(05-15-2017 12:41 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 03:01 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:43 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:37 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:27 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Can you give us a link to where he is rated as a 4* at? All the major rating services have him listed as a 3*.


actually I just saw on ESPN he is listed as a 4* with a composite of 82. A lot closer to Andre Allen than Dwight Howard and Harrison Barnes. The fact that you even put him in the same sentence as DH and HB says something though.

Research the 247 composite rankings (linked in my post above), and get back to me.

Yep, so your expectations are Lomax to be Dwight Howard or Harrison Barnes, got it.

My expectation is you don't want to have a reasonable discussion about this, if that is your truthful takeaway.

You guys were saying Lomax is projecting similar to Antonio and Andre. I showed you the link that proves his numbers are as close to Howard and Barnes, as he is to Antonio and Andre. The point is - there is a big gap between his numbers and the 2 backups to whom you were relegating him.

The point is, that AA and Barton performed better than their ranking but that is what should be expected of Lomax.

That's a stretching point, for you. Nowhere did you indicate those guys out-performed their rankings. It runs counter the point you were trying to make!

Instead, you tried to lump Lomax in with other familiar 3-star pg's (first mistake), and indicate they all had similar rankings.

You missed this one. Best to just leave Lomax alone and find another point to argue.

(05-15-2017 10:33 AM)Joe1 Wrote:  But I won't voice my displeasure in a harsh way again because whether you believe it or not I took no pleasure or joy out of criticizing and bashing Josh. It was a miserable time for me.

I am sorry for your loss.

Have you spoken sweeter?

Have you loved deeper?

Have you given forgiveness you'd been denying?

(05-15-2017 03:59 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 12:41 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 03:01 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:43 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:37 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Research the 247 composite rankings (linked in my post above), and get back to me.

Yep, so your expectations are Lomax to be Dwight Howard or Harrison Barnes, got it.

My expectation is you don't want to have a reasonable discussion about this, if that is your truthful takeaway.

You guys were saying Lomax is projecting similar to Antonio and Andre. I showed you the link that proves his numbers are as close to Howard and Barnes, as he is to Antonio and Andre. The point is - there is a big gap between his numbers and the 2 backups to whom you were relegating him.

The point is, that AA and Barton performed better than their ranking but that is what should be expected of Lomax.

That's a stretching point, for you. Nowhere did you indicate those guys out-performed their rankings. It runs counter the point you were trying to make!

Instead, you tried to lump Lomax in with other familiar 3-star pg's (first mistake), and indicate they all had similar rankings.

You missed this one. Best to just leave Lomax alone and find another point to argue.

I clearly said that we should expect that level of production from him.

132 Rivals
140 24/7 composite
194 24/7

(05-16-2017 02:27 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 03:59 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 12:41 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 03:01 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 12:43 AM)memtigbb Wrote:  Yep, so your expectations are Lomax to be Dwight Howard or Harrison Barnes, got it.

My expectation is you don't want to have a reasonable discussion about this, if that is your truthful takeaway.

You guys were saying Lomax is projecting similar to Antonio and Andre. I showed you the link that proves his numbers are as close to Howard and Barnes, as he is to Antonio and Andre. The point is - there is a big gap between his numbers and the 2 backups to whom you were relegating him.

The point is, that AA and Barton performed better than their ranking but that is what should be expected of Lomax.

That's a stretching point, for you. Nowhere did you indicate those guys out-performed their rankings. It runs counter the point you were trying to make!

Instead, you tried to lump Lomax in with other familiar 3-star pg's (first mistake), and indicate they all had similar rankings.

You missed this one. Best to just leave Lomax alone and find another point to argue.

I clearly said that we should expect that level of production from him.

132 Rivals
140 24/7 composite
194 24/7

You said Lomax should be expected to perform similarly to Antonio Barton and Andre Allen since they're all 3-star PG's.

Fact - Lomax is a composite 4-star PG, while the other two guys were in fact composite 3-stars.

Fact - Lomax comp score is .9253. Antonio was .8512. Andre was .8444. That's a sizeable difference.

Fact - Lomax is #132 on Rivals. (Something you love to poke at him about.) Antonio and Andre were both not ranked in the Rivals top 150. However, we did have one 3-star ranked in the Rivals top 150 for Andre's class. It was Robert Dozier.

Lomax may or may not sign with us. Lomax may or may not be a high level D1 starting PG. I just don't understand your need to throw Lomax under the bus to try to go after Tubby. Regardless, you're failing miserably.

