Depaul game thread

Quote from: we are sju on February 22, 2016, 09:39:09 AM

I am and always be a Mullin guy no matter what happens but that last play was awful!

+100

+ infinity,  why give the ball to a guy who has no moves and cant shoot free throws?

Plus he has a cast on his hand.

Quote from: WillieG on February 21, 2016, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 21, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Next years presumable roster can be compared to lavin's 3rd year presumed roster (Sanchez & Marco + all the fresh and sophs) IMO.  Let's see how those results come out.

Not really, Mase, because this staff only had 90 days to recruit their first class.  Lavin had a year.  So Mullin is a year behind the curve.  And now they have fewer roster spots for their next classes, which of course, they have more time to recruit.

Just talking about the rosters.  Not how long it took to get them.

No way, it's not fair to compare a roster, that had to be cobbled together in 90days, with one that was done in a year and had top 100 guys on it.  You can't compare those rosters.

Quote from: WillieG on February 22, 2016, 12:06:59 AM

Fair points and opinions, but watching IW play, I think they deserve respect.  They execute, they have some athletes, and they can shoot.  They also play hard.  Especially that night.  There's so much worse in D1 then them.

Also you seem to be the only one bringing this game up, why?

I' was just responding to all the other posts this year that periodically come up on this and other boards, because I'm getting a little tired of reading it.  They're not that bad.  If that's the worst loss your program ever had you are doing pretty well.  I could search through the threads but time is precious.  But there is a post in this thread that I responded to.  Why would you say I was the only one posting about it?

The friend of Johnnie post on page six of this thread, about a third of the way down, was the post I was initially responding to.  So sick of hearing about Incarnate Word.  They're not that bad.

^^^^

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2016, 09:04:08 AM

Quote from: WillieG on February 21, 2016, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 21, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Next years presumable roster can be compared to lavin's 3rd year presumed roster (Sanchez & Marco + all the fresh and sophs) IMO.  Let's see how those results come out.

Not really, Mase, because this staff only had 90 days to recruit their first class.  Lavin had a year.  So Mullin is a year behind the curve.  And now they have fewer roster spots for their next classes, which of course, they have more time to recruit.

Just talking about the rosters.  Not how long it took to get them.

No way, it's not fair to compare a roster, that had to be cobbled together in 90days, with one that was done in a year and had top 100 guys on it.  You can't compare those rosters.

Exactly.  Mullin had 3 months to put together the 2015 class and 15 months for the 2016 class.  Lavin had 15 months to build his massive class, therefor Mullin should have similar (but a bit higher) expectations for next year as Lavin had for Harkless' year.  To me, realistic goal is somewhere around low NIT team next year. 

Lavin's big class wasn't close to an NIT, went 13-19 (6-12 conference) that first year (which I would say was an overachievement) but only had those 7 scholarship players. 

I'd say its realistic to expect a better year next year than 2011-12 because of the 2nd year guys, but expecting a jump to the NCAA tournament is unfair and unrealistic given the fact that Lavin's major group didn't make it till year 4 and friendofjohnnie is validating the job he did.

Quote from: WillieG on February 22, 2016, 10:28:52 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2016, 09:04:08 AM

Quote from: WillieG on February 21, 2016, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 21, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Next years presumable roster can be compared to lavin's 3rd year presumed roster (Sanchez & Marco + all the fresh and sophs) IMO.  Let's see how those results come out.

Not really, Mase, because this staff only had 90 days to recruit their first class.  Lavin had a year.  So Mullin is a year behind the curve.  And now they have fewer roster spots for their next classes, which of course, they have more time to recruit.

Just talking about the rosters.  Not how long it took to get them.

No way, it's not fair to compare a roster, that had to be cobbled together in 90days, with one that was done in a year and had top 100 guys on it.  You can't compare those rosters.

Exactly.  Mullin had 3 months to put together the 2015 class and 15 months for the 2016 class.  Lavin had 15 months to build his massive class, therefor Mullin should have similar (but a bit higher) expectations for next year as Lavin had for Harkless' year.  To me, realistic goal is somewhere around low NIT team next year. 

Lavin's big class wasn't close to an NIT, went 13-19 (6-12 conference) that first year (which I would say was an overachievement) but only had those 7 scholarship players. 

I'd say its realistic to expect a better year next year than 2011-12 because of the 2nd year guys, but expecting a jump to the NCAA tournament is unfair and unrealistic given the fact that Lavin's major group didn't make it till year 4 and friendofjohnnie is validating the job he did.

