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

[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.

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

Pet Peeve of mine is someone that takes time out of his busy day watching infomercials to respond to a post they think is stupid with a stupid post of their own. Just me I guess.

 

[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.

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.

Pet Peeve of mine is someone that takes time out of his busy day watching infomercials to respond to a post they think is stupid with a stupid post of their own. Just me I guess.

What I said is team first. There are endless examples of talented teams and players that never won consistently and definitive under-achievers. The point not being either/or but your talent will go as far as you are a good team. I think a big part of the greatness of head coaches like Calipari and K is the mere fact that they get the best talent to buy into a team concept and keep that concept thriving through the season and off-season. When Calipari fielded an NBA roster a few seasons back and was still landing the best recruits, he pretty much said exactly that. That they knew that they could be a one and done star somewhere or get limited stats at KY and they still chose KY.

This applies off the court too. If you've ever managed people then you've likely experienced this. Prima Donas may help you succeed at a project or two but they can kill your team or company in the process and will have zero loyalty so once they find the BBD all the effort you expended on them was just a colossal waste of time and probably took a few years off your life and the other people involved with the stress of dealing with them...

 

[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.

Pet Peeve of mine is someone that takes time out of his busy day watching infomercials to respond to a post they think is stupid with a stupid post of their own. Just me I guess.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can discuss whether we will be a 1 or 2 seed, or who will be the biggest danger along the way to the final four. Then an off topic discussion of, let's say, whether our top 5 team could have beaten our 1985 final four team would be interesting. Or there can be a continuation of the discussion of who would win win a game of horse between Middleton and Springer. Maybe the state of the program is to blame.

 

[westchesterjoe]

The goal of re-establishing a Program for Basketball success is what Mullin was brought in to do. If you look at Top 25 Teams, we see 4 BE Teams, Nova, Butler, Creighton and Xavier. Additionally, there is also Gonzaga and St Mary's who seem to have become regular participants in the Rankings.
.
Providence and G'town have established programs, although the Hoyas look in trouble now.

Why cant we build a Program that can compete with any of the Team's mentioned/? We have in the past .

Lavin, the millionaire , left us Nada! Mullin started with Mussini, 2 5th year players, Amar, And, 2 headaches named Jordan and Obeptka who left and haven't been heard from since. That's why the TV face left us.

Essentially Mullin is still using Band Aids to field a somewhat competitive team, in a League that is merciless !

Lovett and Ponds are real nice Players but, they are Smurfs in a League that has 6'3" guards or bigger on most Teams. Frontcourt? Would any of our Guys make a Starting 5 on any of the teams that have already beaten us? Doubtful.

We need to build a complete Roster of BE level Players that contribute from Day 1, not in 3-4 years or ever. Mullin hasn't been able to do that yet. And, possibly overrated the ability of Sima and Yakwe to develop into contributing players. They won't . Sima saw where he fit, which is no where in this Conference. Yakwe will too.

Right now, Ponds and Lovett's games are too similar and Ponds is a PG getting lost as a SG. How does that get solved?

Our needs are easily identifiable. A true Power Forward and a Shooting Small Forward. A big Man? Sure, but not a player that requires basic Fundamental Skills , like Yakwe or Sima did.

A Malik Sealy would be nice. Maybe a Harkless type that will stay 4 years. Nova wins because , like so many winning programs, they replace their losses every year. we haven't had that luxury . Hart, Brunson, Jenkins, have stepped up to replace Arch, Hilliard, Okefu etc. and, have continued the Nova Winning formula.

Gonzaga, Butler, Creighton, Xavier, St Mary's aren't getting the kids like Kentucky or Duke or Kansas but, they are getting solid 3,4 and sometimes 5 star talent. We haven't gotten that here in a long time. Ponds and Lovett are nice players and if they stay can be the start of rebuilding by the time they finish..

I ask the question, why can't we restore some of the Glory? Mullin will do it but, needs more Ammunition.

