Best news for the hoops team in......a long time!
Re: i disagree
2002-2003 season to present isn't a very long time. How about you take your screen name into consideration and look back farther. Guards in the MAC are better than the post players...teams in our league are built around guards.commonsense wrote: Players in the NBA who played in the MAC from the 2002-2003 season to present:
Brandon Hunter - PF
Theron Smith - PF
John Edwards - C
Chris Kaman - C
Guards - 0
"To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the project manager, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
Re: i disagree
Nice arbitrary cutoff point.commonsense wrote:"Seriously, the MAC is not known for post players and never really has been. The MAC is known for producing guards..." - Metz
Players in the NBA who played in the MAC from the 2002-2003 season to present:
Brandon Hunter - PF
Theron Smith - PF
John Edwards - C
Chris Kaman - C
Guards - 0
How about Antonio Daniels, Keith McLeod, Bonzi Wells, Earl Boykins, and Ira Newble, etc.
I think your list mostly exemplifies how desperate the NBA is for big men. There have been some good big men in the MAC, as you (and '87 in a historical sense) have pointed out, but oftentimes teams in the MAC have 6'6 guys playing those positions. I still agree with Metz that the strongest positions in the MAC are, year in year out, the guards and Small Forwards.
Re: i disagree
Didn't Ball State's center Lonnie Jones land in the NBA a year or two ago as well? I'm pretty sure he did.commonsense wrote:"Seriously, the MAC is not known for post players and never really has been. The MAC is known for producing guards..." - Metz
Players in the NBA who played in the MAC from the 2002-2003 season to present:
Brandon Hunter - PF
Theron Smith - PF
John Edwards - C
Chris Kaman - C
Guards - 0
GO BG!!!
Kent went with three guards plus Antonio Gates and Nate Gerwig (currently playing his 12th season at Kent) when they went to the Final 8. If playing three guards on the floor gives us our best shot at winning, then do it.JWEIII wrote:Man, I hope you are right. Really, but does anyone else worry that this is going to make us too small? Or mabe a 3 man rotation (2 at a time) with Lafeld, Marschall and Soler (for example). Just thinking it would be difficult to play these three at the same time. And what about Floyd/Moon?edr4225 wrote:
Da Triple Threat!!
Moten
Wright
Samarco
Thoughts?
I'm more concerned that we only have three "bigs" including Soler especially with our inability to guard people without fouling.
-
commonsense
- Chick

- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:15 pm
Metz you said the MAC isn't known for producing post players, and I argued by stating the facts. The most well known players to come out of the MAC recently are post players. The players getting the most hype this year are also post players(Williams from Ohio and Travis from Akron). I agree, the MAC has had some good guards, but to say the MAC isn't known for producing post players is about as false as BG going 20-9 and Matt Lefeld being comparable to Lenny Matela.
it's a little known fact that nate gerwig is actually a.j. shellabarger covered in brown kiwi, a'la gene wilder, trying to play a full two decades of college basketball.Tswam wrote: Kent went with three guards plus Antonio Gates and Nate Gerwig (currently playing his 12th season at Kent) when they went to the Final 8.
Re: i disagree
Woha! Woha! I think the real shocking thing here is that John Edwards is in the NBA. I didn't know that. Does someone actually let him play?
(I'm getting off topic)
As far as the NBA goes, I think it's a reasonable mix (in recent years).
G - Boykins, Daniels, McLeod
Post - Kaman, Edwards (apparently), Hunter, Trent, Wells, Se.. Sz.. Wally.
But I would agree with Metz that the great MAC teams have been dominated by above average guard play (save Kaman's championship team).
(I'm getting off topic)
As far as the NBA goes, I think it's a reasonable mix (in recent years).
G - Boykins, Daniels, McLeod
Post - Kaman, Edwards (apparently), Hunter, Trent, Wells, Se.. Sz.. Wally.
But I would agree with Metz that the great MAC teams have been dominated by above average guard play (save Kaman's championship team).
Sorry buddy, but I'm never going to agree with you. Sure there are post players in the NBA but how many of them do you consider good? I don't care if a few made the NBA, they haven't done jack squat in my opinion. The guards that have gone contribute to their teams thought. Maybe not consistently but more so than the post players.commonsense wrote:Metz you said the MAC isn't known for producing post players, and I argued by stating the facts. The most well known players to come out of the MAC recently are post players. The players getting the most hype this year are also post players(Williams from Ohio and Travis from Akron). I agree, the MAC has had some good guards, but to say the MAC isn't known for producing post players is about as false as BG going 20-9 and Matt Lefeld being comparable to Lenny Matela.
I think hammb and a few others are the only people who understood my original point of saying we aren't a small team because MAC teams are pretty much the same. We are all built around guards with an occassional post player who always plays the center spot. PFs can be anywhere from 6'9 - 6'5 in our league, and you don't really see that often.
"To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the glass is half empty. To the project manager, the glass is twice as big as it needs to be."
-
h2oville rocket
- Peregrine

