Point guard

[quote="redken" post=361005][quote="Logen" post=361002][quote="redken" post=361000][quote="AlBovino" post=360995] ... And wisdom to know the difference. Would be nice if some fans could deal with reality ...[/quote]
No reflection on Anderson, but the difference is we now have a lone, less-than-stellar PG who's never played day-in-day-out at the Big East level, and a possible backup in Williams, who's very talented but who's not a PG (something you don't become overnight) and who, God forgive!, might have chronic back problems. So unless the Dunn decision is reversed on appeal -- very unlikely given it's the NCAA -- it'll be amazing if we're not in the cellar at season's end ... regardless of inspirational poems.[/quote]

So suggesting people see the team play before jumping off the bridge is an “inspirational poem”? Give me a break. I realize you guys are only “fans” but thank god the team and coaches are not going to write the season off before a game is played.[/quote]
I fully expect this team to be well-coached and give 100% on both ends of the court, and to hopefully see some of the younger players like Roberts and Williams get better and establish themselves as BE players, but PG is generally considered the most important position in college basketball -- something I certainly agree with -- and unfortunately we have a big fat hole there. That may not be inspirational, but it's a fact. That said, I've been rooting hard for this team since the days of Ellis and Loughery, and will continue to do so regardless of its record.[/quote]

Again, I admire your ability to KNOW where we have “a big fat hole” before a game is even played. Also admirable you will continue to root even though evidently you already have convinced yourself of the outcome of the season. I love sports for the simple reason that no one can KNOW anything until the games are played. Our last three NCAA teams did not actually have a “point guard”. We have a very experienced head coach who has been through a thing or two and a very impressive hard working staff. We have two potentially very good to great college players, one of whom I posted last year should have been the “point forward” because Ponds was not a “point guard”: not a knock on him, he wasn’t one anymore than Hardy or Greene were. I am not here to say we are going to be great or even good, not offering any “inspirational poems” but merely saying, let’s see some games. As I have posted before; two legitimate, unselfish offensive threats, coupled with hard defensive play can go a long way. Let’s find out.......................
 
[quote="Fred Solomon" post=361006]Didn’t we just beat a top 100 Tournament bound team without Steere and Dunn?Doesnt sound like imminent disaster to me. I was pretty impressed actually.[/quote]

No actually
We beat a team that made the tournament last year. Returned 3 starters. And was picked to finish 7th in the AAC.

Beating Temple is a helluva lot better than losing to URI but lets not let some facts get in the way of a good story
 
[quote="Moose" post=361018][quote="Fred Solomon" post=361006]Didn’t we just beat a top 100 Tournament bound team without Steere and Dunn?Doesnt sound like imminent disaster to me. I was pretty impressed actually.[/quote]

No actually
We beat a team that made the tournament last year. Returned 3 starters. And was picked to finish 7th in the AAC.

Beating Temple is a helluva lot better than losing to URI but lets not let some facts get in the way of a good story[/quote]

A tourny team returning 3 starters including their best player actually sounds better to me ;)
 
[quote="Amaseinyourface" post=361020][quote="Moose" post=361018][quote="Fred Solomon" post=361006]Didn’t we just beat a top 100 Tournament bound team without Steere and Dunn?Doesnt sound like imminent disaster to me. I was pretty impressed actually.[/quote]

No actually
We beat a team that made the tournament last year. Returned 3 starters. And was picked to finish 7th in the AAC.

Beating Temple is a helluva lot better than losing to URI but lets not let some facts get in the way of a good story[/quote]

A tourny team returning 3 starters including their best player actually sounds better to me ;)[/quote]

I'm not trying to be negative.
But they were picked to finish 7th.
7 teams aren't dancing from the AAC.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Moose" post=361023][quote="Amaseinyourface" post=361020][quote="Moose" post=361018][quote="Fred Solomon" post=361006]Didn’t we just beat a top 100 Tournament bound team without Steere and Dunn?Doesnt sound like imminent disaster to me. I was pretty impressed actually.[/quote]

No actually
We beat a team that made the tournament last year. Returned 3 starters. And was picked to finish 7th in the AAC.

