(02-26-2009 12:26 AM)eh9198 Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 11:30 PM)Dr. J. Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 10:37 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 06:36 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 06:24 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Can an old-timer compare Wimp's NIT team with this one for me? Which was better?

This year's team couldn't hold the jock strap of Wimp's team:

Derek Fisher or Patterson- you got to be kidding me
Malik Dixon or Mouzy- ditto
Joe Stephens vs. Shane- I love Shane, but I kind of doubt he'll play 2 or 3 years in the NBA like Joe did. Have to give it to Joe, but this one is very close.
[b]Muntrelle Dobbins or Mike Smith (or Burton)- [/b]I'd pick Dobbins here with very little hesitation.
I can't remember the 5th starter on Wimp's team. I got to assume John Fowler could give him a run for his money. Still, when you compare them man to man, there is really no comparison between the teams.

Mike Smith wouldn't make a pimple on Muntrell Dobbins butt. You shouldn't even mention those two in the same breath.

O.K. I'll create a little controversy. Fish was a great player. But defensively he probably wasn't any better than BP. But he also scored and probably saw the floor better, and especially in view of his career in the pros, he'd win that battle hands down.
Malik vs. III. On this one, I'm going to go against the grain. We're remembering Malik as a Junior and Senior, and he couldn't play defense at all. Fine shooter. But I'm predicting III will be every bit as good as Malik offensively, and contrary to popular opinion, will be a much better defensive player before he's through.

Shane vs. Joe Stephens. I'm not sure that Shane isn't a better player, notwithstanding Joe's few years in the pros. This would be a close call.

John Fowler vs. Rod Smith. Fish was the heart and soul of that team. Fowler is the heart and soul of this one. I'd have to give Fowler the edge, although Rod was a nice player.

And Muntrelle Dobbins vs. Mike Smith. No contest. Money was a dominating force in the paint. Not a great shooter, but he was really tough to play against. However, Mike really has better offensive skills. I would still have to go with Money. But here's why I think our current this team is better. Depth. When Money fouled out, we were dead. That's why we lost at Vanderbilt in the NIT. We had nobody behind him. With Mike, Wayne, and Bails, I think we would win the battle of the 5, just due to depth.

Coaching. Wimp was a great coach. If we could set screens for III the way he managed to set them for Malik, and allow III to take as many shots as Malik used to take, it would be fun to watch. Just my opinion. There's really no way to compare.

I love III and really hope they set him up better to play to his strengths, because I think he can be really good, but in my humble opinion III is not in Malik Dixon's league. To me, Malik might have been the 2nd best player on that team behind Fish (although I think Dobbins was awfully great). Isn't Malik the 2nd all time points scorer behind James Scott? And he might have been #1 if the focus hadn't been on Derrick Hall early in his career.

I honsetly think that team was the greatest collection of talent we've ever had at UALR.

Time makes all things seem greater than they were. Who honestly can tell me they thought Derek Fisher would be a first round NBA draft pick and play all these years in the pros. Not one of us. Most thought he was a nice Sun Belt player, but it was inconceivable what he's accomplished.

As far as Malik, he played no defense, as I recall. But was a terrific shooter, but his 3 point average won't be any better than 3's, and the line was closer than it is now. Plus he had a coach who set up plays that enabled him to take advantage of his skills. In 1996-97, he only shot 36.7% from the 3 point line, but he took 227 3 pointers. By comparison, this season, III has only taken 157 3 point shots, and is shooting 40.1% from beyond the arc. And those figures are skewed because he's taken several mid court desperation shots at the end of games, which lowered his percentage slightly. Give III two more seasons and let's see how it all plays out.

(02-26-2009 12:26 AM)eh9198 Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 11:30 PM)Dr. J. Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 10:37 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 06:36 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 06:24 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Can an old-timer compare Wimp's NIT team with this one for me? Which was better?

This year's team couldn't hold the jock strap of Wimp's team:

Derek Fisher or Patterson- you got to be kidding me
Malik Dixon or Mouzy- ditto
Joe Stephens vs. Shane- I love Shane, but I kind of doubt he'll play 2 or 3 years in the NBA like Joe did. Have to give it to Joe, but this one is very close.
[b]Muntrelle Dobbins or Mike Smith (or Burton)- [/b]I'd pick Dobbins here with very little hesitation.
I can't remember the 5th starter on Wimp's team. I got to assume John Fowler could give him a run for his money. Still, when you compare them man to man, there is really no comparison between the teams.

Mike Smith wouldn't make a pimple on Muntrell Dobbins butt. You shouldn't even mention those two in the same breath.

O.K. I'll create a little controversy. Fish was a great player. But defensively he probably wasn't any better than BP. But he also scored and probably saw the floor better, and especially in view of his career in the pros, he'd win that battle hands down.
Malik vs. III. On this one, I'm going to go against the grain. We're remembering Malik as a Junior and Senior, and he couldn't play defense at all. Fine shooter. But I'm predicting III will be every bit as good as Malik offensively, and contrary to popular opinion, will be a much better defensive player before he's through.

