Bear Down Wildcats

qwertyus wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Sealed he game for us.

Clutch alley oop. Clutch three. Made all 11 FT's, and took players on off the dribble. Can't ask for much more.

If only he were a good enough passer to take over PG duties...

How ‘bout we ask him to actually play defense? As good as he was on offense, he was our worst player on the other end for most of the night. Constantly in no man’s land after unecessarily leaving his man open to help on a drive. Never seen so many wide open threes given.

I think the rumors last off-season of on-Court friction between Alkins and Trier has some truth to it.

I saw Alkins look exasperated more than once at Trier missing him wide open. The most obvious was the fast break where Trier was 2 on 3 w Alkins slightly trailing on the camera side. He put his head down and bulled in 1 on 3. Got fouled and made both fts but he had a dump off to Alkins for an uncontested dunk if he wanted it.

I don’t think they dislike each other or anything, it’s just a weird team dynamic. U know Alkins would have made the dump off to Trier if roles were reversed. Alkins is the leader we need based on how he plays, and grinds and does the glue guy stuff u need. But Trier is the guy that would normally be the leader based on his stature and expierence and class and skill. Obviously Trier lacks leadership skills and that’s the one criticism i have of him. He isn’t a talker, he just wants to ball on offense, which he’s great at the college level.

It’s also interesting to note that usually if Trier or Alkins hits the deck the other is not the one helping them up. I’m probably reading too much into it but i think there’s some friction based on both wanting to be the teams alpha (despite the fact neither of them are T.J. type leaders which is what we need).

What this team needs more than anything is a T.J. McConnell. And i say that as a bigger PJC fan than most. They need a consummate leader in the huddle, in practice, on D, thru adversity, etc. that is the biggest thing this team is missing. I know it’s obvious but outside of Duke we are the most talented team on the floor every game. Hopefully the light goes on by March because right now something is missing from this team and it’s hard to pinpoint. The sum doesn’t equal the parts yet. U watch a game and think “we should be up 20 on this Oregon team. Trier scoring, Ayton dominating. Alkins doing everything. PJC hitting open 3s”. Then u look up and game is tied at the under 8 in 2H. Other than the bench it’s tough to really see the void unless u know the college game very well, which most posters here do, but the average fan doesn’t.

Thanks for that observation. I'll be looking for Alkins-Trier interactions as I re-watch the games. I do feel that we have a chemistry issue and those 2 were my first guess because either might think that he is alpha.

Trier could just be one of those hot and cold personalities, not uncommon with the guys with superior talent (any sport) for most of their lives. One day they are the greatest dudes on earth, catch them on the wrong day or be in a situation where their alpha is challenged, sparks can fly. There have been rumors of friction with other players on past teams.

If you played on sports teams from high school up and think back to that team's two best players, how often were they great buds and never bumped heads?

No very true. I was community college - good at ball so i basically didn’t get much higher than HS in hoops when it came to being an alpha on the team but even at HS you saw it happen all the time.

Like i said, I’m probably over analyzing, I’m sure both players just want to win, and Miller will get them all working towards same goal, but every once in a while i see some frustration seep thru the cracks.

Having said all that, it’s worth noting that Trier has become 10000x better at facilitating than he was a frosh. It’s usually finding Ayton though, which is always a good strategy. It’s the least of our concerns for sure.

Triers main issue is first halves and consistent effort on D. Other than that hes dialed in.

rgdeuce wrote:Trier could just be one of those hot and cold personalities, not uncommon with the guys with superior talent (any sport) for most of their lives. One day they are the greatest dudes on earth, catch them on the wrong day or be in a situation where their alpha is challenged, sparks can fly. There have been rumors of friction with other players on past teams.

If you played on sports teams from high school up and think back to that team's two best players, how often were they great buds and never bumped heads?

I've posted amateur psychoanalysis before, but I'm a firm believer that the psychological traits that make someone really good at sports also generally are traits most normal people would see as making an ugly person. Traits that are good for sports:

--Arrogance. It helps you maintain confidence at all times, and you never have that self doubt creep in. Some of our greatest athletes are borderline sociopaths in terms of the amount of crossover between narcissism and what helps you succeed.
--Extreme competitiveness. It's no accident that guys like Jordan and Barkley were also problem gamblers. Seeing everything as a competition and being compelled to dominate it is good for sports. It's not conducive to being a good person or teammate.
--Aggressiveness. This plays along with the arrogance, in that it eliminates the voice of doubt.

