Billy Garrett, Jr - DePaul

[DavidBoone2inchesTaller]

You just gotta feel sorry for a guy like him and that DePaul can't get its act together. Exceptional player, student, and person. He deserved better. Players like him is what college basketball is all about. I can think of a few Marquette players over the years like him too.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-billy-garrett-depaul-basketball-preview-spt-1111-20161110-story.html

http://www.bigeast.com/news/2017/3/8/MBB_0308174625.aspx

[Nukem2]

Will miss him.

[MUAlphaBangura]

You just gotta feel sorry for a guy like him and that DePaul can't get its act together. Exceptional player, student, and person. He deserved better. Players like him is what college basketball is all about. I can think of a few Marquette players over the years like him too.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-billy-garrett-depaul-basketball-preview-spt-1111-20161110-story.html

http://www.bigeast.com/news/2017/3/8/MBB_0308174625.aspx

Don't let Sultan read that. He wouldn't take BG jr over anybody on the Marquette roster! :cool:

[IWB]

Will give him credit, as bad as DePaul has been, he could have easily bolted at anytime and stuck with them all four years.

[Phantom Warrior]

Pretty hard to bolt on your dad. But I do think the kid has shown a lot of resilience, especially given his medical situation.

[Nukem2]

Pretty hard to bolt on your dad. But I do think the kid has shown a lot of resilience, especially given his medical situation.Forgot that he has sickle cell trait.

[TheSultan]

Don't let Sultan read that. He wouldn't take BG jr over anybody on the Marquette roster! :cool:

Correct. Hardly an "exceptional player."

But I never saw his AAU recordings so what do I know.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Correct. Hardly an "exceptional player."

But I never saw his AAU recordings so what do I know.

On bad teams, someone will take shots, get rebounds, and get assists. Doing that doesn't make one a good player. Garrett is not a good player. He's the avatar of DePaul ineptitude. The worst "best player" in the league.

[Nukem2]

On bad teams, someone will take shots, get rebounds, and get assists. Doing that doesn't make one a good player. Garrett is not a good player. He's the avatar of DePaul ineptitude. The worst "best player" in the league.

Quite a few here disagree fwiw

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Quite a few here disagree fwiw

Sure, and it's largely because of antiquated stats models and one layup at the Bradley Center. Others disagreeing doesn't change my opinion that Garrett is garbage.

[TheSultan]

Quite a few here disagree fwiw


And they're wrong. Look, he is 44th in the conference in efficiency - tied with Sam Hauser. The only regular Marquette players ranked below that are Heldt and Cheatham. All three of those players are going to get better IMO than Garrett is.

JuJuan Johnson, who everyone (including myself) gets on at times for lack of senior leadership, is a better player than Garrett is. Not even close. Better shooter, more efficient, turns the ball over less...

I can't figure out for the life of me why people think he is a good player. He accumulated a bunch of stats on a crappy team because he has a bunch of crappy teammates.

[Nukem2]

And they're wrong. Look, he is 44th in the conference in efficiency - tied with Sam Hauser. The only regular Marquette players ranked below that are Heldt and Cheatham. All three of those players are going to get better IMO than Garrett is.

JuJuan Johnson, who everyone (including myself) gets on at times for lack of senior leadership, is a better player than Garrett is. Not even close. Better shooter, more efficient, turns the ball over less...

I can't figure out for the life of me why people think he is a good player. He accumulated a bunch of stats on a crappy team because he has a bunch of crappy teammates.
Whatever.

[TheSultan]

Whatever.


So in other words, you got nothing.

[DavidBoone2inchesTaller]

Sure, and it's largely because of antiquated stats models and one layup at the Bradley Center. Others disagreeing doesn't change my opinion that Garrett is garbage.

Alan, are you related to Lilian Bykowski?

[Nukem2]

So in other words, you got nothing.
Uh, no. Garrett and Cain were the only reason DePaull hung with a lot of teams this year. Teams like MU heavily shaded them and won easily. The eye test!! Screw your stats. Duh Pul is just bad and drags down guys like Garrett. Is that so hard to understand?

[TheSultan]

Uh, no. Garrett and Cain were the only reason DePaull hung with a lot of teams this year. Teams like MU heavily shaded them and won easily. The eye test!! Screw your stats. Duh Pul is just bad and drags down guys like Garrett. Is that so hard to understand?


Just because he is the best player on a bad team, that doesn't make him a good player - much less an exceptional one. And yes, you can have good players on bad teams. Tony Smith is a great example - and his stats blow Garrett's out of the water.

As always, you need to check your eyes. They need help. Because again, if he WAS a good player, you could SHOW me something. And you can't.

[Nukem2]

Just because he is the best player on a bad team, that doesn't make him a good player - much less an exceptional one. And yes, you can have good players on bad teams. Tony Smith is a great example - and his stats blow Garrett's out of the water.

