SJU Transfer Targets/Possibilities

[paultzman]

Regarding Mathis, someone smarter than me in hoops world felt SJU uptempo style should be more appealing to him than Clemson, which essentially plays rather bland approach like Rutgers. Of course other factors can come into play.

 

[SJUFAN2]

Zach B

Seeing a lot of debate from St. John's fans about Montez Mathis, the former Rutgers guard who is considering #sjubb. Feel he is similar to Greg Williams Jr., talented player who has yet to break out and realize his full potential. Also think perfect for the system. Elite athlete.

We'll see if Mathis picks St. John's. But I think this would be a good get for the Johnnies. Would be another guy, much like Aaron Wheeler and some of the freshmen coming in, that really fit the style. #sjubb

Love that Zach spends his days reading our debates.  At least someone is getting paid to read through all this shit.../media/kunena/emoticons/silly.png   

 

[Knight]

When can we expect to hear about Champ?

 

[MakingPlays]

If the staff likes Montez and thinks he can make the team better then I'm all for it. 

Seems to me that it would be valuable to either start a 6'4" lockdown defender next to Posh or to bring that guy in situationally if you think Stef Smith gives you more offense. 

I suspect that when you factor in size and defense, Posh+Smith+Mathis is probably as good or better than Posh+Dunn+Cole, say. 

I also think that posters have a tendency to look at each player as 'it" while the staff looks at each player as part of a whole.  And they have room for more players. 

I think you nailed it with that.  I don't see how anybody can be against adding a guy that will overall improve your teams defense.  These days everybody just goes straight to looking at 3 point %.  You can be the worst defender in the world and average 3 turnovers a game, but if guys see 40% by that 3 point %, they are going to be like I want that guy.

 

[redken]

Mathis might not be an upgrade over Greg. However, he might be an upgrade over Dunn.

Now that being said, I agree we still need an extra shooter. 

Forget the "extra" -- we need a shooter, period ... especially if Julian doesn't return.
 

 

[MakingPlays]

Amaseinyourface post=432042

NCJohnnie post=432014Sorry, but numbers mean something and Mathis' 3 year numbers are not impressive, including the fact that he has never managed to earn more than 23 mpg for Rutgers, not exactly a national powerhouse. He has never shot 40% overall, 30% from 3 or 70% from the free throw line which frankly speaks for itself. I don't care how good his defense is, he would not be an upgrade from Greg. Good to be realistic as opposed to pollyanish.2821.238.329.757.42.80.80.30.72.41.18.33122.638.329.766.13.51.20.11.01.91.07.43122.937.623.955.62.91.10.20.71.81.38.5Good to be realistic 

There's a kid named Manuale Watkins, who started on a 26 win CMA team (that team won a tournament game), going into his senior season he averaged 2.2 PPG, Shot 0% from 3 (yes that's correct), and 47% from the free throw line in 20 MPG.  When he checked out you noticed the difference, he was the leader of that defense and they were really good on defense when he was in the game and it made a world of difference, he is an all time fan favorite now, and  now does some broadcasting for the Razorbacks.  So, before you guys are so quick to dismiss defensive players and say you don't care how good their defense is do some research on the impact defensive minded guys can make on a team, you don't have to every guard on your team shooting 40% from 3 to be a good team.  And to finish Manuale's story, he ended up working on his game going into his senior season, and went from a 0% 3 point shooter to a 46% 3 point shooter (small sample size) but nonetheless that just shows you can't dismiss a player because his shooting numbers aren't great, if he does other things really well.

[URL]https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/manuale-watkins-1.html[/URL]

Making plays, he was a career 53% fg shooter. Mathis is at 38% through 3 years. Not dismissing your post as not having merit, but you put too many non shooters around posh and I think it really limits his potential.  Also worth noting, Watkins has a career 2:1 Assist:To ration while Mathis’ is negative. Not remembering him play, was he more of a PG or a SG? Cause one position usually needs to shoot it better than the other. Mathis is definitely not a pg. 

You can NEVER have too many guys who can shoot the ball. On the contrary, if you have two guys who can’t, that might be one too many. JMHO

I love CMA, he’s got my full support. Was there ever a time you followed him where you thought his players lack of shooting cost you a good season?

