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 refuse to even consider this a possibility
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.
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.
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.
And then the game would start. He might make a fee shots, miss the clutch ones, and usually be a non-factor. Mr. Practice Player.
Now Rice, he was great -- even in games.
Lee Humphry is the best tournament shooter of all time
Because he is still my favorite Wolverine bball player of all time, obligatory yell of GLEN!!! Oops I did it again. GLEN!!!
Anyway, It seems as if he can hit the three almost whenever he wants .I am looking forward to seeing if he can be an elite shooter for the rest of his career.
Bullshit. Your statement "I didn't think I'd ever see a better college stroke than Glen." is directly implying that you think Stauskas is a better shooter. You wouldn't have made the statement otherwise. You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone else is here, but don't try to run away from it after you've learned that most everybody else thinks you're wrong.
Rice took down Sarah Palin. That is all.
No! Rice was taller and could shoot over taller defenders.
Agreed. Way too soon to ask this question.
However, I've been saying for the last few games that no one has reminded me more of Glen Rice than Stauskas. They have very similar games.
Better shooter? It doesn't even matter even if it could be answered.
But the OP's point stands: Stauskas is a pure shooter, just like Rice.
Way more TD catches.
he scored a lot more points than Nik has.
However, I think that that Glen averaged around 9 points his freshman year, on a very good team, and Nik could top that on an even better team.
If you believe that you should look up that team and the players on it there is no chance at all this team is that good. That's not to slight our current team but back then not only was the team loaded with NBA players but they were juniors and seniors. College basketball as a whole has dropped off greatly because of players leaving earlier and earlier.
Is he a better suit than Luis bullock? That was the best shooter from my memory. I'm only 25 and dot remember seein rice in college just when he was in the nba.
For the record, Rice's career 3-point percentage at Michigan was 48.04%. That other player you mentioned averaged only 42.27%
Garde Thompson holds the Michigan career record at 48.08%, but the 3-point line was in effect for only his senior year.
Rice holds the single-season percentage record at 51.56% (1988-89).
Could really play.
I'm not sure yet between the two. I did have season tickets when Rice was at Michigan. Actually, I defended him in pickup ball at the CCRB many years ago.
However, put a gun to my head:
Obviously enough, we won't know for sure until many more games have passed. Rice was such a great talent, and had a long and successful NBA career.
I will say, a significant part of Stauskas' effectiveness is his ability to drive to the basket. If someone guards him too tight, he blows by for a layup. If someone stays back, Stauskas will hit a three.
It is way, way, way premature, but I'm starting to wonder if Stauskas has a significant future in the NBA. His ability to get off a shot immediately is something very, very few freshmen are able to do. And he is more automatic from the FT line than virtually anyone I"ve seen.
"I will say, a significant part of Stauskas' effectiveness is his ability to drive to the basket."
This is what impresses me and could make him more dangerous and NBA legit. But I need to see it against Big 10 speed first. (haha see what I did there? Big 10 speed)
I was thinking something along the same lines, but trying not to "put the cart before the horse." My thoughts are that Michigan hasn't had a shooter like Stauskas since Glen Rice, and that Stauskas has a chance to be as good as Rice someday.
However, and it's a big "however," Rice's performance in the NCAA Tournament is still the best performance I have ever seen over a period of six games in the tournament. I don't know if anyone is ever going to be able to duplicate it. It wasn't just the numbers, either. In the tournament, it seemed like Rice made nearly every crucial shot he took.
When Nik Stauskas and Michigan win the NCAA Tournament, I will strongly consider saying that he is as good a player and shooter as Rice was. For now, though, I'll wait and see how his career develops.
Probably better than Michael Jordan. Probably better than the entire 1992 Chicago Bulls roster. I heard he beat Lebron James in a game of one on one, as well.
he rates right up there with Gretsky & Lemieux as the best Canadian shooters ever.
30% is expected. 60% is incredible!
Well.....he does like Bieber. Anyone know how Rice feels about the Biebs?
Heard Rice slept with Bieb's mother but I have no idea his view on the Bieb's himself.
Reading these posts are better than Springer sometimes
No the real question is - is he the best college player of all time? I mean after half a dozen games we certainly have these type of answers.