As always, you need to check your eyes. They need help. Because again, if he WAS a good player, you could SHOW me something. And you can't.
As I said, WHATEVER. I suspect that Jay Wright would have been very happy to have had him along with every other BE coach.

[TheSultan]

I doubt it unless you are talking about a 8th or 9th guy.

When you are high usage players like Garrett and Cain, and are 10th and 11th on a bad team in eFG%, you simply aren't good players. There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise. At least I can SHOW you evidence to back up my assertion. You simply cannot.

[Gato78]

Sultan, why bother to play the games if stats are the only measure? How did we ever beat Villanova? By your measure, since Jerel McNeil is our all time leading scorer, he is better than Butch Lee and Jim Chones and Dean Meminger. Of course stats don't tell the whole story. Nukem is right, Billy Garrett Jr. is damn good.

[TheSultan]

Sultan, why bother to play the games if stats are the only measure? How did we ever beat Villanova? By your measure, since Jerel McNeil is our all time leading scorer, he is better than Butch Lee and Jim Chones and Dean Meminger. Of course stats don't tell the whole story. Nukem is right, Billy Garrett Jr. is damn good.


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? :confused:

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.

[MUMac]

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? :confused:

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.

[MUAlphaBangura]

I doubt it unless you are talking about a 8th or 9th guy.

When you are high usage players like Garrett and Cain, and are 10th and 11th on a bad team in eFG%, you simply aren't good players. There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise. At least I can SHOW you evidence to back up my assertion. You simply cannot.

Most people with basketball evaluation skills beyond looking at metrics would agree that Billy Garrett Jr would be an ideal player on a team as a 3rd or 4th option, not a #1. You sound foolish saying he would be an 8th or 9th guy on a good D1 team. His shortcomings statistically have come because he is the focus of every team's scouting report. If you stopped him #1 and Cain #2 you won. If you don't think a player can actually look like 2 completely different players depending on the talent around them, please explain the difference in Nigel Hays' play as a sophomore when he played with Kaminsky and Dekker as a 3rd/4th option, compared with being the #1 option the last 2 years. There is no way on God's green earth you can say he was better this year, statistics be damned, yet he looked like a surefire 1st round pick as a Sophomore. Now praying to be drafted at all.

[TheSultan]

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.


Coaches watch recruits because high school stats don't translate to college. So yes, the eye test matters when scouting players.

Regarding your second paragraph, I don't disagree with much of it at all. I don't know if Garrett didn't evolve into a better player because he just isn't as good as advertised or because of poor coaching. (Or due to his illness.) But the question I have is...does it matter? If we are judging him as a college player, we only have to go on what he produced. Not *why* he turned out that way.

Now if I were an NBA scout, you would take a look at those numbers but also scout him in person. To see if skills translate to the next level.

[Nukem2]

Wow. Garrett is a good player on a bad team. Quite simple.

[MUAlphaBangura]

Coaches watch recruits because high school stats don't translate to college. So yes, the eye test matters when scouting players.

Regarding your second paragraph, I don't disagree with much of it at all. I don't know if Garrett didn't evolve into a better player because he just isn't as good as advertised or because of poor coaching. (Or due to his illness.) But the question I have is...does it matter? If we are judging him as a college player, we only have to go on what he produced. Not *why* he turned out that way.

Now if I were an NBA scout, you would take a look at those numbers but also scout him in person. To see if skills translate to the next level.

Why would an NBA scout take a look at him in person? "He is simply not a good player."

[TheSultan]

Why would an NBA scout take a look at him in person? "He is simply not a good player."


Well DePaul has to play other teams with good players at times right? ;)

[Nukem2]

Well DePaul has to play other teams with good players at times right? ;)
Guess you are missing the point. Sigh.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Guess you are missing the point. Sigh.

There's definitely a point being missed, but not by Sultan. Garrett is trash. He is emblematic of why DePaul sucks. He is overrated by Marquette fans that ignore tangible numbers because he hit a game winning layup against us once upon a time. But as a player, his greedy shots, his piss poor efficiency, that's why DePaul has sucked. Billy Garrett wouldn't play for Nova. Please. He plays for DePaul because they don't have better options. They are the only Big East team that can say that. Would he even start for anyone else?

He's got the second worst eFG% on his team. He's a bad rebounder. He's just not good. And mercifully, his career is over. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[Nukem2]

There's definitely a point being missed, but not by Sultan. Garrett is trash. He is emblematic of why DePaul sucks. He is overrated by Marquette fans that ignore tangible numbers because he hit a game winning layup against us once upon a time. But as a player, his greedy shots, his piss poor efficiency, that's why DePaul has sucked. Billy Garrett wouldn't play for Nova. Please. He plays for DePaul because they don't have better options. They are the only Big East team that can say that. Would he even start for anyone else?

