Michael Taylor

**Enginerd** · 01-16-2008, 02:50 AM

I hated the way he was running around without a leash last season. It was a mistake whether or not he was dismissed or not. I get it, Coach Mac was adjusting to Big 12 vs. MVC. You can't just game plan 16 games in the Big 12. On the flip side, give Mac a break. Let's pretend this is his first season. Lay off this year and next. The 2009-2019 season, well that's when we can get restless.

No fire the coach bandwagoners allowed. Caoch Mac screwed up (no debate about it but I do believe he had the program at heart).

BTW, what is up with everyone thinking he devlops big men with a UNI guared orientated offense? (Sorry, just confused.)

Give the guy five years. After that you are looking at KSU's Altman-Asbury-Woolridge-Devil-****** scenario.

**cyking** · 01-16-2008, 06:18 AM

Wish we had him this year. We would have one tough inside out game.

**The_Architect** · 01-16-2008, 06:21 AM

**cycloneman003** · 01-16-2008, 07:40 AM

mike taylor would not make this team better, he would only hurt it. he played out of control turned the ball over way too much and sure he would hit 3 or 4 treys in a row, but then he would turn around and miss his next 7.. just a disruptive force on and off the court for the team... this years team is better off without him

**cyking** · 01-16-2008, 07:49 AM

I guess we would not turn the ball over 6 out of 7 possessions against Baylor.
He would spread the defense and create better shots for everyone.

**snowcraig2.0** · 01-16-2008, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by cycloneman003

mike taylor would not make this team better, he would only hurt it. he played out of control turned the ball over way too much and sure he would hit 3 or 4 treys in a row, but then he would turn around and miss his next 7.. just a disruptive force on and off the court for the team... this years team is better off without him

Mike Taylor would most certainly make this team better. Those of you who say he would constantly turn the ball over need to do some research on his JUCO career. When he has options around him, like he would have this year, he plays a much more under control game. Taylor would be starting at the point, there is absolutely no question about that.

**tim_redd** · 01-16-2008, 08:10 AM

If Mike Taylor could have played the role he was meant to play as a shooting guard, he would have helped this team. If he would have been forced to play the point, not so much. However this topic is pointless, and I don't know why I responded.

**BryceC** · 01-16-2008, 08:18 AM

Mike Taylor would help this team tremendously, and to say otherwise is asinine. McDermott has said several times that the team really misses Mike on the floor.

**snowcraig2.0** · 01-16-2008, 08:19 AM

The rest of the team fed off Mike's energy. His ability to drive and hit the three would have also made it easier to get the ball into our bigs. I really think if he was one the team we would only have one loss right now.

**ISUFan22** · 01-16-2008, 08:23 AM

Right. If ya think this team is not missing Mike, you don't know basketball.

We're certainly not missing his off-court antics though.

**Steve** · 01-16-2008, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

Mike Taylor would most certainly make this team better. Those of you who say he would constantly turn the ball over need to do some research on his JUCO career. When he has options around him, like he would have this year, he plays a much more under control game. Taylor would be starting at the point, there is absolutely no question about that.

I remember that we tried to recruit both Mike and his backcourt mate from his Juco - some guy named Stephon Hannon. Don't remember if it got as far as getting him to visit, but the staff did go after him before he committed to Mizzou. I don't usually see much good in playing the what if game, but what a difference it would have made in GMac's 1st two years.

**CyinCo** · 01-16-2008, 09:56 AM

I'm not even sure what the point of the first post was. I've read it twice. I don't get it.

**kingcy** · 01-16-2008, 10:03 AM

ummm Mac didnt screw up Taylor did, so he was asked to leave.

**snowcraig2.0** · 01-16-2008, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Steve

I remember that we tried to recruit both Mike and his backcourt mate from his Juco - some guy named Stephon Hannon. Don't remember if it got as far as getting him to visit, but the staff did go after him before he committed to Mizzou. I don't usually see much good in playing the what if game, but what a difference it would have made in GMac's 1st two years.

Hannah wanted to commit to ISU with Taylor actually, but he thought Will Blalock was going to stay. Had will just said right away he was going pro, we might have Hannah.

**isuno1fan** · 01-16-2008, 10:13 AM

The 1st poster makes a point I've always wondered about as well. Everyone always says GMac really has a knack for developing big men. I'm not as convinced as everyone else on this matter. He does an "ok" job, but I don't see proof that it is anything more than average compared to other coaches.

I don't see where this opinion gets formed. Most cite Hubalek as a case in point. I don't necessarily think GMac has improved Hubalek in the post. I just think GMac convinced him to play there more instead of outside. Hubalek has always had the moves he shows in the post pre-GMac. He just was stubborn about playing down low.

Othere cite Grant Stout as a case in point. Grant proved to be a solid "big" for UNI. I would accept this as a case in point, but 1 person does not equal a track record for turing avg. players into all conference performers at the post. Are there others I am not aware of?