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.
Sure we need a point BUT
- muskieman
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
- Contact:
Sure we need a point BUT
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.
-
- Posts: 1437
- Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:13 pm
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
interesting. can he stretch the floor or is he just a slasher/off rebounder type?
- muskieman
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
about 32.5% from three last two seasons in comparison X as a team shot 32.2 Colby 29.2% Hunter 21.2 Zach 26.1longliveskip wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:38 pminteresting. can he stretch the floor or is he just a slasher/off rebounder type?
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.
-
- Posts: 3330
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:24 pm
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
I can’t imagine Xavier shooting any worse than they have the last four years.
-
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:35 am
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
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?
- muskieman
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
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 reboundskyzrex wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pmJust 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 1806
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:35 am
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
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.muskieman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pmhe 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 reboundskyzrex wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pmJust 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?
- olsingledigit
- Posts: 5895
- Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 10:27 am
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Bangers!kyzrex wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:30 pmJones 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.muskieman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pmhe 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 reboundskyzrex wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pmJust 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.
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.
- muskieman
- Posts: 24627
- Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:34 pm
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
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!kyzrex wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:30 pmJones 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.muskieman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pmhe 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 reboundskyzrex wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pmJust 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.
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.
-
- Posts: 3330
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 9:24 pm
- Contact:
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
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