He's got the second worst eFG% on his team. He's a bad rebounder. He's just not good. And mercifully, his career is over. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Holy Toledo. What else can one say.

[kneelb4zerg]

Holy Toledo. What else can one say.

Eye test, stats, whatever. Just answer if he's really good enough to be a rotation player for Nova. Or us for that matter. No freaking way.

[farmerdoc]

Would you answer the same way if asked the question after his freshman year as now?

[Nukem2]

Eye test, stats, whatever. Just answer if he's really good enough to be a rotation player for Nova. Or us for that matter. No freaking way.
Uhh, yes.

[kneelb4zerg]

Uhh, yes.

Who would he replace in our rotation?

[pbiflyer]

Damn, my computer has a virus. Every time I click on this thread, I am redirected to scoop.

[DavidBoone2inchesTaller]

There's definitely a point being missed, but not by Sultan. Garrett is trash. He is emblematic of why DePaul sucks. He is overrated by Marquette fans that ignore tangible numbers because he hit a game winning layup against us once upon a time. But as a player, his greedy shots, his piss poor efficiency, that's why DePaul has sucked. Billy Garrett wouldn't play for Nova. Please. He plays for DePaul because they don't have better options. They are the only Big East team that can say that. Would he even start for anyone else?

He's got the second worst eFG% on his team. He's a bad rebounder. He's just not good. And mercifully, his career is over. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Alan:

Are you related to Lilian Bykowski?

[TheSultan]

Damn, my computer has a virus. Every time I click on this thread, I am redirected to scoop.


How? Not a single person on Scoop has suggested that Garrett is an "exceptional player" or even "damn good."

[DavidBoone2inchesTaller]

I would love his leadership and defensive ability on our team. Like Will Gates.

Scoop could use that kind of leadership and maturity too Mr.TheSultan.

[pbiflyer]

How? Not a single person on Scoop has suggested that Garrett is an "exceptional player" or even "damn good."

I was referring to the level of discourse.

[TheSultan]

I would love his leadership and defensive ability on our team. Like Will Gates.

Scoop could use that kind of leadership too Mr. TheSultan.


Ah "leadership." The crutch people use when nothing else makes sense. Such a great leader that they went 42-86 in his four years, 14-58 in conference. So how do we determine his leadership skills?

Look, I'm not calling him "trash." I think he is pretty much an average, replacement level type player. No more than that.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Alan:

Are you related to Lilian Bykowski?

Not that I'm aware of. I do know there were two different (and as far as we know unrelated) Bykowski families, one on the north side in Riverwest, another in the Polish Flats on the south side. I'm from the north side family, and don't really know anyone from the south side.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Would Garrett play for Villanova? The Wildcats run a 7-man rotation right now. Would Garrett get in ahead of any of these? Josh Hart, Jalen Brunson, Mikal Bridges, Kris Jenkins, Eric Paschall, Darryl Reynolds, Donte DiVincenzo. If they were fully healthy, you could add Phil Booth and Omari Spellman to that, and lately Dylan Painter has been getting some run, though he's a big man and Garrett wouldn't play that role. Would they go to an 8-man rotation for Garrett? Maybe, but he'd definitely be the 8th man behind Reynolds and DiVincenzo.

Would he start for anyone else? From the bottom up...

Georgetown: He would make the rotation but wouldn't start over Peak or Pryor, though I could see him starting in a 3-guard set instead of Mulmore/Mosley.
St. John's: He wouldn't start over Ponds/LoVett/Ellison, the last thing the Johnnies need is a high-usage, low efficiency guy to take shots from their big 3.
Xavier: No chance he'd start, though he'd probably get more chances with Sumner out (I do like him better than Goodin right now).
Creighton: Definitely not at full strength, he isn't close to Watson, Foster, Zierden, or Thomas. Might get a bit of run with Watson out, but he's definitely not a starter for them.
Seton Hall: That would be interesting, you can argue Garrett against Madison Jones, but what Jones does well is play within the team and get the hell out of the way of Desi and Carrington. Off the bench, Powell is definitely better than Garrett.
Marquette: No chance he gets time over Howard, Rowsey, Reinhardt, or JJ. I'd take Wilson over him too, because he defers when necessary. Probably make the rotation ahead of how Cheatham is playing now, but definitely 5th or 6th man in our already crowded backcourt.
Providence: He wouldn't sniff Cartwright or Lindsey's spots, might have a chance of starting ahead of Diallo/Jackson though.
Butler: He wouldn't sniff the rotation, much less the starting lineup. Maybe the 10th man there.