Beating Temple is a helluva lot better than losing to URI but lets not let some facts get in the way of a good story[/quote]

A tourny team returning 3 starters including their best player actually sounds better to me ;)[/quote]

I'm not trying to be negative.
But they were picked to finish 7th.
7 teams aren't dancing from the AAC.[/quote]
So what it's a preseason prediction.
 
I keep reading here that Cole is a very good player, let’s give him a chance. I really dont care if he’s a scholarship player or not, he can be coached up as well. I’ve seen lots of duds come through here the last few years who were so called scholarship players ,who were complete failures. You mean to tell me he can’t press and play defense because he’s not a Scholly player? Cmon now!
 
No way to spin this. It hurts losing two PGs. Injuries are part of the game, and in college, so is eligibility.

This didn't figure to be a tourney team year, so the only real thing in jeopardy is the (overblown) record of 15 straight .500 or better seasons for CMA. I'm sure he cares much more about building a winning program than a rather obscure achievement

I'm really anxious to see his brand of basketball. In your face defense at 110% effort can be an equalizer in some games, and anyone can be whipped into their best shape and play hard nosed defense.

I didn't have high hopes for this season, and while ncaa injury and NCAA denial hurts, the only concern I have is that our games are watchable. We'll see.
 
Overblown and obscure stat :blink:

Yeah being linked in the same category as Roy Williams, Tom Izzo and Mark Few is definitely overblown.
 
[quote="Fred Solomon" post=361040]I keep reading here that Cole is a very good player, let’s give him a chance. I really dont care if he’s a scholarship player or not, he can be coached up as well. I’ve seen lots of duds come through here the last few years who were so called scholarship players ,who were complete failures. You mean to tell me he can’t press and play defense because he’s not a Scholly player? Cmon now![/quote]

Where are you reading this exactly?
 
[quote="Moose" post=361043]Overblown and obscure stat :blink:

Yeah being linked in the same category as Roy Williams, Tom Izzo and Mark Few is definitely overblown.[/quote]
and it's 17 straight seasons ;) although 18 is looking iffy right now.
 
At the time it would have looked crazy, but bringing in both McGriff and Brooklyn Collegiate's Glen Anderson would be looking pretty good right now.
 
[quote="Moose" post=361043]Overblown and obscure stat :blink:

Yeah being linked in the same category as Roy Williams, Tom Izzo and Mark Few is definitely overblown.[/quote]

In an age where you play 12 or more OOC games, most teams schedule patsies in such a way that anything more than 1-2 losses OOC is a huge disappointment.

Now if you had 15 straight conferences seasons of .500 or better, that's something. Considering that Few plays in a much weaker conference than Izzo or Williams, even Few's winning record not as impressive as Williams.

Conceivably you can have a string of consecutive winning seasons overall while never having a winning season in conference. That's the point.
 
I disagree about Few. Taking a program from a mid major conference and turning them into a perennial. powerhouse is impressive.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=361049][quote="Moose" post=361043]Overblown and obscure stat :blink:

Yeah being linked in the same category as Roy Williams, Tom Izzo and Mark Few is definitely overblown.[/quote]

In an age where you play 12 or more OOC games, most teams schedule patsies in such a way that anything more than 1-2 losses OOC is a huge disappointment.

Now if you had 15 straight conferences seasons of .500 or better, that's something. Considering that Few plays in a much weaker conference than Izzo or Williams, even Few's winning record not as impressive as Williams.

Conceivably you can have a string of consecutive winning seasons overall while never having a winning season in conference. That's the point.[/quote]

Spin it however you want. The record speaks for itself. He's not a game or two above 500 either.

He's done it and so have those other 3. You can throw in Coach K but that year he was on medical leave those losses hit his record.
 
[quote="Moose" post=361051][quote="Beast of the East" post=361049][quote="Moose" post=361043]Overblown and obscure stat :blink:

Yeah being linked in the same category as Roy Williams, Tom Izzo and Mark Few is definitely overblown.[/quote]

In an age where you play 12 or more OOC games, most teams schedule patsies in such a way that anything more than 1-2 losses OOC is a huge disappointment.

Now if you had 15 straight conferences seasons of .500 or better, that's something. Considering that Few plays in a much weaker conference than Izzo or Williams, even Few's winning record not as impressive as Williams.

Conceivably you can have a string of consecutive winning seasons overall while never having a winning season in conference. That's the point.[/quote]

Spin it however you want. The record speaks for itself. He's not a game or two above 500 either.