Shane vs. Joe Stephens. I'm not sure that Shane isn't a better player, notwithstanding Joe's few years in the pros. This would be a close call.

John Fowler vs. Rod Smith. Fish was the heart and soul of that team. Fowler is the heart and soul of this one. I'd have to give Fowler the edge, although Rod was a nice player.

And Muntrelle Dobbins vs. Mike Smith. No contest. Money was a dominating force in the paint. Not a great shooter, but he was really tough to play against. However, Mike really has better offensive skills. I would still have to go with Money. But here's why I think our current this team is better. Depth. When Money fouled out, we were dead. That's why we lost at Vanderbilt in the NIT. We had nobody behind him. With Mike, Wayne, and Bails, I think we would win the battle of the 5, just due to depth.

Coaching. Wimp was a great coach. If we could set screens for III the way he managed to set them for Malik, and allow III to take as many shots as Malik used to take, it would be fun to watch. Just my opinion. There's really no way to compare.

I love III and really hope they set him up better to play to his strengths, because I think he can be really good, but in my humble opinion III is not in Malik Dixon's league. To me, Malik might have been the 2nd best player on that team behind Fish (although I think Dobbins was awfully great). Isn't Malik the 2nd all time points scorer behind James Scott? And he might have been #1 if the focus hadn't been on Derrick Hall early in his career.

I honsetly think that team was the greatest collection of talent we've ever had at UALR.

I agree, that grandparent pride is coming out in Doc. Matt is good, but he's no Malik Dixon. Doc is prejudiced in this case.

(02-26-2009 10:38 AM)Dr. J. Wrote:  

(02-26-2009 12:26 AM)eh9198 Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 11:30 PM)Dr. J. Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 10:37 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 06:36 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 06:24 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Can an old-timer compare Wimp's NIT team with this one for me? Which was better?

This year's team couldn't hold the jock strap of Wimp's team:

Derek Fisher or Patterson- you got to be kidding me
Malik Dixon or Mouzy- ditto
Joe Stephens vs. Shane- I love Shane, but I kind of doubt he'll play 2 or 3 years in the NBA like Joe did. Have to give it to Joe, but this one is very close.
[b]Muntrelle Dobbins or Mike Smith (or Burton)- [/b]I'd pick Dobbins here with very little hesitation.
I can't remember the 5th starter on Wimp's team. I got to assume John Fowler could give him a run for his money. Still, when you compare them man to man, there is really no comparison between the teams.

Mike Smith wouldn't make a pimple on Muntrell Dobbins butt. You shouldn't even mention those two in the same breath.

O.K. I'll create a little controversy. Fish was a great player. But defensively he probably wasn't any better than BP. But he also scored and probably saw the floor better, and especially in view of his career in the pros, he'd win that battle hands down.
Malik vs. III. On this one, I'm going to go against the grain. We're remembering Malik as a Junior and Senior, and he couldn't play defense at all. Fine shooter. But I'm predicting III will be every bit as good as Malik offensively, and contrary to popular opinion, will be a much better defensive player before he's through.

Shane vs. Joe Stephens. I'm not sure that Shane isn't a better player, notwithstanding Joe's few years in the pros. This would be a close call.

John Fowler vs. Rod Smith. Fish was the heart and soul of that team. Fowler is the heart and soul of this one. I'd have to give Fowler the edge, although Rod was a nice player.

And Muntrelle Dobbins vs. Mike Smith. No contest. Money was a dominating force in the paint. Not a great shooter, but he was really tough to play against. However, Mike really has better offensive skills. I would still have to go with Money. But here's why I think our current this team is better. Depth. When Money fouled out, we were dead. That's why we lost at Vanderbilt in the NIT. We had nobody behind him. With Mike, Wayne, and Bails, I think we would win the battle of the 5, just due to depth.

Coaching. Wimp was a great coach. If we could set screens for III the way he managed to set them for Malik, and allow III to take as many shots as Malik used to take, it would be fun to watch. Just my opinion. There's really no way to compare.

I love III and really hope they set him up better to play to his strengths, because I think he can be really good, but in my humble opinion III is not in Malik Dixon's league. To me, Malik might have been the 2nd best player on that team behind Fish (although I think Dobbins was awfully great). Isn't Malik the 2nd all time points scorer behind James Scott? And he might have been #1 if the focus hadn't been on Derrick Hall early in his career.

I honsetly think that team was the greatest collection of talent we've ever had at UALR.

Time makes all things seem greater than they were. Who honestly can tell me they thought Derek Fisher would be a first round NBA draft pick and play all these years in the pros. Not one of us. Most thought he was a nice Sun Belt player, but it was inconceivable what he's accomplished.

As far as Malik, he played no defense, as I recall. But was a terrific shooter, but his 3 point average won't be any better than 3's, and the line was closer than it is now. Plus he had a coach who set up plays that enabled him to take advantage of his skills. In 1996-97, he only shot 36.7% from the 3 point line, but he took 227 3 pointers. By comparison, this season, III has only taken 157 3 point shots, and is shooting 40.1% from beyond the arc. And those figures are skewed because he's taken several mid court desperation shots at the end of games, which lowered his percentage slightly. Give III two more seasons and let's see how it all plays out.