So for Villanova, he wouldn't crack their current rotation, no chance whatsoever. For the rest of the league, he maybe starts for Georgetown, Seton Hall, or Providence, but not for anyone else at full strength. Again, a guy who could maybe start for 3 other teams in the league, and is the "best" player on his current perennial doormat, simply not that good of a player.

[Goose85]

I always look at where he has had to play the last four years. Must be depressing when two games into the conference season you know your season is done.
Good points by all, as this is obviously a subjective discussion. I've often had such discussions about players that left MU. Would their careers have been different if they played for Crean or Buzz where hard work and dedication to hoops came first, as opposed to a mid major or low D1 school where the facilities and focus isn't as great.

Would we all be talking about what a stud Howard has been this year if he was on DePaul and Garret was on MU? Just think if Howard was on DePaul, where 14 of your 18 conference games are against teams likely to get into the NCAA tourney, while your roster doesn't have a guy that would crack the rotation on almost all of them. Would he be as good as he has shown this year? If he is the focal point of every D, would he have had the same success?

Personally, I think Garrett is a product of his surroundings. I know others on the board think he is lucky to have a scholarship in the Big East. That is why coaches, and in the big leagues GMs, get big bucks and also get fired all the time, smart and successful people in the industry often see things differently.

[Nukem2]

Would Garrett play for Villanova? The Wildcats run a 7-man rotation right now. Would Garrett get in ahead of any of these? Josh Hart, Jalen Brunson, Mikal Bridges, Kris Jenkins, Eric Paschall, Darryl Reynolds, Donte DiVincenzo. If they were fully healthy, you could add Phil Booth and Omari Spellman to that, and lately Dylan Painter has been getting some run, though he's a big man and Garrett wouldn't play that role. Would they go to an 8-man rotation for Garrett? Maybe, but he'd definitely be the 8th man behind Reynolds and DiVincenzo.

Would he start for anyone else? From the bottom up...

Georgetown: He would make the rotation but wouldn't start over Peak or Pryor, though I could see him starting in a 3-guard set instead of Mulmore/Mosley.
St. John's: He wouldn't start over Ponds/LoVett/Ellison, the last thing the Johnnies need is a high-usage, low efficiency guy to take shots from their big 3.
Xavier: No chance he'd start, though he'd probably get more chances with Sumner out (I do like him better than Goodin right now).
Creighton: Definitely not at full strength, he isn't close to Watson, Foster, Zierden, or Thomas. Might get a bit of run with Watson out, but he's definitely not a starter for them.
Seton Hall: That would be interesting, you can argue Garrett against Madison Jones, but what Jones does well is play within the team and get the hell out of the way of Desi and Carrington. Off the bench, Powell is definitely better than Garrett.
Marquette: No chance he gets time over Howard, Rowsey, Reinhardt, or JJ. I'd take Wilson over him too, because he defers when necessary. Probably make the rotation ahead of how Cheatham is playing now, but definitely 5th or 6th man in our already crowded backcourt.
Providence: He wouldn't sniff Cartwright or Lindsey's spots, might have a chance of starting ahead of Diallo/Jackson though.
Butler: He wouldn't sniff the rotation, much less the starting lineup. Maybe the 10th man there.

So for Villanova, he wouldn't crack their current rotation, no chance whatsoever. For the rest of the league, he maybe starts for Georgetown, Seton Hall, or Providence, but not for anyone else at full strength. Again, a guy who could maybe start for 3 other teams in the league, and is the "best" player on his current perennial doormat, simply not that good of a player.The high usage/low efficiency stuff, once again, is more a function of the DePaul situation. Had he gone elsewhere, his numbers would likely have been much different? As Goose said, it is a subjective discussion. As I posted earlier, I would have far rather have had Garrett at PG than Derrick Wilson and Cheatham/Carter for the 3 seasons prior to this one. Bottom line is he had a nice career at a bad BB school. He was not chopped liver like some posters seem to be suggesting. On to Sunday @ 4:30.

[Phantom Warrior]

Wow. I am reading this thread and wondering if I accidentally entered the Twilight Zone. What universe am I reading in?

BG would definitely be in our rotation, and in my mind he'd likely be a starter, either at the 2 or at the 3. For BE games only, he is averaging 15.1 ppg (13th in the conference), 3.3 apg (10th), 83.5% on free throws (4th), 1.4 spg (10th). He is not a great outside shooter, but he averaged 36.6% in his 18 BE games (36.8% if you include the BET game). That is certainly a respectable figure. His free throw percentage is important because he got to the line 5 or 6 times on average per game more than any MU player averaged.

And all of this despite the fact that DePaul did not have a true 5 on the roster so that a 6'7" forward was their primary 5, and a non-scoring 6'7" forward in Hamel (4.6 ppg in 25.7 mpg) was playing the 4. On top of that was a freshman guard, Cyrus, who averaged a whopping 4.6 ppg in over 26 mpg.