 

[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?

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.

Perhaps I misinterpreted or perhaps you were not as clear as you think.

Paul said: I want to see good basketball

To which you replied: exactly, it has nothing to do with the talent level.

Which I took to mean "good basketball ... has nothing to do with the talent level." Thanks for clarifying your meaning, or, if you prefer, my understanding. It will not surprise you to find that I still disagree to an extent, although not with what you find enjoyable obviously. De gustibus est. But good basketball has something to do with the talent level. Not everything, but something. Sure, it's possible that good basketball comprises the Hoosiers paradigm that you all (the royal you all) are so enamored with, which I don't necessarily mean pejoratively: Bobby Knight's teams played that sort of basketball and could be enjoyable to watch. But Bobby Knight recruited talented players and me, I'd much rather watch Isaiah Thomas as a Piston than as a Hoosier. But Kentucky is fun to watch as well, and they play good basketball too. It's just a different kind of good basketball.

Regardless of all that, you (all) are I think going to be disappointed, because Mullin is looking to play an NBA game: players with a high degree of skill playing within a system that maximizes their talent. Pete Carril - a certifiable basketball genius - had to play the system he devised because he could not compete otherwise, because he was unable to recruit the talent to win any other way. If Mullin is unable to recruit competitively he is doomed to failure. So I hope he recruits as many Jakarr Sampsons and Bashir Ahmeds and Marcus Lovetts as possible.

 

[fun]

When Calipari fielded an NBA roster a few seasons back and was still landing the best recruits, he pretty much said exactly that. That they knew that they could be a one and done star somewhere or get limited stats at KY and they still chose KY.

If Kentucky didn't pay its players how many recruits would go somewhere else? Never mind, that's rhetorical, because: most of them.

 

[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.

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

Pet Peeve of mine is someone that takes time out of his busy day watching infomercials to respond to a post they think is stupid with a stupid post of their own. Just me I guess.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can discuss whether we will be a 1 or 2 seed, or who will be the biggest danger along the way to the final four. Then an off topic discussion of, let's say, whether our top 5 team could have beaten our 1985 final four team would be interesting. Or there can be a continuation of the discussion of who would win win a game of horse between Middleton and Springer. Maybe the state of the program is to blame.

I am sure a Fire Mullin thread is not to far away if you prefer that?

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking. Was generally a entertaining line of posts anyway IMO.
Considering we usually stink and are debating whether our coach should be fired or not or what kid is leaving, I found it a nice diversion. I am always happy to take a trip down memory lane about our players. Even two wildly overrated ones.

 

[fun]

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking.

Singleton or Glover would help this team immeasurably. Singleton had hands and would handle the passes that the current bigs flub and despite being a cripple was a ferocious rebounder. And Glover - who I think was underrated, not over rated - would have bitch slapped Delgado back to Puerto Rico or El Salvador or wherever. They were Spartans. Our front line players are barely Amazons.

 

[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.

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.

Pet Peeve of mine is someone that takes time out of his busy day watching infomercials to respond to a post they think is stupid with a stupid post of their own. Just me I guess.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can discuss whether we will be a 1 or 2 seed, or who will be the biggest danger along the way to the final four. Then an off topic discussion of, let's say, whether our top 5 team could have beaten our 1985 final four team would be interesting. Or there can be a continuation of the discussion of who would win win a game of horse between Middleton and Springer. Maybe the state of the program is to blame.

I am sure a Fire Mullin thread is not to far away if you prefer that?

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking. Was generally a entertaining line of posts anyway IMO.
Considering we usually stink and are debating whether our coach should be fired or not or what kid is leaving, I found it a nice diversion. I am always happy to take a trip down memory lane about our players. Even two wildly overrated ones.

Why is it that you assume it's other people's memories that are warped, and not yours?

 

[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.

