Boogua

I honestly don't mind the Groce hiring at all (if it happens). At first I thought he was just another joke mid-major coach, but after hearing about how he recruits and the style his team plays I think he can succeed at U of I. Yes, his team hasn't done THAT impressively, but it's Ohio. He just broke the school record for wins and returns EVERYBODY next year. I think it's pretty safe to say that Ohio would have been a good team next year. Robert Smith said he wouldn't be blackballed in the CPL. Mullins (an AAU coach) likes Groce and said he could recruit Chicago. He recruited DJ Cooper from Hales Franciscan and he had offers (according to scout) from Baylor and Cal. I just don't see why people won't give the guy a shot. He beat Georgetown by double digits in the tourney two years ago and made the sweet sixteen this year. At first I discredited him by thinking that Michigan was shaky and USF was just a joke, but he impressed me with the UNC game. He made very good second half adjustments (something that Weber failed to do most of the time) and was a missed FT away from beating UNC.

It's point per attempt? Oh wow. It's worse than I thought. I thought it was just attempts... So players get more points per long two attempt than in the midrange. Yikes.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 7, 2012 -> 02:24 PM) Its not entirely that, its also risk reward. Since the invent of the 3 point line, the jump shot has dramatically changed. Whereas previously the closer to the basket was always better, now you have a situation where its often smarter to step 3-4 feet back to shoot a 3, as opposed to a long 2. There are also quite a few long twos taken though. More than the midrange shot.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Mar 7, 2012 -> 12:41 PM) Shaq also probably had the most dominant peak of anyone. Jordan and Kareem both had much longer peaks. In Jordan's case, his peak was his whole Bulls' career. Kareem's was until he was 39 years old. Strictly speaking peaks Bird is extremely high too. From 84-86 he won 3 straight MVPs and won 2 championships.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 7, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) All of the shots taken in the NBA from 2006-2011. Proof of the lack of midrange game these days. I would guess that that the lack of good defensive centers added with the implementing of the hand check rule (causing players to sag somewhat to prevent the drive) are some of the reasons it's like this. The midrange game is really a lost art. I still can't believe people think the NBA is "evolving". The skills have regressed so much.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 7, 2012 -> 10:57 AM) I think a current list would be way more fun. Some of the names that will pop up from 50 on will be pretty funny on a current list. Even on an all time list (like realgm's list) guys past 50 get a little shaky. They have Manu Ginobili as the 60th best player of all time. 100 just seems like a lot, IMO. Especially if it's a current list.

Is this an all time list or a current list?

I actually really like this thread. It tends to go off topic quite a bit, but some of the topics are interesting (like the Jordan in today's era thing). I feel bad for posters like Felix and J4L because they voice their opinions pretty strongly and those opinions aren't popular around here. I think a problem with J4L is that he doesn't back up his opinions (some of which are already really hard to believe) with concrete evidence. Felix does a pretty good job with that usually. By the way, as someone who lurks for the most part (and have been doing so for many years), I think it was clear as day that posters are just joking around with J4L. I don't think SS2k5s post was malicious at all.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 06:30 PM) Kirkpatrick, Claiborne and Jenkins are a ways above the rest of the CB crop. With the cover 2 that Lovie plays, it usually doesn't need guys to be elite man coverage wise. Obviously, those three can all play in the cover 2 scheme, but their talent would be wasted a bit. Our corners play a lot of zones or play in 2 man under where they have help if they're beat deep. A guy like Casey Hayward, who looks like a perfect cover 2 guy, could be just as good for the Bears later on, but won't cost a first round pick. From a pure talent standpoint, sure, those guys are great. That's why there is a good likelihood that they won't even be there at 19. You have to take scheme into account though. Take a guy like Namdi for example. An elite cover guy that was utilized in man defenses with oakland. He flourished. He goes to Philadelphia, where they having him play zones more and he's CONSIDERABLY worse.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 06:20 PM) This really isn't a great draft for o-linemen and all signs point to the organization feeling that the OL isn't a priority. They'll surely be bringing one in via free agency though. Plus, again, we have two 3rd round picks. This is a pretty good draft for CBs though. I don't know why we should take one in the first round. I think it should be either a DE or an offensive player (OL or WR) for sure.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 2, 2012 -> 06:02 PM) I think I've come up with my best-case-scanario (realistically) for the Bears: - Sign one of Vincent Jackson/Marques Colston - 1st round, pick one of Dre Kirkpatrick, Janoris Jenkins, Courtney Upshaw, Whitney Mercilus, Mark Barron, - 2nd round, best WR/TE available, pick one of Kendall Wright, Muhamed Sanu, Alshon Jeffery, Dwayne Allen, Orson Charles There's also some secondary WR guys I like such as AJ Jenkins, Jarius Wright, TY Hilton, Marvin McNutt, and Juron Criner. So don't address the offensive line at all? Honestly, Kirkpatrick and Jenkins might not even be there, but even if they were I wouldn't take them. I'd take a guy like Casey Hayward later on. I'd see what the Bears do in FA and then draft based off that. If they sign VJ or MC, then I either take a DL or a guy like Cordy Glenn at 19. If the Bears sign a starting OL, then I pray and hope Michael Floyd is there.