In short, opponents game planned to stop Cain and to stop Garrett.

In terms of our seven "perimeter" players, personally, I would take Garrett over Haanif, Duane, JJ, and Reinhardt. With his ability to play either point or the 2 guard, he could have paired up with Markus or Rowsey in the back court and defended the opponent's best guard, and he would have allowed either Markus or Rowsey to play the 2 on offense for most of their minutes. We would have been a better team on offense and on defense. BG would not have had to take as many shots at MU as he did at DePaul, which means he would have increased his shooting percentage, probably both from the field overall and from behind the arc.

Divide up the 80 mpg between Markus, Rowsey, and BG at the 1 and 2, and both Markus and Rosey would have been able to see more mpg than they did, yet for 27-28mpg we would have had a 6'6" guard on the floor that could actually play solid defense.

Wojo would have loved to have BG on his roster this year.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Using stats like ppg to talk about the value of Garrett when that's exactly part of the problem with Garrett indicates not that you've entered the Twilight Zone, but that you never left. Talking about his free throw percentage as though that has any meaning or significance whatsoever only cements that.

If you want to love Billy Garrett, that's fine. You can look at the "best" player on a terrible team and think that because he shines brighter than the rest of the players around him, he actually is a good player. You can think back to that one layup and phantom foul against Marquette and wonder what might have been if he'd been in Blue and Gold. You can look at ppg in the vacuum of ignoring his terrible eFG% and poor offensive efficiency.

Maybe on a better team he would have been a better player. Maybe with better coaching he would have been a better player. But the reality is he wasn't on a better team and he didn't have better coaching and thus is not a better player. Quite simply, he went to DePaul. The teams he has been on have been terrible and his style of play and ball dominance has been a big part of why they have been terrible. Him continuing to dominate the ball despite being one of the worst shooters on a team that shoots poorly on the whole is a massive problem. You can blame that on the coaching staff, you can blame that on JLP, you can blame that on his father, or you can blame that on Garrett himself, but the reality is the way he plays makes DePaul a worse team and he is a living embodiment of why DePaul was bad under Purnell and hasn't got better under Leitao.

[Goose85]

Using stats like ppg to talk about the value of Garrett when that's exactly part of the problem with Garrett indicates not that you've entered the Twilight Zone, but that you never left. Talking about his free throw percentage as though that has any meaning or significance whatsoever only cements that.

If you want to love Billy Garrett, that's fine. You can look at the "best" player on a terrible team and think that because he shines brighter than the rest of the players around him, he actually is a good player. You can think back to that one layup and phantom foul against Marquette and wonder what might have been if he'd been in Blue and Gold. You can look at ppg in the vacuum of ignoring his terrible eFG% and poor offensive efficiency.

Maybe on a better team he would have been a better player. Maybe with better coaching he would have been a better player. But the reality is he wasn't on a better team and he didn't have better coaching and thus is not a better player. Quite simply, he went to DePaul. The teams he has been on have been terrible and his style of play and ball dominance has been a big part of why they have been terrible. Him continuing to dominate the ball despite being one of the worst shooters on a team that shoots poorly on the whole is a massive problem. You can blame that on the coaching staff, you can blame that on JLP, you can blame that on his father, or you can blame that on Garrett himself, but the reality is the way he plays makes DePaul a worse team and he is a living embodiment of why DePaul was bad under Purnell and hasn't got better under Leitao.

So you think DePaul will be a much better team next year?

[Nukem2]

Wow. I am reading this thread and wondering if I accidentally entered the Twilight Zone. What universe am I reading in?

BG would definitely be in our rotation, and in my mind he'd likely be a starter, either at the 2 or at the 3. For BE games only, he is averaging 15.1 ppg (13th in the conference), 3.3 apg (10th), 83.5% on free throws (4th), 1.4 spg (10th). He is not a great outside shooter, but he averaged 36.6% in his 18 BE games (36.8% if you include the BET game). That is certainly a respectable figure. His free throw percentage is important because he got to the line 5 or 6 times on average per game more than any MU player averaged.

And all of this despite the fact that DePaul did not have a true 5 on the roster so that a 6'7" forward was their primary 5, and a non-scoring 6'7" forward in Hamel (4.6 ppg in 25.7 mpg) was playing the 4. On top of that was a freshman guard, Cyrus, who averaged a whopping 4.6 ppg in over 26 mpg.

In short, opponents game planned to stop Cain and to stop Garrett.
In terms of our seven "perimeter" players, personally, I would take Garrett over Haanif, Duane, JJ, and Reinhardt. With his ability to play either point or the 2 guard, he could have paired up with Markus or Rowsey in the back court and defended the opponent's best guard, and he would have allowed either Markus or Rowsey to play the 2 on offense for most of their minutes. We would have been a better team on offense and on defense. BG would not have had to take as many shots at MU as he did at DePaul, which means he would have increased his shooting percentage, probably both from the field overall and from behind the arc.

