goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: Belvis Noland on July 06, 2010, 02:09:47 PM

Title: Nick
Post by: Belvis Noland on July 06, 2010, 02:09:47 PM

One tease: Nick Russell isn't going anywhere. Staff loves him. He can shoot it, and he might even start this year...

Can you expand on this?  I've been really curious to know how Russell is going to fit into our system this year..  How he's been progressing in the offseason.  


Can we start a new thread on this topic?
Title: Re: SLTH sighting
Post by: Panjandrum on July 06, 2010, 02:13:25 PM
Dude has a sweet gut. Hung out with Figgs. Good times.

One tease: Nick Russell isn't going anywhere. Staff loves him. He can shoot it, and he might even start this year...

 :bartender:
Title: Re: SLTH sighting
Post by: Pete on July 06, 2010, 02:15:28 PM
Dude has a sweet gut. Hung out with Figgs. Good times.

One tease: Nick Russell isn't going anywhere. Staff loves him. He can shoot it, and he might even start this year...

JFC, Jeff is bopping around Houston on a separate gig and is still out in front on EMAW news.   :bball:
Title: Re: SLTH sighting
Post by: Belvis Noland on July 06, 2010, 02:24:11 PM

JFC, Jeff is bopping around Houston on a separate gig and is still out in front on EMAW news.   :bball:

I would normally just hop on GPC, but it seems - yet again - that Fitz & Co. are under a super, secret directive not to divulge any information relating to sports.  Well, at least until other media outlets have already reported it and the coast is clear. 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: mcmwcat on July 06, 2010, 02:45:21 PM
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2Ficon11.gif&hash=e2fb8e8f9f71177b1d2be6ea509757a6efac8fd6)(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2Ficon11.gif&hash=e2fb8e8f9f71177b1d2be6ea509757a6efac8fd6)(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2FgoEMAW.com%2Fforum%2FSmileys%2FgoEMAW%2Ficon11.gif&hash=e2fb8e8f9f71177b1d2be6ea509757a6efac8fd6)
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: KITNfury on July 06, 2010, 03:01:56 PM
I don't get how he could be a potential starter. Dude hardly played last year. What am I not getting (besides super expando improvement)?  :dunno:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: CNS on July 06, 2010, 03:04:36 PM
I have been negative on Nick's outlook so far.  Why stop now?

I am assuming that he hasn't become amazing, but that our options for guard, excluding Jake, are not that wonderful.  This also assumes that Rodney will be our 3.

Title: Re: Nick
Post by: mcmwcat on July 06, 2010, 03:21:21 PM
I don't get how he could be a potential starter. Dude hardly played last year. What am I not getting (besides super expando improvement)?  :dunno:

only return 2 starters.  have to find someone to fill those spots; russel's resume isn't that much worse than the other options at PG: irving, myles, spradling etc.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: steve dave on July 06, 2010, 03:27:25 PM
I don't get how he could be a potential starter. Dude hardly played last year. What am I not getting (besides super expando improvement)?  :dunno:

only return 2 starters.  have to find someone to fill those spots; russel's resume isn't that much worse than the other options at PG: irving, myles, spradling etc.

I'm guessing he doesn't play PG for us ever
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: mcmwcat on July 06, 2010, 03:32:22 PM
I don't get how he could be a potential starter. Dude hardly played last year. What am I not getting (besides super expando improvement)?  :dunno:

only return 2 starters.  have to find someone to fill those spots; russel's resume isn't that much worse than the other options at PG: irving, myles, spradling etc.

I'm guessing he doesn't play PG for us ever

he hasn't already?
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: steve dave on July 06, 2010, 03:33:36 PM
I don't get how he could be a potential starter. Dude hardly played last year. What am I not getting (besides super expando improvement)?  :dunno:

only return 2 starters.  have to find someone to fill those spots; russel's resume isn't that much worse than the other options at PG: irving, myles, spradling etc.

I'm guessing he doesn't play PG for us ever

he hasn't already?

again (if he has) :dunno:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 03:34:56 PM
I could definitely see him playing PG this year.  Just bring the ball up the court and go spot up around the perimeter somewhere.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jaa1025 on July 06, 2010, 03:37:40 PM
With Frank liking the two combo guard lineup, I could see Nick potentially starting this year. I think he's very talented but wasn't aggressive enough last year and very raw. He should make huge strides this year.

PG: Pullen
SG: Nick
SF: McGruder (can he play SF?)
PF: Kelly
C: Asprilla

Title: Re: Nick
Post by: steve dave on July 06, 2010, 03:38:38 PM
SF: McGruder (can he play SF?)

That's pretty much all he plays
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: CNS on July 06, 2010, 03:39:23 PM
With Frank liking the two combo guard lineup, I could see Nick potentially starting this year. I think he's very talented but wasn't aggressive enough last year and very raw. He should make huge strides this year.

PG: Pullen
SG: Nick
SF: McGruder (can he play SF?)
PF: Kelly
C: Asprilla



BP has been saying that a 3 guard look is probably.  I imagine that he is ref to when Rodney is at the 3, that is considered a 3 guard line up, but who knows?
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: CNS on July 06, 2010, 03:40:28 PM
Nick sucked on D last year.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: AbeFroman on July 06, 2010, 03:49:09 PM
Nick sucked on D last year.
So did Jake his frosh year
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 06, 2010, 03:50:48 PM
Nick sucked on D last year.
So did Jake his frosh year

 :surprised:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: EllToPay on July 06, 2010, 03:52:05 PM
Nick sucked on D last year.

so did every other guard besides pullen.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: kstatefreak42 on July 06, 2010, 03:56:22 PM
Asprilla starting? If wally gets his confidence up, sky is the limit. And Nick- I really don't know. Jus get rid of Martavious "taysongz" Irving.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Belvis Noland on July 06, 2010, 04:06:33 PM
Asprilla starting? If wally gets his confidence up, sky is the limit. And Nick- I really don't know. Jus get rid of Martavious "taysongz" Irving.