Pet Peeve of mine is someone that takes time out of his busy day watching infomercials to respond to a post they think is stupid with a stupid post of their own. Just me I guess.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can discuss whether we will be a 1 or 2 seed, or who will be the biggest danger along the way to the final four. Then an off topic discussion of, let's say, whether our top 5 team could have beaten our 1985 final four team would be interesting. Or there can be a continuation of the discussion of who would win win a game of horse between Middleton and Springer. Maybe the state of the program is to blame.

I am sure a Fire Mullin thread is not to far away if you prefer that?

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking. Was generally a entertaining line of posts anyway IMO.
Considering we usually stink and are debating whether our coach should be fired or not or what kid is leaving, I found it a nice diversion. I am always happy to take a trip down memory lane about our players. Even two wildly overrated ones.

Can't fault you for that. If you are St. John's basketball fan, memories are all you have. I left NY years ago, but still can picture myself at Alumni Hall at halftime, on line to pick up a flat coke, a stale pretzel, and a hot dog cooked hours, or perhaps weeks before, wrapped in tin foil. Andrew Zimmern never ate so well.

 

[Class of 72]

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.

Perhaps I misinterpreted or perhaps you were not as clear as you think.

Paul said: I want to see good basketball

To which you replied: exactly, it has nothing to do with the talent level.

Which I took to mean "good basketball ... has nothing to do with the talent level." Thanks for clarifying your meaning, or, if you prefer, my understanding. It will not surprise you to find that I still disagree to an extent, although not with what you find enjoyable obviously. De gustibus est. But good basketball has something to do with the talent level. Not everything, but something. Sure, it's possible that good basketball comprises the Hoosiers paradigm that you all (the royal you all) are so enamored with, which I don't necessarily mean pejoratively: Bobby Knight's teams played that sort of basketball and could be enjoyable to watch. But Bobby Knight recruited talented players and me, I'd much rather watch Isaiah Thomas as a Piston than as a Hoosier. But Kentucky is fun to watch as well, and they play good basketball too. It's just a different kind of good basketball.

Regardless of all that, you (all) are I think going to be disappointed, because Mullin is looking to play an NBA game: players with a high degree of skill playing within a system that maximizes their talent. Pete Carril - a certifiable basketball genius - had to play the system he devised because he could not compete otherwise, because he was unable to recruit the talent to win any other way. If Mullin is unable to recruit competitively he is doomed to failure. So I hope he recruits as many Jakarr Sampsons and Bashir Ahmeds and Marcus Lovetts as possible.

"If Mullin is unable to recruit competitively he is doomed to failure. So I hope he recruits as many Jakarr Sampsons and Bashir Ahmeds and Marcus Lovetts as possible"

THIS is the reason so many fans are on the fence with Mully as "coach".
He is not a Pete Carril who can easily adapt in a college game. He needs studs and right now studs are on the other teams bitch slapping our twiggy front court. Right now the only hope is Marvin Clark at 6'6. So, next year, either Mullin has to learn how to coach to his talent level or suffer another losing season.
The pressure on little Matt to deliver is tremendous. Then again, that is what Slice was hired to do. :huh:

 

[Section3]

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.

Beast

Echoing and amplifying here. . .and not just better, way better.

In my mind, the most under appreciated star I have seen at SJ. His name should have been up on the wall at CA before most of those who are already up there

 

[Ray Morgan]

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.

Perhaps I misinterpreted or perhaps you were not as clear as you think.

Paul said: I want to see good basketball

To which you replied: exactly, it has nothing to do with the talent level.

Which I took to mean "good basketball ... has nothing to do with the talent level." Thanks for clarifying your meaning, or, if you prefer, my understanding. It will not surprise you to find that I still disagree to an extent, although not with what you find enjoyable obviously. De gustibus est. But good basketball has something to do with the talent level. Not everything, but something. Sure, it's possible that good basketball comprises the Hoosiers paradigm that you all (the royal you all) are so enamored with, which I don't necessarily mean pejoratively: Bobby Knight's teams played that sort of basketball and could be enjoyable to watch. But Bobby Knight recruited talented players and me, I'd much rather watch Isaiah Thomas as a Piston than as a Hoosier. But Kentucky is fun to watch as well, and they play good basketball too. It's just a different kind of good basketball.

