kwyjibo Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 ". . .Stemler, who is being heavily recruited by Nebraska, Marquette, St. Louis University and George Washington, said he will decide on what school he will attend early next month.. . ." http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/sports/14322667.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUDrew Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Roy, still think we should wait around more that mythical power forward before we get Stemler? Why would a scoring handicapped team need a 6'8 sharp-shooter anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 i have said on more than one occasion that i would take him as drejaj's replacement in a second. however, if we are not going to get a true pf and if the plan is to play stemler at pf, that is what i raise my eyebrows at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 but what makes you think we are not still trying to get a pf. What does whether or not LS signs with us have to do with our recruitment of other options at the pf spot. Now if we don't sign another pf ... are we better off without LS Roy ... your reasoning doesn't make sense. We want LS ... PERIOD Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I think Roy's reasoning makes sense if the Bills are looking at Stemler to fill to the 4, otherwise, i agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 where i guess we disagree is that it sounds like you and drew want the shooter stemler as 1st priority. my 1st priority is at least one solid pf if not two and then stemler. i believe the guards/wings we have are good enough. yes stemler is an upgrade. however i do not think our big scenario outside of ian is adequate and we cannot go to the next level unless that is corrected first. however if you give us a first class pf and dont get stemler, i think we can still be better than we were this past season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I don't want him as the 1st priority ... I want a 4. It's just that signing Stemler has nothing to do with whether or not we sign a 4. I don't get why it has to be prioritized. It's almost like you are saying if we don't sign a 4 don't sign Stemler. What we need to do is sign Stemler if we can and work as hard as we can at signing at least one 4. Then we can figure out where to play them. If we don't sign a 4 ... then Stemler may play some 4 ... (of course if he signs with us). Again saying I don't want Stemler for the 4 ... doesn't make sense. It's not like they are going to quit recruiting 4's if he signs. If we don't sign a 4 ... we do the best we can with what we have. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 i agree the two events are independent of each other. my point is that those thinking stemler is the problem solver are wrong imo. if there is a one player problem solver(likely it is not a one player solution), it would be the pf assuming that pf is effective imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I don't think there is one person on the board that thinks Stemler is the problem solver at the 4. All who think LS is the problem solver at the 4 ... please stand up. I will say I think we are better with IV, LS, LM, KL, and TL than we were with IV, LM, AD, KL, and TL. Substantially better ... but not nearly as good as we could be with IV, a productive 4, LS, KL, and TL. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUDrew Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Roy, I follow your train of thought, but consider this, if we don't get Stemler but get a PF aren't we still in a very tough spot? This past year teams collapsed their zones forcing us to beat them from the outside. It goes without saying that we had trouble doing that. Now the second best shooter on the team (Drejaj) is gone. What do we do if Kevin is cold or guarded by a great defender? I know it sounds overly simple but you have to be able to score. If we don't have another shooter and teams pack in a 2-3, which they will, we will be in big trouble regardless of whether we sign a PF or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 The chances of us getting a power forward that will be terrific right now are nil. We need one for down the road to be sure. Stemmler as a flat out shooter would healp us a good deal even if he can't defend the four spot. We can't defend the opposing teams power forward any worse with him than we did without him. At least there won't be as many missed offensive rebounds off of really bad three point shots..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardball Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Some posters can be ridiculous in their reasoning. The two recruiting situations are mutually exclusive of each other. SLU needs more shooters and SLU need’s a power forward. Waiting on a PF while LS goes by the wayside is a bad decision but one that SLU seems to make more often or than not. Once again SLU finds themselves in the fight of their lives for a player they could have had wrapped up a long time ago. Just think if we could have wrapped up LS way back when we could be 100% focused on getting the much-needed PF. That gentlemen would be a plan. It makes me sick when I hear people say our guards are good enough. SLU has the same guards that could only score in the 30's against St. Joe twice last year. We should never feel we are good enough at any position. Our goal should be to get better every year. That is why I found BS promise to DM to not recruit anyone else for his position questionable to say the least. Where on earth could DM have received such a promise other than SLU? The plan should always be to get better players every year not promising players that we won’t even try. SLU will not get any better by making promises to players but rather getting players that understand and are willing to accept the fact they have to compete every single year for their playing time. Adding more offensive minded players will only make our current guards and whole team better. It really is a simple concept but one that our staff fails to comprehend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStorm Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Roy...What is your ideal 4 man in the A-10. Didnt we have that this season? What do you think coach S. plans to do with the next starting 4 man? You want a pf who probably beats and bangs on the low block and from your posts who can defend the low block and rebound. First I dont think defense was slu's problem this past season (season ending whopping 30+ points). Unfortunatly the team who puts the ball in the basket more (offense) wins the game. Second, what do