garland...

[whitetrashgriz]

i know i have said this before, but i really feel like the cats should have made a push for andy garland a couple years ago. the kid is a beast. i understand the criticisms of him, but i think even if he was undersized, he still could have helped this team win. now that we don't have any post game to speak of, i'm more convinced than ever that he could help us. he's undersized, yet i'd bet he'd still average close to double digits in boards in the big sky. he probably wouldn't get the points he's getting at carroll, but he'd be an energy guy, and still get some points in the process. i realize this is just me babbling about the "what-ifs" but i was just thinking about it today. i've watched him play a couple times this year, and he just plays the game right. good work by carroll.

[TrueCat]

[GOKATS]

[whitetrashgriz]

i guess i'm confused. what part is bs? the kid is dang good. i was talking to former carroll coach turcott last weekend and even he said he was surprised that carroll was able to get him. i'm curious if you guys really believe that our team is so good right now where a guy like garland couldn't contribute. pretty funny since our biggest weaknesses seem to be energy, hustle, rebounding, and post scoring.

[syvieCat]

You must not watch the Cats play, because "hustle" and "energy" are definitely not a missing attribute.

[whitetrashgriz]

You must not watch the Cats play, because "hustle" and "energy" are definitely not a missing attribute.

watched them play plenty. read some of these threads. several people have poinyed out the same. many times the play is lackluster and emotionless. there have been many times that "hustle" and "energy" were certainly a missing attribute. always? not at all. but certainly at times. my point was i really like garlands game, and can't help but picturing him as a cat. didn't know it would stir up this controversy. i know for a fact that he'd out rebound every person on our team this year though.

[whitetrashgriz]

so far his numbers are 19 points a game, 11 boards a game, 2 assists, a steal and a block a game. by my count he's had 17 double-doubles in 20 games. he leads carroll in every shooting category; 54% FG, 45% 3PT, and 84% FT. god knows that stat would help us. listen, i've never met the guy so it's not like i'm just trying to create a buzz for a friend or family member or something. and i know he's not going to be coming to the cats, so this was mainly just talking points. but i was certainly surprised at the reaction that him playing for the cats was BS. like big sky hoops is far above his talent level. i mean come on, carson durr was able to play for the cats and hold his own just fine. garland is a way better player. i'm assuming that because all i got back was this , that no one really has anything substantial as to why a guy with this amount of talent would be unable to play here. but i know i talked to coach turcott 2 weeks ago, and he seems to agree with me. i'd put that guys hoops knowledge up against almost anyone. fact is, he could help the cats, and he was a steal for carroll. probably the best guy carroll has signed out of highschool as far back as i can remember. i'd be curious what mslacat's opinion on this matter are. if i recall, he too was pretty high on garland.

[Old Skool Cat]

Listen, living in Helena, I have taken in several Saints games and I can tell you first hand that Andy Garland is a player and could easily contribute in the Big Sky. This guy just stands out from the rest when your watching the Saints play. People are fooling themselves if they believe that both schools, MSU & UM, didn't miss out on a gem right there.

[wbtfg]

Garland = Carson Durr

I really like his game, but at the Big Sky level I think he would be one of those guys who doesn't contribute until his senior year.

[whitetrashgriz]

Listen, living in Helena, I have taken in several Saints games and I can tell you first hand that Andy Garland is a player and could easily contribute in the Big Sky. This guy just stands out from the rest when your watching the Saints play. People are fooling themselves if they believe that both schools, MSU & UM, didn't miss out on a gem right there.

THANK YOU!!! i wasn't looking for everyone to jump on board and agree with me. but i was i little taken back when the only response i got was BS. i too have seen him play a couple times already, and i'll be there in a couple weeks again. for me, i'm high on him for a combination of two reasons. first, he is really good. he's very strong, and i have never seen him get outworked. he appears to be a coaches dream, working his butt off, no flair, no whining to the officials, and always looking to learn. combine that with the fact that no one on the cats is standing out to me, i can't help but think we really missed out. i have always thought this, but t wasn't until talking to former coach turcott and he shared my thoughts. that guy knows ball inside and out and looking at our current team he agreed a guy like garland could help a lot. it's nothing new. recruiting is far from a science, and sometimes you miss out on kids and sometimes you steal one. we missed out. carroll stole one.

