Nick Rutherford

  • 120 replies
  • 15981 views

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #40 on: June 19, 2019, 04:50:08 PM »
Aside from Thornton which grad transfer PGs would you have liked?

Whoever I list you will find immediate excuses to dismiss them. Thornton went to BC!  They make us look like Xavier.

Taking all of the circumstances under consideration this was a very poor recruiting haul.

Perhaps one can make a colorable case that it was not awful, but there is no reasonable argument that it was a quality class.

Johnny23

  • *****
  • 3277
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #41 on: June 19, 2019, 04:50:19 PM »
How do you figure he is undersized for the wing?

I like wings who are 6'6-6'7 at this level. Wright is 6'4-6'5 at best. He's bench depth, nothing more. Anyhow the main point of my post was regarding his ball handling skills or lack thereof. He's a wing not a PG and thankfully we have two real points on the roster now. Can't remember the last time we actually had that.

TONYD3

  • *****
  • 5578
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #42 on: June 19, 2019, 05:06:59 PM »
I like wings who are 6'6-6'7 at this level. Wright is 6'4-6'5 at best. He's bench depth, nothing more. Anyhow the main point of my post was regarding his ball handling skills or lack thereof. He's a wing not a PG and thankfully we have two real points on the roster now. Can't remember the last time we actually had that.
The last time I can remember having 2 real PGs was geno and freshman Malik boothe. One of the first nasty arguments on here was if boothe should start right away.

goredmen

  • *****
  • 5066
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #43 on: June 19, 2019, 05:16:07 PM »
Whoever I list you will find immediate excuses to dismiss them. Thornton went to BC!  They make us look like Xavier.

Taking all of the circumstances under consideration this was a very poor recruiting haul.

Perhaps one can make a colorable case that it was not awful, but there is no reasonable argument that it was a quality class.

You can't claim there were plenty of options and not be able to name a couple. Go ahead and name Kerry Blackshear and Victor Bailey type players again that we would have no shot with regardless.

Johnny23

  • *****
  • 3277
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #44 on: June 19, 2019, 05:19:51 PM »
The last time I can remember having 2 real PGs was geno and freshman Malik boothe. One of the first nasty arguments on here was if boothe should start right away.

Yeah good call. The way back machine.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #45 on: June 19, 2019, 05:20:13 PM »
Aside from Thornton which grad transfer PGs would you have liked?

Ryan Woolridge

Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #46 on: June 19, 2019, 06:13:33 PM »
The last time I can remember having 2 real PGs was geno and freshman Malik boothe. One of the first nasty arguments on here was if boothe should start right away.
Geno certainly wasn't being touted by we are sju :)

Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #47 on: June 19, 2019, 06:38:56 PM »

Considering that most grad transfers have already committed and that we want to stash open slots for 20' and 21', Rutherford brings experience, good size and helps the team's overall role definition. Minutes can be distributed evenly now and our underclassmen can be molded better.


Between Rutherford, Champagne, Sears, McGriff and a hopeful big man this staff has done a great job complimenting our core given the time constraints and limited pool to recruit from.

A great job? This is the worst class in SJU history. This is the hyperbole that makes no sense to me. Have you seen these guys play? They leave alot to be desired. I understand a roster needs to be filled, but all these guys need to be recruited over if not we are in for mediocrity for years.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #48 on: June 19, 2019, 06:58:05 PM »
A great job? This is the worst class in SJU history. This is the hyperbole that makes no sense to me. Have you seen these guys play? They leave alot to be desired. I understand a roster needs to be filled, but all these guys need to be recruited over if not we are in for mediocrity for years.

Blasphemy. After they're all be coached up to the equivalent of 2.5 star recruits you'll be looking the fool.

Poison

  • *****
  • 16896
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #49 on: June 19, 2019, 07:35:38 PM »
Blasphemy. After they're all be coached up to the equivalent of 2.5 star recruits you'll be looking the fool.
A great job? This is the worst class in SJU history. This is the hyperbole that makes no sense to me. Have you seen these guys play? They leave alot to be desired. I understand a roster needs to be filled, but all these guys need to be recruited over if not we are in for mediocrity for years.

I don't think it's unreasonable to judge the class after they've played a season, or two. Let's see what CMA can do with these kids. Maybe he'll surprise us once or twice. Or maybe they'll all get eaten alive in the BE.

