(12-15-2013 07:21 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-15-2013 05:46 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Shaq Thomas looked good i thought!!

I thought he looked like the only starter who wanted to be out there.

The problem with Shaq is that the expectations were very high. Currently he looks like another guy that at UC is expected to be a big time scorer, at any other top 25 program he'd be coming off the bench.

Every problem just keeps reflecting back to Mick Cronin, time to step it up.

Would I want my kid to play for Mick Cronin. Yes. He is a man of integrity and he does what is right. Is he the best basketball coach in the country? No. But there is nothing wrong with three straight NCAA Tournament teams. Do people forget what Huggins last 4-6 years were like? Pretty much like our last three. 20 wins and some change with really good defense and a decent NCAA seed. I'm as frustrated as much as the next guy, but this thread should be saved until after the season IMO. It's easy to call for someones head in December after two losses where we looked really bad.

(12-15-2013 11:54 PM)BearcatShane09 Wrote:  Would I want my kid to play for Mick Cronin. Yes. He is a man of integrity and he does what is right. Is he the best basketball coach in the country? No. But there is nothing wrong with three straight NCAA Tournament teams. Do people forget what Huggins last 4-6 years were like? Pretty much like our last three. 20 wins and some change with really good defense and a decent NCAA seed. I'm as frustrated as much as the next guy, but this thread should be saved until after the season IMO. It's easy to call for someones head in December after two losses where we looked really bad.

Exactly. thank you.

I just wish Cronin would modify his philosophy some. I agree it is too early in the season to panic, but there are definite issues.

Why can't UC get players like Stainbrook of Xavier? He's not a spectacular talent, but he plays his role very well and UC could really use a player like him.

Why can't UC's offense look like a real division 1 offense? It still looks like they have no idea about what they want to do.

(12-16-2013 07:34 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I just wish Cronin would modify his philosophy some. I agree it is too early in the season to panic, but there are definite issues.

Why can't UC get players like Stainbrook of Xavier? He's not a spectacular talent, but he plays his role very well and UC could really use a player like him.

Why can't UC's offense look like a real division 1 offense? It still looks like they have no idea about what they want to do.

Agree with all three of your points. If I were just the average college basketball fan tuning in the last two games seeing the offensive futility I'd wonder how could a program like Cincy look that bad. But as you say, it's entirely too early to judge this team.

All we have to do is go back and read the posts after the football team lost to USF; some were ready to run the football coaching staff out of town after their first ever conference road game.

(12-16-2013 07:34 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I just wish Cronin would modify his philosophy some. I agree it is too early in the season to panic, but there are definite issues.

Why can't UC get players like Stainbrook of Xavier? He's not a spectacular talent, but he plays his role very well and UC could really use a player like him.

Why can't UC's offense look like a real division 1 offense? It still looks like they have no idea about what they want to do.

I think it is because most of the players have the same role - slasher to the basket. He still does not sign anyone that can knock down shots conistently from outside

(12-16-2013 08:41 AM)righthook Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:34 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I just wish Cronin would modify his philosophy some. I agree it is too early in the season to panic, but there are definite issues.

Why can't UC get players like Stainbrook of Xavier? He's not a spectacular talent, but he plays his role very well and UC could really use a player like him.

Why can't UC's offense look like a real division 1 offense? It still looks like they have no idea about what they want to do.

I think it is because most of the players have the same role - slasher to the basket. He still does not sign anyone that can knock down shots conistently from outside

I just don't think UC runs good offense or gets good shots. You knock down more shots when you take better shots. UC has rarely done either in the Cronin era and he never seem particularly bothered by this. Something needs to be reevaluated in this regard.

(12-16-2013 08:41 AM)righthook Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:34 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I just wish Cronin would modify his philosophy some. I agree it is too early in the season to panic, but there are definite issues.

Why can't UC get players like Stainbrook of Xavier? He's not a spectacular talent, but he plays his role very well and UC could really use a player like him.

Why can't UC's offense look like a real division 1 offense? It still looks like they have no idea about what they want to do.

I think it is because most of the players have the same role - slasher to the basket. He still does not sign anyone that can knock down shots conistently from outside

I'm pretty sure he took Kevin Johnson entirely for this reason. I'm pretty sure he took JD3 entirely for this reason. I'm pretty sure he took SK entirely for this reason. Sometimes it doesn't work out, but I don't agree that he doesn't sign guys attempting to fix that problem.

