Stanley Who?

[GuyFawkes38]

Admit it. It's kind of fun to finally have shooting guards who can shoot.

That being said, Stanley played great defense, had great passion, blah, blah, blah...

[Fred Garvin]

We are undefeated since being rid of that grandstander.

[GuyFawkes38]

I'm going to give you rep points, even though you are being sarcastic.

Lavender and Burrell were solid guards.

But if X ever wants to get to the Final Four, they will need a pair of gaurds who are more offensively explosive (in the mold of Chalmers and Sato....Stephon Curry also comes to mind).

[xavierdude]

You two are a match made in heaven.

[PMI]

I think Xavier can get to the Final Four with a distributor like Drew. I wouldn't have minded watching Lavender and Crawford play together.

[GuyFawkes38]

Great win over Memphis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And let me say, Stanley Burrell played with amazing heart. He's a great defender.

Oh wait, Burrell didn't play against Memphis. Actually a group of gaurds who will prove to be much better than Burrell played tonight. My fault.

[Swifty]

Great win over Memphis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And let me say, Stanley Burrell played with amazing heart. He's a great defender.

Oh wait, Burrell didn't play against Memphis. Actually a group of gaurds who will prove to be much better than Burrell played tonight. My fault.

Stan never airballed a free throw. I don't see why you want to tear down a 1,000 point scorer and a team leader on one of the best, if not the best Xavier team ever.

[PMI]

Let's use last night's victory as yet another reminder of how much Guy Fawkes hates on Burrell. Dante didn't exactly light it up on offense and Holloway scored once from the field. They were both great this week and both have better potential than Stan in my opinion, but why should that be an issue? I'm pretty sure everyone who calls themselves Xavier fans are pulling for this backcourt to be better than any we had with Stan, but most hold out on denigrating one of our better players in school history every chance they get. It's not very productive.

[muckem muckem]

I don't think you need to demean one set of guards to praise the other. We got to the Elite Eight with those guys. Not too bad.

I think Dante was trying to graze the front of the rim to eat up clock.

[GuyFawkes38]

Come on now. Just poking a little fun at the "Stan is god" contigent still at Xhoops.

That contigent got carried away. I mean when posters talk about how they wish they were women so they could have his kids....it just went too far.

[PMI]

If you don't wish you were a woman who had Stan's kids you are not a real Xavier fan. There, I said it.

[GuyFawkes38]

If you don't wish you were a woman who had Stan's kids you are not a real Xavier fan. There, I said it.

I like this honesty. Every XH poster who has fantasized about having Stan's kids, admit it right here.

[etyahla24]

Man, I gotta stick up for my boy Stanley Burrell. Terrell is gonna be just fine, but you all are just crazy if you gonna tell me that you would take Halloway over Burrell at this point in time. For Stanley to come here as a heralded scorer out of Indiana, alot of guys would just sit back. But Burrell worked his ass of week in and week out for 4 years to become the all around player he was last year. He became the best on the ball defender on the team last year, and we wouldn't have touched the marks we hit last year without him.
His claim to fame...
-2007-08 Atlantic 10 Conference Defensive Player of the Year (puts him in the likes of David West and Posey)
-ESPN analyst Jay Bilas had him among his six National Defensive Player of the Year candidates
-National All-Defensive First Team
but we already know his defensive skills. Offensively...
-Thousand point scorer
-team's second-leading scorer at 12.4 ppg in 06-07 (Team that should have beat o-State incase you don't remember)
-had nine 20-point games as sophmore and led the team in assists with 105
-12th place on XU's all-time scoring list
-had 125 career starts at Xavier
-9.7 ppg (most of the season was over 10 ppg as we were the only team in the nation to have 6 players averaging above 10 pts per game)
-career average of 12.9 ppg
-hit 82.3 percent from the free throw line
-Shot over 40% from the field in his career
No i don't want nuttin to do with having Burrells babies, and I hope that Terrell Holloway turns out to be everybit as good as Burrell, as he has the potential to do and more but I'd still take Burrell over anyone in our backcourt at this time
Go X!!! Beat MU!!!

