(04-12-2013 09:44 AM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 09:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  ...
- Ferro Hall would be a senior.
- Stan Simpson had rededicated himself and was supposed to make an impact. He would be a senior.
...

Do you see how they stack up at this point?

The people that thought Hall and Simpson were going to contribute at a high level this year were fooling themselves. Both of them were rising seniors with two or more seasons behind them of performing at a certain level in D1 competition. Ferro was a guy who could come in and play defense and grab some boards and be a big body, but who lost out in the emergence of DJ, who, despite his limitations, was able to produce at the 4 in a way that Hall couldn't. Simpson was just a guy who couldn't perform under game conditions for whatever reason.

Most guys do make their big jumps from freshman to sophomore year. Expecting rising seniors to all of the sudden make a much more of a difference after three years of performing in a certain way, absent an increase in minutes or something, is fools gold.

To an extent I agree. BUT, Simpson could have been different in that his first year he didn't get here until August, wasn't in great shape and didn't fully buy into the program. By all accounts he was in much better shape, had a year to learn the system and (according to him) he was focusing on basketball. That alone (since he actually did have some skills) gave folks hope that he could play 10 mins and average 5 and 3.

Ferro had better numbers his jr year than sr. year. My frustration was that there were times it seemed that Ferro could have been used for 5 minutes spots (esp when Shaq started having foul issues) to play a role: rebound/defense.

(04-12-2013 09:32 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:20 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  If you watched a lick of Tiger basketball (hell just look at threads from 11-12 about Spoon being outmanned at the 4 or about Adonis "moving" to the three from the four this year since the Tigers would be deep at the 4/5 with TB/Shaq/Stan and Ferro.

You are just proving my point, Spoon was "outmanned at the 4" & that is why he played primarily a wing (remember last second Xavier win), where was Spoon, where did he get the ball? Yea, Spoon on occasion, since TB couldn't stay on the floor, had to play the opposing PF & he was, as you say, "outmanned". And AT wasn't even relevant being hurt most of the year. He just played where there were mins to get him on the court. Even the "official" Tiger roster listed him as a G/F.

JMSTiger's thread looks at the issues correctly, from a team prospective, not head-to-head with stats that are not relevant because players are not replaceable cookie-cutter copies. Each player will have his strengths & weaknesses...and bring a different game & talents. Even then it is not so much the individual as the team & how the team comes together to be something, hopefully, better than the individual parts. Just look at Will Barton, a very talented individual, but not so much a team player. We lost a lot statisically when he left but we were better this year without his talent.

I say tomato, JMS says tomato. It's the same point.

(04-12-2013 09:47 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  Ferro accepted his role much better last year than this year.

Outside of the Marshall game, he wasted his entire senior year trying to show out instead of trying to box out.

Ferro was our second most efficient rebounder, behind DJ.

I'm surprised he didn't see more burn than he did, considering everyone lamented our ability to rebound with bigger teams this season.

(04-12-2013 09:38 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  I see what you are saying, but I don't have a lot of faith if a lineup (based on the thread of "if nobody is added") consistently plays Joe, Chris, Gerron, King and Shaq. Or Joe/CC/GJ/Iverson/Nichols.

I would expect to see some zone packages this year, especially a 1-3-1 with Kuran at the top.

Don't disagree a zone could be effective (& was in a few instances this year), but not many teams play a consistent tough zone for 35 sec. And unless your team has top-level discipline to find a man and box out, a zone can make rebounding very difficult - and Memphis has not shown a lot of rebounding discipline. I still say we won't be worse off when exchanging AN for TB and I expect SG to be better (not unreasonable going from frosh to soph yr). I do see a potential problem not having a 3rd quality big assuming we don't pick one up at least of Ferro quality. But I also see a more talented surrounding cast for next year. I see Pookie as an adequate replacement for AB, with JJ, CC & GJ being better too and adding MC. I see KI & NK adding flexibility to play multiple roles along with Wilson - and more talent than we had this year.

The really issue is that our schedule wil expose some weaknesses we didn't see this year except during the MSU game (excusing the early season tourney as just early) & can the talent we have grow along with the coaching overcome those issues.

