BG vs NIU

[guest44]

Go back at look at the OU and EMU wins. Both wins had ridiculous shooting efforts that sustaining would have been difficult. I think more recently is the reality, and those wins back to back raised expectations that this wasn't a bottom 4 MAC team. Let's be honest, Parker is not wired to be a leader. I'll repeat myself once again, the sooner BG is rid of all things, players, and habits that were Louis Orr, the sooner real success can happen. As for how good the coaching has been this year, I have no idea. I do know that Jans coaching was on another level, and it will be hard to find that again.

[hammb]

Hammb, I stand by what I said, but I really can't disagree with you either. I have seen every player outside of Tisdale-Malik-Gomez and Mayleben do something special where they could be a solid contributor on a good team.

Therein lies the difference in our take. I define talent different than you do, I think.

I've seen those guys do something special a few times as well. I've seen nobody on this roster do anything special with consistency. To me "talent" is something that you can rely on at all times...it takes refinement and practice to hone it and get the most out of it, but the "talent" is always there. Keith McLeod walked on campus and could score. He could dribble, he could shoot, he could put the ball in the basket. It took him a couple years to get better at shooting, better mechanics, take smarter shots, and develop his defense...but that "talent" for scoring the ball was there from the get go. Richaun Holmes walked in and we knew right away he was gonna set the block record at BG if Orr let him play. He was a lights out help defender from the moment he walked into BG. As the years went on he got better at rebounding and scoring, but that defensive talent was painfully obvious from day 1.

On this roster we don't have any of that. The closest thing was Denny's shooting. The first half of the season I would have said that was the one thing we could count on...he was a good shooter, he was advertised as one coming in and showed it a bit last year, and developed it this year. Now for some reason it's completely GONE. I have no idea what's happened, but it has crippled this team.

So since we cannot count on that, I just don't see much other obvious talent that we can rely on. Alcegaire has been so hot or cold. Parker is probably the closest in that he can get to the rim (and actually make free throws when he goes to the line), but he's out of control half the time. Neither PG consistently does anything...I like the good stuff from Ali, but I haven't seen enough to say that it's a talent that we can rely on. I'm a big fan of Lillard's ability to finish around the rim, that might be the closest thing to a talent, but he's battling with Parker/Alcegaire for minutes.

It seems to me that you define talent as the very best performance any player can give. Denny can be a great shooter, Parker can be a great scorer, etc. That's fine, but I just don't look at it that way. I know I've been playing around the world and hit 6-7 threes in a row before, but I sure as hell wouldn't say I have talent...far from it. I look at it the same with our group...they've all shown an ability or two in small spurts, but to me talent is the ability to rely on that skill night in night out. We don't have any player on this roster that has a skill that we can expect to see on a game to game basis. And when Alcegaire, Denny, Parker, and Joseph are all upper classmen they should be showing whatever talent they have on a nightly basis.

[gmartin]

Hammb, Globe also thought Jordan Crawford was the next coming of Micheal Jordan. You two definitely define talent differently.

[Globetrotter]

Hammb, I stand by what I said, but I really can't disagree with you either. I have seen every player outside of Tisdale-Malik-Gomez and Mayleben do something special where they could be a solid contributor on a good team.

Therein lies the difference in our take. I define talent different than you do, I think.

I've seen those guys do something special a few times as well. I've seen nobody on this roster do anything special with consistency. To me "talent" is something that you can rely on at all times...it takes refinement and practice to hone it and get the most out of it, but the "talent" is always there. Keith McLeod walked on campus and could score. He could dribble, he could shoot, he could put the ball in the basket. It took him a couple years to get better at shooting, better mechanics, take smarter shots, and develop his defense...but that "talent" for scoring the ball was there from the get go. Richaun Holmes walked in and we knew right away he was gonna set the block record at BG if Orr let him play. He was a lights out help defender from the moment he walked into BG. As the years went on he got better at rebounding and scoring, but that defensive talent was painfully obvious from day 1.

On this roster we don't have any of that. The closest thing was Denny's shooting. The first half of the season I would have said that was the one thing we could count on...he was a good shooter, he was advertised as one coming in and showed it a bit last year, and developed it this year. Now for some reason it's completely GONE. I have no idea what's happened, but it has crippled this team.

So since we cannot count on that, I just don't see much other obvious talent that we can rely on. Alcegaire has been so hot or cold. Parker is probably the closest in that he can get to the rim (and actually make free throws when he goes to the line), but he's out of control half the time. Neither PG consistently does anything...I like the good stuff from Ali, but I haven't seen enough to say that it's a talent that we can rely on. I'm a big fan of Lillard's ability to finish around the rim, that might be the closest thing to a talent, but he's battling with Parker/Alcegaire for minutes.