-

[GuyFawkes38]

Man, I gotta stick up for my boy Stanley Burrell. Terrell is gonna be just fine, but you all are just crazy if you gonna tell me that you would take Halloway over Burrell at this point in time. For Stanley to come here as a heralded scorer out of Indiana, alot of guys would just sit back. But Burrell worked his ass of week in and week out for 4 years to become the all around player he was last year. He became the best on the ball defender on the team last year, and we wouldn't have touched the marks we hit last year without him.
His claim to fame...
-2007-08 Atlantic 10 Conference Defensive Player of the Year (puts him in the likes of David West and Posey)
-ESPN analyst Jay Bilas had him among his six National Defensive Player of the Year candidates-National All-Defensive First Team
but we already know his defensive skills. Offensively...
-Thousand point scorer
-team's second-leading scorer at 12.4 ppg in 06-07 (Team that should have beat o-State incase you don't remember)
-had nine 20-point games as sophmore and led the team in assists with 105
-12th place on XU's all-time scoring list
-had 125 career starts at Xavier
-9.7 ppg (most of the season was over 10 ppg as we were the only team in the nation to have 6 players averaging above 10 pts per game)
-career average of 12.9 ppg
-hit 82.3 percent from the free throw line
-Shot over 40% from the field in his career
No i don't want nuttin to do with having Burrells babies, and I hope that Terrell Holloway turns out to be everybit as good as Burrell, as he has the potential to do and more but I'd still take Burrell over anyone in our backcourt at this time
Go X!!! Beat MU!!!

-


Remember, I like to just piss people off on this board.

In all seriousness, Burrell was a really good player for X.

But as I said before, if X ever wants to go to the Final Four, we will need more explosive players on offense from the point guard and shooting guard positions.

And Burrell and Lavender were overrated (from XH, to Dustin Dow, to the national media). Chalmers and Sato were better players, yet they oddly didn't receive the same amount of praise.

[PMI]

In my opinion, Sato>Burrell, but Lavender>Chalmers. I don't think you realize just how important Drew was for us. There is no doubt in my mind he could be a great starting PG on a Final Four team.

Now of course Chalmers is difficult to analyze because you have to look at him in two parts: Chalmers before the Run, and Chalmers during the Run. Chalmers during the Run should be considered the best guard in school history, but you can't just look at that 1/8th of his career in comparing him with our other guys. Drew was the general who made things happen for our team and did so at a high level his two years here. He did it at an unprecedented level (for our school's history) his senior year, helping keep us ranked just about all year and helping us rack up 30 wins. Chalmers didn't show that kind of consistency on a team that also had 3 senior starters (albeit after losing D West.) We were barely over .500 deep into the year and came in 4th in our DIVISION of the A10. We lost twice to Duquesne. Had Drew run that point, the rest of the team probably would have come together quicker and probably wouldn't have had to have played 4 games in 4 days. That said, we probably wouldn't have made the Run because taking away Chalmers during that stretch meant taking away the hottest player in the country. So if you're saying Sato and Chalmers were the better duo at their best point, I would agree, but I don't think you can say they were hands down overall, even though Sto was the best of the 4 of them as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm with you on liking to piss people off here.

[GuyFawkes38]

In my opinion, Sato>Burrell, but Lavender>Chalmers. I don't think you realize just how important Drew was for us. There is no doubt in my mind he could be a great starting PG on a Final Four team.

Now of course Chalmers is difficult to analyze because you have to look at him in two parts: Chalmers before the Run, and Chalmers during the Run. Chalmers during the Run should be considered the best guard in school history, but you can't just look at that 1/8th of his career in comparing him with our other guys. Drew was the general who made things happen for our team and did so at a high level his two years here. He did it at an unprecedented level (for our school's history) his senior year, helping keep us ranked just about all year and helping us rack up 30 wins. Chalmers didn't show that kind of consistency on a team that also had 3 senior starters (albeit after losing D West.) We were barely over .500 deep into the year and came in 4th in our DIVISION of the A10. We lost twice to Duquesne. Had Drew run that point, the rest of the team probably would have come together quicker and probably wouldn't have had to have played 4 games in 4 days. That said, we probably wouldn't have made the Run because taking away Chalmers during that stretch meant taking away the hottest player in the country. So if you're saying Sato and Chalmers were the better duo at their best point, I would agree, but I don't think you can say they were hands down overall, even though Sto was the best of the 4 of them as far as I'm concerned.