[whitetrashgriz]

Garland = Carson Durr

I really like his game, but at the Big Sky level I think he would be one of those guys who doesn't contribute until his senior year.

i'm sorry but it's not even close. i'd have to question if you've had the opportunity to watch garland since he's been at carroll. the guy does everything. i like carson. he's a cool guy, and he certainly made the most of his opportunity and got his school paid for. he was a good energy guy, and for the most part he took care of the ball. but other than that, he didn't do anything special. garland can score a variety of ways, and the rebounding isn't even close, either is the strength of the two guys. and i think that people are still putting too much stock into the toughness of the big sky. yes it's d-1. and yes there is some good talent. but the talent in the big sky isn't that much greater than the frontier as far as hoops go. i'll agree that garland wouldn't be getting nearly 20 and 11 a game in the big sky. but no one on this team would rebound better than he would. and he'd be a better post player than anyone on our roster.

[wbtfg]

Garland = Carson Durr

I really like his game, but at the Big Sky level I think he would be one of those guys who doesn't contribute until his senior year.

i'm sorry but it's not even close. i'd have to question if you've had the opportunity to watch garland since he's been at carroll. the guy does everything. i like carson. he's a cool guy, and he certainly made the most of his opportunity and got his school paid for. he was a good energy guy, and for the most part he took care of the ball. but other than that, he didn't do anything special. garland can score a variety of ways, and the rebounding isn't even close, either is the strength of the two guys. and i think that people are still putting too much stock into the toughness of the big sky. yes it's d-1. and yes there is some good talent. but the talent in the big sky isn't that much greater than the frontier as far as hoops go. i'll agree that garland wouldn't be getting nearly 20 and 11 a game in the big sky. but no one on this team would rebound better than he would. and he'd be a better post player than anyone on our roster.

Living in Helena, I've seen Garland play probably 8 times. While he is a best at the frontier level, I'm not sure where he'd fit in at the Big Sky level. I don't think he has the quicks or the ball skills to play on the perimeter, and while he might be able to do well offensively at the 4, I think he would get abused on the post. He's only about 6'4, and doesn't have great leaping ability.

However, all that said, I really wish we would have taken a chance on him so he would at least have the opportunity to prove me wrong. Right now it's all just speculation.

I think mslacat had an interesting post a few years ago (any many more since then) talking about the effects of decreasing the number of scholarships for D-I men's bball from 15 down to 12. He was saying that guys like Danny Sullivan, Justin Brown, Pete Conway...etc may have never had the opportunity to play for the Cats if Durham only had 12 rides to award.

[whitetrashgriz]

Garland = Carson Durr

I really like his game, but at the Big Sky level I think he would be one of those guys who doesn't contribute until his senior year.

i'm sorry but it's not even close. i'd have to question if you've had the opportunity to watch garland since he's been at carroll. the guy does everything. i like carson. he's a cool guy, and he certainly made the most of his opportunity and got his school paid for. he was a good energy guy, and for the most part he took care of the ball. but other than that, he didn't do anything special. garland can score a variety of ways, and the rebounding isn't even close, either is the strength of the two guys. and i think that people are still putting too much stock into the toughness of the big sky. yes it's d-1. and yes there is some good talent. but the talent in the big sky isn't that much greater than the frontier as far as hoops go. i'll agree that garland wouldn't be getting nearly 20 and 11 a game in the big sky. but no one on this team would rebound better than he would. and he'd be a better post player than anyone on our roster.

Living in Helena, I've seen Garland play probably 8 times. While he is a best at the frontier level, I'm not sure where he'd fit in at the Big Sky level. I don't think he has the quicks or the ball skills to play on the perimeter, and while he might be able to do well offensively at the 4, I think he would get abused on the post. He's only about 6'4, and doesn't have great leaping ability.

However, all that said, I really wish we would have taken a chance on him so he would at least have the opportunity to prove me wrong. Right now it's all just speculation.

I think mslacat had an interesting post a few years ago (any many more since then) talking about the effects of decreasing the number of scholarships for D-I men's bball from 15 down to 12. He was saying that guys like Danny Sullivan, Justin Brown, Pete Conway...etc may have never had the opportunity to play for the Cats if Durham only had 12 rides to award.

i'm agreeing with what you said, i just can't imagine that you truly think that durr was as good as garalnd is. as far as his defense, people always say that short guys would get killed in the post at the big sky level. well i think that's not at all true. first, he'd de the strongest guy on our team this year. i think he'd guard the post better than brandon johnson and anderson do, and he'd certainly post up better on offense! we don;t have a center as it is, and he certainly wouldn't play center for us, but he is a very tough matchup for guys. put a guard on him, or even a small forward, and i think he'd kill you in the post. you can foul him, but the dude shoots his free throws in the mid eighties. if teams wanted to put one of their bigger guys on him, i agree that he wouldn't be super quick, but he moves without the ball well, and can really shoot it. it would be similar to what our "big guys" are doing now, except he'd at least be capable of working the post on occasion,