Malik wasn't what I'd call a lock down defender, but maybe that was because he worked his ass off trying to loose his defender while on offense. But, Matt isn't any lock down defender either. I don't recall any shooting guard that we ever had that moved better without the ball. While I too love Matt, I've said many times that Matt does not move well without the ball, and he doesn't. As far as Wimp running plays for Malik, and giving him ball screens, that's true. Why doesn't Steve do that for Matt, I don't know you'd have to ask him. My answer would be, that as a coach, he's not in Wimp's league. He can coach defense, but is sorely lacking as an offensive coach.

(02-26-2009 10:48 AM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(02-26-2009 12:26 AM)eh9198 Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 11:30 PM)Dr. J. Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 10:37 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 06:36 PM)mjs Wrote:  

(02-25-2009 06:24 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Can an old-timer compare Wimp's NIT team with this one for me? Which was better?

This year's team couldn't hold the jock strap of Wimp's team:

Derek Fisher or Patterson- you got to be kidding me
Malik Dixon or Mouzy- ditto
Joe Stephens vs. Shane- I love Shane, but I kind of doubt he'll play 2 or 3 years in the NBA like Joe did. Have to give it to Joe, but this one is very close.
[b]Muntrelle Dobbins or Mike Smith (or Burton)- [/b]I'd pick Dobbins here with very little hesitation.
I can't remember the 5th starter on Wimp's team. I got to assume John Fowler could give him a run for his money. Still, when you compare them man to man, there is really no comparison between the teams.

Mike Smith wouldn't make a pimple on Muntrell Dobbins butt. You shouldn't even mention those two in the same breath.

O.K. I'll create a little controversy. Fish was a great player. But defensively he probably wasn't any better than BP. But he also scored and probably saw the floor better, and especially in view of his career in the pros, he'd win that battle hands down.
Malik vs. III. On this one, I'm going to go against the grain. We're remembering Malik as a Junior and Senior, and he couldn't play defense at all. Fine shooter. But I'm predicting III will be every bit as good as Malik offensively, and contrary to popular opinion, will be a much better defensive player before he's through.

Shane vs. Joe Stephens. I'm not sure that Shane isn't a better player, notwithstanding Joe's few years in the pros. This would be a close call.

John Fowler vs. Rod Smith. Fish was the heart and soul of that team. Fowler is the heart and soul of this one. I'd have to give Fowler the edge, although Rod was a nice player.

And Muntrelle Dobbins vs. Mike Smith. No contest. Money was a dominating force in the paint. Not a great shooter, but he was really tough to play against. However, Mike really has better offensive skills. I would still have to go with Money. But here's why I think our current this team is better. Depth. When Money fouled out, we were dead. That's why we lost at Vanderbilt in the NIT. We had nobody behind him. With Mike, Wayne, and Bails, I think we would win the battle of the 5, just due to depth.

Coaching. Wimp was a great coach. If we could set screens for III the way he managed to set them for Malik, and allow III to take as many shots as Malik used to take, it would be fun to watch. Just my opinion. There's really no way to compare.

I love III and really hope they set him up better to play to his strengths, because I think he can be really good, but in my humble opinion III is not in Malik Dixon's league. To me, Malik might have been the 2nd best player on that team behind Fish (although I think Dobbins was awfully great). Isn't Malik the 2nd all time points scorer behind James Scott? And he might have been #1 if the focus hadn't been on Derrick Hall early in his career.

I honsetly think that team was the greatest collection of talent we've ever had at UALR.

I agree, that grandparent pride is coming out in Doc. Matt is good, but he's no Malik Dixon. Doc is prejudiced in this case.

Maybe true, but remember that III has two more years. We're remembering Malik as a Junior and Senior. When all is said and done, we can then measure what each accomplished. Until then, I guess I'll have to live with being predjudiced. So be it.

(02-26-2009 12:28 AM)eh9198 Wrote:  Oh, and I think Dobbins was very good offensively. If I'm not mistaken he's one of the career leaders in shooting %.

Your percentage is going to be very good when every shot you take is one foot from the basket. Money was similar to Jones Jennings in that he was a bull around the basket. At least that's my recollection. I don't ever remember him shooting anything but close in shots.

(02-26-2009 11:43 AM)Dr. J. Wrote:  

(02-26-2009 12:28 AM)eh9198 Wrote:  Oh, and I think Dobbins was very good offensively. If I'm not mistaken he's one of the career leaders in shooting %.

Your percentage is going to be very good when every shot you take is one foot from the basket. Money was similar to Jones Jennings in that he was a bull around the basket. At least that's my recollection. I don't ever remember him shooting anything but close in shots.

He didn't, but only because he was a post player. Close shots were his job. And remember, Dobbins was the SBC Player of the Year in 1997.