You guys got a nice forum here, I am a little upset at myself for just now finding this place. I could have chit-chatting college basketball for an extended period of time, ah well, I am here now and I just wanted to say hello. I've also got a college basketball blog site if anyones interested. Its http://collegebasketball.blog.com/
Great to have you man! I'm glad to see some college guys are starting to roll in! BTW, how did you find JBB?
Welcome to the site, Hater! Your blog looks great. If your posting style is anything like your blog, this will be a great season. I look forward to seeing some of your stuff.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting UKOwnstheSEC:</div><div class="quote_post">Great to have you man! I'm glad to see some college guys are starting to roll in! BTW, how did you find JBB?</div> I got it off of the ESPN college basketball top 25 messege board. I dont remember the person's SN though but thats how i got it.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hater:</div><div class="quote_post">I got it off of the ESPN college basketball top 25 messege board. I dont remember the person's SN though but thats how i got it.</div> I've been reading your blog, and while it's well put together, some of the rankings are bizarre. Maurice Ager #70 under Randolph Morris? How can you possibly justify that? Even with the whole "lack of true centers" argument, that's an insane pick, especially considering you don't have Shagari Alleyne on there. Tim Smith #14? I've seen my fair share of ETSU games, and he is in no way one of the top 25 players in the nation, statistics aside. You seem to give high rankings to guys who score a lot of points in mid majors like Clark, Barea, and Smith, but then you rank Randolph Morris #66. I can't figure your thought process out. One minute it seems like your rankings are based on statistics, and the next it seems like they're based on talent and abilities. I like your profiles of each of the players though. Did you write those all yourself? Are you a scout, professional writer, or just a hardcore fan?
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Voodoo Child:</div><div class="quote_post">I've been reading your blog, and while it's well put together, some of the rankings are bizarre. Maurice Ager #70 under Randolph Morris? How can you possibly justify that? Even with the whole "lack of true centers" argument, that's an insane pick, especially considering you don't have Shagari Alleyne on there. Tim Smith #14? I've seen my fair share of ETSU games, and he is in no way one of the top 25 players in the nation, statistics aside. You seem to give high rankings to guys who score a lot of points in mid majors like Clark, Barea, and Smith, but then you rank Randolph Morris #66. I can't figure your thought process out. One minute it seems like your rankings are based on statistics, and the next it seems like they're based on talent and abilities. I like your profiles of each of the players though. Did you write those all yourself? Are you a scout, professional writer, or just a hardcore fan?</div> I am actually a really big fan of the Mid Majors and I feel as though they get a raw deal a lot of the time, so I like to give them as many props as possible. Smith and Clark I love watching play and I do consider them elite talents in the college basketball game. That and there seems to be a little bit of a drop off in talent on the major level this year. I think people will find this to be the year of the mid major player. My process for picking players the way I did was not by any means a science. I did not exactly put a ton of time into ranking the players or spelling and grammer for that matter, most of time was spent on the players profiles themselves and making a list of the players ratings and stats for people to read up on and get a better understand of who's going to be good next year and what the players strengths and weaknesses are. However, I do take pride in my rankings and although I do not consider them perfect, I think they're adequate enough. Do I consider Randolph to be a better college basketball player than Maurice Ager? No but I do consider his potential and the lack of true centers on the college level. And yes I wrote them all myself. I am not a scout or a professional writer but I am a journalism student at Arizona right now, so may be some day.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting J_Ray:</div><div class="quote_post">Nice to see another College guy, who's your favorite team?</div> Well my grandpa and dad went to Duke, so I was sorta raised as a Dukie, however, I attend UA in Tucson and have become a fan of the Wildcats over the last couple of years. From the brief time I've been here, it seems as though you may be the same.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hater:</div><div class="quote_post">Well my grandpa and dad went to Duke, so I was sorta raised as a Dukie, however, I attend UA in Tucson and have become a fan of the Wildcats over the last couple of years. From the brief time I've been here, it seems as though you may be the same.</div> Well if you are, your suppose to back me up, not ask me how getting owned feels!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting J_Ray:</div><div class="quote_post">Well if you are, your suppose to back me up, not ask me how getting owned feels! </div> I try not to be a biased tool as much as possible.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hater:</div><div class="quote_post">I am actually a really big fan of the Mid Majors and I feel as though they get a raw deal a lot of the time, so I like to give them as many props as possible. Smith and Clark I love watching play and I do consider them elite talents in the college basketball game. That and there seems to be a little bit of a drop off in talent on the major level this year. I think people will find this to be the year of the mid major player. My process for picking players the way I did was not by any means a science. I did not exactly put a ton of time into ranking the players or spelling and grammer for that matter, most of time was spent on the players profiles themselves and making a list of the players ratings and stats for people to read up on and get a better understand of who's going to be good next year and what the players strengths and weaknesses are. However, I do take pride in my rankings and although I do not consider them perfect, I think they're adequate enough. Do I consider Randolph to be a better college basketball player than Maurice Ager? No but I do consider his potential and the lack of true centers on the college level. And yes I wrote them all myself. I am not a scout or a professional writer but I am a journalism student at Arizona right now, so may be some day.</div> It's great that you like to give recognition to the mid-major players, but don't you think you're blowing it way out of proportion by ranking Tim Smith fifty six spots over Maurice Ager? For such a short, erratic, and turnover-prone player, that is one hell of a reach. Living relatively close to the ETSU campus, I've seen a lot of his games, and he is the Bucs' only offensive option, except for Ben Rhoda who was really inconsistent last season. As much as I hate to bring it up, playing for East Tennessee State is a huge advantage to playing at a school like Michigan State. Not only is the competition a lot easier, but the playing time and touches can really inflate a player's stats. Tim Smith took about 200 more shots than Maurice Ager and was the focal point of his team's offense, whereas Ager was playing on the deepest team in the NCAA outside of North Carolina. I have to feel like you'd have Ager as a top ten player if he was playing for a mid major and putting up padded stats. His stats would be a hell of a lot better playing for a mid major. Don't you think the leading scorer for a top three team could put up 20 + ppg playing for a mid major, easily? "A rather smallish guard" is an extremely generous way to describe Smith. He's listed at 5-9 (which is short as is), but everytime I see him live he looks more like 5-4; a midget. That's ultimately what will keep him from being drafted this year. Well, that and the fact that he averages nearly five turnovers per game. As for Ager's game, he is an amazing athlete, perhaps even the best in the NCAA. He's also one of the better shooters in the NCAA, shooting 40% from downtown. He's an above average defender and is a really good penetrator. Most importantly, he's a tough kid who wants to win more than anything else. He was shot and didn't have the bullet in his leg removed until his later years in High School when he could afford it. You're not going to find a more determined competitor. There's a reason why most analysts pick him to be an All-American this season. What's the reasoning behind this quote of yours about Ager? "Will need to take a much bigger role on the team this year and will be looked to produce night in and night out." Not only is Ager Michigan State's leading scorer, but he's also consistent. Don't be fooled by a game log or an ESPN scouting report. Mo Ager occassionally has an off-night shooting the ball, but Michigan State was a deep team last year with a lot of options. When you play for a team like Michigan State, you're not going to lead them in scoring every night. I also don't see how he could take on a bigger role with the team. What's he going to do, become head coach? As for Randolph Morris, he's very overrated. There are more quality centers out there than you allude to, and a lot of them are even mid majors, which I see you love. What about Jason Smith at Colorado State or Kevin Steenberge at Richmond? Those guys should have made your list over Randolph Morris. I like your profiles, just not your rankings. There are a lot of things I don't really like about them, but I'm kind of pressed for time right now, so I only picked out the Ager selection. Maybe later I'll bring up some more rankings that I didn't quite understand. Again, welcome to JBB. It's great to have you here, and I hope you stick around.
This is what I mean when I say Ager is going to have to take a much larger role this year. He's going to have be more of a leader and more of a go to player this year than that of what he has been in his first three seasons at MSU. MSU does lose Chris Hill, Alan Anderson and Kelvin Torbert. Three of their best offensive weapons. His role is going to change this year. My question is whether or not he can step up and become a go to scorer for his team day in and day out. Tim Smith has not only proven to be a go to scorer but has also proven to be the main playmaker and is also a very pesky and solid all around defender. Until last year, Maurice Ager was merely a role player for the Spartans. Tim Smith has been the go to player for ETSU since his very first year on campus and has been able to deliver on a consistent basis. In the games I watched Ager play in last year, he never struck me as an All-American type kind of player. I watched him play @Duke(in person), UCLA, Stanford, Wisconsin, @ Wisconsin, Illinios, @ Indiana as well as in the Big Ten touranemt against Iowa. And he left a lot to be desired in those games. He played well in the NCAA Tourney but his best games of the year during the season were @ Northwestern, Ohio State, Oakland, Michigan, Purdue, N-Western, @GW, Nicholls State and Florida A&M. The only tourney teams out of the bunch being Oakland(last team to get in and had a losing record) and George Washington. Unless you're just going by his tournament performance, I dont think you have much of an argument here. Smith doesn't have to play against Big Ten competition as often but he also doesn't get to play with Big Ten talent. He's proven to be a more consistent offensive threat over the course of his career, a much better playmaker, a more polished and proven college basketball player, a consistent go to player, a good rebounder, a team leader and a solid defensive player. Sure he's smallish and has turnover issues but thats only because of his aggressive nature and style of play, which is exactly why I ranked him where he is. Ager needs to prove to people that he is a legit All-American candidate, he needs to develop more consistency, needs to prove he can lead a team, needs to prove he can be a go to player on a daily basis and he needs to really improve his ball handling and passing ability. In all honesty, if I had the choice I would take Tim Smith over Maurice Ager because Tim Smith is not just a player that pads his stats against poor competition. Lets take a look at what Tim Smith has done as a starter thoughout his three year career against teams from the major 6 conferences. PPG- 19.3 RPG- 3.8 APG- 3.8 TPG- 3.4 FG%- 40 Not to mention he has led and I do mean led his team to two NCAA tourney bids as a freshman and a sophomore and in those two games he put up 48 pts, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 7 turnovers and shot 19 for 48 from the field. Not to bad. Last but not least, every single game Tim Smith has started and played against a team from a major conference has been played on the road! I do respect your opinion greatly though.
Welcome, Hater, great to see another knowledgeable NCAA fan on JBB. This is shaping up to be a great season of talking college hoops!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Schaddy:</div><div class="quote_post">Welcome, Hater, great to see another knowledgeable NCAA fan on JBB. This is shaping up to be a great season of talking college hoops! </div> Thanks for the kind comments Shady, I cant wait for the season to start.
Hater, you're putting way too much stock into this whole "go-to-guy" concept. What does it matter if Maurice Ager didn't start his freshman and sophomore years? Is it not the present that we're talking about? When you go to a school like Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State, etc., you're almost never going to start your first year or two. Last season for the Spartans, Maurice Ager was the closest thing they had to a go-to-guy. He was the one who usually had the ball when the game was on the line, and he was the one who go the most touches. I don't think that you can really blame him for playing on a talented team. Rashad McCants and Raymond Felton weren't go-to-guys for North Carolina. Does that make them less talented than Tim Smith? Definitely not. What is your definition of a go-to-guy exactly anyway? To me, seems like Ager meets the criteria. Also, ask yourself, what's more impressive, being the go-to-guy on East Tennessee State or being the leading scorer on a Final Four team? You attack Maurice Ager because his best games came for the most part against non-tournament teams, but pretty much all of Tim Smith's games came against non-tournament teams. Also, you just named his highest scoring games, but those aren't necessarily his best games. This past season's game at Minnesota, for example, was one of Ager's best games, and he only scored twelve points. It's possible to be a huge factor in a game and not score a lot of points. The teams you named aren't even all that bad either. Ohio State would have made the tournament if they weren't banned, Michigan would have made the tournament if they hadn't had injury and suspension issues later on in the year (you should know this better than anyone; remember the Arizona game?), the Oakland game was against Rawle Marshall (who is now with the Dallas Mavericks), and George Washington was a ranked team for a large part of the season. Then you have teams in there like Purdue who weren't tournament teams but were solid competition none the less. It just seems like to me like you have a habit of tuning in on Ager's worst performances; didn't you watch the NCAA tournament? Why completely discount his tournament performances anyway? That is the time of the year when players are really tested against the best competition in the league. It's in the tournament when you find out the most of a player. Ager recorded 19 points against Vermont, 21 points and 8 rebounds against Kentucky in the Elite Eight, and 24 points against North Carolina in the Final Four, not to mention solid performances in wins against Old Dominion and Duke. While I'm definitely not judging Ager just based on those games, they should certainly be taken into account for this argument. It's not like he's one of those guys who averaged 5 ppg the whole season and then just exploded in the tournament. As I've said way too many times already, he was the leading scorer for Michigan State, and he also averaged 0.1 ppg less than your #11 ranked player, Dee Brown. You bring up the fact that Tim Smith doesn't play with Big Ten talent on his roster like it's something that would help his game, but don't you realize that if he had teammates like Shannon Brown, Alan Anderson, Paul Davis, Kelvin Torbert, and Chris Hill on his roster then his statistics would be far less than what they are now? Don't you think that his style is only suited for a mid-major team that revolves around him? I can't imagine him trying to run the point at Michigan State. Saying that Tim Smith has been a more consistent offensive threat over the course of his career means nothing, because all that matters is last season, where Maurice Ager was a more consistent offensive threat (being an offensive threat is about more than scoring 22 ppg on a mid-major). Smith is a much better playmaker, but Smith is a point guard; Ager is a small forward. That's like comparing Andrew Bogut's rebounding ability to Chris Paul's. You really have no foundation for saying that Tim Smith is a more polished and proven college player either. If anything, he's less proven because he hasn't played at the level that Maurice Ager has, and his game is not more polished; not in the least. Maurice Ager is better a better shooter, athlete, defender, rebounder, and scorer than Tim Smith. The only edge that Smith has is his playmaking ability, which Ager doesn't need as much as a small forward. You said that Smith gets a lot of turnovers because he is aggressive, but Ager is just as aggressive; howcome you don't see him getting five turnovers per game? How does Ager need to prove to people that he's an All-American candidate? Being the leading scorer on a Final Four team as well as possibly being the best athlete in the NCAA isn't enough to make someone an All-American candidate? He's pretty much everything you say he's not - a leader, a good ball handler, and consistent (for a player that plays on the deepest team in the NCAA). The only thing that he needs to work on is his passing. Haven't you noticed that the preseason top fifty candidates for the Wooden Award were released and Maurice Ager's name was on the list but Tim Smith's wasn't? After that, how can you possibly say that he needs to prove to "people" that he's an All-American candidate? Obviously "people" already see him as one. Those statistics against the major six conferences of Tim Smith's that you posted are pretty much meaningless in this argument, because almost all of Maurice Ager's statistics come against the major six conferences. While Tim Smith has played three great teams in his entire career at East Tennessee State (Cincy, Bama, and Wake), Maurice Ager plays teams on that level every other week. The point I'm also trying to get across is that it's not just about what teams you play but about how much the offense focusses on you, how many touches you get, and how much playing time you get. Playing at East Tennessee State allows Tim Smith to be the focal point of everyting his team does, whereas Maurice Ager is playing on a team with four or five future NBA players. You attacked Ager earlier in your post for not being the go-to-guy on Michigan State. If you put Tim Smith on Michigan State, I can guarantee that he wouldn't be the go-to-guy.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Hater, you're putting way too much stock into this whole "go-to-guy" concept. What does it matter if Maurice Ager didn't start his freshman and sophomore years? Is it not the present that we're talking about? When you go to a school like Duke, North Carolina, Michigan State, etc., you're almost never going to start your first year or two. Last season for the Spartans, Maurice Ager was the closest thing they had to a go-to-guy. He was the one who usually had the ball when the game was on the line, and he was the one who go the most touches. I don't think that you can really blame him for playing on a talented team. Rashad McCants and Raymond Felton weren't go-to-guys for North Carolina. Does that make them less talented than Tim Smith? Definitely not. What is your definition of a go-to-guy exactly anyway? To me, seems like Ager meets the criteria. Also, ask yourself, what's more impressive, being the go-to-guy on East Tennessee State or being the leading scorer on a Final Four team?