'15 IL PG Everett Clemons (3/28/2015)

WANTED: Passionate Sycamore Fanatics. That You?

Register NOW to join our community of die-hard Sycamore fans.


Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
Why was Indiana State his choice?

“I really love the coaching staff. Wanting to go to a program that was in need for my position. The players where all very cool and they really wanted me. They finished third last year behind Wichita State and Northern Iowa. Two teams who made it to the tournament and I just want to have the opportunity to compete against teams like that and go to the tournament.”

Clemons discussed how he will fit in their system.

“I feel as if this is the best system for me. They get up and down. Play pressure defense. Run a lot of ball screens and I will be surrounded by shooters. If you know my game that’s good for me. I’m able to get downhill and find shooters.”

http://www.prephoopsillinois.com/news_article/show/497802?referrer_id=1201274
 
I don't think anyone here would say Bennett didn't have talent. I can see how he scored as many points as he did in JC and ended up on the honorable mention team. His lack of enthusiasm for defense didn't catch up with him until he got to D1. I don't think We'll have the same problem with Clemons. He is not near the shooter Bennett was, but he should be an upgrade in all other facets of the game from everything Ive read/seen.

Anyways great honor for Everett! I also noticed that out of all the Valley JC players committed so far he is the only one on there despite several other guards putting up better numbers. Maybe there are a few more Bennett's on their way to the Valley next season lol
 
Last edited:
So will this be more to move Scott to the two or will this be more having two 1's where we will be able to have a strong PG always on the ct instead of a weakness when Scott comes out. I'm talking next year not debating last year with Tre.
 

Become a Supporting Member to remove this ad and help support the site.
So will this be more to move Scott to the two or will this be more having two 1's where we will be able to have a strong PG always on the ct instead of a weakness when Scott comes out. I'm talking next year not debating last year with Tre.

This is more to have a true PG on the court. Brown is not a true PG, can he play the point if called upon? yes. But you don't want him running the offense, he is a great guy to have on the court though. Scott is obviously a natural 2 if he never has to run PG next year that would be a good thing for us. Clemons is not here to split time at the 1 with Brown, he is here to be OUR point guard. honestly i know we'd be small but i'd love to see 1. Clemons 2. Scott 3. Brown 4. Smith 5. MVS on the floor at the same time. that is a lot of weapons and scoring right there.
 
This is more to have a true PG on the court. Brown is not a true PG, can he play the point if called upon? yes. But you don't want him running the offense, he is a great guy to have on the court though. Scott is obviously a natural 2 if he never has to run PG next year that would be a good thing for us. Clemons is not here to split time at the 1 with Brown, he is here to be OUR point guard. honestly i know we'd be small but i'd love to see 1. Clemons 2. Scott 3. Brown 4. Smith 5. MVS on the floor at the same time. that is a lot of weapons and scoring right there.

You may get your wish. I hope Murphy or Bell can do the job for us inside most of the time.
 
This is more to have a true PG on the court. Brown is not a true PG, can he play the point if called upon? yes. But you don't want him running the offense, he is a great guy to have on the court though. Scott is obviously a natural 2 if he never has to run PG next year that would be a good thing for us. Clemons is not here to split time at the 1 with Brown, he is here to be OUR point guard. honestly i know we'd be small but i'd love to see 1. Clemons 2. Scott 3. Brown 4. Smith 5. MVS on the floor at the same time. that is a lot of weapons and scoring right there.

On offense yes. On defense no.
 
Back
Top