You just touched upon weakness of the zone.......if you guard the arc, you are vulnerable for being out of rebound position. If you cheat to be in the key for rebounds, then the arc is wide open for three point shots. That is why 99% of teams play man to man as their base defense. After four years of seeing zone, or first time for a good BG coach, he picked it apart. It would be interesting to see this team match up man to man with their athleticism.

(01-22-2015 03:38 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 12:15 AM)rayEMU Wrote:  Hey Steve,

Tim Bond led the team in scoring and... BLOCKS (3)?! Ok, I was wrong, he is ready to be a major contributor now. How do I sign up for his fan club? :-)

(ps, Talley is still the most reliable player on the team despite today, so I am not kicking him to the curb)

I'm president of his fan club. VP slot is open.

Anyone who posts that if Bond would have come back sooner (medically) and been in 3rd game form against Ball State that maybe that game and this season would be different, can be vice president of the Bond fan club. :)

Yes impressive offensive game, but despite the three blocks how was he on defense? Seems to me the BG guards could do what they wanted.

At the beginning of the season I questioned whether this team was as good as last year's team. I think we all now know the answer to that question. Just looking at the points scored in conference play against us raises questions to the defensive quality of this team (which to be fair looked impressive prior to conference play). I thought we lose on the road to BG, but wasn't expecting the margin the final score indicated. On to CMU.

(01-21-2015 08:26 PM)Bob Wickersham Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 08:05 PM)emu steve Wrote:  Before the season started I thought we needed 40 a game from Ward, Lee and Talley (e.g., 15, 15, and 10).

At the half, those three have 12 points...

You can't pencil Lee in for anything. You never know what you'll get out of the guy. He's very mercurial.

I did point out my concern about Lee's consistency early on and made the comment that we do miss Combs who provide offense when Lee "took the night" off, recall last year Murphy sat Lee a couple of times because Lee "just wasn't into it.". Not to rehash more old comments but also I said Raven Lee is as good as he want to be. Seriously the guy has talent to be all MAC but as I said before sometime I question where his head and heart are.

(01-21-2015 07:53 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  Hate to agree with certain someone on this board... we do miss a center presence.

Also I don't think our PGs are as good as advertised by some posters here. Not a big fan of Talley's game overall. He supposed to be this creator but I don't see it.

Don't hate me when I'm right. I said Samuels was better than I expected him to be but he isn't any Riley not by a long shot and neither is Hunter or Ayaji. Maybe if we gotten one of the other four center candidates that passed on our 22 wins but that's all water under the bridge.

As to PG guards hm maybe that's the reason Murphy and his staff have offered Stone?

(01-22-2015 07:08 AM)emu79 Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 07:53 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  Hate to agree with certain someone on this board... we do miss a center presence.

Also I don't think our PGs are as good as advertised by some posters here. Not a big fan of Talley's game overall. He supposed to be this creator but I don't see it.

Don't hate me when I'm right. I said Samuels was better than I expected him to be but he isn't any Riley not by a long shot and neither is Hunter or Ayaji. Maybe if we gotten one of the other four center candidates that passed on our 22 wins but that's all water under the bridge.

As to PG guards hm maybe that's the reason Murphy and his staff have offered Stone?

I think RealistEagle was agreeing with me. Lol. Or maybe not???? Or maybe agreeing with you and I (both).

I was the biggest fan of Riley and what I thought he brought to the interior defense.

I always thought he was an intimator (sp) in there. A guard would start to drive the lane and go 'oh, s*it' and back it out.

Posters would say for every shot Riley blocked there were a number he intimated. He stole in good number of passes.

(01-22-2015 07:51 AM)emu steve Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 07:08 AM)emu79 Wrote:  

(01-21-2015 07:53 PM)realistEagle Wrote:  Hate to agree with certain someone on this board... we do miss a center presence.

Also I don't think our PGs are as good as advertised by some posters here. Not a big fan of Talley's game overall. He supposed to be this creator but I don't see it.

