Myles Stewart SG-Westchester HS Los Angeles, CAA (Walk-on) - ST. JOHN'S

He committed to USC, which offered him a scholarship. Thus this board listing has to be changed. Too bad, because he looked like he could help us. USC made a big deal oout of his commitment there, saying he was a sleeper, had made remarkable strides this past year, etc.

No. You're confusing him with Elijah Stewart.

My apologies. Assumed wrongly that Westchester did not have two guys named Stewart on its team. Glad I am wrong.

My apologies. Assumed wrongly that Westchester did not have two guys named Stewart on its team. Glad I am wrong.

Not only that they are good friends...LOL

USC got the better Stewart, but I think our Stewart can contribute in the future if his knees are OK. I can also see him starting a game at SF if Lavin has another one of his weird hunches that don't pan out. Luckily, Stewart is better than the average walk on.

USC got the better Stewart, but I think our Stewart can contribute in the future if his knees are OK. I can also see him starting a game at SF if Lavin has another one of his weird hunches that don't pan out. Luckily, Stewart is better than the average walk on.

Better than Hooper? I cringed watching Hooper play defense.

Hooper wasn't a walk on. But I wrote on the boards that people expecting anything out of Hooper would be disappointed, so I'm going to go ahead and say yes, I think Stewart is better than Hooper. Whether he gets the chance to show it over the next four years is another story, though.

Hooper wasn't used properly. He's a machine and he had a bit of size to him. Could have been good for 6ppg in about 10mpg.

Stewart isn't going to add anything besides good practice time.

Hooper wasn't used properly. He's a machine and he had a bit of size to him. Could have been good for 6ppg in about 10mpg.

Stewart isn't going to add anything besides good practice time.

Maybe so but in those same 10mpg he probably would have given up 10ppg and 5rpg. I believe he was the worst defensive player in D1 basketball, he could shoot it though.

Hooper was a machine . . . standing still in an empty gym posing for online videos. He did nothing at Harvard, did nothing at St. John's, and will do nothing at Oakland. He really should have enrolled in the Stern School of Business and donned violet for the final season of his non-rec league career.

Hooper wasn't used properly. He's a machine and he had a bit of size to him. Could have been good for 6ppg in about 10mpg.

Stewart isn't going to add anything besides good practice time.

It's disturbing that Lavin couldn't find a way to get something out of that kid.

Quote from: Dave on May 21, 2014, 03:41:43 PM

Hooper wasn't used properly. He's a machine and he had a bit of size to him. Could have been good for 6ppg in about 10mpg.

Stewart isn't going to add anything besides good practice time.

Maybe so but in those same 10mpg he probably would have given up 10ppg and 5rpg. I believe he was the worst defensive player in D1 basketball, he could shoot it though.

Agreed the guy could not cover a hole in the ground.  He was a complete defensive liability.  He was good to come in for a play or two, hit a 3, but no way you could keep him on the floor for any length of time with guys like Bryce Cotton or Nova guards or Semaj Christon for any period of time.  They would expose him in about 2 minutes.

I know the RM game was a mess either way but the RM guards just abused him without regard.  I mean they ran him thru screens, off the dribble.  He couldn’t stay with either of them for more then 2 seconds.

We can blame Lavin for Hooper for not making more of an impact here but he did not make a dent at Harvard either and was not recruited heavily elsewhere. Lavin got more out of him than the Harvard coach. We will see how Hooper does at his next stop. Hooper's other shortcomings may simply be too great.

We can blame Lavin for Hooper for not making more of an impact here but he did not make a dent at Harvard either and was not recruited heavily elsewhere. Lavin got more out of him than the Harvard coach. We will see how Hooper does at his next stop. Hooper's other shortcomings may simply be too great.

I thought Hooper should have seen more playing time. Even just as a decoy, he would open up the court for slashers. He was the only guy on our roster that defenses would have no choice but to play up in his grill at all times. The kid can shoot the ball although he did not get a great opportunity to show it here. I think he does well at a lower level.