Free throw shooting remains a problem and that just frstrates the heck out of me.

(12-16-2013 08:41 AM)righthook Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:34 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I just wish Cronin would modify his philosophy some. I agree it is too early in the season to panic, but there are definite issues.

Why can't UC get players like Stainbrook of Xavier? He's not a spectacular talent, but he plays his role very well and UC could really use a player like him.

Why can't UC's offense look like a real division 1 offense? It still looks like they have no idea about what they want to do.

I think it is because most of the players have the same role - slasher to the basket. He still does not sign anyone that can knock down shots conistently from outside

I think it is tougher than you think to find "that guy".

I mean Xavier thought they were in high cotton when they signed the 3 pt sharpshooter kid Redford, from Indiana. His stats were amazing, he could hit from beyond NBA range.

And yet he jumps up to the college level and he was as easy as they come to guard - he struggled like crazy to get off more than 2 or 3 good shots a night. And you couldn't keep him on the floor long because he couldn't guard a hot dog cart.

Caupain can shoot, SK can shoot, I think KJ will become a relied upon shooter. Guyn, when stepping in to his shot, in rhythm. can shoot.

Our problem is that no one has to spend much time or defensive capital minding our bigs. I really like JJ, but he isn't backing anyone into the paint, and if you slide in front of him and keep him from going to the basket, he probably isn't going to find a way to score. Same is true for Lawrence. Yes, Lawrence shows a nice midrange touch - but as long as teams are able to keep him that far away from the basket all the time they are keeping him relegated to a low impact role.

People who keep talking "shooters, shooters, shooters" are missing the real issue here, IMO. Our shooting percentages for the year fine. We are struggling because we didn't replace Yancy, Mbodj, Ibrahima Thomas etc.

Perhaps the calvarly is on its way.
Quadri Moore? He is a big and a shooter.
Gary Clark? He is a "3 level scorer" and do-everything guy, except probably not the thickness to be a defensive anchor.
Strickland, has the body to be an inside scorer and post anchor, does he have the skills, mobility and desire?
DeBerry - Looks like Godzilla with cartoon sized hands. Who knows what his skill level and upside are?

I think Lawrence is going to continue to improve - I think he is playing way too "safe" - to me he looks like he is reluctant to go hard at bigger bodied players.

I don't think its rocket science at this point to see what Cronin is. He's a great guy with alof of integrity who is a good but not elite coach. He'll keep UC competitive, keep them as a fairly regular NCAA tourney team, and keep them somewhere as a Top 20-40 team. He may break throu with a Top 15 season now and then and probably have a bad season now and then.

If NCAA tourney appearances and the occassional sweet 16 appearance is ok with you, Micks your man. If you feel like UC should be better than that but can accept the risk that they also might get worse, then get a new coach.

Our problems are multiple. We lack basketball players. Sean is a basketball player. He can shoot, pass, move without the ball and has a decent basketball IQ. But too many of our players are good athletes lacking in basketball skills. JJ is still largely the same headless, poor shooting player he was four years ago. Titus Rubles may be one of the worst shooters ever to play at UC (okay that's a Bill Walton type exaggeration but he is an awful shooter). Our guards are in many cases, quick, strong and athletic but they don't have the basketball skills (Handles, shooting ability, passing ability) of guys like Cash, Downey, Sean, add in past skilled guards. We have never run good offense. So when you combine a lack of basketball ability with poor offensive execution and an opposing defense that understands your weaknesses and packs it in and makes it hard on you to get easy baskets, you get the kind of game we saw saturday.