- Posts: 6691
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 7:21 pm
- Location: Waterville, ohio
As a Rocket fan I resent that remark. Show me any evidence that A.J. Shellebarger EVER played any college basketball. That is an ugly myth perpetuated by our evil rivals.jacojdm wrote:it's a little known fact that nate gerwig is actually a.j. shellabarger covered in brown kiwi, a'la gene wilder, trying to play a full two decades of college basketball.Tswam wrote: Kent went with three guards plus Antonio Gates and Nate Gerwig (currently playing his 12th season at Kent) when they went to the Final 8.
- Falconfreak90
- Rubber City Falcon

- Posts: 18541
- Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 9:28 am
- Location: Green, OH
- Contact:
h2oville rocket wrote:As a Rocket fan I resent that remark. Show me any evidence that A.J. Shellebarger EVER played any college basketball. That is an ugly myth perpetuated by our evil rivals.jacojdm wrote:it's a little known fact that nate gerwig is actually a.j. shellabarger covered in brown kiwi, a'la gene wilder, trying to play a full two decades of college basketball.Tswam wrote: Kent went with three guards plus Antonio Gates and Nate Gerwig (currently playing his 12th season at Kent) when they went to the Final 8.
Michael W.
BGSU-12 TIME MAC CHAMPION
FALCON FOOTBALL ROCKS!
BGSU-12 TIME MAC CHAMPION
FALCON FOOTBALL ROCKS!
- BleedOrange
- Falcon Hoops Lifer

- Posts: 3064
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:51 pm
- Location: Fairlawn, Ohio
Metz, love ya babe, but I disagree with you as well. You're thinking in stereotypes and generalities rather than facts. The MAC has had good post players. Not as many as the SEC or the Big 12, sure. Gary Trent, Grant Long, Ben Handlogton, Theron Wilson, Curtis Kidd, Greg Stempin, Casey Shaw, TJ Lux are some other names that haven't been mentioned.Metz wrote:Sorry buddy, but I'm never going to agree with you. Sure there are post players in the NBA but how many of them do you consider good? I don't care if a few made the NBA, they haven't done jack squat in my opinion. The guards that have gone contribute to their teams thought. Maybe not consistently but more so than the post players.commonsense wrote:Metz you said the MAC isn't known for producing post players, and I argued by stating the facts. The most well known players to come out of the MAC recently are post players. The players getting the most hype this year are also post players(Williams from Ohio and Travis from Akron). I agree, the MAC has had some good guards, but to say the MAC isn't known for producing post players is about as false as BG going 20-9 and Matt Lefeld being comparable to Lenny Matela.
I think hammb and a few others are the only people who understood my original point of saying we aren't a small team because MAC teams are pretty much the same. We are all built around guards with an occassional post player who always plays the center spot. PFs can be anywhere from 6'9 - 6'5 in our league, and you don't really see that often.
Fact is, ALL conferences tend to be more guard oriented, even the majors. Look around at the rosters (and not just the elite 10 teams in the country). There are many, many, many more available atheletes smaller than 6-5. This is true whether your Arizona, Louisvillle, Evansville, or Eastern Illinois.
Interestingly, your assessment of MAC big men is actually accurate if you're talking about the MAC of the 1980's. The quality of MAC post players has been much better over the past 10-15 years. I'm starting to sound like an old man.
-
commonsense
- Chick

