@Seton Hall, Sun. Jan. 22, 12 Noon, FS1/570AM

[Section9]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

 

[Section9]

What we need is a center even Jeff Allen would do

Yikes!!!!! :dry:

 

[we are sju]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

Paul is getting upset

 

[beast of the east]

The issue is that I do not think Mullin is playing for this year [...] Once again I think the staff is playing for the future, not for today. It would be easier (today) to run nothing but sets and insist that the ball get passed to where it is supposed to go. But that isn't the game they want to play in the future, so they are living with the growing pains while they try to get this year's team to play next year's (or the year after's) game.

I think the answer to that is of course he's playing the long game. In the first place he said as much when he was hired: that he's looking to get SJU back to where it was - I don't have the inclination to argue about whether Saint John's ever was where he thinks it was - but I take him to mean that when he's through SJU will be a perennial contender in the Big East and more often than not ranked in the top 75 and more often than not a tournament team, with occasional success there: that's what SJU was when Mullin was growing up, under Lou. In the second, Mullin might not know enough about basketball to get Batshit Ahmed the hell out of there but he knows enough to understand that this team as currently constituted is going no where: Lavin having left the cupboard bare they have young guards, a non existent front line, and upper classmen who are, to be charitable, awful. So playing the short game makes no sense and no one but the most delusional of fans thought this team was going anywhere anyway. They're too young and too skinny and have too little experience to contend for anything except a CBI consolation game championship. Finally, there's the system: there is not a successful college basketball coach anywhere who alters his system year to year to accomodate his players. Successful coaches imagine winning systems and implement them and recruit players who fit them. Jim Boeheim is not in the hall of fame because he's a genius and neither are John Calipari and Mike Schreweshrenky. They're in the hall of fame because they concocted diabolical ways of winning and recruited players who were able to thrive within them. I don't know whether Mullin's system - you want to call it Nelly ball, fine, I don't see it as that but whatever - is a winning system, but regardless there has not been enough time to know. Certainly some coaches - like that dope Lavin - concoct harebrained schemes that are destined to failure. But Mullin's system requires not only skilled personnel but maturity: on the offensive end that means knowing when the first good shot is the best shot and on the defensive end that not everything that might get you on Sportcenter is the best play and to play hard nevertheless and none of that is something that is easily taught or learned, especially in half a year. All of it requires talent, sure, but also strength, and mental acuity, and inculcation into a culture and philosophy. And that takes more than 18 months. It might take more than 28 months. And it might not be possible ever. But you either believe in Mullin or not - like the faithful believe in the baby Jesus. Maybe Mullin's a charlatan but I have not seen evidence of that as yet: he's a basketball prodigy. So until he's proven fallible I choose to have faith: when you get down to it that's what trust the process means.

The problem is you can't count on talented kids staying 4 years anymore. .

You can if SJU opens a forensics college.

 

[beast of the east]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

You know this might be a unpopular stance but I do not have the same fond and fuzzy memories of Glover or Billy Singleton that most on here have. I think both those guys, though solid hard working players might have led the nation in getting their shots thrown back at them. Singleton had to pump fake 50 times to get a shot off.

For undersized power forwards give me Ty Grant and Lamont Middleton over those other two guys any day of the week.
BTW I think Marvin Clark can fit that role next year.

"unpopular" in the way that mental retardation is unpopular.

Both were overrated.
Grant and Middleton much better basketball players.

Say what?

List of guys who played the 4 spot during their career here who I have seen play that are better than Glover / Singleton in chronological order:
1. Russell
2. Berry
3. Shelton Jones
4.Jayson Williams-Played 4-Wersdann was 5
5. Roshown Mcleod
6. Ty Grant
7. Lamont Middleton
8. Charles Minlend
9. Ron Artest-Played the 4
10. Lamont Hamilton
11. Mo Harkless
12. Jakar Sampson
13. Dom Pointer
*14. Forgot Brownlee
Somewhere between 15-18 would be Glover, Singleton, Burrell and Jeff Allen

You are probably too young for George Johnson, who was better at the 4 here than any of the above.

 

[Red.Fans]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

Paul is getting upset

Actually I don't disagree with that. Loved those guys but also understand some of the nuances to the game and don't doubt for a second a guy who would bring up Minlend to argue a point wouldn't be critical of him as undersized etc if he were on the current team and I'd be the one defending him - been there, done that.

