# This weeks cover of Sports Illustrated...



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Sweet cover.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

I must have


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Stupid cover and a stupid magazine


----------



## Carmelo#15 (Feb 26, 2006)

S.I. is a sweet magazine, and that is a nice cover, what magazine do you like Brian?


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

_Illini Nation_


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

How is it even a debate, it's clearly Redick.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Look at the numbers, buddy...


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

one guys is supposed to be 6-8 and one 6-4 as they say someone is lying, seriously i read somewhere that gonzaga fans intimidate the refs in the kennel, what a joke.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Nice dirtstache Morrison. What a joke.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

rainman said:


> one guys is supposed to be 6-8 and one 6-4 as they say someone is lying, seriously i read somewhere that gonzaga fans intimidate the refs in the kennel, what a joke.


most likely photo editing. i read somewhere though that, unlike some schools, duke measures their guys without shoes. but, JJ definitley isnt 6'6" (Morrison is 6'8", correct?).


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Look at the numbers, buddy...


What? Gonzaga's #86 strength of schedule vs. Duke's #2?

The individual numbers? The fact that both players are basically equal in points scored despite Morrison being second only to Marco Killingsworth in terms of major conference players using up percent of their team's posessions?

What about Redick's 60.5 eFG% compared to Morrison's 56.9%. Or Redick's 1.32 Points Per Weighted Shot compared to Morrison's 1.24? Morrison scores so much because he takes so many shots. I mean, he's also very efficient, but his raw number of shots are the reason he's even considered along with Redick. And although Redick's defense isn't exactly Bruce Bowen level, he's still at LEAST as good as Morrison.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

TM said:


> most likely photo editing. i read somewhere though that, unlike some schools, duke measures their guys without shoes. but, JJ definitley isnt 6'6" (Morrison is 6'8", correct?).


my guess would be there is 4 inches differance between the two for what that's worth.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

On the Reddick Morrison issue they both have been playing under par for them lately.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

TM said:


> _Illini Nation_


LoL funny but nah.. I just dont care for SI.. Hate their magazine and articles, etc.. It's a decent cover though..


----------



## PeterTownshed (Mar 2, 2006)

Whoever wins player of the year is irrelevant. True reputations are built in the tournament- where Morrison has never made it past the 2nd round and JJ's numbers are a fraction of what they are in the regular season. It will be interesting to see who changes that.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> The individual numbers? The fact that both players are basically equal in points scored despite Morrison being second only to Marco Killingsworth in terms of major conference players using up percent of their team's posessions?


Whats wrong with using up a good percentage of your teams shots if you make them over a 50% clip atleast...?

Redick has shot 9 less shots than Morrison has this year, yet Adam has made 15 more shots....

Adam is shooting 3's at a better clip than Redick is...

You can use the same old "weak" conference excuse all you want to take away from Adam's accomplishments...but you can't overlook the fact that some of Adam's best performances this year (Michigan St., Washington, Memphis) were all against ranked teams...

I agree that the WCC isn't the strongest conference in the world, but great players come from weak conferences all the time and they shouldn't be penalized for being in that conference....

Nash, Stockton, Pippen, Bird, Karl Malone and many more great players came from a weak conference and Adam is the next in that list...




> What about Redick's 60.5 eFG% compared to Morrison's 56.9%. Or Redick's 1.32 Points Per Weighted Shot compared to Morrison's 1.24? Morrison scores so much because he takes so many shots. I mean, he's also very efficient, but his raw number of shots are the reason he's even considered along with Redick. And although Redick's defense isn't exactly Bruce Bowen level, he's still at LEAST as good as Morrison.


Once again he's only shot 9 more shots than Redick...


With all that said, I'm not sure how you can say that its going to be easily said that Redick is the clear cut winner....

Nobody ever has as great of a season as Morrison has (or Redick has) and gets shafted thats why its easy that there will be a co-player of the year between the two....


BTW, nice performance by Redick tonight, 10-28?....One thing you'll never see Morrison do is shoot that high of volume of shots while only shooting at 35%....


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

TM said:


> most likely photo editing. i read somewhere though that, unlike some schools, duke measures their guys without shoes. but, JJ definitley isnt 6'6" (Morrison is 6'8", correct?).


It was photo editing....