Regardless of all that, you (all) are I think going to be disappointed, because Mullin is looking to play an NBA game: players with a high degree of skill playing within a system that maximizes their talent. Pete Carril - a certifiable basketball genius - had to play the system he devised because he could not compete otherwise, because he was unable to recruit the talent to win any other way. If Mullin is unable to recruit competitively he is doomed to failure. So I hope he recruits as many Jakarr Sampsons and Bashir Ahmeds and Marcus Lovetts as possible.

"If Mullin is unable to recruit competitively he is doomed to failure. So I hope he recruits as many Jakarr Sampsons and Bashir Ahmeds and Marcus Lovetts as possible"

THIS is the reason so many fans are on the fence with Mully as "coach".
He is not a Pete Carril who can easily adapt in a college game. He needs studs and right now studs are on the other teams bitch slapping our twiggy front court. Right now the only hope is Marvin Clark at 6'6. So, next year, either Mullin has to learn how to coach to his talent level or suffer another losing season.
The pressure on little Matt to deliver is tremendous. Then again, that is what Slice was hired to do. :huh:

Mullin was brought here with the hope that he could recruit studs. Not an easy job, especially since every other division 1 program has the same idea. Stephan A.'s thinking was that Mullin won't pull it off because SJU is a commuter school, limiting Mullin to local kids who, according to Smith, aren't generally interested in staying in NY. I'm just hoping that we won't be looking back in 3 or 4 years, saying that hiring Mullin seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

[Section3]

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.

Perhaps I misinterpreted or perhaps you were not as clear as you think.

Paul said: I want to see good basketball

To which you replied: exactly, it has nothing to do with the talent level.

Which I took to mean "good basketball ... has nothing to do with the talent level." Thanks for clarifying your meaning, or, if you prefer, my understanding. It will not surprise you to find that I still disagree to an extent, although not with what you find enjoyable obviously. De gustibus est. But good basketball has something to do with the talent level. Not everything, but something. Sure, it's possible that good basketball comprises the Hoosiers paradigm that you all (the royal you all) are so enamored with, which I don't necessarily mean pejoratively: Bobby Knight's teams played that sort of basketball and could be enjoyable to watch. But Bobby Knight recruited talented players and me, I'd much rather watch Isaiah Thomas as a Piston than as a Hoosier. But Kentucky is fun to watch as well, and they play good basketball too. It's just a different kind of good basketball.

Regardless of all that, you (all) are I think going to be disappointed, because Mullin is looking to play an NBA game: players with a high degree of skill playing within a system that maximizes their talent. Pete Carril - a certifiable basketball genius - had to play the system he devised because he could not compete otherwise, because he was unable to recruit the talent to win any other way. If Mullin is unable to recruit competitively he is doomed to failure. So I hope he recruits as many Jakarr Sampsons and Bashir Ahmeds and Marcus Lovetts as possible.

"If Mullin is unable to recruit competitively he is doomed to failure. So I hope he recruits as many Jakarr Sampsons and Bashir Ahmeds and Marcus Lovetts as possible"

THIS is the reason so many fans are on the fence with Mully as "coach".
He is not a Pete Carril who can easily adapt in a college game. He needs studs and right now studs are on the other teams bitch slapping our twiggy front court. Right now the only hope is Marvin Clark at 6'6. So, next year, either Mullin has to learn how to coach to his talent level or suffer another losing season.
The pressure on little Matt to deliver is tremendous. Then again, that is what Slice was hired to do. :huh:

Mullin was brought here with the hope that he could recruit studs. Not an easy job, especially since every other division 1 program has the same idea. Stephan A.'s thinking was that Mullin won't pull it off because SJU is a commuter school, limiting Mullin to local kids who, according to Smith, aren't generally interested in staying in NY. I'm just hoping that we won't be looking back in 3 or 4 years, saying that hiring Mullin seemed like a good idea at the time.