Don't hate me when I'm right. I said Samuels was better than I expected him to be but he isn't any Riley not by a long shot and neither is Hunter or Ayaji. Maybe if we gotten one of the other four center candidates that passed on our 22 wins but that's all water under the bridge.

As to PG guards hm maybe that's the reason Murphy and his staff have offered Stone?

I think RealistEagle was agreeing with me. Lol. Or maybe not???? Or maybe agreeing with you and I (both).

I was the biggest fan of Riley and what I thought he brought to the interior defense.

I always thought he was an intimator (sp) in there. A guard would start to drive the lane and go 'oh, s*it' and back it out.

Posters would say for every shot Riley blocked there were a number he intimated. He stole in good number of passes.

Many people said that. I think Bob Wickersham was the only one who said we don't miss Riley, when it is blatantly obvious that we do. But again, it's pretty damn hard to replace a 7-foot shot blocker/defender in the MAC.

(01-22-2015 05:42 AM)Luckeyone Wrote:  You just touched upon weakness of the zone.......if you guard the arc, you are vulnerable for being out of rebound position. If you cheat to be in the key for rebounds, then the arc is wide open for three point shots. That is why 99% of teams play man to man as their base defense. After four years of seeing zone, or first time for a good BG coach, he picked it apart. It would be interesting to see this team match up man to man with their athleticism.

Pretty much false. Whenever the ball is swung around the perimeter, the guards/forwards off the ball sag down to help take away the interior. Do you ever notice when the guard that isn't on the ball has to front the man at the free throw line? You make sound as if everyone is just standing there, when in reality it's as "match-up zone" as you can get. Murphy asks a lot out of every defender, including getting out to guard the man as quickly as possible from a sagged position.

This requires effort and discipline. Neither showed up much yesterday, hence the open shots and second chance points. BG hit some ridiculous threes that we defended really well (nothing you can do about that in any defense), but our intensity and rebounding efforts were very poor.

With our offense being a complete mess, and two of our best players regressing, the defense needs to be even more disciplined for us to win games. So far, in MAC play, it hasn't been.

Excellent post, Sam.

My only other thought, and hardly new, is that I can't believe that Ward, Lee, etc. can be in a shooting funk all year.

There are a number of players capable of getting hot and carrying the team on his shoulders for A GAME.

We just need Ward to go off for 20+. Ditto Lee. Talley for 15. Bond for 15.

Shooters sometimes get into funk and when they are cold, they are ice cold. Can't hit anything.

I'm awaiting the day one of these players get red hot and breaks out of his shell.

Does anyone think that Ward has completely lost it forever?

Ward has been completely mystifying. Last year, he shot 38% from 3 on 4.2 attempts a game, which is decent. This year, he's almost a full 10% lower with only .5 more attempts. It's as if he completely lost confidence in his shot. Conversely, Raven has been much better shooting this year than last. 46%/38%/75% are solid numbers for a shooting guard, especially at our level. He takes one too many DEEP threes, but he's still been efficient overall from behind the long line so far. Turnovers are what kills him. He's still too careless with the ball.

Ward and Talley were expected to be go-to guys offensively this year (in Murphy's words), and both have been disappointing in MAC play. It's a shame. I expected more out of these two, who both looked much more confident last season.

The team had lots of swagger prior to conference play but somehow lost it prior to conference play. Interesting coaching problem for Murphy and staff-is this team playing to its potential and if not how to get it there and in a hurry?

(01-22-2015 01:53 PM)emu79 Wrote:  The team had lots of swagger prior to conference play but somehow lost it prior to conference play. Interesting coaching problem for Murphy and staff-is this team playing to its potential and if not how to get it there and in a hurry?

They had swagger because they had beaten up on very weak teams giving them a false sense of greatness!

(01-22-2015 03:40 PM)emussuperfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 01:53 PM)emu79 Wrote:  The team had lots of swagger prior to conference play but somehow lost it prior to conference play. Interesting coaching problem for Murphy and staff-is this team playing to its potential and if not how to get it there and in a hurry?

They had swagger because they had beaten up on very weak teams giving them a false sense of greatness!

