EagleOutsider.com

Nate2651 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I willing to believe Hanlon's going to be better than Daniels. "Believe" and "going to" being the operative words. But anyone that doesn't think Daniels' minutes are a loss is an ass clown. The Heights article actually does a great job of articulating the why - thought that article was really well done, whomever you are.

We get it you dont believe anyone who thinks "Hanlon" is good

Clearly, you didn't "get" shit.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Nate2651 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I willing to believe Hanlon's going to be better than Daniels. "Believe" and "going to" being the operative words. But anyone that doesn't think Daniels' minutes are a loss is an ass clown. The Heights article actually does a great job of articulating the why - thought that article was really well done, whomever you are.

We get it you dont believe anyone who thinks "Hanlon" is good

Clearly, you didn't "get" shit.

You sound like a sky is falling guy throughout this thread. Daniels wasnt good. All reports are that Rahon and Hanlan both are good.

Try spelling Hanlan's name right too

Nate2651 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Nate2651 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I willing to believe Hanlon's going to be better than Daniels. "Believe" and "going to" being the operative words. But anyone that doesn't think Daniels' minutes are a loss is an ass clown. The Heights article actually does a great job of articulating the why - thought that article was really well done, whomever you are.

We get it you dont believe anyone who thinks "Hanlon" is good

Clearly, you didn't "get" shit.

You sound like a sky is falling guy throughout this thread. Daniels wasnt good. All reports are that Rahon and Hanlan both are good.

Try spelling Hanlan's name right too

All reports except the Heights report in this thread and all of the realistic people that know pure freshman PGs struggle.

And I predicted 18-20 wins jackass. Read more. And pardon me on the proofreading, my secretary is busy today.

I love posters that think everything will be great no matter what happens. We used to have that in football too. I miss those days.

So 18-20 wins but you think the freshmen PG's will struggle? Makes perfect sense thanks for clarifying

Maybe John Cahill still has some eligibility.

Nate2651 {l Wrote}:So 18-20 wins but you think the freshmen PG's will struggle? Makes perfect sense thanks for clarifying

No, I thought 18-20 wins when we still had the PG with a year's experience that helped knock off the best team in the ACC last year with a sterling performance. Now, not so much. Timeline pushed back another year.

Like I said, long term Hanlan and Rahon may be better, and that's great, but this is a development that will cause another season of growing pains. Having Daniels, whether on the bench or otherwise, would have been a huge thing when the freshmen inevitably go through their struggles. Now, they will just have to ride it out like they did last year, and while I expect to see flashes of brilliance and some signs of good things to come, I also expect a shit ton of turnovers and no alternatives to stop them.

Losing Daniels is going to hurt. That being said, there are at least a couple positives out of him leaving(ellipses)
1. The two freshman have already surpassed him. Good for big picture.
2. Sounds like he's a "me" player and not a team player. No need for that on the team.

Why would someone think that he'd go to a Pac-8 team to be a backup? He can't deal with being a backup now. He'll end up back in socal starting for a Big West or WCC team.

What is the starting 5 gonna be?

Anderson, Clifford, Heckmann, Hanlon, Jackson/Rahon?

vegasEagle {l Wrote}:Losing Daniels is going to hurt. That being said, there are at least a couple positives out of him leaving(ellipses)
1. The two freshman have already surpassed him. Good for big picture.
2. Sounds like he's a "me" player and not a team player. No need for that on the team.

Why would someone think that he'd go to a Pac-8 team to be a backup? He can't deal with being a backup now. He'll end up back in socal starting for a Big West or WCC team.

What is the starting 5 gonna be?

Anderson, Clifford, Heckmann, Hanlon, Jackson/Rahon?

Hanlan and Jackson HAVE to be the starting backcourt now. This really limits them, because you have to make sure Rahon can give minutes at the 1 when Hanlan needs a rest. It just sucks.

Oh, and the spelling police want you to spell Hanlan correctly.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

vegasEagle {l Wrote}:Losing Daniels is going to hurt. That being said, there are at least a couple positives out of him leaving(ellipses)
1. The two freshman have already surpassed him. Good for big picture.
2. Sounds like he's a "me" player and not a team player. No need for that on the team.

Why would someone think that he'd go to a Pac-8 team to be a backup? He can't deal with being a backup now. He'll end up back in socal starting for a Big West or WCC team.

What is the starting 5 gonna be?

Anderson, Clifford, Heckmann, Hanlon, Jackson/Rahon?

Hanlan and Jackson HAVE to be the starting backcourt now. This really limits them, because you have to make sure Rahon can give minutes at the 1 when Hanlan needs a rest. It just sucks.

Oh, and the spelling police want you to spell Hanlan correctly.

I still stick with my opinion that Hanlan (teddy) and Rohan ( ) will be end up being the starters.

vegasEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

vegasEagle {l Wrote}:Losing Daniels is going to hurt. That being said, there are at least a couple positives out of him leaving(ellipses)
1. The two freshman have already surpassed him. Good for big picture.
2. Sounds like he's a "me" player and not a team player. No need for that on the team.

Why would someone think that he'd go to a Pac-8 team to be a backup? He can't deal with being a backup now. He'll end up back in socal starting for a Big West or WCC team.

