Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57

Thread: Stanley Who?

  1. #11
    Senior PMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,458
    If you don't wish you were a woman who had Stan's kids you are not a real Xavier fan. There, I said it.

  2. #12
    Supporting Member GuyFawkes38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,165
    Quote Originally Posted by PMI View Post
    If you don't wish you were a woman who had Stan's kids you are not a real Xavier fan. There, I said it.
    I like this honesty. Every XH poster who has fantasized about having Stan's kids, admit it right here.
    "I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip."

  3. #13
    Walk-On etyahla24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    66

    Talking

    Man, I gotta stick up for my boy Stanley Burrell. Terrell is gonna be just fine, but you all are just crazy if you gonna tell me that you would take Halloway over Burrell at this point in time. For Stanley to come here as a heralded scorer out of Indiana, alot of guys would just sit back. But Burrell worked his ass of week in and week out for 4 years to become the all around player he was last year. He became the best on the ball defender on the team last year, and we wouldn't have touched the marks we hit last year without him.
    His claim to fame...
    -2007-08 Atlantic 10 Conference Defensive Player of the Year (puts him in the likes of David West and Posey)
    -ESPN analyst Jay Bilas had him among his six National Defensive Player of the Year candidates
    -National All-Defensive First Team
    but we already know his defensive skills. Offensively...
    -Thousand point scorer
    -team's second-leading scorer at 12.4 ppg in 06-07 (Team that should have beat o-State incase you don't remember)
    -had nine 20-point games as sophmore and led the team in assists with 105
    -12th place on XU's all-time scoring list
    -had 125 career starts at Xavier
    -9.7 ppg (most of the season was over 10 ppg as we were the only team in the nation to have 6 players averaging above 10 pts per game)
    -career average of 12.9 ppg
    -hit 82.3 percent from the free throw line
    -Shot over 40% from the field in his career
    No i don't want nuttin to do with having Burrells babies, and I hope that Terrell Holloway turns out to be everybit as good as Burrell, as he has the potential to do and more but I'd still take Burrell over anyone in our backcourt at this time
    Go X!!! Beat MU!!!

    -

  4. #14
    Supporting Member GuyFawkes38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,165
    Quote Originally Posted by etyahla24 View Post
    Man, I gotta stick up for my boy Stanley Burrell. Terrell is gonna be just fine, but you all are just crazy if you gonna tell me that you would take Halloway over Burrell at this point in time. For Stanley to come here as a heralded scorer out of Indiana, alot of guys would just sit back. But Burrell worked his ass of week in and week out for 4 years to become the all around player he was last year. He became the best on the ball defender on the team last year, and we wouldn't have touched the marks we hit last year without him.
    His claim to fame...
    -2007-08 Atlantic 10 Conference Defensive Player of the Year (puts him in the likes of David West and Posey)
    -ESPN analyst Jay Bilas had him among his six National Defensive Player of the Year candidates-National All-Defensive First Team
    but we already know his defensive skills. Offensively...
    -Thousand point scorer
    -team's second-leading scorer at 12.4 ppg in 06-07 (Team that should have beat o-State incase you don't remember)
    -had nine 20-point games as sophmore and led the team in assists with 105
    -12th place on XU's all-time scoring list
    -had 125 career starts at Xavier
    -9.7 ppg (most of the season was over 10 ppg as we were the only team in the nation to have 6 players averaging above 10 pts per game)
    -career average of 12.9 ppg
    -hit 82.3 percent from the free throw line
    -Shot over 40% from the field in his career
    No i don't want nuttin to do with having Burrells babies, and I hope that Terrell Holloway turns out to be everybit as good as Burrell, as he has the potential to do and more but I'd still take Burrell over anyone in our backcourt at this time
    Go X!!! Beat MU!!!

    -

    Remember, I like to just piss people off on this board.

    In all seriousness, Burrell was a really good player for X.

    But as I said before, if X ever wants to go to the Final Four, we will need more explosive players on offense from the point guard and shooting guard positions.

    And Burrell and Lavender were overrated (from XH, to Dustin Dow, to the national media). Chalmers and Sato were better players, yet they oddly didn't receive the same amount of praise.
    "I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip."

  5. #15
    Senior PMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,458
    In my opinion, Sato>Burrell, but Lavender>Chalmers. I don't think you realize just how important Drew was for us. There is no doubt in my mind he could be a great starting PG on a Final Four team.

