EagleOutsider.com

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}: I also think epstein's evaluation of the impact on recruiting of 11-20 without Hanlan and 16-17 with him is grossly exaggerated.

why?

Shit is shit.

The guy was first team all ACC. Your revisionist history of Hanlan is terrible. The current freshman are such a big improvement over the awfulness he was forced to play with last year

He's not good enough to turn what YOU called a single digit win team into what YOU called an NIT/bubble contender. That's fairies and rainbows type shit right there, tin man.

He somehow won 4 games in the ACC last year with a team with less talent than I ever thought was imaginable. Jesus we almost beat UNC playing a walk on at PF at home. Hanlan and one reasonable fifth year and this was an NIT team.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Again, Hanlan had a .381 winning percentage at BC

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Hanlan isn't going to make this team good enough to impact recruiting. BC had a .381 winning percentage in his three seasons, and freshman, as talented as they may be, are going to have a learning curve.

Hanlan makes the difference of maybe 3-4 wins. If that. If the team is going to be less than ten wins, then the record with him would be shitty enough that it wouldn't help recruiting. If he makes this team a .500 team, then going 13-19 instead is only a marginal difference.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Again, Hanlan had a .381 winning percentage at BC

Playing with kids who shouldn't have been offered a Division 1 scholarship.

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Hanlan isn't going to make this team good enough to impact recruiting. BC had a .381 winning percentage in his three seasons, and freshman, as talented as they may be, are going to have a learning curve.

Hanlan makes the difference of maybe 3-4 wins. If that. If the team is going to be less than ten wins, then the record with him would be shitty enough that it wouldn't help recruiting. If he makes this team a .500 team, then going 13-19 instead is only a marginal difference.

You are changing your argument about the freshmen now from back in page 3 now. and the idea that Hanlan is worth only 3-4 wins, or less, is laughable.

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:A team of Hanlan, Milon, Turner, Davis (perhaps), Shonn Miller or the other prospective transfer (forget his name), Hicks, Magarity, Robinson, Clifford, Owens, and Diallo is an NIT team in my opinion. That team is much more apt to guard the post, which was one of our biggest problems. Take out Hanlan, and that team struggles

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Hanlan isn't going to make this team good enough to impact recruiting. BC had a .381 winning percentage in his three seasons, and freshman, as talented as they may be, are going to have a learning curve.

Hanlan makes the difference of maybe 3-4 wins. If that. If the team is going to be less than ten wins, then the record with him would be shitty enough that it wouldn't help recruiting. If he makes this team a .500 team, then going 13-19 instead is only a marginal difference.

You are changing your argument about the freshmen now from back in page 3 now. and the idea that Hanlan is worth only 3-4 wins, or less, is laughable.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Hanlan isn't going to make this team good enough to impact recruiting. BC had a .381 winning percentage in his three seasons, and freshman, as talented as they may be, are going to have a learning curve.

Hanlan makes the difference of maybe 3-4 wins. If that. If the team is going to be less than ten wins, then the record with him would be shitty enough that it wouldn't help recruiting. If he makes this team a .500 team, then going 13-19 instead is only a marginal difference.

You are changing your argument about the freshmen now from back in page 3 now. and the idea that Hanlan is worth only 3-4 wins, or less, is laughable.

For the first sentence, no. I said they would be the best players. I didn't say that they would walk on campus awesome. Indeed, my whole point about not caring about Hanlan leaving was more shots for the guys that need to learn to take them.

Some shitty attempts at Socrates in this thread.

For the second sentence - LOTTERY PICK!!!

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

2001Eagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Hanlan isn't going to make this team good enough to impact recruiting. BC had a .381 winning percentage in his three seasons, and freshman, as talented as they may be, are going to have a learning curve.

Hanlan makes the difference of maybe 3-4 wins. If that. If the team is going to be less than ten wins, then the record with him would be shitty enough that it wouldn't help recruiting. If he makes this team a .500 team, then going 13-19 instead is only a marginal difference.

You are changing your argument about the freshmen now from back in page 3 now. and the idea that Hanlan is worth only 3-4 wins, or less, is laughable.

For the first sentence, no. I said they would be the best players. I didn't say that they would walk on campus awesome. Indeed, my whole point about not caring about Hanlan leaving was more shots for the guys that need to learn to take them.

Some shitty attempts at Socrates in this thread.

For the second sentence - LOTTERY PICK!!!

You said freshmen play all the time and play well. And Hanlan led the conference in scoring.

You are dumb and I bet you are a least slightly overweight.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

branchinator {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Let me be the first to say two things:

1. That was the greatest ACC Championship game ever. Period.

2. This year's team will be better than that year's team.

The 2005-2006 BC team was the best team we'll ever field. It had 3 NBA players and at least 3 guys who are playing in pretty competitive leagues in Europe. If you meant that this year's BC team will advance further than the Sweet 16, well, that's possible although unlikely.

This team will be better. Mark it. And the best NBA player of all of them is currently on the team.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Rakim Sanders has more pro potential than Craig Smith, Jared Dudley and combined. The first two were the prototypical "college players" each of which is carving out a pro career as an 8th man, undersized and underathletic at his position, is just a douche. Rakim will have a much better career than any of them by 10 fold. I just hope that now that the gratuitous ball hog is gone, he doesn't blow up so much this year that he leaves early.

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:You know, I remembered a lot of dumb talk on this board after Tyrese graduated, so I went back and checked it out, and guess who made these glorious predictions:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

branchinator {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Let me be the first to say two things:

1. That was the greatest ACC Championship game ever. Period.

2. This year's team will be better than that year's team.

The 2005-2006 BC team was the best team we'll ever field. It had 3 NBA players and at least 3 guys who are playing in pretty competitive leagues in Europe. If you meant that this year's BC team will advance further than the Sweet 16, well, that's possible although unlikely.

This team will be better. Mark it. And the best NBA player of all of them is currently on the team.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Rakim Sanders has more pro potential than Craig Smith, Jared Dudley and combined. The first two were the prototypical "college players" each of which is carving out a pro career as an 8th man, undersized and underathletic at his position, is just a douche. Rakim will have a much better career than any of them by 10 fold. I just hope that now that the gratuitous ball hog is gone, he doesn't blow up so much this year that he leaves early.

Let's hope AJ Turner doesn't jump immediately to the NBA like Rakim did now that he won't have gratuitous ball hog / Greek League slowing him down.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Guy like Hanlan worth that many games in the ACC, you figure he's a lottery pick right?

claver2010 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Guy like Hanlan worth that many games in the ACC, you figure he's a lottery pick right?

aren't you the one who calls it the not basketball association?

footer20 {l Wrote}:Creighton won 27 games with Doug McDermott in 13-14 and 14 games without him in 14-15, and if you re did the draft he would not be a lottery pick.

DavidGordonsFoot {l Wrote}:

footer20 {l Wrote}:Creighton won 27 games with Doug McDermott in 13-14 and 14 games without him in 14-15, and if you re did the draft he would not be a lottery pick.

you serious clark?