Scrivener Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 ...against Eastern Illinois, and practically won the game single-handedly. I'm personally grateful for that particular scoring blitz, because I'd invited an EIU alum to the game...and I would have been in for a long ride home, had Drew not spurred the team on to victory that evening. Of course, I wouldn't object to having many more pleasant memories -- of victories against more significant foes -- ignited by the next generation of Billiken players. Starting, perhaps, with a W against Arizona next season? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 ah, a beautiful woman is both a blessing and a curse BLaw. But maybe all of life is that way in any event. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 I think you missed Basketbill's timeline, T. They're *recruited* when they're 16 or 17 and make their *decisions* often as early as their junior years in high school. And that is, in fact, a scary thought given the effect those decisions can have on a coach's career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 broy, since you are one of the all-time overachievers you should not be questioning billiken law's abilities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 Nothing against Drew personally. Seems like a decent kid. It's not his fault he was recruited he and spent 5 seasons. It's the fault of Spoon. That's all water under the bridge. I look forward to Brad upgrading the talent, size and athleticism of future Billiken teams. It seems like he's off to a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 nm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 i dont know what spoon was thinking obviously, but i am guessing he saw drew developing into a stand up shooter that could knock down the open three as larry hughes, justin love or maurice jeffers drew double teams on drives to the basket. the fault was that hughes didnt stick around and love and jeffers were never sufficiently replaced putting role player drew into a position of being expected to be more than a role player. imo, as weak as you may see drew, and while i cant argue with the stats, in fact, drew probably over achieved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 ahhh, tseugnekillib giving an indirect compliment to the lovely anita i see. i will pass that on! :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 I hope to god we don't have any over acheivers on the current squad. Over acheivement like that we can do without, even from roleplayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 Ideally, our role players should be freshman and sophomores, who by the time they are juniors are capable of being bona fide starters. NOT 5th year seniors who are still role players. I think the program needs higher aspirations than this. The days of guys Varner, Simmons, Braun and Robertson who are still role players as seniors are hopefully over. I think Brad is heading in the right direction and will recruit players with more upside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 rich, i hope every player we have is an overachiever that always plays all out. i think you again are talking about a player that is less than idea god given talent that is labeled an overachiever. you really dont mean to say you would take jason edwin types all the time do you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 Simple math though: What is 110% of nothing? Is 75% of something better than 110% of nothing? I don't think Edwin was coasting at 75% and I do think he could've been a special player for us if he'd got his head screwed on straight. Deiner would've been Deiner playing with Hughes, Love, or Perry. He was physically slow, with a slow shot release. We aren't talking Hull after Oats left, to use a hockey analogy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted June 6, 2003 Share Posted June 6, 2003 The "underachieving" Edwin was far better than the "over-achieving" Diener. Edwin was the second leading scorer on the team as a true sophomore averaging nearly 10 ppg. In Diener's second season, he wa sitting the bench as a redshirt freshman. Edwin was getting better and would have again been the second leading scorer last year, averaging in double digits. By contrast, as a 5th year senior, Diener was a one-dimensional role player. Of course, Edwin's biggest problem was in the classroom, but in a basketball sense, Edwin was clearly the better player to Diener. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 actually rich, i thought drew looked less out of place last year with coach soderberg's offense than he did with coach romar's. and i believe that spoon's offense resembled soderberg's far more than romar's. i.e. spoon had the right role picked out for drew. as i said though, that plan was not going to work for romar's ucla offense. romar's plan required athletic wings to succeed imo. the motion offense succeeded because perry drew the defense and thus left open looks for sloan and diener and drejaj. as the year went on, the offense and the other players kept getting better and better as they learned what could be accomplished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 ace if you truly believe that, then apparently you have never been in a team sport situation whereby there was an extremely talented player on the team that typically "didnt come to play" night in and night out. if you had, you would know the team chemistry problems that the half hearted effort will create for a team even though his less than all out effort might be better than johnny tryhard. as stated about a million times now, no argument from me that edwin was a super talent. imo, he had nba potential talent. but it was a waste and a team divider scenario. if you ever went to a practice and saw the extra running and conditioning the team had to do because of jason, maybe you would understand my perspective more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 >actually rich, i thought drew looked less out of place last >year with coach soderberg's offense than he did with coach >romar's. and i believe that spoon's offense resembled >soderberg's far more than romar's. i.e. spoon had the right >role picked out for drew. as i said though, that plan was >not going to work for romar's ucla offense. romar's plan >required athletic wings to succeed imo. the motion offense >succeeded because perry drew the defense and thus left open >looks for sloan and diener and drejaj. as the year went on, >the offense and the other players kept getting better and >better as they learned what could be accomplished. Good analysis Roy. I think your point about Diener feeding off of Perry (i.e., Marque getting the open looks Diener needs to get off his shot) is a telling one. Hopefully, this year we shoot more consistently from the perimeter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 I noticed "recruiting" as I was reading through this series of posts the second time to see what the responses were, but when I read it the first time and responded to it, I missed that word. I guess I was tired then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 I have to agree with Roy. I hope that Darren Clarke is an "overachiever" and plays a lot as a freshman. I think that Anthony Drejaj may have already "overachieved" yet could still blossom, ala Maurice Jeffers. I agree with the concept that we would like all SLU players to be athletically gifted. However, it would also be nice if the players that come to SLU also work hard to fulfill their potential and bust their tails to EXTEND that potential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 coach soderberg has said on a number of ocassions that he will take a basketball player over a superior athlete anytime. he wants guards and wings that can shoot, dribble and pass. and it is obvious a player wont play if they wont play defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACE Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 If Coach wants wings who can shoot, dribble and pass, that's all the more reason it's a blessing Drew is gone. The numbers don't lie. Edwin was a far superior player to Diener in every aspect, including shooting - look at the 3-point shooting percentages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 >If Coach wants wings who can shoot, dribble and pass, that's >all the more reason it's a blessing Drew is gone. > >The numbers don't lie. Edwin was a far superior player to >Diener in every aspect, including shooting - look at the >3-point shooting percentages. Are you being sarcastic? 2000-01 - Diener shot 39.3%; Edwin 44.4% 2001-02 - Diener shot 42.3%; Edwin 37.9% Considering that each played nearly equal minutes per game (though not necessarily games) each of those two seasons together and that they both played more in 2002 than 2001, the numbers are virtually equal. How do these statistics support your claim that Jason Edwin was *far* superior to Drew Diener in shooting? (This is not a comment, in agreement or disagreement, with any other claim or insinuation in your post.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 thanks thicks! the fact is, without question, anyone with an eye for athletic ability of any degree can/could see that jason edwin was completely superior athletically to drew. i dont think drew will even argue that point. yet the facts also will bear out that their statistics are pretty comparable. they shouldnt have been. that has been the just of my argument from day one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 but Drew was a dissappointment as a billiken. Edwin may have been a bigger dissappointment in that we didn't have the chance to see him as an upperclassman. Both are gone. Hopefully they and there ilk will never again sully the West Pine (or Biondidome) hardwoods. To call Drew an overacheiver is to defile the John Reddens and Troy Robinsons of the world. Don't do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted June 10, 2003 Share Posted June 10, 2003 imo, drew accomplished more as a billiken than troy robertson ever did. so i dont see how that muddies the memory of robertson. 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.