And I'm with you on liking to piss people off here.

Yeah, it's a tougher call between Chalmers and Lavender.

Maybe I'm biased too much by Chalmers ending his career at X with incredible offensive production and Lavender struggling due to a bad ankle. At that point of their careers, Chalmers was much, much better. But pick a point prior to that, you'd have to give an edge to Lavender.

I think it really shows how awesome Sato and Chalmers were that it took X nearly 2 years to recover from their absence. Stanley and Lavender were really good players, but we don't seem to be as damaged by their absence this year as we were by Sato and Chalmers.

[Raoul Duke]

Stanley who?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/cultureshock/flashpoints/theater/images/clockwork_big.jpg

[PMI]

I like this discussion, despite the lack of smack. I hear you on the drop-off after the Chalmers/Sato/Myles departure, but it's also important to remember the state of the program then compared to now. Miller was a rookie coach without his own guys yet, his PG and him did NOT get along at all (don't let anyone tell you anything different) and the team was just not very good that year. Our program is much more of a revolving door now. We seem to be deeper every year, even if it means being less experienced like we are this year (although it doesn't really show right now.)

Had Matta been around in 04-05, I think we'd be worse off now and some lucky school would have Sean Miller building a program for them, but in that particular year we would have won more than 17 games in my opinion. Miller needed that year to start his own thing. The program then and the program now are very different, and if nothing else, the confidence level that players have playing for Miller now has to be much higher than that of the players on the 04-05 team.

[etyahla24]

Remember, I like to just piss people off on this board.

In all seriousness, Burrell was a really good player for X.

But as I said before, if X ever wants to go to the Final Four, we will need more explosive players on offense from the point guard and shooting guard positions.

And Burrell and Lavender were overrated (from XH, to Dustin Dow, to the national media). Chalmers and Sato were better players, yet they oddly didn't receive the same amount of praise.

And I agree that it would help to have more explosive players. As for Chalmers and Sato, they too would have probably been overrated if they played a X today

[MuskieMark]

After we clinched the a10 title last year Miller said to one of his assistance something along the lines of "thank god i dont have to coach burrell much longer"..joking of course but still funny

[GuyFawkes38]

I just noticed that American X gave me yet another negative rep point for making the reasonable argument that Stanley Burrell is overrated.

It's worth remembering that American X made this absurd and kind of stalkerish argument not too long ago:


Many years from now, as we reflect upon the Sean Miller Era, I suspect we will see Stanley Burrell as a cornerstone of its success. More than any other player, the Hammer exemplified the style of play under Miller.

He put aside individual concern and adopted a style of play that gave his team its best chance for success: defense, defense, defense, make the extra pass for the good shot, do whatever is best for the team. He recognized the team did not need him to pour in points as in years past, as much as a lockdown defender to replace the departed Justin Cage. His attitude toward defense and sharing the ball spread throughout the entire team, not earning headlines, but plenty of wins. It would have been preferable for our shooting guard to actually score a little more consistently, but you cannot argue with the results.

The model he established will be carried on by current players and onto future Musketeers for years to come. You could already see his influence on Dante Jackson, who hopefully will take over his mantle. You can look to Doellman and Cage as predecessors, but neither so completely transformed their game for the benefit of the team as Burrell. Recall the leg in the air, wild shot, pass the ball into the stands freshman who could not stop an inebriated Snipe from scoring on him. That kid was the A-10 Defensive POY last year while averaging 3.8 APG with a 1.7 A/TO ratio.

MillerBall wins. Thankfully, we had the Hammer to prove it. You can walk out of many schools after scoring plenty of points and maybe some all-conference honors. You walk out of Xavier with championships and NCAA tournament wins.


Yeah, so Burrell is the "model" for future X guard play. Hmmm. Yeah. okay.

American X typically writes astute posts on XHoops. Somehow, he loses all sense of reality when it comes to Stan.

[American X]

stalkerish

I'm not the one pulling up old posts in the middle of the night.

Making an argument is one thing, but a hell-bent crusade to trash Xavier players is another. If you want an open forum for bashing players, I suggest you look elsewhere:

MusketeerMadness (http://www.musketeermadness.com)

You have already been banned twice and remain here only by the mercy of our kind administrators.

I will now go make a donation to my favorite Charity for responding to this. Yuck.