What's wrong with Irving?  IMO, he played his role fine last year.  Quick, physical defender who can knock down an open shot on the perimeter.  Solid bench player who provides depth.   I mean, he certainly shouldn't start, but he's a pretty decent role player.  Doesn't hurt us when he's out there.   :dunno: 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Belvis Noland on July 06, 2010, 04:09:23 PM
And Russell has a lot of potential.  He appears to have pretty good ball handling skills and he can shoot.  Looked like a nice passer at times, as well. 

It was pretty obvious that his Defense was dog crap, though. 

I wonder if Greenawalt has put much weight on him and if he's playing more physical ball...

If not, I don't see him making this team any better. 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 04:20:40 PM
Dude, it's like Denis played physical ball.  And Greenie has put muscle on every other player he has had, so I don't see why Nick should be the exception.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Fuktard on July 06, 2010, 04:24:04 PM
I don't get how he could be a potential starter. Dude hardly played last year. What am I not getting (besides super expando improvement)?  :dunno:

only return 2 starters.  have to find someone to fill those spots; russel's resume isn't that much worse than the other options at PG: irving, myles, spradling etc.

I'm guessing he doesn't play PG for us ever

he hasn't already?

again (if he has) :dunno:

I'm no Phil Wooden, but I'm just not seeing a difference between the 1 and the 2 in Franks offensive system.  Hell it's sometimes hard to distinguish the 1, 2 and 3.  I think Nick will be adequate as a guard, regardless of what number you put in front of it.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: yoga-like_abana on July 06, 2010, 04:25:24 PM
from that jackass CNS Casey
Quote
Quote from JMart posted on the other board:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Belvis Noland on July 06, 2010, 04:31:15 PM
Dude, it's like Denis played physical ball.  And Greenie has put muscle on every other player he has had, so I don't see why Nick should be the exception.

Well, then I guess he'll play a lot.. 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 06, 2010, 04:59:24 PM
from that jackass CNS Casey
Quote
Quote from JMart posted on the other board:


What a jackass!  :curse:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: CNS on July 06, 2010, 05:02:27 PM
from that jackass CNS Casey
Quote
Quote from JMart posted on the other board:


What a jackass!  :curse:

  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 06, 2010, 05:53:23 PM
Asprilla starting? If wally gets his confidence up, sky is the limit. And Nick- I really don't know. Jus get rid of Martavious "taysongz" Irving.

What's wrong with Irving?  IMO, he played his role fine last year.  Quick, physical defender who can knock down an open shot on the perimeter.  Solid bench player who provides depth.   I mean, he certainly shouldn't start, but he's a pretty decent role player.  Doesn't hurt us when he's out there.   :dunno: 

My only problem with Irving is that he uses up a scholly that we could have used on a more elite player, assuming we had a more elite player to use it on, which we apparently didn't, since we used the scholly on Irving, so i guess I don't really have a problem with Irving after all.  :D
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: canadian_breeze on July 06, 2010, 06:01:11 PM
Asprilla starting? If wally gets his confidence up, sky is the limit. And Nick- I really don't know. Jus get rid of Martavious "taysongz" Irving.

What's wrong with Irving?  IMO, he played his role fine last year.  Quick, physical defender who can knock down an open shot on the perimeter.  Solid bench player who provides depth.   I mean, he certainly shouldn't start, but he's a pretty decent role player.  Doesn't hurt us when he's out there.   :dunno: 


My only problem with Irving is that he uses up a scholly that we could have used on a more elite player, assuming we had a more elite player to use it on, which we apparently didn't, since we used the scholly on Irving, so i guess I don't really have a problem with Irving after all.  :D


you really wanna ditch irving for an elite player possibly upsetting the fit  system frank martin has right now?
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: michigancat on July 06, 2010, 06:02:42 PM
Asprilla starting? If wally gets his confidence up, sky is the limit. And Nick- I really don't know. Jus get rid of Martavious "taysongz" Irving.

What's wrong with Irving?  IMO, he played his role fine last year.  Quick, physical defender who can knock down an open shot on the perimeter.  Solid bench player who provides depth.   I mean, he certainly shouldn't start, but he's a pretty decent role player.  Doesn't hurt us when he's out there.   :dunno:  

He cannot hit an open shot anywhere and can't handle the ball for sh*t.  He hurts us a ton on offense.  Thankfully, he didn't play enough to be exposed much on defense.

So, I guess if his role was "sh*tty bench player" then I agree that he filled his role well.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 06, 2010, 06:06:34 PM
Asprilla starting? If wally gets his confidence up, sky is the limit. And Nick- I really don't know. Jus get rid of Martavious "taysongz" Irving.

What's wrong with Irving?  IMO, he played his role fine last year.  Quick, physical defender who can knock down an open shot on the perimeter.  Solid bench player who provides depth.   I mean, he certainly shouldn't start, but he's a pretty decent role player.  Doesn't hurt us when he's out there.   :dunno:  

He cannot hit an open shot anywhere and can't handle the ball for sh*t.  He hurts us a ton on offense.  Thankfully, he didn't play enough to be exposed much on defense.

So, I guess if his role was "sh*tty bench player" then I agree that he filled his role well.

Please see my "blame Hill for not getting a more elite player, not Irving, who never claimed to be elite" post.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: michigancat on July 06, 2010, 06:12:26 PM
Asprilla starting? If wally gets his confidence up, sky is the limit. And Nick- I really don't know. Jus get rid of Martavious "taysongz" Irving.