It seems to me that you define talent as the very best performance any player can give. Denny can be a great shooter, Parker can be a great scorer, etc. That's fine, but I just don't look at it that way. I know I've been playing around the world and hit 6-7 threes in a row before, but I sure as hell wouldn't say I have talent...far from it. I look at it the same with our group...they've all shown an ability or two in small spurts, but to me talent is the ability to rely on that skill night in night out. We don't have any player on this roster that has a skill that we can expect to see on a game to game basis. And when Alcegaire, Denny, Parker, and Joseph are all upper classmen they should be showing whatever talent they have on a nightly basis.

I define is as being able to adequately start on a D1 team. We have no stars now, but we have about 8 guys who can do that. There isnt a glue holding them together or a star to lead them.

[Globetrotter]

Hammb, Globe also thought Jordan Crawford was the next coming of Micheal Jordan. You two definitely define talent differently.

He was a solid player. Definitely had limitations but he had talent for sure.

The difference between Crawford and Mayleben is night and day.

[Flipper]

We do not have enough talent...

Wiggins, Lillard and Worrell have the ability to succeed in the MAC. Hopefully, Huger will find the pieces needed to build around them going forward. Ish is good, but he's a stopgap. Malik??????.....who knows? The rest of them? They run from "meh" to "disappointing" to " how did h get a schollie?"

[Globetrotter]

There are two guys on this roster that you can really question how they got schollies. Both are tall and probably religious and Orr had a thing for that. Other than that everyone who has one it made sense to give them to. Of course you will miss here and there which Tisdale is a miss, but you can understand how he got his schollie. Malik is an incomplete. The other 8 are all atleast adequate basketball players.

[hammb]

I define is as being able to adequately start on a D1 team. We have no stars now, but we have about 8 guys who can do that. There isnt a glue holding them together or a star to lead them.

We have plenty of guys who could be the 3rd-5th starter on a decent team, but I'm not sure we have anybody who would currently start for Akron. Maybe Parker would start for them at the SF spot, but that's probably it. And that's a team that brings their best player off the bench. Parker is, IMO, the only player on our roster who would crack their top 6. Denny, Ish, Lillard, Worrell, and Wiggins MIGHT get in their rotation, but I don't think any are appreciably better than the guys that Akron brings in off the bench.

Akron is the cream of the MAC crop right now. And I'm not harping on our failures against them or any of that crap...I'm simply looking at their roster. We don't come close to what they have in terms of talent, and that was painfully obvious when we played them. We have a handful of guys who can make a couple plays if defenses are looking elsewhere, but to me that's not talent. Every team in the country probably has those types...they're a dime a dozen.

[Globetrotter]

I define is as being able to adequately start on a D1 team. We have no stars now, but we have about 8 guys who can do that. There isnt a glue holding them together or a star to lead them.

We have plenty of guys who could be the 3rd-5th starter on a decent team, but I'm not sure we have anybody who would currently start for Akron. Maybe Parker would start for them at the SF spot, but that's probably it. And that's a team that brings their best player off the bench. Parker is, IMO, the only player on our roster who would crack their top 6. Denny, Ish, Lillard, Worrell, and Wiggins MIGHT get in their rotation, but I don't think any are appreciably better than the guys that Akron brings in off the bench.

Akron is the cream of the MAC crop right now. And I'm not harping on our failures against them or any of that crap...I'm simply looking at their roster. We don't come close to what they have in terms of talent, and that was painfully obvious when we played them. We have a handful of guys who can make a couple plays if defenses are looking elsewhere, but to me that's not talent. Every team in the country probably has those types...they're a dime a dozen.

We undeniably need a star. I hope it's Lillard or Wiggins or Worrell.

[Flipper]

I don't think Gomez, Tisdale or Mayleben are D1 players. Tisdale is a D1 athlete... but he isn't a basketball player. He's a guy who can run and jump. Love to have him if we still had men's track team Fox? is he on scholarship... if he is, count him. Busy... whatever is another one, but he's on scholarship because a spare was lying around doing nothing. Parker, Denny and Alcegaire are huge disappointments... Parker and Denny in particular. I would lay the blame for this tailspin at their feet. If they consistently played to their potential, we'd have a couple more conference wins at least.

[guest44]

Wiggins, Worrell, nor Lillard are stars. If they were stars or potential stars, you would already know it.

[BleedOrange]

I think the upshot here is this:
- We have "ok" talent but not the fortitude among our upperclassmen to deliver consistent performances. Denny puts too much on himself, Parker is a flake, and Joseph is mechanical and dull.
- We have a residual culture of lethargy leftover from Orr that Huger must eradicate with hell-fire, patience, and recruiting.
- BG basketball won't be worth a s**t next year either.
- We should not have difficulties replacing Denny and Parker with new recruits.
- We DO have some quality freshmen talent.

[Flipper]

Wiggins, Worrell, nor Lillard are stars. If they were stars or potential stars, you would already know it.

Disagree...not saying they'll be "stars"...I think they could be...it's too early to say. In particular, Worrell and Wiggins are project bigs. They take a little more time to develop.

Parker/Denny/Alcegaire have taken more than half the shots the team has attempted. Tough for anyone to have an impact beyond that trio...the opportunities just aren't there.