you do with our ideal 4 man on offense: Post him up on the opposite block from I.V. and jam things and pack it in so I.V. is always double and triple teamed, then he kicks to the people who cant shoot. Look at slu's personel, wouldnt stemler be a better fit than a pf (low post banger). How people think he is a 3 is just plain stupid. He's a 4 plain and simple so live with it. If he is anything else in your system you just as well play him at point guard. I see you are high on the guy from Iowa Western. In looking at a comparison stemler out scored him and they were almost even on rebounds, so does it come down to defense with you. After doing my homework I have found that no player he played against this year outscored him. If every player at slu could just do that they win. Third, I don't know what games you saw where there were 6'4 pf, I saw plenty of 6'8 and 6'9 posts who are being recruited by programs far better then the teams in the "Mighty" A-10. Maybe since he is not good enough for the A-10, he should just go to one of the lesser known conferences like hm, BIG EAST, BIG TWELVE, OR MAYBE THE BIG TEN!!!Remember that Bradley thought he could do a lot as well and look what he accomplished when given a chance...1st Team All-American. When was the last time slu had an All-American or even signed one can someone please tell me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 All I know is our shooting sucked in many games last year...games we scored in the 30's and 40's must be eliminated if we are ever going to be serious about getting into the Big Dance. We need another shooter and Lance is a pure shooter...I certainly hope that we can sign him regardless if we sign the elusive 4. The recruiting clock is ticking so we are going to have to wait and see what happens, but I would be disappointed if Lance is not wearing a Billiken uniform next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 We need Lance ... but the ideal situation would be to get another 4 and to play LS at the 3. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Was Brown? a JUCO All American 2nd team center a few years ago? FWIW, Stemler's defense is similar to Dave Luechtafeld(sic) a decade or more ago. If we play Stemler at PF for major minutes, Ian will foul out of over half the games we play. There is a huge difference between recruiting a starting PF vs recruiting a situational spot up shooter, which Roy has alluded to many times. Stemler is capable of averaging 12 ppg, but if he plays PF all the time on the floor, he will give up 18 - 22 ppg. Anyone who advertises him as a PF in the B10 or Big East is gaga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 This guy would be a good get and a sure fire starter at the 3. This would help our offense as KL will not be the only perimiter threat we have. I'm a little discouraged we did not have any names on the line yesterday, ie a legit or even semi legit #4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 "Stemler is capable of averaging 12 ppg, but if he plays PF all the time on the floor, he will give up 18 - 22 ppg" And you base this on what? He doesn't have a history of giving up 18-22 ppg to the guy he's defending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardball Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Are we the only team in the nation scoring 30 and 40 points in a game and still wondering about taking a player based on whether a he can play defense or not. Defense is not the problem. The object is to score more ponts that the other team. Really the only issue is how you get this accomplished. I am pretty sure we will not hold people to the 20's and 30's therefore we better get shooters that will help us score in the 60 and 70's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 >Are we the only team in the nation scoring 30 and 40 points >in a game and still wondering about taking a player based on >whether a he can play defense or not. Defense is not the >problem. The object is to score more ponts that the other >team. Really the only issue is how you get this >accomplished. I am pretty sure we will not hold people to >the 20's and 30's therefore we better get shooters that will >help us score in the 60 and 70's. I agree completely. I think Roy is the only one who has a hang-up about what position he should play and whether he can play defense. I think the coaching staff views him as our top priority. A 1st team all-juco player will certainly improve this team regardless of what position he plays. Soderberg will always get his teams to play defense so I'm not worried about that. I'm more worried about our lack of scoring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheltiedave Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Well, now that it has been mentioned(the lack of scoring,) has anyone been to the scrimmages, and how is Tommie's midrange jumper looking? I'd peg development of his blow past the man, stop and pop as high on the totem pole of needs as getting Stemler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 Nobody is wondering if we should take him. What are you reading. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NashvilleBilliken Posted April 13, 2006 Share Posted April 13, 2006 It's only been a month. I'd be very suprised to see any development by our players at this point. I think it would be better gauged to wait till mid summer to start asking those questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BradFan Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 One thing I find most amazing is that so many people here seem to know so much about Lance. How many have seen him play? How many times? Hard to believe we have such good scouts on the board tracking the JUCO world. I would put my trust in the staff. I also recall Brad's belief that it is a lot easier to teach people to play defense than to teach them to score. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTIME Posted April 14, 2006 Share Posted April 14, 2006 > I don't think there is one person on the board that thinks >Stemler is the problem solver at the 4. > > All who think LS is the problem solver at the 4 ... please >stand up. > > I will say I think we are better with IV, LS, LM, KL, and >TL than we were with IV, LM, AD, KL, and TL. Substantially >better ... but not nearly as good as we could be with IV, a >productive 4, LS, KL, and TL. > > > Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. >Waldman I'd like to see a starting lineup of IV,LS, DM, KL, TL. Go inside and if they double, bury 3 after 3 after 3 until Ian gets single coverage. Time for some potent offense. Burn em up!! 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.