What players should have their jersey honored next?

[Frozen]

 

[OttoMets]

Wallace, and that can close out the list for at least a decade. Warrick's one of my all-time favorites, but I'm not seeing it any more than Stephen Thompson or half a dozen other excellent four-year players.

 

[OrangeDW]

Wallace, and that can close out the list for at least a decade. Warrick's one of my all-time favorites, but I'm not seeing it any more than Stephen Thompson or half a dozen other excellent four-year players.

Warrick was first team All American and BE player of the year though!

 

[Alsacs]

Wallace, and that can close out the list for at least a decade. Warrick's one of my all-time favorites, but I'm not seeing it any more than Stephen Thompson or half a dozen other excellent four-year players.

Hak was our last first team all-American.
He was a stud 3 years. He is worthy no doubt. After him and GMac your right.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Warrick deserves it over Stevie. His numbers are better accross the board. Stevie was never even the best player on his own team.

 

[OttoMets]

Moten > GMac

Here is where it lands for me - look at the guys we've honored. Put them on any team, with anybody, and that team is going to scare people. Those guys were always great.

Then look at GMac. Put him on a team with anybody, and... meh. GMac's legacy more than anybody benefitted from who his teammates were. His game in isolation doesn't stand on its own like the others.

He came up in big moments. He wasn't transcendent.

Yes, that's exactly how I would look at this, that's a nice way to put it.

And it highlights why looking at the incredible, fun 4-game run in New York (which was a huge team effort, btw) would be a disservice to McNamara's worthiness here: he led a terrific stretch of play that week (though people forget how inefficient McNamara was even in the early games in the tournament), but that average team wouldn't have been in a must-win situation if the senior captain hadn't had so many 5-17 performances in losses to crappy opponents.

Lot of fun memories there, but I'm not sure that's what jersey "retirement" is all about - I thought it's more a recognition of excellence reserved for a select few.

 

[OttoMets]

Hak was our last first team all-American.
He was a stud 3 years. He is worthy no doubt. After him and GMac your right.

He was awesome, especially his last two years. I wouldn't argue against it by any stretch, but I'm not impatient to see #1 on the wall, either.

Wallace, though - that's gotta happen soon. He's on my SU Mount Rushmore. He saved the program when he honored his commitment and then stayed four years.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

no, it's not.

the scranton brick factory

Shots fired.

 

[OttoMets]

He was awesome, especially his last two years. I wouldn't argue against it by any stretch, but I'm not impatient to see #1 on the wall, either.

Wallace, though - that's gotta happen soon. He's on my SU Mount Rushmore. He saved the program when he honored his commitment and then stayed four years.

And that brings up an interesting related question: who should be on SU's Mount Rushmore? Bing, Pearl, Wallace, but the fourth name is tough to pin down.

Either way, Boeheim would be the Crazy Horse monument in this scenario, just a few miles away looking toward the players.

 

[Frozen]

And that brings up an interesting related question: who should be on SU's Mount Rushmore? Bing, Pearl, Wallace, but the fourth name is tough to pin down.

Carmelo?

 

[Alsacs]

And that brings up an interesting related question: who should be on SU's Mount Rushmore? Bing, Pearl, Wallace, but the fourth name is tough to pin down.

Either way, Boeheim would be the Crazy Horse monument in this scenario, just a few miles away looking toward the players.

If it’s players or just the program.

Top 4 players would be Bing, Pearl, Coleman, Carmelo.

 

[rrlbees]

And that brings up an interesting related question: who should be on SU's Mount Rushmore? Bing, Pearl, Wallace, but the fourth name is tough to pin down.

Either way, Boeheim would be the Crazy Horse monument in this scenario, just a few miles away looking toward the players.

Bing, Pearl, Carmelo, V. Cohen.

 

[OrangeOnions]

Lou McCroskey

That would only be the 2nd best video of Louie if there was camera filming him chucking a chair and going after JB in the locker room (if my memory serves correctly).

 

[Cusefan0307]

Yes, that's exactly how I would look at this, that's a nice way to put it.

And it highlights why looking at the incredible, fun 4-game run in New York (which was a huge team effort, btw) would be a disservice to McNamara's worthiness here: he led a terrific stretch of play that week (though people forget how inefficient McNamara was even in the early games in the tournament), but that average team wouldn't have been in a must-win situation if the senior captain hadn't had so many 5-17 performances in losses to crappy opponents.

Lot of fun memories there, but I'm not sure that's what jersey "retirement" is all about - I thought it's more a recognition of excellence reserved for a select few.

Outside of Depaul we didn't lose to any crappy teams that year. 6 of our 12 losses were to ranked opponents and another was against Florida early in the year and they won the title.

I think like Battle and Howard this year being rather inefficient, Gmac was victim of a supporting cast that either never developed(Roberts/Watkins/McCroskey) or developed slower than expected(Nichols).

 

[OttoMets]

Outside of Depaul we didn't lose to any crappy teams that year. 6 of our 12 losses were to ranked opponents and another was against Florida early in the year and they won the title.

I think like Battle and Howard this year being rather inefficient, Gmac was victim of a supporting cast that either never developed(Roberts/Watkins/McCroskey) or developed slower than expected(Nichols).

"Crappy" is too strong a word for Seton Hall, Cincinnati, and the like - should have said mediocre.

I agree completely with the bolded, and the fact that he played out of position due to the Edelin thing. And that's why he (like Battle and Howard, though they're playing with an even shorter deck) aren't jersey-retirement types by my estimation. They're good, but not by definition transcendent. They aren't able to transcend and elevate teams with decent but not great teammates. Jersey-retirement guys aren't victims of supporting casts; they're the players who were consistently excellent in spite of supporting casts.

But I know people really like McNamara and have no doubt that #3's going on the wall at some point. I just think he's qualitatively different than every other person on the wall other than Sidat-Singh (and he's deserving for a more important reason).

 

[Jake]

Yes, that's exactly how I would look at this, that's a nice way to put it.

And it highlights why looking at the incredible, fun 4-game run in New York (which was a huge team effort, btw) would be a disservice to McNamara's worthiness here: he led a terrific stretch of play that week (though people forget how inefficient McNamara was even in the early games in the tournament), but that average team wouldn't have been in a must-win situation if the senior captain hadn't had so many 5-17 performances in losses to crappy opponents.

Lot of fun memories there, but I'm not sure that's what jersey "retirement" is all about - I thought it's more a recognition of excellence reserved for a select few.

The only player whose career numbers are program top five all-time in assists and points isn't "select few" or "excellence"?

 

[Eric15]

Gmac was victim of a supporting cast that either never developed(Roberts/Watkins/McCroskey) or developed slower than expected(Nichols).

This is exactly correct. Was it GMac's fault that he was literally the team's only shooter as a sophomore and junior? Or that Billy Edelin had <whatever top secret issue Billy had>. Or that Roberts and Watkins couldn't develop into reliable big men their entire careers? Or that Nichols was beyond timid his first couple years. Or that Louie was a nutjob.

 

[Jake]

no, it's not.

the scranton brick factory

15 SU players have attempted 400+ career 3's.

His pct is 9th on that list.

The last place guy? Moten (31%) Moten also took more of them than any player not named GMAC, Cooney, Rautins, Shumpert.

He also shot that 31% With John Wallace on his team for 3 years and Dave Johnson's Sr year.

If there had been an Internet board back then, he would have been routinely crucified like GMAC.

 

[Millhouse]

15 SU players have attempted 400+ career 3's.

His pct is 9th on that list.

The last place guy? Moten. Moten also took more of them than any player not named GMAC, Cooney, Rautins, Shumpert.

i can't imagine arguing that mcnamara isn't worthy.

 

[sufandu]

Honor the old timers that I'm too young to have watched. They should have already been honored. Let's not be vicitms of recent history or just use these as publicity.

 

[MSOrange]

i can't imagine arguing that mcnamara isn't worthy.

I'm the same way and I wasn't his biggest fan.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

it's way more than one

So, leaving aside Duvall and Bing, there is no question that GMAC's body of work doesn't quite measure up to either Pearl's or Sherm's (the other 2 guards from the Boeheim era on the list).

As Jake points out, he is among the all-time leaders in a number of categories but required more volume to get there.

In fact, if you look at overall body of work, I'd say that Autry is the best comparison and, although there would likely be support to see Red's jersey raised to the rafters, I don't think that there would be the same clamor for that that there is with Wallace or Hak.

So, it boils down to point of view and criteria.

Whether it was Kansas, BYU or the 2006 Big East tourney, GMAC's ability to shine brightest on the biggest stage is, IMHO, what puts him the same category as guys like Pearl, Sherm, Wallace and Hak who were more talented and may have had a better overall body of work...

 

[OttoMets]

The only player whose career numbers are program top five all-time in assists and points isn't "select few" or "excellence"?

Yes, those are neither necessary nor sufficient. They're just numbers, like 4,801 minutes and 1,685 field goal attempts. There's a lot more that goes into excellence than a statistic or two. (This is why everyone who's championing McNamara talks about nebulous things like "clutch.")

 

[Forza Azzurri]

Yes, those are neither necessary nor sufficient. They're just numbers, like 4,801 minutes and 1,685 field goal attempts. There's a lot more that goes into excellence than a statistic or two. (This is why everyone who's championing McNamara talks about nebulous things like "clutch.")

Actually, statistics are very much "necessary", although they may not be sufficient. And both of those sentiments, btw, are your opinion. To Jake, they are sufficient. That is his opinion.

And "nebulous" has a negative connotation. How about "intangibles" instead?

And yes, while I personally believe that GMAC has a very solid body of work, it is his "intangibles" that vault him into the Pantheon of discussion with those whose statistics and/or talent level make them a clear all-time great.

 

[OttoMets]

Actually, statistics are very much "necessary", although they may not be sufficient. And both of those sentiments, btw, are your opinion. To Jake, they are sufficient. That is his opinion.

And "nebulous" has a negative connotation. How about "intangibles" instead?

And yes, while I personally believe that GMAC has a very solid body of work, it is his "intangibles" that vault him into the Pantheon of discussion with those whose statistics and/or talent level make them a clear all-time great.

Sure, it's a given that these are just opinions. The "necessary" was meant to refer to McNamara's 2,000-whatever, rather than statistics themselves, because many of the players already honored didn't accumulate (or score or earn) as many points. It's my opinion that one doesn't need X number of career points and doesn't need to be ranked in the top Y of any statistical category to be included. And Sidat-Singh shows that stats really aren't necessary.

I agree that there's an intangible that seems to be the strongest argument for McNamara's inclusion. Though obviously the gross point and assist totals and associated rankings play a role, too, as does his championship ring.