Matt Thomas vs. Chicago State

mattyice

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2011
1,811
527
63
51
You recruit a kid like Matt to be a basketball player and help out the team however he can. In Matt's case, he rebounds and defends well, and makes hustle plays when needed. What Matt could bring to the team included his rebounding, defense, and hustle. So, he was recruited, at least in part, for his rebounding.

And you CONTINUE to judge Matt based on your assessment of him when he came in (pure shooter) compared to the reality of what he is (solid all-around player). We've got 2 years and 3 games of Matt Thomas production that shows us he's not a pure shooter, why do you continue to judge him based on your assessment of what you wish he was, rather than what he's been for his career here? He's not a pure shooter, and has never been. Stop judging him based on whether he's actually a pure shooter.

I mean, Steph Curry is a terrible basketball player if you wanted him to play post, and judged his performance on how well he performed with his back to the basket.

Do you bring in the supposed best shooter in his class to create and slash from the wing? Deal out 10 assists? No. You're kidding yourself if he wasn't brough in to shoot.

Multiple articles list him as one of if not the best shooter in his class.....but YOU think he was brought in for others reasons. I'm probably going with their assessment.
 

Gnomeborg

Well-Known Member
Dec 24, 2008
1,926
270
83
46
Do you bring in the supposed best shooter in his class to create and slash from the wing? Deal out 10 assists? No. You're kidding yourself if he wasn't brough in to shoot.

Multiple articles list him as one of if not the best shooter in his class.....but YOU think he was brought in for others reasons. I'm probably going with their assessment.

Just because you only read a couple paragraphs and sound bites from scouting reports doesn't mean that Hoiberg's staff didn't know the type of player they were getting.
 

mattyice

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2011
1,811
527
63
51
Just because you only read a couple paragraphs and sound bites from scouting reports doesn't mean that Hoiberg's staff didn't know the type of player they were getting.


Do you really want me to post recruiting quotes from Hoiberg talking about Thomas and his shooting ability coming in or want to retract that so I don't embarrass you? I mean I have them ready.....but you seem to be digging a bad hole here trying the "Experts didn't know anything, and Hoiberg knew what he was getting" schtick.
 

Cynonymous

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2015
1,473
358
83
Just because you only read a couple paragraphs and sound bites from scouting reports doesn't mean that Hoiberg's staff didn't know the type of player they were getting.
This. Anyone who watched him play in high school, knew he was a well rounded player. He was a good shooter but it wasn't limited to 3's it was from all over the court. He was their leader and as often drive and pop for a shot or dish as shoot 3's.
 

Gnomeborg

Well-Known Member
Dec 24, 2008
1,926
270
83
46
Do you really want me to post recruiting quotes from Hoiberg talking about Thomas and his shooting ability coming in or want to retract that so I don't embarrass you? I mean I have them ready.....but you seem to be digging a bad hole here trying the "Experts didn't know anything, and Hoiberg knew what he was getting" schtick.

Yes, please. Show us Fred's quotes that said he recruited him to be a 3-point specialist. And make sure you include links.
 

Cyinthenorth

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 29, 2013
15,912
11,987
113
36
Dubuque
Hindsight really is 20/20 for some of you. A lot of people in this thread can't admit that after hearing the hype and watching MT's highlight videos from HS they expected him to be a much better 3 pt. shooter than he has been. "But he can rebound!" "But he's a better defender than Sullivan!"

That's all fine and good. If you guys are satisfied with an occasional outstanding rebounding performance against a bottom 10 NCAA Men's Basketball Program, and defensive output that is just OK at best, fine by me. I'm still waiting to see the ice-veined lights out shooter he was recruited to be. I'll admit I hold my breath with hope each time he pulls up for a 3, hoping it's the shot that turns things around for him. I'm pulling for the guy to realize his full potential more than anyone else on the team, but sincerely believe that up until this point, he is a recruiting bust. We didn't recruit him to grab 11 boards against Chicago State, we recruited him to hit 11 3 pointers against Chicago State. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial.
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
48,564
39,402
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
Good lord. The guy is not a bust. His game is quite similar in style as it was in high school. Maybe someone thought they could turn him into a spot up shooter, but that was never his game. I suppose Stevie Johnson was a bust too. He was recruited as a guard but eventually Eustachy turned him into a forward. But hey, that wasn't what he was recruited for.
 

cyrocksmypants

Well-Known Member
Dec 29, 2008
91,284
89,027
113
Washington DC
Hindsight really is 20/20 for some of you. A lot of people in this thread can't admit that after hearing the hype and watching MT's highlight videos from HS they expected him to be a much better 3 pt. shooter than he has been. "But he can rebound!" "But he's a better defender than Sullivan!"

That's all fine and good. If you guys are satisfied with an occasional outstanding rebounding performance against a bottom 10 NCAA Men's Basketball Program, and defensive output that is just OK at best, fine by me. I'm still waiting to see the ice-veined lights out shooter he was recruited to be. I'll admit I hold my breath with hope each time he pulls up for a 3, hoping it's the shot that turns things around for him. I'm pulling for the guy to realize his full potential more than anyone else on the team, but sincerely believe that up until this point, he is a recruiting bust. We didn't recruit him to grab 11 boards against Chicago State, we recruited him to hit 11 3 pointers against Chicago State. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial.