Do you think with their busy schedules that Morrison and Redick were able to meet up at a neutral location for a non-profit magazine photo shoot....

They wanted to make them look similar size to play into the whole Adam vs. J.J. phenomenon and it would look cheesier if Morrison was towering over him...


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Do you think with their busy schedules that Morrison and Redick were able to meet up at a neutral location for a non-profit magazine photo shoot....


No, I didn't think they did. Seeings as how they credit to two different peopel for the shot... And I sure hope it's been messed with cause JJ looks like the incredible hulk compared to Adam and his weeny arms. hahaha...


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

TM said:


> most likely photo editing. i read somewhere though that, unlike some schools, duke measures their guys without shoes. but, JJ definitley isnt 6'6" (Morrison is 6'8", correct?).


Yeah, it was definitely photo editing.

The picture of JJ is an old one. You can tell from his shoes; that's last year's style.


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Whats wrong with using up a good percentage of your teams shots if you make them over a 50% clip atleast...?
> 
> Redick has shot 9 less shots than Morrison has this year, yet Adam has made 15 more shots....
> 
> ...


Hey, I don't have any problem with Morrison comming out of a small conference in terms of how good he is, or how good he will be, but in terms of an award like National Player of the Year, you HAVE to bias it towards the tougher schedule. It's an award based on stats and winning tough games. Redick has better stats (I phrased what I wanted to say earlier wrong, I'll try again below) and has led his team over tougher opponents.

Duke plays at a faster pace than Gonzaga; to the tune of 20th fastest team compared to 122th fastest team. All things being equal, Redick should take more shots. It's not equal though. Morrison takes only a few more shots statistically, but when you factor in pace it's actually quite a bit more shots. And so you can come back at me about stuff like "well since Duke plays faster, JJ should score more" and whatnot, but that's not true. Morrison takes more shots in fewer opportunities! That should say something, that should tell you that you can't just look at raw stats like points per game, you have to look at who is the most efficient scorer. Redick leads him in eFG% and PPWS. Redick's the better scorer this season. I have no problem with Morrison, but he has not had as good a season as Redick has and it would be a travesty if JJ was robbed of the POY Awards. Morrison in most other seasons would be good for it, I'd take him over Bogut last year for instance, but not this year.


----------



## smustang (Feb 22, 2006)

sweet


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Nimreitz said:


> Hey, I don't have any problem with Morrison comming out of a small conference in terms of how good he is, or how good he will be, but in terms of an award like National Player of the Year, you HAVE to bias it towards the tougher schedule. It's an award based on stats and winning tough games. Redick has better stats (I phrased what I wanted to say earlier wrong, I'll try again below) and has led his team over tougher opponents.
> 
> Duke plays at a faster pace than Gonzaga; to the tune of 20th fastest team compared to 122th fastest team. All things being equal, Redick should take more shots. It's not equal though. Morrison takes only a few more shots statistically, but when you factor in pace it's actually quite a bit more shots. And so you can come back at me about stuff like "well since Duke plays faster, JJ should score more" and whatnot, but that's not true. Morrison takes more shots in fewer opportunities! That should say something, that should tell you that you can't just look at raw stats like points per game, you have to look at who is the most efficient scorer. Redick leads him in eFG% and PPWS. Redick's the better scorer this season. I have no problem with Morrison, but he has not had as good a season as Redick has and it would be a travesty if JJ was robbed of the POY Awards. Morrison in most other seasons would be good for it, I'd take him over Bogut last year for instance, but not this year.



How much do you want to bet that they will be co-player of the years...


----------



## flyerfanatic (Nov 15, 2003)

JJ Redick is a better player than Morrison is.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> I agree that the WCC isn't the strongest conference in the world, but great players come from weak conferences all the time and they shouldn't be penalized for being in that conference....


Are they even the 3rd strongest conference along the Pacific coast?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

apelman42 said:


> Are they even the 3rd strongest conference along the Pacific coast?


Is Wisconsin going to make the tourney?


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

I think the better question is: "Will Wisconsin outperform Gonzaga in the Tournament again this year?"


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Nimreitz said:


> I think the better question is: "Will Wisconsin outperform Gonzaga in the Tournament again this year?"


doubtful, first they have to learn how to beat the likings of North Dakota State at home...


