What players should have their jersey honored next?

[JarHeadJim]

Wallace

 

[Forza Azzurri]

no stage is bigger in college basketball than the ncaa tournament. in his junior and senior seasons, when he was an undisputed star & team leader, he went 4/24 from the field and 1/12 from three in losses to a 13 and a 12 seed

he was a high usage player who collected a lot of volume stats. he is well remembered because he occasionally came up big . . . but a true assessment would remember that, just as often, he came up small

as always: i never say he was bad. just that he is overrated. not sure he's a top 5 guard just in the zone (post 1996) era

Vermont is fair. I was there. Both he and Hak were really bad.

He could barely move during the A&M game...

If you want to put him in the same echelon as Pearl and Sherm as players, I agree with you that he is "overrated" and not in that league.

However, he did go 6-7 from 3 in the most important game of his life and he did give us something that neither Pearl nor Sherm ever did - and that counts for a lot in my book.

 

[OttoMets]

Vermont is fair. I was there. Both he and Hak were really bad.

He could barely move during the A&M game...

If you want to put him in the same echelon as Pearl and Sherm as players, I agree with you that he is "overrated" and not in that league.

However, he did go 6-7 from 3 in the most important game of his life and he did give us something that neither Pearl nor Sherm ever did - and that counts for a lot in my book.

OK, I'm nitpicking here, but I take issue with the characterization of Warrick as "really bad" in the Vermont game. I know he had the worst kind of triple-double. But to everyone who remembers that game well, it's a little like saying it was "really bad" of Brandon Triche to get that charge against Ohio State (or in the semifinal the next year). He produced, he did so relatively efficiently, and he racked up a ridiculous number of whistles for turnovers that he hadn't been called for in four years. Yeah, the end result is the same, but I think it's fair to provide a little context.

 

[OttoMets]

That’s why I said players like Schayes, Etan, Thompson, etc, are more open for debate. I think Wallace, Warrick, Gmac, and Hackett are pretty clear. After that, it’s much less clear. As for people arguing against Gmac, the only opinion that matters is JB’s (he makes this decision) and I firmly believe he thinks Gmac deserves it.

Then why have a seven-page thread? And why debate Danny Schayes, if one guy's perceived opinion of Boeheim's opinion is all that matters?

 

[Cusefan0307]

If you turn it over a lot you aren't efficient. It's actually worse than a missed shot because the team has no opportunity for an offensive rebound.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

OK, I'm nitpicking here, but I take issue with the characterization of Warrick as "really bad" in the Vermont game. I know he had the worst kind of triple-double. But to everyone who remembers that game well, it's a little like saying it was "really bad" of Brandon Triche to get that charge against Ohio State (or in the semifinal the next year). He produced, he did so relatively efficiently, and he racked up a ridiculous number of whistles for turnovers that he hadn't been called for in four years. Yeah, the end result is the same, but I think it's fair to provide a little context.

I think it is fair to say that, if a player has double-digit turnovers in a game, he neither played very well nor was particularly efficient.

 

[OttoMets]

I think it is fair to say that, if a player has double-digit turnovers in a game, he neither played very well nor was particularly efficient.

I think that suggests you didn't read my post too carefully. Warrick and SU got jobbed. Many of those were terrible anticipation calls that he'd never gotten before, totally bogus travel calls by a ref who was surprised by a post player with such a long stride.

Yes, a 10-turnover game is bad.

 

[Forza Azzurri]

I think that suggests you didn't read my post too carefully. Warrick and SU got jobbed. Many of those were terrible anticipation calls that he'd never gotten before, totally bogus travel calls by a ref who was surprised by a post player with such a long stride.

Yes, a 10-turnover game is bad.

No. I both read it and understood it. I was at game so likely did not have same view of travelling calls that you did if you watched it on TV. I would have to find game and rewatch (which frankly I have zero desire to do given the outcome) to see if I agree with your take...

Nevertheless, I get your point.

 

[Lucid]

I need videos like this to remind me what actual offense looks like.