Matt makes 59 total threes his senior year in high school; this guy expects him to hit 11 in one game in college.
 

Bret44

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Sep 8, 2009
17,303
7,894
113
Cedar River Valley
ROCK_N_HARD_PLACE.gif
 

Thomasrickj

Well-Known Member
Feb 26, 2012
7,871
5,774
113
Arlington, VA
Where is my buddy Thomasrickj to tell us again how Matt will never be good ( he has stated that guards do not improve after freshman and sophomore year, only bigs do...), he will not be our 6th man this year(Hallice does everything better than Matt), and he won't start next year....lol, I'm a big Matt supporter and think he has worked really hard to improve his all around game...

I don't get what your problem is with me. I never said that guards don't improve after their freshman and sophomore years. You love taking what I say and throwing it way out of proportion because you're in love with Matt Thomas. Sure, he played a good game last night, but even Aaron Agnew had a couple of good games for us. Let's wait to see what this guy does when we play a decent team. You continue to be a snobby jerk about it. If he can put up stats like this against Kansas or Oklahoma then I'll be impressed.
 

JBone84

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2006
2,825
1,378
113
Rochester, MN
I don't get what your problem is with me. I never said that guards don't improve after their freshman and sophomore years. You love taking what I say and throwing it way out of proportion because you're in love with Matt Thomas. Sure, he played a good game last night, but even Aaron Agnew had a couple of good games for us. Let's wait to see what this guy does when we play a decent team. You continue to be a snobby jerk about it. If he can put up stats like this against Kansas or Oklahoma then I'll be impressed.

Nope.
 

HornacekFan1414

Well-Known Member
Nov 9, 2014
1,037
164
63
Frisco, TX
I don't get what your problem is with me. I never said that guards don't improve after their freshman and sophomore years. You love taking what I say and throwing it way out of proportion because you're in love with Matt Thomas. Sure, he played a good game last night, but even Aaron Agnew had a couple of good games for us. Let's wait to see what this guy does when we play a decent team. You continue to be a snobby jerk about it. If he can put up stats like this against Kansas or Oklahoma then I'll be impressed.

Dont make me go back and pull that quote....I referenced how players often struggle their first 2 years before turning the corner and referenced Frank Kaminsky ( who was awful his first 2 seasons at UW)... You came in and said bigs always take awhile to develop, but guards are who they are after first 2 years....( maybe I should have used Hoiberg as an example for you..)

and so so a guy has only improved if he has dominant games against Kansas and OU, the other 26 games on the regular season schedule are meaningless? Just want to make sure I understand the Rlck J rules on how I can judge Matt's season and development...
 

CyJack13

Well-Known Member
May 21, 2010
12,666
1,665
113
"Shot 50.4 percent from the field, 82.9 percent from the charity strip and 35.8 percent (59-165 3FG) from beyond the arc"

Also from his bio. What about 35.8 percent from behind the arc leads you to think he'd be an amazing three point shooter in college?

Yep, Thomas was a terrific mid-range scorer in high school who was slotted as a spot up shooter for a program that did not encourage mid-range shots at all. I've said several times that I think Fred leaving will actually be good for Thomas' production.
 

Al_4_State

Moderator
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 27, 2006
32,469
28,853
113
40
Driftless Region
Visit site
The discussion on Matt Thomas is so stupid.

There are two sides, and both are equally annoying. You have the "I just love Matt Thomas and have never wanted a Cyclone to succeed as much as I want him to". These people go out of their way to blow him because he's a white kid from the Midwest. It might be subconscious, but that's why you love Matt Thomas so much. Then you have the side that thinks he's worthless. These people got caught up in recruiting hype and are butthurt that he's not the guy we were told he was.

The reality is that Matt Thomas is a solid 6th man type of player that does a lot of things well, but probably nothing great. He's a sound rebounder, good defender, and decent shooter. He has a role on this team, and Prohm is doing a better job of utilizing than it Hoiberg did, IMO. He's not going to be an assassin, or scoring leader, or any of those things. But he's going to give this team valuable minutes and be a guy we can count on not to be a liability coming off the bench.
 

greatshu

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 4, 2007
2,379
234
63
KS
The discussion on Matt Thomas is so stupid.

There are two sides, and both are equally annoying. You have the "I just love Matt Thomas and have never wanted a Cyclone to succeed as much as I want him to". These people go out of their way to blow him because he's a white kid from the Midwest. It might be subconscious, but that's why you love Matt Thomas so much. Then you have the side that thinks he's worthless. These people got caught up in recruiting hype and are butthurt that he's not the guy we were told he was.

The reality is that Matt Thomas is a solid 6th man type of player that does a lot of things well, but probably nothing great. He's a sound rebounder, good defender, and decent shooter. He has a role on this team, and Prohm is doing a better job of utilizing than it Hoiberg did, IMO. He's not going to be an assassin, or scoring leader, or any of those things. But he's going to give this team valuable minutes and be a guy we can count on not to be a liability coming off the bench.

I agree with this. He helped us win so many games last couple of years and we are still talking about how he is not very good? Come on man.
 

Latest posts

Help Support Us

Become a patron