You make straw men arguments putting up great players versus other great players when any one of those guys with the exception of Jakarr Sampson, would make a big impact on our current roster. The reason I'd exclude him would be that he suffered from the same problems plaguing our current team (immaturity and selfishness primarily) and comparing apples and oranges like talent and physical ability vs being a good basketball player is a waste of time. If you'd rather have Jakarr Sampson on your team over any of the other guys on your long list much less Glover or Singleton you just don't get it. Stat stuffers don't win basketball games consistently in college basketball. Team play does and when you mix great talent with team play you get great results but team comes first and that to me is why college basketball is still interesting. Yeah we need some size but more than that, college basketball teams need to play team ball to win. So a guy can get "paid" but I don't care. Doesn't impress me at all.

I want to see good St John's basketball. The posers and auditioners disgust me and will always appreciate the strong fundamental, smart players way more - especially over the highly gifted guys who are what I refer to as "underwear models." I'll stay interested and hopeful as long as we have effort guys who show pride and gratitude by valuing their minutes and showing they've put in the time.

 

[we are sju]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

Paul is getting upset

Actually I don't disagree with that. Loved those guys but also understand some of the nuances to the game and don't doubt for a second a guy who would bring up Minlend to argue a point wouldn't be critical of him as undersized etc if he were on the current team and I'd be the one defending him - been there, done that.

You make straw men arguments putting up great players versus other great players when any one of those guys with the exception of Jakarr Sampson, would make a big impact on our current roster. The reason I'd exclude him would be that he suffered from the same problems plaguing our current team (immaturity and selfishness primarily) and comparing apples and oranges like talent and physical ability vs being a good basketball player is a waste of time. If you'd rather have Jakarr Sampson on your team over any of the other guys on your long list much less Glover or Singleton you just don't get it. Stat stuffers don't win basketball games consistently in college basketball. Team play does and when you mix great talent with team play you get great results but team comes first and that to me is why college basketball is still interesting. Yeah we need some size but more than that, college basketball teams need to play team ball to win. So a guy can get "paid" but I don't care. Doesn't impress me at all.

I want to see good St John's basketball. The posers and auditioners disgust me and will always appreciate the strong fundamental, smart players way more - especially over the highly gifted guys who are what I refer to as "underwear models." I'll stay interested and hopeful as long as we have effort guys who show pride and gratitude by valuing their minutes and showing they've put in the time.

Actually I think Sampson would help out way more than a Glover or Singleton ever would. We need athletic, skilled guys. Sampson could catch and finish and was a threat. Would be perfect for this team. You can stick a Glover or singleton with him and it would be great, but lot harder to find a Sampson then a Glover or Singleton who are more complimentary players. We need skilled bigs!

 

[Red.Fans]

Actually I think Sampson would help out way more than...

nuff said. we have a fundamental difference of understanding

 

[we are sju]

Actually I think Sampson would help out way more than...

nuff said. we have a fundamental difference of understanding

Listen, I sometimes get sentimental thinking about Willie Glass and Shelton Jones. I think you are getting caught in that. If you get in a time machine and bring 19 year old Singleton here and plop him in this lineup it would have virtually no effect. Again he played on a frontline with Werdann, Williams and Malik Sealy. Put him with our frontline and it would not be a great help.

 

[we are sju]

Billy Singleton's senior year stats:
6.8 ppg
4.7 rebs
40% fg
70% ft

If you remember frosh Shawnelle Scott who I forgot to put on my list of players that were better than him started to take away his minutes towards the end of the year. With Lou Carnesecca coaching!!

 

[monte]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

Paul is getting upset

Actually I don't disagree with that. Loved those guys but also understand some of the nuances to the game and don't doubt for a second a guy who would bring up Minlend to argue a point wouldn't be critical of him as undersized etc if he were on the current team and I'd be the one defending him - been there, done that.

You make straw men arguments putting up great players versus other great players when any one of those guys with the exception of Jakarr Sampson, would make a big impact on our current roster. The reason I'd exclude him would be that he suffered from the same problems plaguing our current team (immaturity and selfishness primarily) and comparing apples and oranges like talent and physical ability vs being a good basketball player is a waste of time. If you'd rather have Jakarr Sampson on your team over any of the other guys on your long list much less Glover or Singleton you just don't get it. Stat stuffers don't win basketball games consistently in college basketball. Team play does and when you mix great talent with team play you get great results but team comes first and that to me is why college basketball is still interesting. Yeah we need some size but more than that, college basketball teams need to play team ball to win. So a guy can get "paid" but I don't care. Doesn't impress me at all.

I want to see good St John's basketball. The posers and auditioners disgust me and will always appreciate the strong fundamental, smart players way more - especially over the highly gifted guys who are what I refer to as "underwear models." I'll stay interested and hopeful as long as we have effort guys who show pride and gratitude by valuing their minutes and showing they've put in the time.