What's wrong with Irving?  IMO, he played his role fine last year.  Quick, physical defender who can knock down an open shot on the perimeter.  Solid bench player who provides depth.   I mean, he certainly shouldn't start, but he's a pretty decent role player.  Doesn't hurt us when he's out there.   :dunno: 

He cannot hit an open shot anywhere and can't handle the ball for sh*t.  He hurts us a ton on offense.  Thankfully, he didn't play enough to be exposed much on defense.

So, I guess if his role was "sh*tty bench player" then I agree that he filled his role well.

Please see my "blame Hill for not getting a more elite player, not Irving, who never claimed to be elite" post.

I'm quite content to continue to blame both, thank you.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 06:12:33 PM
I seem to remember the coaches raving about Irving's D before last season.  I expect more experience to help whatever was causing some lapses on D last season.  As far as Asprilla v. Judge-  I don't really see Wally as a fulltime 5.  I expect Asprilla to start this year, with Wally getting quite a few minutes, split between the 4 and 5, with Wally starting at the 4 after CK leaves for the league. 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: JMart on July 06, 2010, 06:15:37 PM
Question  - besides Mike and Bill, has any freshman come in and put up astounding numbers? And as for Nick not playing last year, there weren't a ton of minutes to be had beyond Jake and Denis. When Nick practiced well, he played. Like I said, the staff is confident is what he is.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: michigancat on July 06, 2010, 06:20:48 PM
Question  - besides Mike and Bill, has any freshman come in and put up astounding numbers?

I'm not expecting astounding numbers, I'm expecting non-suckage.  Jamar and Dom both provided that as freshmen.  Wally kind of sucked, but you could always clearly see the potential.

I'm all for Nick getting out there.  I think he'll do fine.  I see more potential than Martav.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: JMart on July 06, 2010, 06:27:41 PM
Quote from: michigancat link=topic=4705.msg96492#msg96492 date=
Quote from: JMart link=topic=4705.msg96489#msg96489 date=
Question  - besides Mike and Bill, has any freshman come in and put up astounding numbers?

I'm not expecting astounding numbers, I'm expecting non-suckage.  Jamar and Dom both provided that as freshmen.  Wally kind of sucked, but you could always clearly see the potential.

I'm all for Nick getting out there.  I think he'll do fine.  I see more potential than Martav.

I told Figgs they needed some 6-7 dude at the 3 who could shoot lights-out, and he kind of snapped at me. He was like, "We have guys who can do that. Rodney can do that. Nick can do that..." Later, he said there were times in practice last year that Nick was the best guard on the floor.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: steve dave on July 06, 2010, 06:35:48 PM
Quote from: michigancat link=topic=4705.msg96492#msg96492 date=
Quote from: JMart link=topic=4705.msg96489#msg96489 date=
Question  - besides Mike and Bill, has any freshman come in and put up astounding numbers?

I'm not expecting astounding numbers, I'm expecting non-suckage.  Jamar and Dom both provided that as freshmen.  Wally kind of sucked, but you could always clearly see the potential.

I'm all for Nick getting out there.  I think he'll do fine.  I see more potential than Martav.

I told Figgs they needed some 6-7 dude at the 3 who could shoot lights-out, and he kind of snapped at me. He was like, "We have guys who can do that. Rodney can do that. Nick can do that..." Later, he said there were times in practice last year that Nick was the best guard on the floor.


Yeah, when I told him we needed some 8 footer that weighed 500 lbs. he told me we had that already in Spradling
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 06, 2010, 06:49:24 PM
Quote from: michigancat link=topic=4705.msg96492#msg96492 date=
Quote from: JMart link=topic=4705.msg96489#msg96489 date=
Question  - besides Mike and Bill, has any freshman come in and put up astounding numbers?

I'm not expecting astounding numbers, I'm expecting non-suckage.  Jamar and Dom both provided that as freshmen.  Wally kind of sucked, but you could always clearly see the potential.

I'm all for Nick getting out there.  I think he'll do fine.  I see more potential than Martav.

I told Figgs they needed some 6-7 dude at the 3 who could shoot lights-out, and he kind of snapped at me. He was like, "We have guys who can do that. Rodney can do that. Nick can do that..." Later, he said there were times in practice last year that Nick was the best guard on the floor.


I remember all those reports that he was the most impressive looking player at open practices and such and the coaches loving him. I hope he can develop some sort of killer instinct in the off season; he seemed pretty timid last year, even for a frosh. And I'm hoping (assuming) this is why he appeared so slow at times.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: michigancat on July 06, 2010, 06:49:40 PM
Quote from: michigancat link=topic=4705.msg96492#msg96492 date=
Quote from: JMart link=topic=4705.msg96489#msg96489 date=
Question  - besides Mike and Bill, has any freshman come in and put up astounding numbers?

I'm not expecting astounding numbers, I'm expecting non-suckage.  Jamar and Dom both provided that as freshmen.  Wally kind of sucked, but you could always clearly see the potential.

I'm all for Nick getting out there.  I think he'll do fine.  I see more potential than Martav.

I told Figgs they needed some 6-7 dude at the 3 who could shoot lights-out, and he kind of snapped at me. He was like, "We have guys who can do that. Rodney can do that. Nick can do that..." Later, he said there were times in practice last year that Nick was the best guard on the floor.


Yeah, when I told him we needed some 8 footer that weighed 500 lbs. he told me we had that already in Spradling

LOL
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 06, 2010, 06:53:14 PM
Quote from: michigancat link=topic=4705.msg96492#msg96492 date=
Quote from: JMart link=topic=4705.msg96489#msg96489 date=
Question  - besides Mike and Bill, has any freshman come in and put up astounding numbers?

