Draelon Burns press clippings

[3star_recruit]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/prep/dec02/102174.asp

There was no stopping Milwaukee Custer boys basketball player Draelon Burns on Saturday. The junior scored 39 points - 25 in the second half - to lead the Cougars to a 78-73 non-conference victory at Greenfield.

http://www.dukeupdate.com/Rob_C/20030526_TOC.htm

The Milwaukee team had a scoring machine guard named Draelon Burns; if the local coaches don't have him on their speed dial, they need to catch up

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/prep/jul03/159099.asp

Milwaukee Custer senior Draelon Burns made the all-tournament team at the adidas Big Time basketball tournament held last weekend in Las Vegas. Burns, a first-team all-area selection by the Journal Sentinel in 2003, averaged 21.2 points per game for the Runnin' Rebels

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/Prep/mar03/122481.asp

The most drastic enhancement in Burns' play has been the ability to consistently score from 12 to 15 feet from the basket.

"His midrange jump shot has (become) a lot better," Mitchell said. "He's pulling up in the lane, and he can hit the midrange shot, which a lot of kids can't do. That's a hard shot to make."

[Billiken Law]

My friend's kid played on the Runnin Rebles. Will see what he has to say about Burns.

I know Crean had some initial interest in him but this year's class was dedicated to post players (and Crean has gotten a 6-8 PF and a 7 ft. center). There may also be some grade issues with Burns. Unfortunately, that is all too common with MPS kids.

[3star_recruit]

Nothing personal, but could you post WITHOUT mentioning Crean or his recruits? You know how much that irritates Roy :-)

[billiken_roy]

awww, i like crean. besides, i have come to expect the marquette comparison from billiken law. the difference is that law is always respectful of the billikens and it is obvious he has an actual interpersonal relationship with crean which gives us a neat perspective.

[Billiken Law]

Thanks Roy. Let me know when you're coming down to campus area and we'll have a brew or two.

Anyway, the mention of Crean and MU was in response to a thread last week or so where the question was posed as to why the big-time local schools weren't recruiting him. I know MU looked at him and knows he has talent - no denying that. However, he didn't fit what Crean was after (post players) and like I said, there may be grade issues (am checking with some sources on that).

[jjray]

Thanks for the info on Draelon Burns 3Star. If we miss on Liddell (or he has grade issues) and Luke Meyer, Terry Evans seems to be the most gifted wing in the area thereafter. However, given that we have already taken Polk who is recovering from an injury and Evans is even farther behind in his healing process than Polk, it probably is not a great idea to have 2 of our 3 recruits next year having injury question-marks hanging over them. On paper, the Draelon Burns alternative looks intriguing. No one can fault Brad for going out-of-area to get Burns after having already offered the scholarship to two small forwards in the STL metro area.

[Billiken Law]

talked to some people who have seen him and know his game - Burns is definitely not a wing but rather a 2 who is around 6-4. He's very athletic but likes to hang on the perimeter. No reason we couldn't take both Burnes and Liddell/Evans/Meyer.

[Quality Is Job 1]

I consider a "2" (a shooting guard) to be a wing player. Both the "2" and "3" postions are wings, in my opinion. Why do you make a distinction between a "2" and a "wing"?

[billiken_roy]

i agree with thicks. for the most part, offensively, i dont consider a wing and a "2" guard to be different. in the old days, when many teams played 2 guard fronts, that might mean more between a 2 and 3 then, but normally these days you only see 1-3-1 and 1-2-2 or 1-4 offensive sets for the most part. thus those two "wings", which are taking the 2 and 3 spots, pretty much perform the same offensive tasks. the only other thing offensively i can think of is ball handling versus pressure defense. i guess traditionally you would expect that "2" guard to be able to step in and help out with bringing the ball down more. but that wouldnt seem to limit burns to "2" guard then. because that would be saying he CAN handle the ball.

if there is a difference, i would think it would be defensively as you would expect the "3" player to guard the bigger opponent wing and expect some rebounding due to playing under the basket on some of the 2-3 and 2-1-2 defenses. of course you can count on one hand the times soderberg played extensive zone defenses this past year. and if what you are saying is that burns cannot guard that bigger player due to athletic limitations or some other reason, that is surprising considering i see he is listed as 6'4" most places. is he doesnt look like he is physically weak in his pictures. so i am not sure why he would be limited to guarding only the opposing "2".

[tseugnekillib]

my nickel....

I see a 2guard and a 3guard as slightly different players. Let's dream and say the Bills had Perry, Love and Jeffers all available and 100% healthy on the same team.

Perry is forced to play the PG position again. Love, because of his very good 3pt shot would be my 2G and Jeffers, because he was less of an outside threat, but a very good slasher to the bucket would be my SF. Also, I felt Jeffers was stronger and a tad quicker than Love, and thus he could defend a bigger opposing SF better than Love. Love and Jeffers were both very good perimeter rebounders. As the saying goes, if you can successfully guard the other teams SF then that qualifies you to play the 3spot!

[billiken_roy]

tseugnekillib, i like your thoughts, but in your example, with the players used, there is no doubt that credibly all three players have abilities to be able to easily cross over to any of the three positions. true your reasoning makes each better at one spot than another, but still there isnt near the definition of a position difference as there was 10-20 years ago. i think the faster style of play and the greater athleticism of today's players blurs those lines in today's game. the point made by thicks and i is that it is hard to say that a player is only a "2" or a "3" etc in today's world.

[tseugnekillib]

most perimeter players are "combo" players.....1-2, 2-3. Perhaps the cleanest spots are the "true" point guard and the "true" center.

[billiken_roy]

and the pure center is becoming the rarest of all position commodities. no one wants to play with their back to the basket. they all think they can become the next kevin garnett now.

[thetorch]

Here is my criteria for 2 and 3.

A 2 guard is 6'3 or under

A SF at the college level must be at least 6'4 but better if he is 6'5 or 6'6.

There can be variables at play here but like was before if you can guard the 3 you can be the three. Fischer could be a 3 even though he is 6'2, cuz he has the strength to guard a 6'7 guy. But those cases are rare. If a guy like Izik or the tall wings on Marquette or Minnesota were out there I would much prefer my 3 to be at least 6'5. The Protypical 3 for a Billiken would be Jeffers or Roland.

[Quality Is Job 1]

tseugnekillib (and Roy), I was not saying that there's no distinction between the "2" (shooting guard) and "3" (small forward) positions; rather, I was saying that both positions are wing positions. Similarly, the "4" (power forward) and "5" (center) positions are different, but both positions are "bigs."

[tseugnekillib]

if you run a 2-3 offensive set (Creighton has in the past) you do not have two wing players. However, it seems most modern era teams run a PG and two wing perimeter players and two low post players.

Speaking of a 2-3 offensive set, think of Polk and Litsch out front, Ian at the PF, Bryce at C and Liddell/Meyers/??? at the SF.