Exactly. That's why I enjoy College and High School basketball so much more than the pros. It has nothing to do with the talent level, and everything to do with teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues/etc.

 

[we are sju]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

Paul is getting upset

Actually I don't disagree with that. Loved those guys but also understand some of the nuances to the game and don't doubt for a second a guy who would bring up Minlend to argue a point wouldn't be critical of him as undersized etc if he were on the current team and I'd be the one defending him - been there, done that.

You make straw men arguments putting up great players versus other great players when any one of those guys with the exception of Jakarr Sampson, would make a big impact on our current roster. The reason I'd exclude him would be that he suffered from the same problems plaguing our current team (immaturity and selfishness primarily) and comparing apples and oranges like talent and physical ability vs being a good basketball player is a waste of time. If you'd rather have Jakarr Sampson on your team over any of the other guys on your long list much less Glover or Singleton you just don't get it. Stat stuffers don't win basketball games consistently in college basketball. Team play does and when you mix great talent with team play you get great results but team comes first and that to me is why college basketball is still interesting. Yeah we need some size but more than that, college basketball teams need to play team ball to win. So a guy can get "paid" but I don't care. Doesn't impress me at all.

I want to see good St John's basketball. The posers and auditioners disgust me and will always appreciate the strong fundamental, smart players way more - especially over the highly gifted guys who are what I refer to as "underwear models." I'll stay interested and hopeful as long as we have effort guys who show pride and gratitude by valuing their minutes and showing they've put in the time.

Exactly. That's why I enjoy College and High School basketball so much more than the pros. It has nothing to do with the talent level, and everything to do with teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues/etc.

You can go to the YMCA and watch 45 year old dentist's with prescription goggles boxing out and setting screens. Even Duke has embraced the horror of high flying 6-8 kids who play on the perimeter and "stat stuff" their way to the pros. Again missing the point. Glover's and Singleton's are nice to have. If we are going to be better we need better talent than that. During any downturn in ST John's basketball I have never once said to myself:Self I sure wish we had Anthony Glover to compliment Geno Lawrence or Frederico Mussini.

Now on Lavin's last team, Glover or Singleton would have been great piece to have.

 

[Class of 72]

Had the last staff done their jobs players like Angel Delgado and Kuran Iverson would have been playing for St. John's if we are all going to go wishful thinking.
Matt and whomever else is recruiting now have not shown any better results with big men thus far.
We may be mentioned with a couple but not nearly enough to give me confidence that the void up front will be filled in time for year three when most fans thought we could be NCAA worthy.
We fired a guy that went to 4 post season tourneys so next year must be a post season year if recruits are to be kept interested.

 

[fun]

Exactly. That's why I enjoy College and High School basketball so much more than the pros. It has nothing to do with the talent level, and everything to do with teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues/etc.

You're overstating your case a little but, right? If it has nothing to do with talent why are the teams that perennially recruit the most talented (or at least highly ranked) players perennial contenders for the NC? Can you point to some teams with untalented players that have competed for a national championship? I can think of a couple teams laden with upper classmen that made Cinderalla runs, but mostly it's dewk and Kentucky and North Carolina and Kansas etc. If team work and unselfishness have everything to do with it how come Pete Carill never made it past the second round of the tournament?

 

[fun]

Actually I think Sampson would help out way more than...

nuff said. we have a fundamental difference of understanding

Listen, I sometimes get sentimental thinking about Willie Glass and Shelton Jones. I think you are getting caught in that. If you get in a time machine and bring 19 year old Singleton here and plop him in this lineup it would have virtually no effect. Again he played on a frontline with Werdann, Williams and Malik Sealy. Put him with our frontline and it would not be a great help.

Billy Singleton > Christian Jones

 

[monte]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

Paul is getting upset

Actually I don't disagree with that. Loved those guys but also understand some of the nuances to the game and don't doubt for a second a guy who would bring up Minlend to argue a point wouldn't be critical of him as undersized etc if he were on the current team and I'd be the one defending him - been there, done that.

You make straw men arguments putting up great players versus other great players when any one of those guys with the exception of Jakarr Sampson, would make a big impact on our current roster. The reason I'd exclude him would be that he suffered from the same problems plaguing our current team (immaturity and selfishness primarily) and comparing apples and oranges like talent and physical ability vs being a good basketball player is a waste of time. If you'd rather have Jakarr Sampson on your team over any of the other guys on your long list much less Glover or Singleton you just don't get it. Stat stuffers don't win basketball games consistently in college basketball. Team play does and when you mix great talent with team play you get great results but team comes first and that to me is why college basketball is still interesting. Yeah we need some size but more than that, college basketball teams need to play team ball to win. So a guy can get "paid" but I don't care. Doesn't impress me at all.

