We shot 40% for the game. Not good, but we've shot worse and won because we were able to play enough defense to get it done.

(11-19-2013 09:27 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:24 PM)wildbill4UM Wrote:  Coach 'X', was the worst 'in game' coach I've ever seen (up by 3 = foul), but the players took us to there...

If you really believe that you're a loon. At least he figured out a rotation that worked and stuck with it.

That is exactly what I'm saying. He had the players to do that. If you think: The 2013 team[Jackson, Dixon, Johnson, Goodwin, Nichols] is anywhere near the 2008 team[Rose, CDR, Anderson, Dorsey, Dozier] you are the loon my friend. I usually always enjoy your analysis. But, if you can't admit 'X' was a terrible 'in game coach', I got plenty of examples ready where 'X' alone lost the game. He always had better players, but always got out-coached, always...

(11-19-2013 08:23 PM)tmoneyinmphs Wrote:  I see a trend with nick king this year.

Production.

Kid working hard for playing time.

Nick King=23 points, 8 rebounds.

Start king. Take out one of the small guards. I really don't care which one. It really don't matter. We've seen JJ, so go with dixon i guess. Dixon and JJ combined for 0 assists and 6 turnovers. Geron is tougher, i think he will bounce back.

First thing Bruce Pearl does is tell J.J. to have a seat. Observe and then kick ass!

(11-19-2013 10:54 PM)memphisike Wrote:  First thing Bruce Pearl does is tell J.J. to have a seat. Observe and then kick ass!

We are not in CUSA. JJ is 0-12 against top 25.

Why are posters bringing up calipari still?? Good god let that end.

Marcus Smart, Our lack of shooting the 3 (2-13) and Coaching Cost us

(11-19-2013 10:49 PM)tmoneyinmphs Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 08:23 PM)tmoneyinmphs Wrote:  I see a trend with nick king this year.

Production.

Kid working hard for playing time.

Nick King=23 points, 8 rebounds.

Start king. Take out one of the small guards. I really don't care which one. It really don't matter. We've seen JJ, so go with dixon i guess. Dixon and JJ combined for 0 assists and 6 turnovers. Geron is tougher, i think he will bounce back.

Next game, start:
JJ
GJ
King
Nichols
Shaq
King deserves it based on tonight's performance.
Dixon is the new guy and hasnt earned his way into the starting lineup - played very poorly tonight.

(11-19-2013 10:46 PM)wildbill4UM Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:27 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:24 PM)wildbill4UM Wrote:  Coach 'X', was the worst 'in game' coach I've ever seen (up by 3 = foul), but the players took us to there...

If you really believe that you're a loon. At least he figured out a rotation that worked and stuck with it.

That is exactly what I'm saying. He had the players to do that. If you think: the 2013 team[Jackson, Dixon, Johnson, Goodwin, Nichols] are anywhere near 2008 team[Rose, CDR, Anderson, Dorsey, Dozier] you are the loon my friend. I usually always enjoy your analysis. But, if you can't admit 'X' was a terrible 'in game coach', I got plenty of examples ready where "X' alone lost the game. He always had better players, but always got out-coached, always...

Who do you think guided them to become "better players"? They developed an understanding of how to play the game, the value of defense, and running a system that emphasized their strengths. In game coaching is a tiny % of being a good coach. JP could have made incredible in game adjustments tonight, but if they guys have no idea how to play, it doesn't matter.

(11-19-2013 10:36 PM)hsvtiger Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:02 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  Smart did the EXACT same thing against Shaq in first half and there was no call.

Refs definitely cost us his game.

Didn't cost us but if Smart called for fouls he committed could have made it closer.

The small ball irks me. I've always had King or KI starting with Freon and a pg. Dixon, Joe and Geron on the court together is too small.

(11-19-2013 10:49 PM)tmoneyinmphs Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 08:23 PM)tmoneyinmphs Wrote:  I see a trend with nick king this year.

Production.

Kid working hard for playing time.

Nick King=23 points, 8 rebounds.

Start king. Take out one of the small guards. I really don't care which one. It really don't matter. We've seen JJ, so go with dixon i guess. Dixon and JJ combined for 0 assists and 6 turnovers. Geron is tougher, i think he will bounce back.

(11-19-2013 10:09 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  When was the last time we gave up 105 points?

Probably against Missouri in the Sweet 16. We didn't have a coach for that one either.

Damn auto correct

For all you basketball geniuses JJ was shadowed/denied the ball the entire game....something we should have done to Smart 2 minutes in. Not sure why we never returned the favor on Smart, especially considering Forte was not playing to set up for three. Easiest way to take a scorer out of a game.....or at least limit them for sure.

(11-19-2013 11:05 PM)KevB Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 PM)wildbill4UM Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:27 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:24 PM)wildbill4UM Wrote:  Coach 'X', was the worst 'in game' coach I've ever seen (up by 3 = foul), but the players took us to there...

If you really believe that you're a loon. At least he figured out a rotation that worked and stuck with it.

That is exactly what I'm saying. He had the players to do that. If you think: the 2013 team[Jackson, Dixon, Johnson, Goodwin, Nichols] are anywhere near 2008 team[Rose, CDR, Anderson, Dorsey, Dozier] you are the loon my friend. I usually always enjoy your analysis. But, if you can't admit 'X' was a terrible 'in game coach', I got plenty of examples ready where "X' alone lost the game. He always had better players, but always got out-coached, always...

Who do you think guided them to become "better players"? They developed an understanding of how to play the game, the value of defense, and running a system that emphasized their strengths. In game coaching is a tiny % of being a good coach. JP could have made incredible in game adjustments tonight, but if they guys have no idea how to play, it doesn't matter.

You think 'X' made Derrick Rose a "better player"? You think 'X' magically developed his 'understanding of how to play', and 'value of defense'? I call BS! He was good at assembling talent, but in a game he basically just 'turned them loose'. The 'dribble-drive' sounds good, but really with 'X' it's just 'street ball' relying on individual talent. His teams usually lacked discipline, composure, and fundamentals(free throws and rebounding). I still say 'X' was one of the worst 'in game' coaches I've ever seen. I remember numerous games where his poor coaching was the reason we lost. In game coaching is a tiny % of being a good coach? Really...?

(11-20-2013 02:20 AM)wildbill4UM Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 11:05 PM)KevB Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 10:46 PM)wildbill4UM Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:27 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(11-19-2013 09:24 PM)wildbill4UM Wrote:  Coach 'X', was the worst 'in game' coach I've ever seen (up by 3 = foul), but the players took us to there...

If you really believe that you're a loon. At least he figured out a rotation that worked and stuck with it.

That is exactly what I'm saying. He had the players to do that. If you think: the 2013 team[Jackson, Dixon, Johnson, Goodwin, Nichols] are anywhere near 2008 team[Rose, CDR, Anderson, Dorsey, Dozier] you are the loon my friend. I usually always enjoy your analysis. But, if you can't admit 'X' was a terrible 'in game coach', I got plenty of examples ready where "X' alone lost the game. He always had better players, but always got out-coached, always...

Who do you think guided them to become "better players"? They developed an understanding of how to play the game, the value of defense, and running a system that emphasized their strengths. In game coaching is a tiny % of being a good coach. JP could have made incredible in game adjustments tonight, but if they guys have no idea how to play, it doesn't matter.

You think 'X' made Derrick Rose a "better player"? You think 'X' magically developed his 'understanding of how to play', and 'value of defense'? I call BS! He was good at assembling talent, but in a game he basically just 'turned them loose'. The 'dribble-drive' sounds good, but really with 'X' it's just 'street ball' relying on individual talent. His teams usually lacked discipline, composure, and fundamentals(free throws and rebounding). I still say 'X' was one of the worst 'in game' coaches I've ever seen. I remember numerous games where his poor coaching was the reason we lost. In game coaching is a tiny % of being a good coach? Really...?

Some truth in that, but those teams had great chemistry....

(11-19-2013 10:58 PM)JacobSmiley Wrote:  Why are posters bringing up calipari still?? Good god let that end.

Because cal set unrealistic expectations, that's why. Not defending anyone and using it as an excuse. Just answering the questions the way I see it.