I'm not expecting astounding numbers, I'm expecting non-suckage.  Jamar and Dom both provided that as freshmen.  Wally kind of sucked, but you could always clearly see the potential.

I'm all for Nick getting out there.  I think he'll do fine.  I see more potential than Martav.

I told Figgs they needed some 6-7 dude at the 3 who could shoot lights-out, and he kind of snapped at me. He was like, "We have guys who can do that. Rodney can do that. Nick can do that..." Later, he said there were times in practice last year that Nick was the best guard on the floor.


Yeah, when I told him we needed some 8 footer that weighed 500 lbs. he told me we had that already in Spradling

said the same thing when asked why we didn't offer Selby.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: chum1 on July 06, 2010, 07:05:01 PM
Not many minutes to be had at guard, yet Irving averaged 10.3 compared to Nick's 6.8.  I'm going to relish watching the blind Irving haters melt down this year.  He's going to play a lot.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 07:35:32 PM
Jamar and Sutton weren't freshman on upperclassmen led Elite 8 teams. It's difficult for many freshmen to break into the steady rotation and it's hard to get a rhythm or much experience only playing sporadic minutes.  If Nick starts getting some confidence, he should be fine.  If Wally starts getting confidant, he could be really good.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: raquetcat on July 06, 2010, 07:42:15 PM
Frank is all about the D, why do you think CM EVER got minutes, so when nick learns to play D, he'll see the floor (same thing as with wally early on last year), we've always heard he's a solid shooter, if he finally decided to nut up and play frank's style of D in the off-season maybe he'll be the big surprise we're all hoping for in the guard spot opposite Pullen.

I think this year we should just classify the guard spots as Pullen and not-pullen, there's not really a set 1 and 2, or maybe just P and NP  :dunno:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Pete on July 06, 2010, 07:53:42 PM
I don't get how he could be a potential starter. Dude hardly played last year. What am I not getting (besides super expando improvement)?  :dunno:

only return 2 starters.  have to find someone to fill those spots; russel's resume isn't that much worse than the other options at PG: irving, myles, spradling etc.

I'm guessing he doesn't play PG for us ever

he hasn't already?

again (if he has) :dunno:

I'm no Phil Wooden, but I'm just not seeing a difference between the 1 and the 2 in Franks offensive system.  Hell it's sometimes hard to distinguish the 1, 2 and 3.  I think Nick will be adequate as a guard, regardless of what number you put in front of it.

I completely agree with Fuktard.  Play some D and crash the boards after you miss your jumper, that's the game plan.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 06, 2010, 08:00:43 PM
If Nick starts getting some confidence, he should be fine.  If Wally starts getting confidant, he could be really good.

Maybe their confidence is fine, they were just freshmen on a stacked elite 8 team.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 08:09:07 PM
No doubt they were both frosh and a great team but those 2 both appeared to be scared and or nervous many times throughout the year.  You'd see flashes of them playing their game but much of the time they certainly looked like fish out of water.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: _33 on July 06, 2010, 08:16:27 PM
If Nick starts getting some confidence, he should be fine.  If Wally starts getting confidant, he could be really good.

Maybe their confidence is fine, they were just freshmen on a stacked elite 8 team.

We weren't that stacked.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 08:36:07 PM
If you're in the E8, you're pretty stacked.  And it SHOULD be difficult for a freshman to crack into the regular rotation.  Not impossible, but he better be pretty freaking badass to earn significant minutes.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: _33 on July 06, 2010, 08:37:36 PM
If you're in the E8, you're pretty stacked.

We weren't that stacked.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 08:42:45 PM
If our roster was playing for another conference school, you would readily call that team "pretty stacked."  Dude,  2nd in the Big 12+E8= Pretty stacked.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: canadian_breeze on July 06, 2010, 09:42:34 PM
If our roster was playing for another conference school, you would readily call that team "pretty stacked."  Dude,  2nd in the Big 12+E8= Pretty stacked.
We aren't that stacked.                       tee hee hee
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 06, 2010, 10:24:24 PM
here come the "we never get any talent at k-state we just coach em' up and try harder than everyone else" idiots.

anyways, it depends on your definition of stacked, I'm not talking N Carolina stacked or KU 08' stacked, but we had the right mix of experience and talent and depth. I ment stacked as in the roster spots anyways; the roster and scoring load was pretty "stacked" ahead of judge and especially russell. Those guys weren't leaned on to provide much, as most frosh shouldn't be.







Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 10:57:29 PM
Hell no, we weren't totally loaded like a UNC, UK, KU, etc but we were pretty stacked.  Solid talent, several deep at pretty much every spot.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: bozocat on July 06, 2010, 11:03:47 PM
Hell no, we weren't totally loaded like a UNC, UK, KU, etc but we were pretty stacked.  Solid talent, several deep at pretty much every spot.

Colon started...  and Energy played significant minutes at crucial times for God's sake.  We were NOT stacked.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: bozocat on July 06, 2010, 11:07:24 PM
Hell no, we weren't totally loaded like a UNC, UK, KU, etc but we were pretty stacked.  Solid talent, several deep at pretty much every spot.

Colon started...  and Energy played significant minutes at crucial times for God's sake.  We were NOT stacked.

We're looking fairly stacked for this coming season.   :grin:

Not as much as if Dom would have stayed for his senior year though.   :cry:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 11:10:11 PM
We also had a MCDAA coming off the bench and a 4* Hotrod struggling to get minutes.  But no talent on that roster.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: doom on July 06, 2010, 11:16:43 PM
The closest to being "stacked" we came wer at the 3-5 spots.  Not at guard. 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: bozocat on July 06, 2010, 11:22:51 PM
The closest to being "stacked" we came wer at the 3-5 spots.  Not at guard. 