No, T, mase said you can compare Mullin's team next year to Lavs third year, which is inaccurate.  Lav (actually Dunlap) went 13-19 in the second year not the third year.  You have to compare Mullin's third year to Lav's third year, because Mully ony had 90 days to get his first class.  You can't count that.

Quote from: TRabinowitz on February 22, 2016, 11:06:04 PM

Quote from: WillieG on February 22, 2016, 10:28:52 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2016, 09:04:08 AM

Quote from: WillieG on February 21, 2016, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 21, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Next years presumable roster can be compared to lavin's 3rd year presumed roster (Sanchez & Marco + all the fresh and sophs) IMO.  Let's see how those results come out.

Not really, Mase, because this staff only had 90 days to recruit their first class.  Lavin had a year.  So Mullin is a year behind the curve.  And now they have fewer roster spots for their next classes, which of course, they have more time to recruit.

Just talking about the rosters.  Not how long it took to get them.

No way, it's not fair to compare a roster, that had to be cobbled together in 90days, with one that was done in a year and had top 100 guys on it.  You can't compare those rosters.

Exactly.  Mullin had 3 months to put together the 2015 class and 15 months for the 2016 class.  Lavin had 15 months to build his massive class, therefor Mullin should have similar (but a bit higher) expectations for next year as Lavin had for Harkless' year.  To me, realistic goal is somewhere around low NIT team next year. 

Lavin's big class wasn't close to an NIT, went 13-19 (6-12 conference) that first year (which I would say was an overachievement) but only had those 7 scholarship players. 

I'd say its realistic to expect a better year next year than 2011-12 because of the 2nd year guys, but expecting a jump to the NCAA tournament is unfair and unrealistic given the fact that Lavin's major group didn't make it till year 4 and friendofjohnnie is validating the job he did.

No, T, mase said you can compare Mullin's team next year to Lavs third year, which is inaccurate.  Lav (actually Dunlap) went 13-19 in the second year not the third year.  You have to compare Mullin's third year to Lav's third year, because Mully ony had 90 days to get his first class.  You can't count that.

Jesus man, I am just talking about the rosters, INDEPENDENT of how they came to be. Just like we can look at this years roster and compare it to last years roster. Nothing to do with the coach who constructed them just looking at the group of players.

Quote from: WillieG on February 22, 2016, 10:28:52 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2016, 09:04:08 AM

Quote from: WillieG on February 21, 2016, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 21, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Next years presumable roster can be compared to lavin's 3rd year presumed roster (Sanchez & Marco + all the fresh and sophs) IMO.  Let's see how those results come out.

Not really, Mase, because this staff only had 90 days to recruit their first class.  Lavin had a year.  So Mullin is a year behind the curve.  And now they have fewer roster spots for their next classes, which of course, they have more time to recruit.

Just talking about the rosters.  Not how long it took to get them.

No way, it's not fair to compare a roster, that had to be cobbled together in 90days, with one that was done in a year and had top 100 guys on it.  You can't compare those rosters.

Exactly.  Mullin had 3 months to put together the 2015 class and 15 months for the 2016 class.  Lavin had 15 months to build his massive class, therefor Mullin should have similar (but a bit higher) expectations for next year as Lavin had for Harkless' year.  To me, realistic goal is somewhere around low NIT team next year. 

Lavin's big class wasn't close to an NIT, went 13-19 (6-12 conference) that first year (which I would say was an overachievement) but only had those 7 scholarship players. 

I'd say its realistic to expect a better year next year than 2011-12 because of the 2nd year guys, but expecting a jump to the NCAA tournament is unfair and unrealistic given the fact that Lavin's major group didn't make it till year 4 and friendofjohnnie is validating the job he did.

What is fair in terms of judging Mullin is to judge what he is building here. Lavin by year 3, (technically, his 2nd season with his players, and his 1st season coaching his players) had Greene/Branch, Harrison, Pointer, Sampson and Obekpa, and the season went from a Lunardi predicted 7 seed to completely falling apart in embarrassing fashion.

Mullins team of one talented, but raw player in Yakwe and a load of crap has actually overachieved lately IMO. They should be getting killed by everyone because they are so slow and careless, but somehow, these last 3 games have been particularly impressive. I was hard on Mullin at first when I saw guys like Johnson, Mvouika and Mussini dogging it, but overall, this team has come together in what I can only say is the best of their ability. And that is worth something, even if it doesn't show up on paper.