TONYD3

  • *****
  • 5578
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #50 on: June 19, 2019, 07:35:55 PM »
Blasphemy. After they're all be coached up to the equivalent of 2.5 star recruits you'll be looking the fool.
I hope you find something that will make you happy. I do want you to get that one last huge erection. Your not getting any younger.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #51 on: June 19, 2019, 07:58:30 PM »
I do want you to get that one last huge erection. Your not getting any younger.

You mispelt your Slingblade (you're) and you'd be hard [sic] pressed to find anyone who's getting younger. Still, I'm flattered every time you mention my throbbing blood engorged  last huge erection, which you do often enough. If your you're wondering, and clearly you're you are, everything still works.

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #52 on: June 19, 2019, 10:55:19 PM »
You can't claim there were plenty of options and not be able to name a couple. Go ahead and name Kerry Blackshear and Victor Bailey type players again that we would have no shot with regardless.

You said a program like our’s had no shot at Thornton and then he committed to an even shittier one. I’m no longer following transfers because we have been dealing exclusively with pure crap for a month. What’s the point?

goredmen

  • *****
  • 5066
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #53 on: June 19, 2019, 11:16:36 PM »
You said a program like our’s had no shot at Thornton and then he committed to an even shittier one. I’m no longer following transfers because we have been dealing exclusively with pure crap for a month. What’s the point?

You said it right there. "For a month". That's how long a staff gets these days apparently before you give up on their recruiting efforts.

A school that rejected by Porter freaking Moser is not gonna be in the mix for every top transfer. Thornton turned down Gonzaga for Boston College so it's not like there wasn't serious competition for him. But I guess it's obvious already that this staff can't compete so we should fire Anderson immediately and go get rejected by 6 more coaches before settling on the women's coach at NYIT. He'll get the good transfers in a week.

Poison

  • *****
  • 16896
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #54 on: June 19, 2019, 11:56:13 PM »
If 2 out of the 4 new recruits can play at the BE level for 20 minutes, it may be what the existing group needs most.

From everything I’ve read about all 4 recruits, they d up, and we sinply haven’t had that hustle on defense. Maybe there newbies can set the tone for us with defense?

LJ and Heron will carry this team offensively. Someone has to stop the ball.

Marillac

  • *****
  • 11224
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #55 on: June 20, 2019, 12:30:20 AM »
You said it right there. "For a month". That's how long a staff gets these days apparently before you give up on their recruiting efforts.


Your argument makes sense if were discussing high school recruits—we all get that takes some time—but we are talking about grad transfers and those recruits have less competition, tend to rush their decisions, and entered the transfer portal around the time of Anderson’s hire or after.

Anderson’s replacement is doing fine. Matt A is doing fine in freaking Lincoln, Nebraska.

The only person I have even a sliver of trust in in the recruiting trail is DeMeo.

We literally started recruiting some no name when his coach tweeted he was still available. That is just bizarre. This is the worst class in my lifetime.

Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #56 on: June 20, 2019, 01:25:14 AM »
The last time I can remember having 2 real PGs was geno and freshman Malik boothe. One of the first nasty arguments on here was if boothe should start right away.
Jordan and Branch were 2 real PG's a lot more recently than that.

Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #57 on: June 20, 2019, 01:27:42 AM »
That's why the current regime is cleaning up the mess left by the former staff 
Are you referring to the mess that was one of the four Big East teams that were an Ncaa tournament team?

Johnny23

  • *****
  • 3277
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2019, 07:39:43 AM »
Are you referring to the mess that was one of the four Big East teams that were an Ncaa tournament team?

I'm referring to the mess that was 59-73 in 4 seasons overall and 20-52 in Big East play during that time.

TONYD3

  • *****
  • 5578
Re: Nick Rutherford
« Reply #59 on: June 20, 2019, 08:29:15 AM »
You mispelt your Slingblade (you're) and you'd be hard [sic] pressed to find anyone who's getting younger. Still, I'm flattered every time you mention my throbbing blood engorged  last huge erection, which you do often enough. If your you're wondering, and clearly you're you are, everything still works.
Chris Mullin’s is the smartest man in the room. Spelled that right