What is the starting 5 gonna be?

Anderson, Clifford, Heckmann, Hanlon, Jackson/Rahon?

Hanlan and Jackson HAVE to be the starting backcourt now. This really limits them, because you have to make sure Rahon can give minutes at the 1 when Hanlan needs a rest. It just sucks.

Oh, and the spelling police want you to spell Hanlan correctly.

I still stick with my opinion that Hanlan (teddy) and Rohan ( ) will be end up being the starters.

Great, use your only two PGs at the same time.

God forbid any of BC's guards get hurt now. That's REASON #1 you didn't want to lose Daniels, followed by the fact that he had already done this once.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I willing to believe Hanlon's going to be better than Daniels. "Believe" and "going to" being the operative words. But anyone that doesn't think Daniels' minutes are a loss is an ass clown. The Heights article actually does a great job of articulating the why - thought that article was really well done, whomever you are.

I agree it was a good article and also agree the first half of why Daniels is a loss make a lot of sense (pick and roll thing, not so much the D), I do not at all understand the extrapolation of a shooting slump from Rahon(which is inconsistent with other articles published within the last two wees) and Hanlan having difficulty driving in one game against Northeastern into much of anything.

In addition to the aforementioned reasons, it was also a good article because of the effort made to get to the Don as soon as the situation occurred rather than reporting on it 6 days later with recycled quotes. The Heights continues to become more relavant and helpful in filling some of void left by the region's media.

vegasEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

vegasEagle {l Wrote}:Losing Daniels is going to hurt. That being said, there are at least a couple positives out of him leaving(ellipses)
1. The two freshman have already surpassed him. Good for big picture.
2. Sounds like he's a "me" player and not a team player. No need for that on the team.

Why would someone think that he'd go to a Pac-8 team to be a backup? He can't deal with being a backup now. He'll end up back in socal starting for a Big West or WCC team.

What is the starting 5 gonna be?

Anderson, Clifford, Heckmann, Hanlon, Jackson/Rahon?

Hanlan and Jackson HAVE to be the starting backcourt now. This really limits them, because you have to make sure Rahon can give minutes at the 1 when Hanlan needs a rest. It just sucks.

Oh, and the spelling police want you to spell Hanlan correctly.

I still stick with my opinion that Hanlan (teddy) and Rohan ( ) will be end up being the starters.

It was reported even when Daniels was here that Rahon and Hanlan would start so I doubt it will change. Starters are Hanlan, Rahon, Jackson, Anderson Clifford

Nate2651 {l Wrote}:

vegasEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

vegasEagle {l Wrote}:Losing Daniels is going to hurt. That being said, there are at least a couple positives out of him leaving(ellipses)
1. The two freshman have already surpassed him. Good for big picture.
2. Sounds like he's a "me" player and not a team player. No need for that on the team.

Why would someone think that he'd go to a Pac-8 team to be a backup? He can't deal with being a backup now. He'll end up back in socal starting for a Big West or WCC team.

What is the starting 5 gonna be?

Anderson, Clifford, Heckmann, Hanlon, Jackson/Rahon?

Hanlan and Jackson HAVE to be the starting backcourt now. This really limits them, because you have to make sure Rahon can give minutes at the 1 when Hanlan needs a rest. It just sucks.

Oh, and the spelling police want you to spell Hanlan correctly.

I still stick with my opinion that Hanlan (teddy) and Rohan ( ) will be end up being the starters.

It was reported even when Daniels was here that Rahon and Hanlan would start so I doubt it will change. Starters are Hanlan, Rahon, Jackson, Anderson Clifford

I am fine with Rahon and Hanlan: (a) if they are the best players, which they may be, even though I liked the idea of Hanlan off the bench at three positions; and (2) when they had another player that could play PG. I don't like the idea of starting all of your ballhandlers at the same time with no guards on the bench. I think Jackson and Heckmann have to start so that Rahon is fresh when he assumes ball handling duties. Sliding him over to PG midway through the first half after he has played 12 minutes at the 2 seems problematic for me.

Those are good points maybe Don will adjust. Hoff on EA confirmed today in his article that the 5 I mentioned are still the starting lineup

Nate2651 {l Wrote}:Those are good points maybe Don will adjust. Hoff on EA confirmed today in his article that the 5 I mentioned are still the starting lineup

I don't mind that starting lineup at all, and wouldn't have even when Daniels was there, though my preference, again, would be to have Hanlan run three positions off the bench as a dynamic player with the second unit - I was thinking Jason Terry, maybe not style, but results. My problem is that starting a three guard lineup with Daniels gone suddenly makes guard depth an issue that previous did not exist.

Nate2651 {l Wrote}:Those are good points maybe Don will adjust. Hoff on EA confirmed today in his article that the 5 I mentioned are still the starting lineup

Wow. I woulda thought Heckmann over Jackson just for a tiny bit more size.

This hurts this year without a doubt.

Hanlan is likely more talented (and I base this on what I read about him on here, not on any footage I've seen) than Daniels. However, unless Hanlan comes in and surprises to the level of someone like a Trey Burke at Michigan last year, this is a net negative this year due to depth concerns.

