I think Scott can be useful in certain situations. He's not an option to score so he becomes a facilitator on offense. His D is good but he's no Justin Jackson. He's good for 5-10 back up minutes when needed but not much more.
This doesn't mean he's not D1 BB player. If you can guard at the D1 level you are a D1 BB player. Maybe that means only spot minutes...but we need those too. What we will need next year is a D1 starter.
Worst take you've ever had then. You can still take it back.
Scott has a very defined role. He plays it well. He's not going to be a scorer this year, and may not ever score more than 6-8 but he screens well, rebounds well, plays tough interior defense, is athletic enough to switch and fit our defensive scheme, and he handles the ball well in the high post and makes good passes and decisions on handoffs.
If that to you is Q Moore bc "neither are D1 players" then all I can do is smh. Such a crappy take it's hard to even wrap my head around the idea that someone would stand by this and want to be taken seriously as a basketball person.
I mean, really? That's your take? He's an established rotation player on a Top 15 team as a SO but you and "others" (L-T) think he's not a D1 player? And that's the only thing you can cling to to compare him to Q Moore? Can't even mention anything basketball-wise. Weak shit. Horrible take. Worst comparison I've ever seen of 2 athletes in my entire life. Get a clue.
I think Scott can be useful in certain situations. He's not an option to score so he becomes a facilitator on offense. His D is good but he's no Justin Jackson. He's good for 5-10 back up minutes when needed but not much more.
This doesn't mean he's not D1 BB player. If you can guard at the D1 level you are a D1 BB player. Maybe that means only spot minutes...but we need those too. What we will need next year is a D1 starter.
Funny, his coach speaks highly of him & thinks he does a lot of things right...so do I. Scott (per minutes played), rebounds better than Washington. He plays defense and is a good passer. I would like to see him more aggressive on offense, his FG percentage is better than 68% (I realize that many of his points are dunks or very close to the basket, but that's also a function of being in the right place at the right time). I think a basketball player is exactly what he is...ask Cronin.not hyperbole at all. Scott is not an effective Division 1 basketball player. Hes just not. people can glamour at his athleticism, but hes not a basketball player. So they can be compared. Quadri is not a division 1 basketball player, and neither is scott
And sorry, but I do know what im watching..And im not even close to the only one who thinks this.
does his D makeup for his turnovers, being lost on the offense end, and missed shots?
Like I get people love Defense, and I do too. But if when playing offense you are basically just helping the other team play Defense, is your actual defense really making up for that?
Scott had 1 game with some TOs. It's never been an issue before. But it's such an issue now he should be playing Division 2?
but temple is one of the worst rebounding teams in college. we allowed them to rebound 42.5% of their misses they average 29%.
Im not taking anything back. Ill stand by my scott is awful takes until he transfers in the summer. Hes terrible, I honestly dont even understand what you can possibly be watching to not cringe when hes in the game
I cant wrap my head around someone watching Scott and thinking, yea...Im confident when hes on the court. Hes not "established" like you say he is. If he was, Mick would have given him more than 4 minutes in a game where both bigs were in foul trouble . mick obviously has zero faith in him as well
@Temple and @UCF are always going to be ugly wins. I don't know what it is.
interesting that was the comment that took you overboard.
We refuse to change our offense against a defense that is clearly able to stop it.
4 minutes in a game where our bigs were in foul trouble..but yea..."established role player"
Smh. You don't get to claim this point. You don't speak for the coach. And I'd bet a lot of money that he'd say the exact opposite.
He didn't play last night bc he was having a bad game. Period. Wasn't able to get anything done. That's why he got 4 minutes. It's ONE f*cking game. You taking it to a level of him not being a D1 player makes you look like a fool. You can still take your sh*tty take back anytime though...
He's averaging double digit minutes. He is an established role player. That's literally exactly what he is. He is a guy who has bought into his established role. He's also an amateur and an underclassman.
Look, you said he's not a D1 player. You can still take it back. And honestly, even if I didn't believe it, I'd take it back if I were you. Your credibility on this board takes a nosedive every time you double down. I know it's early in 2018, but you may have already locked down worst take of the year. And all you have to do is admit that you went too far with it.