[PMI]

I'm not sure Guy deserves to be banned for having the opinion that Burrell is overrated, even though I don't agree with it. This thread clearly appears to me to just be his way of getting under the skin of a few of the more uptight posters. I do think it's funny that the OP says it's fun having a shooting guard who can shoot this year. I'm wondering, Guy, who is that?

[GuyFawkes38]

I'm not the one pulling up old posts in the middle of the night.

Making an argument is one thing, but a hell-bent crusade to trash Xavier players is another. If you want an open forum for bashing players, I suggest you look elsewhere:

MusketeerMadness (http://www.musketeermadness.com)

You have already been banned twice and remain here only by the mercy of our kind administrators.

I will now go make a donation to my favorite Charity for responding to this. Yuck.

Is this not the House of Smack? come on now. I'm just responding to your many negative reps.

Certainly your old post on Stan is a little outlandish. If you want to dish out some heat, you should be able to take some heat without threatening a ban.


PMI, I think Jackson and Redford will be better shooters than Stan (and of course Crawford will be too).

[American X]

Is this not the House of Smack?

This is the House of Smack.

You hijack good threads on the Men's Basketball forum by interjecting "I think Dustin Dow is coming to the realization with something that I've been saying for a while now: Stanley Burrell and Drew Lavender were overrated" which is not in any way even hinted at in Dow's blog post.

You keep attacking Burrell and Lavender for no apparent reason except to be an instigator. The attacks are so disconnected from reality they appear to come from a delusional Dayton fan.

This is an open forum. Congratulations, you are the shit-stirrer in it. But when your tired act comes by way of groundless attacks on the boys who wore Xavier blue (especially the ones who led the best team in school history) I will call out your flaming arse on it every time.

Get out of the basement for a while and find something else to hate.

[PMI]

Guy, of course Jackson and Redford might become better shooters. Your comment was that it is nice to have shooting guards who can shoot. We haven't had that since... oh, right. Stanley Burrell. He wasn't a deadly shooter his senior year and wasn't the most consistent shooter, but he's the last SG we've had who has won us games with his shooting. Example: Villanova in 06, a game we very well may have needed to make it to the Dance. His shooting single-handedly kept us in and won us that game. Jackson has the potential, and we all know Redford can shoot, but he has yet to show he can get off several shots in a game and be comfortable. Crawford has the chance to be our best SG ever from what it sounds like, but again, he doesn't play yet. Until we actually have a 2 guard who plays better than Stan, you should probably not start on how fun it is to have good shooters. I blame you 100% for jinxing us in this early season and hope you will make up for it by sending SB a Christmas package or something.

[The Artist]

Drew was also a pretty damn good shooter too. If the D went under the ball screen, 3 points for X.

[GuyFawkes38]

Guy, of course Jackson and Redford might become better shooters. Your comment was that it is nice to have shooting guards who can shoot. We haven't had that since... oh, right. Stanley Burrell. He wasn't a deadly shooter his senior year and wasn't the most consistent shooter, but he's the last SG we've had who has won us games with his shooting. Example: Villanova in 06, a game we very well may have needed to make it to the Dance. His shooting single-handedly kept us in and won us that game. Jackson has the potential, and we all know Redford can shoot, but he has yet to show he can get off several shots in a game and be comfortable. Crawford has the chance to be our best SG ever from what it sounds like, but again, he doesn't play yet. Until we actually have a 2 guard who plays better than Stan, you should probably not start on how fun it is to have good shooters. I blame you 100% for jinxing us in this early season and hope you will make up for it by sending SB a Christmas package or something.

I see where your coming from.

Consistency was a major problem for Burrell offensively. He could go on a run (especially in the early part of his X career).

[GuyFawkes38]

This is the House of Smack.

You hijack good threads on the Men's Basketball forum by interjecting "I think Dustin Dow is coming to the realization with something that I've been saying for a while now: Stanley Burrell and Drew Lavender were overrated" which is not in any way even hinted at in Dow's blog post.

You keep attacking Burrell and Lavender for no apparent reason except to be an instigator. The attacks are so disconnected from reality they appear to come from a delusional Dayton fan.

This is an open forum. Congratulations, you are the shit-stirrer in it. But when your tired act comes by way of groundless attacks on the boys who wore Xavier blue (especially the ones who led the best team in school history) I will call out your flaming arse on it every time.

