Shamorie at #56 in SI 100 Rankings

Donald Emanuel

Good pick.

No, just a mild intellectual challenge.

I agree that you seem mildly intellectually challenged.

I will go easier on you- name 5 players who were on scholarship that got some burn that were worse than Trimble.

Alibegowitz, Fruedenberg, Bourgault, Hooper and the sophomore Phil Greene.

I agree that you seem mildly intellectually challenged.


Alibegowitz, Fruedenberg, Bourgault, Hooper and the sophomore Phil Greene.

Amar is more comparable. Lots of minutes hardly any production.

Freudenberg did not get that much burn so he is almost a redshirt, does not count.

Marco was solid talent- what hurt his production was Lav poorly used him. He had a good handle and could have been decent for us if coaching was better. Much better player than Trimble. Better player than Hooper too. I have a bit more intel on him too because sometimes I would drop into practice and he was scout team and I would see him play very well. Limited on court minutes does not tell story.

Hooper is tough one- could have been used better and can shoot when he is in rhythm, but defense liability and way too one dimensional. He was in better shape than Trimble though.

Sophomore Phil Greene- Now that is crazy talk on two fronts. First, you cannot just say someone's year. You have to say the player period. Second, your a stats guy so here is this:

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/gamelog/_/id/57022/type/mens-college-basketball/year/2013

A solid season before he got hurt- Trimble can only dream to put up a 1/3 of those numbers and production.

So realistically on this list the closest you have are Amar and Hooper. You cannot name 5. And frankly although they were not good players for us- Amar had more of a spark at moments than Trimble. Hooper did not play much- almost Freudenberg territory.

Big up to all my brethren Phil Greene fans for coming out of the closet and representing at this most appropriate time - Pride month!

Thanks for giving me the proper forum to repost for the umpteenth time my all time favorite CA post:
3-POINT FG PCT    Cl    GP    3FG    3FGA    Pct
1.    GREENE IV, Phil-SJU    SR    18    44    96    .458
2.    BARLOW, Alex-BU    SR    18    36    79    .456
3.    KREKLOW, Rick-CU    SR    17    33    73    .452
4.    ABELL, Remy-XU    JR    18    23    51    .451
5.    ARCIDIACONO, Ryan-VU    JR    18    40    90    .444
6.    SMITH-RIVERA, D.-GU    JR    17    46    108    .426
7.    GIBBS, Sterling-SHU    JR    16    47    112    .420
8.    HART, Josh-VU    SO    18    28    67    .418
9.    HILLIARD, Darrun-VU    SR    18    48    116    .414
10.    CARLINO, Matt-MU    SR    14    48    120    .400
   DUNHAM, Kellen-BU    JR    18    40    100    .400
12.    JORDAN, Rysheed-SJU    SO    17    27    69    .391
13.    HARRISON, D'Angelo-SJU    SR    18    39    100    .390
14.    JENKINS, Kris-VU    SO    18    23    59    .390
15.    TRAWICK, Jabril-GU    SR    18    20    52    .385

Let me explain how rhetoric works, since you don't seem to understand. You create a hypothesis then prove the hypothesis by the application of facts and reason. What you don't do is create a hypothesis, assume its truth, demand eccentric quantums of evidence (name 15 players that I have seen play personally) that disproves it, cherry pick data that supports your hypothesis and ignore evidence that tends to negate it. Hope that helps.

Amar is more comparable. Lots of minutes hardly any production.

Yes, the fruit of Lavs summer recruiting trip the French Riviera stunk, here we agree.

Freudenberg did not get that much burn so he is almost a redshirt, does not count.

Freudenberg averaged 9 minutes a game, Trible 15 minutes a game. Am I to believe that 6 minutes a game is the difference between nearly a red shirt and solid minutes?

Marco was solid talent- what hurt his production was Lav poorly used him.

