SJU Transfer Targets/Possibilities

[JohnnyFan]

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. 

Best post of the thread.   Well, it nails how I feel at least.

 

[redken]

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.  

As proven over and over again, being a 4-star player in high school  is no guarantee of making an impact on the collegiate level. And as for playing for a Big 10 team, as another poster pointed out, he lost his starting job midway through the season, when conference play had kicked in -- and no one's explained why. 

 

 

[SJUFAN2]

lawmanfan post=432076

Amaseinyourface post=432075

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.

Yes.  "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."
But how many close games did we lose last year because we couldn't execute down the stretch in aa half court set as well as our opponent?  5? 6?  
Building a team is a mix of various skill sets.  CMA knows what he's doing.  If he thinks the kid has room for growth on the offensive end, then sign him up.   If he doesn't, and the kid is fine being a defensive specialist, then sign him up also.  

 

[SJUFAN2]

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. 

Pinzon is a very good shooter. 

 

[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.

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.  

Does being a former 4* actually carry any weight with you after 3 years of DI college ball?  Because I have a laundry list of 4 & 5 star players at this program who never lived up to their HS rankings.

 

 

[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.  

As proven over and over again, being a 4-star player in high school  is no guarantee of making an impact on the collegiate level. And as for playing for a Big 10 team, as another poster pointed out, he lost his starting job midway through the season, when conference play had kicked in -- and no one's explained why. 


 

One of the starters from the previous year was injured and came back is one reason, but from reading what Rutgers people were saying on their board he was struggling and other guys were playing better. 


 

 

[SJU85]

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. 

Pinzon is a very good shooter. 

Based on what evidence?  The scouting reports will tell you that is an area he has to work on.

 

[MCNPA]

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.  

As proven over and over again, being a 4-star player in high school  is no guarantee of making an impact on the collegiate level. And as for playing for a Big 10 team, as another poster pointed out, he lost his starting job midway through the season, when conference play had kicked in -- and no one's explained why. 

The Rutgers fans don’t know why he lost minutes either.  He was scoring double digits almost every game vs Big 10 opponents. Pikiell took a different direction for whatever reason.  His 3pt % is not what many want but he also plays in a very different half-court style at RU.  He also can really score despite his percentages. 

 

[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.  

Does being a former 4* actually carry any weight with you after 3 years of DI college ball?  Because I have a laundry list of 4 & 5 star players at this program who never lived up to their HS rankings.


 

I mean I see a ton of guys excited about Aiden, because he was a 4/5 star out of high school.  But, no his 4-star ranking doesn't matter, I agree with you there, once you step on campus your star rating no longer matters.  My point in mentioning that and him starting on a big 10 team is to point out he's obviously not a scrub. 

I think a more accurate assessment on his current skill level are the teams that are offering him now, which right now is two P6 schools.  Now if his two final schools were San Diego and ULL, I could understand the concerns about his skill level   I'm j/king.  

 

[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.




 

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. 

You might want to re-read what I've been posting.   Either you missed my point(s) entirely, or you don't care and want to  re-imagine them as something else.  Either way you are creating a strawman argument for you to attack...
- I've said there is a role for a defensive specialist. Only that if that's all he's got to his game, its not a huge role.  
- I've never said that a kid who isn't a good 3pt shooter couldn't play on my team, or have a big role  on that team.
- I've said that if you can't shoot from the outside in that role, then you need to be able to attack the basket and convert Free Throws.  If you can't do either you won't be on the court in crunch time because the other team can play 5 on 4 defensively.   Case in point:  Posh Alexander.    Shoots 3's like MM but is nearly 20 points better at the charity stripe.   If your misinterpretation of my comments were true, I'd be anti-posh.    I'm not.   I love that kid and have said one day we will look back at his commitment to our program as the turning point on our long, arduous road back to relevance.
 

 

[SJUFAN2]

One of the starters from the previous year was injured and came back is one reason, but from reading what Rutgers people were saying on their board he was struggling and other guys were playing better. 

 

Two points:  
1) So you are saying he's a top shelf defender who lost his job on a tournament team because someone was a better shooter/scorer.  lol
2) After losing that job he decided to transfer.   What happens if the same thing plays out here? 

 

[SJUFAN2]

NCJohnnie post=432078I 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. 

Pinzon is a very good shooter. 

Based on what evidence?  The scouting reports will tell you that is an area he has to work on.

He is a 3/4* kid in HS.   Every area of his game needs to be worked on.   As for evidence, I watched one of his highlight videos and he made every single shot.  That's outstanding.  /media/kunena/emoticons/sideways.png

 

[MakingPlays]

You might want to re-read what I've been posting.   Either you missed my point(s) entirely, or you don't care and want to  re-imagine them as something else.  Either way you are creating a strawman argument for you to attack...
- I've said there is not a role for a defensive specialist. Only that if that's all he's got to his game, its not a huge role.  
- I've never said that a kid who isn't a good 3pt shooter couldn't play on my team, or have a big role  on that team.
- I've said that if you can't shoot from the outside in that role, then you need to be able to attack the basket and convert Free Throws.  If you can't do either you won't be on the court in crunch time because the other team can play 5 on 4 defensively.   Case in point:  Posh Alexander.    Shoots 3's like MM but is nearly 20 points better at the charity stripe.   If your misinterpretation of my comments were true, I'd be anti-posh.    I'm not.   I love that kid and have said one day we will look back at his commitment to our program as the turning point on our long, arduous road back to relevance.

 

This is what you said.... This is a direct quote.

"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."  

As I said, your basing your playing time based on a kid's shooting percentage, I stated that no coach is telling a player that.  If a kid is killing it on the defensive end and helping the team win games, but he is struggling shooting a coach isn't going to tell him he's losing minutes, because his shooting numbers don't meet a certain standard.  I read exactly what you wrote and understood what you said.  If you didn't mean it that way, you need to do a better job explaining exactly what you mean, don't try to make it like I'm reading something else.

 

[NCJohnnie]

Paultzman wrote:
NCJohnnie,  ever a voice of reason.

I'm going to frame this and show it to my wife, lol./media/kunena/emoticons/tongue.png

 

[OLV72]

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. 

Pinzon is a very good shooter. 

Based on what evidence?  The scouting reports will tell you that is an area he has to work on.

Wonder what the scouting reports said about Earlington or Champagnie.  Did anyone project them as outside threats?

They sure did develop year over year. 

Pinzon sure looks promising on his youtube highlights where every shot is make.
 

 

[MakingPlays]

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.

The last part was a joke making fun of how people these days really just care about 3 point %.  And I'm not just saying here, Since the Steph Curry era, a lot of fans at every level just go to looking at that 3 point percentage, and that's all they focus on.  People tend to forget defensive specialist help teams win as well... just look at Draymond Green, dude is one of the worst shooters in the league and he was a very important part in Golden State's success, a really good defender can make a huge difference on a team.

 

[MCNPA]

Mike Anderson just put up the storm clouds and the eyes on Twitter.  Be expecting something soon...

 

[MakingPlays]

Mike Anderson just put up the storm clouds and the eyes on Twitter.  Be expecting something soon...

Maybe it's Alvarez, so we can all get along again /media/kunena/emoticons/wink.png.  

 

[paultzman]

Here we go

 

[MCNPA]

Pretty certain it’s gonna be Montez which I think is a great pickup.  Then we can all re-focus on landing shooters with our last two scholarships.  Lol