I want to see good St John's basketball. The posers and auditioners disgust me and will always appreciate the strong fundamental, smart players way more - especially over the highly gifted guys who are what I refer to as "underwear models." I'll stay interested and hopeful as long as we have effort guys who show pride and gratitude by valuing their minutes and showing they've put in the time.

Exactly. That's why I enjoy College and High School basketball so much more than the pros. It has nothing to do with the talent level, and everything to do with teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues/etc.

You can go to the YMCA and watch 45 year old dentist's with prescription goggles boxing out and setting screens. Even Duke has embraced the horror of high flying 6-8 kids who play on the perimeter and "stat stuff" their way to the pros. Again missing the point. Glover's and Singleton's are nice to have. If we are going to be better we need better talent than that. During any downturn in ST John's basketball I have never once said to myself:Self I sure wish we had Anthony Glover to compliment Geno Lawrence or Frederico Mussini.

Now on Lavin's last team, Glover or Singleton would have been great piece to have.

Missing what point? I was replying to Paul's post and I'm pretty sure that I got his point. Also not sure that comparing a 45 year old Dentist's rec league game, to a high school or college game, is comparing apples to apples.

 

[we are sju]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

Paul is getting upset

Actually I don't disagree with that. Loved those guys but also understand some of the nuances to the game and don't doubt for a second a guy who would bring up Minlend to argue a point wouldn't be critical of him as undersized etc if he were on the current team and I'd be the one defending him - been there, done that.

You make straw men arguments putting up great players versus other great players when any one of those guys with the exception of Jakarr Sampson, would make a big impact on our current roster. The reason I'd exclude him would be that he suffered from the same problems plaguing our current team (immaturity and selfishness primarily) and comparing apples and oranges like talent and physical ability vs being a good basketball player is a waste of time. If you'd rather have Jakarr Sampson on your team over any of the other guys on your long list much less Glover or Singleton you just don't get it. Stat stuffers don't win basketball games consistently in college basketball. Team play does and when you mix great talent with team play you get great results but team comes first and that to me is why college basketball is still interesting. Yeah we need some size but more than that, college basketball teams need to play team ball to win. So a guy can get "paid" but I don't care. Doesn't impress me at all.

I want to see good St John's basketball. The posers and auditioners disgust me and will always appreciate the strong fundamental, smart players way more - especially over the highly gifted guys who are what I refer to as "underwear models." I'll stay interested and hopeful as long as we have effort guys who show pride and gratitude by valuing their minutes and showing they've put in the time.

Exactly. That's why I enjoy College and High School basketball so much more than the pros. It has nothing to do with the talent level, and everything to do with teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues/etc.

You can go to the YMCA and watch 45 year old dentist's with prescription goggles boxing out and setting screens. Even Duke has embraced the horror of high flying 6-8 kids who play on the perimeter and "stat stuff" their way to the pros. Again missing the point. Glover's and Singleton's are nice to have. If we are going to be better we need better talent than that. During any downturn in ST John's basketball I have never once said to myself:Self I sure wish we had Anthony Glover to compliment Geno Lawrence or Frederico Mussini.

Now on Lavin's last team, Glover or Singleton would have been great piece to have.

Missing what point? I was replying to Paul's post and I'm pretty sure that I got his point. Also not sure that comparing a 45 year old Dentist's rec league game, to a high school or college game, is comparing apples to apples.

You were responding to his response to me. Bottom line is talent wins. And yes if you enjoy "teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues" over talent, rec league might be for you. At least for first two. Might be some union guys in rec league so paying dues thing might apply as well.

 

[monte]

Exactly. That's why I enjoy College and High School basketball so much more than the pros. It has nothing to do with the talent level, and everything to do with teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues/etc.

You're overstating your case a little but, right? If it has nothing to do with talent why are the teams that perennially recruit the most talented (or at least highly ranked) players perennial contenders for the NC? Can you point to some teams with untalented players that have competed for a national championship? I can think of a couple teams laden with upper classmen that made Cinderalla runs, but mostly it's dewk and Kentucky and North Carolina and Kansas etc. If team work and unselfishness have everything to do with it how come Pete Carill never made it past the second round of the tournament?