Lavin's teams, by March, were done. All 5 of them. Better than Norm, without question, but that is not the bar we're striving to reach.

Quote from: TRabinowitz on February 22, 2016, 11:06:04 PM

Quote from: WillieG on February 22, 2016, 10:28:52 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2016, 09:04:08 AM

Quote from: WillieG on February 21, 2016, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 21, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Next years presumable roster can be compared to lavin's 3rd year presumed roster (Sanchez & Marco + all the fresh and sophs) IMO.  Let's see how those results come out.

Not really, Mase, because this staff only had 90 days to recruit their first class.  Lavin had a year.  So Mullin is a year behind the curve.  And now they have fewer roster spots for their next classes, which of course, they have more time to recruit.

Just talking about the rosters.  Not how long it took to get them.

No way, it's not fair to compare a roster, that had to be cobbled together in 90days, with one that was done in a year and had top 100 guys on it.  You can't compare those rosters.

Exactly.  Mullin had 3 months to put together the 2015 class and 15 months for the 2016 class.  Lavin had 15 months to build his massive class, therefor Mullin should have similar (but a bit higher) expectations for next year as Lavin had for Harkless' year.  To me, realistic goal is somewhere around low NIT team next year. 

Lavin's big class wasn't close to an NIT, went 13-19 (6-12 conference) that first year (which I would say was an overachievement) but only had those 7 scholarship players. 

I'd say its realistic to expect a better year next year than 2011-12 because of the 2nd year guys, but expecting a jump to the NCAA tournament is unfair and unrealistic given the fact that Lavin's major group didn't make it till year 4 and friendofjohnnie is validating the job he did.

What is fair in terms of judging Mullin is to judge what he is building here. Lavin by year 3, (technically, his 2nd season with his players, and his 1st season coaching his players) had Greene/Branch, Harrison, Pointer, Sampson and Obekpa, and the season went from a Lunardi predicted 7 seed to completely falling apart in embarrassing fashion.

Mullins team of one talented, but raw player in Yakwe and a load of crap has actually overachieved lately IMO. They should be getting killed by everyone because they are so slow and careless, but somehow, these last 3 games have been particularly impressive. I was hard on Mullin at first when I saw guys like Johnson, Mvouika and Mussini dogging it, but overall, this team has come together in what I can only say is the best of their ability. And that is worth something, even if it doesn't show up on paper.

Lavin's teams, by March, were done. All 5 of them. Better than Norm, without question, but that is not the bar we're striving to reach.

I don't think Mussini ever dogged it. In a perfect woprld he would have played 8 minutes a half this year but he was forced to play 30 min a game at the point which is even tougher. As for teh rest of the guys, limited rotation got to play who you have and deal with their shortcomings. 

Quote from: Poison on February 23, 2016, 11:27:58 AM

Quote from: TRabinowitz on February 22, 2016, 11:06:04 PM

Quote from: WillieG on February 22, 2016, 10:28:52 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2016, 09:04:08 AM

Quote from: WillieG on February 21, 2016, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 21, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Next years presumable roster can be compared to lavin's 3rd year presumed roster (Sanchez & Marco + all the fresh and sophs) IMO.  Let's see how those results come out.

Not really, Mase, because this staff only had 90 days to recruit their first class.  Lavin had a year.  So Mullin is a year behind the curve.  And now they have fewer roster spots for their next classes, which of course, they have more time to recruit.

Just talking about the rosters.  Not how long it took to get them.

No way, it's not fair to compare a roster, that had to be cobbled together in 90days, with one that was done in a year and had top 100 guys on it.  You can't compare those rosters.

Exactly.  Mullin had 3 months to put together the 2015 class and 15 months for the 2016 class.  Lavin had 15 months to build his massive class, therefor Mullin should have similar (but a bit higher) expectations for next year as Lavin had for Harkless' year.  To me, realistic goal is somewhere around low NIT team next year. 

Lavin's big class wasn't close to an NIT, went 13-19 (6-12 conference) that first year (which I would say was an overachievement) but only had those 7 scholarship players. 

I'd say its realistic to expect a better year next year than 2011-12 because of the 2nd year guys, but expecting a jump to the NCAA tournament is unfair and unrealistic given the fact that Lavin's major group didn't make it till year 4 and friendofjohnnie is validating the job he did.

What is fair in terms of judging Mullin is to judge what he is building here. Lavin by year 3, (technically, his 2nd season with his players, and his 1st season coaching his players) had Greene/Branch, Harrison, Pointer, Sampson and Obekpa, and the season went from a Lunardi predicted 7 seed to completely falling apart in embarrassing fashion.

