Matt Thomas vs. Chicago State
- Thread starter AMarner32
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
Yes, please. Show us Fred's quotes that said he recruited him to be a 3-point specialist. And make sure you include links.
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.
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.
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.
Matt makes 59 total threes his senior year in high school; this guy expects him to hit 11 in one game in college.
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...
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.
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.
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.