It is what it is. Mick is a wonderful guy, respectable, runs a heckuva clean, structured program. But if you can't get top notch basketball players with basketball skills, you better be able to get lesser kids and be really good at developing players. He's really not great at either. He is a good coach. And there is nothing wrong with good. But he doesn't consistently improve players over their tenure . He doesn't get average players and/or good athletes and make them really improve. A few do improve (SK a prime example). But most do not really have that light go off or really improve their game much over 4 years. He also doesn't get enough top flight talent to simply get good players and let them play. Some coaches do that. They recruit really well, aren't that great at developing kids but they have enough talent to win with what they bring in. These aren't necessarily knocks on Mick. It isn't easy to recruit high high level players here especially given our conference situation. And there aren't a ton of coaches who can really extract greateness from average players and develop them over 3 or 4 years. I think what we see with Mick is every 3 or 4 years he's going to get a good group together who can challenge at the top of the conference and be a solid tourney team like we saw two years back. The other intervening years your going to see somewhat mediocre teams like this. Decent, but with clear weaknesses that may make the dance but just won't be good enough.
That's just the reality of the situation. We are solid, respectable program. If people want more than that they have to be willing to roll the dice and hope for finding lightening in a bottle because elite coaches are hard to come by. You either have to get really lucky with a young guy or hire one of the few established elite coaches (which we simply cannot do given our conference, budget, etc.). So it all depends on whether the university is satisfied with the status quo, respectability, and a decent run every couple years or whether Whit and company eventually want more from the program. My own opinion is you stick with what you have in Mick and hope he can somehow keep building versus leveling off. Maybe he gets better at developing players and/or starts recruiting a few kids with basetkball skills over athleticism. Saturday was very very ugly. It is hard to stomach that kind of game and not have strong reactions to it. But bigger picture things aren't as bad as saturday. They aren't great but they aren't that bad. We are a good program based on the last few years. Good is nice but it isn't great and it isn't bad...its just good.

(12-16-2013 10:02 AM)Eastside_J Wrote:  People who keep talking "shooters, shooters, shooters" are missing the real issue here, IMO. Our shooting percentages for the year fine. We are struggling because we didn't replace Yancy, Mbodj, Ibrahima Thomas etc.

Perhaps the calvarly is on its way.
Quadri Moore? He is a big and a shooter.
Gary Clark? He is a "3 level scorer" and do-everything guy, except probably not the thickness to be a defensive anchor.
Strickland, has the body to be an inside scorer and post anchor, does he have the skills, mobility and desire?
DeBerry - Looks like Godzilla with cartoon sized hands. Who knows what his skill level and upside are?

I think Lawrence is going to continue to improve - I think he is playing way too "safe" - to me he looks like he is reluctant to go hard at bigger bodied players.

That point right there is the main problem facing the Bearcats this season. Mick didn't really do a good job replacing those three guys but also Cincinnati is reaping the repercussions of not having Octavius Ellis on the team anymore and Jamaree Strickland ineligible (or whatever is preventing him from playing this season). Justin Jackson is LITERALLY UC's only option in the low post. Even 7-footer David Nyarsuk not seeing any court time should show what kind of a desperate situation the Bearcats are in at that position.

I think nothing illustrates Cincinnati's issue more than when JJ was benched and Jermaine Lawrence was forced to man up Matt Stainbrook on Saturday. There is no way in hell Lawrence should be put in that position - He's not a back-to-the-basket forward. But because of UC's lack of options down low, he was thrust into a role he shouldn't be playing.

But like you mentioned, the incoming class should alleviate those problems. I'm not sure how Moore and DeBerry will perform at the collegiate level but just the fact that they are warm bodies (and HUGE warm bodies) in the low post gives me hope for next season.

(12-16-2013 09:50 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 08:41 AM)righthook Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 07:34 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I just wish Cronin would modify his philosophy some. I agree it is too early in the season to panic, but there are definite issues.

Why can't UC get players like Stainbrook of Xavier? He's not a spectacular talent, but he plays his role very well and UC could really use a player like him.

Why can't UC's offense look like a real division 1 offense? It still looks like they have no idea about what they want to do.

I think it is because most of the players have the same role - slasher to the basket. He still does not sign anyone that can knock down shots conistently from outside

I'm pretty sure he took Kevin Johnson entirely for this reason. I'm pretty sure he took JD3 entirely for this reason. I'm pretty sure he took SK entirely for this reason. Sometimes it doesn't work out, but I don't agree that he doesn't sign guys attempting to fix that problem.

Really? He took a guard that only hit 30% of his 3's in high school because he needed an outside shooter? Johnson was always seen as a slash to the basket guy. If I remember correctly Kilpatrick was too although he has been able to develop his outside shot. If you are trying to fix a current problem, you find guys that already have that skill. He has tried to make slashing players shooters for the past several years and it just hasnt been working. But he keeps doing the same thing.

I stayed away from this board all weekend long... knew it was going to be ugly after the game.

My thoughts...

1. At some point this offense needs to be adjusted. It is just not working. I don't know why... but the guys that get open cannot hit a jump shot when playing good competition. It is that simple to me... in big games the offense disappears because every opponent forces UC to shoot.

2. Rebounding. was. awful. I don't know the numbers, but on the defensive end the bigs were constantly out of position and out hustled by Xavier's bigs.