3/4 maybe.  We were paper thin at the 5.  I count CK as a 4.  That leaves Lu and JH-R.  And IMHO, Wally shouldn't be shackled at the 5.  You know, come to think of it, I hate all these numbered designations.  In Frank's offense, there are guards and bigs.  Good enought for me.

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: MakeItRain on July 06, 2010, 11:24:00 PM
Hell no, we weren't totally loaded like a UNC, UK, KU, etc but we were pretty stacked.  Solid talent, several deep at pretty much every spot.

Colon started...  and Energy played significant minutes at crucial times for God's sake.  We were NOT stacked.

I swear to God we have to have the stupidest basketball fanbase in the country.

Was Duke stacked?  They had Brian Zoubek and Lance Thomas playing big minutes.
Was Kansas stacked?  They had Brady Morningstar and Tyrel Reed playing big minutes.
Texas with Dogus Balbay, West Virginia with Cam Throughman and Wellington Smith.

Do you know what role players are?  Every player isn't going to be a star.  Those players were not asked to score at crucial times,  Luis was never even on the floor at crucial times and when Energy was it was for well Energy.  All teams have limited skilled role players who see the court.

dumbasses
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 11:27:07 PM
Hell, with college basketball in general it's pretty much "bigs and smalls.". All sorts of 3 guard or forward lineups out there.  How often does a team with a dominate center win anything anymore?
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Trim on July 06, 2010, 11:28:11 PM
Hell no, we weren't totally loaded like a UNC, UK, KU, etc but we were pretty stacked.  Solid talent, several deep at pretty much every spot.

Colon started...  and Energy played significant minutes at crucial times for God's sake.  We were NOT stacked.

I swear to God we have to have the stupidest basketball fanbase in the country.

Was Duke stacked?  They had Brian Zoubek and Lance Thomas playing big minutes.
Was Kansas stacked?  They had Brady Morningstar and Tyrel Reed playing big minutes.
Texas with Dogus Balbay, West Virginia with Cam Throughman and Wellington Smith.

Do you know what role players are?  Every player isn't going to be a star.  Those players were not asked to score at crucial times,  Luis was never even on the floor at crucial times and when Energy was it was for well Energy.  All teams have limited skilled role players who see the court.

dumbasses

Love when MIR does this.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: doom on July 06, 2010, 11:32:40 PM
The closest to being "stacked" we came wer at the 3-5 spots.  Not at guard. 

3/4 maybe.  We were paper thin at the 5.  I count CK as a 4.  That leaves Lu and JH-R.  And IMHO, Wally shouldn't be shackled at the 5.  You know, come to think of it, I hate all these numbered designations.  In Frank's offense, there are guards and bigs.  Good enought for me.

 :thumbsup:

Kind of what I was going for.  at the 4 and 5 you could interchange Lu, Curt, Wally, Jordan, Jamsam

at the 3 you could throw in jamsam, dom or rod.

After Denis and Jake we had frosh as guards.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 06, 2010, 11:44:08 PM
MIR, with the KO!
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: bozocat on July 06, 2010, 11:50:08 PM
MIR, with the KO!

Really?  How so?  Because he called everybody "dumbasses"?  We're really not that far apart on our opinions here.  I disagreed with the term "stacked".  Semantics, really.  IMO we were carried by our guards, until CK started putting it together.  We did have talent, aside from Lu, Energy, 'Tay (who I value as a role player).  We were not really that deep.  We had talent, but not experienced talent.  That changes this year.  I look to see improvement and consistency from Wally, Rodney, Nick and Jam-Sam.  JH-R might be able to contribute minutes and I also think Freddy will be a major contributer (if he gets in shape).  'Tay will probably be about the same and Nino will contribute in spurts.  Anything out of the other freshmen will be icing.  This year's team more closely follows the "stacked" tag.  The only holes I see are FT shooting and cosistent shooting.  I think we will miss Dom's tenacity, defense and rebounding.  Overall I am  :ksu: for '10-'11.   
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: KSUBrian on July 07, 2010, 12:07:50 AM
I don't know about our roster, but I know my GF is stacked.  Ever seen a pair of real double Js?  She has got a pair and I motorboat the hell out of them. I can wear one of her bra cups as a hat and I make sure to have one of her bras as a carry-on when I fly to use as a parachute.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: MakeItRain on July 07, 2010, 12:54:12 AM
MIR, with the KO!

Really?  How so?  Because he called everybody "dumbasses"?  We're really not that far apart on our opinions here.  I disagreed with the term "stacked".  Semantics, really.  IMO we were carried by our guards, until CK started putting it together.  We did have talent, aside from Lu, Energy, 'Tay (who I value as a role player).  We were not really that deep.  We had talent, but not experienced talent.  That changes this year.  I look to see improvement and consistency from Wally, Rodney, Nick and Jam-Sam.  JH-R might be able to contribute minutes and I also think Freddy will be a major contributer (if he gets in shape).  'Tay will probably be about the same and Nino will contribute in spurts.  Anything out of the other freshmen will be icing.  This year's team more closely follows the "stacked" tag.  The only holes I see are FT shooting and cosistent shooting.  I think we will miss Dom's tenacity, defense and rebounding.  Overall I am  :ksu: for '10-'11.   