(1) Bourgault averaged 3 points and one rebound a game and shot 29 percent from three in his first year - solid talent! - and didn't play at all his second year because he stunk. (2) If his performance can be excused because he was "poorly used," can Trimble's? Or do you think that he's a natural power forward who should have been the sixth man as a freshman.

He had a good handle and could have been decent for us if coaching was better. Much better player than Trimble. Better player than Hooper too. I have a bit more intel on him too because sometimes I would drop into practice and he was scout team and I would see him play very well. Limited on court minutes does not tell story.

Practice? You talking about practice?

Hooper is tough one- could have been used better and can shoot when he is in rhythm, but defense liability and way too one dimensional. He was in better shape than Trimble though.

More feeble excuses. Hooper stunk and lost us at least one game I can remember. And PS sophomore Bryan Trimble could snap Max Hooper like a twig.

Sophomore Phil Greene- Now that is crazy talk on two fronts. First, you cannot just say someone's year. You have to say the player period.

That was a little joke and anyway no I don't have to say the player period, because (a) you don't get to set the parameters of the debate which seems to be in your case that any evidence that tends to disprove what you think true is illegimate and (b) it's illegimate to compare a complete career to half of one. Unless you're arguing that in the five years you've been watching basketball in your opinion Trimble was the worst player you've ever seen who wasn't poorly used by dopey Steve Lavin, in which case who cares.

Second, your a stats guy so here is this:

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/gamelog/_/id/57022/type/mens-college-basketball/year/2013

A solid season before he got hurt- Trimble can only dream to put up a 1/3 of those numbers and production.

Yeah, it wasn't Trimble's job to put up those numbers. It was Trimble's job to play defense and hoist up the occasional three. Which he did quite well. As opposed to a shooting guard who shot 22 percet from three, because he's not doing his job well at all.

Speaking of numbers I went and looked at how ice in his veins Mr Clutch Phil Greene fared in the post season over the course of his career: in 8 games he scored 67 points, shooting 30 percent from the floor (27-89) and 22 percent from three (6-27). Most clutchiest player ever.

So realistically on this list the closest you have are Amar and Hooper. You cannot name 5.

I don't have to name five and I certainly don't have to name five you've seen play personally. That you've never heard of Heath Orvis or Thomas Jasilionustein or Tom Bayne or Abe Keita or Jack Wolfenstien or Mohamed Diakite or Liam Beisty or Ed Brown and the list goes on, it doesn't mean they didn't exist, it just means you're historically ignorant.

Let me explain how rhetoric works, since you don't seem to understand. You create a hypothesis then prove the hypothesis by the application of facts and reason. What you don't do is create a hypothesis, assume its truth, demand eccentric quantums of evidence (name 15 players that I have seen play personally) that disproves it, cherry pick data that supports your hypothesis and ignore evidence that tends to negate it. Hope that helps.


Yes, the fruit of Lavs summer recruiting trip the French Riviera stunk, here we agree.


Freudenberg averaged 9 minutes a game, Trible 15 minutes a game. Am I to believe that 6 minutes a game is the difference between nearly a red shirt and solid minutes?


(1) Bourgault averaged 3 points and one rebound a game and shot 29 percent from three in his first year - solid talent! - and didn't play at all his second year because he stunk. (2) If his performance can be excused because he was "poorly used," can Trimble's? Or do you think that he's a natural power forward who should have been the sixth man as a freshman.



Practice? You talking about practice?


More feeble excuses. Hooper stunk and lost us at least one game I can remember. And PS sophomore Bryan Trimble could snap Max Hooper like a twig.


That was a little joke and anyway no I don't have to say the player period, because (a) you don't get to set the parameters of the debate which seems to be in your case that any evidence that tends to disprove what you think true is illegimate and (b) it's illegimate to compare a complete career to half of one. Unless you're arguing that in the five years you've been watching basketball in your opinion Trimble was the worst player you've ever seen who wasn't poorly used by dopey Steve Lavin, in which case who cares.


Yeah, it wasn't Trimble's job to put up those numbers. It was Trimble's job to play defense and hoist up the occasional three. Which he did quite well. As opposed to a shooting guard who shot 22 percet from three, because he's not doing his job well at all.