Any good college team has 8-10 guys who have never been anything other than superstars. There are a lot of guys used to being alpha dogs. There's nothing weird that guys with personalities like that have difficulty settling into a complementary role.

I never once played on a team where I liked every teammate.

Never.

But I played to win, and that included using teammates, and in a few cases, leading teammates. And helping them up, or whatever. Guys I hated in real life became teammates. We weren't going to fist bump or hug or whatever, but he was going to hit me on a cutoff, or simulate a steal to get a pitcher distracted when I was up, or vice versa.

Chemistry is necessary. But team chemistry is not about being best friends. Best friends can get on the court and fuck up, be overly deferential, use the wrong thought process, get mad and fight. Chemistry is about all parts of a team doing what they should, and the other guys respecting and trusting you and vice versa. You don't have to be friends. Just respect each other's game

These two truly hated each other to the tune of 3 NBA championships.

Great post spiff and I’d argue the those three traits are required/necessary for most professionals to rise to the elite top of their respective fields.

Merkin good timing: I was just re-watching that iconic Lakers v Kings playoff series (2002?) and was thinking about how great of chemistry the Kings had and how fucking fierce and dominant the core of the Lakers were. The Lakers won, of course, because while they didn't play the most beautiful game and didn't love each other off the court they had the best two players on the court and those two refused to lose. In fact they preferred to bury you in a shallow grave.

I take solace in that.

CalStateTempe wrote:Great post spiff and I’d argue the those three traits are required/necessary for most professionals to rise to the elite top of their respective fields.

It's an interesting question. I've always thought a lot of the qualities that drive professional greatness are qualities most people would associate with being a narcissistic a-hole.

Being an unbalanced person who's willing to destroy family and friends for excellence is an asset in achieving professional greatness. Being insanely competitive, to the point where everything is a competition and your drive to win every si gle thing means no one wants to play Sorry with you any more, that helps you be great.

Hatred fuels drive. Michael Jordan's NBA HOF speech is always the crowning moment for me. He was at the pinnacle, and he basically thanked no one and spent the entire time spewing anger at people he felt slighted him. It was petty, narcissistic and honest. If you want to know why he was great, you could do worse than watch that speech.

Another example I've always been fascinated with is Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf. This article leads with a description of the confluence of traits that make someone great at sports but make their lives hellish at times:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2886 ... perfection" target="_blank

Some of my best attendings in residency were complete sociopathic assholes.

A great mix of passive aggressive leadership and astute profound medical knowledge and unquestionable decision making. Just don’t fuck up or cross them.

I wouldn’t want their personal lives, but if I had to be an inpatient for some unfortunate reason, I want them running the show.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:Trier could just be one of those hot and cold personalities, not uncommon with the guys with superior talent (any sport) for most of their lives. One day they are the greatest dudes on earth, catch them on the wrong day or be in a situation where their alpha is challenged, sparks can fly. There have been rumors of friction with other players on past teams.

If you played on sports teams from high school up and think back to that team's two best players, how often were they great buds and never bumped heads?

I've posted amateur psychoanalysis before, but I'm a firm believer that the psychological traits that make someone really good at sports also generally are traits most normal people would see as making an ugly person. Traits that are good for sports:

--Arrogance. It helps you maintain confidence at all times, and you never have that self doubt creep in. Some of our greatest athletes are borderline sociopaths in terms of the amount of crossover between narcissism and what helps you succeed.
--Extreme competitiveness. It's no accident that guys like Jordan and Barkley were also problem gamblers. Seeing everything as a competition and being compelled to dominate it is good for sports. It's not conducive to being a good person or teammate.
--Aggressiveness. This plays along with the arrogance, in that it eliminates the voice of doubt.

Any good college team has 8-10 guys who have never been anything other than superstars. There are a lot of guys used to being alpha dogs. There's nothing weird that guys with personalities like that have difficulty settling into a complementary role.

Exceptionally good post, and I would not disagree with any of it. I think those traits also translate into success in terms of achievement in many fields outside of athletics.

I have said many times one of the most challenging aspects of raising a child is that there is not an enormous amount of overlap between the traits that are most likely to produce high levels of achievement and those that I would attribute to a wonderful human being. I have known people (and there are some athletes) that I would classify as being both... but they aren't especially common.

