No decision yet. I hear some LSU fans are already sending congrats to him onis myspace page for picking LSU but that is just clutter right now. Should be down to LSU or Clemson.
I won't lie, if I were a guard who liked to dictate the ball a little bit, I would go to Clemson over LSU. I don't know how many of you watched Stanford last year, but their brand of basketball isn't exactly the showtime Lakers. More like the bad-boy Pistons. Was it his personnel that dictated that? maybe so, but he also recruited his players.
Hearing he is more of a SG who can spread the floor with the 3-ball but point still taken. Dont know much about Clemson but would assume we could offer more playing time.
Year after this year we lose 5 or so seniors, I would think he would play right away probably even start.
Mack has the ability to light it up, especially from deep, but he can also go Tac style and turn it over a lot. I think he would be a good acquisition. He may go to Clemson, but doesn't really fit the style they have now. They consist of shorter, high tempo guards that are quick and good at press defense. But obviously a team like Clemson will generally take a player with lots of talent. Plus, he is an average free throw shooter, which is better than any Clemson player in the last decade.
you ain't kidding, there. For the style they play, you'd think they'd be a plus 80% team with all those guards, but they also have (and lose games because of) poor free throw shooting. It's ridiculous.
seems like he was forced to take the twins. did you hear during the draft last night that brook claimed by the second grade that he would play for stanford? doesnt sound like he had to sell them on anything.
I don't know what games you watched of Stanford, but I don't think this is quite right. First off, Stanford was the highest average scoring team in the Pac-10 (actually UCLA was much more Bad-Boy than Stanford). Yes, they built their team around two 7 foot Lopez brothers, but they (and Trent) have always had good solid guard play, with kids that could shoot. Casey Jacobsen, Brevin Knight, last year it was their wings. So, I wouldn't compare Stanford to Detroit by any means. When you go back through Stanford's recent time and Trent's time at Nevada, you'll see that Trent does utilize and recruit bigs (Fazekas at Nevada, the Collins and Lopez twins), but he also balances the court with good shooters--especially it seems at that 3 spot. He's shown a better ability to run a balanced offensive attack, IMO, than Brady and Butch. If Mack can shoot the rock, Trent is going to want him to pair up outside with our new bigs. The interesting thing is our "bigs" can shoot the rock too, Tas' was developing into a decent three point shooter, and Chris Johnson is already an above average shooting big. Clemson may be more of a "guard oriented" offense, but if you're a good spot-up 3 point shooter, I actually think LSU is going to become a better place to go now (more pure "point" play to go with the big men, equals more shots for the wings).
all irrelevant because Jacobsen and Knight and such didn't play for Johnson at Stanford. That's like saying Brady has an eye for bigs, b/c Shaq played at LSU. I never said they played low-tempo, but they did play physical, inside-dominated basketball. Nothing against LSU's style. I just think Clemson's 4-guard lineup would be more of what a guard would look for. I hope I am wrong. And FYI, Stanford was the 6th scoring team in the PAC 10. SIXTH. Not even in the upper half of the league, so look a little harder next time. What Stanford team were YOU watching? If they were No. 1 in scoring overall for all games, then fine, but they were sixth in conference games which is a far more accurate measure, because all 10 teams played the same opponents. It eliminates the fluff of cupcakes. http://www.pac-10.org/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2007-2008/confldrs.html In a national perspective, I don't know what their 70 points per game equates to nationally, b/c its so low on the totem pole that ESPN doesn't keep track anymore. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/leaders?groupId=50&cat=teamscoring&sort=AVG I know they worse than 101 that's for sure. Probably in the 150s would be my guess. and also... What shooting wings do you speak of? Stanford got 30 of their 70 a game from the Lopez twins and shot just 36% as a team from the arc and had only one plus 40% three-point shooter. Being we like to give Stanford's PAC 10 ranks here, we can also note that their team field goal percentage was 9th in the Pac 10 and their three point shooting percentage was fifth in the Pac 10.