[wbtfg]

Garland = Carson Durr

I really like his game, but at the Big Sky level I think he would be one of those guys who doesn't contribute until his senior year.

i'm sorry but it's not even close. i'd have to question if you've had the opportunity to watch garland since he's been at carroll. the guy does everything. i like carson. he's a cool guy, and he certainly made the most of his opportunity and got his school paid for. he was a good energy guy, and for the most part he took care of the ball. but other than that, he didn't do anything special. garland can score a variety of ways, and the rebounding isn't even close, either is the strength of the two guys. and i think that people are still putting too much stock into the toughness of the big sky. yes it's d-1. and yes there is some good talent. but the talent in the big sky isn't that much greater than the frontier as far as hoops go. i'll agree that garland wouldn't be getting nearly 20 and 11 a game in the big sky. but no one on this team would rebound better than he would. and he'd be a better post player than anyone on our roster.

Living in Helena, I've seen Garland play probably 8 times. While he is a best at the frontier level, I'm not sure where he'd fit in at the Big Sky level. I don't think he has the quicks or the ball skills to play on the perimeter, and while he might be able to do well offensively at the 4, I think he would get abused on the post. He's only about 6'4, and doesn't have great leaping ability.

However, all that said, I really wish we would have taken a chance on him so he would at least have the opportunity to prove me wrong. Right now it's all just speculation.

I think mslacat had an interesting post a few years ago (any many more since then) talking about the effects of decreasing the number of scholarships for D-I men's bball from 15 down to 12. He was saying that guys like Danny Sullivan, Justin Brown, Pete Conway...etc may have never had the opportunity to play for the Cats if Durham only had 12 rides to award.

i'm agreeing with what you said, i just can't imagine that you truly think that durr was as good as garalnd is. as far as his defense, people always say that short guys would get killed in the post at the big sky level. well i think that's not at all true. first, he'd de the strongest guy on our team this year. i think he'd guard the post better than brandon johnson and anderson do, and he'd certainly post up better on offense! we don;t have a center as it is, and he certainly wouldn't play center for us, but he is a very tough matchup for guys. put a guard on him, or even a small forward, and i think he'd kill you in the post. you can foul him, but the dude shoots his free throws in the mid eighties. if teams wanted to put one of their bigger guys on him, i agree that he wouldn't be super quick, but he moves without the ball well, and can really shoot it. it would be similar to what our "big guys" are doing now, except he'd at least be capable of working the post on occasion,

You may be right, as I'm far from an expert in evaluating talent and what level a kid can play at. I may be giving the Big Sky too much credit as far as how much higher the level of play is.

However, I've seen most of the top 10 scorers in Carroll College history, and I think Pilgeram is really the only one who I was positive would do well in the Big Sky, and I believe he initially signed with Gonzaga out of high school.

1 2515 Bill Pilgeram 1988-92
2 1848 J.D. Solomon 1997-2001
3 1834 Glenn Bliss 1986-90
4 1821 Tony Sapit 1965-68
5 1776 Kevin Van Nice 1995-99
6 1757 Kirk Stiles 1998-2002
7 1645 Arnie Andersen 1965-68
8 1626 Gary Lynch 2000-03
9 1530 Dave Leslie 1971-75
10 1351 Jeff Hays 2003-06

[Old Skool Cat]

Garland is a stand-out player in the Frontier conference, and keep in mind, he's doing this as a true sophomore. I am not saying he would be a great BSC player right at this very moment, but had he come to MSU, chances are he would have red-shirted and been playing this season as a RS freshman. By his junior year, he would definitley be an impact player in the Big Sky, no doubt.

[wbtfg]

Let's say Garland is a Big Sky Calibre player.

Looking at it from Huse's perspective 2 years ago, who should we have not offered a scholarship to?

Two years ago I believe we signed Bynam, Navarre, Anderson, Henderson, and Brown. Looking at that lineup, I would happily concede Henderson's spot for Andy Garland. I don't think Garland could give us less production that what Henderson's done over the past two years.

So I guess yes, the Cats should have definitely gone after Garland with the scholarship we offered Cam Henderson.