Speaking of numbers I went and looked at how ice in his veins Mr Clutch Phil Greene fared in the post season over the course of his career: in 8 games he scored 67 points, shooting 30 percent from the floor (27-89) and 22 percent from three (6-27). Most clutchiest player ever.



I don't have to name five and I certainly don't have to name five you've seen play personally. That you've never heard of Heath Orvis or Thomas Jasilionustein or Tom Bayne or Abe Keita or Jack Wolfenstien or Mohamed Diakite or Liam Beisty or Ed Brown and the list goes on, it doesn't mean they didn't exist, it just means you're historically ignorant.

All this talk of all the white players and Phil Greene make me think of a photo I have proudly displayed on my piano which I've titled "White Boys".  It's of Amar, Freudenberg, Mussini, my youngest son and I together pool side in our bathing suits. It looks like Alibegovich and I are having a body building competition pose down and I'm losing.

Let me explain how rhetoric works, since you don't seem to understand. You create a hypothesis then prove the hypothesis by the application of facts and reason. What you don't do is create a hypothesis, assume its truth, demand eccentric quantums of evidence (name 15 players that I have seen play personally) that disproves it, cherry pick data that supports your hypothesis and ignore evidence that tends to negate it. Hope that helps.


Yes, the fruit of Lavs summer recruiting trip the French Riviera stunk, here we agree.


Freudenberg averaged 9 minutes a game, Trible 15 minutes a game. Am I to believe that 6 minutes a game is the difference between nearly a red shirt and solid minutes?


(1) Bourgault averaged 3 points and one rebound a game and shot 29 percent from three in his first year - solid talent! - and didn't play at all his second year because he stunk. (2) If his performance can be excused because he was "poorly used," can Trimble's? Or do you think that he's a natural power forward who should have been the sixth man as a freshman.



Practice? You talking about practice?


More feeble excuses. Hooper stunk and lost us at least one game I can remember. And PS sophomore Bryan Trimble could snap Max Hooper like a twig.


That was a little joke and anyway no I don't have to say the player period, because (a) you don't get to set the parameters of the debate which seems to be in your case that any evidence that tends to disprove what you think true is illegimate and (b) it's illegimate to compare a complete career to half of one. Unless you're arguing that in the five years you've been watching basketball in your opinion Trimble was the worst player you've ever seen who wasn't poorly used by dopey Steve Lavin, in which case who cares.


Yeah, it wasn't Trimble's job to put up those numbers. It was Trimble's job to play defense and hoist up the occasional three. Which he did quite well. As opposed to a shooting guard who shot 22 percet from three, because he's not doing his job well at all.

Speaking of numbers I went and looked at how ice in his veins Mr Clutch Phil Greene fared in the post season over the course of his career: in 8 games he scored 67 points, shooting 30 percent from the floor (27-89) and 22 percent from three (6-27). Most clutchiest player ever.



I don't have to name five and I certainly don't have to name five you've seen play personally. That you've never heard of Heath Orvis or Thomas Jasilionustein or Tom Bayne or Abe Keita or Jack Wolfenstien or Mohamed Diakite or Liam Beisty or Ed Brown and the list goes on, it doesn't mean they didn't exist, it just means you're historically ignorant.

Liam was a walk on.

Amar is more comparable. Lots of minutes hardly any production.

Freudenberg did not get that much burn so he is almost a redshirt, does not count.

Marco was solid talent- what hurt his production was Lav poorly used him. He had a good handle and could have been decent for us if coaching was better. Much better player than Trimble. Better player than Hooper too. I have a bit more intel on him too because sometimes I would drop into practice and he was scout team and I would see him play very well. Limited on court minutes does not tell story.

Hooper is tough one- could have been used better and can shoot when he is in rhythm, but defense liability and way too one dimensional. He was in better shape than Trimble though.

