We All Love Ed.....but

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xufan2434

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirabilelectu

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirabilelectu

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

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XUFan09

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirabilelectu

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?