Wow!

[60yearsofsicsic]

Okay since I started this Larson thing I must comment again. Listen if he is what people are saying... a compliment to Polk. They can recruit a back up center with a little more talent when Larson leaves. It is total nothing against the kid in fact I think a good advisor would tell him to go play down the road at Heidelberg or Tiffin. He could be a star in Div 3 focus on his academics. I am sure he is a wonderful person, but that does translate into talent. It does not set a bad tone for the program.
I actually think it sets a remarkably good tone... Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC something DD obviously gave up on look at the current roster....

[Globetrotter]

Okay since I started this Larson thing I must comment again. Listen if he is what people are saying... a compliment to Polk. They can recruit a back up center with a little more talent when Larson leaves. It is total nothing against the kid in fact I think a good advisor would tell him to go play down the road at Heidelberg or Tiffin. He could be a star in Div 3 focus on his academics. I am sure he is a wonderful person, but that does translate into talent. It does not set a bad tone for the program.
I actually think it sets a remarkably good tone... Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC something DD obviously gave up on look at the current roster....

Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC by starting a player for the entire season and then telling him to transfer? Seems a bit counterintuitive. They can recruit a backup center with a little more talent? What makes you believe that?

[BleedOrange]

Okay since I started this Larson thing I must comment again. Listen if he is what people are saying... a compliment to Polk. They can recruit a back up center with a little more talent when Larson leaves. It is total nothing against the kid in fact I think a good advisor would tell him to go play down the road at Heidelberg or Tiffin. He could be a star in Div 3 focus on his academics. I am sure he is a wonderful person, but that does translate into talent. It does not set a bad tone for the program.
I actually think it sets a remarkably good tone... Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC something DD obviously gave up on look at the current roster....

Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC by starting a player for the entire season and then telling him to transfer? Seems a bit counterintuitive. They can recruit a backup center with a little more talent? What makes you believe that?

2 things

1) Orr starts Larson so Polk doesn't pick up cheap fouls early. This has been pointed out already. DD did the same thing with Netter. Orr inherited his roster and is working with what he has. Larson is strong enough to estiblish position defending the low post, and he can foul five times. After that, he brings nothing. Larson is the least effective player on a BG roster since Dan Raupp arrived in 1985.

2) You couldn't have seen Larson play. Otherwise, you wouldn't be moving around all of these 0's and 1's about him. Yes, we CAN go get a more talented backup center than Larson. Enough!

[60yearsofsicsic]

I told agree and if there were more people that followed this team in good times and bad we could have more of these converstations. Let me say this about the game last night however ( and it has nothing to do with Larson). I think we will find out a lot about Coach Orr when we play Miami. I am not saying we should win or will win. But when a team gets embarassed like that I believe that it is the coaching staffs job to BUST there A** and if nothing else come out with energy hustle and compete. I think this will happen and this is the main reason why I think DD needed replaced becuase after loses like the one against Akron, DD lost his teams... I think Coach Orr will rally his team.... I hope I am right.

Go Falcons!!

[60yearsofsicsic]

I know some of you are sick of this but just look at the line... Look our "center" had one rebound in 14 minutes... Madlock had 7boards in 4 minutes I think we can easily find some to replace his "production" infact for the time being we can play small and get more production!!! Last time I promise.

TOT-FG 3-PT REBOUNDS
## Player Name FG-FGA FG-FGA FT-FTA OF DE TOT PF TP A TO BLK S MIN
02 Clements, Darryl.... * 1-4 0-1 0-2 0 2 2 0 2 2 4 0 0 30
14 Jakubowski, Joe..... * 1-4 0-2 0-0 2 1 3 1 2 0 3 0 1 27
20 Miller, Nate........ * 2-9 0-3 3-10 0 2 2 3 7 4 2 0 3 26
23 Knight, Chris....... * 3-8 0-3 1-2 2 7 9 3 7 0 3 2 1 34
50 Larson, Marc........ * 1-2 0-0 0-0 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 14
01 Moten, Brian........ 4-9 2-4 3-6 1 3 4 0 13 1 1 0 0 30
12 Sims, Ryan.......... 0-3 0-3 1-2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 9
24 Madlock, Cameron.... 3-4 0-0 0-0 1 6 7 1 6 1 1 1 0 4
32 Karaffa, Matt....... 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
45 Polk, Otis.......... 1-5 0-0 2-3 3 2 5 3 4 1 3 0 1 24
TEAM................ 4 4 1
Totals.............. 16-48 2-16 10-25 14 23 37 12 44 9 21 3 6 200

TOTAL FG% 1st Half: 6-20 30.0% 2nd Half: 10-28 35.7% Game: 33.3% DEADB
3-Pt. FG% 1st Half: 1-9 11.1% 2nd Half: 1-7 14.3% Game: 12.5% REBS
F Throw % 1st Half: 6-13 46.2% 2nd Half: 4-12 33.3% Game: 40.0% 11,1

[Globetrotter]

Okay since I started this Larson thing I must comment again. Listen if he is what people are saying... a compliment to Polk. They can recruit a back up center with a little more talent when Larson leaves. It is total nothing against the kid in fact I think a good advisor would tell him to go play down the road at Heidelberg or Tiffin. He could be a star in Div 3 focus on his academics. I am sure he is a wonderful person, but that does translate into talent. It does not set a bad tone for the program.
I actually think it sets a remarkably good tone... Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC something DD obviously gave up on look at the current roster....

Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC by starting a player for the entire season and then telling him to transfer? Seems a bit counterintuitive. They can recruit a backup center with a little more talent? What makes you believe that?

2 things

1) Orr starts Larson so Polk doesn't pick up cheap fouls early. This has been pointed out already. DD did the same thing with Netter. Orr inherited his roster and is working with what he has. Larson is strong enough to estiblish position defending the low post, and he can foul five times. After that, he brings nothing. Larson is the least effective player on a BG roster since Dan Raupp arrived in 1985.

2) You couldn't have seen Larson play. Otherwise, you wouldn't be moving around all of these 0's and 1's about him. Yes, we CAN go get a more talented backup center than Larson. Enough!

o's and 1's? Enough!? Who do you think you are talking to and what are you even talking about. I have not seen a center listed amongst any of the named recruits for this year or next year. Seems like if Orr thought it were a big issue he would invest in the position more.

[renorvis]

Why is Miller the only one getting credit for playing hard?? If anything he tried too hard when playing, he dribbled into double and triple teams. Flipped up prayers at the basket as well. And he was at the line for often than anyone else and he missed more often than anyone else. Moten is finally gaining some confidence and playing much better. OP is playing much much better, some of the calls on him were bogus. Knight rebounded his tail off because nobody else was. How many brown jersey were rebounding besides him? He is a wing player playing the post and is not getting the ball when he has position. Clements fed him the ball once and he scored and they never came back to his side again. He blocked shots and ran the floor, he clapped and told his teammates "Lets go!!" On several occasions. Some people think I am crazy but next game watch what I say the ballhandler always goes away from Knight when he has position in the post. He doesn't move??? How can he move when he is the only person crashing the boards?? Somebody please explain that to me? Why would you want you leading rebounder not around the basket???

[BleedOrange]

Okay since I started this Larson thing I must comment again. Listen if he is what people are saying... a compliment to Polk. They can recruit a back up center with a little more talent when Larson leaves. It is total nothing against the kid in fact I think a good advisor would tell him to go play down the road at Heidelberg or Tiffin. He could be a star in Div 3 focus on his academics. I am sure he is a wonderful person, but that does translate into talent. It does not set a bad tone for the program.
I actually think it sets a remarkably good tone... Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC something DD obviously gave up on look at the current roster....

Orr is saying that he will not settle for talent that is below the MAC by starting a player for the entire season and then telling him to transfer? Seems a bit counterintuitive. They can recruit a backup center with a little more talent? What makes you believe that?

2 things

1) Orr starts Larson so Polk doesn't pick up cheap fouls early. This has been pointed out already. DD did the same thing with Netter. Orr inherited his roster and is working with what he has. Larson is strong enough to estiblish position defending the low post, and he can foul five times. After that, he brings nothing. Larson is the least effective player on a BG roster since Dan Raupp arrived in 1985.

2) You couldn't have seen Larson play. Otherwise, you wouldn't be moving around all of these 0's and 1's about him. Yes, we CAN go get a more talented backup center than Larson. Enough!

o's and 1's? Enough!? Who do you think you are talking to and what are you even talking about. I have not seen a center listed amongst any of the named recruits for this year or next year. Seems like if Orr thought it were a big issue he would invest in the position more.

The recruiting lists that you see in rivals.com and elsewhere are often not up to date. Also, recruiting activity isn't always made public. Furthermore, recruiting activity often changes on a dime as players transfer, drop out, get injured, kids change their minds, coaches change, etc. If you see a kid's name on a list, it means that their has been communication. However, the absence of names doesn't indicate that nothing's going on in a particular area.

Upshot: recruiting lists on the web do not and cannot reliably summarize a coach's recruiting priorities.

[Globetrotter]

We have 3 openings next year. We have signed three players. None of which is a center. For the next year we are rumored to have signed 4 other guys, none of which are centers.

[BleedOrange]

We have 3 openings next year. We have signed three players. None of which is a center. For the next year we are rumored to have signed 4 other guys, none of which are centers.

Well, we DO have Polk. Also, we have Madlock and Marcshall who can shift to the 5 spot for defense depending on the matchup. (Hopefully, we'll see Madlock get more minutes.) That's a better low post situation that most MACs can claim. If Larson would leave, I'd expect that vacency to be filled by a 5. Personally, I'm highly confident that we could go recruite a better low post player.

We also have a need for (1) scorers and (2) perimeter speed and athleticism. That's a more primary need, so Orr's addressing that first.

[commonsense]

This is to take nothing away from Polk or Larson, but..........

The tone being set here is that there is a large gap in between Polk and Larson's ability. However, I am not so sure. My personal opinion is that Polk is slightly better now, and has more upside potential for the future.

