- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LSU Basketball Recruiting Thread: 2024 (And Beyond)
Posted on 4/11/24 at 3:53 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
Posted on 4/11/24 at 3:53 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
because unless mcmahon is a total idiot and couldn't realize that dean provided much more useful minutes then the only other option is that he didn't play bc he wasn't on scholarship
That's not the only 2 options though. The most likely scenario is that Baker was brought in to play the majority of the minutes at the 5 because McMahon wants a big who can step out and be a consistent threat from 3. Baker started the season playing that role relatively well. As the schedule flipped into conference play, Baker's quality of play drastically plummeted. McMahon then cut his losses and gave more minutes to Dean who could at least provide some rebounding and an interior presence once he finally came to the conclusion that Baker could no longer effectively play the stretch 5 role McMahon's scheme is suited for. The fact that Dean wasn't on scholarship had no bearing on playing time at all
1
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:02 pm to The Shaqtus
quote:
The most likely scenario is that Baker was brought in to play the majority of the minutes at the 5 because McMahon wants a big who can step out and be a consistent threat from 3
I agree with you. As I mentioned, he was recruited to be poor man's KJ 2.0 (stretch big, offense oriented). The reason I mentioned that McMahon could be lacking in his rotations/lineup aspect of coaching is that he took a ridiculously long time to give Dean a chance and even then let Baker play more than he should.
We know why Baker was recruited here. But at some point as a HC you have to recognize when one player is better than another. 5 minutes left in a SECT game is way too late.
The reason I only provided those two options was because to me those are the eventual conclusions down the road.
quote:
Baker started the season playing that role relatively well.
Nicholls flat out exposed him by playing a 2-3
quote:
once he finally came to the conclusion that Baker could no longer effectively play the stretch 5 role
Maybe adapt your scheme and rotations to fit your players strengths instead of forcing a scheme on players that can't do it and playing a worse player because you want your scheme to work?
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:11 pm to jamarr
quote:
again you have shown zero evidence
People like who you use this as their main argument are some of my least favorite people to argue with on TD and are far too common on here. You do realize there is a difference between a fallacy ridden argument with no evidence and an argument that you simply disagree with the evidence provided? Just because you disagree with what someone is saying does not mean they provided no evidence. It simply means you disagree with the evidence they provided.
It is a fallacy on its own to base your entire argument on “you have no evidence” and to dismiss an argument on “you committed xyz fallacy”
Is it possible that you skimmed over my post and glanced over the evidence I provided? Or is it that you simply ignore the evidence to fit your narrative?
quote:
who said he was the focal point?
Let me provide “evidence” as to why baker was the focal point. He was recruited in a schematic sense to be the replacement for KJ Williams. A big man that provided offensive consistency and could stretch the floor. A similar pitch was provided to both him and Jordan Wright because they were both role players at their previous school. McMahon offered them a big role in a P6 program for their final year.
Baker’s play style on the court had a negative impact on MULTIPLE players on our roster. Despite this, he still played a good bit and still played from the same spots on the court until a few games into SEC play.
This raises the question, what exactly is Baker’s style of play? Posting up from both the high post and low post. Playing the weak side to get the ball passed to from drive and kicks. This playstyle contributed to a lack of space on the court, a black hole when he received the ball, and an unwillingness/inability to set screens on and off the ball. Now let’s discuss how this impacted players negatively.
Carlos Stewart- probably the biggest victim of bakers playstyle imo. Carlos at SC operated a lot from the top of the arc and at the elbow. He also drove into the paint and scored with a variety of finishing moves. He couldn’t do any of this however with Baker posting up for 15 seconds of the shot clock and his role being reduced to an off ball player.
Jalen Reed- a player who’s best offensive trait is inarguably scoring one on one driving from the perimeter to the paint. Couldn’t do so with Baker clogging down low though.