Mullins team of one talented, but raw player in Yakwe and a load of crap has actually overachieved lately IMO. They should be getting killed by everyone because they are so slow and careless, but somehow, these last 3 games have been particularly impressive. I was hard on Mullin at first when I saw guys like Johnson, Mvouika and Mussini dogging it, but overall, this team has come together in what I can only say is the best of their ability. And that is worth something, even if it doesn't show up on paper.

Lavin's teams, by March, were done. All 5 of them. Better than Norm, without question, but that is not the bar we're striving to reach.

I don't think Mussini ever dogged it. In a perfect woprld he would have played 8 minutes a half this year but he was forced to play 30 min a game at the point which is even tougher. As for teh rest of the guys, limited rotation got to play who you have and deal with their shortcomings. 

8 minutes a half?

Quote from: Poison on February 23, 2016, 11:27:58 AM

Quote from: TRabinowitz on February 22, 2016, 11:06:04 PM

Quote from: WillieG on February 22, 2016, 10:28:52 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 22, 2016, 09:04:08 AM

Quote from: WillieG on February 21, 2016, 11:50:36 PM

Quote from: Amaseinyourface2 on February 21, 2016, 11:27:10 PM

Next years presumable roster can be compared to lavin's 3rd year presumed roster (Sanchez & Marco + all the fresh and sophs) IMO.  Let's see how those results come out.

Not really, Mase, because this staff only had 90 days to recruit their first class.  Lavin had a year.  So Mullin is a year behind the curve.  And now they have fewer roster spots for their next classes, which of course, they have more time to recruit.

Just talking about the rosters.  Not how long it took to get them.

No way, it's not fair to compare a roster, that had to be cobbled together in 90days, with one that was done in a year and had top 100 guys on it.  You can't compare those rosters.

Exactly.  Mullin had 3 months to put together the 2015 class and 15 months for the 2016 class.  Lavin had 15 months to build his massive class, therefor Mullin should have similar (but a bit higher) expectations for next year as Lavin had for Harkless' year.  To me, realistic goal is somewhere around low NIT team next year. 

Lavin's big class wasn't close to an NIT, went 13-19 (6-12 conference) that first year (which I would say was an overachievement) but only had those 7 scholarship players. 

I'd say its realistic to expect a better year next year than 2011-12 because of the 2nd year guys, but expecting a jump to the NCAA tournament is unfair and unrealistic given the fact that Lavin's major group didn't make it till year 4 and friendofjohnnie is validating the job he did.

What is fair in terms of judging Mullin is to judge what he is building here. Lavin by year 3, (technically, his 2nd season with his players, and his 1st season coaching his players) had Greene/Branch, Harrison, Pointer, Sampson and Obekpa, and the season went from a Lunardi predicted 7 seed to completely falling apart in embarrassing fashion.

Mullins team of one talented, but raw player in Yakwe and a load of crap has actually overachieved lately IMO. They should be getting killed by everyone because they are so slow and careless, but somehow, these last 3 games have been particularly impressive. I was hard on Mullin at first when I saw guys like Johnson, Mvouika and Mussini dogging it, but overall, this team has come together in what I can only say is the best of their ability. And that is worth something, even if it doesn't show up on paper.

Lavin's teams, by March, were done. All 5 of them. Better than Norm, without question, but that is not the bar we're striving to reach.

I don't think Mussini ever dogged it. In a perfect woprld he would have played 8 minutes a half this year but he was forced to play 30 min a game at the point which is even tougher. As for teh rest of the guys, limited rotation got to play who you have and deal with their shortcomings. 

I watched games earlier in the season, where no one was closing out on shooters. Mussini was raising his hand up like Durand Johnson taught him, and waving hello to NJIT's point guard as he knocked down countless 3 pointers. I think our seniors, set the tone for careless and or lazy defense. Balamou gets a lot of credit for his hustle on defense, but he's not innocent. There have been countless times where he simply wasn't paying attention.

Other than M'vouika, who is the worst defender in the history of St.John's, everyone else has been much better as of late. They are providing help d more often, and they are rebounding like BE players should. Well, at least Yakwe is.

I think you assume lazy. When some are unaware. if Felix had better basketball sense and knew his limitations he would have been a 4 year contributor instead a guy who at times showed he could play but sat on the bench like he should have. Closing out is a skill. Taking good shots is a skill.