Sophomore Phil Greene- Now that is crazy talk on two fronts. First, you cannot just say someone's year. You have to say the player period. Second, your a stats guy so here is this:

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/player/gamelog/_/id/57022/type/mens-college-basketball/year/2013

A solid season before he got hurt- Trimble can only dream to put up a 1/3 of those numbers and production.

So realistically on this list the closest you have are Amar and Hooper. You cannot name 5. And frankly although they were not good players for us- Amar had more of a spark at moments than Trimble. Hooper did not play much- almost Freudenberg territory.

Hooper couldn't move. Amar was lost. Trimble seemed to know what he was doing. He wasn't comfortable or consistent doing it. I actually expect that will change for him at Akron for a number of reasons, but one main reason is practice.e'll have practiced more, and therefore will get better.

Liam was a walk on.

No he wasn't. Which statement is true unless you can name 27 other walk-ons whose name started with Heath.

Anyway thank you, I stand corrected. Sit actually, happy hour started at 1:30.

All this talk of all the white players and Phil Greene make me think of a photo I have proudly displayed on my piano which I've titled "White Boys".  It's of Amar, Freudenberg, Mussini, my youngest son and I together pool side in our bathing suits. It looks like Alibegovich and I are having a body building competition pose down and I'm losing.

You should have called it What a Maroon 5. Lost opportunity.

Perhaps we all could agree on this- in the modern johnnies age some of us are not as old. If you were the staff, would you have even recruited Trimble and offered him a scholarship for this level? I would not have, just as I never would have offered Amar a scholarship or Malik Stith one. These were wasted slots.

Perhaps we all could agree on this- in the modern johnnies age some of us are not as old. If you were the staff, would you have even recruited Trimble and offered him a scholarship for this level? I would not have, just as I never would have offered Amar a scholarship or Malik Stith one. These were wasted slots.

I have been watching since the early 90’s. The biggest problem that we have had is wasted scholarships. If some of those guys were atleast decent we could have been much better off.

I have been watching since the early 90’s. The biggest problem that we have had is wasted scholarships. If some of those guys were atleast decent we could have been much better off.

Yes definitely, for now I am not a big fan of who Mike has brought in but I give him the pass with so little time. After this season, however, I expect more care and better recruits which I think he will do. First, we will have good season. Second, he will have time. Third, he seems to be a better evaluator of talent - just check out the resume and he seems to be a hard worker. I am sure he takes pride in keeping that winning season streak alive.

Yes definitely, for now I am not a big fan of who Mike has brought in but I give him the pass with so little time. After this season, however, I expect more care and better recruits which I think he will do. First, we will have good season. Second, he will have time. Third, he seems to be a better evaluator of talent - just check out the resume and he seems to be a hard worker. I am sure he takes pride in keeping that winning season streak alive.

I am huge fan of MA. But no one gets a pass. These guys need to contribute. We need to win this year. We need to get better players next year. St. John’s can win in this big east.
The AD was on twitter today. He believes we can win here. He is well aware of our strengths as well as our weaknesses. We have to sell what we have.

Perhaps we all could agree on this- in the modern johnnies age some of us are not as old. If you were the staff, would you have even recruited Trimble and offered him a scholarship for this level? I would not have, just as I never would have offered Amar a scholarship or Malik Stith one. These were wasted slots.

I don't know anything about Trimble's recruitment except that he had offers from Florida St, Georgia, Ok state, Providence and SMU. Those seem like solid programs and it's hard for me to believe that they all misread his ability. He seems like just the sort of four year player that all good programs have. He worked hard to get his body in shape. He played out of position, did what was asked of him and seemed like a good team mate. I wish he had not transfered, just as I am happy that none of the freshmen transfered, because roster continuity and the development of upperclassmen is what - unless you're dook or Kentucky or Kansas and have the pick of the litter - creates a winning culture. It's why Lou's in the hall of fame. Because he developed young talent who learned how to contribute as upperclassmen.