(05-16-2017 10:51 AM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-16-2017 02:27 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 03:59 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 12:41 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-14-2017 03:01 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  My expectation is you don't want to have a reasonable discussion about this, if that is your truthful takeaway.

You guys were saying Lomax is projecting similar to Antonio and Andre. I showed you the link that proves his numbers are as close to Howard and Barnes, as he is to Antonio and Andre. The point is - there is a big gap between his numbers and the 2 backups to whom you were relegating him.

The point is, that AA and Barton performed better than their ranking but that is what should be expected of Lomax.

That's a stretching point, for you. Nowhere did you indicate those guys out-performed their rankings. It runs counter the point you were trying to make!

Instead, you tried to lump Lomax in with other familiar 3-star pg's (first mistake), and indicate they all had similar rankings.

You missed this one. Best to just leave Lomax alone and find another point to argue.

I clearly said that we should expect that level of production from him.

132 Rivals
140 24/7 composite
194 24/7

You said Lomax should be expected to perform similarly to Antonio Barton and Andre Allen since they're all 3-star PG's.

Fact - Lomax is a composite 4-star PG, while the other two guys were in fact composite 3-stars.

Fact - Lomax comp score is .9253. Antonio was .8512. Andre was .8444. That's a sizeable difference.

Fact - Lomax is #132 on Rivals. (Something you love to poke at him about.) Antonio and Andre were both not ranked in the Rivals top 150. However, we did have one 3-star ranked in the Rivals top 150 for Andre's class. It was Robert Dozier.

Lomax may or may not sign with us. Lomax may or may not be a high level D1 starting PG. I just don't understand your need to throw Lomax under the bus to try to go after Tubby. Regardless, you're failing miserably.

You clearly have a problem with reading comprehension because you keep bringing up the same nonsense. Did you expect Rodney Carney to perform at that level based on his ranking coming out of high school? Carney performed at the level of a 5* recruit.

CDR was ranked #75 coming out of high school. His performance level at Memphis was similar to a recruit ranked in the top 10. He outperformed his ranking.

Jeff Robinson was ranked #36 by Rivals. When he was at Memphis he performed at the same level as an unranked zero star player.

For the umpteenth time, AA and Antonio Barton performed at a superior level to their ranking. Lomax, based on his ranking, should be expected to perform at the same level.

I am confident that this still isn't making it through to you. If Lomax achieves this level of performance, would you be happy with him?

Antonio Barton
FR: 8.2ppg, 1.7apg, 46%fg, 44%3pt
SO: 6.6ppg, 1.6apg, 48%fg, 40%3pt
JR: 5.6ppg, 1.1apg, 39%fg, 40%3pt
SR: 7.5ppg, 2.1apg, 37%fg, 34%3pt

I would be very happy if I could trade on a few more assists per game for a little lower 3 point shooting. Would you be happy with this level of performance from him?

Chris Chiozza
FR: 3.9ppg, 2.2apg, 39%fg, 32%3pt
SO: 7.2ppg, 4.3apg, 34%fg, 32%3pt
JR: 7.2ppg, 3.8apg, 41%fg, 31%3pt

Would you be happy with this level of performance?

Willie Kemp
FR: 6.4ppg, 2.2apg, 39%fg, 37%3pt
SO: 5.0ppg, 1.5apg, 28%fg, 26%3pt
JR: 2.9ppg, 1.2apg, 38%fg, 37%3pt
SR: 7.4ppg, 4.3apg, 38%fg, 39%3pt

Again, what should be expected of Lomax based on his ranking is to perform at the same level as Antonio Barton, Chris Chiozza and Willie Kemp. All were different players in different seasons ranked at different levels.

This has nothing to do with actual player rankings, throwing players under the bus, or any other gibberish. This has to do with having reasonable expectations for a player based on his ranking coming out of high school.

(05-13-2017 11:36 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Now getting back to Rivals and 24/7 and rankings. My point remains the same. The services certainly miss on players, but if you are a 5* the odds are that you will perform at a certain level and the same goes for 4*, 3* and players that aren't ranked in the top 150.

So I am in no way denigrating or belittling Alex Lomax. I am saying that based on his rating he should be eventually HOPED to be a solid sub on a good team like Andre Allen or Antonio Barton. Anyone who expects him to come in as a freshman in 2019 and run an NCAA caliber D1 team as an above average point guard is putting unreasonable expectations on him.

Unlike you, every time I respond to you, I continue to ask reasonable questions in the hope that you will try and answer them with common sense and logic. So far you have been unable to do that with me or anyone else here.

Here is a complete list of 3* players from the Greater Memphis area, from Rivals since 2010. Tell me if you think it is reasonable to hope for Lomax to be a solid role player for a good team, or if we can expect him to be a big time contributor.

3* Memphians Since 2010

Although this was not addressed to me, it is the post of which I took exception. You and I - along with the few people still reading this thread - know that you were wrong and are now sliding the goalposts. I'll say one other thing then I'm done with this.

You have NOTHING to base your assumption that Lomax will perform to the level of AA and AB. NOTHING. They were not ranked similarly. And you have no analysis or model that compares where they performed versus where they were ranked - and whether or not that is similar to where Lomax is ranked. You can say "but they outperformed their rankings, so they ended up where Lomax will be" all you want. But it's not based on factual evidence like you first started out implying.

Lomax is higher ranked than they were. That's the only fact we have right now. Anything else is opinion and an attempt to shift your position from this post where you first compared Lomax to AA and AB, and erroneously called him a 3-star.

(05-15-2017 10:35 PM)jamammy Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 10:33 AM)Joe1 Wrote:  But I won't voice my displeasure in a harsh way again because whether you believe it or not I took no pleasure or joy out of criticizing and bashing Josh. It was a miserable time for me.

I am sorry for your loss.

Have you spoken sweeter?

Have you loved deeper?

Have you given forgiveness you'd been denying?

Have you cleaned up your house yet?

(05-17-2017 04:12 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-13-2017 11:36 PM)Stammers Wrote:  Now getting back to Rivals and 24/7 and rankings. My point remains the same. The services certainly miss on players, but if you are a 5* the odds are that you will perform at a certain level and the same goes for 4*, 3* and players that aren't ranked in the top 150.

So I am in no way denigrating or belittling Alex Lomax. I am saying that based on his rating he should be eventually HOPED to be a solid sub on a good team like Andre Allen or Antonio Barton. Anyone who expects him to come in as a freshman in 2019 and run an NCAA caliber D1 team as an above average point guard is putting unreasonable expectations on him.

Unlike you, every time I respond to you, I continue to ask reasonable questions in the hope that you will try and answer them with common sense and logic. So far you have been unable to do that with me or anyone else here.

Here is a complete list of 3* players from the Greater Memphis area, from Rivals since 2010. Tell me if you think it is reasonable to hope for Lomax to be a solid role player for a good team, or if we can expect him to be a big time contributor.

3* Memphians Since 2010

Although this was not addressed to me, it is the post of which I took exception. You and I - along with the few people still reading this thread - know that you were wrong and are now sliding the goalposts. I'll say one other thing then I'm done with this.

You have NOTHING to base your assumption that Lomax will perform to the level of AA and AB. NOTHING. They were not ranked similarly. And you have no analysis or model that compares where they performed versus where they were ranked - and whether or not that is similar to where Lomax is ranked. You can say "but they outperformed their rankings, so they ended up where Lomax will be" all you want. But it's not based on factual evidence like you first started out implying.

Lomax is higher ranked than they were. That's the only fact we have right now. Anything else is opinion and an attempt to shift your position from this post where you first compared Lomax to AA and AB, and erroneously called him a 3-star.

You keep repeating the same joke over and over and over. Good guy that I am, I will keep trying to help you out. First, Lomax is a 3* on virtually every service. Second, as mentioned a half dozen times, you should expect a recruit ranked 85 spots higher than another to outperform him. Third, AA and Barton performed at a higher level than their ranking and Kemp and Chiozza haven't performed as well as expected.

You insist on painting every 4* with the same brush. In your opinion, which player would you expect Lomax to perform at a similar level to?

#25 Carte'Are Gordon 4*
#139 Alex Lomax 4*
#140 KJ Hymes 3*

I know that this is a super difficult brain teaser, a real test of intellect and common sense, but see what you can come up with. Do you expect Lomax to perform at the same level as the #25 or #140 player.

Good luck!

(05-12-2017 12:30 PM)memtiger1987 Wrote:  

(05-12-2017 12:29 PM)cmt Wrote:  I can't believe there is anyone still taking up for Tubby not doing his $3,000,000 job.

You paying him? What's it to you then?

(05-17-2017 10:36 PM)Joe1 Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 10:35 PM)jamammy Wrote:  

(05-15-2017 10:33 AM)Joe1 Wrote:  But I won't voice my displeasure in a harsh way again because whether you believe it or not I took no pleasure or joy out of criticizing and bashing Josh. It was a miserable time for me.

I am sorry for your loss.

Have you spoken sweeter?

Have you loved deeper?

Have you given forgiveness you'd been denying?

Have you cleaned up your house yet?

Uh oh

I'm sensing the ghost of Luther Vandross...