(04-12-2013 09:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:44 AM)Briskbas Wrote:  

(04-11-2013 09:40 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  ...
- Ferro Hall would be a senior.
- Stan Simpson had rededicated himself and was supposed to make an impact. He would be a senior.
...

Do you see how they stack up at this point?

The people that thought Hall and Simpson were going to contribute at a high level this year were fooling themselves. Both of them were rising seniors with two or more seasons behind them of performing at a certain level in D1 competition. Ferro was a guy who could come in and play defense and grab some boards and be a big body, but who lost out in the emergence of DJ, who, despite his limitations, was able to produce at the 4 in a way that Hall couldn't. Simpson was just a guy who couldn't perform under game conditions for whatever reason.

Most guys do make their big jumps from freshman to sophomore year. Expecting rising seniors to all of the sudden make a much more of a difference after three years of performing in a certain way, absent an increase in minutes or something, is fools gold.

To an extent I agree. BUT, Simpson could have been different in that his first year he didn't get here until August, wasn't in great shape and didn't fully buy into the program. By all accounts he was in much better shape, had a year to learn the system and (according to him) he was focusing on basketball. That alone (since he actually did have some skills) gave folks hope that he could play 10 mins and average 5 and 3.

Ferro had better numbers his jr year than sr. year. My frustration was that there were times it seemed that Ferro could have been used for 5 minutes spots (esp when Shaq started having foul issues) to play a role: rebound/defense.

Right, fools gold. Same thing with Henderson-Niles getting in shape every year. It's a lot easier to be dedicated and not get distracted during the summer when there's nothing going on.

Hall's decrease in production was mostly due to his decrease in minutes. His per minute rebounding was somewhat better, but that could very easily be a statistical blip since he played so much fewer minutes this year than he had even his freshman year at Seton Hall. Otherwise he was who he'd always been. A big body that was limited (especially on offense) but could give you some minutes without being too big of a liability. I agree he could have been used more.

(04-12-2013 10:04 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 09:38 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  I see what you are saying, but I don't have a lot of faith if a lineup (based on the thread of "if nobody is added") consistently plays Joe, Chris, Gerron, King and Shaq. Or Joe/CC/GJ/Iverson/Nichols.

I would expect to see some zone packages this year, especially a 1-3-1 with Kuran at the top.

Don't disagree a zone could be effective (& was in a few instances this year), but not many teams play a consistent tough zone for 35 sec. And unless your team has top-level discipline to find a man and box out, a zone can make rebounding very difficult - and Memphis has not shown a lot of rebounding discipline. I still say we won't be worse off when exchanging AN for TB and I expect SG to be better (not unreasonable going from frosh to soph yr). I do see a potential problem not having a 3rd quality big assuming we don't pick one up at least of Ferro quality. But I also see a more talented surrounding cast for next year. I see Pookie as an adequate replacement for AB, with JJ, CC & GJ being better too and adding MC. I see KI & NK adding flexibility to play multiple roles along with Wilson - and more talent than we had this year.

The really issue is that our schedule wil expose some weaknesses we didn't see this year except during the MSU game (excusing the early season tourney as just early) & can the talent we have grow along with the coaching overcome those issues.

That is a fair assessment. I just look at what the ceiling this team could have (as in making a deep tourney run) and the lack of depth (whether potential or realized) of bigs concerns me.

I also stick to a maxim of not to expect much out of frosh (exceptions for maybe top five of a class) so I would any of the kids ot come in and average more than 8 ppg or pull down more than 4 rpg. Markel seems to be the odd man out THIS year, since Memphis is so loaded at the 1-3 spots and I imagine JJ will get the lion's share of minutes at the 1 (30+) with Crawford taking that role when JJ is on the bench. I see Pookie likely getting 5-8 mins a game max.

It really just matters if you bigs can stay out of foul trouble.

None of the FF teams had a stable of bigs, but their bigs played smart, were in shape and stayed on the court for the most part.

(04-12-2013 10:28 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  It really just matters if you bigs can stay out of foul trouble.

None of the FF teams had a stable of bigs, but their bigs played smart, were in shape and stayed on the court for the most part.