You're a Lavin boy and that's you're frame of reference. Okay. Consider how bad Dom Pointer was as a freshman and what a complete wrecking ball he was as a senior. Consider how awful Phil Greene was as an underclassman - and he was awful, I spent two years chronicling how awful - and how much he improved as an upperclassmen. Look at Norm's team - DJ, Horne, Burrell, Evans - that got their teeth kicked in for three years and made the NCAA tournament their fourth. Google Quincy Roberts. Google Cedric Jackson. Google Donald Emanuel, who learned Poison referenced. Google David Cain, who was a scrub freshman who led SJ to the a five seed in the NCAA tournament (where they lost to, wait for it, Arkansas.) These kids are not the worst players you've ever seen, they're just kids, and they're not disposable. They're integral to sustained winning basketball. Whatever you majored in, consider how little you knew about it as a freshman and how much you knew as a senior and how unfair it'd be to evaluate your erudition based on your sophomore grades. I don't want to play the wise old owl and I don't mean to be insulting - which if meant to you'd know it - but if you don't know that you don't know much of anything.

I don't know anything about Trimble's recruitment except that he had offers from Florida St, Georgia, Ok state, Providence and SMU. Those seem like solid programs and it's hard for me to believe that they all misread his ability. He seems like just the sort of four year player that all good programs have. He worked hard to get his body in shape. He played out of position, did what was asked of him and seemed like a good team mate. I wish he had not transfered, just as I am happy that none of the freshmen transfered, because roster continuity and the development of upperclassmen is what - unless you're dook or Kentucky or Kansas and have the pick of the litter - creates a winning culture. It's why Lou's in the hall of fame. Because he developed young talent who learned how to contribute as upperclassmen.

You're a Lavin boy and that's you're frame of reference. Okay. Consider how bad Dom Pointer was as a freshman and what a complete wrecking ball he was as a senior. Consider how awful Phil Greene was as an underclassman - and he was awful, I spent two years chronicling how awful - and how much he improved as an upperclassmen. Look at Norm's team - DJ, Horne, Burrell, Evans - that got their teeth kicked in for three years and made the NCAA tournament their fourth. Google Quincy Roberts. Google Cedric Jackson. Google Donald Emanuel, who learned Poison referenced. Google David Cain, who was a scrub freshman who led SJ to the a five seed in the NCAA tournament (where they lost to, wait for it, Arkansas.) These kids are not the worst players you've ever seen, they're just kids, and they're not disposable. They're integral to sustained winning basketball. Whatever you majored in, consider how little you knew about it as a freshman and how much you knew as a senior and how unfair it'd be to evaluate your erudition based on your sophomore grades. I don't want to play the wise old owl and I don't mean to be insulting - which if meant to you'd know it - but if you don't know that you don't know much of anything.

Don’t agree with everything. Good post

I don't know anything about Trimble's recruitment except that he had offers from Florida St, Georgia, Ok state, Providence and SMU. Those seem like solid programs and it's hard for me to believe that they all misread his ability. He seems like just the sort of four year player that all good programs have. He worked hard to get his body in shape. He played out of position, did what was asked of him and seemed like a good team mate. I wish he had not transfered, just as I am happy that none of the freshmen transfered, because roster continuity and the development of upperclassmen is what - unless you're dook or Kentucky or Kansas and have the pick of the litter - creates a winning culture. It's why Lou's in the hall of fame. Because he developed young talent who learned how to contribute as upperclassmen.

You're a Lavin boy and that's you're frame of reference. Okay. Consider how bad Dom Pointer was as a freshman and what a complete wrecking ball he was as a senior. Consider how awful Phil Greene was as an underclassman - and he was awful, I spent two years chronicling how awful - and how much he improved as an upperclassmen. Look at Norm's team - DJ, Horne, Burrell, Evans - that got their teeth kicked in for three years and made the NCAA tournament their fourth. Google Quincy Roberts. Google Cedric Jackson. Google Donald Emanuel, who learned Poison referenced. Google David Cain, who was a scrub freshman who led SJ to the a five seed in the NCAA tournament (where they lost to, wait for it, Arkansas.) These kids are not the worst players you've ever seen, they're just kids, and they're not disposable. They're integral to sustained winning basketball. Whatever you majored in, consider how little you knew about it as a freshman and how much you knew as a senior and how unfair it'd be to evaluate your erudition based on your sophomore grades. I don't want to play the wise old owl and I don't mean to be insulting - which if meant to you'd know it - but if you don't know that you don't know much of anything.

