Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="SWC75, post: 1317598, member: 289"] I'm glad the debate about our best-ever point guard is between Sherman Douglas and Pearl Washington rather than David Patrick and Josh Wright. Here's an excerpt from a post I made last year on SU players who went pro early and what things might have been like had they stayed: PEARL WASHINGTON Our first “jumper” was Pearl Washington who would have been on the 1986-87 shoulda been a national championship team. Of course, Sherman Douglas inherited Pearl’s point guard spot and began his own legend. He had played behind the Pearl in 1985-86 and did pretty darn well: Pearl Washington 32.2m 21.5p 3.1r 9.7a 3.2s 0.0b 37.5+ 7.3mfg 1.8mft 4.1to 3.4pf 16.6- = 20.9NP 12.4OE 8.5FG Sherman Douglas 11.4m 19.0p 4.3r 7.4a 4.3s 0.7b 35.7+ 4.7mfg 1.7mft 4.3to 4.3pf 15.0- = 20.7NP 12.6OE 8.1FG The General was even more commanding when he got tossed the keys in 1986-87: Sherman Douglas32.6m 21.3p 3.1r 9.3a 2.1s 0.2b 36.0+ 7.0mfg 1.7mft 3.9to 2.3pf 14.9- = 21.1NP 12.6OE 8.5FG We’d be in good shape with either one of them at the helm. We’d have more depth with both. Could they have somehow played together? I think they could have meshed their skills, even alternated controlling the ball. But you wonder if egos might have gotten in the way and neither was a consistently long-range shooter, which the under-rated Greg Monroe was: Greg Monroe31.0m 16.6p 3.2r 5.2a 1.5s 0.0b 25.0+ 6.4mfg 0.6mft 1.8to 1.7pf 10.5- = 14.5NP 9.6OE 4.9FG Maybe the three of them would have formed a triumvirate, like Jardine-Triche-Waiters in 2011-2012. Would we have been remarkably better? Probably not. If the Pearl and the General each wanted their own ball, they might have been worse. But they just needed two more points to become a national champion. Could the Pearl have provided those two points? Might he have demanded the ball after Smart’s shot and dribbled the length of the court to score? It would have been just like him to do that. And here is a year-by-year comparison: (m= minutes per game. The rest are per 40 minutes. p= points, r= rebounds, a = assists, s = steals, b= blocks, + = positives, which is p + r + a + s + b, mfg= missed field goals, mft = missed field goals, to = turnovers, pf= personal fouls, - = negatives, which is mfg + mft+ to + pf. np = net points, which is positives - negatives, oe = offensive efficiency, which is p - -mfg - mft and fg = floor game, which is np - oe) As Freshmen: Pearl Washington 34.0m 16.9p 3.1r 7.3a 2.7s 0.1b 30.1+ 5.7mfg 1.7mft 4.1to 4.0pf 15.5- = 14.6NP 9.5OE 5.1FG Sherman Douglas 11.4m 19.0p 4.3r 7.4a 4.3s 0.7b 35.7+ 4.7mfg 1.7mft 4.3to 4.3pf 15.0- = 20.7NP 12.6OE 8.1FG As Sophomores: Pearl Washington 34.1m 18.0p 3.4r 7.1a 2.3s 0.1b 30.9+ 6.4mfg 1.4mft 5.3to 3.0pf 16.1- = 14.8NP 10.2OE 4.6FG Sherman Douglas[B] [/B]32.6m 21.3p 3.1r 9.3a 2.1s 0.2b 36.0+ 7.0mfg 1.7mft 3.9to 2.3pf 14.9- = 21.1NP 12.6OE 8.5FG As Juniors: Pearl Washington 32.2m 21.5p 3.1r 9.7a 3.2s 0.0b 37.5+ 7.3mfg 1.8mft 4.1to 3.4pf 16.6- = 20.9NP 12.4OE 8.5FG Sherman Douglas 34.1m 18.8p 2.5r 9.6a 2.3s 0.0b 33.2+ 6.9mfg 1.5mft 3.9to 1.8pf 14.1- = 19.1NP 10.4OE 8.7FG As Seniors: Pearl Washington: none Sherman Douglas 35.2m 20.7p 2.8r 9.7a 2.1s 0.0b 35.3+ 6.8mfg 1.9mft 4.2to 2.1pf 15.0- = 20.3NP 12.0OE 8.3FG Sherman was clearly better as a freshman and sophomore, although as a freshman he was a reserve whose playing time was skewed to the lesser opponents and games that had been decided. But his performance hardly varied when he became the full-time starter. The Pearl rose to Sherman's statistical level as a junior and probably would have stayed at that level as a senior. I still think they could have started together because both handled the ball and scored themselves superbly, although neither was a big three point threat. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?