That said, I think the traits listed above also make for an exceptionally shitty leader. Which may help explain why most great athletes (or individual contributors in any arena) typically make awful coaches.

CalStateTempe wrote:Some of my best attendings in residency were complete sociopathic assholes.

A great mix of passive aggressive leadership and astute profound medical knowledge and unquestionable decision making. Just don’t fuck up or cross them.

I wouldn’t want their personal lives, but if I had to be an inpatient for some unfortunate reason, I want them running the show.

I had this exact conversation with my mother 20 years ago regarding a family friend who was a neurosurgeon and unbearable to be around. As I told her.... if he is cracking open my cranium and playing around the center of my nervous system with a scalpel - I certainly do not want him to be riddled with self-doubt.

That said.... I believe those who are truly exceptional do not share that characteristic. Maintaining supreme self-belief while also remaining humble enough to acknowledge & confront your doubts (so that you can continue growing) is an extremely delicate balance, and those who can strike it are in rarefied air.

Reminds me of a quote from Darkest Hour: "You are strong because you are imperfect; you are wise because you have doubts."

Harvey Specter wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

rgdeuce wrote:Trier could just be one of those hot and cold personalities, not uncommon with the guys with superior talent (any sport) for most of their lives. One day they are the greatest dudes on earth, catch them on the wrong day or be in a situation where their alpha is challenged, sparks can fly. There have been rumors of friction with other players on past teams.

If you played on sports teams from high school up and think back to that team's two best players, how often were they great buds and never bumped heads?

I've posted amateur psychoanalysis before, but I'm a firm believer that the psychological traits that make someone really good at sports also generally are traits most normal people would see as making an ugly person. Traits that are good for sports:

--Arrogance. It helps you maintain confidence at all times, and you never have that self doubt creep in. Some of our greatest athletes are borderline sociopaths in terms of the amount of crossover between narcissism and what helps you succeed.
--Extreme competitiveness. It's no accident that guys like Jordan and Barkley were also problem gamblers. Seeing everything as a competition and being compelled to dominate it is good for sports. It's not conducive to being a good person or teammate.
--Aggressiveness. This plays along with the arrogance, in that it eliminates the voice of doubt.

Any good college team has 8-10 guys who have never been anything other than superstars. There are a lot of guys used to being alpha dogs. There's nothing weird that guys with personalities like that have difficulty settling into a complementary role.

Exceptionally good post, and I would not disagree with any of it. I think those traits also translate into success in terms of achievement in many fields outside of athletics.

I have said many times one of the most challenging aspects of raising a child is that there is not an enormous amount of overlap between the traits that are most likely to produce high levels of achievement and those that I would attribute to a wonderful human being. I have known people (and there are some athletes) that I would classify as being both... but they aren't especially common.

That said, I think the traits listed above also make for an exceptionally shitty leader. Which may help explain why most great athletes (or individual contributors in any arena) typically make awful coaches.

That's an interesting take. What makes a great athlete vs a great coach is an interesting question.

I return to Michael Jordan. When he was player/GM of the Wiz, he drafted Kwame Brown #1. I wonder if Kwame wouldn't have been a much better pro (he had physical talent) if MJ hadn't ripped into him in front of a full locker room, mocking him for being soft (with the homophobic slurs) and making him literally cry in front of his new teammates. I wonder what effect that has on the psyche of an 18 year old when the greatest player of all time and his idol rips him in front of grown men and makes him cry.

It's the borderline sociopathic traits that made him great. There's a reason Jordan was an extraordinary player and average in the front office. On the other hand, a role player like Phil Jackson, Mike Kryzyzewski or Sean Miller is more likely to be a semi-balanced person who can relate to broader ranges of people.

Having a degree of empathy and understanding of others is a better leader. Jordan had issues early on, and if you read The Jordan Rules, a lot of Phil Jackson's early time with the Bulls was working to temper MJ's edge because it alienated his teammates.

It's all about the situations. I'm reading a book about the Allied campaign in Italy during WWII, and it discusses how a good general can't have too much empathy for his troops because he has to make decisions to send them to their death and do so with clear, unemotional judgment.

It's a fascinating question.

Merkin wrote:

Fuck a mock draft. I don't know how you look at Trier and don't see that he can score at will in the NBA. Give that man better spacing and he will ruin opposing teams.

