We All Love Ed.....but

[GOX]

We all love Ed as a player ,student - athlete, and future alum.
We long for his return next year .
So nothing in this post should be interpreted as a knock on Ed.
But we have seen that in his absence Q has blossomed , players have stepped up, the ball movement has vastly improved, and one has a sense of a team, not Ed plus 4.
Having Ed play the point was by default, but having a player with Ed's skill set at the point was not good.
Ed is a scoring machine who has to get to the basket.
When a scoring machine has the ball his focus is on scoring, not distributing.
When you play alongside a scoring machine you give him the first opportunity to score. If the ball comes to you it is not because you are open but because he is covered.
Imagine the team we would have with Q at the point, and Ed constantly in motion looking for an opening.
Everyone else would/could be in motion.
With Ed in motion It takes the pressure off of Bluett and Macura.
It can open up the base line for better opportunities for the Bigs.
That's what I see for next year!

[Xville]

Agree with all of this. I think if Ed does come back next year, him being at the 2 with q at the 1 gives the team the best chance at winning.

[XUGRAD80]

All good and fine except.....Ed was averaging 5 assists per game until his injury. Now I realize that a big part of this was because he had the ball in his hands so much, but we shouldn't get the idea that he was "just a scorer". I can remember many games where he didn't score a whole lot, but did have quite a few assists. A lot of where he plays in the future may well be determined by just how fully he comes back from the injury. His quickness pre-injury was extraordinary, but we don't know yet if that will be the case in the future. I hope he uses some of his recovery and rehab time to study film and see just how much a dependable shot would mean to his game and to team success. For one thing, it might mean that he doesn't have to take so much abuse because he is always driving to the rim and getting knocked onto the floor. He has the physical build of someone like a Reggie Miller, I just wish he had a shooting ability that was 1/2 of Reggie's.

[bleedXblue]

Yeah, strange to say the least.

Lets get a few more games under Q's belt before we get too far ahead of ourselves........

[xuwin]

Yeah, strange to say the least.

Lets get a few more games under Q's belt before we get too far ahead of ourselves........

Exactly. Teams have been devising ways for 2 years to try to stop Sumner. It will get tougher as teams study Goodin's tendencies and devise ways to stop him. He is a virtual unknown to our opponents now because none of them have ever faced him before and the sample size is small.

[GoMuskies]

We easily could be riding a three game losing streak since Ed got hurt. All three games were in doubt late (the St. John's game despite having a big lead when Ed went down). We've got a razor-thin margin at this point. I'm thrilled with the wins and the way Q's been playing, but let's not kid ourselves that we're somehow better since Ed went down.

[Xville]

We easily could be riding a three game losing streak since Ed got hurt. All three games were in doubt late (the St. John's game despite having a big lead when Ed went down). We've got a razor-thin margin at this point. I'm thrilled with the wins and the way Q's been playing, but let's not kid ourselves that we're somehow better since Ed went down.

No where in the original post did it say that we were better with Ed going down. However, if people don't think our offense is running better since q took over the point, they either haven't been watching or they just don't want to disrespect ed which I can understand.

We do have a very small sample size so let's see how the rest of the season plays out. However as of today, it looks like it may be better for the team next year for ed to play the 2. That's more of utilizing ed's strengths not knocking him. I think he will actually be a better point in the NBA where there is a lot more isolation play, I just think that maybe in college, his best position may be at the 2.

[GoMuskies]

Is the offense running better,or are we just shooting better from three-point range? Knocking 3s down at 40% and 45.5% (vs. a season average of 34.7%) always makes the offense look good.

[mirabilelectu]

Is the offense running better,or are we just shooting better from three-point range? Knocking 3s down at 40% and 45.5% (vs. a season average of 34.7%) always makes the offense look good.

You could argue that one follows the other; our ball movement has created more space for open looks. I personally attribute it to Q's more traditional point style, but I concede the sample size is very small and can't yet be deemed the effect.

[xufan2434]

No where in the original post did it say that we were better with Ed going down. However, if people don't think our offense is running better since q took over the point, they either haven't been watching or they just don't want to disrespect ed which I can understand.

We do have a very small sample size so let's see how the rest of the season plays out. However as of today, it looks like it may be better for the team next year for ed to play the 2. That's more of utilizing ed's strengths not knocking him. I think he will actually be a better point in the NBA where there is a lot more isolation play, I just think that maybe in college, his best position may be at the 2.

I think this is more in line with the point. We talked about it several times just a couple weeks ago and actually specifically after the first Creighton game that Mack wasn't running nearly enough sets. IMO the offense they're running now could have been done with Ed the whole time. Mack just thought it would be taking away the advantage of Ed's skill set would be my guess. And I think we would have seen more of Q running the point and Ed going to the 2 as Q got more and more comfortable. Selfishly hope Ed comes back because it'll be sad if that's that last we see him in an X uniform. Especially because of how much talent and potential he has compared to those in X's history

[mirabilelectu]

I think this is more in line with the point. We talked about it several times just a couple weeks ago and actually specifically after the first Creighton game that Mack wasn't running nearly enough sets. IMO the offense they're running now could have been done with Ed the whole time. Mack just thought it would be taking away the advantage of Ed's skill set would be my guess. And I think we would have seen more of Q running the point and Ed going to the 2 as Q got more and more comfortable. Selfishly hope Ed comes back because it'll be sad if that's that last we see him in an X uniform. Especially because of how much talent and potential he has compared to those in X's history

I've been a proponent of Q at PG1 since Mack started integrating that line-up. I also very much agree with your point in bold, Ed is very capable of running the offense in the style which we are now seeing, just think Mack felt giving Ed more control would result much differently than it did. One more point about Ed at the 2 should it happen; let's hope he develops a shot! Hard to consistently play a 2 guard who shoots as inconsistently (and that's a generous adverb) as Ed.

[AviatorX]

I've been a proponent of Q at PG1 since Mack started integrating that line-up. I also very much agree with your point in bold, Ed is very capable of running the offense in the style which we are now seeing, just think Mack felt giving Ed more control would result much differently than it did. One more point about Ed at the 2 should it happen; let's hope he develops a shot! Hard to consistently play a 2 guard who shoots as inconsistently (and that's a generous adverb) as Ed.

I think this is spot on. Much of the preseason top 10 Final Four hype was built around the idea of Ed being this hybrid/transcendent PG that would give X a weapon that no team could match when it was full go -- not to say Ed can never become that, but he wasn't consistently before he got hurt.

[XMuskieFTW]

Loved when Q would play point with Ed off the ball. That being said, Q is 3-19 from 2 in the last two games whereas if Ed had the same shots he probably would've been 10-19 seeing that they were mostly shots at the rim. I definitely think they offense has been more fluid, but you're trading off that scoring ability with Ed for it. Overall, the tradeoff is a net negative, but it may not be as negative as we thought it would have been. The game slows down with Q at the point because he doesn't go 400 mph like Ed. Maybe that slowed down offense has slowed down the game for guys like Kaiser and the bigs. Hopefully this level of play from Q continues and he can finish a little better around the rim, because I don't think we can expect him to continue shooting like he is from the outside.

[XUFan09]

You could argue that one follows the other; our ball movement has created more space for open looks. I personally attribute it to Q's more traditional point style, but I concede the sample size is very small and can't yet be deemed the effect.
Xavier was getting a lot of open looks before too. They just weren't knocking them down at the same rate. I don't know how many times Ed would drive to draw defenders then throw a pass perfectly over his shoulder to someone spotting up, only for the guy to miss the three.

Also, the team scored 1.09 points per possession against Seton Hall, which isn't exactly remarkable. They then put up a strong 1.22 points per possession against Creighton, but that's offensively a great matchup for Xavier (and it helped that Tyrique suddenly channeled his inner Lew Alcindor). As someone said before, opponents have little tape and virtually no gameplan against Q, but they are definitely building it up now.

I do agree that the offense is moving a bit better, probably out of necessity but also because defensive gameplans aren't really set up to stop it. I'm reminded of how good the 2013 team looked early in the season, because teams didn't really have a plan for stopping Xavier's new look post-Tu. That changed drastically as tape built up. This team is far more talented than that team, of course, but we'll probably still see a bit of a drop-off in offensive movement as opponents figure out how to disrupt it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[Drew]

I think as a fanbase we have a tendency to anoint "superstars" far too often. The fact is, Sumner is more potential than anything at this point. He is too light, he doesn't have a great shot and his basketball IQ isn't that great. Now he may make a great NBA player because he can improve his weaknesses and he has god-given athleticis, but he isn't a "superstar" at the CBB level.

Goodin on the other hand has to be one of the best freshman we have ever seen. But because Sumner is the "superstar" some of us refuse to acknowledge it.

Give me Goodin over Sumner straight up. Sumner might be the better NBA player someday, but he has tons of flaws currently.

[markchal]

This is a little ridiculous. Look at the teams we've played and where we played them. SH at home is an easy win with Ed, and we (theoretically) would've handled Creighton with Ed. Creighton has no scholarship pg and Ed would've been able to finish a lot of those shots Q couldn't. Those would've been two big games for Ed, IMO. He was also playing great before he went down against SJU.

[ammtd34]

I think as a fanbase we have a tendency to anoint "superstars" far too often. The fact is, Sumner is more potential than anything at this point. He is too light, he doesn't have a great shot and his basketball IQ isn't that great. Now he may make a great NBA player because he can improve his weaknesses and he has god-given athleticis, but he isn't a "superstar" at the CBB level.

Goodin on the other hand has to be one of the best freshman we have ever seen. But because Sumner is the "superstar" some of us refuse to acknowledge it.

Give me Goodin over Sumner straight up. Sumner might be the better NBA player someday, but he has tons of flaws currently.

Jesus.

[mirabilelectu]

Xavier was getting a lot of open looks before too. They just weren't knocking them down at the same rate. I don't know how many times Ed would drive to draw defenders then throw a pass perfectly over his shoulder to someone spotting up, only for the guy to miss the three.

Also, the team scored 1.09 points per possession against Seton Hall, which isn't exactly remarkable. They then put up a strong 1.22 points per possession against Creighton, but that's offensively a great matchup for Xavier (and it helped that Tyrique suddenly channeled his inner Lew Alcindor). As someone said before, opponents have little tape and virtually no gameplan against Q, but they are definitely building it up now.

I do agree that the offense is moving a bit better, probably out of necessity but also because defensive gameplans aren't really set up to stop it. I'm reminded of how good the 2013 team looked early in the season, because teams didn't really have a plan for stopping Xavier's new look post-Tu. That changed drastically as tape built up. This team is far more talented than that team, of course, but we'll probably still see a bit of a drop-off in offensive movement as opponents figure out how to disrupt it.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Points are all well taken. I guess we just personally disagree with the frequency of open looks; I remember so many shots taken at the end of the shot-clock because we seemed to be passing aimlessly. Also, the Creighton match-up was terrible for our offense at home (67 points with Ed!), so it might be a little dismissive to say that we just match up well with them. In all, it is too early to say that Q's presence has the effect of a better offense, and I agree that I think we will struggle more as teams game-plan for it. But we aren't running different plays, we are just committed to getting the ball in the middle.

[mirabilelectu]

This is a little ridiculous. Look at the teams we've played and where we played them. SH at home is an easy win with Ed, and we (theoretically) would've handled Creighton with Ed. Creighton has no scholarship pg and Ed would've been able to finish a lot of those shots Q couldn't. Those would've been two big games for Ed, IMO. He was also playing great before he went down against SJU.

How can you say we would have handled Creighton when we put up 67 at home against them?

[ammtd34]

How can you say we would have handled Creighton when we put up 67 at home against them?

How come they couldn't beat us at home when they beat us at Cintas? See how that works?

[Xville]

This is a little ridiculous. Look at the teams we've played and where we played them. SH at home is an easy win with Ed, and we (theoretically) would've handled Creighton with Ed. Creighton has no scholarship pg and Ed would've been able to finish a lot of those shots Q couldn't. Those would've been two big games for Ed, IMO. He was also playing great before he went down against SJU.

What do u base the opinion of Creighton on? We lost at home to them with Sumner, and Watson was out most of the game. Also, not sure where the easy win against Seton hall opinion comes from...x has had trouble with them since they joined the big east.

[GoMuskies]

We shot 20% from three against them at Cintas and 45.5% from three in Omaha.

[Drew]

Just a reminder, Goodin is a higher rated recruit than Sumner.

http://247sports.com/player/edmond-sumner-21373

http://247sports.com/player/quentin-goodin-26836

[xufan2434]

I think as a fanbase we have a tendency to anoint "superstars" far too often. The fact is, Sumner is more potential than anything at this point. He is too light, he doesn't have a great shot and his basketball IQ isn't that great. Now he may make a great NBA player because he can improve his weaknesses and he has god-given athleticis, but he isn't a "superstar" at the CBB level.

Goodin on the other hand has to be one of the best freshman we have ever seen. But because Sumner is the "superstar" some of us refuse to acknowledge it.

Give me Goodin over Sumner straight up. Sumner might be the better NBA player someday, but he has tons of flaws currently.

In what world are you living in calling Goodin one of the best freshmen we've ever seen? Lmao, he's averaging 4, 2, & 1 on the year. I don't care who was in front of him to start the year, if you're throwing that title on him, then he finds his way onto the court regardless. Q has been great compared to what we expected as of late. I think he can become very good, but to say he's better than Ed right now is absurd. He hasn't been asked to do nearly the same things Ed has had to do. Q has played some good defense as of late, but you're also underestimating Ed on that side of the court. He's saved them many a times on defensive boards and steals. Not to mention his ability in the open court. BTW, we're not the only ones anointing Ed.. take a look at every single national media member that covers the sport for a living

[mirabilelectu]

How come they couldn't beat us at home when they beat us at Cintas? See how that works?

Yea but we are talking about how a change in our lineup affected our team, their team is the same as the one we lost to at Cintas. Also, saying that we are going to beat a team at their place because they beat us at ours doesn't follow. So I don't see how that works.

[ammtd34]

Yea but we are talking about how a change in our lineup affected our team, their team is the same as the one we lost to at Cintas. Also, saying that we are going to beat a team at their place because they beat us at ours doesn't follow. So I don't see how that works.

Because sports aren't math. Sometimes, things happen differently than we expect, like Tyrique Jones dominating a 1st round draft pick after scoring 2 points at Cintas.

[XMuskieFTW]

I think as a fanbase we have a tendency to anoint "superstars" far too often. The fact is, Sumner is more potential than anything at this point. He is too light, he doesn't have a great shot and his basketball IQ isn't that great. Now he may make a great NBA player because he can improve his weaknesses and he has god-given athleticis, but he isn't a "superstar" at the CBB level.

Goodin on the other hand has to be one of the best freshman we have ever seen. But because Sumner is the "superstar" some of us refuse to acknowledge it.

Give me Goodin over Sumner straight up. Sumner might be the better NBA player someday, but he has tons of flaws currently.

Hmmm the same Goodin who is shooting 37% from the floor, has worse assist per minute and assist per turnover ratios than Ed, scores less than Ed when the featured PG, and hasn't been able to finish at the rim? This is a joke right?

[markchal]

Yea but we are talking about how a change in our lineup affected our team, their team is the same as the one we lost to at Cintas. Also, saying that we are going to beat a team at their place because they beat us at ours doesn't follow. So I don't see how that works.

we would've prepared completely differently, obviously. We've seen how they play without Watson now, so we would've attacked them differently.

Also, for two games with no Ed, you couldn't really ask for two better teams to face. SH is one of the worst teams in the league and Creighton has no point guard, so it's a little better matchup for us than most.

[mirabilelectu]

Because sports aren't math. Sometimes, things happen differently than we expect, like Tyrique Jones dominating a 1st round draft pick after scoring 2 points at Cintas.

So you never use past results to predict outcomes?

[ammtd34]

So you never use past results to predict outcomes?

What are you getting at? If you are trying to prove that we would have lost at Creighton with Edmond Sumner at PG, count me out of the discussion.

[mirabilelectu]

we would've prepared completely differently, obviously. We've seen how they play without Watson now, so we would've attacked them differently.

Also, for two games with no Ed, you couldn't really ask for two better teams to face. SH is one of the worst teams in the league and Creighton has no point guard, so it's a little better matchup for us than most.

We would have prepared differently? I guess we have to agree to disagree here. Don't see how Watson's absence changed our gameplan, also we had 3/4 of the game at home to make those changes and we didn't.

[mirabilelectu]

What are you getting at? If you are trying to prove that we would have lost at Creighton with Edmond Sumner at PG, count me out of the discussion.

What I am saying is that Sumner's absence has forced the team to play differently. If you don't think the offense looks different, than I guess we can suspend the conversation.

[AviatorX]

I think as a fanbase we have a tendency to anoint "superstars" far too often. The fact is, Sumner is more potential than anything at this point. He is too light, he doesn't have a great shot and his basketball IQ isn't that great. Now he may make a great NBA player because he can improve his weaknesses and he has god-given athleticis, but he isn't a "superstar" at the CBB level.

Goodin on the other hand has to be one of the best freshman we have ever seen. But because Sumner is the "superstar" some of us refuse to acknowledge it.

Give me Goodin over Sumner straight up. Sumner might be the better NBA player someday, but he has tons of flaws currently.

This may be the most I've ever disagreed with a post on here. I actually think X fans (and fans in general) underappreciate how good players are at times when they are on "our" team -- see some of the thoughts on Tre on this board or the parade of critiques whenever a player is so much as rumored to be considering leaving early.

[Drew]

What does Goodin have to do to earn this fanbase's respect? I am pretty sure our 2 best wins are with him starting as our PG. Too bad he doesn't make cool dunks like Sumner.

[ammtd34]

What does Goodin have to do to earn this fanbase's respect? I am pretty sure our 2 best wins are with him starting as our PG. Too bad he doesn't make cool dunks like Sumner.

He has my respect. He's surpassed my expectations since Ed went down. I just don't think I need to proclaim him better than Ed to show my respect.

[AviatorX]

What does Goodin have to do to earn this fanbase's respect? I am pretty sure our 2 best wins are with him starting as our PG. Too bad he doesn't make cool dunks like Sumner.

If only one could be high on Goodin while still thinking Sumner is the better player as of February 2017....

[mirabilelectu]

If only one could be high on Goodin while still thinking Sumner is the better player as of February 2017....

This. Aviator's got it, the two ideas don't need to be mutually exclusive.

[LA Muskie]

Fans are crazy. Q's good. And he has a very bright future. But X being better off without Ed? Child, please!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[X Factor]

I'm not sure we beat Creighton with Ed because Quentin did something Ed has never done in his college career - make 4 three pointers.

That was huge for our PG to be able to knock down open threes. If Goodin can continue to make open threes at a respectable clip, he's going to be so hard to defend. He can already get in the lane whenever he wants. If had finished just 2 or 3 of his drives at Creighton he would've scored 20 points.

Really wish we could finish the year with a healthy Ed and Goodin on the court at the same time for extended minutes.

[xu82]

The "but" didn't come until the 4th line!

[X-ceptional]

What does Goodin have to do to earn this fanbase's respect? I am pretty sure our 2 best wins are with him starting as our PG. Too bad he doesn't make cool dunks like Sumner.

OK, the best win that this program has ever had was with Sumner starting at PG against the #1 team in the country and eventual national champions last year. Ed had 19 pts, 9 ast, and 6 reb.

Goodin has definitely earned respect as a player, but this is insane...

[mirabilelectu]

I'm not sure we beat Creighton with Ed because Quentin did something Ed has never done in his college career - make 4 three pointers.

That was huge for our PG to be able to knock down open threes. If Goodin can continue to make open threes at a respectable clip, he's going to be so hard to defend. He can already get in the lane whenever he wants. If had finished just 2 or 3 of his drives at Creighton he would've scored 20 points.

Really wish we could finish the year with a healthy Ed and Goodin on the court at the same time for extended minutes.

Agree with all of this, X Factor! Look I'm not saying Ed is worse than Q, or that the team is better off without Ed. I am saying that they have different skill sets, and that saying all of these outcomes without Ed would have been the same with him are unfounded (and unknowable). The team has been forced to play differently in his absence, a style which I already stated I believed Ed to be capable of facilitating. Maybe that statement is what people disagree with, thinking that the team is just making more shots that they had been missing with Ed on the floor. IMO there is a lot more ball movement now.

[GoMuskies]

This thread escalated quickly. LOL

[GOX]

When I started this post I never implied Q was better than Ed. That we are better off without Ed. That we would have lost at Creighton if Ed had been at the point.
My point was that now that we see more clearly Q's ability, it would have been wonderful if Mack could have found a way to develop Q so he could have been the point guard and Ed the two
If any one is saying that if Ed returned tomorrow in good health you would put him back at the point and sit Q, I would be surprised.

[AviatorX]

When I started this post I never implied Q was better than Ed. That we are better off without Ed. That we would have lost at Creighton if Ed had been at the point.
My point was that now that we see more clearly Q's ability, it would have been wonderful if Mack could have found a way to develop Q so he could have been the point guard and Ed the two
If any one is saying that if Ed returned tomorrow in good health you would put him back at the point and sit Q, I would be surprised.

Totally fair. I'd want both of them playing together as much as possible. I think Mack had pinpointed that in the SJU game before Ed went down.

Edit: To be clear, if forced to choose between the two I'd want Ed 100/100 times. But I also wouldn't want to sit Q.

[markchal]

If any one is saying that if Ed returned tomorrow in good health you would put him back at the point and sit Q, I would be surprised.

The only logical rationalization for this comment would be that the user is somehow related to Q.

He's been playing well for a freshman, but let's not get crazy here. Ed is a game-changer, a monster in transition, and (when healthy, remember he hasn't been fully healthy for awhile) a top NBA prospect. I get that he might not have lived up to some expectations this season, but he's a tremendous player and that cannot be forgotten just because the team as a whole is playing harder. If you gave Ed the games we had from Kaiser and Tyrique, he'd beat most teams in this league too.

[mirabilelectu]

The only logical rationalization for this comment would be that the user is somehow related to Q.

He's been playing well for a freshman, but let's not get crazy here. Ed is a game-changer, a monster in transition, and (when healthy, remember he hasn't been fully healthy for awhile) a top NBA prospect. I get that he might not have lived up to some expectations this season, but he's a tremendous player and that cannot be forgotten just because the team as a whole is playing harder. If you gave Ed the games we had from Kaiser and Tyrique, he'd beat most teams in this league too.

I think what I'm (and a few others) are trying to say is that it's possible they had good games because they had to retool (maybe, recommit to different areas of) the offense in the absence of Ed.

[Caf]

If any one is saying that if Ed returned tomorrow in good health you would put him back at the point and sit Q, I would be surprised.

Well color you surprised.

[GoMuskies]

Who would you sit if Ed was healthy so that Q starts? Bernard? I could get behind that, I guess.

[markchal]

I think what I'm (and a few others) are trying to say is that it's possible they had good games because they had to retool (maybe, recommit to different areas of) the offense in the absence of Ed.

There are much better ways to communicate this point. I do think we've seen more effort out of some guys because they know they need to step up more (for example, the Gates rebounding). And I've been very pleased with Q and with the grit this team has shown in the last few wins (even if they haven't been pretty). But I think the matchups in these games and the corresponding lift in effort from guys trying to pick up the slack are the biggest reasons for the Ws, and not that our offense simply is better without Ed.

[Xavier]

I think when we had Ed the rest of the team relied on Ed/Tre/JP to do almost everything. Ed going down forces everyone else to step up and contribute. Q has done some good things and definitely played better than I expected but one of the best ever freshman at X? Come on man.

[Lloyd Braun]

Who would you sit if Ed was healthy so that Q starts? Bernard? I could get behind that, I guess.

JP... I have been clamoring for JP the 6th man all year.

[SemajParlor]

I think as a fanbase we have a tendency to anoint "superstars" far too often. The fact is, Sumner is more potential than anything at this point. He is too light, he doesn't have a great shot and his basketball IQ isn't that great. Now he may make a great NBA player because he can improve his weaknesses and he has god-given athleticis, but he isn't a "superstar" at the CBB level.

Goodin on the other hand has to be one of the best freshman we have ever seen. But because Sumner is the "superstar" some of us refuse to acknowledge it.

Give me Goodin over Sumner straight up. Sumner might be the better NBA player someday, but he has tons of flaws currently.

There's like 6 bad points in here

[mirabilelectu]

There are much better ways to communicate this point. I do think we've seen more effort out of some guys because they know they need to step up more (for example, the Gates rebounding). And I've been very pleased with Q and with the grit this team has shown in the last few wins (even if they haven't been pretty). But I think the matchups in these games and the corresponding lift in effort from guys trying to pick up the slack are the biggest reasons for the Ws, and not that our offense simply is better without Ed.

Fair enough.

[SemajParlor]

If any one is saying that if Ed returned tomorrow in good health you would put him back at the point and sit Q, I would be surprised.

I would put Ed at point and sit Q.

[mirabilelectu]

]I think when we had Ed the rest of the team relied on Ed/Tre/JP to do almost everything. Ed going down forces everyone else to step up and contribute.[/B] Q has done some good things and definitely played better than I expected but one of the best ever freshman at X? Come on man.

Agreed, but my point would go further in that the coaching staff was content to let those three attempt to carry it. I don't see it as a coincidence that our bigs are showing promise (I know TJ's effort is outrageous, but we at least committed to getting him the ball) and that our guys are hitting more shots. I think the offense looks different now (some people don't), I attribute that fact to Ed's absence (some people don't), but I'm saying the offense was purposefully oriented differently with Ed in the line-up and it wasn't as effective as I thought it would be.

[Xville]

I would put Ed at point and sit Q.

I'd leave q at point and put ed at the 2. That's our best lineup in my opinion, or you can switch the two of you really want. I think both on the floor gives the team the best look.

[X Factor]

There's like 6 bad points in here

What are they?

[xufan2434]

Agreed, but my point would go further in that the coaching staff was content to let those three attempt to carry it. I don't see it as a coincidence that our bigs are showing promise (I know TJ's effort is outrageous, but we at least committed to getting him the ball) and that our guys are hitting more shots. I think the offense looks different now (some people don't), I attribute that fact to Ed's absence (some people don't), but I'm saying the offense was purposefully oriented differently with Ed in the line-up and it wasn't as effective as I thought it would be.

This is one of the bigger things I noticed against Creighton. Tyrique was playing great and getting good position, but more importantly the wings were actually passing the ball in. I know the bigs haven't always played great, but I cannot remember another season where I've seen a team struggle so bad at entering the ball into the post. Also funny that they start doing that, and when we actually convert.. the shots from the outside start to get a little more open and the percentages go up.

[XUFan09]

Points are all well taken. I guess we just personally disagree with the frequency of open looks; I remember so many shots taken at the end of the shot-clock because we seemed to be passing aimlessly. Also, the Creighton match-up was terrible for our offense at home (67 points with Ed!), so it might be a little dismissive to say that we just match up well with them. In all, it is too early to say that Q's presence has the effect of a better offense, and I agree that I think we will struggle more as teams game-plan for it. But we aren't running different plays, we are just committed to getting the ball in the middle.


We shot 20% from three against them at Cintas and 45.5% from three in Omaha.
Go answered for me the big difference between the two games, besides what I already said about Tyrique having a ridiculously good game. They shot the three well below their season average in the first game and well above their season average in the second game. That's a big point differential from that alone before even accounting for how a team making threes makes other looks easier as the defense spreads out more.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[XUFan09]

This is one of the bigger things I noticed against Creighton. Tyrique was playing great and getting good position, but more importantly the wings were actually passing the ball in. I know the bigs haven't always played great, but I cannot remember another season where I've seen a team struggle so bad at entering the ball into the post. Also funny that they start doing that, and when we actually convert.. the shots from the outside start to get a little more open and the percentages go up.
I agree about passing into the post being a problem this year. I do suspect that Xavier was also trying to force foul trouble on Patton in the early game with repeated attacks as an explicit gameplan, but it did seem like Tyrique's teammates were also excited to get him the ball again.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[D-West & PO-Z]

Jesus.

Ha, my thoughts exactly.

[D-West & PO-Z]

In what world are you living in calling Goodin one of the best freshmen we've ever seen? Lmao, he's averaging 4, 2, & 1 on the year. I don't care who was in front of him to start the year, if you're throwing that title on him, then he finds his way onto the court regardless. Q has been great compared to what we expected as of late. I think he can become very good, but to say he's better than Ed right now is absurd. He hasn't been asked to do nearly the same things Ed has had to do. Q has played some good defense as of late, but you're also underestimating Ed on that side of the court. He's saved them many a times on defensive boards and steals. Not to mention his ability in the open court. BTW, we're not the only ones anointing Ed.. take a look at every single national media member that covers the sport for a living

Yeah the XU fans arent annointing Ed a superstar. We arent the ones naming him a likely 1st round pick (before injury).

GEEZ

[gladdenguy]

Some of Q's passes really make me think he could be one of the most special point guards in Xavier history. In the past we have had great point guards but they just seemed to be scorers first (Tu, Chalmers). Dee Davis was probably a pass first point guard but Q just has a whole different physique and what seems to be a so much higher ceiling.

God Bless Quentin Goodin.

[Blue Blooded-05]

OK, the best win that this program has ever had was with Sumner starting at PG against the #1 team in the country and eventual national champions last year. Ed had 19 pts, 9 ast, and 6 reb.

Goodin has definitely earned respect as a player, but this is insane...

Pssssh...

Let's look at where Q's numbers are trending after two starts...

8 points vs. Seton Hall & 15 points vs. Creighton (increase of 87.5%)
1 steal vs. Seton Hall & 5 steals vs. Creighton (increase of 400%)

Assume we win out and go all the way (and you'll soon see why)... we would play 17 more games... all Q has to do is keep his current growth trends, and by my calculations, he will score 656,316 points and get 85,899,345,920 steals in the National Championship game.

Given the way Q has played over 2 starts, I think we can all agree these numbers are very attainable.

[D-West & PO-Z]

This may be the most I've ever disagreed with a post on here. I actually think X fans (and fans in general) underappreciate how good players are at times when they are on "our" team -- see some of the thoughts on Tre on this board or the parade of critiques whenever a player is so much as rumored to be considering leaving early.

Word.

We literally had people arguing Trevon wasnt good enough to play in the BE one year AFTER he was 1st team All BE!!! HAHAHAHA X fans are too good sometimes!

Cant wait for that beer.

[D-West & PO-Z]

What does Goodin have to do to earn this fanbase's respect? I am pretty sure our 2 best wins are with him starting as our PG. Too bad he doesn't make cool dunks like Sumner.

He has our respect. Deosnt mean hes better than Sumner.

I love what Q's doing and how he has stepped up. He isnt better than Sumner. Not even close.

[SemajParlor]

What are they?

I don't feel the need to continue to knock on a poster and fellow X fan that I've never encountered on here. But yeah, I see at least 6.

[bobbiemcgee]

After 2 surgeries, what are the chances he even comes back next year? Acl's don't heal up in 7-9 months, do they?

[X-ceptional]

Pssssh...

Let's look at where Q's numbers are trending after two starts...

8 points vs. Seton Hall & 15 points vs. Creighton (increase of 87.5%)
1 steal vs. Seton Hall & 5 steals vs. Creighton (increase of 400%)

Assume we win out and go all the way (and you'll soon see why)... we would play 17 more games... all Q has to do is keep his current growth trends, and by my calculations, he will score 656,316 points and get 85,899,345,920 steals in the National Championship game.

Given the way Q has played over 2 starts, I think we can all agree these numbers are very attainable.

Math checks out. Although I have to say, I would be a little disappointed with that scoring total. He should be able to convert those nearly 86 billion steals into at least a few more buckets I would hope.

[ammtd34]

After 2 surgeries, what are the chances he even comes back next year? Acl's don't heal up in 7-9 months, do they?

Yes.

[paulxu]

OK, the best win that this program has ever had was with Sumner starting at PG against the #1 team in the country and eventual national champions last year. Ed had 19 pts, 9 ast, and 6 reb.

Not to derail this thread, and the win over Nova was very, very good.
But I'm not sure that is necessarily the best win this program has "ever" had.

My vote goes for our win over #1UC, on their home court. Thank you Lenny Brown.

[GoMuskies]

Ever? Texas or WV in the respective Sweet 16s, duh. Would also accept Georgetown 1990.

[muskiefan82]

I'll take the win over Texas to get to the Elite Eight.

[BandAid]

My starting five if everyone was healthy and available: Q, Ed, Tre, Gates, Tyrique.

I love JP as the sixth man. Team's might think "Ah, their starting five is going out now we can let up a little bit. Crap, it's that pesky sonuva..."

The early effort we've seen from Gates starting at the UC game really seems to translate to him "locking in" in terms of effort and focus.

And I think Mack has been masterful at managing the bigs the past three games.

In general, I've liked the look of the offense the past couple of games. There's more movement, they're looking to the interior more often, etc.

Ed is undoubtedly better than Q, but I'm partial to seeing the entire team involved instead of waiting for Ed or Tre to make a play...or for JP to try to go get his.

[muskieindent]

Ed finishes better at the rim and is a better foul shooter.Q so far is showing himself to be a better 3 point shooter.I think we are fortunate to have 2 guys who can play the point.

[IM4X]

JP... I have been clamoring for JP the 6th man all year.

Agree... still give him the same minutes... but JP plays harder and smarter when he comes off the bench. He comes out with a little more oomph... more tenacity.

[X Factor]

Agree... still give him the same minutes... but JP plays harder and smarter when he comes off the bench. He comes out with a little more oomph... more tenacity.

I think JP plays hard no matter what. I haven't seen any difference with him starting this year as opposed to him coming off the bench last year. He still dives all over the floor, flies out of bounds going after loose balls, etc.

Why on earth would you NOT start JP??? That's almost as ridiculous as not starting Edmond.

Definitely bring Malcom off the bench as a sixth man. But, all of this is moot anyway since Ed is finished for the year.

[XMuskieFTW]

Ed finishes better at the rim and is a better foul shooter.Q so far is showing himself to be a better 3 point shooter.I think we are fortunate to have 2 guys who can play the point.

I wouldn't expect that good 3 point shooting to last. I'd be very happy with 32% from him going forward. Pretty sure he shot something like 24% his senior year.

[X-ceptional]

Not to derail this thread, and the win over Nova was very, very good.
But I'm not sure that is necessarily the best win this program has "ever" had.

My vote goes for our win over #1UC, on their home court. Thank you Lenny Brown.

I'm not too worried about derailing this thread, and I definitely see where you're coming from. I don't necessarily think that the win over Nova was the "biggest" win in X history. I think the S16 victories are bigger in that regard. It may be a matter of recency bias, but considering how good Nova was coming into it, and then also looking at it in retrospect (i.e., I am also taking into consideration Nova went on to win it all), I just feel as though it was the best win, even if it's not the biggest or most important... if that makes sense. But, certainly reasonable minds can and will differ on this.

[GoMuskies]

IBut, certainly reasonable minds can and will differ on this.

We'll never know on this board, of course. :drinks:

[X Factor]

I wouldn't expect that good 3 point shooting to last. I'd be very happy with 32% from him going forward. Pretty sure he shot something like 24% his senior year.

He made 4 three's in game, something neither Semaj Christon ever did or Ed has done. He's got solid form on his shot, better than both Semaj and Ed. Semaj had a funky chicken wing elbow and Ed kind of flicks it up there.

I don't think it's out of the question for Goodin to make 35% of his threes, especially if they're solid, open looks. He's not going to make 3 or 4 a game obviously, but he could knock down 1 or 2 a game, and that would be a big help for this offense.

[pimpinthebox]

There's like 6 bad points in here

This made me laugh. So true. If there's a chance in hell Ed or anyone in his ear is reading this board, I sure hope they take it with a giant grain. If we shot the ball like this (last few games) when Ed was in the lineup, we'd have 20+ wins.

[XUFan09]

He made 4 three's in game, something neither Semaj Christon ever did or Ed has done. He's got solid form on his shot, better than both Semaj and Ed. Semaj had a funky chicken wing elbow and Ed kind of flicks it up there.

I don't think it's out of the question for Goodin to make 35% of his threes, especially if they're solid, open looks. He's not going to make 3 or 4 a game obviously, but he could knock down 1 or 2 a game, and that would be a big help for this offense.
Semaj Christon isn't really relevant here (though both Ed and Goodin are probably better shooters).

As for Ed, I imagine if he was left as wide-freaking-open as Q was, he would hit a few threes. Creighton gave Q the same treatment that UC gave Dee Davis his senior year; they chose not to guard him. Just as Dee was not as good of a shooter as his 5-5 on practice threes, so too is Q not as good as his 4-7 on practice threes. I do not get how people somehow try to reason that Q is a better shooter because he had ONE good shooting game when no one guarded him.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[GOX]

In a renewed effort to get the thread back on point, all you have to say is you would or would not put both Ed and Q on the same floor at the same time, with Q at the point. Your answer will instantly reveal your basketball IQ......or maybe you overall IQ.

[mirabilelectu]

Semaj Christon isn't really relevant here (though both Ed and Goodin are probably better shooters).

As for Ed, I imagine if he was left as wide-freaking-open as Q was, he would hit a few threes. Creighton gave Q the same treatment that UC gave Dee Davis his senior year; they chose not to guard him. Just as Dee was not as good of a shooter as his 5-5 on practice threes, so too is Q not as good as his 4-7 on practice threes. I do not get how people somehow try to reason that Q is a better shooter because he had ONE good shooting game when no one guarded him.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Ed air-balled a wide open 3 earlier this year in Cintas. Also, teams play off Ed because they know he can't shoot. I agree, anointing Q the next Steph wild, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that we could have more hope for Q's outside shot than Ed's.

[scoscox]

Q has airballed multiple threes, regardless I think he's a better shooter.

[xuwin]

He made 4 three's in game, something neither Semaj Christon ever did or Ed has done. He's got solid form on his shot, better than both Semaj and Ed. Semaj had a funky chicken wing elbow and Ed kind of flicks it up there.

I don't think it's out of the question for Goodin to make 35% of his threes, especially if they're solid, open looks. He's not going to make 3 or 4 a game obviously, but he could knock down 1 or 2 a game, and that would be a big help for this offense.

He will have to show me that he is a better than 50% free throw shooter before I would agree that he is capable of shooting 35% of his threes.

[Olsingledigit]

Ed air-balled a wide open 3 earlier this year in Cintas. Also, teams play off Ed because they know he can't shoot. I agree, anointing Q the next Steph wild, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that we could have more hope for Q's outside shot than Ed's.

Realistically there was likely not enough tape for a true assessment so Creighton took the approach they thought would work and got burned. However, teams that play us still have to guard Tre and JP from the three and at least some on Kaiser so Q is likely to get some open threes with those guys around.

[XMuskieFTW]

I think he's marginally better than Ed from 3. Like I said though, I'd be very happy with 32% from him and he's the last one I'd want taking a three outside the centers. His shot has greatly improved from last year to this, so hopefully that can continue.

[SemajParlor]

In a renewed effort to get the thread back on point, all you have to say is you would or would not put both Ed and Q on the same floor at the same time, with Q at the point. Your answer will instantly reveal your basketball IQ......or maybe you overall IQ.

I'm still a little unsure why we're working under the impression that Ed playing off the ball with Goodin has more net value than Ed playing point. But sure I'd give it a try and see. I suspect that idea was floated around the coaching staff a few times this year - especially with an unexpected change in the starting backcourt. They seemed to implement it situationally against SJU's very small backcourt.