Jalen Cook- baker was terrible at PNR/PNP actions with him as he was not a genuine roll threat and not good enough of a shooter. (I wonder who was though)
Tyrell Ward- Baker never set him any off ball screens to help him get open
Now despite all of these glaring issues and the negative impact it had on offensive efficiency and team chemistry he was still allowed to operate in the same manner for well over half the season. Sure it worked at times, but McMahon failed to pull the plug on games where baker was just a flat out non factor. To me this is indicative that he was supposed to be a focal point of the team on the offensive side, especially when you consider the sacrifices other players had to make to allow him to play his game.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 4:15 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:13 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
Nicholls flat out exposed him by playing a 2-3
He had 29 on 10-11 shooting the game before. I don't think McMahon was going to give up on him after 2 games.
quote:
Maybe adapt your scheme and rotations to fit your players strengths instead of forcing a scheme on players that can't do it and playing a worse player because you want your scheme to work?
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think McMahon was ever going to adapt his scheme to suit a guy who was an average player at best at George Washington the previous 4 years
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:16 pm to The Shaqtus
quote:
He had 29 on 10-11 shooting the game before. I don't think McMahon was going to give up on him after 2 games.
Against the literal worst team in the country whose tallest player was 6’8’’.
I’d hope a former 5 star could have a good game against them
And I don’t think he should have “given up” on him. Baker had good aspects of his game. But he should have adjusted his role and his spots on the floor accordingly, limiting his looks to areas where he would likely succeed, changing his spots on the court to open up things for other players. Undoubtedly, he had games where he shined... but his minutes and looks made it seem as if this was the expectation almost every game. He was tremendous when he was able to exploit a matchup, but a net negative when that wasn't the case.
quote:
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I don't think McMahon was ever going to adapt his scheme to suit a guy who was an average player at best at George Washington the previous 4 years
Jalen Cook is a pick and roll point guard. Almost all of Dean's points came through pick and roll at GW. I’m not saying to adapt the entire scheme to Dean, but he opened up a lot more for the team as Baker was a black hole on offense a lot of the time.
Baker is the type of player where everyone has to adapt to playing around him. Dean is the type of player where he adapts to playing around others.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 4:25 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:24 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
Against the literal worst team in the country whose tallest player was 6’8’’.
I’d hope a former 5 star could have a good game against them
29 on 10-11 isn't a "good game" that's exceptional. I don't care if he was playing the against the school of the deaf dumb and blind.
I do think that Dean offered more to this team than Baker did, but insinuating that Baker played over him solely because he had a scholarship is just dumb. There's plenty of logical basketball reasons why McMahon tried to make it work with Baker as long as possible
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:26 pm to The Shaqtus
quote:
There's plenty of logical basketball reasons why McMahon tried to make it work with Baker as long as possible
There's also plenty of logical basketball reasons as to why Dean should have played over Baker. More so IMO when you consider what the team needed. Our season didn't happen in a vacuum.
quote:
I do think that Dean offered more to this team than Baker did, but insinuating that Baker played over him solely because he had a scholarship is just dumb.
If some random poster can see that Dean provided more than Baker, how come a coach getting paid millions can't?
At some point you have to give up on being in love with a stretch five and put the best players on the court and make it work. Period. End of story.
Even then Dean could shoot so
Shoutout to everyone calling me dumb for saying he could shoot. Clearly you watched his HS type and saw him consistently drain 15 straight threes every warmup before games. Literally zero reasons to play Baker over Dean. The stretch five argument holds zero water when you acknowledge Dean's ability to shoot.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:31 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
Can you provide an explanation for why this might be?
I can, it's the scholarship situation
based on what?
quote:
Finding out Dean wasn't on scholarship answered a lot of my questions
how?
quote:
McMahon is quite clearly very old school. He favors seniority but has also shown a tendency to play favorites. I can make the connection between this and the scholarship situation
he favors experience because he wants to win and thinks experience wins. that has nothing to do with scholarships. scholarships are about the finances of the tuition. some people have it paid directly, others may use NIL money. that's nothing to do with the court.
quote:
Yes. Dean is better than Baker, but Baker played more.... now like I said previously I'd like for you to explain to me why that is
baker wasn't as good as expected. couldn't rebound vs good athletes. its not some mystery we need to imagine its to do with who is paying what over at the bursars office or whatever
quote:
It's not really a fallacy of incredulity when I provided evidence as to why I feel the way I do.
I am asking about evidence for your assertion, not evidence of your feelings. you can bring me a jar full of tears to prove you are crying but I am asking about basketball not your feelings.
you have asserted that McMahon will purposely play inferior players because of something to do with how various players are paying tuition. he would be risking wins and losses and his own career prospects because player X pays for school with NIL and player Y has it paid more directly. makes no sense. no one told you this you just appear to have invented it.