    Now of course Chalmers is difficult to analyze because you have to look at him in two parts: Chalmers before the Run, and Chalmers during the Run. Chalmers during the Run should be considered the best guard in school history, but you can't just look at that 1/8th of his career in comparing him with our other guys. Drew was the general who made things happen for our team and did so at a high level his two years here. He did it at an unprecedented level (for our school's history) his senior year, helping keep us ranked just about all year and helping us rack up 30 wins. Chalmers didn't show that kind of consistency on a team that also had 3 senior starters (albeit after losing D West.) We were barely over .500 deep into the year and came in 4th in our DIVISION of the A10. We lost twice to Duquesne. Had Drew run that point, the rest of the team probably would have come together quicker and probably wouldn't have had to have played 4 games in 4 days. That said, we probably wouldn't have made the Run because taking away Chalmers during that stretch meant taking away the hottest player in the country. So if you're saying Sato and Chalmers were the better duo at their best point, I would agree, but I don't think you can say they were hands down overall, even though Sto was the best of the 4 of them as far as I'm concerned.

    And I'm with you on liking to piss people off here.

  6. #16
    Supporting Member GuyFawkes38's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,165
    Quote Originally Posted by PMI View Post
    In my opinion, Sato>Burrell, but Lavender>Chalmers. I don't think you realize just how important Drew was for us. There is no doubt in my mind he could be a great starting PG on a Final Four team.

    Now of course Chalmers is difficult to analyze because you have to look at him in two parts: Chalmers before the Run, and Chalmers during the Run. Chalmers during the Run should be considered the best guard in school history, but you can't just look at that 1/8th of his career in comparing him with our other guys. Drew was the general who made things happen for our team and did so at a high level his two years here. He did it at an unprecedented level (for our school's history) his senior year, helping keep us ranked just about all year and helping us rack up 30 wins. Chalmers didn't show that kind of consistency on a team that also had 3 senior starters (albeit after losing D West.) We were barely over .500 deep into the year and came in 4th in our DIVISION of the A10. We lost twice to Duquesne. Had Drew run that point, the rest of the team probably would have come together quicker and probably wouldn't have had to have played 4 games in 4 days. That said, we probably wouldn't have made the Run because taking away Chalmers during that stretch meant taking away the hottest player in the country. So if you're saying Sato and Chalmers were the better duo at their best point, I would agree, but I don't think you can say they were hands down overall, even though Sto was the best of the 4 of them as far as I'm concerned.

    And I'm with you on liking to piss people off here.
    Yeah, it's a tougher call between Chalmers and Lavender.

    Maybe I'm biased too much by Chalmers ending his career at X with incredible offensive production and Lavender struggling due to a bad ankle. At that point of their careers, Chalmers was much, much better. But pick a point prior to that, you'd have to give an edge to Lavender.

    I think it really shows how awesome Sato and Chalmers were that it took X nearly 2 years to recover from their absence. Stanley and Lavender were really good players, but we don't seem to be as damaged by their absence this year as we were by Sato and Chalmers.
    Last edited by GuyFawkes38; 11-25-2008 at 08:55 PM.
    "I am at this moment writing a lengthy indictment against our century. When my brain begins to reel from my literary labors, I make an occasional cheese dip."

  7. #17

    Kubrick?

    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFawkes38 View Post
    Stanley who?

  8. #18
    Senior PMI's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,458
    I like this discussion, despite the lack of smack. I hear you on the drop-off after the Chalmers/Sato/Myles departure, but it's also important to remember the state of the program then compared to now. Miller was a rookie coach without his own guys yet, his PG and him did NOT get along at all (don't let anyone tell you anything different) and the team was just not very good that year. Our program is much more of a revolving door now. We seem to be deeper every year, even if it means being less experienced like we are this year (although it doesn't really show right now.)

    Had Matta been around in 04-05, I think we'd be worse off now and some lucky school would have Sean Miller building a program for them, but in that particular year we would have won more than 17 games in my opinion. Miller needed that year to start his own thing. The program then and the program now are very different, and if nothing else, the confidence level that players have playing for Miller now has to be much higher than that of the players on the 04-05 team.

  9. #19
    Walk-On etyahla24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by GuyFawkes38 View Post
    Remember, I like to just piss people off on this board.

    In all seriousness, Burrell was a really good player for X.

    But as I said before, if X ever wants to go to the Final Four, we will need more explosive players on offense from the point guard and shooting guard positions.

    And Burrell and Lavender were overrated (from XH, to Dustin Dow, to the national media). Chalmers and Sato were better players, yet they oddly didn't receive the same amount of praise.
    And I agree that it would help to have more explosive players. As for Chalmers and Sato, they too would have probably been overrated if they played a X today

  10. #20
    After we clinched the a10 title last year Miller said to one of his assistance something along the lines of "thank god i dont have to coach burrell much longer"..joking of course but still funny

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •