St. Joe's Stuns No. 10 Gonzaga 73-66 This is pathetic, two teams in the top 25, one with perhaps the best player in the nation by definition cannot stun the other team. Come on # 18 does not stun #10. Just goes to show you that rankings are rank, and that is why they play the games. Do not get me wrong I think the Zags are a very good team, but St. Joe's is as well. other observation for you Mizzou fans, I do not think that Mizzou has enough depth to contend for a final four.....time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 First, perhaps headline writers aren't necessarily sports writers or indepth sports fans. Maybe Bonwich can clarify. Secondly, I would love for SLU to have the same potential depth problem issues as you suggested Missouri might have. If Pulley isn't eligible they may be a little light at the point guard spot, but not in overall depth. In fact, today, I would love for my Billikens to considered a 2004 NCAA bubble team! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted November 15, 2003 Author Share Posted November 15, 2003 first you are right about whoever writes the headlines....they are the editors according to STU. secondly, I am not sure why you tried to relate my comments about Mizzou's depth to SLU's depth. Mizzou is a good team. However after watching two top 25 teams play each other, St. Joe's and the Zags, I was impressed with both teams depth, supporting cast etc. Mizzou seems to have the supporting casts, but lacks the depth especially if ferguson and pulley are not able to play, and laurie redshirts. As for SLU's depth, we lack frontline players, and questions remain about the "supporting cast", but I have much greater hope about the future now than 4/2002. With Brad current recruiting class, and the gems he found last year, and next years recruiting class, I see excellent depth and a few star players as well. Many of those players will be here for four years as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Just thinking how nice of a problem it would be if my biggest concern was getting into the Final Four. I agree re SLU's immediate future. With this month's recruits, plus the Althoff kid next year, we appear to be very sound on the perimeter; but, we definitely need a PF or two who can immediately help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Let's not assume that it's a lock for SLU to get Kevin Lisch until he commits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 ..."plus the Althoff kid next year" seems like an assumption to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 I hope the staff is also keeping an eye on Nathan Whittaker from Sullivan. I certainly will be. http://prepsports.stltoday.com/ssi/prep/st...5b?OpenDocument "Passanise will have to be more like super glue against Sullivan and 6-foot-2 guard Nathan Whittaker, regarded as one of the premier sophomores in the state. Whittaker averages 18.7 points and 6.4 rebounds per game. "He's going to have his hands full with (Whittaker). He won't need to carry much of the offensive load, his importance is not to put the ball in the hole. If we are going to have a shot, we need to stop Whittaker. He's something else." "(Whittaker) is shooting 60 percent from the field and most of those shots aren't from the inside. He shouldn't be allowed to be that good until he is at least a junior or senior." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwd456 Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 I heard that they pulled Laurie's redshirt. I don't know if that's a bad sign or not for the eligibility of Pulley. Laurie had suprised them in practices. Some even saying he looked much better than Pulley running the team. He obviously can shoot better. McKinney was gonna start at PG IMO regardless of Pulley's situation. I hardly think not having Ferguson will affect depth. He was never gonna see the court anyway, with AJ, Travon, Young and Kleiza ahead of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 >>I heard that they pulled Laurie's redshirt. I don't know if that's a bad sign or not for the eligibility of Pulley. Laurie had suprised them in practices. Some even saying he looked much better than Pulley running the team. He obviously can shoot better.<< It tells me they do not expect Pulley to become eligible this semester. Laurie may look fine distributing the ball in the half-court set (as he appeared to me to be a fine passer the one time I saw him play last year at the shootout); however, physically he is weak and shall be a liability on the defensive end and may have trouble with the ball against a solid press. For me, Mizzouri is weak at PG. Jimmy McKinney does not have much experience there (is much more comfortable at the 2) and JMcK's back at PG is a non-scholarship player who lacks a D1 body at this point in his career. At least Pulley is built like a horse and protects the ball well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted November 16, 2003 Share Posted November 16, 2003 He is a scholarship player. You may not have seen the news that they awarded him a scholarship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 the idea that he is not a quality recruit is wrong. He was recruited by many big-time prgrams including SLIU and was the Show-Me player of the year (I believe). The kid can play, although a year of development would likely help. The whole reason for him to walk-on is his family obviously has enough money and are huge supporters of the school. By paying an additional 20k or so for tuition they save the school a scholly for somebody else. I'm surprised that him and Kroenke are on scholarship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 >He is a scholarship player. You may not have seen the news >that they awarded him a scholarship. No, did not see that he was awarded a scholarship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 He is a cousin not of the same money ilk - who knows what his family can actually afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted November 17, 2003 Share Posted November 17, 2003 >He is a cousin not of the same money ilk - who knows what >his family can actually afford. Spencer is the nephew of Bill Laurie (Blues and Savvis Center owner). Granted, that does not make him a rich kids per se. However, it was reported in January of this year by U of M that young Spencer would be NOT be a scholarship player: http://mutigers.ocsn.com/sports/m-baskbl/s.../011003aaa.html I assume a scholarship became free at a later date and they gave it to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lefty Posted November 18, 2003 Share Posted November 18, 2003 If you read the article,he's deferring his scholarship for this year. I thought I heard it had something to do with the 5 & 8 rule. 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.