Does he have great length and lateral quickness? No. Is he a lockdown defender? No. Is he a bankable ball player? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Hopefully that mock draft also boots Grayson Allen from the projections then. I swear to Lute if I see another "Allen late first round, Trier who?" mock I'll... rant more about it here.

YoDeFoe wrote:
Fuck a mock draft. I don't know how you look at Trier and don't see that he can score at will in the NBA. Give that man better spacing and he will ruin opposing teams.

Does he have great length and lateral quickness? No. Is he a lockdown defender? No. Is he a bankable ball player? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Hopefully that mock draft also boots Grayson Allen from the projections then. I swear to Lute if I see another "Allen late first round, Trier who?" mock I'll... rant more about it here.

Givony has never been very high on Trier, and I get why. Ive always felt hes a good bet as a second round pick who you think can come off the bench and provide some scoring. To me, Rawle is the safer prospect, because I think he can do a bit of everything, has the body, and the length, but his defense has to get so much better.

TucsonClip wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:
Fuck a mock draft. I don't know how you look at Trier and don't see that he can score at will in the NBA. Give that man better spacing and he will ruin opposing teams.

Does he have great length and lateral quickness? No. Is he a lockdown defender? No. Is he a bankable ball player? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Hopefully that mock draft also boots Grayson Allen from the projections then. I swear to Lute if I see another "Allen late first round, Trier who?" mock I'll... rant more about it here.

Givony has never been very high on Trier, and I get why. Ive always felt hes a good bet as a second round pick who you think can come off the bench and provide some scoring. To me, Rawle is the safer prospect, because I think he can do a bit of everything, has the body, and the length, but his defense has to get so much better.

Put another way, Rawle can be an NBA player if his scoring doesn't translate. Allonzo can't. Zo has one NBA level skill and Rawle can add rebounding and has a lot more defensive potential. His wingspan and frame give him defensive tools Allonzo doesn't have.

TucsonClip wrote: Givony has never been very high on Trier,

True, but this seems pretty spot on.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/All ... ier-70279/" target="_blank

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:
Fuck a mock draft. I don't know how you look at Trier and don't see that he can score at will in the NBA. Give that man better spacing and he will ruin opposing teams.

Does he have great length and lateral quickness? No. Is he a lockdown defender? No. Is he a bankable ball player? Abso-fucking-lutely.

Hopefully that mock draft also boots Grayson Allen from the projections then. I swear to Lute if I see another "Allen late first round, Trier who?" mock I'll... rant more about it here.

Givony has never been very high on Trier, and I get why. Ive always felt hes a good bet as a second round pick who you think can come off the bench and provide some scoring. To me, Rawle is the safer prospect, because I think he can do a bit of everything, has the body, and the length, but his defense has to get so much better.

Put another way, Rawle can be an NBA player if his scoring doesn't translate. Allonzo can't. Zo has one NBA level skill and Rawle can add rebounding and has a lot more defensive potential. His wingspan and frame give him defensive tools Allonzo doesn't have.

Agreed with both takes on that assessment. I don't mind Rawle getting drafted over Allonzo because of Rawle's physical tools and his nose for defense and offensive boards (which isn't to say he's great there but he's got the start of something). Trier as a late first or second round pick doesn't worry or surprise me. Trier as an UFA I think is ridiculous.

Merkin wrote:

TucsonClip wrote: Givony has never been very high on Trier,

True, but this seems pretty spot on.

http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/All ... ier-70279/" target="_blank

Trier's shooting and ball handing have improved since then. His three point shot in particular has improved loft and rotation. Not noted here but particularly important at the next level is that Trier is an elite pick and roll ball handler - both as a scorer and as a passer that leads to buckets. It's tough to run in college against zone offenses and with the limited spacing of the college court but in the NBA he projects to flourish in that role. For reference, he was a top three pick and roll ball handler according to Synergy Sports last season.

Trier named a finalist for the Jerry West Award.

Trier looks to lead the pack of ten finalist including standouts Marcus Foster of Creighton and Carsen Edwards of Purdue.

Trier's 132 ORtg on >25% usage is one of the most impressively efficient scoring stats I've seen out of a guard. Between that efficiency, his production (20 / 3 / 3) and the prominence of the program - this is his award to win or lose.

Trier is kind of Salim Stoudamire without the killer instinct

Can you imagine Trier's numbers if they count only the 2nd half of games?

