(09-12-2013 01:26 PM)BlazeNBham Wrote:  Is there anybody returning that has more than 14.5 ppg 8.2 rpg in C-USA?

In CUSA play

Armstrong
11.0ppg
5.8 rpg
55.6%
24.8 minutes a game

Rucker
14.9ppg
8.6rpg
40.3%
34.7 minutes per game.

Who's more productive?

Hell, Armstrong is 6-9, 245 and started in the SEC. He's a better NBA prospect than this guy. I could probably name 2 dozen CUSA players that are.

Quote:Rucker is supposed to be a guard.

The guy is 6-5 and shoots FT's like Shaq and has never hit a 3. I doubt he even has a jump shot or ever will. He'd be a disaster on the wing.

Looks like we've got an answer, that was a serious question. Armstrong had 18 and 10 against UAB the first time around last year. Rucker had 20 and 12. Free throw chances killed us that game. ECU 17-23 UAB 4-6

(09-12-2013 01:45 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 01:26 PM)BlazeNBham Wrote:  Is there anybody returning that has more than 14.5 ppg 8.2 rpg in C-USA?

In CUSA play

Armstrong
11.0ppg
5.8 rpg
55.6%
24.8 minutes a game

Rucker
14.9ppg
8.6rpg
40.3%
34.7 minutes per game.

Who's more productive?

Hell, Armstrong is 6-9, 245 and started in the SEC. He's a better NBA prospect than this guy. I could probably name 2 dozen CUSA players that are.

Quote:Rucker is supposed to be a guard.

The guy is 6-5 and shoots FT's like Shaq and has never hit a 3. I doubt he even has a jump shot or ever will. He'd be a disaster on the wing.

Read this article and you'll see why I said he is supposed to be a guard.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/...jerod.html

(09-12-2013 02:00 PM)BlazeNBham Wrote:  Read this article and you'll see why I said he is supposed to be a guard.

If he ever plays guard for you guys, you minimize the only thing he actually does well which is rebound.

(09-12-2013 02:06 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 02:00 PM)BlazeNBham Wrote:  Read this article and you'll see why I said he is supposed to be a guard.

If he ever plays guard for you guys, you minimize the only thing he actually does well which is rebound.

He averaged less than 4 free throw attempts a game. Had 7 total 3 point attempts. Your argument doesn't quite have much of a point.
Hey, there just preseason predictions. Not really a better choice for POY if you are going by expectations.

(09-12-2013 02:06 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 02:00 PM)BlazeNBham Wrote:  Read this article and you'll see why I said he is supposed to be a guard.

If he ever plays guard for you guys, you minimize the only thing he actually does well which is rebound.

I agree. You cannot put this guy at guard. And unless he suddenly learned how to shoot, you can't put him at the 3 either. Basically, he can play the 4 in college. He can do a hell of a job there too.

I think the addition of some guys who can space the floor and a real PG will help Rucker though. The PG position is where we were really hurting last year, and now it appears we have several guys who may be capable of playing it.

(09-12-2013 01:12 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  I take the best NBA prospect pick as CUSA really doesn't have any good NBA prospects.

There is also a more in-depth capsule of each program but I am not to post all of that information.

Better NBA prospect (and presumably a better player than) Boardingham? If that is what they wrote, then I have to question whether they have ever seen any of these guys play.

I am not saying that Rucker doesn't work hard and does not have a good work ethic. I am saying that Boardingham played like a monster every time I saw him play. The guy can not stay out of foul trouble, but he is very physical around the glass and he has good size. Rucker is undersized and truth be told; he benefitted alot from being on a bad team. He did a lot of stat stuffing, because his team was not playing for anything else. If Sampson would not have transferred: I would have taken Boardingham number 1 and Sampson number 2 as the best CUSA PF's. I think that LTU has a good pf, but I can't remember a lot of other guys from other teams.

My first thought was the Watson would be 1st team while Boardingham would be possibly 2nd but most likely 3rd. I was surprised that Brooks (USM) made it but at the same time there must be more forwards than guards. I do love how Brooks plays and glad we have him

(09-12-2013 02:19 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  I agree. You cannot put this guy at guard. And unless he suddenly learned how to shoot, you can't put him at the 3 either. Basically, he can play the 4 in college. He can do a hell of a job there too.

I decided to look up his JUCO stats since the article made him sound like Chris Paul. He was a PF in JUCO too. Here are his senior year stats.

12.4 ppg
9.9 rpg
1.4 apg

Not much better of a shooter.

6-32 (18.8%) in his JUCO career from 3
116-178 (65.2) in his JUCO career there at the line

Is that a big enough sample size Bham? The guy can't shoot.

Quote:POY - Rod Rucker/UAB
Newcomer of the Year - Colin Voss/North Texas
Top Shooter - Neil Watson/USM
Top Rebounder - Rod Rucker/UAB
Top Defender - Neil Watson/USM
Top Playmaker - Neil Watson/USM
Most Versatile - Rod Rucker/UAB
Top NBA Prospect - Rod Rucker/UAB
Most Entertaining - Neil Watson/USM

They really have a hard on for those two huh? They look anywhere else? I've honestly never seen either play, but damn.

I mean I like Neil and all, but dang.