Get out of the basement for a while and find something else to hate.


Wow, I struck a nerve. I think good smack does that. I have a lot of respect for the old posters on this board. But they often dominate the discussion too much.

It's really fun to bring a new perspective and piss off the old posters at the same time. My philosophy on this board is to post first, then read other posts, and finally think about it all a little (if at all).

[sweet16]

Guy, I honestly believe that 90% of what you post is done tongue-in-cheek and is intended merely to get a rise out of other posters. However, on this particular topic I think that there is some truth (possibly inadvertently) in what you say. I personally never believed that Stan changed his game to become a defensive stopper and ultimate team player because that's what he wanted to do.......and in doing so he sacrificed his offensive game. Rather I contend that half way through the 2006-07 season Stan lost his shot and subsequently lost his confidence and he never regained it during the 2007-08 season. I think he determined that if he can't shoot he can still contribute in other areas and then proceeded to work on those areas. I think those who argue that Stan sacrificed his offense to become a defensive stopper are a little misinformed. Maybe it's a subtle difference but I think it's more accurate to say Stan lost confidence in his shooting ability and then decided to work on his defense.

[GuyFawkes38]

Guy, I honestly believe that 90% of what you post is done tongue-in-cheek and is intended merely to get a rise out of other posters. However, on this particular topic I think that there is some truth (possibly inadvertently) in what you say. I personally never believed that Stan changed his game to become a defensive stopper and ultimate team player because that's what he wanted to do.......and in doing so he sacrificed his offensive game. Rather I contend that half way through the 2006-07 season Stan lost his shot and subsequently lost his confidence and he never regained it during the 2007-08 season. I think he determined that if he can't shoot he can still contribute in other areas and then proceeded to work on those areas. I think those who argue that Stan sacrificed his offense to become a defensive stopper are a little misinformed. Maybe it's a subtle difference but I think it's more accurate to say Stan lost confidence in his shooting ability and then decided to work on his defense.

I agree 100% with this (yeah, this thread was tongue-in-cheek...But on the men's basketball board I've expressed similar thoughts).

[PMI]

I too could see that being the case sweet16. Nobody wants to go from leading scorer/go-to guy to defensive stopper. That does not, however, take away the fact that he embraced that role and did it. Did he want to? Who knows. But when faced with adversity he stepped up and made the most of it, and that's what Xavier fans appreciate.

And Guy, when I first came onto these board 6 or 7 years ago I took the exact same approach. There are a lot of old tight asses (more so on the old MM than here I feel) that are fun to get a rise out of. Good smack does strike a nerve, but I would challenge you to take the next step and get a similar rise out of people without talking down on popular X players. We're all on the same side, so why not pick another issue to piss people off with. Ohio State works well. Making fun of LH is fun if you've never tried it but he's like the cool new toy on Christmas day that is as dull as Ben Stein's voice come New Years. Perhaps you can find a new nerve to strike that nobody has thought of yet.

[GuyFawkes38]

And Guy, when I first came onto these board 6 or 7 years ago I took the exact same approach. There are a lot of old tight asses (more so on the old MM than here I feel) that are fun to get a rise out of. Good smack does strike a nerve, but I would challenge you to take the next step and get a similar rise out of people without talking down on popular X players. We're all on the same side, so why not pick another issue to piss people off with. Ohio State works well. Making fun of LH is fun if you've never tried it but he's like the cool new toy on Christmas day that is as dull as Ben Stein's voice come New Years. Perhaps you can find a new nerve to strike that nobody has thought of yet.

It's only on the house of smack that I really dish out the smack. I'm not trying to strike a nerve in the other forums. It just happens.

American X complained about me hijacking the thread commenting on if we are really as good as Dustin Dow thinks we are (12th in the country).

In all seriousness, I believe that we are that good and that people have been overestimating the loss of Burrell and Lavender. I honestly consider them overrated players. The idea that Burrell is overrated is a pretty tough concept for American X to contemplate.

And as a result, American X freaks out and calls my postings a joke and gives me more negative reps.

[American X]

You are so full of crap you remind me of UD Arena. Just like a Dayton Flyer, you start crying when you get smacked back.