He averaged 2.2 PPG lol.  He didn't shoot the ball at all.  He was nonexistent on offense and made a huge impact on the game.  That's my whole point,  everybody is getting caught up in the "Oh he can't shoot" you don't have to all 5 scorers on the court to be a successful team, that's why there are role players.

You figure Posh, Smith, Champ, and Soriano are starters.  All 4 of those guys are double digit scorers.  Smith and Champ are probably going to be close to 40% 3 point shooters, Posh from the end of the season looks like he's going to be a mid 30's 3 point shooter, so you have shooters on the court, you don't have to have 5 three point specialist on the court to be a good, last year is a good example, the starting lineup for most of the first part of the year was Posh, Williams, Cole, Champ, and Moore.  All 5 guys could shoot the 3 ball, and they didn't make the tournament their struggles were on the defensive end, obviously the staff noticed that and going out to make improvements on that end.  You add a guy like Mathias to the lineup that comes in with a defensive mindset, that's more than fine, I'm pretty sure their recruiting pitch to him is to come in and be a defensive guy, not a double digit scorer.  If he takes 5 shots a game and misses all 5 of those shots, but he is key in stopping 6 shots on the the defensive end, that's a net positive to what he brings to the table.  

And to answer your other question no, his teams can always score, that's never been an issue, his teams are always going to averaged 75+ PPG, just by the way the play and getting so many possessions.  The seasons where he didn't make the tournament have either been rebuilding years, or years where he didn't have any depth and they struggled playing good defensively for 40 minutes.

 

There is no doubt there are ways to contribute beyond scoring, but you are talking about a role player.  A guy who isn't on the floor in the last 10 min of a close game because he can't execute in the half court by being a threat to make an open 3 or by getting to the FT line and converting.   Is that how you see him fitting in here?   As a utility guy?   Like Rutherford was last year?   
Or do you expect him to play 25min?   I'm guessing he expects that.

Look, I trust the staff.  If they think his defense is invaluable, or that they can coach him up to 35% as an outside shooter and 70% at the stripe, then go get him.   He'll be a great fit.   But if I'm coach I'd be very clear about whats expected of him.   If he's shooting 29% & 55% when we hit the conference schedule in January, he's going to lose minutes.  This kid (and Wusu) should spend the next 6 months shooting FT's and 3's until they can't lift their arms anymore.  

Thank goodness your not the coach.  Every kid that doesn't shoot 40% from the 3 and 70% from the line wouldn't ever look to come here.  You'd have a team full of Earlington's and William's that play hard every other game and just focus on having good shooting numbers.  

 

[Amaseinyourface]

If the staff likes Montez and thinks he can make the team better then I'm all for it. 

Seems to me that it would be valuable to either start a 6'4" lockdown defender next to Posh or to bring that guy in situationally if you think Stef Smith gives you more offense. 

I suspect that when you factor in size and defense, Posh+Smith+Mathis is probably as good or better than Posh+Dunn+Cole, say. 

I also think that posters have a tendency to look at each player as 'it" while the staff looks at each player as part of a whole.  And they have room for more players. 

I think you nailed it with that.  I don't see how anybody can be against adding a guy that will overall improve your teams defense.  These days everybody just goes straight to looking at 3 point %.  You can be the worst defender in the world and average 3 turnovers a game, but if guys see 40% by that 3 point %, they are going to be like I want that guy.

You’re last point makes it really easy to have a reasonable discussion with you . Hyperbole much?

 

[lawmanfan]

I think you nailed it with that.  I don't see how anybody can be against adding a guy that will overall improve your teams defense.  These days everybody just goes straight to looking at 3 point %.  You can be the worst defender in the world and average 3 turnovers a game, but if guys see 40% by that 3 point %, they are going to be like I want that guy.

You’re last point makes it really easy to have a reasonable discussion with you . Hyperbole much?

Maybe a little but he ain't wrong. It's easy for fans to look at stats, but the impact of size and defense is hard to measure and as a result gets vastly overlooked. Except when you eatch your team get manhandled by a bigger more physical opponent.