Divide up the 80 mpg between Markus, Rowsey, and BG at the 1 and 2, and both Markus and Rosey would have been able to see more mpg than they did, yet for 27-28mpg we would have had a 6'6" guard on the floor that could actually play solid defense.

Wojo would have loved to have BG on his roster this year.Yep, Wojo said so after the DePaul wins.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

So you think DePaul will be a much better team next year?

Much better? Not necessarily. I still think they'll be near the bottom of the league. But I do think the departure of Garrett will make it easier for their team to start improving. When Leitao was there the first time, his success came from having numerous options. Greer, Holland, Mejia, Drake Diener, they had a diverse offense with numerous players that could contribute. The dominance of Garrett and Cain makes that virtually impossible for this team. If Leitao's recruits can start to contribute, I could see them taking a step forward. I don't think it will be some mammoth step to 7-9 Big East wins, but 4-6 wouldn't surprise me at all.

The biggest hurdle they face right now is playing in this league. They aren't passing Villanova, Xavier, or Butler any time soon. With recruiting and results, Creighton, Providence, and Marquette are clearly trending up. That leaves Seton Hall, who is good now but is largely on the basis of one recruiting class, St. John's, who seems to be ready to come out of the cellar and could be a tourney team as soon as next year, and Georgetown, who is the one team I could see DePaul passing in the short term depending on their coaching situation.

Clearing out Purnell's deadwood is important. He did a poor job at assembling a team and tried to build around one top-100 recruit, which was always going to fail. It'll take another year or two for his guys to start to mature, and going the JUCO route like he did with McCallum could help speed the process. They're still in on some quality players for 2017 and 2018. They'll be interesting to watch. Not sure he'll ever get the necessary commitment with JLP in charge, but a new arena and a few wins could very well have them trending up sooner than many expect.

Leitao's not necessarily a savior, but I don't think he's that bad of a coach. The question that has never really been answered (because he hasn't been anywhere long enough) is if he can win with his own recruits. I like some of the guys he's bringing in, but it remains to be seen if he's a better team-builder than Purnell was.

[CaribouJim]

I don't get the over the top vitriol for BG Junior...."garbage"..."trash"??? Has he taken up robbing banks or something?

[DavidBoone2inchesTaller]

This 'effin piece of garbage just won the Big East Sportmanship Award and the Big East Men's Basketball - Scholar Athlete of the Year Award. Not only does he not deserve to play basketball in the Big East, frankly, he is not fit to walk this earth, literally.

This piece of crap of a human being has the SC form of Sickle Cell Disease which clogs his blood vessels and stops blood flow to his legs and several organs at a moments notice. The nerve of this piece of crap to think he can play in the vaunted Big East Conference while having that disease. WTF? Who does he think he is to play with pain so unbearable that sometimes it takes him 4 days in a hospital to recover during the season? Or a disease that at times shuts down all of his organs. He should not be playing in the Big East Conference. He's got no business playing basketball in any conference.

It pi$$es me off to no end that this piece of crap of a player had the nerve to think he would not let Sickle Cell Disease control his life. Silly Billy... didn't he know that he is worthless and that disease always wins? His game is just so weak at times, literally.

Plus, he's only considered a leader because he sucks. I only call him a leader because this piece of crap wouldn't start for any team in the Big East Conference with the exception DePaul.

He is the only Division I player in the NCAA that plays with SC - Sickle Cell Disease. He is the "exception" to the rule.

In other words, he is an "exceptional player" in every sense of that phrase.

[TheSultan]

This 'effin piece of garbage just won the Big East Sportmanship Award and the Big East Men's Basketball - Scholar Athlete of the Year Award. Not only does he not deserve to play basketball in the Big East, frankly, he is not fit to walk this earth. In addition, this piece of crap of a human being has the SC form of sickle cell disease which clogs his blood vessels and stops blood flow to his legs and several organs at a moments notice. The nerve of this piece of crap to think he can play in the vaunted Big East Conference. Who does he think he is to play with pain so unbearable that sometimes it takes him 4 days in a hospital to recover during the season?

It pi$$es me off to no end that this piece of crap of a player had the nerve to think he could beat Sickle Cell Disease. Silly Garrett... didn't he know that you are worthless and that disease always wins? His game is so weak.

Plus, he's only considered a leader because he sucks. This piece of crap wouldn't start for any team in the Big East Conference with the exception DePaul.

He is the only Division I player that plays with SC - Sickle Cell Disease. He is the exception to the rule.

In other words, he is an exceptional player in every sense of that phrase.