Your 'perspective' is pissing in cornflakes. Your 'opinions' consist of trashing certain players at every turn. Thanks for sharing. You're great.

This is a fantastic, wide-open forum for all things Xavier basketball, but if you cannot express a coherent thought without tearing down former Musketeers then keep quiet until you can. If you are going to grace us with your opinions, then back them up.

[Raoul Duke]

How was Lavender overrated? The entire offense ran through him. He played the whole damn game every game. Look at the games when he was out or not 100% healthy. Totally different team.

[MADXSTER]

Guy = stir, stir, stir

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[GuyFawkes38]

You are so full of crap you remind me of UD Arena. Just like a Dayton Flyer, you start crying when you get smacked back.

Your 'perspective' is pissing in cornflakes. Your 'opinions' consist of trashing certain players at every turn. Thanks for sharing. You're great.

This is a fantastic, wide-open forum for all things Xavier basketball, but if you cannot express a coherent thought without tearing down former Musketeers then keep quiet until you can. If you are going to grace us with your opinions, then back them up.

Wow. Ha. That's some solid smack.


How was Lavender overrated? The entire offense ran through him. He played the whole damn game every game. Look at the games when he was out or not 100% healthy. Totally different team.


I'm not saying that Burrell and Lavender were bad players. I would use the term solid.

If X continues to succeed this year, I think some "Stan and Drew are god" believers on this board are going to have to acknowledge that last year's play from the forwards (Duncan, Brown, Anderson, Love, Raymond) was much more important to the team than the guard play.

[PMI]

I won't take anything away from the play of the forwards last year. Duncan was the biggest stud on our team the last two months or so and CJ, BJ, and D Brown were all major parts of our run. I still think you are underestimating Drew's importance as the one who runs our offense. Look at Miller's first two years when he didn't have a point guard. I'm not saying those teams top to bottom were anywhere near as good as the next two, but don't that Drew was just a small part of that. We had a lot of open shots because of him and teams could not press us because of him. That changes the game in a major way.

This year, if we have more or as much success, I believe it will be because our overall team defense is more consistent (not just one "shut down defender" in Stan, but several on the floor at one time) and because our depth in the paint is much more overwhelming than in years past. I think Holloway can be great, but I don't see him as a one man press break who can penetrate as well as Drew and find as many open shooters. I hope I'm wrong, but I really don't think we have a point guard on this roster better than Drew Lavender. His quickness and height (or lack thereof) were used as an advantage that few players have.

Either way, regardless of what happens this year, there is no point in comparing that team to this one, regardless of the results. If Xavier has a better season in 09 that will not make Drew and Stan overrated for 08. Miller and some of our veteran players have another year of experience under their belt and we have valuable newcomers. Drew and Stan have already left their marks and I don't think their accomplishments or their teams' accomplishments are overrated at all.

[blobfan]

It's a lucky thing for some posters on this thread that I have a policy of no negative repping except in extreme conditions (trolls). I'm not ready to have his children and I don't think Burrell is a god, but Stan was, is and ever shall be The Man. Other players have brought heart and skills to Xs game but name one other player that brought SWAGGER? I believe this year we have survived games based more on the belief that we can and will win than on any other single factor. And I believe that is a gift from Mr. Stanley Burrell.

[sweet16]

I don't mean any disrespect and everyone is entitled to their opinion but you have to admit that saying Stan had "swagger" is somewhat analogous to telling someone that their blind date has a good personality or plays the piano. "Stan was the man".........not in my opinion.......I think Drew was much more valuable.

[blobfan]

I don't mean any disrespect and everyone is entitled to their opinion but you have to admit that saying Stan had "swagger" is somewhat analogous to telling someone that their blind date has a good personality or plays the piano. "Stan was the man".........not in my opinion.......I think Drew was much more valuable.

Good personality or piano playing is not contagioius. Stan's swagger was.

[hammercoach]

If it weren't for Stan and others Drew probably wouldn't have made it through the year. You saw what happened when the season was over.

[sweet16]

Good personality or piano playing is not contagioius. Stan's swagger was.

I know it was subtle but I think you missed the point. When your blind date is ugly you're told "but she has a good personality". When your shooting guard can't shoot you're told "but he has swagger".

[MADXSTER]

I know it was subtle but I think you missed the point. When your blind date is ugly you're told "but she has a good personality". When your shooting guard can't shoot you're told "but he has swagger".