By "talent level", I meant high school vs. college vs. pros. And of course a team has to have some talent to make a run to the national championship. Any championship in any sport. Pete Carril never had a lot of talent, however his teams were usually fun to watch and somewhat successful. Because his kids knew how to play the game. Its helped that they were smart kids. I'd watch Pete Carrill's teams over any current NBA team in a heartbeat. That's what I'm talking about when I say "it has nothing to do with talent", not the way you incorrectly interpreted it.

 

[we are sju]

Exactly. That's why I enjoy College and High School basketball so much more than the pros. It has nothing to do with the talent level, and everything to do with teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues/etc.

You're overstating your case a little but, right? If it has nothing to do with talent why are the teams that perennially recruit the most talented (or at least highly ranked) players perennial contenders for the NC? Can you point to some teams with untalented players that have competed for a national championship? I can think of a couple teams laden with upper classmen that made Cinderalla runs, but mostly it's dewk and Kentucky and North Carolina and Kansas etc. If team work and unselfishness have everything to do with it how come Pete Carill never made it past the second round of the tournament?

By "talent level", I meant high school vs. college vs. pros. And of course a team has to have some talent to make a run to the national championship. Any championship in any sport. Pete Carril never had a lot of talent, however his teams were usually fun to watch and somewhat successful. Because his kids knew how to play the game. Its helps that they were smart kids. I'd watch Pete Carrill's teams over any current NBA team in a heartbeat. That's what I'm talking about when I say "it has nothing to do with talent", not the way you incorrectly interpreted it.

Actually your statement would make better sense in the pros. All the teams except for the Nets have talent but unless you have one of the 5 best guys, coaching generally makes the difference.

 

[Ray Morgan]

Need to find an Anthony Glover type player. Guy was a beast down low.

The guy was also the black hole down low, he would be double or triple teamed down low, throw a series of head and shoulder fakes and often walk or force the ball up against taller guys, hardly ever kicking it back out. We already have a guy who puts his head down and bull rushes to the basket while defenders collapse on him because they know he's going to try and get his shot regardless.

We need a Charles Minlend or Ty Grant type.

Paul is getting upset

Actually I don't disagree with that. Loved those guys but also understand some of the nuances to the game and don't doubt for a second a guy who would bring up Minlend to argue a point wouldn't be critical of him as undersized etc if he were on the current team and I'd be the one defending him - been there, done that.

You make straw men arguments putting up great players versus other great players when any one of those guys with the exception of Jakarr Sampson, would make a big impact on our current roster. The reason I'd exclude him would be that he suffered from the same problems plaguing our current team (immaturity and selfishness primarily) and comparing apples and oranges like talent and physical ability vs being a good basketball player is a waste of time. If you'd rather have Jakarr Sampson on your team over any of the other guys on your long list much less Glover or Singleton you just don't get it. Stat stuffers don't win basketball games consistently in college basketball. Team play does and when you mix great talent with team play you get great results but team comes first and that to me is why college basketball is still interesting. Yeah we need some size but more than that, college basketball teams need to play team ball to win. So a guy can get "paid" but I don't care. Doesn't impress me at all.

I want to see good St John's basketball. The posers and auditioners disgust me and will always appreciate the strong fundamental, smart players way more - especially over the highly gifted guys who are what I refer to as "underwear models." I'll stay interested and hopeful as long as we have effort guys who show pride and gratitude by valuing their minutes and showing they've put in the time.

Exactly. That's why I enjoy College and High School basketball so much more than the pros. It has nothing to do with the talent level, and everything to do with teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues/etc.

You can go to the YMCA and watch 45 year old dentist's with prescription goggles boxing out and setting screens. Even Duke has embraced the horror of high flying 6-8 kids who play on the perimeter and "stat stuff" their way to the pros. Again missing the point. Glover's and Singleton's are nice to have. If we are going to be better we need better talent than that. During any downturn in ST John's basketball I have never once said to myself:Self I sure wish we had Anthony Glover to compliment Geno Lawrence or Frederico Mussini.

Now on Lavin's last team, Glover or Singleton would have been great piece to have.

Missing what point? I was replying to Paul's post and I'm pretty sure that I got his point. Also not sure that comparing a 45 year old Dentist's rec league game, to a high school or college game, is comparing apples to apples.

You were responding to his response to me. Bottom line is talent wins. And yes if you enjoy "teamwork/unselfishness/paying your dues" over talent, rec league might be for you. At least for first two. Might be some union guys in rec league so paying dues thing might apply as well.

Unlike Paul, I do not feel sick. However, a few more posts on this silliness and I may start puking too.