[whitetrashgriz]

Let's say Garland is a Big Sky Calibre player.

Looking at it from Huse's perspective 2 years ago, who should we have not offered a scholarship to?

Two years ago I believe we signed Bynam, Navarre, Anderson, Henderson, and Brown. Looking at that lineup, I would happily concede Henderson's spot for Andy Garland. I don't think Garland could give us less production that what Henderson's done over the past two years.

So I guess yes, the Cats should have definitely gone after Garland with the scholarship we offered Cam Henderson.

or cody anderson! i'm sorry. i'm half kidding. i also do not want to pretend that i'm a wonderful judge of d1 talent. but i've followed montana hoops for a long time, and i've followed cat basketball for a while. i've seen kids really excel for the cats, and i've seen some kids that baffle me how they earned a scholarship to play ball for the cats! as i said, i always had a hunch about garland, but it really wasn't until talking to turcott that made me believe that i wasn't just seeing things. but i agree with you as far as the other saints greats were. there are many guys that played great there that i don't think could have gotten off the bench for the cats. i just think garland is a far more complete player than just a scorer. he's gonna end up shattering some records at carroll for sure. like i said, these are just talking points. but it's not very often i look at a guy in the frontier and think he should be playing in the big sky. actually, it's usually the opposite! i see guys playing for the cats and griz who i think would be far better suited for the frontier.

[BelgradeBobcat]

So I guess yes, the Cats should have definitely gone after Garland with the scholarship we offered Cam Henderson.

I would guess that every Frontier Conference team has one or two big men that are better basketball players than Henderson. But I'm guessing none of those guys would be satisfied with Henderson's minutes. Thus I suppose it's easier for a coach to go the JC route for a role player than to invest in young guy who won't want to sit on the bench for three years and then only play sparingly in his final two seasons (assuming a redshirt).

That being said, it's always been a bit aggravating to me that our coaches don't try a little harder to get those role players-especially inside guys-from in state talent. I remember the frustration I felt when a Brad Huse led Jamestown Jimmies team came to Bozeman with Beau Hensel from Belgrade. Beau dropped 24 on us. Meanwhile Durham got role player Casey Reynolds from a JC. Casey was about exactly the same size as Hensel-but Hensel never really got a sniff from Durham during the recruiting process (so I've heard). Casey had a decent two years for us-but he wasn't even close to the player Hensel was.

[c.falls cat]

I think that the point that was brought up about the fewer number of scholarships is huge in terms of the talent levels amongst not only different levels but the number of teams in those levels that can compete with the best teams in the nation. It seems to me that there is a lot of parody out there right now for two reasons, one- the scholarship thing, there is far more talent now and fewer roster spots to go around, so kids are going other places. and two- it seems like fewer kids are willing to put their time in on the bench, they want to play now, even if that means going to a smaller program or going to a lower level. (not that I blame them, just an observation)
As for Garland, I have not gotten to see him play in college but I did watch him several times in high school including once against Brock Osweiler and I have to say I was very surprised that he didn't get any love from the d-1 level come recruitment time. I too will not claim to be an expert on talent level, but I thought that the only thing that Osweiler had on him was size. Three or four inches, which I understand is alot, but I still think he was worthy of at least the BSC if Osweiler was Gonzaga material. (which I believe he was)

[GOKATS]

I think that the point that was brought up about the fewer number of scholarships is huge in terms of the talent levels amongst not only different levels but the number of teams in those levels that can compete with the best teams in the nation. It seems to me that there is a lot of parody out there right now for two reasons, one- the scholarship thing, there is far more talent now and fewer roster spots to go around, so kids are going other places. and two- it seems like fewer kids are willing to put their time in on the bench, they want to play now, even if that means going to a smaller program or going to a lower level. (not that I blame them, just an observation)
As for Garland, I have not gotten to see him play in college but I did watch him several times in high school including once against Brock Osweiler and I have to say I was very surprised that he didn't get any love from the d-1 level come recruitment time. I too will not claim to be an expert on talent level, but I thought that the only thing that Osweiler had on him was size. Three or four inches, which I understand is alot, but I still think he was worthy of at least the BSC if Osweiler was Gonzaga material. (which I believe he was)

Parody? How about 'parity'.

My brother in Dillon has a tonneau cover on the back of his Ford PU, I had to send him this from todays Chronicle classifieds...............

Roll Up Tonto Cover for full size Ford box, $200. Call 220-5735 after 4 pm.