Lavin, love him or hate him, proved that SJ can recruit nationally. As much as NYC kids yearn for something other than the concrete jungle, there are those outside NYC for whom the idea of living here for 4 years is attractive.

We just need to find the proper mix and not just rely on NY/NJ.

 

[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.

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

Pet Peeve of mine is someone that takes time out of his busy day watching infomercials to respond to a post they think is stupid with a stupid post of their own. Just me I guess.

I'm looking forward to the day when we can discuss whether we will be a 1 or 2 seed, or who will be the biggest danger along the way to the final four. Then an off topic discussion of, let's say, whether our top 5 team could have beaten our 1985 final four team would be interesting. Or there can be a continuation of the discussion of who would win win a game of horse between Middleton and Springer. Maybe the state of the program is to blame.

I am sure a Fire Mullin thread is not to far away if you prefer that?

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking. Was generally a entertaining line of posts anyway IMO.
Considering we usually stink and are debating whether our coach should be fired or not or what kid is leaving, I found it a nice diversion. I am always happy to take a trip down memory lane about our players. Even two wildly overrated ones.

Why is it that you assume it's other people's memories that are warped, and not yours?

Because 6 points and 4 rebounds is 6 points and 4 rebounds. Too make it more means something other than black and white stats is at work. Those two guys just were never my favorites. As I said I have a soft spot for Glass, Shelton and David Russell and I am sure my memories of them are jaded to the positive side.

 

[we are sju]

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking.

Singleton or Glover would help this team immeasurably. Singleton had hands and would handle the passes that the current bigs flub and despite being a cripple was a ferocious rebounder. And Glover - who I think was underrated, not over rated - would have bitch slapped Delgado back to Puerto Rico or El Salvador or wherever. They were Spartans. Our front line players are barely Amazons.

Terry Bross and Marco Baldi would be 2 of our top 3 front court guys. Yes Glover and Singleton would help but not in a significant wins vs losses sense.

 

[Red.Fans]

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking.

Singleton or Glover would help this team immeasurably. Singleton had hands and would handle the passes that the current bigs flub and despite being a cripple was a ferocious rebounder. And Glover - who I think was underrated, not over rated - would have bitch slapped Delgado back to Puerto Rico or El Salvador or wherever. They were Spartans. Our front line players are barely Amazons.

First of all, if I were to pick out a guy from the past for this team it would not be Singleton, who is in fact one of my favorite past players. You brought his name into the discussion, not me. It wouldn't be him for this team because he didn't run the floor exceptionally well and would not provide the height and interior presence that we need. He did well in LC's half court style because it was smart, controlled basketball and he complimented other good basketball players. But in this fantasy, I'd never worry about him taking vacations mid-game - any game. I'd never doubt that he was working his tail off in practice and in his own time. And without a doubt he'd have the best hands on this current team and when we were in the half court he could catch and finish regardless of who our opponent would be as well as provide offensive rebounding. AND he'd be the only guy on the team boxing out. I'm certain that Lovett and Ponds assist numbers would go up significantly and we'd see a lot of nice interior passing that we only got glimpses of so far after they were fumbled and our passers were reigned in. Their own shooting percentages would increase because having some options on the inside means less pressure on the outside and as a smart, intuitive, team player he'd also be kicking the ball back out to give them good shots. I can't remember the last time I saw a good drive and kick or pass and kick from out guys. We should be doing that all game...

What I would like to see is a smart, physical presence on defense and someone that can catch the ball and finish on offense - in that order of priority.

 

[mjmaherjr]

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking.

Singleton or Glover would help this team immeasurably. Singleton had hands and would handle the passes that the current bigs flub and despite being a cripple was a ferocious rebounder. And Glover - who I think was underrated, not over rated - would have bitch slapped Delgado back to Puerto Rico or El Salvador or wherever. They were Spartans. Our front line players are barely Amazons.