That might be part of it. The other part of the swagger might have been due to beating Michigan a big name program having at least a decent year. Also staying competitive against a relatively high ranked Dayton on the road.

Look, I reallize they had an easy non conference schedule which might lead to overrating. But it was not all Fluff. In addition to the above mentioned they also played MSU. So the team reallizes the difference between the easier opponents they played and the tougher programs.

They did not crash into reality, they just crashed.

Agree, Ray.

Like they clobbered a bunch of mediocre teams, BUT I learned something in 1991: EMU killed Chicago State and I learned mediocre or bad teams don't go beating other teams by 30, 40, or 50 points. (I believe we scored over 100 points on Chicago State). Margin is another piece of data.

That is how I learned that EMU in '91 was good. This was before I knew of 'Superfan.' Lol.

We beat Longwood badly because we have significant depth and can play back to back to back.

We did beat UofM. We played a very tight game, IN Dayton, against Dayton. We beat Mo. State, handily, the fourth game of a very tough four game road trips. Bad teams collapse like a deck of cards.

Somehow after losing those first two conference games, after blowing big leads, we're in a funk. Pure and simple.

(01-22-2015 05:58 PM)emu steve Wrote:  Agree, Ray.

Like they clobbered a bunch of mediocre teams, BUT I learned something in 1991: EMU killed Chicago State and I learned mediocre or bad teams don't go beating other teams by 30, 40, or 50 points. (I believe we scored over 100 points on Chicago State). Margin is another piece of data.

That is how I learned that EMU in '91 was good. This was before I knew of 'Superfan.' Lol.

We beat Longwood badly because we have significant depth and can play back to back to back.

We did beat UofM. We played a very tight game, IN Dayton, against Dayton. We beat Mo. State, handily, the fourth game of a very tough four game road trips. Bad teams collapse like a deck of cards.

Somehow after losing those first two conference games, after blowing big leads, we're in a funk. Pure and simple.

In 91 we lost 60-74. finish eight in the MAC in 1990 we won 87-75 finish first, sorry that was Cleveland state, Chicago State 120-77. Big whoop.

(01-22-2015 06:12 PM)emussuperfan Wrote:  

(01-22-2015 05:58 PM)emu steve Wrote:  Agree, Ray.

Like they clobbered a bunch of mediocre teams, BUT I learned something in 1991: EMU killed Chicago State and I learned mediocre or bad teams don't go beating other teams by 30, 40, or 50 points. (I believe we scored over 100 points on Chicago State). Margin is another piece of data.

That is how I learned that EMU in '91 was good. This was before I knew of 'Superfan.' Lol.

We beat Longwood badly because we have significant depth and can play back to back to back.

We did beat UofM. We played a very tight game, IN Dayton, against Dayton. We beat Mo. State, handily, the fourth game of a very tough four game road trips. Bad teams collapse like a deck of cards.

Somehow after losing those first two conference games, after blowing big leads, we're in a funk. Pure and simple.

In 91 we lost 60-74. finish eight in the MAC in 1990 we won 87-75 finish first, sorry that was Cleveland state, Chicago State 120-77. Big whoop.

I'm not sure what the 60 - 74, 8th in the MAC, etc. is all about.

I was talking about a single game, Chicago State, during the '90/'91 season.

On Feb 20, 1991 we beat Chicago State 120 - 77 and that is when I got the feeling that this EMU team was something special. (and it was).

Just one game or season doesn't mean a lot. I've attended around 500 men's basketball games. Home and away. Most of those right by the basket less then 15 feet from the play.

(01-22-2015 08:15 PM)emussuperfan Wrote:  Just one game or season doesn't mean a lot. I've attended around 500 men's basketball games. Home and away. Most of those right by the basket less then 15 feet from the play.

Which means?

Just sayin. It's not a game or a season but all games that make emu sports great!

Superfan, are you saying win or lose, EMU sports are great? If I am not misinterpreting this, than I am finally seeing how fitting and well deserved the title of Superfan actually is. (before, I used to think you were generally negative on them)