[X-ceptional]

In a renewed effort to get the thread back on point, all you have to say is you would or would not put both Ed and Q on the same floor at the same time, with Q at the point. Your answer will instantly reveal your basketball IQ......or maybe you overall IQ.

If they're on the floor at the same time... fine, have Q at the "point" but I think it would really be in name only. In reality, the positions in basketball get increasingly nebulous with each passing year (I mean, does anyone really think Tre is a "power" forward, even though we technically play him at the 4 sometimes?). If anything, I would say we have two point guards on the floor, and while Q may fit the definition of a "true" PG, whatever that may be, in certain situations, I would still want the ball in the more experienced of the two's hands (i.e., if a team were pressing, etc.).

But if there can be only one (Highlander style), I'll echo what I think AviatorX said earlier in the thread: As of right now (if not for the injury of course), I would choose Ed 100/100 times, AND THAT IS NOT A KNOCK ON Q AT ALL.

[paulxu]

We'll never know on this board, of course. :drinks:

Au contraire...I have a reasonable mind, and I differ with myself all the damn time.

[scoscox]

This whole phenomenon spreading that it's a good thing Ed got hurt is absurd. I think they feel a sense of urgency without him that they didn't before, but if our supporting cast had been playing like this before Edmond was hurt we'd never have fallen out of the top ten. This is insulting to one of the most talented players to ever play at Xavier. Trevon, JP, and Kaiser are all shooting much better and Kaiser is probably our best rebounder at this point. Tyrique and Q are fully comfortable and asserting their will. None of this was happening for much of the season. The emergence of Kaiser, Q, and Rique and re-emergence of Tre is the real story. I would like to see the Q at point, Ed at 2 line-up and I think it might be a more ideal set-up, but in no way was Ed going down a positive thing.

[Olsingledigit]

This whole phenomenon spreading that it's a good thing Ed got hurt is absurd. I think they feel a sense of urgency without him that they didn't before, but if our supporting cast had been playing like this before Edmond was hurt we'd never have fallen out of the top ten. This is insulting to one of the most talented players to ever play at Xavier. Trevon, JP, and Kaiser are all shooting much better and Kaiser is probably our best rebounder at this point. Tyrique and Q are fully comfortable and asserting their will. None of this was happening for much of the season. The emergence of Kaiser, Q, and Rique and re-emergence of Tre is the real story. I would like to see the Q at point, Ed at 2 line-up and I think it might be a more ideal set-up, but in no way was Ed going down a positive thing.

Of course we would be better with Ed, but can we not be happy with the fact that perhaps we can win even without Ed? I believe that is what people are saying.

[X Factor]

Semaj Christon isn't really relevant here (though both Ed and Goodin are probably better shooters).

As for Ed, I imagine if he was left as wide-freaking-open as Q was, he would hit a few threes. Creighton gave Q the same treatment that UC gave Dee Davis his senior year; they chose not to guard him. Just as Dee was not as good of a shooter as his 5-5 on practice threes, so too is Q not as good as his 4-7 on practice threes. I do not get how people somehow try to reason that Q is a better shooter because he had ONE good shooting game when no one guarded him.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

So Ed played 696 minutes this year and made 12 three pointers at a 27% clip.

Goodin has played 385 minutes and has made 9 threes pointers at a .375% clip.

Ed really wasn't even a threat from three. That's why I'm struggling to see him have a long NBA career, even fully healthy. You HAVE to be able to shoot in the NBA. Freakin' DeMarcus Cousins can stroke it from deep. I mean, just about every wing and guard can shoot the ball.

I'm not saying Goodin is going to make 4 threes a game, certainly not, but he is going to be a legitimate threat from three, unlike Ed.

And please, I am NOT knocking Ed. We would be SO much better with Ed in the lineup, along with Goodin.

[Xville]

So Ed played 696 minutes this year and made 12 three pointers at a 27% clip.

Goodin has played 385 minutes and has made 9 threes pointers at a .375% clip.

Ed really wasn't even a threat from three. That's why I'm struggling to see him have a long NBA career, even fully healthy. You HAVE to be able to shoot in the NBA. Freakin' DeMarcus Cousins can stroke it from deep. I mean, just about every wing and guard can shoot the ball.

I'm not saying Goodin is going to make 4 threes a game, certainly not, but he is going to be a legitimate threat from three, unlike Ed.

And please, I am NOT knocking Ed. We would be SO much better with Ed in the lineup, along with Goodin.

RaJon rondo, John wall and numerous other point guards completely disagree with you that you have to be able to shoot in the NBA to have a successful career.

[X Factor]

RaJon rondo, John wall and numerous other point guards completely disagree with you that you have to be able to shoot in the NBA to have a successful career.

Those are all-star caliber players. Why do you think Semaj struggling to stick in the NBA? He was shooting 19% from three before he got sent down the NBDL. He is big enough and athletic enough to play in the NBA, but he can't shoot a lick.

[xu82]

Those are all-star caliber players. Why do you think Semaj struggling to stick in the NBA? He was shooting 19% from three before he got sent down the NBDL. He is big enough and athletic enough to play in the NBA, but he can't shoot a lick.

And therein lies the conundrum..... You can't make it if you can't shoot, but you can be an All Star if you can't shoot. Ummm, which is it? I'll wait and see, because I have no idea. A decent shot would certainly help.

[AviatorX]

So Ed played 696 minutes this year and made 12 three pointers at a 27% clip.

Goodin has played 385 minutes and has made 9 threes pointers at a .375% clip.

Ed really wasn't even a threat from three. That's why I'm struggling to see him have a long NBA career, even fully healthy. You HAVE to be able to shoot in the NBA. Freakin' DeMarcus Cousins can stroke it from deep. I mean, just about every wing and guard can shoot the ball.

I'm not saying Goodin is going to make 4 threes a game, certainly not, but he is going to be a legitimate threat from three, unlike Ed.

And please, I am NOT knocking Ed. We would be SO much better with Ed in the lineup, along with Goodin.

Are you worried that pretty much half of Q's makes came in one game that could be a complete outlier? Not sure there's really enough of a sample to say he'll definitely be a better shooter.

[Xville]

Those are all-star caliber players. Why do you think Semaj struggling to stick in the NBA? He was shooting 19% from three before he got sent down the NBDL. He is big enough and athletic enough to play in the NBA, but he can't shoot a lick.

So u can not shoot a lick yet be an all star caliber player. You just proved my point.

[XUFan09]

Ed air-balled a wide open 3 earlier this year in Cintas. Also, teams play off Ed because they know he can't shoot. I agree, anointing Q the next Steph wild, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that we could have more hope for Q's outside shot than Ed's.

Yeah, and Q has airballed multiple threes. I don't think an airball here and there is actually relevant next to the overall shooting, but hey, if you want to bring it up, it just supports my skepticism. Yes, defenders have played off Ed, but there are degrees of playing off a guy. No one has regularly played as far off Ed as the Creighton defense played off Q. Heck, Creighton didn't even contest some of Q's attempts. They basically told him to shoot it like Xavier told Angel Delgado to shoot the midrange jumper in the game before.

We might have hopes for his shot long-term, but I'm not expecting much as a freshman.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[BandAid]

Following this thread helped me get through work today. Thanks everybody!

[XUFan09]

So Ed played 696 minutes this year and made 12 three pointers at a 27% clip.

Goodin has played 385 minutes and has made 9 threes pointers at a .375% clip.

Ed really wasn't even a threat from three. That's why I'm struggling to see him have a long NBA career, even fully healthy. You HAVE to be able to shoot in the NBA. Freakin' DeMarcus Cousins can stroke it from deep. I mean, just about every wing and guard can shoot the ball.

I'm not saying Goodin is going to make 4 threes a game, certainly not, but he is going to be a legitimate threat from three, unlike Ed.

And please, I am NOT knocking Ed. We would be SO much better with Ed in the lineup, along with Goodin.

You have at least improved from treating a single game as substantial. Still, they are very small sample sizes. I don't know why you're using minutes played when we have the actual number of attempts. Ed has only 44 attempts on the season while Q has a measly 24 attempts. The margin of error (with 95% confidence) on Ed's "true shooting percentage" is +/-13%. For Q, it's +/-19%. Those are massive margins of error. Heck, Q actually falls just short of the minimum number of attempts needed to justify assuming a normal distribution. That's how small the sample size is.

I've never thought that you or most on this board are actually bashing Ed. I just think we shouldn't expect Q to be noticeabley better than Ed as a shooter. It's a possibility, but they are more likely on a similar level.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[xu82]

It's possible that I hated Stats more than Theology. Tough call....

[mirabilelectu]

Yeah, and Q has airballed multiple threes. I don't think an airball here and there is actually relevant next to the overall shooting, but hey, if you want to bring it up, it just supports my skepticism. Yes, defenders have played off Ed, but there are degrees of playing off a guy. No one has regularly played as far off Ed as the Creighton defense played off Q. Heck, Creighton didn't even contest some of Q's attempts. They basically told him to shoot it like Xavier told Angel Delgado to shoot the midrange jumper in the game before.

We might have hopes for his shot long-term, but I'm not expecting much as a freshman.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I guess the difference between our POVs is that I can remember teams playing off of Ed too, far enough that he could have gotten shots off and chose not to. Kind of why, for me, the minutes played stat is still meaningful (though I agree, your point about margin of error makes the comparison almost moot); I guess I feel like Ed has a proclivity for going to the hole, and some of that stems from his confidence in his shot. Great stats though re: their percentages.

[paulxu]

The greatest 3 point shooter in the history of the game


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN26NOMARJ8

[GOX]

So u can not shoot a lick yet be an all star caliber player. You just proved my point.

Not Really. You can be an NBA point guard with no shot if you are an EXTRAORIDARY floor coach and and have an EXCEPTIONAL eye for the open man and play EXCEPTIONAL defense.
Ed has no outside shot, is distracted with finding his path to the basket, and is not a defensive stalwart .
Ed is an EXCEPTIONAL athlete who plays basketball. The NBA s scouts were so impressed with his ATHLETICISM they would take a chance on building out his body and game.
It is understandable that the average equated his athleticism with his basketball skills. But we on this Board are not average.

[xu82]

Not Really. You can be an NBA point guard with no shot if you are an EXTRAORIDARY floor coach and and have an EXCEPTIONAL eye for the open man and play EXCEPTIONAL defense.
Ed has no outside shot, is distracted with finding his path to the basket, and is not a defensive stalwart .
Ed is an EXCEPTIONAL athlete who plays basketball. The NBA s scouts were so impressed with his ATHLETICISM they would take a chance on building out his body and game.
It is understandable that the average equated his athleticism with his basketball skills. But we on this Board are not average.

I beg your pardon, but I aspire to be average one day!

[Xville]

Not Really. You can be an NBA point guard with no shot if you are an EXTRAORIDARY floor coach and and have an EXCEPTIONAL eye for the open man and play EXCEPTIONAL defense.
Ed has no outside shot, is distracted with finding his path to the basket, and is not a defensive stalwart .
Ed is an EXCEPTIONAL athlete who plays basketball. The NBA s scouts were so impressed with his ATHLETICISM they would take a chance on building out his body and game.
It is understandable that the average equated his athleticism with his basketball skills. But we on this Board are not average.

Your original point was that you have to be able to shoot in the NBA, I pointed out two that are very medicare shooters that have had long successful NBA careers. Sumner can develop the other parts of his game to have a successful career.

You stated that Semaj can't stick because he can't shoot and equated rhat as to why Sumner can't make it. Semaj has more problems than not being able to shoot. Shooting is only one reason why he isn't sticking.

[nasdadjr]

We all love Ed as a player ,student - athlete, and future alum.
We long for his return next year .
So nothing in this post should be interpreted as a knock on Ed.
But we have seen that in his absence Q has blossomed , players have stepped up, the ball movement has vastly improved, and one has a sense of a team, not Ed plus 4.
Having Ed play the point was by default, but having a player with Ed's skill set at the point was not good.
Ed is a scoring machine who has to get to the basket.
When a scoring machine has the ball his focus is on scoring, not distributing.
When you play alongside a scoring machine you give him the first opportunity to score. If the ball comes to you it is not because you are open but because he is covered.
Imagine the team we would have with Q at the point, and Ed constantly in motion looking for an opening.
Everyone else would/could be in motion.
With Ed in motion It takes the pressure off of Bluett and Macura.
It can open up the base line for better opportunities for the Bigs.
That's what I see for next year!

Didn't read the whole thing just the first post. My opinion is JP is not a starter. He is energy off the bench and the best sixth man in the league. It is a moot point now but if Ed was still playing I would say our optimal lineup would be Q at 1, Ed at 2, Blueitt at 3, Tyrique at 4 Gaston at 5 with JP, Bernard, Gates and Omara coming off the bench. Of course he is done for the year so that is pretty pointless.

[X Factor]

Didn't read the whole thing just the first post. My opinion is JP is not a starter. He is energy off the bench and the best sixth man in the league. It is a moot point now but if Ed was still playing I would say our optimal lineup would be Q at 1, Ed at 2, Blueitt at 3, Tyrique at 4 Gaston at 5 with JP, Bernard, Gates and Omara coming off the bench. Of course he is done for the year so that is pretty pointless.

Why on earth would you start both Tyrique and Gaston? Why would you sit one of our best offensive players? Makes no sense at all.

You're entitled to your opinion.