Our opinions are not at all close.  You have softened your stance with each post, now you say they had talent, but it was inexperienced.  What the hell does that matter?  You clearly don't understand what role players are, the 2010-11 will have them too and invariably there will be tards falling all over themselves talking crying about the role players and why they don't average 15 PPG.  You are still bitching about Luis and Energy.  Why can't you understand that all teams have players like Luis and Energy?  Your original contention that this team wasn't "stacked" because of Luis and Energy was really dumb.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 07, 2010, 01:02:29 AM
I hated every minute Luis and Energy were on the court but it worked out okay for us, don't you think?  It will be very nice when guys like JHR and Irving are our energy guys, coming off the bench for a few minutes here and there.  But we're looking at improving on an E8 this time, not looking at making the tourney.  The E8 appearance itself may not necessarily exemplify the pretty stacked lineup status (George Mason) but the 2nd place finish in arguably the best conference in the country does.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 07, 2010, 01:53:52 AM
eff, tough crowd to please

everyone these days is young. we had one of the older teams in the nation. we had system continuity. we had some of the best and most experienced guards in a guard-driven league. we had an inside scoring threat.  we had length, athleticism, and enough depth. probably 7 times out of ten we beat butler, we're in the final four, and then who knows. we were a national title favorite for crying out loud. in this day of one and done's everyone's got a weakness. i don't even know what the hell i'm arguing right now. i never said we were stacked, but whether you think we were or not, let's at least agree to stop discussing made up college positions like the "5-spot". we are fans of elite basketball now, let's act like it.

Title: Re: Nick
Post by: ChiComCat on July 07, 2010, 01:58:36 AM
eff, tough crowd to please

everyone these days is young. we had one of the older teams in the nation. we had system continuity. we had some of the best and most experienced guards in a guard-driven league. we had an inside scoring threat.  we had length, athleticism, and enough depth. probably 7 times out of ten we beat butler, we're in the final four, and then who knows. we were a national title favorite for crying out loud. in this day of one and done's everyone's got a weakness. i don't even know what the hell i'm arguing right now. i never said we were stacked, but whether you think we were or not, let's at least agree to stop discussing made up college positions like the "5-spot". we are fans of elite basketball now, let's act like it.



http://kenpom.com/height.php?s=ExpRank

We had the 159th oldest team in the nation
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: fatty fat fat on July 07, 2010, 01:58:47 AM
fascinating end to this thread. agreed we were stacked last year. STACKED is an adorable word (when used in this context, cbb)
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: fatty fat fat on July 07, 2010, 01:59:09 AM
shazbot!, tough crowd to please

everyone these days is young. we had one of the older teams in the nation. we had system continuity. we had some of the best and most experienced guards in a guard-driven league. we had an inside scoring threat.  we had length, athleticism, and enough depth. probably 7 times out of ten we beat butler, we're in the final four, and then who knows. we were a national title favorite for crying out loud. in this day of one and done's everyone's got a weakness. i don't even know what the hell i'm arguing right now. i never said we were stacked, but whether you think we were or not, let's at least agree to stop discussing made up college positions like the "5-spot". we are fans of elite basketball now, let's act like it.



http://kenpom.com/height.php?s=ExpRank

We had the 159th oldest team in the nation


Chi, holiday inn vs hampton???
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: ChiComCat on July 07, 2010, 02:00:47 AM
shazbot!, tough crowd to please

everyone these days is young. we had one of the older teams in the nation. we had system continuity. we had some of the best and most experienced guards in a guard-driven league. we had an inside scoring threat.  we had length, athleticism, and enough depth. probably 7 times out of ten we beat butler, we're in the final four, and then who knows. we were a national title favorite for crying out loud. in this day of one and done's everyone's got a weakness. i don't even know what the hell i'm arguing right now. i never said we were stacked, but whether you think we were or not, let's at least agree to stop discussing made up college positions like the "5-spot". we are fans of elite basketball now, let's act like it.



http://kenpom.com/height.php?s=ExpRank

We had the 159th oldest team in the nation


Chi, holiday inn vs hampton???

 :confused:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 07, 2010, 02:07:57 AM
shazbot!, tough crowd to please

everyone these days is young. we had one of the older teams in the nation. we had system continuity. we had some of the best and most experienced guards in a guard-driven league. we had an inside scoring threat.  we had length, athleticism, and enough depth. probably 7 times out of ten we beat butler, we're in the final four, and then who knows. we were a national title favorite for crying out loud. in this day of one and done's everyone's got a weakness. i don't even know what the hell i'm arguing right now. i never said we were stacked, but whether you think we were or not, let's at least agree to stop discussing made up college positions like the "5-spot". we are fans of elite basketball now, let's act like it.



http://kenpom.com/height.php?s=ExpRank

We had the 159th oldest team in the nation


Chi, holiday inn vs hampton???

 :confused:

our starting line-up and first guy off the bench were old as hell... and add in CK. we had a big frosh class but minutes-wise we were old. gotlieb would say that almost verbatum every time he'd do our game.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: ChiComCat on July 07, 2010, 02:11:26 AM
shazbot!, tough crowd to please

everyone these days is young. we had one of the older teams in the nation. we had system continuity. we had some of the best and most experienced guards in a guard-driven league. we had an inside scoring threat.  we had length, athleticism, and enough depth. probably 7 times out of ten we beat butler, we're in the final four, and then who knows. we were a national title favorite for crying out loud. in this day of one and done's everyone's got a weakness. i don't even know what the hell i'm arguing right now. i never said we were stacked, but whether you think we were or not, let's at least agree to stop discussing made up college positions like the "5-spot". we are fans of elite basketball now, let's act like it.



http://kenpom.com/height.php?s=ExpRank

We had the 159th oldest team in the nation


Chi, holiday inn vs hampton???

 :confused:

our starting line-up and first guy off the bench were old as hell... and add in CK. we had a big frosh class but minutes-wise we were old.

I just wanted to be a dick
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 07, 2010, 02:23:26 AM
How many tournament teams were older than us?  BCS conference tournament teams?
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: WillieWatanabe on July 07, 2010, 07:24:12 AM
JFC, way to ruin a goddamn good thread. We were getting excellent insider info, then SD had to be funny and pull out the Spradling joke. JFC. STACKED I tell you!!!