3. Turnovers. Yes, Xavier had more turnovers but they also had as many points off turnovers as UC. UC seemed to give the ball right back by not taking care of the ball. I watched Titus and SK both do this several times... it was very frustrating.

I know that Cronin wants to run the Rick Pitino offense, but it is just not working. It is like OSU wanting to run the Huggins defense when they hired Dan Peters away. It didn't work and they scrapped it (and moved him out of a coaching position).

I really feel as though UC needs to go a new direction on offense...

Once again,,,,,, I think the early schedule did not prepare the team
for games away from the Shoe.. Playing (7) games in a row at home
against mostly poor competition did very little to develop the team..
We need to play decent competition (MAC, Conf USA, Missouri Valley teams) away so we don't have games like New Mexico and Xavier..

I now think of the games in November and most of December as pre-season games.... Play 2 here 1 away with Dayton, Ohio, Toledo any of those teams, we would be better for it....

What Murph said XXXXX 1Billion

(12-16-2013 12:14 PM)KCat Wrote:  Once again,,,,,, I think the early schedule did not prepare the team
for games away from the Shoe.. Playing (7) games in a row at home
against mostly poor competition did very little to develop the team..
We need to play decent competition (MAC, Conf USA, Missouri Valley teams) away so we don't have games like New Mexico and Xavier..

I now think of the games in November and most of December as pre-season games.... Play 2 here 1 away with Dayton, Ohio, Toledo any of those teams, we would be better for it....

Unfortunately the games you are talking about are rarely available.

As for the early home games...You only have so many games to work with to get your home schedule to 18-19 games. In conference will get you 9 home games this year. That leaves you with another 9-10 games you need to schedule at home. Since many teams will not sign on to come in for a one game contract because they have the same issues with their schedule, you end up buying games from smaller schools who use that money to fund their program.

UC does not schedule in a vacuum. Whatever they can schedule with teams OOC must fit into those teams schedules as well. And everyone is looking to fill the same dates before their conference scheduling begins. It is a huge puzzle that most on this board seem to not understand.

(12-16-2013 10:59 AM)mlb Wrote:  I stayed away from this board all weekend long... knew it was going to be ugly after the game.

My thoughts...

1. At some point this offense needs to be adjusted. It is just not working. I don't know why... but the guys that get open cannot hit a jump shot when playing good competition. It is that simple to me... in big games the offense disappears because every opponent forces UC to shoot.

2. Rebounding. was. awful. I don't know the numbers, but on the defensive end the bigs were constantly out of position and out hustled by Xavier's bigs.

3. Turnovers. Yes, Xavier had more turnovers but they also had as many points off turnovers as UC. UC seemed to give the ball right back by not taking care of the ball. I watched Titus and SK both do this several times... it was very frustrating.

I know that Cronin wants to run the Rick Pitino offense, but it is just not working. It is like OSU wanting to run the Huggins defense when they hired Dan Peters away. It didn't work and they scrapped it (and moved him out of a coaching position).

I really feel as though UC needs to go a new direction on offense...

How about getting Cronin a compass..to go ANY direction???

(12-16-2013 12:14 PM)KCat Wrote:  Once again,,,,,, I think the early schedule did not prepare the team
for games away from the Shoe.. Playing (7) games in a row at home
against mostly poor competition did very little to develop the team..
We need to play decent competition (MAC, Conf USA, Missouri Valley teams) away so we don't have games like New Mexico and Xavier..

I now think of the games in November and most of December as pre-season games.... Play 2 here 1 away with Dayton, Ohio, Toledo any of those teams, we would be better for it....

I have argued for more road game early in the schedule too; however, imagine if UC lost to one of those schools. This board would want Mick fired and would blast our AD for putting the Cats in a no-win situation. (for someone reason the Xavier game always seems to be no-win situation too but that topic has been beaten to death).

Saturday night wasn't about bad offense or recruiting guys that can't shoot. Saturday night was about one team that played their best game of the season against a group that lost their poise. What has impressed me about Troy is that he plays with a certain level of calm. Guyn and Jackson play with way too much emotion on the floor. When things are going great it works but you have to able play through tough situations. The other concerns I have are defensive rotations, losing shooters and offensive rebounding.

I thought the officiating on Saturday was really bad. I not sure why we ever let Xavier select the referees but I thought it made a difference early in the game. UC was suppose to benefit from the new rules; however, it doesn't seem like the officials are consistently applying the rule changes.