He is an absolute great guy and a model for what a student athlete should be. The fact that he is graduating with a finance degree in four years, which is no small achievement, makes him even more commendable. And you are 100% correct about the battles he has faced overcoming his disease.

That being said, he ended up an average player on the court, which is the only thing I was commenting on.

I'll give you two thumbs up on the hyperbole however.

[Nukem2]

He is an absolute great guy and a model for what a student athlete should be. The fact that he is graduating with a finance degree in four years, which is no small achievement, makes him even more commendable. And you are 100% correct about the battles he has faced overcoming his disease.

That being said, he ended up an average player on the court, which is the only thing I was commenting on.

I'll give you two thumbs up on the hyperbole however.You are welcome to your opinion. Others here have disagreed. So be it.

[MUMac]

He is an absolute great guy and a model for what a student athlete should be. The fact that he is graduating with a finance degree in four years, which is no small achievement, makes him even more commendable. And you are 100% correct about the battles he has faced overcoming his disease.

That being said, he ended up an average player on the court, which is the only thing I was commenting on.

I'll give you two thumbs up on the hyperbole however.

Yeah, hyperbole is only one sided in this thread. :(

You keep talking in different languages than most others (outside of brewcity who thinks anyone who has an opinion different than his is in the twilight zone). You see the stats of BG of today and most everyone else have pointed to the differences in being on a more talented team vs De Paul. On the differences in coaching he could have had, vs what little he received at De Paul. That is why you only have stats and others see through the stats and see what he could have been in a different scenery.

How often do we see players traded from one system to another, from one team to another, from a poorer team to a better team and that player is a different player? How could that be? We had their stats from the other team, so they could never be any different than they currently are, right?

Stats show you everything, it appears. Stats only show part of the story to those that see wasted talent.

[TheSultan]

Yeah, hyperbole is only one sided in this thread. :(

You keep talking in different languages than most others (outside of brewcity who thinks anyone who has an opinion different than his is in the twilight zone). You see the stats of BG of today and most everyone else have pointed to the differences in being on a more talented team vs De Paul. On the differences in coaching he could have had, vs what little he received at De Paul. That is why you only have stats and others see through the stats and see what he could have been in a different scenery.

How often do we see players traded from one system to another, from one team to another, from a poorer team to a better team and that player is a different player? How could that be? We had their stats from the other team, so they could never be any different than they currently are, right?

Stats show you everything, it appears. Stats only show part of the story to those that see wasted talent.


I haven't seen anything to suggest he is better than he is. Not overly quick. Not a great shooter. Good defender. So pretty much an average player. I think his stats describe who he is as a basketball player pretty accurately.

[MUMac]

I haven't seen anything to suggest he is better than he is. Not overly quick. Not a great shooter. Good defender. So pretty much an average player. I think his stats describe who he is as a basketball player pretty accurately.

Honest question for you. Do you have the capacity to ever understand anyone else's point of view, that your view of the world is not the only one? Or are you the only one who is always right? I ask, because quite honestly, I do not believe you have that capacity. People feel you are pompous, I think it's truly other factors. You can never concede a point of view other than yours. That is why people such as Nukem, Halo and others get frustrated with you as a poster.

[MUAlphaBangura]

I haven't seen anything to suggest he is better than he is. Not overly quick. Not a great shooter. Good defender. So pretty much an average player. I think his stats describe who he is as a basketball player pretty accurately.

That's because you refuse to look or take the word of those that have seen him in different settings over his career. You will look at one set of circumstances and define the kid. So let me try to figure this out.... what he did in high school and on the aau circuit absolutely doesn't matter according to you, even though he was a very different player under very different circumstances. Doesn't count. Then he goes to college and that counts 100% based entirely on his college stats. He's no good. But NBA personnel will need to see him in person to be able to evaluate him to see if he has a future as a professional because you can't rely only on stats. But they won't really look at him because he isn't any good. Are you dizzy from all the spinning? I kinda am.;)

[kneelb4zerg]

That's because you refuse to look or take the word of those that have seen him in different settings over his career. You will look at one set of circumstances and define the kid. So let me try to figure this out.... what he did in high school and on the aau circuit absolutely doesn't matter according to you, even though he was a very different player under very different circumstances. Doesn't count. Then he goes to college and that counts 100% based entirely on his college stats. He's no good. But NBA personnel will need to see him in person to be able to evaluate him to see if he has a future as a professional because you can't rely only on stats. But they won't really look at him because he isn't any good. Are you dizzy from all the spinning? I kinda am.;)

You know what? If he's so damn good NBA scouts will find him. Looking forward to hearing his name called during the draft.

[MUAlphaBangura]

Not one person here has said they expect BG to be drafted. You are absolutely correct if he is good enough, NBA personnel will find him. He very likely will not have his name called on draft night so I would advise not staying up past your bedtime waiting for his name to be called. I won't, but it would not surprise me at all to see his name on a summer league roster being given a chance to show if his skills warrant a contract. Plenty of undrafted players end up in the league.