Dumbasses.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: pissclams on July 07, 2010, 09:13:23 AM
Hell no, we weren't totally loaded like a UNC, UK, KU, etc but we were pretty stacked.  Solid talent, several deep at pretty much every spot.

Colon started...  and Energy played significant minutes at crucial times for God's sake.  We were NOT stacked.

I swear to God we have to have the stupidest basketball fanbase in the country.

Was Duke stacked?  They had Brian Zoubek and Lance Thomas playing big minutes.
Was Kansas stacked?  They had Brady Morningstar and Tyrel Reed playing big minutes.
Texas with Dogus Balbay, West Virginia with Cam Throughman and Wellington Smith.

Do you know what role players are?  Every player isn't going to be a star.  Those players were not asked to score at crucial times,  Luis was never even on the floor at crucial times and when Energy was it was for well Energy.  All teams have limited skilled role players who see the court.

dumbasses
JFC, comparing Zoubs and Lance Thomas to Colon and Merriweather.  :flush:  Not all role players suck equally.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Belvis Noland on July 07, 2010, 09:23:04 AM
Really?  How so?  We're really not that far apart on our opinions here.... 

Bozo:   "We were NOT stacked."

MIR:     "I swear to God we have to have the stupidest basketball fanbase in the country."


Yup, everybody seems to be on the same page, here. 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: kso_FAN on July 07, 2010, 10:06:34 AM
We had two of the best guards in the country.  Period.  We weren't deep at that spot, and I don't know if that means we were stacked, but we were pretty damn good.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: sys on July 07, 2010, 10:24:59 AM
We had two of the best guards in the country.  Period.  We weren't deep at that spot.

pretty much sums it up.  plus kelly and a bunch of other interchangeable, decent bigs.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: catzacker on July 07, 2010, 10:30:15 AM
Hell no, we weren't totally loaded like a UNC, UK, KU, etc but we were pretty stacked.  Solid talent, several deep at pretty much every spot.

Colon started...  and Energy played significant minutes at crucial times for God's sake.  We were NOT stacked.

I swear to God we have to have the stupidest basketball fanbase in the country.

Was Duke stacked?  They had Brian Zoubek and Lance Thomas playing big minutes.
Was Kansas stacked?  They had Brady Morningstar and Tyrel Reed playing big minutes.
Texas with Dogus Balbay, West Virginia with Cam Throughman and Wellington Smith.

Do you know what role players are?  Every player isn't going to be a star.  Those players were not asked to score at crucial times,  Luis was never even on the floor at crucial times and when Energy was it was for well Energy.  All teams have limited skilled role players who see the court.

dumbasses
JFC, comparing Zoubs and Lance Thomas to Colon and Merriweather.  :flush:  Not all role players suck equally.

yeah, don't understand that one.  or even he ku comparo.  i'd have sucked off a stranger to have brady or tyrel instead of irving or energy. or wellington smith instead of colon.  Denis, Pulls, Sutton, Kelly, Colon w/Sams as the 6th man & Judge getting minutes later in the year    ...that is/was pretty good.   And now next year we lose 3 of those 7.  
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: MakeItRain on July 07, 2010, 11:50:49 AM
Hell no, we weren't totally loaded like a UNC, UK, KU, etc but we were pretty stacked.  Solid talent, several deep at pretty much every spot.

Colon started...  and Energy played significant minutes at crucial times for God's sake.  We were NOT stacked.

I swear to God we have to have the stupidest basketball fanbase in the country.

Was Duke stacked?  They had Brian Zoubek and Lance Thomas playing big minutes.
Was Kansas stacked?  They had Brady Morningstar and Tyrel Reed playing big minutes.
Texas with Dogus Balbay, West Virginia with Cam Throughman and Wellington Smith.

Do you know what role players are?  Every player isn't going to be a star.  Those players were not asked to score at crucial times,  Luis was never even on the floor at crucial times and when Energy was it was for well Energy.  All teams have limited skilled role players who see the court.

dumbasses
JFC, comparing Zoubs and Lance Thomas to Colon and Merriweather.  :flush:  Not all role players suck equally.

yeah, don't understand that one.  or even he ku comparo.  i'd have sucked off a stranger to have brady or tyrel instead of irving or energy. or wellington smith instead of colon.  Denis, Pulls, Sutton, Kelly, Colon w/Sams as the 6th man & Judge getting minutes later in the year    ...that is/was pretty good.   And now next year we lose 3 of those 7.  

Zoubek shouldn't have been included, although if he played for KSU we would have idiot fans complaining about his lack of scoring.  The rest of the guys I mentioned would have been limited role players, just like Lu and Energy were.  I wouldn't take Brady or Tyrel instead of Energy.  Those guys provided scoring and not much else, did we need more scoring at the guard spots?  Round pegs, square hole.  Why would you compare Wellington Smith to Luis?  Do you know who Smith is?  A better comparo would be Smith to Sutton or Samuels.  That proves my point about a "stacked" team, who would you rather have, Samuels, Sutton, or Smith?

Even though he started Lu was at times the 5th big man option, its stupid to point to those guys as to why the team wasn't "stacked."   
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: catzacker on July 07, 2010, 12:45:20 PM
brady and tyrel played just as much defense as energy and provided a hint of offense.  energy wasn't some goddamned defensive wizard and he provided nothing offensively. 

having multiple players at one position doesn't mean the team is fracking stacked.  we had a decent 7 which gave us a good team.  after that?.....
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 07, 2010, 01:38:22 PM
When you're bringing doodz like JamSam, Wally, Hotrod, etc off your bench, you're pretty stacked.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: mcmwcat on July 07, 2010, 02:00:23 PM
last year's ksu men's basketball team had the most stacked ksu men's basketball team since ___________ ?

1988.  relative to the little college basketball emaw has witnessed in their lifetime i can see why people think last year's team was stacked.  lu colon doesn't start for any 'stacked' team
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Poster formerly known as jthutch on July 07, 2010, 03:06:15 PM
last year's ksu men's basketball team had the most stacked ksu men's basketball team since ___________ ?

1988.  relative to the little college basketball emaw has witnessed in their lifetime i can see why people think last year's team was stacked.  lu colon doesn't start for any 'stacked' team


Was 1988 really that stacked?  I would have to go back to 1958 With Boozer and Par.  But what eve's don't really care how stacked we are I just know we are going to be good this year see Steve Dave's how good are we going to be this year thread.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: StayOutOfTrees on July 07, 2010, 03:13:29 PM
To quote some irelevant radio announcer a few years back, you all have "been beat by the dumb stick."
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 07, 2010, 03:30:07 PM
last year's ksu men's basketball team had the most stacked ksu men's basketball team since ___________ ?

1988.  relative to the little college basketball emaw has witnessed in their lifetime i can see why people think last year's team was stacked.  lu colon doesn't start for any 'stacked' team


Was 1988 really that stacked? 

pffff everyone knows we weren't stacked in 88', we were "LOADED", dumbass
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 07, 2010, 03:47:08 PM
Just to clear things up with the whole "stacked or not" debate...

no, i guess if asked i wouldn't call last teams stacked; more like well-constructed. we had the right pieces at the right spots to be very successful in college basketball. we didn't have elite (although very good) talent, or elite depth.

overall, both our overall talent level and depth level will be better next year. on paper it's the best ksu team top to bottom any of us have seen before, so might as well call it stacked. we shall see.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Benja on July 07, 2010, 03:48:42 PM
shazbot!, tough crowd to please

everyone these days is young. we had one of the older teams in the nation. we had system continuity. we had some of the best and most experienced guards in a guard-driven league. we had an inside scoring threat.  we had length, athleticism, and enough depth. probably 7 times out of ten we beat butler, we're in the final four, and then who knows. we were a national title favorite for crying out loud. in this day of one and done's everyone's got a weakness. i don't even know what the hell i'm arguing right now. i never said we were stacked, but whether you think we were or not, let's at least agree to stop discussing made up college positions like the "5-spot". we are fans of elite basketball now, let's act like it.



http://kenpom.com/height.php?s=ExpRank

We had the 159th oldest team in the nation


Chi, holiday inn vs hampton???

 :confused:

our starting line-up and first guy off the bench were old as hell... and add in CK. we had a big frosh class but minutes-wise we were old.

I just wanted to be a dick

Totally. This thread is just a whole bunch a dicks
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: michigancat on July 07, 2010, 04:07:41 PM
Zoubek shouldn't have been included, although if he played for KSU we would have idiot fans complaining about his lack of scoring.

No, I would beat them into submission w/ his insane rebounding stats and 63% FG%.  They wouldn't complain for long.  You really gave pretty horrible examples all around.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: MakeItRain on July 07, 2010, 08:26:21 PM
Zoubek shouldn't have been included, although if he played for KSU we would have idiot fans complaining about his lack of scoring.

No, I would beat them into submission w/ his insane rebounding stats and 63% FG%.  They wouldn't complain for long.  You really gave pretty horrible examples all around.

 :cheese:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Andy on July 09, 2010, 10:23:03 AM
when its all said and done, there may have been 6 nba guys on our roster last year.  thats pretty stacked.


back to the topic, I personally think Russell would have played as much as JP did as a freshman if the roster was what it was in '07-'08.  This season I'd like to see Nick get the early minutes with Irving filling in as the "hustle" guy. 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: steve dave on July 09, 2010, 10:25:41 AM
when its all said and done, there may have been 6 nba guys on our roster last year.  thats pretty stacked.

WTF
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Andy on July 09, 2010, 10:34:08 AM
when its all said and done, there may have been 6 nba guys on our roster last year.  thats pretty stacked.

WTF

judge, pullen, kelly, samuels, clems, mcgruder

i think they could all see a cup of coffee. 

Title: Re: Nick
Post by: jtksu on July 09, 2010, 10:44:15 AM
I would like to facepunch like 95% of the people on this board.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: ChiComCat on July 09, 2010, 11:10:00 AM
when its all said and done, there may have been 6 nba guys on our roster last year.  thats pretty stacked.


I count 2, maybe 3 that will be drafted, probably 0 that will start or play sig minutes in the league.
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Trim on July 09, 2010, 11:23:32 AM
when its all said and done, there may have been 6 nba guys on our roster last year.  thats pretty stacked.

WTF

judge, pullen, kelly, samuels, clems, mcgruder

i think they could all see a cup of coffee. 



Are you berk54 of goEMAW's hoops twitter/status/wall thread fame?
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Andy on July 09, 2010, 11:30:26 AM
when its all said and done, there may have been 6 nba guys on our roster last year.  thats pretty stacked.


I count 2, maybe 3 that will be drafted, probably 0 that will start or play sig minutes in the league.

i would tend to lean more to this than anything else.  but the potential is there for any of those 6 to get a significant look from the NBA.  thats all i was really saying. 
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Andy on July 09, 2010, 11:32:44 AM
when its all said and done, there may have been 6 nba guys on our roster last year.  thats pretty stacked.

WTF

judge, pullen, kelly, samuels, clems, mcgruder

i think they could all see a cup of coffee. 



Are you berk54 of goEMAW's hoops twitter/status/wall thread fame?

nope
Title: Re: Nick
Post by: Saulbadguy on July 09, 2010, 11:38:46 AM
Enjoy what once was.