First of all, if I were to pick out a guy from the past for this team it would not be Singleton, who is in fact one of my favorite past players. You brought his name into the discussion, not me. It wouldn't be him for this team because he didn't run the floor exceptionally well and would not provide the height and interior presence that we need. He did well in LC's half court style because it was smart, controlled basketball and he complimented other good basketball players. But in this fantasy, I'd never worry about him taking vacations mid-game - any game. I'd never doubt that he was working his tail off in practice and in his own time. And without a doubt he'd have the best hands on this current team and when we were in the half court he could catch and finish regardless of who our opponent would be as well as provide offensive rebounding. AND he'd be the only guy on the team boxing out. I'm certain that Lovett and Ponds assist numbers would go up significantly and we'd see a lot of nice interior passing that we only got glimpses of so far after they were fumbled and our passers were reigned in. Their own shooting percentages would increase because having some options on the inside means less pressure on the outside and as a smart, intuitive, team player he'd also be kicking the ball back out to give them good shots. I can't remember the last time I saw a good drive and kick or pass and kick from out guys. We should be doing that all game...

What I would like to see is a smart, physical presence on defense and someone that can catch the ball and finish on offense - in that order of priority.

Not sure if you ever saw the post on the jungle but one of their best old-time posters was choz4life who was really active in aau Gauchos and high school ball. He had the best story I ever read and it was about Billy and the first time he saw him play ball and he or one of his friends nicknamed him Slow Mo Mint. He was a big Billy Fan. I wish I could find that post of his on the jungle for those who didnt see it. Was classic Choz

 

[fun]

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking.

Singleton or Glover would help this team immeasurably. Singleton had hands and would handle the passes that the current bigs flub and despite being a cripple was a ferocious rebounder. And Glover - who I think was underrated, not over rated - would have bitch slapped Delgado back to Puerto Rico or El Salvador or wherever. They were Spartans. Our front line players are barely Amazons.

Terry Bross and Marco Baldi would be 2 of our top 3 front court guys. Yes Glover and Singleton would help but not in a significant wins vs losses sense.

If Glover and Singleton wouldn't help then there's no point in bemoaning the loss of Christian Jones, because he wouldn't have helped either, because both those guys were better than him. Except I think he would have. And so do you.

 

[we are sju]

Topic is relevant. One of the Bucknasty's, there are two or three I think said we need a Anthony Glover type. Glover and Singleton's name come up from time to time through the years and time has warped people's memories of them. Never once since those guys left have I wished a similar player was on the current team. Mostly because usually we need much more talented players to be relevant again. Paul was irrationally upset by this line of thinking.

Singleton or Glover would help this team immeasurably. Singleton had hands and would handle the passes that the current bigs flub and despite being a cripple was a ferocious rebounder. And Glover - who I think was underrated, not over rated - would have bitch slapped Delgado back to Puerto Rico or El Salvador or wherever. They were Spartans. Our front line players are barely Amazons.

Terry Bross and Marco Baldi would be 2 of our top 3 front court guys. Yes Glover and Singleton would help but not in a significant wins vs losses sense.

If Glover and Singleton wouldn't help then there's no point in bemoaning the loss of Christian Jones, because he wouldn't have helped either, because both those guys were better than him. Except I think he would have. And so do you.

Yes both of those guys would be our best front court players. Jones would have helped as well And I wasn't disparaging those guys. Helping this team means what 1 or 2 more wins and maybe being overall more competitive in some games? Probably. But my point is if you are going to point out guys from our past that will help the program become consistently competitive, Glover's and Singleton's won't get it done. Those guys were role players who long after they have gone have somehow become more than they were. My point is for us to be better need more Harkless, Sampson, Shelton Jones, Russell types. Get me couple those guys with our guards and now you are talking.

BTW I think Clark next year will be a similar version of Glover