Fairleigh Dickinson Game Thread

[The Mad Hatter]

Well, both JT and Paul had redshirt years to mature physically, while Garrett did not, so direct class year comparisons need to take this into consideration.

Let's not try to rewrite history about the "fifi" remarks about Paul. At the time, people were giving up on Paul EVER being a good player. Don't give me a cop out that you were down on a guy when he was still developing, but that it wasn't about you misreading him, but about him learning to "man up." Since a large number of big men take until they are upperclassmen to develop their bodies and learn how to use their bulk, your belief that it was an effort or attitude problem rather than a developmental one is seriously suspect.

It is fine to display frustration at individual performances, but once you let that bleed over into your analysis of what kind a player someone will be over the course of their career, you lose any credibility as an evaluator of talent. If you keep that line clear, you will be fine.

Is Garrett anywhere near as good as he is capable of being? No. Does that mean that he isn't on track to be that good? No.

Even if you don't want to wait until he is an upperclassman (which you should because that is when most big men usually emerge), at least wait to see more than 1 game of his sophomore year to decide if he is a bust.

[Snapshot9]

Tap tap tap!!!

[The Mad Hatter]

Just in case you are getting tired of the Paul Miller comparison:

Dexter Pittman - Texas:
Points Per Game
Freshman - 2.6
Sophomore - 2.8
Junior - 10.1

Anthony Tolliver - Creighton:
Points Per Game
Freshman - 0.8
Sophomore - 4.2
Junior - 13.2

[ShockTalk]

Hatter - Your redshirt comment is well taken and true.

I do not feel Garrett has any kind of an attitude problem, shows very good effort, and has a great passion for the game.

Since I didn't follow Pittman at all, and only Tolliver when we played them, I can't comment on their early skill sets, attitutes, physical/mental maturity, or whatever may have played into the stats you gave. It may of had to do more with who was in front of them in the depth chart for all I know.

[ShockTalk]

Hatter - I agree that big men progress more slowly. However, what contributes to or detracts from their progression when compared to their piers can vary.

I believe Garrett has skills above those that Miller had in his redshirt sophmore year. I'm confident his defensive shortcomings will be lessened as he matures. His offensive skills will not progress as well if, what I view, is his hesitations are not overcome and a greater self-belief in what skills he currently possess. If you ask for the ball, be sure you want the ball and act accordingly. If you're going up under the basket for a bucket, go up strong (mentally). The result may be the same, but it's one less important thing the coaches have to deal with.

Was Miller soft most of his first two to three years, yes. Maybe most big men are. That doesn't change what it is. Was Miller soft at the end of his career? NO!!! What one may be now, may not be what they are tomorrow.

I think Garrett is a great asset to the team and like him a lot. Don't confuse what I may say about part of a player's game with how I view them overall or what I believe they may become later.

[The Mad Hatter]

ShockTalk,

Just so that we are clear, I have a lot more problem with the people that are acting as though Garrett is a bust than I have with you.

You have said that you see the potential (which I certainly see as well), whereas some seem to be denying that he has the skill set we were told about when he was being recruited.

There is a big difference between wanting Garrett to reach his potential sooner rather than latter and writing off Garrett as a bust because he isn't a world beater early in his second year. You appear to be the former rather than the latter and I can certainly respect that.

[ShockTalk]

:good: :good: :good: :wsu_posters:

[WstateU]

Well, both JT and Paul had redshirt years to mature physically, while Garrett did not, so direct class year comparisons need to take this into consideration.

Let's not try to rewrite history about the "fifi" remarks about Paul. At the time, people were giving up on Paul EVER being a good player. Don't give me a cop out that you were down on a guy when he was still developing, but that it wasn't about you misreading him, but about him learning to "man up." Since a large number of big men take until they are upperclassmen to develop their bodies and learn how to use their bulk, your belief that it was an effort or attitude problem rather than a developmental one is seriously suspect.