Quote from: SJUFAN on May 21, 2014, 05:20:55 PM

Quote from: Dave on May 21, 2014, 03:41:43 PM

Hooper wasn't used properly. He's a machine and he had a bit of size to him. Could have been good for 6ppg in about 10mpg.

Stewart isn't going to add anything besides good practice time.

Maybe so but in those same 10mpg he probably would have given up 10ppg and 5rpg. I believe he was the worst defensive player in D1 basketball, he could shoot it though.

Agreed the guy could not cover a hole in the ground.  He was a complete defensive liability.  He was good to come in for a play or two, hit a 3, but no way you could keep him on the floor for any length of time with guys like Bryce Cotton or Nova guards or Semaj Christon for any period of time.  They would expose him in about 2 minutes.

I know the RM game was a mess either way but the RM guards just abused him without regard.  I mean they ran him thru screens, off the dribble.  He couldn’t stay with either of them for more then 2 seconds.

When did Hooper play guard? If Lavin put him on either of those small quick guards on RM he would be the worst coach ever. You must think Lavs is a terrible coach. I doubt he did something that stupid.

Quote from: loughlinguy on May 23, 2014, 02:02:45 PM

We can blame Lavin for Hooper for not making more of an impact here but he did not make a dent at Harvard either and was not recruited heavily elsewhere. Lavin got more out of him than the Harvard coach. We will see how Hooper does at his next stop. Hooper's other shortcomings may simply be too great.

I thought Hooper should have seen more playing time. Even just as a decoy, he would open up the court for slashers. He was the only guy on our roster that defenses would have no choice but to play up in his grill at all times. The kid can shoot the ball although he did not get a great opportunity to show it here. I think he does well at a lower level.

There wasn't a single opponent that he was capable of guarding. You can hit 4 threes in a half, but if you give up 5 threes, and you can't contribute in any other way, how can you really justify being out there?

Quote from: redstorm212 on May 23, 2014, 02:12:23 PM

Quote from: loughlinguy on May 23, 2014, 02:02:45 PM

We can blame Lavin for Hooper for not making more of an impact here but he did not make a dent at Harvard either and was not recruited heavily elsewhere. Lavin got more out of him than the Harvard coach. We will see how Hooper does at his next stop. Hooper's other shortcomings may simply be too great.

I thought Hooper should have seen more playing time. Even just as a decoy, he would open up the court for slashers. He was the only guy on our roster that defenses would have no choice but to play up in his grill at all times. The kid can shoot the ball although he did not get a great opportunity to show it here. I think he does well at a lower level.

There wasn't a single opponent that he was capable of guarding. You can hit 4 threes in a half, but if you give up 5 threes, and you can't contribute in any other way, how can you really justify being out there?

There are ways to compensate for having a player on the court who is a defensive liability. I can't recall him ever single handedly giving up 5 threes. I think the board is exaggerating how bad he actually was on defense. Not saying he should have played 25 min per game, but I personally would have liked seeing him get 10-15. We had many offensive droughts where having him out there could have definitely helped.

Quote from: Poison on May 23, 2014, 04:03:38 PM

Quote from: redstorm212 on May 23, 2014, 02:12:23 PM

Quote from: loughlinguy on May 23, 2014, 02:02:45 PM

We can blame Lavin for Hooper for not making more of an impact here but he did not make a dent at Harvard either and was not recruited heavily elsewhere. Lavin got more out of him than the Harvard coach. We will see how Hooper does at his next stop. Hooper's other shortcomings may simply be too great.

I thought Hooper should have seen more playing time. Even just as a decoy, he would open up the court for slashers. He was the only guy on our roster that defenses would have no choice but to play up in his grill at all times. The kid can shoot the ball although he did not get a great opportunity to show it here. I think he does well at a lower level.

There wasn't a single opponent that he was capable of guarding. You can hit 4 threes in a half, but if you give up 5 threes, and you can't contribute in any other way, how can you really justify being out there?

