Quote Originally Posted by TheSultan View Post
No Jerel McNeal isn't better than those guys. When have I ever said that someone who scores the most is a program's best player?

And no, Nukem isn't right. Billy Garrett isn't that good - he is in fact quite average. I have evidence that at least backs my case. You have nothing except your eye test - and I don't think he is really all that good when watching him. He is simply the best player on a bad team.

And by the way, your phrase "why bother to play the games if stats are the only measure" is nonsensical. If you don't play the games, then stats don't exist. And stats don't tell you everything, but they tell you a lot more than the eye test tells you.
Why do coaches watch recruits then?

Really, your argument is part true and part silly. Holding it as gospel is absurd. The Garrett I saw on De Paul, I would not want. I saw, though, that he had talent and I saw he was not properly coached. I never saw any great improvement from his first year to his senior year. Is that all due to he being a bad player or poor coaching? I have seen some talent not develop at De Paul, so I believe it is the latter. He is someone that I feel could have been coached and developed into a good team player. A stud? no. A guy I want to take the majority of the shots? no. But he had talent that was misplaced on a very bad team. He was the team without a team around him. I believe he is a different player with better talent around him. Now, can I point to any statistic to help you understand? He!! no, it doesn't exist, because he was the best player for 4 years on an awful team. That does not mean, though, that the statistics translate to a different program. That is the point others have made, but you sit on the statistics so hard that you cannot see beyond them.

I am fine that he chose De Paul, but would have liked to have seen him develop in a different program where he could better be utilized.