Jump to content

Transfers - 2021


Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

perkins isnt coming back to play under the basket if that is what you mean by "the 4".   perkins future is as a wing and he wont do himself any good coming back to masquerade as a power forward.   hopefully you meant the billikens were going to play 4 out and he would be a wing/outcourt player.

I agree with you.  We only played a '4' when Bell and French started or Linssen came in for one of them.  By far most of the time we played with 4 wings/guards.  People on this board get caught up in the position number game. When you listen to Coach, he will tell us that he doesn't go by that convention anymore.  Plus he has said that the players don't use that either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

43 minutes ago, Littlebill said:

He played the 4 a lot this year? Literally in our starting lineup most of the year, he was the 4

i disagree.    we may be talking semantics, but until we brought back the two bigs at season end we were not using a second big.    perkins never played power forward on offense he was always on the perimeter.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i disagree.    we may be talking semantics, but until we brought back the two bigs at season end we were not using a second big.    perkins never played power forward on offense he was always on the perimeter.  

I simply mean he would play alongside one big man instead of two and would guard the opposing team’s “power forward” (or whatever the closest player they had to that role is). Perkins’ position on defense changed when we went from one big to two, so it’s kind of hard to just call him a “wing” no matter who the other players on the floor are. So I am just suggesting Perkins would go back to the role he played before Ford reverted back to the 2-big lineup.

I agree that the position labels/numbers are not super helpful from an offensive standpoint. To me, they are still useful on defense even if the actual roles/assignments are at times ambiguous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, NH said:

I simply mean he would play alongside one big man instead of two and would guard the opposing team’s “power forward” (or whatever the closest player they had to that role is). Perkins’ position on defense changed when we went from one big to two, so it’s kind of hard to just call him a “wing” no matter who the other players on the floor are. So I am just suggesting Perkins would go back to the role he played before Ford reverted back to the 2-big lineup.

I agree that the position labels/numbers are not super helpful from an offensive standpoint. To me, they are still useful on defense even if the actual roles/assignments are at times ambiguous.

so you agree he doesnt play a "4"?  and actually on defense more times than not, goodwin would end up guarding a true power forward on the other team.   most instances, the other team was playing 4 out as well and not utilizing 2 bigs.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who in the A10 is a power 4?  Umass has a limited Ronnie DeGray III.  Antwan Walker was not a true power 4 for Rhode Island.  The Bonnies play four guards and Osunniyi.  Marcus Weathers was a player ala Dwayne Evans.  That is not a power four.  St. Joe's did not have one.  Neither did La Salle.  Mason might have when playing Oduro with WIlson.  Geedubya had Moyer but not a servicable five.  Maybe VCU when they played Stockard and Dopuglas, both of whom were limited.  Richmond had Cayo but Golden was a stretch 4.  Not Davidson with their Euro-front.  Screw Fordham.  Dayton was all guards for the most part.  Rarely does this conference have a traditional power 4 so countering that is not too hard.  And if they do, they don't have a traditional five.  It's all a matter of matchups.  

On our offensive end, which of those fours cover Perkins?  I'd say advantage Perkins in all of those.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i disagree.    we may be talking semantics, but until we brought back the two bigs at season end we were not using a second big.    perkins never played power forward on offense he was always on the perimeter.  

This is what I'm telling you. Referring to a player as a 4 in 2021 is what they are on defense. They may have to guard a big. Offenses are so free flowing now that payers don't really have that cookie cutter responsiblilty anymore. NH and I are making the same point. A 4 was a big man 20 years ago. It isn't anymore. You watch a lot of CBB presumably. You know this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slufan13 said:

Where do you expect him to cut to and move to when the rest of the offense is stagnant other than what 757billiken outlined? He can run around wherever he wants but he'll just run into another player standing around. 

Jimerson was deadly with the pump fake and 15 foot jumper early in the season. I think his legs were gone.

He would be a big loss if he transfers despite people thinking he hypothetically has a bad attitude just because he doesn't show the same energy as Hargrove. He may be the biggest loss on the team since he has the least replaceable skill set

I never mentioned a bad attitude once. The fact that nobody ever cuts is the entire problem with our offense. But Gibson just standing out there is incredibly easy to guard. Even if he just ran the baseline from corner to corner makes the defense move. Go back at look at comments I’ve said about our offense all year. We don’t move. We resort to hero ball entirely too much. When we actually cut and make the extra pass we consistently get wide open looks. When we don’t, we get the Dayton games. That doesn’t change the fact that Gibson transferring doesn’t necessarily make his situation any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, billiken_roy said:

so you agree he doesnt play a "4"?  and actually on defense more times than not, goodwin would end up guarding a true power forward on the other team.   most instances, the other team was playing 4 out as well and not utilizing 2 bigs.   

I agree he’s not a power forward. You’re using the term “4” differently than I am. 

Perkins guarded the other teams second biggest player in every game this season before we switched to the 2 big lineup. We switched everything 1-4 and sometimes 1-5 so it didn’t really matter that much. I am suggesting that next season Perkins should go back to the position he was playing before we went two bigs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 look you used the wrong term.   you should have said you wanted perkins to play on the perimeter.   you instead called him a power forward.   thus a useless discussion.  why in world would you want him to guard power forwards anyway.   i'd much prefer thatch even to guard a true power forward if the other team is playing with 2 bigs.   to me the second tallest player isnt necessarily a 4 aka power forward.  and perkins would likely not fare well guarding a true 4. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

 look you used the wrong term.   you should have said you wanted perkins to play on the perimeter.   you instead called him a power forward.   thus a useless discussion.  why in world would you want him to guard power forwards anyway.   i'd much prefer thatch even to guard a true power forward if the other team is playing with 2 bigs.   to me the second tallest player isnt necessarily a 4 aka power forward.  and perkins would likely not fare well guarding a true 4. 

Hey man, I don't know what to tell you. NH and I are right in this one. Times have changed - 4 isn't a PF anymore. You don't have to die on this hill. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Littlebill said:

Hey man, I don't know what to tell you. NH and I are right in this one. Times have changed - 4 isn't a PF anymore. You don't have to die on this hill. 

then he shouldnt have labeled it a "4".   even the starting lineups pre game dont say he is a forward let alone a power forward.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

There are better options SLU will have for a shooter than McKissic if SLU decides to go that route.  Don't want to mentions names because this kid hasn't announced he is transferring yet, but if you look in the right places you can get idea of who might be thinking about transferring to SLU.

Why so coy about a name? I don't think a little reasonable speculation on a message board is out of bounds. It happens all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ACE said:

Why so coy about a name? I don't think a little reasonable speculation on a message board is out of bounds. It happens all the time.

I don't know who Brian is talking about but Illinois State is a dumpster fire right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, ACE said:

Why so coy about a name? I don't think a little reasonable speculation on a message board is out of bounds. It happens all the time.

Because the kid hasn't announced he is transferring and his team won't be finished with their season for a while.  He could end up deciding not to transfer, but there are hints out there that he is interested in transferring and SLU is one of the programs that has his interest.  He was a highly recruited kid out of high school, but I don't think SLU ever recruited him.  He isn't a local kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

so you agree he doesnt play a "4"?  and actually on defense more times than not, goodwin would end up guarding a true power forward on the other team.   most instances, the other team was playing 4 out as well and not utilizing 2 bigs.   

Posters really get hung up on the position numbers don’t they. Goodwin guarded one of the opponent’s better players. Thatch guarded one of the opponent’s better players.  College basketball long ago left the 1 to 5 model. How many college teams even list a center on their roster?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Because the kid hasn't announced he is transferring and his team won't be finished with their season for a while.  He could end up deciding not to transfer, but there are hints out there that he is interested in transferring and SLU is one of the programs that has his interest.  He was a highly recruited kid out of high school, but I don't think SLU ever recruited him.  He isn't a local kid.

