| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 809 |
| Registered on: | 12/16/2018 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
And to be clear, with these player assessments I’m making them in the context of how McMahon uses them. If we were talking about their potential with someone who knows what they’re doing it would change and elevate both players. For example Nwoko is not a center, he’s closer to 6-8 than 6-10 and the fouling has a lot to do with him playing out of position. Remember Naz started as a center for us but kept getting into foul trouble so we put KVB into the lineup and moved Naz to the 4. If Reed had been developed at all he could be an effective high post player but both have been diminished by playing for McMahon.
Roster formation is a different topic. However based on the roster McMahon had for this season, it hurt to lose Reed. To your point, with a healthy Reed, Nwoko could've played the 4 much more. Reed would've helped this team win some of the close games, but this team didn't fall apart until we lost Thomas.
2
So what if Nwoko is better if he fouls an average of 6.4 times per 40 minutes? That also makes him unavailable for much of the games, which means we need a player that doesn't drop off much. Miller is a big drop-off in most ways, so Reed was an important player. I have never claimed that he was a great player, but the point was it hurt the team significantly to lose Reed. Nwoko could be the 2nd coming of Shaq, but we needed another good post player badly when your starter fouls at a high rate.
quote:
- Skill and athleticism wise Nwoko is better
- production wise Nwoko is better
- availability wise Nwoko is better. (I know you want to ignore Reed’s injuries but I’m not going to)
Skill and athleticism doesn't always translate to production. Nwoko is more athletic, but I gave the production stats, and they're pretty even, so I think they offer different skills. If we're comparing who is better, of course the comparison is when healthy, because the point was to assess the impact of losing Reed to the team.
quote:
Nwoko is better than Reed without question
Nwoko is only better than Reed in some ways, but it isn't without question. I'll concede that Nwoko is slightly better, because he is tougher, blocks slightly more shots and commits slightly fewer turnovers, but Reed rebounds better and scores at the same rate, and can open up the middle due his outside shot. They both have an eFG% of 0.61. Reed rebounds 12.6 per 40 min, to Nwoko's 10.8 per 40. Reed shoots over 40% from 3, and Nwoko can't shoot from beyond 10 feet. Nwoko is slightly better close to the basket, since Nwoko is 0.624 from 2, while Reed is 0.607. The big difference is that after Reed's freshman year, he has averaged less than 4 fouls per 40 minutes while Nwoko has gotten worse each year and this year he fouls 6.4 times per 40. So I think they are comparable, but Reed is much more likely to be available for an entire game. In addition, with Nwoko's propensity to foul, it makes it even more important to have another player of comparable ability to fill in, which is why he is important to this team.
Reed was our best post player. Nwoko has been really good, but he is a fouling machine, and he can't shoot from the outside. He is undisciplined. Miller has moments, but he is soft. Reed is not super tough, but he was overall the best post man, and he is a good outside shooter, which opens up the post for others. He may not be a great player, but he was important to this team, especially for matching up against some of the bigger and tougher post players.
quote:
Sutton needs to produce. Outside of rebounding, he disappears.
Sutton has been a disappointment. He is the capable of much more.
CMM was as animated as I've ever seen towards a player, because PJ Carter lost his man, and gave them an easy basket. LSU should be winning this game if their defense played better. That's what McMahon should stress at halftime.
It wasn't a well rounded team, and we didn't have a good point guard.
The first year was lack of talent, because the progrram was under threat of sanction. We got whatever talent was leftover. The 2nd year went okay since the SEC wasn't that strong and we had luck. The 3rd year the SEC was extremely strong, we lost our best post better player, and Miller was not ready to contribute. We didn't have a good point guard for any of the first 3 years. We lacked depth the first 3 years because of NIL. This year we got better talent, but still don't have the depth to survive losing our point guard and our most skilled post man.
You can also add that McMahon is not a great coach nor motivator, so the team has underperformed, but I think he is good enough to do much better, and even win in the SEC if not for the bad luck.
You can also add that McMahon is not a great coach nor motivator, so the team has underperformed, but I think he is good enough to do much better, and even win in the SEC if not for the bad luck.
re: LSU women's BB 11.5 point favorite at Ole Miss
Posted by Lapaz on 2/19/26 at 8:46 pm to MS_Tigers07
That was an egregious foul on the 3 point try by Williams.
re: Very proud of the Men's Basketball Team with a SEC Road Win. This will be the Spark!
Posted by Lapaz on 1/31/26 at 2:33 pm to UncleLester
We're lucky to get out of this game with a win. This team is so much worse without DJ. His injury may be season long, and without him, we'll be lucky to get a couple more wins, but we were due a little luck.
quote:
Lap you aren't getting it, if you gave this guy 15 mill in NIL a year.... he aint winning. He is no good. It happens. Any money spent with him will be waisted money. Its like you hire a maid and she doesn't know how to mop, but to fix that you buy her a new car. Its nonsense my friend!