Now if Miller can only get Trier to play both halves.

Merkin wrote:Can you imagine Trier's numbers if they count only the 2nd half of games?

Now if Miller can only get Trier to play both halves.

and some defense.

Alieberman wrote:Trier is kind of Salim Stoudamire without the killer instinct

Sell.

YoDeFoe wrote:

Alieberman wrote:Trier is kind of Salim Stoudamire without the killer instinct

Sell.

You think he's better? Give me Salim every day

Alieberman wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Alieberman wrote:Trier is kind of Salim Stoudamire without the killer instinct

Sell.

You think he's better? Give me Salim every day

Same here. UA never had a better 3 point shooter than Salim after Steve Kerr, and Kerr only had one year with it.

He was truly amazing, with the UCLA game being his pinnacle. Too bad Salim was too short for the league, besides his mental health issues.

Alieberman wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Alieberman wrote:Trier is kind of Salim Stoudamire without the killer instinct

Sell.

You think he's better? Give me Salim every day

Trier is nothing like Salim and Trier also has a killer instinct.

It's a nonsensical sentence. It's actually really frustrating that big news for Trier was just announced (his inclusion on the late season list), I provided context for the argument that he is leading that race, and the conversation is now focused on a slapdick statement like "Trier lol salim lol kobe."

YoDeFoe wrote:

Alieberman wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Alieberman wrote:Trier is kind of Salim Stoudamire without the killer instinct

Sell.

You think he's better? Give me Salim every day

Trier is nothing like Salim and Trier also has a killer instinct.

It's a nonsensical sentence. It's actually really frustrating that big news for Trier was just announced (his inclusion on the late season list), I provided context for the argument that he is leading that race, and the conversation is now focused on a slapdick statement like "Trier lol salim lol kobe."

I agree that Trier and Salim are completely different types of players... but if your suggestion is that means Salim could not hold Trier's jock, I would strongly disagree.

As for Trier making "the late season list"... I assume it must be the The Wooden (or some other NPOY) award? Congrats to him (I love to see any Cat get accolades), but if you truly believe he is the leading candidate for that honor... I think your bias is clouding your judgment.

I think he absolutely has a killer instinct... one that at times (IMO) needs to be dialed back; sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Statistically speaking, he is having a solid campaign and offensively he's had stretches of brilliance (and was terrific at UW).

Harvey Specter wrote:
I agree that Trier and Salim are completely different types of players... but if your suggestion is that means Salim could not hold Trier's jock, I would strongly disagree.

As for Trier making "the late season list"... I assume it must be the The Wooden (or some other NPOY) award? Congrats to him (I love to see any Cat get accolades), but if you truly believe he is the leading candidate for that honor... I think your bias is clouding your judgment.

I think he absolutely has a killer instinct... one that at times (IMO) needs to be dialed back; sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. Statistically speaking, he is having a solid campaign and offensively he's had stretches of brilliance (and was terrific at UW).

1) I didn't bring up Salim, my only response has been "they're not at all comparable." I'll continue to not compare them but will say: I'm a big Salim fan despite his shortcomings.

2) Linked to the list, but its the Jerry West Award for best SG in the NCAAs. Monk, Hield, and D'Angelo Russell are the previous winners - good company.

3) Trier is absolutely the leading candidate to win the award. Here is the list:



Foster and Edwards would be the other presumptive front runners. Foster matches Trier's production but Trier blows Foster's efficiency out of the water. Edwards matches neither's production though he's the most well rounded of the three.

I'll reiterate that Trier has a >130 ORtg on >25% Usage and 20ppg. He's putting up an all time great scoring season among Arizona guards.

Also worth noting: If Trier wins this award, his jersey is eligible for retirement.

Alieberman wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:

Alieberman wrote:Trier is kind of Salim Stoudamire without the killer instinct

Sell.

You think he's better? Give me Salim every day

I love Salim, but I think they're very comparable. Trier has hit a TON of clutch ft's people forget. He has extremely high efficiency. Salim was the better shooter, but Trier is way better off the bounce. Neither was a defensive stopper.

They're different in skills, but I get why you'd see them similar in terms of team impact.

Who is the better pouter?

Salim was a head case throughout his career. He was benched vs. Marquette because of his issues. Lute sat him down several times because of his attitude. He was so hard on himself that he didn't realize it impacted the entire team. His intent was to be anything but selfish. But by pouting and being hard on himself when his shot wasn't falling, he was in a word, selfish.