- Posts: 207
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:15 pm
We disagree again Metz
The first thing I want to say is to Bleedorange. Great post. Thanks for using facts, not cliches and generalizations too make it look like you know what you're talking about. I enjoyed it.
The second thing I have is for Metz. Here is another one of your generalizations that I have a problem with. "We are not what you all call a small team because we are in the MAC." How can you say that? We are a very small team, and there is no getting around it. Every other MAC team dwarfs us in size. Here is yet another list of facts, which ALWAYS seem to disagree with you.
Players over 6’7”
BG 1
Ohio 3
Toledo 3
Akron 3
WMU 3
Kent State 3
NIU 4
CMU 4
Buffalo 4
EMU 5
Ball State 5
Miami 5
The second thing I have is for Metz. Here is another one of your generalizations that I have a problem with. "We are not what you all call a small team because we are in the MAC." How can you say that? We are a very small team, and there is no getting around it. Every other MAC team dwarfs us in size. Here is yet another list of facts, which ALWAYS seem to disagree with you.
Players over 6’7”
BG 1
Ohio 3
Toledo 3
Akron 3
WMU 3
Kent State 3
NIU 4
CMU 4
Buffalo 4
EMU 5
Ball State 5
Miami 5
- BleedOrange
- Falcon Hoops Lifer

- Posts: 3064
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:51 pm
- Location: Fairlawn, Ohio
And another thing....
We're small this year. We're small for BG. We're small for D1. We're small for the MAC, MVC, A-12, SEC, and Mountain West. We're small even for a low major. We're just small, dammit, and razor thin in the post. There are probably a couple dozen non D1s with more guys 6-6 and over than us. Canton McKinley and Indianapolis Lawrence North start a bigger line-up than we do.
However, size itself not the real issue. The real questions are: (a) can we defend the post? (b) Can we rebound adaquately as a team? That's what we need size for.
Answers:
(a) Somewhat. When Lefeld gets in foul trouble, a decent post scorer can eat us alive. When Matt's on the floor, we have a very reasonable low post defensive presence. The real weakness will be in defending the good 4 man until Marschall can get his crazy fouling under control. At 6-7 235, his size is adaquate. He needs to stop spazin off with the fouls and stay on the floor longer. Soler too. Those two guys are out of control.
(b) Yes. Wright is an excellent rebounder for a guard/wing. Samarco's strong. Lefeld is average for his size, but slightly better than average D1 starting post rebounder. Soler rebounds better than average for a guy his size. Marschall's rebounding has been inconsistent, but he looks capable. Moon has a knack of getting open floor rebounds. On average, I expect to get out rebound by 2 per night, which isn't horrible.
You can be small and still win. You do this by shooting, exploiting speed, using depth, controlling the ball, and hawking the perimeter so well that it more than compensates for your weeknesses. Unfortunately, we have a ways to go in some of these areas. To get back on topic, we can hope that Moten can help with some of these, particularly the first. Time, experience, and confidence will help also.
(Hammb, Newble played the post at Miami along side Devin Davis. He didn't discover his guard skills until later.)
However, size itself not the real issue. The real questions are: (a) can we defend the post? (b) Can we rebound adaquately as a team? That's what we need size for.
Answers:
(a) Somewhat. When Lefeld gets in foul trouble, a decent post scorer can eat us alive. When Matt's on the floor, we have a very reasonable low post defensive presence. The real weakness will be in defending the good 4 man until Marschall can get his crazy fouling under control. At 6-7 235, his size is adaquate. He needs to stop spazin off with the fouls and stay on the floor longer. Soler too. Those two guys are out of control.
(b) Yes. Wright is an excellent rebounder for a guard/wing. Samarco's strong. Lefeld is average for his size, but slightly better than average D1 starting post rebounder. Soler rebounds better than average for a guy his size. Marschall's rebounding has been inconsistent, but he looks capable. Moon has a knack of getting open floor rebounds. On average, I expect to get out rebound by 2 per night, which isn't horrible.
You can be small and still win. You do this by shooting, exploiting speed, using depth, controlling the ball, and hawking the perimeter so well that it more than compensates for your weeknesses. Unfortunately, we have a ways to go in some of these areas. To get back on topic, we can hope that Moten can help with some of these, particularly the first. Time, experience, and confidence will help also.
(Hammb, Newble played the post at Miami along side Devin Davis. He didn't discover his guard skills until later.)