 

[Amaseinyourface]

I think you nailed it with that.  I don't see how anybody can be against adding a guy that will overall improve your teams defense.  These days everybody just goes straight to looking at 3 point %.  You can be the worst defender in the world and average 3 turnovers a game, but if guys see 40% by that 3 point %, they are going to be like I want that guy.

You’re last point makes it really easy to have a reasonable discussion with you . Hyperbole much?

Maybe a little but he ain't wrong. It's easy for fans to look at stats, but the impact of size and defense is hard to measure and as a result gets vastly overlooked. Except when you eatch your team get manhandled by a bigger more physical opponent.

There hasn’t been a single post even close to suggesting someone would be fine adding an awful defender who turns the ball over just cause he can shoot. We are talking about reasonable differences between players and style.

 

[NCJohnnie]

I don't think many on here are saying don't bring in Mathis, who is good defensively and fits coach's style, people are just pointing out that he has demonstrated over three years he is not a particularly good shooter and we still need a couple of those. 
Three of our four leading three points shooters have left and the fourth is testing the draft waters; we have only brought in one guy so far (Smith) who has demonstrated consistent outside shooting ability. I have faith we will add at least one more proven shooter in time so not criticizing staff in any way. 

 

[SJUFAN2]

If the staff likes Montez and thinks he can make the team better then I'm all for it. 

Seems to me that it would be valuable to either start a 6'4" lockdown defender next to Posh or to bring that guy in situationally if you think Stef Smith gives you more offense. 

I suspect that when you factor in size and defense, Posh+Smith+Mathis is probably as good or better than Posh+Dunn+Cole, say. 

I also think that posters have a tendency to look at each player as 'it" while the staff looks at each player as part of a whole.  And they have room for more players. 

I think you nailed it with that.  I don't see how anybody can be against adding a guy that will overall improve your teams defense.  These days everybody just goes straight to looking at 3 point %.  You can be the worst defender in the world and average 3 turnovers a game, but if guys see 40% by that 3 point %, they are going to be like I want that guy.

 

[MakingPlays]

If the staff likes Montez and thinks he can make the team better then I'm all for it. 

Seems to me that it would be valuable to either start a 6'4" lockdown defender next to Posh or to bring that guy in situationally if you think Stef Smith gives you more offense. 

I suspect that when you factor in size and defense, Posh+Smith+Mathis is probably as good or better than Posh+Dunn+Cole, say. 

I also think that posters have a tendency to look at each player as 'it" while the staff looks at each player as part of a whole.  And they have room for more players. 

I think you nailed it with that.  I don't see how anybody can be against adding a guy that will overall improve your teams defense.  These days everybody just goes straight to looking at 3 point %.  You can be the worst defender in the world and average 3 turnovers a game, but if guys see 40% by that 3 point %, they are going to be like I want that guy.

You’re last point makes it really easy to have a reasonable discussion with you . Hyperbole much?

I mean your arguing about potentially adding a guy that's a former 4 star, started on a Big 10 tournament team, an elite athlete, and from what 3 media guys have said makes our back court really good defensively with him and Posh, but all your focused on is the guy is not a great shooter, like his numbers can't improve.  Williams was a great shooter and is going to ULL,  Earlington shot 40% from 3 and he's going to San Diego, so obviously high major coaches across the country see other value in players other than just their shooting numbers.  

 

[SJUFAN2]

Thank goodness your not the coach.  Every kid that doesn't shoot 40% from the 3 and 70% from the line wouldn't ever look to come here.  You'd have a team full of Earlington's and William's that play hard every other game and just focus on having good shooting numbers.  

Where did I say 40+% from deep was a requirement?   Where did I say that 3point shooting was the end all be all?   Where did I say that kids can't improve?   You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

 

[Amaseinyourface]

1. Making Plays post=432081

If the staff likes Montez and thinks he can make the team better then I'm all for it. 

Seems to me that it would be valuable to either start a 6'4" lockdown defender next to Posh or to bring that guy in situationally if you think Stef Smith gives you more offense. 

I suspect that when you factor in size and defense, Posh+Smith+Mathis is probably as good or better than Posh+Dunn+Cole, say. 