It is fine to display frustration at individual performances, but once you let that bleed over into your analysis of what kind a player someone will be over the course of their career, you lose any credibility as an evaluator of talent. If you keep that line clear, you will be fine.

Is Garrett anywhere near as good as he is capable of being? No. Does that mean that he isn't on track to be that good? No.

Even if you don't want to wait until he is an upperclassman (which you should because that is when most big men usually emerge), at least wait to see more than 1 game of his sophomore year to decide if he is a bust.

Rack him!!! :good: :good:

[Maggie]

Miller, even during his final season, was more of a finesse player.

He was not a rebounding machine or a defensive juggernaut. That is not to say he did not improve in those areas over five years. Notwithstanding, his strengths were on the offensive end and what made him POY (an honor which, in my judgment, he would not have been awarded if WSU did not win the regular season title) was the variety of moves that he perfected on that end of the court.

I can’t watch GS play but I don’t think it is fair to compare him to Miller. But if he is still getting “pushed around”, etc. then that is something everyone should expect at this stage in his college career. From what I have read about the kids work ethic, attitude and intelligence he will continue to improve.

[shockall]

Miller, even during his final season, was more of a finesse player.

He was not a rebounding machine or a defensive juggernaut. That is not to say he did not improve in those areas over five years. Notwithstanding, his strengths were on the offensive end and what made him POY (an honor which, in my judgment, he would not have been awarded if WSU did not win the regular season title) was the variety of moves that he perfected on that end of the court.

I can’t watch GS play but I don’t think it is fair to compare him to Miller. But if he is still getting “pushed around”, etc. then that is something everyone should expect at this stage in his college career. From what I have read about the kids work ethic, attitude and intelligence he will continue to improve.

Agree. Another point which needs to be considered was the strong personnel that Miller had playing around him, that probably hasn't developed for GS yet.

[SubGod22]

Whoever said Hatch needs to hit his FTs is insane. Is 6-8 really that bad?

67% as a team isn't horrible either. Not great by any means but 2 out of 3 isn't bad. I think we'll be better than that in the long run.

4 guys with 5 or more rebounds is nice. Being led by a guard is a bit odd but then again, Kyles is active and athletic. It won't be the last time he leads us in that category.

This team definitely has things to work on. It's hard to judge them too much considering they coasted thru the 2nd half as many teams do when they get up like that. I wish we had that killer instinct to put them away for good but it's not there. Not yet anyway. Against a team like Pitt that's not something we'll have to worry about. I'd bet we see fewer defensive lapses as it's easier to stay focused and working when you're not dominating a team.

Not a bad first game but we've got things to work on.

The attendance sucked.

[pinstripers]

Whaddaya figure..........maybe 9,000?

[SubGod22]

Whaddaya figure..........maybe 9,000?

Maybe. I'd guess under.

[xazshox]

Tyler Richardson

I'm wondering why Tyler Richardson didn't play. GM talked a lot last week about redshirting someone else besides Jerome Hamilton. Richardson was suited up at the game, but GM ended up playing 2 walk-ons instead: Bruce Mayes & Derek Brown in the closing 1-2 minutes. It makes me wonder if GM made a game-time decision to reshirt Richardson. Nothing was said about it in the post game 1330 AM radio show either. GM has previously pointed out that Tyler was only 17 when he came here this year!

[newshock1234]

Re: Tyler Richardson

I'm wondering why Tyler Richardson didn't play. GM talked a lot last week about redshirting someone else besides Jerome Hamilton. Richardson was suited up at the game, but GM ended up playing 2 walk-ons instead: Bruce Mayes & Derek Brown in the closing 1-2 minutes. It makes me wonder if GM made a game-time decision to reshirt Richardson. Nothing was said about it in the post game 1330 AM radio show either. GM has previously pointed out that Tyler was only 17 when he came here this year!

I think we was gonna either redshirt him or Maniguilt, and it sounds like we decided to redshirt Richardson.