tseugnekillib Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 jjray said....."that must mean we are revoking the scholarship to Maguire".... that my friend was an ignorant comment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Obi will have to really work to change his body; What we saw in ezhibition made me nervous ( worried he would get hurt ) as he could only shoot and run off one leg; Does anyone know if he can practise now? The second game he wisely stayed out of the way of play most of the time. TL does that. DP does that. We have quite a few on the team who stay out of the fray. Do you remember when we had non jump shooters like Bonner and Carlos Skinner who concentrated on rebounding, first? . Bonner added the transition steal and break away fast breaks for real thrills. This team has no alley oop or high pass dunk finishes, either. Maybe it will as TL or KL find someone willing to go to the basket without the ball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmolina Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 > >jmolina said he was 6-8 from the three in the >game he watched on saturday against southeastern. Actually, someone else said that. I said he scored about 30 pts. I wasn't shot charting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 We need two reliable outside shooters, and two big men, to fill these schollies. Dustin is a 6'5" SG, and it sounds like Stemler is a 6'8" SG/SF. One of our largest weaknesses has been a threadbare bench, so whenever we substituted we either lost offense or defense. If we had an authentic outside shooter this year, Ian would be averaging a double double for the season, and shooting 50% from the field. Instead, we are seeing hm going 3/10 from the field, and shooting 15 free throws, in the tough games. A shooter might add 2-5 pts a game on his own, and create more room for a competant center. IMMIC, Robinson/Harris had Claggett, Highmark, H, and Turner capable of popping at any time from beyond the line, so the "big" men never saw a double team, and could coast on the offensive end for good stretches of the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmolina Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 >and it sounds like Stemler is a 6'8" SG/SF. The SWIC website lists him as 6'7". But I think that is a "generous" spot. Mike Strobbe is 6'7" and I've watched him play at McKendree more times than I can recount. No way this kid is as big as Strobbe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 He made those statements before we saw zone defenses three times a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 stemler is closer to 6-6 than 6-8..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 >jjray said....."that must mean we are revoking the >scholarship to Maguire".... > >that my friend was an ignorant comment! I have no problem with the "ignorant comment" statement. The ad hominem part ("don't be an idiot") is not necessary. I think the tone should be to debate each other's comments / words, not the poster as an individual. You cut off my full post above: "If the Bills are really recruiting Stemler then it is as PF. If as a wing, then that must mean we are revoking the scholarship to Maguire." The point I was trying to make is that I don't see how we recruit Stemler as a wing given the Maguire recruitment. We are not going to revoke Maguire's scholarship and we are not going to take two slow, soft wings (who can shoot) in the same class (thus Stemler must be viewed as a PF candidate by Brad). If, in arguing that Stemler must be looked at as a PF, my words did not fully convey that I found the alternative silly, my apologies to whoever it offended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 They are not the same class. Stemler will be a junior and Maquire will be a freshmen. I suspect that Stemler would be more likely to step in and compete as an outside threat from day 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 whichever juco PF we bring in will probably be junior.... and Obi will be a freshman. and if SLU brings in a freshman point guard.....DP will be a junior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Majerus Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 So where is the downside of signing Stemler after McGuire? Do we project 40 minutes for Mac? I like to bring quality players in waves; when our premier 3 shooter goes to the bench, it's nice to have the next guy be a threat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan Alum Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I agree that you can NEVER have enough guys that can score. Plus, with Novak getting 41 versus UConn and Pittsnogles' performances, most recently his 24 from everywhere on the court to help beat 'Nova, makes me anxious to have a guy that big that can knock 'em down consistently from long range. I've seen Stemmler play a couple times and I believe he could help SLU now - he is not skinny by any means. He's been to a few SLU games, also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 >>jjray said....."that must mean we are revoking the >>scholarship to Maguire".... >> >>that my friend was an ignorant comment! > >I have no problem with the "ignorant comment" statement. >The ad hominem part ("don't be an idiot") is not necessary. >I think the tone should be to debate each other's comments / >words, not the poster as an individual. > >You cut off my full post above: "If the Bills are really >recruiting Stemler then it is as PF. If as a wing, then that >must mean we are revoking the scholarship to Maguire." > >The point I was trying to make is that I don't see how we >recruit Stemler as a wing given the Maguire recruitment. We >are not going to revoke Maguire's scholarship and we are not >going to take two slow, soft wings (who can shoot) in the >same class (thus Stemler must be viewed as a PF candidate by >Brad). > >If, in arguing that Stemler must be looked at as a PF, my >words did not fully convey that I found the alternative >silly, my apologies to whoever it offended. Don't worry about it. Guest is a bitter little man. 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.