He's done it and so have those other 3. You can throw in Coach K but that year he was on medical leave those losses hit his record.[/quote]

It's not a spin. In fact, you are usually the negative one, and here you are being positive (I think), though argumentative.

The point is that in 17 seasons, he had 4 losing records in conference, and another 3 at .500. So when it counts, there were just 10 seasons out of 17 with a winning record in conference.

Mark Few's has had 20 straight seasons of winning records in conference. His conference record is an astounding 276.30.

Roy WIlliams has coached 31 seasons, 2. sub .500 in conference and 1 .500. Overall, has had 28 winning seasons in conference out of 31.

Tom Izzo in 24 seasons has never had a losing record in conference. He has had 5 .500 records in conference.
 
Oh

68%
54%
55%

Those are Anderson's in conference winning percentages CUSA, B12, SEC.

Also believe there was a stat that our Hog friends can likely confirm but Anderson had the most SEC conference wins besides Calipari for some set number of years.
 
[quote="Moose" post=361044][quote="Fred Solomon" post=361040]I keep reading here that Cole is a very good player, let’s give him a chance. I really dont care if he’s a scholarship player or not, he can be coached up as well...[/quote]

Where are you reading this exactly?[/quote]

I said one time that I thought he was better than a walk on. I expected to take some flack for that statement but only got one response which was along the lines of "meh" Perhaps everything I say is just so impressive, that it reverberates with Fred many, many times... ;) yes that must be it.
 
[quote="Beast of the East" post=361052][quote="Moose" post=361051][quote="Beast of the East" post=361049][quote="Moose" post=361043]Overblown and obscure stat :blink:

Yeah being linked in the same category as Roy Williams, Tom Izzo and Mark Few is definitely overblown.[/quote]

In an age where you play 12 or more OOC games, most teams schedule patsies in such a way that anything more than 1-2 losses OOC is a huge disappointment.

Now if you had 15 straight conferences seasons of .500 or better, that's something. Considering that Few plays in a much weaker conference than Izzo or Williams, even Few's winning record not as impressive as Williams.

Conceivably you can have a string of consecutive winning seasons overall while never having a winning season in conference. That's the point.[/quote]

Spin it however you want. The record speaks for itself. He's not a game or two above 500 either.

He's done it and so have those other 3. You can throw in Coach K but that year he was on medical leave those losses hit his record.[/quote]

It's not a spin. In fact, you are usually the negative one, and here you are being positive (I think), though argumentative.

The point is that in 17 seasons, he had 4 losing records in conference, and another 3 at .500. So when it counts, there were just 10 seasons out of 17 with a winning record in conference.

Mark Few's has had 20 straight seasons of winning records in conference. His conference record is an astounding 276.30.

Roy WIlliams has coached 31 seasons, 2. sub .500 in conference and 1 .500. Overall, has had 28 winning seasons in conference out of 31.

Tom Izzo in 24 seasons has never had a losing record in conference. He has had 5 .500 records in conference.[/quote]

Calling me argumentative is real hoot.

You want to go pull up his SOS now too then?
He isn't Tom Izzo, he isn't Roy Williams, he's not Coach K and heck he isn't Mark Few.

But he's the best COACH St. John's has had in a VERY VERY long time.

He is in elite company and you are chalking it up to a statistical anamoly. I have a feeling if someone else had such a record there would be calls for a statue.

You also put down 500 record in conference. If you are 500 in a power conference you are dancing the majority of the time. He was 14 games above 500 in the SEC! Last SJU coach that much above 500 in conference was Jarvis (technically)
 
Last edited:
[quote="Logen" post=361017][quote="redken" post=361005][quote="Logen" post=361002][quote="redken" post=361000][quote="AlBovino" post=360995] ... And wisdom to know the difference. Would be nice if some fans could deal with reality ...[/quote]
No reflection on Anderson, but the difference is we now have a lone, less-than-stellar PG who's never played day-in-day-out at the Big East level, and a possible backup in Williams, who's very talented but who's not a PG (something you don't become overnight) and who, God forgive!, might have chronic back problems. So unless the Dunn decision is reversed on appeal -- very unlikely given it's the NCAA -- it'll be amazing if we're not in the cellar at season's end ... regardless of inspirational poems.[/quote]