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

get back on topic


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

*Re: This weeks cover of Sports Illustrated..*



zagsfan20 said:


> Is Wisconsin going to make the tourney?


Dude don't be a little baby. I wasn't taking a shot at the Zags, rather I was taking a shot at the WCC. It's not their fault that they play in a shotty conference.

To answer your question: yes.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> doubtful, first they have to learn how to beat the likings of North Dakota State at home...


You kill me dude. Your team better show me something in the tournament for once. If they get all this hype in the regular season and bow out in the second round again, you'll be hearing from us.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

Speaking of that North Dakota State game... Let's see the Zags take away Raivio and Batista for the rest of the season. Let's see how there players perform the game after they learn that.
I'm not trying to make excuses, but if we don't have a mid-season crisis, we don't lose that game.


----------



## Brian34Cook (Mar 26, 2003)

Speaking of that.. Is Gonzaga the most overated team in the country in the easiest conference?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

apelman42 said:


> Speaking of that North Dakota State game... Let's see the Zags take away Raivio and Batista for the rest of the season. Let's see how there players perform the game after they learn that.
> I'm not trying to make excuses, but if we don't have a mid-season crisis, we don't lose that game.


I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, but are you actually trying to equate Steimsma and Landry to Raivio and Batista? Raivio and Batista would be Taylor and Butch.

And actually, the Zags did have to deal with several early season injuries to very important players. Derek Raivio was severely hobbled for the first half of the season, while Mark Few has only recently gotten Erroll Knight and Josh Heytvelt back. The losses of Knight and Heytvelt are probably similar to the losses Steimsma and Landry.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Is Wisconsin going to make the tourney?


Why do you always do that? Wisconsin has nothing to do with this thread. Quit the crybaby nonsense.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

The Truth said:


> Why do you always do that? Wisconsin has nothing to do with this thread. Quit the crybaby nonsense.


Neither does the team of Gonzaga...we were talking about individual players and then he went off on some tangent about how were overrated and in a crappy conference, which has nothing to do with how good Morrison is...


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Neither does the team of Gonzaga...we were talking about individual players and then he went off on some tangent about how were overrated and in a crappy conference, which has nothing to do with how good Morrison is...



Actually, in an argument that considers Morrison's greatness, his level of competition is a perfectly valid topic.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

But competition only counts if you play a team twice...


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

zagsfan20 said:


> Neither does the team of Gonzaga...we were talking about individual players and then he went off on some tangent about how were overrated and in a crappy conference, which has nothing to do with how good Morrison is...


I'm done with you dude. Go read what I said, I didn't rip on the Zags. What The Truth said is exactly what I would have said about conference strength having to do with the NPOY award.


----------



## apelman42 (Apr 8, 2005)

Jonathan Watters said:


> I might be misinterpreting what you are saying, but are you actually trying to equate Steimsma and Landry to Raivio and Batista? Raivio and Batista would be Taylor and Butch.
> 
> And actually, the Zags did have to deal with several early season injuries to very important players. Derek Raivio was severely hobbled for the first half of the season, while Mark Few has only recently gotten Erroll Knight and Josh Heytvelt back. The losses of Knight and Heytvelt are probably similar to the losses Steimsma and Landry.


Steitsma and Landry were probably two of our best five heading into the Big Ten conference. I really don't know Gonzaga's indivudal players behind Morrison, Raivio, and Batista. I just think that any two of the best five behind Tucker on our team are equal...and that includes Kam (he's been cold lately).


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> But competition only counts if you play a team twice...


I'll ignore the rather blatant attempt to bait.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

The Truth said:


> I'll ignore the rather blatant attempt to bait.


Two is the magic number. Right?


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Two is the magic number. Right?


:wait:


----------



## One on One (Dec 12, 2004)

zagsfan20 said:


>


Caption: Is Adam Morrison the ugliest player in NCAA history?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Is there any doubting who deserves NPOY after the last two games? The fact of the matter is that Adam Morrison doesn't have to be hitting from the outside to score 30. JJ does, and can be taken out of games. All this talk of Redick becoming more of a complete player and being able to create his own shot the way that Morrison does completely evaporates when he isn't unconscious from the outside...