(09-12-2013 02:29 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 02:19 PM)blazers9911 Wrote:  I agree. You cannot put this guy at guard. And unless he suddenly learned how to shoot, you can't put him at the 3 either. Basically, he can play the 4 in college. He can do a hell of a job there too.

I decided to look up his JUCO stats since the article made him sound like Chris Paul. He was a PF in JUCO too. Here are his senior year stats.

12.4 ppg
9.9 rpg
1.4 apg

Not much better of a shooter.

6-32 (18.8%) in his JUCO career from 3
116-178 (65.2) in his JUCO career there at the line

Is that a big enough sample size Bham? The guy can't shoot.

I can't believe somebody is making me agree with you.

There is nothing wrong with being an undersized 4 in college. It can work. But it does not make you a pro prospect.

Hell, if you had to label a guy on UAB as a potential pro prospect, I would choose Swing. He has decent size and is a good shooter. He could be a potential role player for the right team.

E. Pitman is the best pro prospect in CUSA IMO.

-The guy is 6-9, 220 and seriously played shooting guard last year. Even if that's an exageration, he still has great size.

-He still posted a 20.3 PER which is 7th best returning, and solid production across the board even with a disfunctional Marshall team

-hit 65 three's at 37% as a 6-9 guard

-hit 70% FT's, reasonable turnovers etc

Hey but what the hell do I know, go with the 6-5 PF that can't shoot a lick Lindy's

Hey SJ, Washburn is listed as second team and Bohannon is third. Do you, by any chance, have some stats to refute that order?

(09-12-2013 03:15 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  E. Pitman is the best pro prospect in CUSA IMO.

-The guy is 6-9, 220 and seriously played shooting guard last year. Even if that's an exageration, he still has great size.

-He still posted a 20.3 PER which is 7th best returning, and solid production across the board even with a disfunctional Marshall team

-hit 65 three's at 37% as a 6-9 guard

-hit 70% FT's, reasonable turnovers etc

Hey but what the hell do I know, go with the 6-5 PF that can't shoot a lick Lindy's

Here is and example of Pitman's athletic ability to go along with his size (looks legit) and shooting. Rod ******* Rucker. Good Grief

here is some more jaw dropping dunks from Pitman. Marshall seriously had Memphis like athletes and size last year, to bad the got a Herrion for a coach and most of it's now gone. No way they should be ahead of us even with Pitman in any preseason ranking. You don't have that size and athleticism and shoot 3's like and not have NBA potential.

(09-12-2013 01:39 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 01:18 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 01:14 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  The couple of times that I saw him play; he was pulling a Moses Malone. He missed some point blank shots and rebounded his own misses, which padded his stats a lot.

Really? I mean you are being serious right? So he intentionally miss his own shots to give himself to opportunity to rebound his own miss so he could pad his stats?

Nothing to do with the fact he is undersize which makes his shots contestable which means he has to adjust his shot while going in with the big boys so that it doesn't get block. Then he has to be in position to get his rebound in the event he misses his shot and tussle with men 3 to 4 inches taller than him. Yeah....ok!

Where did you read intentional? I am pretty sure that Moses Malone did not intentionally miss shots from 5 feet away, but let's be real; Moses was not the best shooter in the World. If a guy can't shoot from outside of 15 feet then then there are going to be a lot of shots that that he takes that he will know where the ball is coming off the rim. I have literally seen him shoot and then run towards the rim, because he must have know that it was going to be off line.

Okay, but basically your statement is comparing apples to oranges because Moses was 6-10 while Rod is only 6-4.

(09-12-2013 02:19 PM)PirateMarv Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 01:12 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  I take the best NBA prospect pick as CUSA really doesn't have any good NBA prospects.

There is also a more in-depth capsule of each program but I am not to post all of that information.

Better NBA prospect (and presumably a better player than) Boardingham? If that is what they wrote, then I have to question whether they have ever seen any of these guys play.

There was no comparison in the magazine. I don't know who Boardingham is nor do I care. My statement was meant as tongue and cheek. My opinion is that for this upcoming season, CUSA really doesn't have a legitimate NBA prospect and the mag simply said Rucker because they tab him as POY.

Do I believe Rucker has NBA potential, no I do not!

(09-12-2013 03:56 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  My opinion is that for this upcoming season, CUSA really doesn't have a legitimate NBA prospect

Look at those clips of Pitman, and his shooting stats. He'll get NBA scouts out for sure. Lindy's are just idiots picking a 6-5 PF who can't shoot when there is a 6-9 SG with some of the best raw talent around and that hit 2 three's a game at 37%. I'd be friggen embarrassed to have published that pile.

(09-12-2013 04:04 PM)StillJonesing Wrote:  

(09-12-2013 03:56 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  My opinion is that for this upcoming season, CUSA really doesn't have a legitimate NBA prospect

Look at those clips of Pitman, and his shooting stats. He'll get NBA scouts out for sure. Lindy's are just idiots picking a 6-5 PF who can't shoot when there is a 6-9 SG with some of the best raw talent around and that hit 2 three's a game at 37%. I'd be friggen embarrassed to have published that pile.

First, calm the phuck down dude. It ain't that damn serious. Second, what is Pittman this year? Jr or Sr?