</div> Well my rankings did take into account career accomplishments and career stats as well potential and the present. I understand that its more difficult to start at MSU than it is to start at ETSU. Hell, MSU really could have used a spark plug type player like Smith in 2003 and 2004. May be not Tim Smith and his style but thats exactly what MSU was lacking during that span. However, thats all irrelevent and I understand what it is you're saying but I dont think it hurts Smith case that much. He's proven to be a big game player and a consistent performer on all levels. Whats a go to player to me? Its a player that you can go to at anytime and any situation in a game to get offense. Its a player thats consistently an offensive threat. Ager has not shown the consistency over his three year career. MSU is one of the teams that I really enjoy watching because of their effecient half court offensive game, so I've watched a lot of Ager over the years and outside of his tourney performance last season, he hasnt't exactly been a big game player consistently. I need more consistency out of a player. Consistency, consistency, consistency. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You attack Maurice Ager because his best games came for the most part against non-tournament teams, but pretty much all of Tim Smith's games came against non-tournament teams. Also, you just named his highest scoring games, but those aren't necessarily his best games. This past season's game at Minnesota, for example, was one of Ager's best games, and he only scored twelve points. It's possible to be a huge factor in a game and not score a lot of points. The teams you named aren't even all that bad either. Ohio State would have made the tournament if they weren't banned, Michigan would have made the tournament if they hadn't had injury and suspension issues later on in the year (you should know this better than anyone; remember the Arizona game?), the Oakland game was against Rawle Marshall (who is now with the Dallas Mavericks), and George Washington was a ranked team for a large part of the season. Then you have teams in there like Purdue who weren't tournament teams but were solid competition none the less. It just seems like to me like you have a habit of tuning in on Ager's worst performances; didn't you watch the NCAA tournament?</div> Lets get a couple things straight here. Ohio State would have been a bubble team at best if they weren't banned. Michigan was terrible last year when they played MSU. Oakland had Rawle Marshall as well as a losing record for the year! Purdue was solid competition? Didnt Purdue finish the year at like 7 and 23 or something awful? I suppose thats competitive, if you're trying to compete for the most losses in a season. Of course I watched the tourney. Ager was great. But I need more than a 5 game stretch to convince me. I am sorry, thats just me. Ager's got a lot of potential but not enough of it for me to place him ahead of Tim Smith at this point. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Why completely discount his tournament performances anyway? That is the time of the year when players are really tested against the best competition in the league. It's in the tournament when you find out the most of a player. Ager recorded 19 points against Vermont, 21 points and 8 rebounds against Kentucky in the Elite Eight, and 24 points against North Carolina in the Final Four, not to mention solid performances in wins against Old Dominion and Duke. While I'm definitely not judging Ager just based on those games, they should certainly be taken into account for this argument. It's not like he's one of those guys who averaged 5 ppg the whole season and then just exploded in the tournament. As I've said way too many times already, he was the leading scorer for Michigan State, and he also averaged 0.1 ppg less than your #11 ranked player, Dee Brown.</div> I am not discounting the NCAA tourney but its only a five game stretch. As I also mentioned Tim Smith performed exceptionally well against highly seeded teams in games that were basically road games for them in his freshman and sophomore seasons. Tournament games definetly count. Not sure what Dee Brown has to do with this. Dee Brown was also the Big Ten Player of the Year. I am not saying Ager is not a good scorer, just that he's not consistent enough for me and he doesnt have the ball handling skills or passing ability yet. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You bring up the fact that Tim Smith doesn't play with Big Ten talent on his roster like it's something that would help his game, but don't you realize that if he had teammates like Shannon Brown, Alan Anderson, Paul Davis, Kelvin Torbert, and Chris Hill on his roster then his statistics would be far less than what they are now? Don't you think that his style is only suited for a mid-major team that revolves around him? I can't imagine him trying to run the point at Michigan State.</div> What? Did you just say that playing with better players doesnt make one better? May be not all the time but most of the time, it does. I am sure his PPG would be lower but I bet his APG would improve, his TPG would decrease and his FG% would increase. I am not saying Tim Smith would fit into MSU's style of play but if you put him on an uptempo team, that likes to run, it might. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">How does Ager need to prove to people that he's an All-American candidate? Being the leading scorer on a Final Four team as well as possibly being the best athlete in the NCAA isn't enough to make someone an All-American candidate? He's pretty much everything you say he's not - a leader, a good ball handler, and consistent (for a player that plays on the deepest team in the NCAA). The only thing that he needs to work on is his passing. Haven't you noticed that the preseason top fifty candidates for the Wooden Award were released and Maurice Ager's name was on the list but Tim Smith's wasn't? After that, how can you possibly say that he needs to prove to "people" that he's an All-American candidate? Obviously "people" already see him as one.</div> This is the exact reason I put players like Tim Smith up higher than may be they deserve to be(and I've already admitted this) because they just dont get the respect they deserve, IMO, and I LIKE to give it to them. But thats just me, I like to give props to little guys. Maurice Ager is a good player on a good team but I am not just going to give someone All-American candidacy because he was the leading scorer on a very balanced scoring team that before the NCAA Tournament had only beaten one ranked team all year . Ager has not proven to be a consist scorer day in and day out and he's definetly not proven to be a go to player day in and day out. He doesnt have good ball handling skills and he doesnt have good passing skills. I like what Tim Smith has been able to do throughout his career better, I like his overall game better, I like his consistency better, I like his scoring ability better, I like his rebounding ability better, I like his ball handling ability better, I like his passing ability better and I like the fact that he shows up in big games. But thats just me, you think differently and thats fan. BTW and its no big deal but are you an MSU fan? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Maurice Ager is better a better shooter, athlete, defender, rebounder, and scorer than Tim Smith</div> He's a better shooter and a better athlete but Tim Smith is a solid defender, just as good of a rebounder if not better and a better and more consistent scorer. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">but Ager is just as aggressive; howcome you don't see him getting five turnovers per game?</div> For the same reason's Ager averages 8 points and 3 assists less a game. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">While Tim Smith has played three great teams in his entire career at East Tennessee State (Cincy, Bama, and Wake), Maurice Ager plays teams on that level every other week</div> And his career stats clearly show it. Maurice Agers plays with more talent and against better competition, I understand that. But who's to say that Tim Smith would be less impressive in those same settings with a team that fits his style? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Playing at East Tennessee State allows Tim Smith to be the focal point of everyting his team does, whereas Maurice Ager is playing on a team with four or five future NBA players. You attacked Ager earlier in your post for not being the go-to-guy on Michigan State. If you put Tim Smith on Michigan State, I can guarantee that he wouldn't be the go-to-guy.</div> Because he doesnt fit into that type of system. I definetly think Tim Smith has the abilities to be a go to player on that same level though, even more so than Maurice Ager. But once again thats just me and its not like I havent given you logical reasons behind my opinion. And you've done the same, it just appears that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I dont know if its possible to dissect this comparision anymore than we already have.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Hater:</div><div class="quote_post">Well my rankings did take into account career accomplishments and career stats as well potential and the present. I understand that its more difficult to start at MSU than it is to start at ETSU. Hell, MSU really could have used a spark plug type player like Smith in 2003 and 2004. May be not Tim Smith and his style but thats exactly what MSU was lacking during that span. However, thats all irrelevent and I understand what it is you're saying but I dont think it hurts Smith case that much. He's proven to be a big game player and a consistent performer on all levels. Whats a go to player to me? Its a player that you can go to at anytime and any situation in a game to get offense. Its a player thats consistently an offensive threat. Ager has not shown the consistency over his three year career. MSU is one of the teams that I really enjoy watching because of their effecient half court offensive game, so I've watched a lot of Ager over the years and outside of his tourney performance last season, he hasnt't exactly been a big game player consistently. I need more consistency out of a player. Consistency, consistency, consistency.</div> I figured that your list was based on the top 100 talented players, not careers. Really, Maurice Ager has always been consistent throughout his career. He just hasn't gotten the consistent minutes that Tim Smith has. That doesn't say anything about talent though. You're really trying to paint this image of Maurice Ager as an extremely inconsistent player, when the fact of the matter is that he has only had three or four off nights, and that's understandable for any player. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Lets get a couple things straight here. Ohio State would have been a bubble team at best if they weren't banned. Michigan was terrible last year when they played MSU. Oakland had Rawle Marshall as well as a losing record for the year! Purdue was solid competition? Didnt Purdue finish the year at like 7 and 23 or something awful? I suppose thats competitive, if you're trying to compete for the most losses in a season. </div> You know that Ohio State would have gotten into the tournament if they weren't banned. Everyone is still talking about their win over Illinois, and I'm sure that would have given them the edge. It's not necessarily about the team you're playing though but rather the player you're matched up with on the opposing team. In the cases of Michigan and Oakland, Ager was matched up with Ronald Coleman and Rawle Marshall, two of the better small forwards in the NCAA. Purdue finished the year with an awful record, but they had a lot of good wins along the way - Detroit, Michigan, Iowa, and Colorado State. For a team with such a horrible record, they were anything but a pushover, and I'm sure they were better than a lot of the teams that East Tennessee State played. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Of course I watched the tourney. Ager was great. But I need more than a 5 game stretch to convince me. I am sorry, thats just me. Ager's got a lot of potential but not enough of it for me to place him ahead of Tim Smith at this point. I am not discounting the NCAA tourney but its only a five game stretch. As I also mentioned Tim Smith performed exceptionally well against highly seeded teams in games that were basically road games for them in his freshman and sophomore seasons. Tournament games definetly count. </div> So you dismiss all those other teams that he posted good numbers against even though they're all better than the usual competition of Tim Smith? And what about the game he had against Kansas or the game he had against Florida? Are you just going to ignore those too? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">What? Did you just say that playing with better players doesnt make one better? May be not all the time but most of the time, it does. I am sure his PPG would be lower but I bet his APG would improve, his TPG would decrease and his FG% would increase. I am not saying Tim Smith would fit into MSU's style of play but if you put him on an uptempo team, that likes to run, it might. </div> I wasn't necessarily saying that it wouldn't make you better, but it just seems like what impresses you so much about Tim Smith is his numbers, and his numbers wouldn't be as good when he's playing with better players. I really don't think that he'd look so attractive to you anymore if he were on Michigan State, averaging 10-12 ppg. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">This is the exact reason I put players like Tim Smith up higher than may be they deserve to be(and I've already admitted this) because they just dont get the respect they deserve, IMO, and I LIKE to give it to them. But thats just me, I like to give props to little guys. </div> The little guys do need respect, but I really respect Tim Smith's game. I've been to East Tennessee State games live, and I know that he can play. I also know that guys like Steve Smith, Jason Smith, Jose Juan Barea, and Keydren Clark can play. But you shouldn't put them over guys who are more talented just to get their names out there and prove a point. Guys like Maurice Ager don't just get so much publicity because they play for big time schools; they're actually really talented basketball players. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Maurice Ager is a good player on a good team but I am not just going to give someone All-American candidacy because he was the leading scorer on a very balanced scoring team that before the NCAA Tournament had only beaten one ranked team all year .</div> Yet you're going to give someone All-American candidacy because he was the leading scorer on a 10-19 ball club that fed him the ball on every offensive posession? <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> Ager has not proven to be a consist scorer day in and day out and he's definetly not proven to be a go to player day in and day out. </div> Even the best of "go-to-guys" can't deliver 100% of the time. J.J. Redick only scored sevne points against Deleware State and eight point against North Carolina State. That's what you'd call an off night, not inconsistency. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">BTW and its no big deal but are you an MSU fan? </div> Yes, I am, but I'm not biased at all. I just picked Maurice Ager out of your rankings because it was the first thing that caught my eye. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> But once again thats just me and its not like I havent given you logical reasons behind my opinion. And you've done the same, it just appears that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I dont know if its possible to dissect this comparision anymore than we already have.</div> Alright then, good arguing with ya'. EDIT: I just figured out why you are so down on Ager. I remember this now - http://www.draftcity.com/gallery/MauriceAger/1111821831.jpg That's got to be the worst poster J.J. Redick has ever been put on.