He would completely disappear in some games and in others would be absolutely unstoppable. He was the definition of inconsistent. His senior year was splendid, right up until he struggled against Illinois in a certain Elite 8 game. He hit game winners against UCLA, ASU and of course Oklahoma State.

The closest thing we've had to Salim is Gabe York in his senior season. But Trier is a much more complete player. Certainly not perfect. But Trier has been a model of consistency and efficiency. I suppose the biggest knock against him is his penchant for playing hero ball from time to time and inability to become a plus defender.

That analysis rings true, zonagrad.

Can this be the last post ever when we explicitly mention the Illinois elite eight game? We should substitute a code word that doesn’t carry all the harsh feelings.

How about “cacao”?

Longhorned wrote:That analysis rings true, zonagrad.

Can this be the last post ever when we explicitly mention the Illinois elite eight game? We should substitute a code word that doesn’t carry all the harsh feelings.

How about “cacao”?

Agreed and agreed.

Longhorned wrote:That analysis rings true, zonagrad.

Can this be the last post ever when we explicitly mention the Illinois elite eight game? We should substitute a code word that doesn’t carry all the harsh feelings.

How about “cacao”?

I disagree. We need to strip the word Illinois of its power over us. We need to embrace and co-opt the pain of the memory, not run from it.

Duke 2001 more painful than Illinois 2005

The Illini game was the most painful UA game ever. Just a huge massive choke, with no help from the refs end of game. Duke had the refs help the whole game, besides no UA player able to cover Dunleavey.

zonagrad wrote:The closest thing we've had to Salim is Gabe York in his senior season.

I don't think Salim ever dribbled the ball off his foot 3 times in one season when tasked with taking the last shot of the game.

Although Trier has twice so far this season to end the half where he dribbled the shot clock out without getting a shot up.

Salim making 120 3 point shots his senior year at a 50.4% clip was just incredible. Kerr was 114 for 199 for 57.3% which I believe is still a record.

York was 98/244 for 42.1% his senior season. Trier so far is 55/133 this season for 41.4%.

However, York and Trier were shooting from 20'9", and Kerr and Salim 19'9".

Salin doesn’t share triers penchant for iso ball at the end of games.

Still, triers been looking good the past few games. Hope he keeps it up.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:That analysis rings true, zonagrad.

Can this be the last post ever when we explicitly mention the Illinois elite eight game? We should substitute a code word that doesn’t carry all the harsh feelings.

How about “cacao”?

I disagree. We need to strip the word Illinois of its power over us. We need to embrace and co-opt the pain of the memory, not run from it.

I'm kind of the expert on that "not run from it" experiment. I've spent 11 years now surrounded by orange and blue every day on the Illinois campus. Let's just say that experiment doesn't work.

Embrace and co-opt the pain of the memory now. Insanity later.

Trier is the leading candidate to win the best SG in the NCAAs award. The win would make him eligible for jersey retirement.

Just going to keep throwing that out there until the board decides its more meaningful than comparing two disparate players.

YoDeFoe wrote:Trier is the leading candidate to win the best SG in the NCAAs award. The win would make him eligible for jersey retirement.

Just going to keep throwing that out there until the board decides its more meaningful than comparing two disparate players.

Does defense count for that award?

PHXCATS wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Trier is the leading candidate to win the best SG in the NCAAs award. The win would make him eligible for jersey retirement.

Just going to keep throwing that out there until the board decides its more meaningful than comparing two disparate players.

Does defense count for that award?

I haven't been here long enough to flat out dislike you but we're rounding that bend.

YoDeFoe wrote:

PHXCATS wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote:Trier is the leading candidate to win the best SG in the NCAAs award. The win would make him eligible for jersey retirement.

Just going to keep throwing that out there until the board decides its more meaningful than comparing two disparate players.

Does defense count for that award?

I haven't been here long enough to flat out dislike you but we're rounding that bend.

It's an honest question. Trier is great offensively (maybe the best in the game this year) and I hate when people hate in him for taking shots he can easily make and when No one else on the team.has the guts to shoot and step up.

But his defense is not great and I have seen him make multiple mental errors on the defensive end the last several games.

Since I am in Jerry West country, I'll politic for Trier to win his award as the best NCAA shooting guard.
YodeFoe, you won one convert. Cheers.