There are ways to compensate for having a player on the court who is a defensive liability. I can't recall him ever single handedly giving up 5 threes. I think the board is exaggerating how bad he actually was on defense. Not saying he should have played 25 min per game, but I personally would have liked seeing him get 10-15. We had many offensive droughts where having him out there could have definitely helped.

I'm not exaggerating. I watched him play on a number of occasions. He's the worst defender I've ever seen in an STJ uniform - and that includes the 03-04 team that played out the season with garbage.

Quote from: redstorm212 on May 23, 2014, 07:07:23 PM

Quote from: Poison on May 23, 2014, 04:03:38 PM

Quote from: redstorm212 on May 23, 2014, 02:12:23 PM

Quote from: loughlinguy on May 23, 2014, 02:02:45 PM

We can blame Lavin for Hooper for not making more of an impact here but he did not make a dent at Harvard either and was not recruited heavily elsewhere. Lavin got more out of him than the Harvard coach. We will see how Hooper does at his next stop. Hooper's other shortcomings may simply be too great.

I thought Hooper should have seen more playing time. Even just as a decoy, he would open up the court for slashers. He was the only guy on our roster that defenses would have no choice but to play up in his grill at all times. The kid can shoot the ball although he did not get a great opportunity to show it here. I think he does well at a lower level.

There wasn't a single opponent that he was capable of guarding. You can hit 4 threes in a half, but if you give up 5 threes, and you can't contribute in any other way, how can you really justify being out there?

There are ways to compensate for having a player on the court who is a defensive liability. I can't recall him ever single handedly giving up 5 threes. I think the board is exaggerating how bad he actually was on defense. Not saying he should have played 25 min per game, but I personally would have liked seeing him get 10-15. We had many offensive droughts where having him out there could have definitely helped.

I'm not exaggerating. I watched him play on a number of occasions. He's the worst defender I've ever seen in an STJ uniform - and that includes the 03-04 team that played out the season with garbage.

Yes he's a bad defender, arguably not even worthy to be a division 1 defender. But, then again Steve Novak had no business playing defense in the NBA the year he torched the nets with the Knicks. Like I said, there are ways to compensate having a player on the court who is a liability in other areas.

Quote from: Poison on May 23, 2014, 07:45:28 PM

Quote from: redstorm212 on May 23, 2014, 07:07:23 PM

Quote from: Poison on May 23, 2014, 04:03:38 PM

Quote from: redstorm212 on May 23, 2014, 02:12:23 PM

Quote from: loughlinguy on May 23, 2014, 02:02:45 PM

We can blame Lavin for Hooper for not making more of an impact here but he did not make a dent at Harvard either and was not recruited heavily elsewhere. Lavin got more out of him than the Harvard coach. We will see how Hooper does at his next stop. Hooper's other shortcomings may simply be too great.

I thought Hooper should have seen more playing time. Even just as a decoy, he would open up the court for slashers. He was the only guy on our roster that defenses would have no choice but to play up in his grill at all times. The kid can shoot the ball although he did not get a great opportunity to show it here. I think he does well at a lower level.

There wasn't a single opponent that he was capable of guarding. You can hit 4 threes in a half, but if you give up 5 threes, and you can't contribute in any other way, how can you really justify being out there?

There are ways to compensate for having a player on the court who is a defensive liability. I can't recall him ever single handedly giving up 5 threes. I think the board is exaggerating how bad he actually was on defense. Not saying he should have played 25 min per game, but I personally would have liked seeing him get 10-15. We had many offensive droughts where having him out there could have definitely helped.

I'm not exaggerating. I watched him play on a number of occasions. He's the worst defender I've ever seen in an STJ uniform - and that includes the 03-04 team that played out the season with garbage.

Yes he's a bad defender, arguably not even worthy to be a division 1 defender. But, then again Steve Novak had no business playing defense in the NBA the year he torched the nets with the Knicks. Like I said, there are ways to compensate having a player on the court who is a liability in other areas.

yep...its called having other threats (i.e. Melo, Amare et al)...unfortunately we didnt have the threats to make him an afterthought when in game