QUOTE (Brian @ Feb 25, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) Lots of weak calls in this game Yeah, Kansas tied the game on a FT at near the end of the regulation and then they took the lead on a FT in OT. Can't say I'm surprised.

Homecourt advantage means an absurd amount in college basketball.

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Feb 25, 2012 -> 04:56 PM) Mizzou has fallen apart. They aren't deep at all and 3 of their starters have 4 fouls.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 18, 2012 -> 08:44 AM) Wade>>>>Jordan! Not at defense and dunking though...

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) Haven't the point per game averages come down a bunch in the last 10 years? Possibly, I don't have time to do the exact research right now. I do know that in 2003 T-Mac was the leading scorer with 28 PPG (it was a pathetic season) and after that it seemed like the NBA knew they had to make a change. The lack of jump shooting and fundamentals were killing the NBA. They instituted the handcheck rule and after that it became a Guards league. There were 4 people in 05-06 that averaged better than that 28 PPG in 03. Three players that averaged over 30 PPG. Kobe Bryant averaged 10 FTA per game for three straight seasons after the handcheck rule was instated. He was averaging about 8 per game before that. I think the scoring has decreased in the past 10 years because of the offense, not because of the athletes on defense. Players are much worse shooters and they don't post up like they used to. Carlos Boozer got a monster contract because he was one of the true post players in the NBA. Even though he's 6'8 and unathletic.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) I would agree that MJ wouldn't be AS good in today's game, because I agree with SS2k5 that there are more of the faster/bigger/taller guys in the NBA that could keep him "in check." Yeah the Deng comment was dumb, as Pippen is a good counter. But I think you've got a lot more of those types in the NBA now than you did back then. I still think MJ rules the league though, just not to the same degree of dominance he displayed in the 90's. He'd be like Lebron, only with the competitiveness and drive to win and not puss out in the final 12 minutes of the game. I tend to agree with this point, although Mike was a better scorer than Lebron (Mike probably had the best midrange game ever). And with that being said, Lebron is putting up some ridiculous seasons. Lebron with competitiveness is a scary thought. I think that in itself would be dominating similarly to the 90s. And I don't think people understand how much Mike would be able to take advantage of today's game. They don't realize what kind of impact the handcheck rule had. They seem to miss the fact that Allen Iverson had his best scoring season at the age 30 (and he relied on quickness). Kobe Bryant had his best season after the handcheck rule. Michael Jordan averaged 10 FTA a game only twice in his career (a guy that supposedly got all the superstar calls). Paul Pierce averaged 10 FTA a game after that rule was instated. Paul Pierce isn't some sort of elite level athlete either. There were at least 5 guys that averaged 10 FTA per game in the 05/06 season. The game has turned into a game that caters to players that try emulate Michael Jordan's game. Lots of ISOs. Now put the greatest ISO player of all time in the current era and it's just wow.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) I am sure it is a waste of time, because I can acknowledge that the game has changed in the last twenty years. Michael Jordan played 10 years ago, at nearly 40, and had 40 point games against teams like the Suns and the Nets. Being guarded by guys like Shawn Marion and Jason Kidd. Two guys that were guarding Dwayne Wade in the finals last year WAYYYY past their prime.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 02:48 PM) Honestly, pretty much everything except dunks and probably defense. Wow. Okay. Arguing this would probably just be a waste of time then.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) If you gave MJ a relative skill level to today that is one thing, but taking 1990 MJ and putting him into today's game, he wouldn't be nearly as good. Players are bigger, stronger, and faster than they were 20 years ago. I get the rule changes, but there are guys in the game today who can stay in front of players like that. Defenders like Luol Deng didn't also exist 20 years ago. Question: What can Dwayne Wade do better than 1990 Michael Jordan?