[Nukem2]

Honest question for you. Do you have the capacity to ever understand anyone else's point of view, that your view of the world is not the only one? Or are you the only one who is always right? I ask, because quite honestly, I do not believe you have that capacity. People feel you are pompous, I think it's truly other factors. You can never concede a point of view other than yours. That is why people such as Nukem, Halo and others get frustrated with you as a poster.
Not frustreded at all. He is just an easy target. Very Murff-like.

[DavidBoone2inchesTaller]

He is an absolute great guy and a model for what a student athlete should be. The fact that he is graduating with a finance degree in four years, which is no small achievement, makes him even more commendable. And you are 100% correct about the battles he has faced overcoming his disease.

That being said, he ended up an average player on the court, which is the only thing I was commenting on.

I'll give you two thumbs up on the hyperbole however.

Mr. TheSultan:

No hyperbole. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-billy-garrett-sickle-cell-haugh-spt-0125-haugh-20150124-column.html

[TheSultan]

Honest question for you. Do you have the capacity to ever understand anyone else's point of view, that your view of the world is not the only one? Or are you the only one who is always right? I ask, because quite honestly, I do not believe you have that capacity. People feel you are pompous, I think it's truly other factors. You can never concede a point of view other than yours. That is why people such as Nukem, Halo and others get frustrated with you as a poster.


I understand people's point of view. Really what Bangura has seen on videotape from four years ago is irrelevant to me because I have seen him play plenty of times and that isn't how his college career has panned out. So simply put, I don't agree with it.

If people don't like that and don't like what I have to say...well...sorry.

[TheSultan]

That's because you refuse to look or take the word of those that have seen him in different settings over his career. You will look at one set of circumstances and define the kid. So let me try to figure this out.... what he did in high school and on the aau circuit absolutely doesn't matter according to you, even though he was a very different player under very different circumstances. Doesn't count. Then he goes to college and that counts 100% based entirely on his college stats. He's no good. But NBA personnel will need to see him in person to be able to evaluate him to see if he has a future as a professional because you can't rely only on stats. But they won't really look at him because he isn't any good. Are you dizzy from all the spinning? I kinda am.;)


Nothing I stated has been inconsistent.

The NBA scouts players because they want to see how their skills can translate to the next level. That has nothing to do with how to judge them as a college player. Didn't realize this bit of logic would be so hard for you to understand.

[DavidBoone2inchesTaller]

Dear Mr. TheSultan:

People are comparing you to Murf in this topic. Not Murf the basketball player. Not Murf the basketball coach. Murf the internet poster. TheSultan, do you understand what that means?

[TheSultan]

Dear Mr. TheSultan:

People are comparing you to Murf in this topic. Not Murf the basketball player. Not Murf the basketball coach. Murf the internet poster. TheSultan, do you understand what that means?


I just have a different opinion. I didn't participate in this topic until Bangura brought me up. I usually only responded when someone responded to me.

[Alan Bykowski, "brewcity77"]

Yeah, hyperbole is only one sided in this thread. :(

You keep talking in different languages than most others (outside of brewcity who thinks anyone who has an opinion different than his is in the twilight zone). You see the stats of BG of today and most everyone else have pointed to the differences in being on a more talented team vs De Paul. On the differences in coaching he could have had, vs what little he received at De Paul. That is why you only have stats and others see through the stats and see what he could have been in a different scenery.

How often do we see players traded from one system to another, from one team to another, from a poorer team to a better team and that player is a different player? How could that be? We had their stats from the other team, so they could never be any different than they currently are, right?

Stats show you everything, it appears. Stats only show part of the story to those that see wasted talent.

I feel he's a below average player. He's definitely a below-average starter. I didn't bring up the Twilight Zone, that would be PW.

Might he have been different in a different system with different coaching? Sure. I said as much. But he didn't have a different system or different coaching, he had the DePaul system and DePaul coaching, and with that system and coaching, he was a bad player whose selfish nature and bad shooting made his team worse.

Is there hyperbole? Sure. But it's on both sides. All the people acting like he would play for Villanova, again, who on Villanova would he be ahead of? 8th player in their 7 man rotation this year, and 10th if they had Booth and Ochefu. Where else would he start that I didn't mention? Maybe Georgetown or Providence?

If people think he's a product of his environment, fine, but that doesn't change that the environment he's in isn't very good and it has turned out a bad product. Talking about what he did in high school or AAU doesn't change what he has been the past four years, which is a net-negative player on a bad team.

But heaven forbid any of us disagree or share another opinion on this site. Especially if they use things like "stats" and "facts" to back those opinions up.