We essentially now have 4 players for the 3 guard spots in Heckmann, Jackson, Rahon, and Hanlan. Perhaps Anderson can swing to 3, but likely not for more than 5-6 minutes per game max, as our frontcourt depth is shoddy as well.

14 wins.

gaelfu {l Wrote}:This hurts this year without a doubt.

Hanlan is likely more talented (and I base this on what I read about him on here, not on any footage I've seen) than Daniels. However, unless Hanlan comes in and surprises to the level of someone like a Trey Burke at Michigan last year, this is a net negative this year due to depth concerns.

We essentially now have 4 players for the 3 guard spots in Heckmann, Jackson, Rahon, and Hanlan. Perhaps Anderson can swing to 3, but likely not for more than 5-6 minutes per game max, as our frontcourt depth is shoddy as well.

14 wins.

The one positive thing, although this falls into the category of things I'll believe once I see, is that one of the EA people said that Odio was the most improved player from last year. If he can actually play meaningful minutes it would certainly help with depth at the 3 and some 4.

There is no sugarcoating the loss of daniels as a positive for this season. An injury to a ball handler and we are really in trouble. I think it means a ery limited usage of three guard sets too for reasons stated above. You can't have all of your potential PGs gassed at the same time.

Let's not forget how good JD was at breaking the press. His size, speed, ball handling, composure, and quickness gave pressing teams ulcers.

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:Let's not forget how good JD was at breaking the press. His size, speed, ball handling, composure, and quickness gave pressing teams ulcers.

I don't think it did.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:Let's not forget how good JD was at breaking the press. His size, speed, ball handling, composure, and quickness gave pressing teams ulcers.

I don't think it did.

Yeah, that was hyperbole, and I am a huge Daniels fan.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:Let's not forget how good JD was at breaking the press. His size, speed, ball handling, composure, and quickness gave pressing teams ulcers.

I don't think it did.

only because stress doesn't cause ulcers

This is revisionist history. Daniels was turnover-prone last year, and this team struggled with pressure regardless of who the primary ballhandler was.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:The one positive thing, although this falls into the category of things I'll believe once I see, is that one of the EA people said that Odio was the most improved player from last year. If he can actually play meaningful minutes it would certainly help with depth at the 3 and some 4.

There is no sugarcoating the loss of daniels as a positive for this season. An injury to a ball handler and we are really in trouble. I think it means a ery limited usage of three guard sets too for reasons stated above. You can't have all of your potential PGs gassed at the same time.

Someone on BCI said the same thing about Odio (I can neither CONFIRM nor deny if it was the same person)

From where Odio needed to come from last year, I'm in believe it when I see it mode with him.

gaelfu {l Wrote}:This is revisionist history. Daniels was turnover-prone last year, and this team struggled with pressure regardless of who the primary ballhandler was.

Daniels wasn't that turnover prone for a primary ballhandler, and he committed half as many TOs per 40 mins as Heckmann - about 2.5. He had 62 TO in 31 games, so I think the revisionist history is yours.

Heckmann was worse, no doubt, and needs to cut his turnovers in half this year if this team has a prayer of being any good.

6 TOs in 24 min against UMass and 6 TOs in 26 min against Miami would strike me otherwise. Also, it's not like we were running and gunning last year. We slowed it down quite a bit, and turnovers were still a problem.

And I'll conclude by saying I liked the way he played last year and the mistakes probably would have lessened this year. But all of the guards on this team had problems in this department last year.

gaelfu {l Wrote}:Heckmann was worse, no doubt, and needs to cut his turnovers in half this year if this team has a prayer of being any good.

6 TOs in 24 min against UMass and 6 TOs in 26 min against Miami would strike me otherwise. Also, it's not like we were running and gunning last year. We slowed it down quite a bit, and turnovers were still a problem.

And I'll conclude by saying I liked the way he played last year and the mistakes probably would have lessened this year. But all of the guards on this team had problems in this department last year.

His third game ever and a fluke at the end of a long and tiring year are solid proof. Kudos. His next highest was 4 three times. The rest of his games were 3 or less.

EDIT: That's 84% of his games with 3 or less.

pick6pedro {l Wrote}:

gaelfu {l Wrote}:Heckmann was worse, no doubt, and needs to cut his turnovers in half this year if this team has a prayer of being any good.

6 TOs in 24 min against UMass and 6 TOs in 26 min against Miami would strike me otherwise. Also, it's not like we were running and gunning last year. We slowed it down quite a bit, and turnovers were still a problem.

And I'll conclude by saying I liked the way he played last year and the mistakes probably would have lessened this year. But all of the guards on this team had problems in this department last year.

His third game ever and a fluke at the end of a long and tiring year are solid proof. Kudos. His next highest was 4 three times. The rest of his games were 3 or less.

Thanks, you beat me to it. Daniels did not have problems with turnovers. Averaged 2 per game as a PG and primary ball handler.

Fine, pounded into submission on that point.

Still would like to see the PG A/TO ratio be higher than 1.3 to 1. Should be around the 2 to 1 range. Of course, we sucked last year, so that might have something to do with it.