That’s the key point where I disagree. He dominated at Murray St when he had better talent. He has won games against similar talent. He has also lost against weaker talent, but I think he still has less talent than most SEC teams. He probably will not dominate the league SEC, but I think it would cost us less to get the same number if wins with another coach due to his buyout. His buyout will still be substantial next year, but not crippling.
quote:
The decision to keep or fire CMM should not be based on the buyout. Essentially, we would have a lame -duck coach that nobody, including the players, would respect or have any confidence in. In my opinion, this is a no-brainer to let him go. The conversation then shifts to getting the right coach in place who may potentially take less up front and allow for a strong NIL budget to kick start his season. It can be structured with lots of incentives to make up for it. Especially if the new coach is BFFs with the LSU President and Gov Landry...these conversations are already taking place. The General is coming back.
If a coach takes less NIL upfront, then he won’t get any talent. That gives up on next season. When CMM had better talent at Murray St, he dominated the league. He has won some games with comparable talent. He hasn’t done well at LSU, and I would like to replace him too, but the buyout is a real obstacle that will affect us negatively unless we find benefactors. If those benefactors exist, where have they been?
He wouldn’t be a lame duck next year unless he kept losing.
quote:
So the solution is to give the HC who has never won in four seasons even MORE money?! To what end? That he'll be able to get 8, 9, 10 SEC wins with a ridiculously expensive roster?
If takes having zero adversity AND a payroll comparable to the NY Knicks just for a HC to make the NCAA Tournament...don't think maybe a better ROI would be just to replace the HC?
We know DJ is being well compensated. I've seen reports that he is getting about 2M, and I believe that we did increase the NIL, but it will be even more ridiculously expensive to the program to fire CMM this year, if we want to hire someone competent. Instead of paying for a more expensive roster, we'll just be burning money for the buyout. For a fraction of the buyout, say $4M more NIL, we could get 2 more star players to play along with DJ. Those players will probably be able to get their own buckets regardless of the coach. I'd be all in on firing CMM if the buyout weren't so large, but since it is, I think the best course of action is another step up in the NIL. We may fire him, but it will be ridiculously expensive to the program to avoid throwing away next season.
Wade has incentives in his contract that could pay him $4.3M this year, so he's potentially making a lot more than McMahon.
I don't want 4 more years, but 1 more year would reduce the buyout to about $5M, because several of the assistants' contracts expire in 2027, and the rest in 2028. Only CMM's contract is through 2029.
re: Do we have any basketball insiders on this board?
Posted by Lapaz on 1/30/26 at 10:57 am to Circle K Beggar
quote:
Good grief. I hope you don’t work in business.
I think your business would fail if you spent frivolously. The prudent business question is would an extra $5M in NIL be enough for CMM to win, while still saving $5M, or do we need to spend $10M more to get a better coach at the same NIL? If $5M more leads to lots of winning, then that will make money. Will $10M more at the same NIL lead to as many wins? I doubt it. It may lead to more wins than we're getting now, but I doubt the difference would justify the extra $10M.
It was a bad idea to give CMM a 7 year contract, but that's the reality. If it was my money, I wouldn't pay the $10M buyout. I would use that money to get the best talent, and I would still save millions.
quote:
So your point is:
Instead of investing 25 million into rebuilding the hoops program, you'd rather take 12 million dollars and light it on fire?
Idk Lap I think we should just get a good coach. The last guy was good enough just get someone of equal or greater value!
If we have the money, I'd prefer to rebuild the program with the best coach we can afford, but my contention is that if we have to pay CMM's buyout, we're going to be worse next year. I also contend that with superior talent, CMM will win. The NIL was increased this year, but not enough to get superior talent than other SEC teams. It's about making the prudent decision until the buyout doesn't truly light the program on fire.
quote:
His teams at Murray weren’t impressive and knowing the coaching tree he’s from it was a pretty safe bet he’d fail.
CMM has sucked at LSU, but his last team at Murray was impressive. It was 30-2 in the regular season and won their first round in the tournament, and that was a team with Justice Hill as their PG. One of their 2 losses by 12 points was to 12th ranked Auburn. That team had KJ Williams, who was probably the best player in their league, which is why I say that if you give him superior talent, then he'll do okay. I think it makes sense to keep him until his buyout is affordable, and use a portion of what would go towards the buyout to give him superior talent.
re: Do we have any basketball insiders on this board?
Posted by Lapaz on 1/29/26 at 9:53 pm to BentonTiger7
quote:
Not saying I 100% believe it but have seen multiple people on here and On3 claiming he isn’t happy at NC State and has interest in coming back to LSU now that Woodward is gone. He would want some NIL and facility guarantees but apparently that won’t be an issue.
We would have to pay Wade's buyout of $5M, plus CMM's and his staff of about $10M, plus match or exceed Wade's potential salary of $4.3M/year, and at least maintain our NIL. That would be nearly $25M for the basketball program next year rather than less than $9M if we kept CMM. We just spent a fortune on the football program, so I don't believe we're going to spend that much next year on the basketball program. We could double the NIL and only spend about 12M next year with CMM. That would probably be one of the highest NILs in the SEC, so we would probably have better talent than most, and even CMM could win.
Popular
14