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

Shelden Williams should get more credit than J.J. Reddick.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Jonathan Watters said:


> Is there any doubting who deserves NPOY after the last two games? The fact of the matter is that Adam Morrison doesn't have to be hitting from the outside to score 30. JJ does, and can be taken out of games. All this talk of Redick becoming more of a complete player and being able to create his own shot the way that Morrison does completely evaporates when he isn't unconscious from the outside...


Bingo, Bango, Bongo....

You are 100% correct...Redick's chances at the NPOY are slipping away with the more games that people are picking up on their screens and figuring out that they can expose him if they play up on him while he's hanging out outside the arc...


----------



## iverson101 (Mar 4, 2006)

redick is 23-80 in the past 4 games
when he was scoring 30-40 points in ACC games on pretty good percentages, that was more impressive than what morrison is doing
but JJ has gone cold lately and has been exposed as a very one-dimensional and overrated player


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Nimreitz said:


> What? Gonzaga's #86 strength of schedule vs. Duke's #2?


What about Duke's roster compared to Gonzaga's? Who gets more open shots?



> What about Redick's 60.5 eFG% compared to Morrison's 56.9%. Or Redick's 1.32 Points Per Weighted Shot compared to Morrison's 1.24?


Currently, Redick has a 1.54 pps and Morrison has a 1.53 pps. Morrison shoots a better percentage from the field as well as from behind the arc. Morrison scores more points.



> Morrison scores so much because he takes so many shots.


Redick takes 18 shots per game. Morrison takes 18.85 shots per game. Less than one shot per game difference. And, as stated above, Morrison doesn't have the overall talent to differ to/play with that Redick does.

Duke's recent 2-game losing streak may very well cost the team a 1-seed as well as a NPOY trophy for Redick.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> Duke's recent 2-game losing streak may very well cost ... NPOY trophy for Redick.


You know this - there's like 20 awards. Redick will win one.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

:curse: 20/20!! Morrison must take all! :curse:


----------



## iverson101 (Mar 4, 2006)

nm


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

Adam had anorther bad game, but the Race for Player of the Year is still only Adam and JJ.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Ghost said:


> Adam had anorther bad game, but the Race for Player of the Year is still only Adam and JJ.


Howland has a good game plan for Adam (better than any other coach I've seen try and play him) and Belser is the conference defensive POY for a reason...

With that said after the game tomorrow, it will be a nice well rested break for Adam before he kicks in gear for the tournament...


----------



## Nimreitz (May 13, 2003)

VincentVega said:


> What about Duke's roster compared to Gonzaga's? Who gets more open shots?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Does the rest of their roster matter for a national player of the year award? Yes, those are comparable points per shots, but Points Per Weighted Shot isn't close. The difference? The PPWS takes into account free throws a lot better, since they do count. Surely you can't downplay the significance of getting to the line. Clearly Morrison isn't the more efficient shooter since Redick has a higher eFG%. Morrison scores more points, yes. He also takes MORE SHOTS. How about you use the stats and figure out how many points per game JJ would have with Morrison's number of shots. And don't punk out on me and use PPS, you have to factor in his free throws in their rightful place, use PPWS. Either way though, the shot extra per game seems to make up the difference in points doesn't it?

Clearly you didn't read my response to the shots per game argument. Morrison only takes a shot more per game, but his team plays significantly fewer possessions per game. He monopolizes his teams offense and there have been games that I've watched where I have felt that Morrison is holding his team's offense hostage by what he does. Many times the entire possession will be Morrison getting the ball at the half line, driving all the way to the hoop, and missing the shot. Three possessions in a row. I honestly think Redick will be a better pro now, because Redick will know and accept his role. Morrison will feel he is too good to be a role player, but I don't think he's anywhere near good enough to score at the NBA level anymore.

But regardless of that, pro potential doesn't mean anything, hell, ability doesn't mean anything. It's what have you done for me, and Redick has done more.


----------



## VTRapsfan (Dec 5, 2004)

The cover is definitely photo editing - if you read the article they said the two players have met only once and it was at a camp a few years ago, or something like that. Nothing about a photoshoot.

And I'll take Morrison over Redick, but it's close and JJ is a hell of a shooter. When you can shoot from anywhere on the court like he can it deserves some kind of award. It doesn't matter anyway, like TM said, there's like 20 awards.


----------



## TM (Jun 30, 2003)

i was wrong (not a first). if i remember from the article in that SI, there are 6 "major" awards


----------