[AviatorX]

Didn't read the whole thing just the first post. My opinion is JP is not a starter. He is energy off the bench and the best sixth man in the league. It is a moot point now but if Ed was still playing I would say our optimal lineup would be Q at 1, Ed at 2, Blueitt at 3, Tyrique at 4 Gaston at 5 with JP, Bernard, Gates and Omara coming off the bench. Of course he is done for the year so that is pretty pointless.

And you thought X couldn't shoot before! Imagine that lineup.

[XUFan09]

I don't know why people still think a two-big lineup is a good idea. Jones and Gaston have half a jump shot between them. It would be one thing if one of those guys could stretch the floor, but if you threw out a lineup with Jones and Gaston together on a regular basis, you would see defenses pack in more than Xavier did against Seton Hall.

[XUFan09]

It's possible that I hated Stats more than Theology. Tough call....

You just never had me as a professor ;-). See, that's your problem.

[Emp]

Let's see how he does vs Nova before we warm up the chrism. M thrilled he has shown us three very good games, and that he seems to be maturing before our eyes. It's a silver lining to Ed going down, true. BUT.........All the rest of this discussion is angels on the head of a pin HOOEY.

[XUFan09]

Concerning the original topic, the coaches did play Goodin and Ed alongside each other from time to time, and I did like that look. Still, there's too much talent on the team to put out that look consistently, and Ed at point guard did have one of the better assist rates in the country. The team itself seems to be moving off the ball with more urgency now that Ed's gone, but frankly, they should have been doing that already, considering the missed opportunities this team has had.

[xuwin]

And you thought X couldn't shoot before! Imagine that lineup.

Good luck on Blueitt ever getting an open shot with that lineup. A bunch of layup attempts and one three point shooter.

[Caf]

I don't know why people still think a two-big lineup is a good idea. Jones and Gaston have half a jump shot between them. It would be one thing if one of those guys could stretch the floor, but if you threw out a lineup with Jones and Gaston together on a regular basis, you would see defenses pack in more than Xavier did against Seton Hall.

To be fair, Mack has gone with two-big lineup's in the past. Farr and Reynolds sometimes started together, as did Frease-Walker, McLean-Frease, and McLean-Love. These weren't always his go-to pairing, but they were frequent. Depending on the match up, and with our shooters, I think packing it in is exactly what we want.

In the past 2 years we've lacked the depth to do this, and this year we've lacked the talent.

[xuwin]

To be fair, Mack has gone with two-big lineup's in the past. Farr and Reynolds sometimes started together, as did Frease-Walker, McLean-Frease, and McLean-Love. These weren't always his go-to pairing, but they were frequent. Depending on the match up, and with our shooters, I think packing it in is exactly what we want.

In the past 2 years we've lacked the depth to do this, and this year we've lacked the talent.

Farr and Reynolds were both capable of stepping away from the basket and scoring. Our present big men can't do that at this time. With this group Gates has to be the second big man.

[Caf]

Farr and Reynolds were both capable of stepping away from the basket and scoring. Our present big men can't do that at this time. With this group Gates has to be the second big man.

I think you have a different memory of Reynolds' game than I do, Farr for sure. I'd also love to see that with Gates, I've hoped he'd become a stronger mid-range and post contributor.

[IM4X]

I think JP plays hard no matter what. I haven't seen any difference with him starting this year as opposed to him coming off the bench last year. He still dives all over the floor, flies out of bounds going after loose balls, etc.

Why on earth would you NOT start JP??? That's almost as ridiculous as not starting Edmond.

Definitely bring Malcom off the bench as a sixth man. But, all of this is moot anyway since Ed is finished for the year.

Simple. When JP comes off the bench, he does more of those things you'ce mentioned above. It's like he is being shot out of a cannon. JP coming off the bench is often the spark the team desperately needs. When he starts, his motor is not always cranked up. He can be quite lethargic (on offense and defense) and at times makes some really bad decisions in a game.He tends to stand in a corner on offense and he'll often even stay there when a teammate needs his help at the top of the key (maybe they've picked up their dribble or they hace two guys closing on them).

No question that JP shows superhuman tenacity at times and even comes through at important moments in wonderfully unorthodox ways.
No question JP is one of the five best players (one of 3 most valuable). I think we'd all agree that he could start on any BE team. But if someone plays better coming off the bench, why not not use him that way. Mack could just say, "Look you are playing your best ball when you come off the bench... you come out fired up with so much energy and it catches our opponent off guard... most importantly, it gives our team an edge."

Farr came off the bench often last year. No one really thought of him as not being a starter. When he would come in the games, he would often dominate. similar to what we witness from JP... which almost always leads to him having more points per minute and less mistakes per game. It's like he is both more energized and tuned in during the game.

I would start Bernard... and keep JP on the bench (like a chained attack dog). Then, at the first sign of the opposing players getting too comfortable, I'd unleash him.

[Drew]

If I was confident Kaiser and Tre could guard the 4 & 3 then I would bench JP. But I am not confident in that yet.

[scoscox]

Without Myles and Edmond, having JP come off the bench is completely out of the realm of possibility, but I would have agreed when they were both playing.

[XUFan09]

To be fair, Mack has gone with two-big lineup's in the past. Farr and Reynolds sometimes started together, as did Frease-Walker, McLean-Frease, and McLean-Love. These weren't always his go-to pairing, but they were frequent. Depending on the match up, and with our shooters, I think packing it in is exactly what we want.

In the past 2 years we've lacked the depth to do this, and this year we've lacked the talent.

No, the last two years aren't about depth. It's about a changing philosophy, one that generally doesn't have more than one big on the court. Floor spacing and defensive switching are being prioritized. Last year, Farr and Reynolds were both talented enough and in good enough shape to play more minutes, and O'Mara was reliable at a backup level. Mack had a good four-man rotation that he could have used to cover the 4 and 5 with Gates/London rounding it out. Heck, it was better than a lot of the 4-man rotations that he's had over the years. However, if the 1-3-1 wasn't being employed, two traditional bigs generally didn't see the court together.



Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[AviatorX]

If I was confident Kaiser and Tre could guard the 4 & 3 then I would bench JP. But I am not confident in that yet.

So if Ed were healthy, your lineup would not include him or JP? Wow. Why do you want to take X's best players off the floor?

[Drew]

So if Ed were healthy, your lineup would not include him or JP? Wow. Why do you want to take X's best players off the floor?

If Ed were healthy then I would absolutely sit JP. JP is a good player with a great heart. But he makes more dumb mistakes than any other X player we have. For every great shot or steal there are 2 dumb turnovers and 3 lost assignments.

[Caf]

No, the last two years aren't about depth. It's about a changing philosophy, one that generally doesn't have more than one big on the court. Floor spacing and defensive switching are being prioritized. Last year, Farr and Reynolds were both talented enough and in good enough shape to play more minutes, and O'Mara was reliable at a backup level. Mack had a good four-man rotation that he could have used to cover the 4 and 5 with Gates/London rounding it out. Heck, it was better than a lot of the 4-man rotations that he's had over the years. However, if the 1-3-1 wasn't being employed, two traditional bigs generally didn't see the court together.


I disagree. I think it was very much out of necessity as O'Mara wasn't a reliable backup. We were toast on defense with just him on the floor and Reynolds was consistently getting in foul trouble. As said, it's not his go-to pairing but it's still important against teams with big PFs. Especially defensively. We don't have a single rim protector, so crowding the box with 2 big men is our best bet.

[xufan2434]

When he starts, his motor is not always cranked up. He can be quite lethargic (on offense and defense) and at times makes some really bad decisions in a game.

I would definitely agree with that part. He doesn't always have the same motor out of the game, and probably because he knows he has to play big minutes and needs to save himself. I forget who tweeted it, but they said in the tunnel right before the 2nd half he was preaching to the team that they need to get going and play with more energy. Then he starts the 2nd half on fire. Thats what it would be like if he came off the bench.

Having said that, I agree I wouldn't start him if we had that luxury. Unfortunately I don't think we do

[xuwin]

If Ed were healthy then I would absolutely sit JP. JP is a good player with a great heart. But he makes more dumb mistakes than any other X player we have. For every great shot or steal there are 2 dumb turnovers and 3 lost assignments.

That's a real stretch to say that he makes 5 bad plays for every good play. I assure you that if that were anywhere close to being true he would not be playing for Xavier.

[Drew]

That's a real stretch to say that he makes 5 bad plays for every good play. I assure you that if that were anywhere close to being true he would not be playing for Xavier.

It was a slight exaggeration. But the fact remains that he makes far more mistakes than any of our other starters.

[ammtd34]

It was a slight exaggeration. But the fact remains that he makes far more mistakes than any of our other starters.

He averages fewer turnovers per 100 possessions than any other starter. Among starters, only Ed has a lower Defensive Rating.

[TUclutch]

I think you have a different memory of Reynolds' game than I do, Farr for sure. I'd also love to see that with Gates, I've hoped he'd become a stronger mid-range and post contributor.

Reynolds and Farr were both more than capable of playing out to 15 feet with the occasional no no no whew three pointer. None of our three "bigs" should ever shoot outside of 8 feet maximum

Also, It's pretty clear certain posters such as nasdadjr have zero idea what theyre talking about and zero credibility. Why do people continually engage them?

[AviatorX]

He averages fewer turnovers per 100 possessions than any other starter. Among starters, only Ed has a lower Defensive Rating.

Get out of here with facts and statistics. X should play its best players less so that they can provide a "spark."

[Caf]

Reynolds and Farr were both more than capable of playing out to 15 feet with the occasional no no no whew three pointer. None of our three "bigs" should ever shoot outside of 8 feet maximum

Also, It's pretty clear certain posters such as nasdadjr have zero idea what theyre talking about and zero credibility. Why do people continually engage them?

I still say that overstates Reynolds' shooting abilities. However, I don't think that's really significant in terms of justifying 2 bigs. It's mainly done for defensive purposes and on a team where we lack any major bigs, it's a useful option. Just look at our blocks for example. Edmond Sumner is tied with Gaston for most blocks on the team, he's a PG, and hasn't played in 2 games... Sean O'Mara has 2 blocks on the year! That's one more than Tim Stainbrook. I think that's reason enough to say that 2 bigs is at least occasionally necessary and I haven't even delved into rebounding. If Jones keeps it up this will be a moot point though, but currently I think it's a little crazy to use the same philosophy with Jones/O'Mara/Gaston as you did with Farr/Reynolds.

[GoMuskies]

Reynolds had a pretty decent mid-range jumper. I remember that his prep school coach described his as Thomas Robinson with a jump shot. That was the cruelest thing anyone ever did to Reynolds, because that high praise led to some unreasonable expectations that he never approached.

[Drew]

He averages fewer turnovers per 100 possessions than any other starter. Among starters, only Ed has a lower Defensive Rating.

I love it when people cherry pick stats to make their argument instead of owning it. So lets make it clear. You don't think JP is prone to mistakes?

[AviatorX]

I love it when people cherry pick stats to make their argument instead of owning it. So lets make it clear. You don't think JP is prone to mistakes?

So if you were Mack what would your usage of JP look like?

[XUFan09]

I disagree. I think it was very much out of necessity as O'Mara wasn't a reliable backup. We were toast on defense with just him on the floor and Reynolds was consistently getting in foul trouble. As said, it's not his go-to pairing but it's still important against teams with big PFs. Especially defensively. We don't have a single rim protector, so crowding the box with 2 big men is our best bet.

So O'Mara wasn't a reliable backup, yet Farr and Reynolds both averaged fewer minutes per game than any recent starting big? When those previous bigs include Matt Stainbrook and Kenny Frease? In addition, Reynolds wasn't consistently in foul trouble, and that doesn't even address Farr, who had a much lower foul rate. Farr would have easily played more minutes per game if there was actually an issue of depth and not a choice of play style. Also, Mack would be recruiting more bigs if he was really interested in two-big lineups all the time. Jones was a redshirt candidate if Ekiyor came and K. Jones is a project with grades issues.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[xufan2434]

Also, Mack would be recruiting more bigs if he was really interested in two-big lineups all the time. Jones was a redshirt candidate if Ekiyor came and K. Jones is a project with grades issues.

THIS.. Mack preferred to use that style back when that was all he had. Aka Phillmore/Stainbrook, etc. The game has changed and thank God we have a coach that recognizes that. He changed his recruiting style a couple years ago and it's pretty evident in who he's gotten. The JR class now had only O'Mara and London as bigs and London is a pure stretch 4. With the last 2 classes and the one coming in next year, pretty certain he wants long and athletic guys that can play multiple positions all over the court. It allows them to switch constantly on defense and create problems on offense.

[ammtd34]

I love it when people cherry pick stats to make their argument instead of owning it. So lets make it clear. You don't think JP is prone to mistakes?

The statement was "the fact remains..." I was refuting the "fact." If you would like to support the fact, feel free.

[Caf]

So O'Mara wasn't a reliable backup, yet Farr and Reynolds both averaged fewer minutes per game than any recent starting big? When those previous bigs include Matt Stainbrook and Kenny Frease? In addition, Reynolds wasn't consistently in foul trouble, and that doesn't even address Farr, who had a much lower foul rate. Farr would have easily played more minutes per game if there was actually an issue of depth and not a choice of play style. Also, Mack would be recruiting more bigs if he was really interested in two-big lineups all the time. Jones was a redshirt candidate if Ekiyor came and K. Jones is a project with grades issues.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

No, O'Mara was not a reliable backup, especially defensively. Your the stats guy, show me one indicator that suggests O'Mara is a serviceable defender. I haven't seen any. Farr and Reynolds effectively backed each other up IMO.

