Salty I see. And stop with that Mizzou is fine with the position....Knox would had been a starter for y'all. Hell, Kentucky has 3 5 stars already at the same position Knox plays.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by mizslu314

Dirty STL

Member since Sep 2013

15996 posts

Posted on 5/8/17 at 8:21 am to WildcatMike

Knox isn't better than Michael porter it, Knox at this point in time isnt better than jordan Barnett. We would have found a way to make him a starter yes, because you don't want to bench a five-star. But hes lesser talent then what we already have.

3 ...

Report Post

Posted by JesusQuintana

St Louis

Member since Oct 2013

33366 posts

Posted on 5/8/17 at 11:32 am to WildcatMike

Yes, he would have started for us. We probably would have had to play him or Barnett out of position a bit but he would have started.

Nobody said we didn't want him. Just that SF is not a big position of need for us.

We need bigs.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by reedus23

St. Louis

Member since Sep 2011

25485 posts

Posted on 5/8/17 at 9:25 pm to WildcatMike

quote:
Salty I see. And stop with that Mizzou is fine with the position....Knox would had been a starter for y'all. Hell, Kentucky has 3 5 stars already at the same position Knox plays.

I would have loved to have had Knox. And yes he would have started and starred for us. I do think it was a bit of a pipe dream for him to end up at Mizzou. None of this happens if Romar doesn't get fired. Having said that, I was surprised by UK. Seems everyone was thinking UNC or Duke. Congrats to you guys.