This is such a great post and so true. Good winning programs develop and keep players for 4 years. If you look at teams outside of the blue bloods they always have a mix of upperclassmen role players and some studs.

Role players are not the same as bench players. Last year we could have used Malik boothe type guy. Most of our teams in the last 25 years could have used a player like that. Back up PG who can play some defense is always useful.

I think recruiting Trimble was a mistake. What does he do well? He was a 3 star (which is fine) and had offers from some good programs. He did some things well last year. But going into his junior year he would be at the end of the bench here.
Our incoming freshman PG wasn’t highly recruited. But if he can be Malik boothe. I think he is worthy of a 4 year scholarship.

Yes definitely, for now I am not a big fan of who Mike has brought in but I give him the pass with so little time. After this season, however, I expect more care and better recruits which I think he will do. First, we will have good season. Second, he will have time. Third, he seems to be a better evaluator of talent - just check out the resume and he seems to be a hard worker. I am sure he takes pride in keeping that winning season streak alive.

Mullin's first class was judged before they played. It turned out to be a pretty poor group of players. They were available that late for a reason. These kids may be in the same company, but let's let them play some basketball first and see what they can do, and what they can learn.

I don't know anything about Trimble's recruitment except that he had offers from Florida St, Georgia, Ok state, Providence and SMU. Those seem like solid programs and it's hard for me to believe that they all misread his ability. He seems like just the sort of four year player that all good programs have. He worked hard to get his body in shape. He played out of position, did what was asked of him and seemed like a good team mate. I wish he had not transfered, just as I am happy that none of the freshmen transfered, because roster continuity and the development of upperclassmen is what - unless you're dook or Kentucky or Kansas and have the pick of the litter - creates a winning culture. It's why Lou's in the hall of fame. Because he developed young talent who learned how to contribute as upperclassmen.

You're a Lavin boy and that's you're frame of reference. Okay. Consider how bad Dom Pointer was as a freshman and what a complete wrecking ball he was as a senior. Consider how awful Phil Greene was as an underclassman - and he was awful, I spent two years chronicling how awful - and how much he improved as an upperclassmen. Look at Norm's team - DJ, Horne, Burrell, Evans - that got their teeth kicked in for three years and made the NCAA tournament their fourth. Google Quincy Roberts. Google Cedric Jackson. Google Donald Emanuel, who learned Poison referenced. Google David Cain, who was a scrub freshman who led SJ to the a five seed in the NCAA tournament (where they lost to, wait for it, Arkansas.) These kids are not the worst players you've ever seen, they're just kids, and they're not disposable. They're integral to sustained winning basketball. Whatever you majored in, consider how little you knew about it as a freshman and how much you knew as a senior and how unfair it'd be to evaluate your erudition based on your sophomore grades. I don't want to play the wise old owl and I don't mean to be insulting - which if meant to you'd know it - but if you don't know that you don't know much of anything.

Like TonyD said, I do not agree with everything but you have very fair points here. Perhaps I have been a bit too hard on some players. I forget the "kid" aspect sometimes.  Roster continuity is important but I would not be complaining if we had some 1 and done 5 stars to balance it out and take us on runs.

In terms of the Lav era examples- difference between Dom and Trimble is that Dom came in with higher expectations and he was a solid 4 star. Its understandable why more teams would be after him. Trimble was recruited by good spots as you said, but I do not think his ceiling was the same.

Phil is a closer example to your point- 3 star that needed every season and just got better as he continued. I still think he came in better than trimble though with terms of athleticism and ceiling etc.