So suggesting people see the team play before jumping off the bridge is an “inspirational poem”? Give me a break. I realize you guys are only “fans” but thank god the team and coaches are not going to write the season off before a game is played.[/quote]
I fully expect this team to be well-coached and give 100% on both ends of the court, and to hopefully see some of the younger players like Roberts and Williams get better and establish themselves as BE players, but PG is generally considered the most important position in college basketball -- something I certainly agree with -- and unfortunately we have a big fat hole there. That may not be inspirational, but it's a fact. That said, I've been rooting hard for this team since the days of Ellis and Loughery, and will continue to do so regardless of its record.[/quote]

Again, I admire your ability to KNOW where we have “a big fat hole” before a game is even played. Also admirable you will continue to root even though evidently you already have convinced yourself of the outcome of the season. I love sports for the simple reason that no one can KNOW anything until the games are played. Our last three NCAA teams did not actually have a “point guard”. We have a very experienced head coach who has been through a thing or two and a very impressive hard working staff. We have two potentially very good to great college players, one of whom I posted last year should have been the “point forward” because Ponds was not a “point guard”: not a knock on him, he wasn’t one anymore than Hardy or Greene were. I am not here to say we are going to be great or even good, not offering any “inspirational poems” but merely saying, let’s see some games. As I have posted before; two legitimate, unselfish offensive threats coupled with hard defensive play can go a long way. Let’s find out.......................[/quote]
Logen, I hope you prove me wrong. I'll be very happy if you do. (By the way, I don't see any conflict with rooting for a favorite team, knowing its outlook isn't very favorable. It's what a true fan does: accepts things as they are and hopes for the better.)
 
Last edited:
[quote="Moose" post=361056][quote="Beast of the East" post=361052][quote="Moose" post=361051][quote="Beast of the East" post=361049][quote="Moose" post=361043]Overblown and obscure stat :blink:

Yeah being linked in the same category as Roy Williams, Tom Izzo and Mark Few is definitely overblown.[/quote]

In an age where you play 12 or more OOC games, most teams schedule patsies in such a way that anything more than 1-2 losses OOC is a huge disappointment.

Now if you had 15 straight conferences seasons of .500 or better, that's something. Considering that Few plays in a much weaker conference than Izzo or Williams, even Few's winning record not as impressive as Williams.

Conceivably you can have a string of consecutive winning seasons overall while never having a winning season in conference. That's the point.[/quote]

Spin it however you want. The record speaks for itself. He's not a game or two above 500 either.

He's done it and so have those other 3. You can throw in Coach K but that year he was on medical leave those losses hit his record.[/quote]

It's not a spin. In fact, you are usually the negative one, and here you are being positive (I think), though argumentative.

The point is that in 17 seasons, he had 4 losing records in conference, and another 3 at .500. So when it counts, there were just 10 seasons out of 17 with a winning record in conference.

Mark Few's has had 20 straight seasons of winning records in conference. His conference record is an astounding 276.30.

Roy WIlliams has coached 31 seasons, 2. sub .500 in conference and 1 .500. Overall, has had 28 winning seasons in conference out of 31.

Tom Izzo in 24 seasons has never had a losing record in conference. He has had 5 .500 records in conference.[/quote]

Calling me argumentative is real hoot.

You want to go pull up his SOS now too then?
He isn't Tom Izzo, he isn't Roy Williams, he's not Coach K and heck he isn't Mark Few.

But he's the best COACH St. John's has had in a VERY VERY long time.

He is in elite company and you are chalking it up to a statistical anamoly. I have a feeling if someone else had such a record there would be calls for a statue.

You also put down 500 record in conference. If you are 500 in a power conference you are dancing the majority of the time. He was 14 games above 500 in the SEC! Last SJU coach that much above 500 in conference was Jarvis (technically)[/quote]

Agree that he is the best coach in a very long time. No argument here whatsoever.

But if we are talking about winning, to me at least, winning in conference is what counts. .500 in conference is by definition middle of the pack, and not outstanding. There is a reason Arkansas terminated him after 2 sub .500 years in conference. It's a nice record (consecutive winning seasons) but to me at least only means that he balanced rosters in such a way not to have a total rebuild in front of him. Almost for sure, this season will be his toughest to sustain that string.
 
Back
Top