I also think that posters have a tendency to look at each player as 'it" while the staff looks at each player as part of a whole.  And they have room for more players. 

I think you nailed it with that.  I don't see how anybody can be against adding a guy that will overall improve your teams defense.  These days everybody just goes straight to looking at 3 point %.  You can be the worst defender in the world and average 3 turnovers a game, but if guys see 40% by that 3 point %, they are going to be like I want that guy.

You’re last point makes it really easy to have a reasonable discussion with you . Hyperbole much?

I mean your arguing about potentially adding a guy that's a former 4 star, started on a Big 10 tournament team, an elite athlete, and from what 3 media guys have said makes our back court really good defensively with him and Posh, but all your focused on is the guy is not a great shooter, like his numbers can't improve.  Williams was a great shooter and is going to ULL,  Earlington shot 40% from 3 and he's going to San Diego, so obviously high major coaches across the country see other value in players other than just their shooting numbers.  

It’s discussion not arguing. I would prefer we add shooters. And no, if the shooter is an awful defender then I wouldn’t want him. Neither would CMA. But good defender and good shooter are not mutually exclusive. Greg certainly wasn’t a poor defender.

 

[weathermannyc]

Quote:   if the shooter is an awful defender then I wouldn’t want him. Neither would CMA.


Except this already happened.  His name was Vince Cole.

 

[bamafan]

One reason I like the possibility of bringing in MM is that I for one have admittedly lowered my expectation of the caliber of player we can bring in. We are not going to get "close to the perfect player" ie. good defender, shooter, distributor. In case we haven't noticed we are not close to bringing in the 15-18 point scorers from the Power 6 level schools. Those players are going to the programs with recent track records of more success than we have enjoyed and I'm OK with that as we seem to be building towards having that type of successful program. If we are looking to bring in 2 more guards and we do bring in MM let the other guard be more of the shooter type.

 

[paultzman]

I don't think many on here are saying don't bring in Mathis, who is good defensively and fits coach's style, people are just pointing out that he has demonstrated over three years he is not a particularly good shooter and we still need a couple of those. 
Three of our four leading three points shooters have left and the fourth is testing the draft waters; we have only brought in one guy so far (Smith) who has demonstrated consistent outside shooting ability. I have faith we will add at least one more proven shooter in time so not criticizing staff in any way. 

 

NCJohnnie,  ever a voice of reason

 

[MakingPlays]

Thank goodness your not the coach.  Every kid that doesn't shoot 40% from the 3 and 70% from the line wouldn't ever look to come here.  You'd have a team full of Earlington's and William's that play hard every other game and just focus on having good shooting numbers.  

Where did I say 40+% from deep was a requirement?   Where did I say that 3point shooting was the end all be all?   Where did I say that kids can't improve?   You are barking up the wrong tree.


 

LOL, you literally posted, if a kid didn't meet certain shooting % requirements, you would tell him he's not getting minutes.  What coach tells a kid that?  You telling a kid that is the definition of I only care about how well you shoot the ball.  I was being funny with the 40% or higher, but you made it clear if a kid isn't shooting the ball to a certain standard, he ain't playing much if he plays for you. 

 

[SJUFAN2]

If the staff likes Montez and thinks he can make the team better then I'm all for it. 

Seems to me that it would be valuable to either start a 6'4" lockdown defender next to Posh or to bring that guy in situationally if you think Stef Smith gives you more offense. 

I suspect that when you factor in size and defense, Posh+Smith+Mathis is probably as good or better than Posh+Dunn+Cole, say. 

I also think that posters have a tendency to look at each player as 'it" while the staff looks at each player as part of a whole.  And they have room for more players. 

I think you nailed it with that.  I don't see how anybody can be against adding a guy that will overall improve your teams defense.  These days everybody just goes straight to looking at 3 point %.  You can be the worst defender in the world and average 3 turnovers a game, but if guys see 40% by that 3 point %, they are going to be like I want that guy.

 

[Amaseinyourface]

Quote:   if the shooter is an awful defender then I wouldn’t want him. Neither would CMA.


Except this already happened.  His name was Vince Cole.

Not about to defend him as a defender. Certainly in our system he was not up to par. And I think the hope for him was to more than just a shooter.