The interesting thing is that both Larson and Polk wasted their freshman years playing behind Matt Lefeld on a 2-14 MAC team. Had they been able to get 18-20 minutes a game last season, both players would be better as well as the team as a whole.

If I were someone who didn't know anything about BG hoops, and read this thread I would be lead to think that there was a huge difference between these two players. Check the stats, that is just not the case.

While I think Polk can be a slightly better than average center in the MAC (at best), I am confused at the claims and hopes of pure dominance from him. While he is an unusually huge body in the MAC, he has severe difficiencies.

1. He has not developed good touch. He is a very poor free throw shooter, and can't shoot outside of 8ft.

2. His weight is also a problem. He is very easily fatigued, and struggles getting up and down the court. This also leads to fouls.

3. He can only guard heavy bully type center's(Leon Williams). Which is great, but the MAC does not have alot of that type. Most MAC posts are a little undersized and more mobile than Otis can handle. This also leads to fouls.

The bottom line is that both Otis and Marc can be valuable players for the program. It would be great if OP was a 10ppg 8rpg guy and Marc L was a 8ppg 6rpg guy their senior years. That is great production from the 5 spot. Championship caliber teams have this. It is great that young players are getting to play quality minutes, even if the best results are still about a year or two away.

[hammb]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

[BGFalconfromCincy]

He is a very poor free throw shooter,.

so is the rest of the team, so we can throw that one out the window

[BleedOrange]

This is to take nothing away from Polk or Larson, but..........

The tone being set here is that there is a large gap in between Polk and Larson's ability. However, I am not so sure. My personal opinion is that Polk is slightly better now, and has more upside potential for the future.

The interesting thing is that both Larson and Polk wasted their freshman years playing behind Matt Lefeld on a 2-14 MAC team. Had they been able to get 18-20 minutes a game last season, both players would be better as well as the team as a whole.

If I were someone who didn't know anything about BG hoops, and read this thread I would be lead to think that there was a huge difference between these two players. Check the stats, that is just not the case.

While I think Polk can be a slightly better than average center in the MAC (at best), I am confused at the claims and hopes of pure dominance from him. While he is an unusually huge body in the MAC, he has severe difficiencies.

1. He has not developed good touch. He is a very poor free throw shooter, and can't shoot outside of 8ft.

2. His weight is also a problem. He is very easily fatigued, and struggles getting up and down the court. This also leads to fouls.

3. He can only guard heavy bully type center's(Leon Williams). Which is great, but the MAC does not have alot of that type. Most MAC posts are a little undersized and more mobile than Otis can handle. This also leads to fouls.

The bottom line is that both Otis and Marc can be valuable players for the program. It would be great if OP was a 10ppg 8rpg guy and Marc L was a 8ppg 6rpg guy their senior years. That is great production from the 5 spot. Championship caliber teams have this. It is great that young players are getting to play quality minutes, even if the best results are still about a year or two away.

Since you mentioned stats, let's get geeky.

Polk is averaging .279 rebounds per minute. Larson averages .140 rebounds per minute.

Scoring is the same.

Polk fouls roughly 25% more, but attempts 33% more free-throws, thus drawing more fouls. (Regrettably, he only hits 53% of his free throws.) Block stats are surprisingly similar, although Polk appears to be quick off of his feet for his wt., and times his blocks against post-up shooters well. Larson's blocks, from what I've seen, often come as a help defender against a penetrator.

Turnovers are similar. Larson's come from having bad hands. I don't recall ever seeing him catch a quick feed. Polk's tend to come from travelling.

[Globetrotter]

I dunno, I think the difference between Polk & Larson is pretty large already. Both are mediocre offensive players, but Polk is a better defender and a FAR better rebounder. He averages almost twice as many boards in a mpg less time. While the two score at a similar rate Polk gets to the line quite a bit more, although he makes less of the free throws. Even though he's not picking up the points for those free throws, he does at least force fouls by the opposition. What's more, when it comes to their offensive game I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate post move from Larson. He's also such a terrible rebounder that he doesn't get many put back attempts. Otis has shown the ability to get looks. He also gets his fair share of offensive boards for putback attempts. Now, he's not a real great finisher around the rim, but at least he can get those shots. I don't see anything from Larson to make me believe he'll ever have an offensive game. Otis at least shows some skills, just needs to work on his touch to finish those chances.

Honestly the only thing Larson does better than OP is stay on the court. Be it foul trouble or conditioning issues Otis still needs to work on this.

Personally I think OP's ceiling is higher than 10 & 8. I also don't think Larson will ever get to 6 boards a game.

Not to be too absurd but I really think OPs ceiling is absurdly higher then 10 & 8. I am talking about NBA draft pick higher. What team couldnt use a banger like him off the bench? Especially if he can develop those areas you mentioned. He has something not a lot of players have and a lot of teams need, size. If he can play smarter and quicker, I am not saying he has NBA all star written all over him, but a 10 minute a night guy clogging lanes as a defensive specialist I could definitely see.