(02-04-2014 12:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 12:31 PM)TigerBo Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:23 AM)tiger2000 Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:16 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:12 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  (a) Is that Tim Mcarver Stadium?
(b) While I agree that Pastner's interview answers are asinine, I think he knows way more than he's letting on. On one level, he's right that a game's momentum can turn on a few shots falling one way or another. On another level, he surely watches the film and realizes where the defensive lapses are. I think his simplistic answers are attributable to his relentless optimism and belief in positive energy.

Yup. Timmy Mac.

That place was a dump, but it was great. Spent almost my entire time there in some fashion while it was there. Such an odd setup with the chain link fence and the walkway RIGHT next to the field of play. You could literally walk up to a guy in the on deck circle and be 5 feet from him.

The BEST heckling I ever heard.

The best is when they would have nickel beer night - draft beer for a nickel (this was in the 90s). We'd get one of those mcdonald's style drink holders and take 4 draft beers back to the stands.

The beer guy thought it was for each of us and our 3 other buddies, but we'd knock down 4 draft beers each. It was hotter than hell and the beer was bad but it was a lot of fun.

I spent many 2-bit-beer-nights at McCarver Stadium in my youth... If only they would do that now!

I think the Redbirds are really missing out on that aspect. Sure, a minor league baseball game isn't likely the place for peope to go to get f'd up, but dowtown has A LOT of young, single and sociable people who look for things to do, with drinking often as an accessory to whatever event is taking place.

If the Bird marketed a "downtown drink night" and offered cheaper prices on drinks, you get casual folks who normally wouldn't come in.

On a side note the $9 beers at FEF are a JOKE. Do they think we live in LA?

I never buy beer at FedEx Forum.. I'm not about to drop 10. bucks (with tip) per draft beer.

(02-04-2014 01:01 PM)TigerBo Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 12:47 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 12:31 PM)TigerBo Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:23 AM)tiger2000 Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:16 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Yup. Timmy Mac.

That place was a dump, but it was great. Spent almost my entire time there in some fashion while it was there. Such an odd setup with the chain link fence and the walkway RIGHT next to the field of play. You could literally walk up to a guy in the on deck circle and be 5 feet from him.

The BEST heckling I ever heard.

The best is when they would have nickel beer night - draft beer for a nickel (this was in the 90s). We'd get one of those mcdonald's style drink holders and take 4 draft beers back to the stands.

The beer guy thought it was for each of us and our 3 other buddies, but we'd knock down 4 draft beers each. It was hotter than hell and the beer was bad but it was a lot of fun.

I spent many 2-bit-beer-nights at McCarver Stadium in my youth... If only they would do that now!

I think the Redbirds are really missing out on that aspect. Sure, a minor league baseball game isn't likely the place for peope to go to get f'd up, but dowtown has A LOT of young, single and sociable people who look for things to do, with drinking often as an accessory to whatever event is taking place.

If the Bird marketed a "downtown drink night" and offered cheaper prices on drinks, you get casual folks who normally wouldn't come in.

On a side note the $9 beers at FEF are a JOKE. Do they think we live in LA?

I never buy beer at FedEx Forum.. I'm not about to drop 10. bucks (with tip) per draft beer.

With ya. If they understood the law of diminishing returns they would realize that I would by two beers at $6.50 apeice, but zero at $9.

After all is said and done, cost (including beer/labor/cup) is likely less than $2 a beer. At $6.50, they make $4.50 off a beer, $9 from me if I buy two.

They make $0 off me when I don't buy the $9 beer.

Like they really give a s--t what I think, though.

Just go to Kooky and get the $4 32oz before to tighen a little buzz on.

(02-04-2014 12:29 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  I just listened to Zo's UF and UA's postgames. He def said they have to make shots but he also seemed less defensive about the questions and was still explanatory about what the alternatives were.

In this case, UF was doubling the post, trying to keep Stokes out of scoring position and playing zone. In that case, there might be more reasons why shots need to fall. He also explained, though, that the players needed to drive more.

Most games, it's not a zone thing that requires "shots to fall" it is a guard thing. There is little need to play zone vs. Memphis when they don't chose to go inside to get work done. Only until Shaq or Austin drop a few early buckets would a team even consider going zone, especially knowing that even guarded man-man Memphis will heave threes.

Why? Because "we really are a good shooting team" and "shots just need to fall."

I guess.

Well, there's this weird perception that we take too many 3s. I don't see it, as a general trend. We took 24 in the SMU, and that is a lot for us, but we only took 8 in the first half, the rest came when we got down big and were trying to come back. We weren't heaving 3s until the game was out of hand.

On the season, we rank over 300th in 3 pointers per FGA. We don't take too many 3s. The problem is that we don't make enough of the ones that we take, but that is trending up lately and regressing to the mean.

You and I know that the gameplan is to feed the bigs; we've seen it happen in the games we win. The problem is sticking to that plan when A) interior shots aren't falling or b) the other team is making it difficult to feed the post.

