Retiring Numbers

  • 35 replies
  • 5108 views

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2016, 09:20:05 AM »
Mullin, Mark Jackson, Walter Berry/Malik Sealy. No brainers. Next level for consideration would be, in my opinion, Ron Artest and  Felipe Lopez, maybe even Lavar Postell. You could even throw Wennington into the mix.

Retire Wennington and Postell's numbers? Maybe just retire everyone's and switch to hieroglyphics. Then we can stop keeping score and everyone'll be a winner. Yay!

Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2016, 09:56:23 AM »
postell was the best.

Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2016, 10:53:33 AM »
I think we should retire Elijah Ingram's cell phone. Just think how much worse the program would be if not for that

Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2016, 10:04:55 PM »
Artest was not a 4 year player so that disqualifies him. Dee despite some early issues regrouped and became heart of our team. The energy and leadership should not be overlooked and yes thats in addition to great stats. You have to admit in the modern era of Johnnies he was one of the best and should be recognized as such. And despite the early issues he was still a top player freshman and sophomore year.

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #24 on: February 03, 2016, 08:11:58 AM »
Artest was not a 4 year player so that disqualifies him. Dee despite some early issues regrouped and became heart of our team. The energy and leadership should not be overlooked and yes thats in addition to great stats. You have to admit in the modern era of Johnnies he was one of the best and should be recognized as such. And despite the early issues he was still a top player freshman and sophomore year.

Great player. No way you retire his number. He was the "heart of a team" that had no heart coached by a coach that didn't have a brain. Hence the one post season win in four years.

Two years or not, Artest did nothing at Saint John's that would warrant retiring his number. Marcus Hatten was one of the best half dozen player in my lifetime and you couldn't convince me to retire his.

paultzman

  • *****
  • 16981
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #25 on: February 03, 2016, 08:19:34 AM »
Artest was not a 4 year player so that disqualifies him. Dee despite some early issues regrouped and became heart of our team. The energy and leadership should not be overlooked and yes thats in addition to great stats. You have to admit in the modern era of Johnnies he was one of the best and should be recognized as such. And despite the early issues he was still a top player freshman and sophomore year.

Great player. No way you retire his number. He was the "heart of a team" that had no heart coached by a coach that didn't have a brain. Hence the one post season win in four years.

Two years or not, Artest did nothing at Saint John's that would warrant retiring his number. Marcus Hatten was one of the best half dozen player in my lifetime and you couldn't convince me to retire his.
Agree

QuanMan

  • *****
  • 1744
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #26 on: February 03, 2016, 10:34:06 AM »
Separate issue but now that the program's generations have been mended back together through Mullin, acknowledging each former player in attendance at games during a TO should be done every night. Most program's do it, for example I was in Newark last week and they acknowledged each former player in the crowd. I know how most were upset the past couple of seasons when Hatten was shunned. I see fortmer players like Lamont Hamilton, Ryan Williams, Mase etc all the time. It's a simple gesture but it goes a long way.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2016, 10:36:22 AM by QuanMan »
Section 3
Section 116

Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2016, 10:42:08 AM »
Whose numbers are retired?

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2016, 10:51:33 AM »
Whose numbers are retired?

"Honored numbers"

13   Mark Jackson   PG   1983-87
20   Chris Mullin   SG   1981-85
21   Malik Sealy   SF   1988-1992
Walter Berry   PF   1984-86
Dick McGuire   PG   1943-49
24   Tony Jackson   F   1958-61
33   Alan Seiden   PG   1956-59
55   Sonny Dove   SF   1964-67

Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #29 on: February 03, 2016, 10:57:17 AM »
Whose numbers are retired?

"Honored numbers"

13   Mark Jackson   PG   1983-87
20   Chris Mullin   SG   1981-85
21   Malik Sealy   SF   1988-1992
Walter Berry   PF   1984-86
Dick McGuire   PG   1943-49
24   Tony Jackson   F   1958-61
33   Alan Seiden   PG   1956-59
55   Sonny Dove   SF   1964-67

Seems right.
 Before my time but Paultz,  George Johnson and Loughery?

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #30 on: February 03, 2016, 11:31:34 AM »
Whose numbers are retired?

"Honored numbers"

13   Mark Jackson   PG   1983-87
20   Chris Mullin   SG   1981-85
21   Malik Sealy   SF   1988-1992
Walter Berry   PF   1984-86
Dick McGuire   PG   1943-49
24   Tony Jackson   F   1958-61
33   Alan Seiden   PG   1956-59
55   Sonny Dove   SF   1964-67

Seems right.
 Before my time but Paultz,  George Johnson and Loughery?

Before mine as well, mostly. Paultz and Loughery were transfers who played two years, so no. Johnson I could see, there's a large gap in honorees between Dove and Mullin. Mel Davis averaged 20 and 15 over two years, I could see that as well.

paultzman

  • *****
  • 16981
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2016, 11:35:35 AM »
Billy Schaeffer
George Johnson

Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #32 on: February 03, 2016, 11:38:44 AM »
Billy Schaeffer
George Johnson

Leroy Ellis?

paultzman

  • *****
  • 16981
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2016, 11:46:49 AM »

Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2016, 03:57:27 PM »

TONYD3

  • *****
  • 5578
Re: Retiring Numbers
« Reply #35 on: February 06, 2016, 05:37:09 PM »
10 and 5 should be retired maybe not forever, but a few years at-least!