I agree that part of the reason they played alone was because we didn't need them too. However, we've seen times where it was a good option, and because of foul trouble it wasn't usually possible. Reynolds averaged 6.7 fouls per 40 minutes and Farr averaged 4.7. Reynolds literally wouldn't make it through a game if we needed.

Also, Mack desperately wants more bigs. He offered 5 Cs and 6 PFs last year.

[AviatorX]

No, O'Mara was not a reliable backup, especially defensively. Your the stats guy, show me one indicator that suggests O'Mara is a serviceable defender. I haven't seen any. Farr and Reynolds effectively backed each other up IMO.

I agree that part of the reason they played alone was because we didn't need them too. However, we've seen times where it was a good option, and because of foul trouble it wasn't usually possible. Reynolds averaged 6.7 fouls per 40 minutes and Farr averaged 4.7. Reynolds literally wouldn't make it through a game if we needed.

Also, Mack desperately wants more bigs. He offered 5 Cs and 6 PFs last year.

Not really sure this is true. Seems pretty clear to me who Mack is trying to model the roster after, and they aren't known for playing multiple bigs. Unless you can get elite bigs (and Xavier can't absent some connection to a specific recruit), going small and spacing the court is the way to go, Mack knows that.

[xufan2434]

No, O'Mara was not a reliable backup, especially defensively. Your the stats guy, show me one indicator that suggests O'Mara is a serviceable defender. I haven't seen any. Farr and Reynolds effectively backed each other up IMO.

I agree that part of the reason they played alone was because we didn't need them too. However, we've seen times where it was a good option, and because of foul trouble it wasn't usually possible. Reynolds averaged 6.7 fouls per 40 minutes and Farr averaged 4.7. Reynolds literally wouldn't make it through a game if we needed.

Also, Mack desperately wants more bigs. He offered 5 Cs and 6 PFs last year.

He offers that many thinking he's going to get 1 or 2 of them. That's really not that many in terms of how many offers schools make now. And even after they offer all those, they really focus on a couple of them. I wouldn't call that being desperate, I think it's more that good quality bigs are harder to come by these days so they give out more offers to better their chance of getting some. Also, I think them offering 11 big men from one class gives no indication that they want to go with 2 bigs in the lineup.

[Caf]

He offers that many thinking he's going to get 1 or 2 of them. That's really not that many in terms of how many offers schools make now. And even after they offer all those, they really focus on a couple of them. I wouldn't call that being desperate, I think it's more that good quality bigs are harder to come by these days so they give out more offers to better their chance of getting some. Also, I think them offering 11 big men from one class gives no indication that they want to go with 2 bigs in the lineup.

Not really sure this is true. Seems pretty clear to me who Mack is trying to model the roster after, and they aren't known for playing multiple bigs. Unless you can get elite bigs (and Xavier can't absent some connection to a specific recruit), going small and spacing the court is the way to go, Mack knows that.

Fair enough re: recruiting. I disagree that if you can't get elite bigs you should go small. If anything, I'd say the opposite would be true. Honestly though, without a solid front court, you're going to be in a tough sport irregardless.

[AviatorX]

Fair enough re: recruiting. I disagree that if you can't get elite bigs you should go small. If anything, I'd say the opposite would be true. Honestly though, without a solid front court, you're going to be in a tough sport irregardless.

I'm curious why you disagree. The way I see it, if you can get a glass-cleaning big guy that can make dunks and putbacks (hopefully Tyrique is the answer here), and surround him with really talented guards and wings, that's the way to go short of having Bam Adebayo or Gonzaga's big Polish guy.

[Caf]

I'm curious why you disagree. The way I see it, if you can get a glass-cleaning big guy that can make dunks and putbacks (hopefully Tyrique is the answer here), and surround him with really talented guards and wings, that's the way to go short of having Bam Adebayo or Gonzaga's big Polish guy.

For a few reasons. Mainly because I think you're liable* to get punished in the interior. Even tonight, I think DePaul isn't having trouble scoring once they get in the paint. On the offensive end, if you don't have a respected inside presence, teams can push out on your guards and force tough shots. As a team that likes to shoot from 3, I think that's especially important.

My main point is that this year none of our bigs can really protect the paint. I don't know if 2 of them would be able to hold it down either, but there's definitely a chance.

[scoscox]

*liable

[Drew]

So if you were Mack what would your usage of JP look like?

Match ups would determine usage, but he would have a much shorter leash with me.

[Drew]

The statement was "the fact remains..." I was refuting the "fact." If you would like to support the fact, feel free.

The fact was he makes more mistakes than any other starter. I don't need to cherry pick stats. I watch the games.

[ammtd34]

The fact was he makes more mistakes than any other starter. I don't need to cherry pick stats. I watch the games.

You realize that you provided zero references for what you said was a fact and then said my statistics, specifically used to refute the statement, were useless, correct? That's not how facts work.

[drudy23]

You realize that you provided zero references for what you said was a fact and then said my statistics, specifically used to refute the statement, were useless, correct? That's not how facts work.

Pretty sure he was saying this about stats and facts - I don't care...I watch the games. And he's not wrong.

He isn't wrong, but I still love JP. He's not afraid of anything, plays hard as hell, is an impact player, and when he gets hot, is the ultimate weapon. He has weaknesses like any other player in the world...but his strengths and importance to this team far outweigh them.

[bobbiemcgee]

I'm curious why you disagree. The way I see it, if you can get a glass-cleaning big guy that can make dunks and putbacks (hopefully Tyrique is the answer here), and surround him with really talented guards and wings, that's the way to go short of having Bam Adebayo or Gonzaga's big Polish guy.

We are 1st in the BE in rebounding and 21st in the country. 37-22 tonite.

[SemajParlor]

We are 1st in the BE in rebounding and 21st in the country. 37-22 tonite.

Really unsure why we don't play 2 bigs

[XUFan09]

No, O'Mara was not a reliable backup, especially defensively. Your the stats guy, show me one indicator that suggests O'Mara is a serviceable defender. I haven't seen any. Farr and Reynolds effectively backed each other up IMO.

I agree that part of the reason they played alone was because we didn't need them too. However, we've seen times where it was a good option, and because of foul trouble it wasn't usually possible. Reynolds averaged 6.7 fouls per 40 minutes and Farr averaged 4.7. Reynolds literally wouldn't make it through a game if we needed.

Also, Mack desperately wants more bigs. He offered 5 Cs and 6 PFs last year.

Either your standards for a backup are way too high or you are being unfair to O'Mara. He was fairly efficient at a moderately high usage rate and he was the best low post option on the team. He also rebounded the ball at a respectable rate. On defense, he knew what position to be in and was solid in one-on-one situations against post players. He was a little slow-footed but that doesn't make him much different from Farr and he had better defensive awareness than Reynolds. This more than meets the standards for a reliable backup. A starter? No, probably not, but definitely a backup. As for defense, there are few statistics outside a subscription to Synergy Sports. If you wanted to harp over things like blocks and steals, just remember that J.P. Macura has the second best steal rate on the team. These stats are highly questionable in their validity for testing defensive prowess.

Concerning foul rates, I don't know why so many on this board don't get this concept: If a player knows he's not going to play many minutes, he tends to be more aggressive. At 4.7 fouls per 40 minutes, Farr could have definitely averaged more than 20 minutes per game and would have held back some accordingly. Even at 6.7 fouls per game, Reynolds could have still averaged more than 20 minutes per game and held back some. Seriously, it would not have been that difficult to give Farr and Reynolds a combined 10 more minutes of playing time each game. Mack didn't because it doesn't fit the four-out, positionless playstyle that he is aiming for. The only time they saw the court together or one of them and O'Mara saw the court together was when they were playing the 1-3-1, because that specific defense is better with traditional bigs (or a Gates or London).

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[waggy]

How come Gates isn't a big?

Rhetorically.

[Caf]

Either your standards for a backup are way too high or you are being unfair to O'Mara. He was fairly efficient at a moderately high usage rate and he was the best low post option on the team. He also rebounded the ball at a respectable rate. On defense, he knew what position to be in and was solid in one-on-one situations against post players. He was a little slow-footed but that doesn't make him much different from Farr and he had better defensive awareness than Reynolds. This more than meets the standards for a reliable backup. A starter? No, probably not, but definitely a backup. As for defense, there are few statistics outside a subscription to Synergy Sports. If you wanted to harp over things like blocks and steals, just remember that J.P. Macura has the second best steal rate on the team. These stats are highly questionable in their validity for testing defensive prowess.

Concerning foul rates, I don't know why so many on this board don't get this concept: If a player knows he's not going to play many minutes, he tends to be more aggressive. At 4.7 fouls per 40 minutes, Farr could have definitely averaged more than 20 minutes per game and would have held back some accordingly. Even at 6.7 fouls per game, Reynolds could have still averaged more than 20 minutes per game and held back some. Seriously, it would not have been that difficult to give Farr and Reynolds a combined 10 more minutes of playing time each game. Mack didn't because it doesn't fit the four-out, positionless playstyle that he is aiming for. The only time they saw the court together or one of them and O'Mara saw the court together was when they were playing the 1-3-1, because that specific defense is better with traditional bigs (or a Gates or London).

I want to quickly remind you that the below is what you're responding to. You're arguing against a lot of secondary points.


To be fair, Mack has gone with two-big lineup's in the past. Farr and Reynolds sometimes started together, as did Frease-Walker, McLean-Frease, and McLean-Love. These weren't always his go-to pairing, but they were frequent. Depending on the match up, and with our shooters, I think packing it in is exactly what we want.

In the past 2 years we've lacked the depth to do this, and this year we've lacked the talent.

Again, it's situational. Mack didn't go to it very often last year, the reason is really not that important important. My original point is that sometimes it is necessary based on matchup. We've seen a few games this year where we've been highly vulnerable in the lane namely Cincinnati and Baylor. Reynolds or Farr could contest the lane and were great about switching and providing help. No one on our roster is as good in that regard, I think two bigs could help with it. That's all.

[XUFan09]

Actually, the reason that Mack didn't go to a big lineup last year is important, because it's central to his playstyle philosophy going forward. I mildly disagreed with your initial post, but then in a followup post you said the reason was a lack of depth. That implies that once he has frontcourt depth again, we'll see two traditional bigs out there again on a frequent basis, and that's simply wrong. Mack used to put out traditional frontcourts most of the time, but he's gone away from that recently, not out of necessity but out of a desire to change Xavier's playstyle. We'll continue to see that going forward, as he recruits players on "positionless basketball." I get that you might want a big lineup from time to time, but that's a different debate from what Mack is actually doing.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[XUFan09]

How come Gates isn't a big?

Rhetorically.
I know it was rhetorical, but Gates is a combo forward. With a traditional frontcourt, we'd see him at the 3 a lot, but in a small-ball lineup, he's perfect for the 4 spot.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[xuwin]

How come Gates isn't a big?

Rhetorically.

Because his athleticism makes him more valuable playing a roll where he can stretch the floor both offensively and defensively.

[Caf]

Actually, the reason that Mack didn't go to a big lineup last year is important, because it's central to his playstyle philosophy going forward. I mildly disagreed with your initial post, but then in a followup post you said the reason was a lack of depth. That implies that once he has frontcourt depth again, we'll see two traditional bigs out there again on a frequent basis, and that's simply wrong. Mack used to put out traditional frontcourts most of the time, but he's gone away from that recently, not out of necessity but out of a desire to change Xavier's playstyle. We'll continue to see that going forward, as he recruits players on "positionless basketball." I get that you might want a big lineup from time to time, but that's a different debate from what Mack is actually doing.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I implied that Mack wants to run a full time big line up on a frequent basis? That's quite a lot of words to put into someone's mouth. I completely agree that Mack will stick with a small lineup long-term, but still think it's worth reconsidering at times.

I'll concede last year as I don't see any statistical evidence to support my theory. However, we are going to struggle against strong front courts again and again if we insist on playing O'Mara/Gaston/Jones the same way we played Reynolds/Farr. The Cincinnati games give us a strong example of how true that is. They scored 31 more points this year than last, and only hit 1 more 3PT shot, and only 4 of their 37 2pt shots were outside of the paint. I don't think the difference is that we lost Abell and Davis.

[XUGRAD80]

Could be that UC is just a lot better this year than they were last year.....probably heresy to say that here, but it's really the truth. Also, I think that Mack (and most coaches) are more concerned about creating problems for the opposition, then they are with trying to match up with the opposition. X wants to play to ITS strength, not to the oppositions.

[xuwin]

Could be that UC is just a lot better this year than they were last year.....probably heresy to say that here, but it's really the truth. Also, I think that Mack (and most coaches) are more concerned about creating problems for the opposition, then they are with trying to match up with the opposition. X wants to play to ITS strength, not to the oppositions.

Could be that UC was playing on their home court before 15,000 screaming fans too. Makes a difference.

[SemajParlor]

Lol

[XfansinKy]

Word.

We literally had people arguing Trevon wasnt good enough to play in the BE one year AFTER he was 1st team All BE!!! HAHAHAHA X fans are too good sometimes!

Cant wait for that beer.