And it's possible to have swagger, a good personallity, can't shoot and be ugly!

All without being blind!

[GuyFawkes38]

Either way, regardless of what happens this year, there is no point in comparing that team to this one, regardless of the results. If Xavier has a better season in 09 that will not make Drew and Stan overrated for 08. Miller and some of our veteran players have another year of experience under their belt and we have valuable newcomers. Drew and Stan have already left their marks and I don't think their accomplishments or their teams' accomplishments are overrated at all.


I somewhat agree with this. It's not good to be obsessed with the past.

But on the other hand, when people feel so pessimistic of this season because of the lack of guard experience, it's worth pointing out that last years team revolved around the forwards, who are mostly back, and not the guards. Stan and Drew were good but not close to being great.

And for Dustin Dow to come to the conclusion that this years team might be the greatest ever, he must have had a similar thought process.

[PMI]

If it weren't for Stan and others Drew probably wouldn't have made it through the year. You saw what happened when the season was over.

That's not fair at all and comes across as a cheap shot. Drew's off the court issues that occurred after the season are one thing, but believe me, he was always committed to that team and would not have jeopardized our outstanding season. Take that for what it's worth, but you are wrong.

[GuyFawkes38]

If someone asked me to sum up Xavier University, in all of it's greatness in one word, it would be: STAN.

Great game by Stanley against Ohio. I loved his passion. Oh wait, it's fall 2008.

I think I'm going to resurrect this thread every time X wins. Ha, just joking. This will be the last time.

[GuyFawkes38]

When Holloway nailed the 3 in the second half, I thought to myself, I really miss Stanley Burrell.

[Xman95]

If someone asked me to sum up Xavier University, in all of it's greatness in one word, it would be: STAN.

Great game by Stanley against Ohio. I loved his passion. Oh wait, it's fall 2008.

I think I'm going to resurrect this thread every time X wins. Ha, just joking. This will be the last time.

I wish you would have stuck to that statement.

I don't care if people got carried away last year (imagine that, fans getting carried away with fandom on their team's message board). You're going way too far the other way. Only an idiot would constantly rip on the starting guard for an Elite Eight team.

Was Stan the greatest guard ever? I think that's an obvious "no." But he was one of the best defenders we have seen in a long time. That's why he got national attention for his D. And, a point I think you're missing, Stan transformed himself from an offensive-minded wild gun into that tremendous defensive player. And he did it for the team. There are many players that wouldn't even make that effort to change. There are many others that would be willing, but just couldn't do it. Stan didn't worry about his stats last year and simply did what the team needed...play great defense.

I guarantee that you would find many players that Stan shut down last year that would tell you he was a VERY important piece of the Xavier puzzle. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you that you can't realize that.

[Xman95]

When Holloway nailed the 3 in the second half, I thought to myself, I really miss Stanley Burrell.

FYI - Holloway's a PG. Stanley played the 2. Big difference. And, in case you didn't realize it, Thornton knocked down 30 for LSU. Chances are good that he wouldn't have done that with Burrell hounding him for 40 minutes. But I guess things like that don't matter to you.

(Once again I got pulled into a thread to reply to a post by Guy. WHY? WHY? WHY? I should know by now to just ignore his crap.)

[GuyFawkes38]

xman, you make some valid points.

And yeah, I know, I've called Drew and Stan overrated way too many times on this board.

But that being said, I do think everyone (from XHoops, to the local media, to the national media) have underestimated this year's team due to Stan and Drew's departure. And that honestly pisses me off. CJ, BJ, and Brown were the heart of last year's team. And they are back this year. Yet, you don't hear the same amount of praise for our awesome forwards.

Instead we hear a lot of BS about this being a rebuilding year, because Drew and Stan left last year. And Crawford, Redford, and Jackson are here next year.

This pisses me off. BJ, CJ and Brown should get their fair due of praise.

[DiamondDave]

xman, you make some valid points.

And yeah, I know, I've called Drew and Stan overrated way too many times on this board.

But that being said, I do think everyone (from XHoops, to the local media, to the national media) have underestimated this year's team due to Stan and Drew's departure. And that honestly pisses me off. CJ, BJ, and Brown were the heart of last year's team. And they are back this year. Yet, you don't hear the same amount of praise for our awesome forwards.