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:37 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
Clearly you watched his HS type and saw him consistently drain 15 straight threes every warmup before games.
Lol at you using fricking warmups to tell me some guy is a good shooter. I can make 10 3s in a row against air. Dean shot 7 threes all year. If Dean is such a good shooter, why didn't he shoot more? Probably because he had to pay his own tuition
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:42 pm to jamarr
quote:
how?
McMahon has had issues with lineups and rotations. I've talked ad nauseum about this the past two years I've been on TD. I felt as if McMahon had poor game feel and played inferior players to fit his scheme rather than putting the best 5 on the court and adapting his scheme. Although I still think this is largely true, the scholarship situation answered my questions as to why Baker played over Dean. We all could see Dean was better and provided more. You said yourself that "shouldn't the best players play" and yes, I think they should. Dean was better than Baker but played less. At that point you have to ask why.
Scheme wise with a stretch 5, Dean could shoot just as well if not better than Baker but yet wasn't allowed to take these shots. The stretch five argument starts to fall flat when you accept the fact Dean could shoot in addition to providing more.
The explanation that McMahon is dumb might appeal to madking and some others but I'd personally like to give McMahon the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt in my mind he eventually realized that Dean provided more. I don't think McMahon is an idiot.
When you look at the bigger picture there HAS to be a reason as to why Dean hardly played. In my opinion the only logical reason is that Dean was not on scholarship. This has an impact on team morale, locker room chemistry, and so much more. A player that was recruited to essentially fill a roster spot taking over a player who was supposed to be a focal point would not sit well with said player. I've seen Baker's ego first hand. Every athlete is competitive.
It's not so much about the bursar's office and finances as you're claiming. It's more so about the IMPLICATION of being scholarship vs non-scholarship. It's not about the money. That's not what I'm claiming. My apologies for expecting you had the brain capacity to realize that's not what I meant. The implication of being a scholarship athlete in ANY sport is that you were deemed valuable enough by the coaching staff to take one of the limited spots (more so for LSU when we were restricted). Dean was clearly not valued as highly as Baker (or any other player on the roster minus walk ons) which is why he did not receive a scholarship. It's not about the bursars office. It's about the implication of being scholarship vs non-scholarship and what that role on the team entails.
This, in turn, had a direct impact on his minutes and what he was allowed to do. After he hit a three in one of the later games in the season, McMahon remarked in a press conference that he looked towards the coaching staff in a way as to say "I should be allowed to shoot more". I don't personally think it's a logical stretch to say if he was recruited more heavily and given a scholarship (not for the money but for what that implies to your role on the team) he would be allowed to shoot more. It is abundantly clear Dean was never supposed to be an important player. He likely would have barely played had Collins not had disciplinary issues.
quote:
you have asserted that McMahon will purposely play inferior players because of something to do with how various players are paying tuition. he would be risking wins and losses and his own career prospects because player X pays for school with NIL and player Y has it paid more directly. makes no sense. no one told you this you just appear to have invented it.
I came to this conclusion because Dean is a better player than Baker. Dean could do everything Baker could do and more so.
quote:
baker wasn't as good as expected. couldn't rebound vs good athletes. its not some mystery we need to imagine its to do with who is paying what over at the bursars office or whatever
So then what is the explanation for why he played more??? You've still yet to answer this question.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 4:50 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:43 pm to The Shaqtus
quote:
Lol at you using fricking warmups to tell me some guy is a good shooter. I can make 10 3s in a row against air. Dean shot 7 threes all year. If Dean is such a good shooter, why didn't he shoot more? Probably because he had to pay his own tuition
Refer to my above post where I discuss the implications of being scholarship vs non-scholarship. It's not about the actual paying of tuition.
I also watched his HS tape (where he was a guard/forward) and he could shoot and had ball skills. If you watch his shot form it looks like the shot of a shooter. It's not hitchy or two motion like Reed and Baker. He has a shooter's shot. He had a growth spurt when he went to college and Southern Miss turned him into a PNR center because of his athleticism. McMahon himself said "there are a lot of misconceptions about Hunter Dean. He tested out as the second best athlete in our program." But yet he hardly played or got to show any of his ability?? I wonder why?