Agree and they were much more versatile than a cookie cutter 5 who can't see the floor, come to the high post, defend or rebound (but has nice low post moves)....or stay on the floor.

(04-12-2013 10:28 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  It really just matters if you bigs can stay out of foul trouble.

None of the FF teams had a stable of bigs, but their bigs played smart, were in shape and stayed on the court for the most part.

I disagree.

First, Louisville had Dieng. A legit 6-11 guy with a crazy wingspan. Main job was to play d and rebound.

Beyond that they didn't have a lot of HEIGHT, but they had guys that you like...BIG kids who bang.

Behannon...6-6 250, Montrezl 6-8 230. Van Treese, 6-9 250 who was a dirty work guy with height. They had five guys that played who weighed 230+. Memphis has two guys returning 200+ lbs (CC and Shaq).

Michigan had three roatation guys 250 lbs, two of which were 6-10.

Syracuse was different in that they only had two guys on their roster shorter than 6-4.

Seems like if you want to play without a lot of bigs, then your "small" need to be big.

(04-12-2013 12:35 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 10:28 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  It really just matters if you bigs can stay out of foul trouble.

None of the FF teams had a stable of bigs, but their bigs played smart, were in shape and stayed on the court for the most part.

I disagree.

First, Louisville had Dieng. A legit 6-11 guy with a crazy wingspan. Main job was to play d and rebound.

Beyond that they didn't have a lot of HEIGHT, but they had guys that you like...BIG kids who bang.

Behannon...6-6 250, Montrezl 6-8 230. Van Treese, 6-9 250 who was a dirty work guy with height. They had five guys that played who weighed 230+. Memphis has two guys returning 200+ lbs (CC and Shaq).

Michigan had three roatation guys 250 lbs, two of which were 6-10.

Syracuse was different in that they only had two guys on their roster shorter than 6-4.

Seems like if you want to play without a lot of bigs, then your "small" need to be big.

Agree with this.

But don't forget Wichita State - they weren't huge by any stretch.

I have posted in another thread somewhere that we need to get bigger across the board. No offense to Joe at all, but no more 5-10 guards or 6-2 shooting guards or small forwards playing power forward.

If you can't get 6-11 guys, then your 1-4 guys need to be a bit bigger.

(04-12-2013 12:41 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 12:35 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-12-2013 10:28 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  It really just matters if you bigs can stay out of foul trouble.

None of the FF teams had a stable of bigs, but their bigs played smart, were in shape and stayed on the court for the most part.

I disagree.

First, Louisville had Dieng. A legit 6-11 guy with a crazy wingspan. Main job was to play d and rebound.

Beyond that they didn't have a lot of HEIGHT, but they had guys that you like...BIG kids who bang.

Behannon...6-6 250, Montrezl 6-8 230. Van Treese, 6-9 250 who was a dirty work guy with height. They had five guys that played who weighed 230+. Memphis has two guys returning 200+ lbs (CC and Shaq).

Michigan had three roatation guys 250 lbs, two of which were 6-10.

Syracuse was different in that they only had two guys on their roster shorter than 6-4.

Seems like if you want to play without a lot of bigs, then your "small" need to be big.

Agree with this.

But don't forget Wichita State - they weren't huge by any stretch.

I have posted in another thread somewhere that we need to get bigger across the board. No offense to Joe at all, but no more 5-10 guards or 6-2 shooting guards or small forwards playing power forward.

If you can't get 6-11 guys, then your 1-4 guys need to be a bit bigger.

Word.

Well I don't agree that we are small across the board at all. CC, Geron, King, Wilson, Iverson. Thats some serious length.

We need more size/skill in the paint no doubt.

Wichita State was also incredibly physical. The most physical team in the final four. Being a 4 out team isn't the kiss of death, per se. But being a 4 out, finesse team makes for bad matcups.

The Dorsey point by Sundanceiuic is accurate. The real key for next season is what inside TIGER player wants to EMBRACE the role of doing the "dirty work" - rebounding, interior defense, physical intimidation factor, and basically only being used for putbacks and dunks on offense? To me, it really is that simple.