Instead we hear a lot of BS about this being a rebuilding year, because Drew and Stan left last year. And Crawford, Redford, and Jackson are here next year.

This pisses me off. BJ, CJ and Brown should get their fair due of praise.

Those three guys were a big part of our success last year for sure but in no way were they the heart of our team. Drew Lavender was the best point guard in the history of our program and Josh Duncan singlehandedly won us quite a few games. (in back to back road games against Charlotte and RI Duncan went 15-15 from the field). In college basketball the best programs reload by making sure their seniors step up to the plate and lead the team every year. Next year Crawford and Brown are going to be our stars and we're going to win a lot of games. Does that mean that BJ and CJ were overrated?

[Xman95]

Trust me, everyone knows how good those guys are. If they don't, they haven't been watching. I think the concerns about the guard spots come because college basketball is now perceived as a guards game. Not to mention, it's tough to run an offense without a solid PG. Prior to Holloway getting experience, we were using Dante and, despite his great efforts, that's not his position.

Look at the Cavs in the NBA. They have had LBJ, as well as guys like Ilgauskas, Boozer, Gooden, etc. in recent years. But they have always struggled at the PG spot. They no longer have a stud at PF and have been playing without Z lately, but having Mo Williams at the point has brought this team to another level. Sure, LBJ is the main piece, but they still needed a legit PG to bring things together.

Before Holloway took over there were issues at PG for X. That makes it tougher for the forwards to do their jobs. It doesn't matter how good they are if you don't have guys who can get them the ball in spots where they can do damage. Those are things both Drew and Stan did well last year.

Plus, when teams make runs like we saw last year and in '04, it's usually the seniors that people lock in on and go crazy over. I think part of it is knowing those guys won't be back and part of it is respect for what they did for the program.

I guarantee you that when all is said and done, guys like CJ, BJ and D-Brown will know how much fans liked them...and fans, if they aren't already, will be fully aware of just how important and great those guys were for this program. And, honestly, I don't think trying to knock guys like Drew and Stan will do any good, regardless of the reason for doing it. You're not going to get respect for X, Y and Z by ripping on A and B, especially when A and B also deserve that respect.

[GuyFawkes38]

Trust me, everyone knows how good those guys are. If they don't, they haven't been watching. I think the concerns about the guard spots come because college basketball is now perceived as a guards game. Not to mention, it's tough to run an offense without a solid PG. Prior to Holloway getting experience, we were using Dante and, despite his great efforts, that's not his position.

Look at the Cavs in the NBA. They have had LBJ, as well as guys like Ilgauskas, Boozer, Gooden, etc. in recent years. But they have always struggled at the PG spot. They no longer have a stud at PF and have been playing without Z lately, but having Mo Williams at the point has brought this team to another level. Sure, LBJ is the main piece, but they still needed a legit PG to bring things together.

Before Holloway took over there were issues at PG for X. That makes it tougher for the forwards to do their jobs. It doesn't matter how good they are if you don't have guys who can get them the ball in spots where they can do damage. Those are things both Drew and Stan did well last year.

Plus, when teams make runs like we saw last year and in '04, it's usually the seniors that people lock in on and go crazy over. I think part of it is knowing those guys won't be back and part of it is respect for what they did for the program.

I guarantee you that when all is said and done, guys like CJ, BJ and D-Brown will know how much fans liked them...and fans, if they aren't already, will be fully aware of just how important and great those guys were for this program. And, honestly, I don't think trying to knock guys like Drew and Stan will do any good, regardless of the reason for doing it. You're not going to get respect for X, Y and Z by ripping on A and B, especially when A and B also deserve that respect.

This whole post makes some degree of sense.

But I have to say that Holloway/Redford/Jackson didn't play great during the LSU game. In fact, outside of Redfords shooting, they haven't play well in the past 10 games.

All I'm saying is that we should all give CJ, BJ, and Brown their due. They have been far more key to the success of X than Drew and Stan.

[waggy]

I think we can all agree, you're a jackass.

[GuyFawkes38]

I think we can all agree, you're a jackass.

Ahhh yes, I guess I shall always be a jackass for taking on the "awesomeness" of Drew and Stan.

[waggy]

I forgive you.