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:51 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
When you look at the bigger picture there HAS to be a reason as to why Dean hardly played. In my opinion the only logical reason is that Dean was not on scholarship.
I agree that's your opinion. your opinion is supported by nothing.
baker played because he can shoot. he didn't play as well as hoped and was a very poor rebounder, so dean got more time as the season went along. this is the most typical thing in the universe. some players get more time, others less. no reason to make up some wild theory about scholarships
Posted on 4/11/24 at 4:56 pm to jamarr
quote:
baker played because he can shoot.
so could dean
And before someone comes in with the "well he barely shot at LSU or GW" I literally explained as to why this was and I'll say it again. Dean is a freak athlete. He had a growth spurt after HS and Southern Miss turned him away from developing ball skills and focused on making him a PNR threat at center because of his athleticism. Despite this, when you look at his shot form its quite clear he has the mechanics of a shooter.
quote:
he didn't play as well as hoped and was a very poor rebounder, so dean got more time as the season went along
He did. But Baker still started every game and still played over Dean in many critical situations. You are glossing over this and acting like the minutes situation was fixed when this was far from reality.
quote:
no reason to make up some wild theory about scholarships
I don't really think it's a wild theory. Scholarship players play over non-scholarship players in every sport.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 5:02 pm to jamarr
quote:
I agree that's your opinion. your opinion is supported by nothing.
Typical cherry picking of one sentence and ignoring the rest of my argument and all the evidence I provided. Never change bro.
Let me repost it for you and give you a chance to read it again before you say that I provided zero evidence or make some wild shite up about the Bursars office.
quote:
You said yourself that "shouldn't the best players play" and yes, I think they should. Dean was better than Baker but played less. At that point you have to ask why.
Scheme wise with a stretch 5, Dean could shoot just as well if not better than Baker but yet wasn't allowed to take these shots. The stretch five argument starts to fall flat when you accept the fact Dean could shoot in addition to providing more.
The explanation that McMahon is dumb might appeal to madking and some others but I'd personally like to give McMahon the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt in my mind he eventually realized that Dean provided more. I don't think McMahon is an idiot.
When you look at the bigger picture there HAS to be a reason as to why Dean hardly played. In my opinion the only logical reason is that Dean was not on scholarship. This has an impact on team morale, locker room chemistry, and so much more. A player that was recruited to essentially fill a roster spot taking over a player who was supposed to be a focal point would not sit well with said player. I've seen Baker's ego first hand. Every athlete is competitive.
It's not so much about the bursar's office and finances as you're claiming. It's more so about the IMPLICATION of being scholarship vs non-scholarship. It's not about the money. That's not what I'm claiming. My apologies for expecting you had the brain capacity to realize that's not what I meant. The implication of being a scholarship athlete in ANY sport is that you were deemed valuable enough by the coaching staff to take one of the limited spots (more so for LSU when we were restricted). Dean was clearly not valued as highly as Baker (or any other player on the roster minus walk ons) which is why he did not receive a scholarship. It's not about the bursars office. It's about the implication of being scholarship vs non-scholarship and what that role on the team entails.
This, in turn, had a direct impact on his minutes and what he was allowed to do. After he hit a three in one of the later games in the season, McMahon remarked in a press conference that he looked towards the coaching staff in a way as to say "I should be allowed to shoot more". I don't personally think it's a logical stretch to say if he was recruited more heavily and given a scholarship (not for the money but for what that implies to your role on the team) he would be allowed to shoot more. It is abundantly clear Dean was never supposed to be an important player. He likely would have barely played had Collins not had disciplinary issues.
It’s not about who the bursars office gets the money from. That’s not at all what I mean by “the scholarship situation”. You have to use your critical thinking skills and realize that a scholarship is about more than just who pays the bursars office. My apologies for expecting you to understand this and realize that I wasn’t speaking of financial reasons.
There are a limited number of scholarships per team. Therefore, every player on scholarship is important to the team, especially on a team like LSU that was facing a scholarship reduction. It is not a logical stretch to come to the conclusion that baker was seen as a more sought after recruit and a player that was going to be a pivotal point of the team, hence he got a scholarship. Dean was never supposed to be an important piece. He was brought in as a culture guy (see LSU MBB IG in the offseason). That is why he did not receive a scholarship.. and that is why he did not play much or get to show his ability. That is what I mean by “the scholarship situation”.