<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">You know that Ohio State would have gotten into the tournament if they weren't banned. Everyone is still talking about their win over Illinois, and I'm sure that would have given them the edge. It's not necessarily about the team you're playing though but rather the player you're matched up with on the opposing team. In the cases of Michigan and Oakland, Ager was matched up with Ronald Coleman and Rawle Marshall, two of the better small forwards in the NCAA. Purdue finished the year with an awful record, but they had a lot of good wins along the way - Detroit, Michigan, Iowa, and Colorado State. For a team with such a horrible record, they were anything but a pushover, and I'm sure they were better than a lot of the teams that East Tennessee State played.</div> Sorry, I didnt realize that Ohio State was a lock to get in the tourney last year. Apparently my understanding of this concept is quite off. So teams with an RPI outside of the top 50, an SOS outside of the top 50, a 3-10 record against top 50 teams, a .500 record in conference play, a 5-10 record on the road and a team with that lost 5 of their last 10 is apparently considered a "lock" for the NCAA tourney. Thats interesting and quite absurd. Since when did Ronald Coleman become one of the best small forwards in the country? Seriously, Voodoo! When did this happen? As for Rawle Marshall, I dont care, I simply dont. They were an 11-18 team last year and were one of the worst defensive teams in the Mid Cont. So there ya go. As for Purdue's victories. Are you serious? You listed Michigan as a quality victory? And Detroit? A team that went 13-16? And CSU? A 9-17 team? These are good victories? Apparently, I also have no idea what a good victory is. Did an imposter find your password and come on here this morning and make this post for you? What happened? Normally, you've put up good arguments but this is kinda pathetic. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">I wasn't necessarily saying that it wouldn't make you better, but it just seems like what impresses you so much about Tim Smith is his numbers, and his numbers wouldn't be as good when he's playing with better players. I really don't think that he'd look so attractive to you anymore if he were on Michigan State, averaging 10-12 ppg.</div> See this is where we reach a bump in the road because you feel as though he wouldnt put up good numbers on a better team. I disagree. I understand that he wouldn't have 22 a game like he does for ETSU but I still think he would average a good amount and be a very effective player. Remember he did play for two good ETSU teams his freshman and sophomore years and still put up solid numbers. This is where we disagree and there's really no point in debating this anymore. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">The little guys do need respect, but I really respect Tim Smith's game. I've been to East Tennessee State games live, and I know that he can play. I also know that guys like Steve Smith, Jason Smith, Jose Juan Barea, and Keydren Clark can play. But you shouldn't put them over guys who are more talented just to get their names out there and prove a point. Guys like Maurice Ager don't just get so much publicity because they play for big time schools; they're actually really talented basketball players.</div> I think you're mostly just disagreeing with where I ranked Maurice Ager and not so much with where I ranked Tim Smith. Maurice Ager could be higher on my list but he's not and I've given you my reasons why, numerous times and you just continue to give me the same responses. Believe me, I gotcha, I am reading your posts and I just dont agree with you. <div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">Yet you're going to give someone All-American candidacy because he was the leading scorer on a 10-19 ball club that fed him the ball on every offensive posession?</div> Either way, it doesnt change my view on Ager.