(02-04-2014 11:03 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  I re-watched the 2nd half last night. Memphis' effort / execution in the zone was really awful. SMU exploited the inside, exploited the baseline, exploited the corners. Memphis wasn't quick, wasn't communicating, and wasn't in the right places. Memphis players often don't even put their hands up to contest jump shots.

It was hard to even tell what defense Memphis was in at times (man or zone) and I think the players were clearly confused at times.

One of Memphis' guards in particular seems to get beat off the dribble repeatedly. He's either too slow to guard at this level or isn't trying to stay in front of his man.

All that said, SMU was really hot, and got a favorable whistle - but none of that covered up a really woeful defensive performance.

I'm curious-- is the guard you're referring to Chris Crawford?

(02-04-2014 12:00 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:23 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:12 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:10 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Their shots fell, our didn't. Simple as that.

Our shots fall, I'm a great coach, they don't fall people want me out.

Maybe we need to re-institute the "dap" systems. Chart those bad boys during practice and start the "all-DAP" team next game.

(a) Is that Tim Mcarver Stadium?
(b) While I agree that Pastner's interview answers are asinine, I think he knows way more than he's letting on. On one level, he's right that a game's momentum can turn on a few shots falling one way or another. On another level, he surely watches the film and realizes where the defensive lapses are. I think his simplistic answers are attributable to his relentless optimism and belief in positive energy.

Yup, I really can't believe that many people put any credence in what Pastner (or any other college coach) says after a win or a loss.

If you ask any coach in history about a loss, 99% of the time the first thing out of their mouth is going to be "we have to execute". It's a placating answer that every coach ever gives after a loss.

Pastner does it to the extreme, after wins, before wins, whenever. Do you think he ACTUALLY thinks that Rutgers is a good team, is well coached, runs good stuff? It's lip service.

What is said in film study and in practice is what I'm interested in, and none of us are privy to it unfortunately.

I would be more concerned that he really believes the "shots didn't fall" stuff to be true as the barometer of why Memphis wins games.

you're probably right.
if we made more shots than they did we'd probably still have lost, right?

(02-04-2014 12:00 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:23 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:12 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:10 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Their shots fell, our didn't. Simple as that.

Our shots fall, I'm a great coach, they don't fall people want me out.

Maybe we need to re-institute the "dap" systems. Chart those bad boys during practice and start the "all-DAP" team next game.

(a) Is that Tim Mcarver Stadium?
(b) While I agree that Pastner's interview answers are asinine, I think he knows way more than he's letting on. On one level, he's right that a game's momentum can turn on a few shots falling one way or another. On another level, he surely watches the film and realizes where the defensive lapses are. I think his simplistic answers are attributable to his relentless optimism and belief in positive energy.

Yup, I really can't believe that many people put any credence in what Pastner (or any other college coach) says after a win or a loss.

If you ask any coach in history about a loss, 99% of the time the first thing out of their mouth is going to be "we have to execute". It's a placating answer that every coach ever gives after a loss.

Pastner does it to the extreme, after wins, before wins, whenever. Do you think he ACTUALLY thinks that Rutgers is a good team, is well coached, runs good stuff? It's lip service.

What is said in film study and in practice is what I'm interested in, and none of us are privy to it unfortunately.

I would be more concerned that he really believes the "shots didn't fall" stuff to be true as the barometer of why Memphis wins games.

I'm beginning to believe that CJP actually does believe it because he seems consistently willing to play perimeter offense. But in reality, losses virtually always reflect on the effectiveness of the defense & rebounding when your team otherwise has equivalent or better talent. It has been pointed out (see OKSt 2nd game), when we play defense, rebound and are effective with an inside-outside offense, we win. So why not try to have those as the major emphasis?

(02-04-2014 01:16 PM)Willie Becton Wrote:  you're probably right.
if we made more shots than they did we'd probably still have lost, right?

I know you are more Wheel of Fortune than Jeopardy, so I'll take it easy.

Memphis:
36-65 from the field.
(6-18 from three.)
10-14 from the line.

88 points

Opponent:
34-66 from the field
(12-28 from three.)
9-13 from the line.

89 points

(02-04-2014 01:16 PM)MtownTigers916 Wrote:  

(02-04-2014 11:03 AM)jlbphila Wrote:  I re-watched the 2nd half last night. Memphis' effort / execution in the zone was really awful. SMU exploited the inside, exploited the baseline, exploited the corners. Memphis wasn't quick, wasn't communicating, and wasn't in the right places. Memphis players often don't even put their hands up to contest jump shots.

It was hard to even tell what defense Memphis was in at times (man or zone) and I think the players were clearly confused at times.

One of Memphis' guards in particular seems to get beat off the dribble repeatedly. He's either too slow to guard at this level or isn't trying to stay in front of his man.

All that said, SMU was really hot, and got a favorable whistle - but none of that covered up a really woeful defensive performance.

I'm curious-- is the guard you're referring to Chris Crawford?

I don't like calling out college kids by name on a public message board, so I'd say to watch for yourself and see if you don't come to the same conclusions.