I grew up in Flint and followed Rice throughout his high school and college career, but this kid can shoot. I didn't think I'd ever see a better college stroke than Glen.
I did not make this headline up
It's way too early to make a statement like that. Rice shot over 50% from 3 for an entire season and is still the all-time leading scorer in the NCAA Tournament.
Do you know the difference between a question and a statement?
Yes, I do. And it's impossible to answer your question without making a statement. You're asking us to state that he either is, or isn't, a better shooter than Glen Rice.
I didn't make a statement, nor did I say he was better than Rice, now did I?
No, you didn't. But you asked a question that forced us to make a statement one way or the other - and we can't. It's too early.
Must....not....make.....statement........Yes, he's better! Damn you Maznblu. Damn you!
Why are your opinions ok, but you down vote anyone who disagrees with you. Thats how my three year old handles things.
It’s a simple question in order to spark decent conversation. We are very excited about this freshmen and this team. I say if you don’t like the question don’t comment.
That's all it was blue, no one said he was better than Glen, no one said he was a better shooter, scorer, 3 point shooter, ect. Some guys have trouble reading.
You first post attacked someone for making a very reasonable point. Although his meaning was quite clear, it's obvious that you didn't understand his post then and you still don't.
I have no problem with the question. (If you notice, I'm not one of the people who downvoted the OP, nor did I even downvote any of his replies.) I just feel it's hard to answer. Why does this bother the OP?
Because you are failing to follow the basic rules of sports commentary:
1. Make as many premature evaluations as you can. The smaller the sample size, the better.
2. If a narrative is compelling, use it. Obvious lack of empirical support should be ignored.
3. Hyperbole must always trump objectivity, even if you represent a major sports network.
4. If a mediocre white college player displays good effort, he shall be compared to a professional white athlete with similar size but far superior skill and athleticism.
5. Being loud and obnoxious is good. Being loud and obnoxious while talking about Tim Tebow is better.
Sources: Skip Bayless, Drew Sharp, RCBM, Mike Valenti, Stephen A. Smith, Bucknuts, Colin Cowherd, and Jim Rome.
epic retort sir. Some posts deserve 6 votes.
Rice was ridiculous. Set the NCAA tourney record, which still stands.
Good Lord this is amazing!
after the NCAA tourney.
I will give it to him even at 82.5%. Damn you are demanding.
for sure, but Rice did it for 4 years and did amazing things in big moments.
Let's just enjoy Stauskas as a great player/shooter in his own right and not put pressure on him by comparing him to the most prolific single tourney scorer ever.
We won't know for sure until Stauskas allegedly bangs Sarah Palin.
SKEET SKEET SKEET
He is one hell of a shooter but he has not really been tested in high stress environments like Rice was. If he can hit clutch jumpers in late March/Early April then I'll think about it but right now lets just leave it at he is an outstanding shooter.
This is definitely a premature question, but it'll be difficult to ever make a one-to-one comparison of their three-point shooting ability because the NCAA three-point line was at 19 feet, 9 inches when Rice played, and it's now at 20 feet, 9 inches.
The other thing is that the 3-point shot was only added to the NCAA in Rice's sophomore season, so he didn't grow up shooting 3's like players now do. In fact, he even played inside frequently when he was an underclassman (and was one of the league's best rebounders one year). He made a remarkable transition to becoming a primarily perimeter player by the time he was a senior.
It's going to be apples and oranges. If Stauskas can come even close to matching Rice's production he'll have one heck of a career.
apples orange juice and rice
so he didn't grow up shooting 3's like players now do.
Yes—it's highly unlikely Rice took as many outside shots growing up as Stauskas claims he did:
“Shooting is what I do,” Stauskas said. “I’m comfortable with it. I’ve probably taken a million shots in my life. That’s pretty much all I did when I was a kid, just go outside and shoot.”
(from this Daily article)
and Stauskas sometimes shoots them from 23 feet 9 inches
See 1989 tournament performance
6 or so games....remember that
Ok, but which one is better?
Only one of those things ever had a funky bunch
After comparing their careers, I would have to say yes. Stauskas is a better shooter.
but sample size.
Well he is certainly off to a great start, but has a long way to go to be mentioned with Rice.
He's off to a fantastic start, but I've been burned from the Gavin Groninger experience never to again hype up a shooter too much.
They're retiring his jersey tomorrow.
if you extrapolate his 6 game career over a 4 year... err 3 years... err 2 years... err the rest of this season before he goes pro....
Stauskas, Nash... Seems definitive.
I just don't care, still enjoying the mere fact of having a baltic named tall canadian as a SG. It's well known having one on your team is not just effective, it makes you cooler.
I wonder who will wear his legacy numbet?
Is one of the greatest shooters in basketball, not just u of m, history. So I guess I'll say no.
Fisher was asked after the tournament run if Glen Rice was the greatest shooter he'd ever seen. Fisher said, Rice wasn't even the best shooter on the team. The reporters all laughed, but fisher told them it was Rob Pelinka. Most of you won't even remember Pelinka, but as a shooter he was unbelievable. In pre game warm ups he would warmup up until he made 100 shots. The one night I counter he was 100/120 from all over the gym including 30 footers. That's the difference between a great basketball player and just a great shooter.
Not a fan of Pelinka the player. But as a lawyer and player rep, he is one of the better ones.