We All Love Ed.....but

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XUFan09

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X Factor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xville

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X Factor

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X Factor

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.