Taylor= Pierce?

copenhagen · 06-25-2007, 05:27 PM

Lets not get hysterical, all im saying is like pierre his positives and negatives can balance each other out. Ballhogging, incredible amount of turnovers, bonehead decisions, when cold really cold, trouble with law though minor. Some say u got to have the star or the team will fall apart i say that is bs most teams become better TEAMS when a player like that leaves or graduates. My point in all this rambling is i wouldnt lose one nights sleep if he was gone. Make the younger gaurds grow up faster n have more responsibility this yr.

Drive4cy · 06-25-2007, 05:32 PM

Make the younger gaurds grow up faster n have more responsibility this yr.

Why is everyone always hung up on building for the future? What about the present? We have a shot to win this year and people seem to neglect that. Greg has made his decision regarding Mike so we should just support it and keep positive about having Taylor. I'm happy to have MT back.

ISUFan22 · 06-25-2007, 05:35 PM

You're subject line is Taylor=Pierce then you instruct us not to get hysterical?

I've read some crazy posts on here, yet this one certainly ranks high on the list.

Mike has messed up and made mistakes, yet they are nothing even close to what Pierce did. Not in the same ballpark.

Also, this crap about wanting to lose a player on our team, a kid that has committed to ISU and puts his jersey on just like the rest of the guys...to want to get rid of him just because you don't like how he plays...

Well...that's nice.

Don't let me catch ya complaining about players leaving ISU when the going gets rough (see Adam Haluska)...because what he did is the same thing you'd like to do with Mike, just flipped the other way.

We barely win 10 games last year without this "ballhog". Does anyone think Mike's "ballhogging" had something to do with the fact he was basically the only guy that could create his own shot? Maybe? Just a little bit?

psycln11 · 06-25-2007, 05:39 PM

I am also fine with Mike back. Will he be different on the court this year?? We'll have to wait and see. Summer league/pick-up games are no indication. Remember Shawn Taggart scored 43 pts or whatever in the Finals for his team.

We didn't exactly have many options last year in regards to ball handling. Corey McIntosh would have led the nation in turnovers if he had the ball as much as MT did.

We have players that "should" be able to keep Mike from being our #1 ball handler. As I have stated before, I'd love to see Mike coming off some double screens, receiving the pass, and rising for a 3 (instead of trying to beat 1-2 taller defenders). Look what happened when KU put the taller Rush on Taylor last year in Ames. He was shutout in the final minutes and OT.

peteypie · 06-25-2007, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by copenhagen

Lets not get hysterical, all im saying is like pierre his positives and negatives can balance each other out. Ballhogging, incredible amount of turnovers, bonehead decisions, when cold really cold, trouble with law though minor. Some say u got to have the star or the team will fall apart i say that is bs most teams become better TEAMS when a player like that leaves or graduates. My point in all this rambling is i wouldnt lose one nights sleep if he was gone. Make the younger gaurds grow up faster n have more responsibility this yr.

OHHH man, you are in trouble here! I said something along these lines and I got pelted with a tube sock full of pennies. But I tend to agree. Good Luck, I don't think many share our opinion

BryceC · 06-25-2007, 05:51 PM

We might be a better team without Mike, I don't know.

But I'll go ahead and guarantee that we'll lose more games without him than with him.

peteypie · 06-25-2007, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by BryceC

We might be a better team without Mike, I don't know.

But I'll go ahead and guarantee that we'll lose more games without him than with him.

In the start of the season, I agree. But by the Big 12 tourney, I say it's a wash with or without him.

9seven · 06-25-2007, 05:57 PM

With Mike T as a scorer and not as a ballhandler we are going to have a chance at a great year. All we need is have one of the Frosh to step up and be able to handle the point. That will free Mike T up to just score, which he is what he should be doing. He is not a Pierre Pierce, the only thing they have in common is that they both hae been in trouble with the law, and there infractions are very, very different. We need Mike T this year to have a shot at the postseason, which I think is realistic!

mwitt · 06-25-2007, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by copenhagen

trouble with law though minor.

What do you consider major?

Cloned4Life · 06-25-2007, 06:03 PM

Wow, I just gotta laugh and say I couldn't disagree more. Mike is our MVP, bar none.

copenhagen · 06-25-2007, 06:17 PM

im mostly comparing their style of play. One responder said without his shooting we wouldnt be in any games, i say without his turnovers n blunders at crucial times we would have been in alot more! Plus i remember the hero worshiping hawks fans damn near commit suicide when Pierre was gone, yet the team did great the rest of the yr and the next without him. Also i never said i wanted him gone i just said i wouldnt need to take any sleep medication if he wasnt with the team.

mwitt · 06-25-2007, 06:23 PM

I agree that Mike's net benefit might be a bit overrated, but let's not compare him to a felon. However, his value with this team is improved because of our lack of backcourt experience.

I compare Mike's style of play to a leadoff hitter in baseball who steals a lot of bases, but also gets thrown out a lot and has a .310 OBP. He brings excitement, but not without his faults.

BryceC · 06-25-2007, 06:31 PM

What games would we have won WITHOUT Mike last year? We would have lost, the Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska (both times). And we wouldn't have even been close without him.

He was considered the MVP of the team last year by his teammates and coaching staff. I don't know why the ISU fanbase has to pick a men's basketball whipping boy every year, but there always seems to be one. It's Taylor now like it was Stinson before. We would have been Colorado bad last year without him, period.

He may not be the best player, but he is an essential part of next year's team and if McD shared your belief (that we'd be better without him) he probably wouldn't be hanging on to him considering the trouble he got in last year.

cyclonepower · 06-25-2007, 06:35 PM

Last year without mike t we MIGHT have averaged 30 pts a game..

Wesley · 06-25-2007, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by peteypie

OHHH man, you are in trouble here! I said something along these lines and I got pelted with a tube sock full of pennies. But I tend to agree. Good Luck, I don't think many share our opinion

Watching the changeover of players the last 3 years, I would think losing mike would be a big blow to this year. Our new guards are newbies and will take most of the year to step it up. Think Corey. Think the last 5 games we finally synced. The newbies will be muchg better having Mike around. I would say otherwise if they were Kevin Durant.

Having Sean Haluska may be our best bet since he can play structured ball which is what McD ultimately wants.