Page 1 of 2
Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 2:31 pm
by muskieman
with our new ex-Stanford coach the name Jaiden Delaire 6'8" small forward is in the portal. Averaged 10.1 points, 4 rebounds and 1.1 assists for the Cardinal this past season. Out of HS he was the 83rd rated player and Providence, UConn and GT were some of his suitors. He has size, length, athleticism, and ability to impact the game on defense and on offense as a slasher, and decent rebounder
X has two spots as Ward doesn't seem to be working out, so far.
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:38 pm
by longliveskip
interesting. can he stretch the floor or is he just a slasher/off rebounder type?
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:58 pm
by muskieman
longliveskip wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:38 pm
interesting. can he stretch the floor or is he just a slasher/off rebounder type?
about 32.5% from three last two seasons in comparison X as a team shot 32.2 Colby 29.2% Hunter 21.2 Zach 26.1
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 7:09 pm
by skyhops
I can’t imagine Xavier shooting any worse than they have the last four years.
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
by kyzrex
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pm
by muskieman
kyzrex wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
he was a small forward at Stanford so just because he is 6'8" doesn't mean he would play inside. 6'8" small forward rebounding would be nice for those long rebounds
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:30 pm
by kyzrex
muskieman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pm
kyzrex wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
he was a small forward at Stanford so just because he is 6'8" doesn't mean he would play inside. 6'8" small forward rebounding would be nice for those long rebounds
Jones already does a very nice job gathering up those long rebounds. X doesn’t need any more small forwards IMO, they need POWER inside players in the worst way…….along with an experienced point guard.
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:13 pm
by olsingledigit
kyzrex wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:30 pm
muskieman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pm
kyzrex wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
he was a small forward at Stanford so just because he is 6'8" doesn't mean he would play inside. 6'8" small forward rebounding would be nice for those long rebounds
Jones already does a very nice job gathering up those long rebounds. X doesn’t need any more small forwards IMO, they need POWER inside players in the worst way…….along with an experienced point guard.
Bangers!
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:32 pm
by muskieman
kyzrex wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 8:30 pm
muskieman wrote: ↑Tue Apr 19, 2022 5:10 pm
kyzrex wrote: ↑Mon Apr 18, 2022 9:33 pm
Just my opinion but…….I think X doesn’t need a 3 point shooting big as much as they need a big that can rebound and defend down low. I’d love to see them have someone that doesn’t even think about shooting beyond 15 feet but is a monster on the boards. Nunge and Free seem much more at home living on the outside or slashing to the rime than they do setting up on the low post. Let them worry about their 3 point shooting percentages. Watson wasn’t any 3 point threat but he was an all-BE performer.
he was a small forward at Stanford so just because he is 6'8" doesn't mean he would play inside. 6'8" small forward rebounding would be nice for those long rebounds
Jones already does a very nice job gathering up those long rebounds. X doesn’t need any more small forwards IMO, they need POWER inside players in the worst way…….along with an experienced point guard.
Well if Jones might play some at the point and not 40 minutes at small forward a 6'8" small forward might be a good fill-in at SF. Unless Jones can play 40 minutes and play two positions at the same time!
Re: Sure we need a point BUT
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2022 9:58 pm
by skyhops
I think that is what Steele had in mind for Hunter but that didn’t work out well.