In fact a lot of people seem to agree with this, as a previous poster mentioned something like “a player that was expected to play a lot and be a P6 level player” would never do what Dean did. Yet, you want to misconstrue what I’m saying and make it seem like it’s because of shite with the bursars office.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 5:37 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 5:32 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
It’s not about who the bursars office gets the money from. That’s not at all what I mean by “the scholarship situation
that's exactly what scholarships are. the have to do with how the tuition is paid. you can also pay with NIL.
in fact walk-ons has been paying tuition for walk on players.
again, your theory here imagines that McMahon will purposely play worse players and potentially lose games based on which players have to fill out which financial forms during enrollment.
if the best player on the team was from a rich family and refused a scholarship, he would still play.
Posted on 4/11/24 at 5:36 pm to jamarr
quote:
that's exactly what scholarships are. the have to do with how the tuition is paid. you can also pay with NIL.
No shite…. but a scholarship is also more than that, and I’ve listed ample reasons as to why that is. If you chose to ignore them that it on you, and if you genuinely think that a scholarship is just a financial means to an end then you are out of touch with college sports.
quote:
in fact walk-ons has been paying tuition for walk on players.
I’m aware of this. That’s why I said it’s not for financial reasons. Yet these players are still walk ons, and there are still players on scholarship.
quote:
your theory here imagines that McMahon will purposely play worse players and potentially lose games based on which players have to fill out which financial forms during enrollment.
Not imagining it. I saw Baker play over Dean with my own two eyes. You yourself said Baker was worse than Dean and Dean provided more.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 5:41 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
And I’ve listed ample reasons as to why that is.
yes largely to do with your feelings.
coach wants to win and play the best guys on his roster regardless of the particulars of the finances of their educations. if he plays player X over player Y its because he thinks that will help him win. he does not need to call the bursar and ask if he should bench em
Posted on 4/11/24 at 5:55 pm to jamarr
quote:
yes largely to do with your feelings.
So it's a feeling of mine that a scholarship player is more important than a non scholarship player?
It's a feeling of mine that Baker played more than Dean despite him playing worse?
It's a feeling of mine that Dean could shoot? I guess I just made up all the tape I watched and scouting websites I scoured.
I was dreaming when Dean killed Miss St. in the SECT but then was benched for the majority of the 2nd half??
quote:
he does not need to call the bursar and ask if he should bench em
I never said this. I said a bunch of times now that I was not speaking of finances. It's almost like you don't read what I post and skim over it looking for sentences to pick out and buzzwords to backup your preconceived notion.
No reply or response to the ample evidence I provided and expanded upon for you. Never change man.
quote:
coach wants to win and play the best guys on his roster regardless of the particulars of the finances of their educations. if he plays player X over player Y its because he thinks that will help him win.
So McMahon is an idiot then? He genuinely thought Baker provided more for the team? That's funny considering a bunch of rantards could see Dean was better... but yet in critical situations Baker always played over him..
Of course I don't believe McMahon is dumb. Ignore the direct quotes from press conferences that heavily imply that what I'm saying is correct. You do you man. Enjoy your day.
This post was edited on 4/11/24 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 4/11/24 at 6:38 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
I said a bunch of times now that I was not speaking of finances
a scholarship is explicitly a financial issue. there have been times when a star player gave up a scholarship to help the team and still were the star player. Jarvis varnado at Ms state did this.
scholarships are significantly less important now in the NIL era. walk on trace young drives a G wagon from NIL. walk-ons can make far more money than tuition costs. walk-ons the restaurant pays their tuition anyways. its not an issue the way you claim.
for the final time, your theory is just made up. they were down a scholarship so dean didn't get one. he was paid with NIL. it had zero to do with playing time. any correlation between scholarships and playing time is made up by you. good day sir.
Posted on 4/11/24 at 6:52 pm to mcmaniacinsaneasylum
quote:
I also watched his HS tape (where he was a guard/forward) and he could shoot and had ball skills
Brother, Hunter Dean made 4 three pointers in his 5 year college basketball career. He is not a shooter
Page 37 of 38
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News