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) If LBJ was 6'4 235, he wouldn't be dominating like he is now, he creates a match up nightmare with his quickness, strenght and SIZE. And if he wasn't able to dribble or shoot the way he's able to he wouldn't be dominating like he is now either. Obviously his size and athleticism help him tremendously, but if you think that there's an equal amount importance when comparing the physicality of a basketball player to an NFL running back, I don't know what to say.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) Lebron is physically superior to everyone today. I don't get what this proves. It proves that basketball is different than football. I mean that football is a tad bit more physical than basketball, so I don't really know how you make that comparison. If NBA players had to tackle lebron (a 6-8 260 pound monster), then sure I could see it. There are a decent amount of skills involved in playing basketball that can cause a physically dominant player to have problems. Playing running back is just a LITTLE different.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Feb 17, 2012 -> 12:57 PM) I really hate the argument that because x player played in a past era, and if you stick them in today's era, they would be a scrub.If that's the case, why have a HOF for players before, say 1980... Jackie Robinson, Jim Brown, Oscar Robertson and Dick Butkus suck!!! Sweetness, you barely made the grade...SMH. Baseball players tend to translate alright from any era to any era, IMO. I don't think there's any doubt that the other players would take a hit in the current era. It's not to say that they suck, it's just saying that the game is much different than the past. The better argument against Russell is the pace and the type of game that was played back then. If you watch replays from back then it's absolute chaos. It looks like a hectic pick up game at the park. There weren't many good shooters, and the players drove to the hole jacking up crazy shots for the most part. Which is why a very good athlete, in Russell, was able to dominate the game. That being said, the guy had no offensive game. He averaged 15 points a game for his career and shot 43% from the field. There's absolutely no reason to believe that he would be a good offensive player in ANY era. In the post merger NBA a Center has to be good at both offense and defense to be great. If not, we would be talking about Dikembe Mutombo and Ben Wallace in completely different lights. Also, Jim Brown was was 6-2 232. To put it in perspective, their (the browns) HOF guard was 6-3 248 and their HOF DT was 6-2 248. I'm not saying Brown would be garbage, but it's obvious that he was just physically superior to pretty much everyone.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Feb 15, 2012 -> 10:58 PM) To be fair to Maniscalco, he re-injured the ankle in the St. Bonaventure game and has been playing (incredibly poorly) on one leg since. It isn't his fault that Weber keeps playing him when he has no chance to succeed. Oh, I completely agree that it isn't Sam's fault that he's playing so much. He's obviously a competitor and feels like he can help the team. The fact is that he can't at this point. The blame is all on Weber. He did the same thing with Bill Cole last year and this year he did it with Sam. He tends to go with the "experienced" and the "safe (much less turnover prone)" too often. Like Weber even said in his press conference: He was coaching not to lose. I think playing Sam extended minutes, when the guy isn't capable, is clearly indicative of that.

So I was curious as to how Maniscalco has actually done (numbers wise). Since the weak part of the schedule ended (beginning with the Gonzaga game), he is 18 for 79 for the field (22.7%) in 15 games. I knew it was bad, but Jesus... I guess Weber had him out there for his defense though.