ADVERTISEMENT

Samson George, Efretuei and roster space

No , I think your wrong ,when he failed to land his higher rated targets he went on to the guys he's signing . Ask Mic Jagger he'll tell you that you don't always get the one you want .....
In my opinion, Samson will be a more productive player than Corey last season or even Corey would have been this season.
 
I want Pitt to win more than most... after saying that ... it seems Stallings is fighting for his job. As he should be.

No more free passes.
Tough talk but PITT isnt tough! Fyi I agree but reality is what counts!

I'm no Stallings fan but he's not fighting for his job!

Stallings has a 6 year deal that PITT doesnt have the stones or money to touch. The new AD is caught in the middle ride out the KS tenure and hope for the best or make an expensive change ( buy-out with big money for a better coach).

With the ride out the KS option Lyke can blame the previous AD. If she makes a change and it doesnt work its on her.

KS is here no matter what he does for atleast 3 more years which brings him to a contract with 2 years remaining.

The new AD ( the one after Lyke) might be able to consider a change if one is warranted at that time!
 
Tough talk but PITT isnt tough! Fyi I agree but reality is what counts!

I'm no Stallings fan but he's not fighting for his job!

Stallings has a 6 year deal that PITT doesnt have the stones or money to touch. The new AD is caught in the middle ride out the KS tenure and hope for the best or make an expensive change ( buy-out with big money for a better coach).

With the ride out the KS option Lyke can blame the previous AD. If she makes a change and it doesnt work its on her.

KS is here no matter what he does for atleast 3 more years which brings him to a contract with 2 years remaining.

The new AD ( the one after Lyke) might be able to consider a change if one is warranted at that time!
If adding after thought projects is him fighting for his job, time to pull the plug
 
In my opinion, Samson will be a more productive player than Corey last season or even Corey would have been this season.
Well ... you can't prove the latter.

And he better be more productive this year than Corey was this past season considering that Mike, Sheldon and Jamel were around this past season.

If Samson had been around this past season, would he have been more productive than Corey? ... that's the relevant question.

And this one can't be proven either!

Quite frankly, bringing up this whole point seems very agenda laden and unnecessary.
 
Well ... you can't prove the latter.

And he better be more productive this year than Corey was this past season considering that Mike, Sheldon and Jamel were around this past season.

If Samson had been around this past season, would he have been more productive than Corey? ... that's the relevant question.

And this one can't be proven either!

Quite frankly, bringing up this whole point seems very agenda laden and unnecessary.
I was thinking of this (and more) at the time:

From THIRTEE NINE:

Personally I can see Illegomah's upside if I squint a little bit and I hope that as an upperclassman that he can possibly turn into a Zanna type. George though, him I just don't get. He's being projected as a grinder type but he's not a big kid, he could put on that weight but he doesn't have it now, he's really stiff and he isn't even a little bit explosive. He is going to have to shoot his way onto the court because his value as a rebounder isn't going to be nearly as high as everyone seems to be expecting here because he just isn't a high major athlete.

But my real issue with this recruiting strategy is twofold.

Firstly taking zero star kids has a real opportunity cost because it creates a scholarship question for next year which is a much more important class. Yes, Stallings has no problem running kids off but what's the point of recruiting a developmental player if you are going to run him off next year? It just creates too much uncertainty in the next two classes are much more important. None of these kids are going to be a lot of help now and adding George changes us from an 8 win team to an 8 win team. (I am hoping the world does not end with the end of the 2017-2018 basketball season)

Secondly, and more damaging, is that you get role players at a higher level by adding players with good attitudes who were stars at a lower level. You don't get them by adding role players from a lower level because the physical changes in the game as you progress become too much for attitude alone to overcome. Adding players who didn't average double digits on the prep level (George did - points and rebounds- 15.0 and 11.5) and expecting them to play right away in the ACC is a desperation move and not one that has even a fair chance of being a success.

I believe he also said something like George plays a game/position that no longer exists in modern college basketball? :

he's an unskilled 6-7 power forward in a game where that has very little value any more. He might overachieve but he's fairly rated. I must have missed it. All teams are now populated by nothing by 6-10 forwards shooting threes?

George does remind me of Nazir (I know he was not ranked like Nazir). Sometimes you just get a feeling about a player(not as strong on Peace). I think Pitt will be happy to have George the player. I also think George the player and the person, will be great for team chemistry, something we have not seen recently.

I defended George just like defended Peace. Looking at his video (I know its 9 mins of high lights) showed me someone who was anything but stiff or not athletic. Hell, he was coming in late, flying over people who had position on him and dunking offensive rebounds. The contrast with what I had seen from Corey( a 3-star recruit) in a high school game and his time at Pitt needed to be highlighted. George lives in the paint. Corey could not find it with a map.

The difference between a player and a stiff is not some arbitrary number associated with those players.

Nothing personal, just a huge difference of opinion.

This post will be there for people to remind me if I am wrong.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking of this (and more) at the time:

From THIRTEE NINE:

Personally I can see Illegomah's upside if I squint a little bit and I hope that as an upperclassman that he can possibly turn into a Zanna type. George though, him I just don't get. He's being projected as a grinder type but he's not a big kid, he could put on that weight but he doesn't have it now, he's really stiff and he isn't even a little bit explosive. He is going to have to shoot his way onto the court because his value as a rebounder isn't going to be nearly as high as everyone seems to be expecting here because he just isn't a high major athlete.

But my real issue with this recruiting strategy is twofold.

Firstly taking zero star kids has a real opportunity cost because it creates a scholarship question for next year which is a much more important class. Yes, Stallings has no problem running kids off but what's the point of recruiting a developmental player if you are going to run him off next year? It just creates too much uncertainty in the next two classes are much more important. None of these kids are going to be a lot of help now and adding George changes us from an 8 win team to an 8 win team.

Secondly, and more damaging, is that you get role players at a higher level by adding players with good attitudes who were stars at a lower level. You don't get them by adding role players from a lower level because the physical changes in the game as you progress become too much for attitude alone to overcome. Adding players who didn't average double digits on the prep level (George did - points and rebounds- 15.0 and 11.5) and expecting them to play right away in the ACC is a desperation move and not one that has even a fair chance of being a success.

I believe he also said something like George plays a game/position that no longer exists in modern college basketball? :

he's an unskilled 6-7 power forward in a game where that has very little value any more. He might overachieve but he's fairly rated. I must have missed it. All teams are now populated by nothing by 6-10 forwards shooting threes?

George does remind me of Nazir (I know he was not ranked like Nazir). Sometimes you just get a feeling about a player(not as strong on Peace). I think Pitt will be happy to have George the player. I also think George the player and the person, will be great for team chemistry, something we have not seen recently.

I defended George just like defended Peace. Looking at his video (I know its 9 mins of high lights) showed me someone who was anything but stiff or not athletic. Hell, he was coming in late, flying over people who had position on him and dunking offensive rebounds. The contrast with what I had seen from Corey( a 3-star recruit) in a high school game and his time at Pitt needed to be highlighted. George lives in the paint. Corey could not find it with a map.

The difference between a player and a stiff is not some arbitrary number associated with those players.

Nothing personal, just a huge difference of opinion.

This post will be there for people to remind me if I am wrong.
Or perhaps it will be evidence of how you believed in success when no one else did. That would be the best case scenario for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gary2
ADVERTISEMENT