Started to but those air balls distracted me. Hope your opinions are spot on from here on out. Like I said in my post that got deleted, "I wish nothing but success for Trevon. I'm not the only poster that's concerned about his lack of speed and jumping ability when big athletic defenders from teams pick him up. I'm also not the only poster who doesn't think you are the basketball mind you think you are." I am being very polite now. Word.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Started to but those air balls distracted me. Hope your opinions are spot on from here on out. Like I said in my post that got deleted, "I wish nothing but success for Trevon. I'm not the only poster that's concerned about his lack of speed and jumping ability when big athletic defenders from teams pick him up. I'm also not the only poster who doesn't think you are the basketball mind you think you are." I am being very polite now. Word.

I'm the one trying to convince people I am some sort of great basketball mind? Ummmm, all I am doing is agreeing with 9 Big East basketball coaches (Mack cant vote for own guy) who voted Tre 1st team all BE last year (and will this year as well). You are the one who is arguing despite that Trevon is not good enough to play in a conference where he has already been named one of the best players. Yeah, great bball mind there. Hmmmmmm do I agree with the likes of Jay Wright, Wojo, Chris Mullin, Holtman, McDermott, Ed Cooley, or some guy in KY who goes to a lot of AAU games? Case closed.

Still can't wait for that beer!

[Xville]

I am just going to say my piece and leave it alone. Is Tre a good college basketball player and a good big east player? Yes absolutely. However, even to the untrained eye it's pretty easy to tell that he is not very athletic compared to a lot of 3s and 4s at the big east level. However, he gets away with it because of his shooting ability....if he was athletic, he would be a first round draft pick because he could play the 2 in the NBA, but he can't do he won't. Still a great college basketball player.

[ammtd34]

I am just going to say my piece and leave it alone. Is Tre a good college basketball player and a good big east player? Yes absolutely. However, even to the untrained eye it's pretty easy to tell that he is not very athletic compared to a lot of 3s and 4s at the big east level. However, he gets away with it because of his shooting ability....if he was athletic, he would be a first round draft pick because he could play the 2 in the NBA, but he can't do he won't. Still a great college basketball player.

This is true. If I'm nitpicking, though, not being as athletic as other 3's in the conference isn't quite the same argument as "he's not athletic enough to play in the conference."

[D-West & PO-Z]

I am just going to say my piece and leave it alone. Is Tre a good college basketball player and a good big east player? Yes absolutely. However, even to the untrained eye it's pretty easy to tell that he is not very athletic compared to a lot of 3s and 4s at the big east level. However, he gets away with it because of his shooting ability....if he was athletic, he would be a first round draft pick because he could play the 2 in the NBA, but he can't do he won't. Still a great college basketball player.

Which is all fine and good but a completely different discussion.

It was stated that Trevon wasnt athletic enough be successful in the BE and that he beat up on out of conference cupcakes and then did poorly in BE play and didnt show up in BE games. That poster then said if he hoped Trevon proved him wrong and if he did he'd buy a couple posters a beer.

Trevon's play has been great, he had already proved the poster's comments ridiculous based on being 1st team last year but he has done so again so far this year.

Anyway just beating a dead horse at this point.

[bleedXblue]

I am just going to say my piece and leave it alone. Is Tre a good college basketball player and a good big east player? Yes absolutely. However, even to the untrained eye it's pretty easy to tell that he is not very athletic compared to a lot of 3s and 4s at the big east level. However, he gets away with it because of his shooting ability....if he was athletic, he would be a first round draft pick because he could play the 2 in the NBA, but he can't do he won't. Still a great college basketball player.

Tre has a very quick release....I'm guessing he develop this b/c he simply HAD to in order to be the player he is today. Yes, good BE player, but there's a reason why he's s fringe pick to get drafted in June

[AviatorX]

I'm starting to be more and more sure that whenever he leaves, Trevon will be the most under appreciated X player in a loooooooong time.

[GoMuskies]

He's underappreciated by like 3 people. We've got a lot of fans.

[xu82]

He's underappreciated by like 3 people. We've got a lot of fans.

....the vocal minority.

[markchal]

he's been our leading scorer for all three seasons he's been here, hasn't he?

[paulxu]

2 of 3.

[IM4X]

While Tre had a few rough games earlier in the season, he really has found his rhythm again more recently and has cranked up his game, showing us once again the kind of player he can be. Now he's struggling a bit because of his ankle. When healthy, he is the most clutch player on the team and easily one of the best players in the league.

At this point, no one (including Tre) needs to worry about his chances of being drafted by an NBA team. If he can get healthy and push himself to continually give his best effort and he keeps working with his teammates to build better chemistry and play smarter together, he will be doing everything he can. Plus he's just a junior. Other very good players (e.g. Kris Dunn, Josh Hart) have decided to stick around for their senior year and it has worked out quite nicely. I don't see why it would be any different for Tre, should he choose to stick around.

[Xavier]

I'm starting to be more and more sure that whenever he leaves, Trevon will be the most under appreciated X player in a loooooooong time.

I don't think he will be, especially if he continues what he is doing and no question if he returns next year. I will say, a lot of appreciation for the team/Coach Mack from last season was thrown out because of the tournament. In a few years I think we will look back at that team and really appreciate it as the best regular season in Xavier history (with an unfortunate end). Which is tough. I watched highlights of Nova at X from last season (#1 vs. #5, at the Cintas. Wow) and all I could think of was how well balanced/talented they were to end the season so early.

Still, I quote you because I think Crawford is extremely under appreciated, definitely more so than Tre. I can see why, he was only here for one season (the first part of which he wasn't too good) but he was an absolute stud.

[X-ceptional]

Still, I quote you because I think Crawford is extremely under appreciated, definitely more so than Tre. I can see why, he was only here for one season (the first part of which he wasn't too good) but he was an absolute stud.

From a pure talent perspective, if he isn't at the top, he's got to be damn near the most naturally talented player to ever wear the X.

[GoMuskies]

Crawford's insane NCAA Tournament keeps him from being underappreciated. He drove me batty at times during the season, but he was almost perfect in the postseason. And that's really all that matters.

[X-ceptional]

Crawford's insane NCAA Tournament keeps him from being underappreciated. He drove me batty at times during the season, but he was almost perfect in the postseason. And that's really all that matters.

29 points/game in the tourney... unreal.

[scoscox]

crawford's team definitely had the largest gonads in the backcourt we've ever had. I mean it's not even close. All those guys were incredible competitors.

[SemajParlor]

crawford's team definitely had the largest gonads in the backcourt we've ever had. I mean it's not even close. All those guys were incredible competitors.

Tu, JC, Lyons, Jackson, McLean, Love - yeah you could say there were some competitors on that team.

Probably my favorite X team. Man, that feels like a while ago doesn't it? Probably because it was!

[boozehound]

Tu, JC, Lyons, Jackson, McLean, Love - yeah you could say there were some competitors on that team.

Probably my favorite X team. Man, that feels like a while ago doesn't it? Probably because it was!

I honestly think that we would have made the Final 4 if we had gotten past Kansas State. God that game was Brutal. Crawford was an insanely gifted offensive talent, though. I miss him, although I think I miss Tu more...

[SemajParlor]

I honestly think that we would have made the Final 4 if we had gotten past Kansas State. God that game was Brutal. Crawford was an insanely gifted offensive talent, though. I miss him, although I think I miss Tu more...

Considering our next game would have been vs Butler and we already beat them IN Hinkle if not for, you know... I think about that all the time.

[RetireFiftyTu]

I honestly think that we would have made the Final 4 if we had gotten past Kansas State. God that game was Brutal. Crawford was an insanely gifted offensive talent, though. I miss him, although I think I miss Tu more...

They probably would've been gassed though against Butler. Tu played 47, Crawford played 46, Love played 42, Dante played 36, and McLean played 30. Plus the bench was FR. Mark Lyons, SO. Brad Redford, SO. Kenny Frease, and Andrew Taylor.

[GOX]

I honestly think that we would have made the Final 4 if we had gotten past Kansas State. God that game was Brutal. Crawford was an insanely gifted offensive talent, though. I miss him, although I think I miss Tu more...

Sorry to rain on any one's nostalgia.
Tu Holloway was a good basketball player, fearless and intimidating, but unfortunately was a "zip em up " thug who emabarrased the entire university.
The worst mistake Chris Mack ever( and probably will ever) made was putting Tu on camera after the UC Debacle.
If you care about the institution, independently of Men's Basketball, you will agree.
If you don't, you only care about Men's Basketball, a fraction of the whole.

[AviatorX]

Sorry to rain on any one's nostalgia.
Tu Holloway was a good basketball player, fearless and intimidating, but unfortunately was a "zip em up " thug who emabarrased the entire university.
The worst mistake Chris Mack ever( and probably will ever) made was putting Tu on camera after the UC Debacle.
If you care about the institution, independently of Men's Basketball, you will agree.
If you don't, you only care about Men's Basketball, a fraction of the whole.

Gonna be hard to end up with the worst post in a thread where someone said they'd take Q straight up over Ed, but it's cool you made a run at it anyway.

[GOX]

Gonna be hard to end up with the worst post in a thread where someone said they'd take Q straight up over Ed, but it's cool you made a run at it anyway.

Since I started the thread that careened far and away from the original point, that is my prerogative.
Just saw the admiration for someone who embarrassed the whole University, and had to comment.
Happy to hear other's reactions.
We will find out who conflates Xavier Basketball with Xavier.

[GoMuskies]

Tu shouldn't have said what he did, but that one emotional press conference doesn't define Tu.

[X-ceptional]

Sorry to rain on any one's nostalgia.
No, you aren't.


"zip em up " thug who emabarrased the entire university.
If you really think that, and if you're really embarrassed by that, then you're a pearl-clutching, think-of-the-children type who needs to get over yourself.


The worst mistake Chris Mack ever( and probably will ever) made was putting Tu on camera after the UC Debacle.
If this is the worst mistake Mack ever makes, I think that will make for a pretty good career.


Since I started the thread that careened far and away from the original point, that is my prerogative.
Honestly, the thread was misguided from the beginning. There is never a need for a "but" after the first part of the title.

[xu82]

Tu shouldn't have said what he did, but that one emotional press conference doesn't define Tu.

Agreed, that was one they'd like back, but it's not the end of the world.

[XfansinKy]

I'm the one trying to convince people I am some sort of great basketball mind? Ummmm, all I am doing is agreeing with 9 Big East basketball coaches (Mack cant vote for own guy) who voted Tre 1st team all BE last year (and will this year as well). You are the one who is arguing despite that Trevon is not good enough to play in a conference where he has already been named one of the best players. Yeah, great bball mind there. Hmmmmmm do I agree with the likes of Jay Wright, Wojo, Chris Mullin, Holtman, McDermott, Ed Cooley, or some guy in KY who goes to a lot of AAU games? Case closed.

Still can't wait for that beer!

I didn't post anything toward you after His zero point effort. Won't if it happens again. I don't need reassurance. I am being very polite also. Word.

[GoMuskies]

I didn't post anything toward you after His zero point effort. Won't if it happens again. I don't need reassurance. I am being very polite also. Word.

Word. When Teddy Bridgewater put up a goose egg passing for an entire NFL season, I was similarly classy in withholding I told you sos from all those Louisville football fans who thought he was a good NFL QB .

[scoscox]

Sorry to rain on any one's nostalgia.
Tu Holloway was a good basketball player, fearless and intimidating, but unfortunately was a "zip em up " thug who emabarrased the entire university.
The worst mistake Chris Mack ever( and probably will ever) made was putting Tu on camera after the UC Debacle.
If you care about the institution, independently of Men's Basketball, you will agree.
If you don't, you only care about Men's Basketball, a fraction of the whole.

Why was what Tu said embarrassing? It is generally the kind of thing athletes say. It was honestly a legendary moment only evidenced by the fact that Zip Em Up remains incredibly popular with students, fans, and players. Tu was an absolute legend and one of the all-time greats. Did more for Xavier's program than almost anyone I can remember. He absolutely willed us to some of the best years in our history.

Full disclosure: I love Tu. He's the closest candidate for jersey retirement right now imo

[GOX]

Honestly, the thread was misguided from the beginning. There is never a need for a "but" after the first part of the title.[/QUOTE]

[GOX]

Honestly, the thread was misguided from the beginning. There is never a need for a "but" after the first part of the title.[/QUOTE]

Threads are never "Guided" or Misguided" . They are provactive and generate replys. It looks like a Home Run to me!

[xu82]

Honestly, the thread was misguided from the beginning. There is never a need for a "but" after the first part of the title.[/QUOTE]

If that's an admission, hats off to you. If that was a messed up quote, never mind.

[XUFan09]

I didn't post anything toward you after His zero point effort. Won't if it happens again. I don't need reassurance. I am being very polite also. Word.
I can't decide if it's desperation or stupidity that leads you to at least twice now bring up a game where Trevon got seriously hurt early and then tried to play through it, as if that performance somehow lends support to your spurious claim. Either way, it's rather pathetic.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[D-West & PO-Z]

I didn't post anything toward you after His zero point effort. Won't if it happens again. I don't need reassurance. I am being very polite also. Word.

:facepalm:

[xu82]

I can't decide if it's desperation or stupidity that leads you to at least twice now bring up a game where Trevon got seriously hurt early and then tried to play through it, as if that performance somehow lends support to your spurious claim. Either way, it's rather pathetic.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Wait, was he seriously trying to hold it against Trevon that he didn't score while crippled? I give him props for trying to fight through it. The guy is a natural born scorer.

[XMuskieFTW]

I didn't post anything toward you after His zero point effort. Won't if it happens again. I don't need reassurance. I am being very polite also. Word.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlrHo2ItFlM

[XUFan09]

Wait, was he seriously trying to hold it against Trevon that he didn't score while crippled? I give him props for trying to fight through it. The guy is a natural born scorer.

He has at least twice now dropped in a comment about how Trevon didn't really contribute in this last game. One of the posts was apparently deleted due to the cursing and generally unhinged ranting, but people commented about the stupidity that it contained. It's all just crazy.

[xu82]

He has at least twice now dropped in a comment about how Trevon didn't really contribute in this last game. One of the posts was apparently deleted due to the cursing and generally unhinged ranting, but people commented about the stupidity that it contained. It's all just crazy.

Maybe some professional therapy could help? Mental illness is a terrible thing. There is a large divide between "probably will never be a lottery pick" (guess) and "back to back BE Player of the Week" (fact). Sometimes people just can't let go of an agenda, regardless of the facts.

[xu82]

Honestly, the thread was misguided from the beginning. There is never a need for a "but" after the first part of the title.

Threads are never "Guided" or Misguided" . They are provactive and generate replys. It looks like a Home Run to me![/QUOTE]

Wrong again! Thoughtful, insightful..... those are good things. Generating "replys" (or even the actual word "replies") that generally say WTF? is foolishness. You went down swinging, and fell on your ass.

[GOX]

Threads are never "Guided" or Misguided" . They are provactive and generate replys. It looks like a Home Run to me!

Wrong again! Thoughtful, insightful..... those are good things. Generating "replys" (or even the actual word "replies") that generally say WTF? is foolishness. You went down swinging, and fell on your ass.[/QUOTE]

It's neat that you graduated from Xavier learning how to spell.
Unfortunate you left without being able to deal with a subject without being petty and cute.
Maybe that will come on your 25 th reunion.
Hope springs eternal.

[markchal]

Cool troll job.

[Wheelhouse]

Sorry to rain on any one's nostalgia.
Tu Holloway was a good basketball player, fearless and intimidating, but unfortunately was a "zip em up " thug who emabarrased the entire university.
The worst mistake Chris Mack ever( and probably will ever) made was putting Tu on camera after the UC Debacle.
If you care about the institution, independently of Men's Basketball, you will agree.
If you don't, you only care about Men's Basketball, a fraction of the whole.

Regarding your statement I bolded above, I'm pretty sure Chris Mack doesn't decide who goes out for the press conference. It's someone else in the athletic department.

[TUclutch]

Regarding your statement I bolded above, I'm pretty sure Chris Mack doesn't decide who goes out for the press conference. It's someone else in the athletic department.

Correct. It would be the AD of Communications(or someone from his staff). Isn't that Tom Eiser?

[Caf]

Sorry to rain on any one's nostalgia.
Tu Holloway was a good basketball player, fearless and intimidating, but unfortunately was a "zip em up " thug who emabarrased the entire university.
The worst mistake Chris Mack ever( and probably will ever) made was putting Tu on camera after the UC Debacle.
If you care about the institution, independently of Men's Basketball, you will agree.
If you don't, you only care about Men's Basketball, a fraction of the whole.

Wow you suck

[ammtd34]

This thread has provided an aggregation of the absolute worst takes I've ever seen.

[pimpinthebox]

Correct. It would be the AD of Communications(or someone from his staff). Isn't that Tom Eiser?

I'm sure there was plenty of blame to go around. Can we not talk about that ugly bruise on our program's history?


Wow you suck

Amen. What a boner-killer. <INSERT HOT TAKE ON SKINNY SUMNER AND A POSITIVE OUTLOOK FROM HERE ON OUT> per the thread title.

[XU 87]

Sorry to rain on any one's nostalgia.
Tu Holloway was a good basketball player, fearless and intimidating, but unfortunately was a "zip em up " thug who emabarrased the entire university.
The worst mistake Chris Mack ever( and probably will ever) made was putting Tu on camera after the UC Debacle.
If you care about the institution, independently of Men's Basketball, you will agree.
If you don't, you only care about Men's Basketball, a fraction of the whole.

Oh my.

I can't believe you define a guy's entire career and reputation by something that he said at a post game press conference. And what he said, in retrospect, was harmless.

[xu82]

This thread has provided an aggregation of the absolute worst takes I've ever seen.

It was designed to be "provactive and generate replys." Someone sees it as a home run. If you want to know who, look for the red dots.

[GOX]

It was designed to be "provactive and generate replys." Someone sees it as a home run. If you want to know who, look for the red dots.


XU 82 gives me no credit.
I provide a valuable service which he can't grasp.
I quote from a recent Article:

" We serve as Advisors to hundreds of Sports Blogs. Many of our Clients seek advertisers and ask us to do a survey of Blog Participants. We find that the majority of Participants are white , middle aged men who did not participate in competitive athletics.Their personal lives and careers have crashed. They frequently visit the Blog, often during their work day.
The Blog allows them to be authortive at a time they lack authority. The Blog allows them to say all of the things they would like to say at work or home and can't. In sum , the Blog serves as therapeutic tool for men struggling to find an identity that has been emasculated. The glue that holds the Blogs together are the Trolls. The Trolls are the men who have gotten to the top, often stepping on the Losers in the process. The Trolls recognize the Losers need an outlet and deliver to them huge chunks of red meat that the Losers can chew on. Every day, the Trolls de pressurize the Losers , forestalling them saying stupid shit to their bosses and families.The Trolls provide this service to assuage the guilt they feel for having kicked the hapless Losers asses on the way to the Top. While the Losers should thank the Trolls , they are unfortunately so focused on venting that they fail to see the Trolls' reaching down to help."

Now that I have provided an objective third party view, hopefully, XU 82, and others similarly situated, will come forward to say Thanks.

[xu82]

LOOK! I see red dots! (And I didn't do it, that was from others.) I actually will give credit because that was honestly funny. Wrong on virtually everything but middle age white male, but still amusing. And a troll is still a troll.

[chico]

I find it amusing that someone who has been on here 2 months is lecturing people who have been here for years on what a troll is.

Anyway, when it comes to Tu, you have absolutely no ability to gauge context. Like others said, what he said was ill-advised but considering the circumstances it was nowhere near as egregious as the national media (and a local sportswriter how the week earlier bemoaned the lack of emotion in the game) made it out to seem. And to think that one press conference defined his career makes me think you may not really have followed Xavier very closely when Tu was here.

[GOX]

I find it amusing that someone who has been on here 2 months is lecturing people who have been here for years on what a troll is.

Anyway, when it comes to Tu, you have absolutely no ability to gauge context. Like others said, what he said was ill-advised but considering the circumstances it was nowhere near as egregious as the national media (and a local sportswriter how the week earlier bemoaned the lack of emotion in the game) made it out to seem. And to think that one press conference defined his career makes me think you may not really have followed Xavier very closely when Tu was here.

Chico...I understand you wanting to protect Tu's legacy, such as it might be.
And I understand your comment that you would like to think that Tu's indiscretion should not define his time at Xavier.
Unfortunately, it does.
Tu will never be a candidate for Xavier's' Hall of Fame.
Just as Nixon's presidency will be defined by Watergate, and Trumps demise will be defined by his accommodation to the Russians who invested Billions in his otherwise failed real estate projects, Tus will be defined by his ill advised comments.
Some posters have pinned the blame on Tom Eiser, a decent man, who allegedly put Tu before the cameras at the wrong time.
They may be right. I don't know who pulled the trigger.
All I know is, they put him in a bad spot and spoiled his opportunities to be respected by those who eschew thuggish behavior.

[paulxu]

This is a very strange thread.
I'll remember Tu for the wonderful leadership he provided and the great times I had watching him help my team.
You can remember him for a few words of street parlance that somehow offended your sensibilities.
I feel sorry for you.

[XUMIOH12]

This is a very strange thread.
I'll remember Tu for the wonderful leadership he provided and the great times I had watching him help my team.
You can remember him for a few words of street parlance that somehow offended your sensibilities.
I feel sorry for you.

yes this

[XUFan09]

This is a very strange thread.
I'll remember Tu for the wonderful leadership he provided and the great times I had watching him help my team.
You can remember him for a few words of street parlance that somehow offended your sensibilities.
I feel sorry for you.
What has always killed me about that was if he said "scrappy guys" instead of "gangstas," he would have meant literally the same thing, but all the middle-aged white men would have nodded approvingly instead.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

[GOX]

This is a very strange thread.
I'll remember Tu for the wonderful leadership he provided and the great times I had watching him help my team.
You can remember him for a few words of street parlance that somehow offended your sensibilities.
I feel sorry for you.
Paul...I appreciate your sorrow fo me.
I wish I could assure you that Tu's indicretion did not define his Xavier career.
It just did for those that decide what is to be remebered and what is to be forgotten.
I don't decide that, so don't shoot the messenger.
Just take it to the Bank.

[xu82]

God bless our mods! Truly.

[Xville]

Paul...I appreciate your sorrow fo me.
I wish I could assure you that Tu's indicretion did not define his Xavier career.
It just did for those that decide what is to be remebered and what is to be forgotten.
I don't decide that, so don't shoot the messenger.
Just take it to the Bank.

It may have defined his career for you. It did not for every rational human being.

[American X]

And a troll is still a troll.

I believe he is a Xavier grad.

[ammtd34]

If I was not embarrassed by Tu, am I an embarrassment to Xavier University?

[Muskie]

I've tried to track how in the world this thread became a Tu Holloway bloodbath. I can't seem to put my finger on it. The thread can stay open (for now), but let's keep the personal attacks to a minimum. All of us are entitled to our opinions, as misguided as they are.

[GoMuskies]

All of us are entitled to our opinions, as misguided as they are.

I think that was the theme of this year's Presidential primaries.

[Caf]

Paul...I appreciate your sorrow fo me.
I wish I could assure you that Tu's indicretion did not define his Xavier career.
It just did for those that decide what is to be remebered and what is to be forgotten.
I don't decide that, so don't shoot the messenger.
Just take it to the Bank.

Some seem to think Xavier is at the center of the universe. Nobody cares about this. Human beings now have the attention spans of goldfish and this is long gone from their minds. It had no lasting impact on the Tu Holloway, Xavier University.

[GOX]

LOOK! I see red dots! (And I didn't do it, that was from others.) I actually will give credit because that was honestly funny. Wrong on virtually everything but middle age white male, but still amusing. And a troll is still a troll.

XU 82.
Thanks for your reply.
You couldn't bring yourself to thank me for my presence, but you kinda did.
Or at least, I took it that way.
Now that you get it, we need to figure out how to get the Losers to get it.
I can borrow a Luxury Box at the Cintas Center for the Marquette game.
You fly in from Atlanta and join me
It is going to be a seminal event.
It will be the First Time a Team that was picked to finish at the top of the Big East, will play in wheelchairs.
I mean, what is going on?
Do we recruit the most accident prone players in the country?
Are we going to finish the Season with Stainbrook at the point for 40 minutes?
We need to project and visualize what our team will look like when we finish the conference tournament.
I say that because the Losers are going to be more lost, if that is possible.
We need to get out ahead of it and soften the blow.
I look forward to meeting you.

[XU 87]

I wish I could assure you that Tu's indicretion did not define his Xavier career.
It just did for those that decide what is to be remebered and what is to be forgotten.


We get it. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

On behalf of everyone else, please move on.

[nuts4xu]

We get it. You're right and everyone else is wrong.

On behalf of everyone else, please move on.

This has been covered.

GOX reminds me of LH.

[chico]

We need to project and visualize what our team will look like when we finish the conference tournament.


See your future, be your future ... ma, make, make it. Make your future.

[XMuskieFTW]

This has been covered.

GOX reminds me of LH.

He reminds me of the Matador.

[flatspat]

See your future, be your future ... ma, make, make it. Make your future.

Classic!

[TUclutch]

Chico...I understand you wanting to protect Tu's legacy, such as it might be.
And I understand your comment that you would like to think that Tu's indiscretion should not define his time at Xavier.
Unfortunately, it does.
Tu will never be a candidate for Xavier's' Hall of Fame.
Just as Nixon's presidency will be defined by Watergate, and Trumps demise will be defined by his accommodation to the Russians who invested Billions in his otherwise failed real estate projects, Tus will be defined by his ill advised comments.
Some posters have pinned the blame on Tom Eiser, a decent man, who allegedly put Tu before the cameras at the wrong time.
They may be right. I don't know who pulled the trigger.
All I know is, they put him in a bad spot and spoiled his opportunities to be respected by those who eschew thuggish behavior.

2 things. If i had a million bucks, Id bet it on Tu getting in the Hall of Fame. That's almost a guarantee. Id even say he's a 50/50 shot at getting his jersey retired in 10 years.
Second, it absolutely is Tom Eiser's job to decide who goes in front of the media. That doesn't make Eiser any less of a decent person(I don't know him nor have I ever met him). A couple college kids made some emotional comments following an emotional ending to a rivalry game. Not to mention their comments really weren't bad. They used terms middle aged white men took out of context rather than realizing thats simply verbiage younger african americans use. To take it even further, Mark Lyons was 100% right when he said the media contributes gasoline to the fire. Get out of here with your holier than thou BS.

[Xavier]

Tu will be in the hall. Retired number? I don't see that happening.