Does he go to either: NC state, mizzou, kstate, or vcu?  otherwise im out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, brianstl said:

There are better options SLU will have for a shooter than McKissic if SLU decides to go that route.  Don't want to mentions names because this kid hasn't announced he is transferring yet, but if you look in the right places you can get idea of who might be thinking about transferring to SLU.

Hellems? Mckissic shoots 42%. There are really not a ton of options better than that. I can only think of one former local player that is similar to those numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Posters really get hung up on the position numbers don’t they. Goodwin guarded one of the opponent’s better players. Thatch guarded one of the opponent’s better players.  College basketball long ago left the 1 to 5 model. How many college teams even list a center on their roster?

It’s actually still fairly common vernacular in basketball. There are 5 players on the floor. Easier to just label them 1-5 than to assign labels like “center” or “power forward” which may not accurately describe their role. I can promise you that coaches still use the # system to refer to the various roles on the court. It could be as simple as “we switch everything 1-4” or “3 always takes the ball out after a made basket by the other team”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AnkielBreakers said:

Hellems? Mckissic shoots 42%. There are really not a ton of options better than that. I can only think of one former local player that is similar to those numbers.

I think there will be many options for the three scholarships and especially for a ball-handling, shooting guard/wing.  There will be well over a thousand transfers, grad transfers, and extra year eligible players available. Seems the NCAA will make most, if not all, immediately eligible. 

SLU has strong core with at least two starting spots up for grabs.  Okoro, Perkins and Collins are an enticing threesome for a top-notch player to join.  It will be neat to sort out and monitor the transfers who might have a desire to get to the Missouri/Illinois region.  Thinking there will be some good ones in addition to Mckissic if he chooses to transfer.

Mckissic seems like a good player, at the UMKC level, but here's hoping Ford can entice an Okoro level player or two that wants to join a winning group with a chance to "dance".  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NH said:

It’s actually still fairly common vernacular in basketball. There are 5 players on the floor. Easier to just label them 1-5 than to assign labels like “center” or “power forward” which may not accurately describe their role. I can promise you that coaches still use the # system to refer to the various roles on the court. It could be as simple as “we switch everything 1-4” or “3 always takes the ball out after a made basket by the other team”

 

Okay, only because you say so.  Label them as you want. 

So when Bell replaced Jimerson in our starting five, I guess Bell was our '3'.   Or was Jimerson our '5' in the original lineup and Bell took his place?

We have no centers listed on the roster just guards and forwards.  So I guess, well, maybe it was Jimerson?  Russell? We had to have at least one, right?

Or maybe it doesn't matter what you call them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Okay, only because you say so.  Label them as you want. 

So when Bell replaced Jimerson in our starting five, I guess Bell was our '3'.   Or was Jimerson our '5' in the original lineup and Bell took his place?

We have no centers listed on the roster just guards and forwards.  So I guess, well, maybe it was Jimerson?  Russell? We had to have at least one, right?

Or maybe it doesn't matter what you call them?

Bell was a 5, has was a 4. Some of y'all really argue about the weirdest sh!t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:

Okay, only because you say so.  Label them as you want. 

So when Bell replaced Jimerson in our starting five, I guess Bell was our '3'.   Or was Jimerson our '5' in the original lineup and Bell took his place?

We have no centers listed on the roster just guards and forwards.  So I guess, well, maybe it was Jimerson?  Russell? We had to have at least one, right?

Or maybe it doesn't matter what you call them?

No, to quote Coach Ford, we moved French to the 4 and put Bell in at the 5. This is exactly why I’m saying if Perkins plays the 4 it leaves room for 3 other perimeter players.  I feel like this is basic basketball terminology and it’s confusing me why you are against it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...