Sure we need a point BUT

Talk XU Men's basketball here...
User avatar
muskieman
Posts: 24627
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
Contact:

Sure we need a point BUT

Postby muskieman » Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:31 pm

with our new ex-Stanford coach the name Jaiden Delaire 6'8" small forward is in the portal. Averaged 10.1 points, 4 rebounds and 1.1 assists for the Cardinal this past season. Out of HS he was the 83rd rated player and Providence, UConn and GT were some of his suitors. He has size, length, athleticism, and ability to impact the game on defense and on offense as a slasher, and decent rebounder

X has two spots as Ward doesn't seem to be working out, so far.
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em.
longliveskip
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby longliveskip » Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:38 pm

interesting. can he stretch the floor or is he just a slasher/off rebounder type?
User avatar
muskieman
Posts: 24627
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby muskieman » Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:58 pm

longliveskip wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:38 pm
interesting. can he stretch the floor or is he just a slasher/off rebounder type?
about 32.5% from three last two seasons in comparison X as a team shot 32.2 Colby 29.2% Hunter 21.2 Zach 26.1
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em.
skyhops
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby skyhops » Mon Apr 18, 2022 7:09 pm

I can’t imagine Xavier shooting any worse than they have the last four years.
kyzrex
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:35 am
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby kyzrex » Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm

Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
#WHYNOTX?
User avatar
muskieman
Posts: 24627
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby muskieman » Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pm

kyzrex wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
he was a small forward at Stanford so just because he is 6'8" doesn't mean he would play inside. 6'8" small forward rebounding would be nice for those long rebounds
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em.
kyzrex
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:35 am
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby kyzrex » Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:30 pm

muskieman wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pm
kyzrex wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
he was a small forward at Stanford so just because he is 6'8" doesn't mean he would play inside. 6'8" small forward rebounding would be nice for those long rebounds
Jones already does a very nice job gathering up those long rebounds. X doesn’t need any more small forwards IMO, they need POWER inside players in the worst way…….along with an experienced point guard.
#WHYNOTX?
User avatar
olsingledigit
Posts: 5895
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:27 am
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby olsingledigit » Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:13 pm

kyzrex wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:30 pm
muskieman wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pm
kyzrex wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
he was a small forward at Stanford so just because he is 6'8" doesn't mean he would play inside. 6'8" small forward rebounding would be nice for those long rebounds
Jones already does a very nice job gathering up those long rebounds. X doesn’t need any more small forwards IMO, they need POWER inside players in the worst way…….along with an experienced point guard.
Bangers!
Dressed to the Nines - Last of the LHS Single Digits - Dedicated to John "The Beer Spiller" McCormick, my son-in-law who passed June, 2016 at age 44. Long time Xavier fanatic and friend of many Lew Hirt Members. RIP Mac Strong! We miss you.
User avatar
muskieman
Posts: 24627
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby muskieman » Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:32 pm

kyzrex wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:30 pm
muskieman wrote:
Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pm
kyzrex wrote:
Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
he was a small forward at Stanford so just because he is 6'8" doesn't mean he would play inside. 6'8" small forward rebounding would be nice for those long rebounds
Jones already does a very nice job gathering up those long rebounds. X doesn’t need any more small forwards IMO, they need POWER inside players in the worst way…….along with an experienced point guard.
Well if Jones might play some at the point and not 40 minutes at small forward a 6'8" small forward might be a good fill-in at SF. Unless Jones can play 40 minutes and play two positions at the same time!
I asked a ref if he could give me a technical foul for thinking bad things about him. He said, of course not. I said, well, I think you stink. And he gave me a technical. You can't trust em.
skyhops
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Sure we need a point BUT

Postby skyhops » Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:58 pm

I think that is what Steele had in mind for Hunter but that didn’t work out well.

Return to “Xavier Men's Basketball”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests