(02-18-2014 11:46 AM)SigEpMike Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:55 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  If he's NOT going to pan out here, I'd like to be able to see why with my own eyes.

I've already seen it with my eyes. I don't think his lack of playing time has as much to do with skill as it does with attitude.

What's wrong with his attitude?

(02-18-2014 11:43 AM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  I think the challenge this team had is that Pastner put too many of his eggs in the "4 kings" basket, and by the time he realized it, it was too late to look at other strategies. What this has done is shortened his bench, which was his best asset from the beginning-depth. His depth was young, but quite talented. They needed experience, which they did not get in the pre-season practices and early games. If they had been playing all along, Pastner would have had more options to deal with the better comp in the AAC. Now, coming to the home stretch, and Pastner is not beating teams he probably should (SMU, UConn, UC) considering the depth and talent he has on the squad, because he has not developed the players nor devised a system which utilizes the depth and talent on the whole team.

Because the AAC has an ESPN TV contract, we will probably go to the Tourney, but this team has been so poorly coached, managed and conceived that they will probably be one and done. There is no real need to assess what could have been if Pasnter played King, Wilson, Iverson, and Woodson more, because Pastner has no system that utilizes their strengths. He doesn't know what to do with the talent he recruits. So, our best chance in the tourney is if Crawford and Jackson get hot, and the refs let them play D on the perimeter. We will live and die by their shooting stroke.

This made me laugh. Other than this part, your view of this team is.... interesting.

(02-18-2014 11:13 AM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 11:02 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Agree with most up there. King is flatfooted on defense, but there can be ways to make up for his lapses, plus it seems that he still has a positive effect on the court all things considered.

Don't understand your love for Damien.

Not that he might not be a suitable player, there is NO sample size whatsoever to judge whether he could play. At least Nick and Woodson have played extended minutes vs. 1st and 2nd line competition.

DW has almost entirely played in mop up time (save APSU and Ok State 1).

Not fair to lay out these numbers, but in his career:

41 games, 76 points, 40 rebounds, 29 turnovers and 22 fouls.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare...an-iverson

Side by side stats for Iverson, King, Woodson and Wilson.

Wilson has by far the smallest sample size there, but he's shooting the second best eFG% behind King, second highest offensive rating behind King, second highest +/- behind King and leading them all in steal%.

We play Crawford and Geron with 3 and 4 fouls on the wing in tight games, and while a foul-less Geron/Chris is probably a better option than King or Wilson, I'd rather see a fresh defender come in and bring 5 minutes worth of energy than watch Chris and Geron foul out early or play matador defense to avoid more foul trouble.

Don't forget to add Dickson to that mix, he has fouled out as well. For us to have four senior guards and the so-called depth that we have, There is no reason why we should allow the fouls to pile up the way they do. And Wilson is the most seasoned guard that should be able to come in and at-least apply some pressure or trap on the baseline or something of that nature???? Mystery

Dixon has committed at least 4 fouls in 11 of 25 games this year.

Geron has committed at least 4 fouls in seven games and three in six others.

(02-18-2014 11:02 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Agree with most up there. King is flatfooted on defense, but there can be ways to make up for his lapses, plus it seems that he still has a positive effect on the court all things considered.

Don't understand your love for Damien.

Not that he might not be a suitable player, there is NO sample size whatsoever to judge whether he could play. At least Nick and Woodson have played extended minutes vs. 1st and 2nd line competition.

DW has almost entirely played in mop up time (save APSU and Ok State 1).

Not fair to lay out these numbers, but in his career:

41 games, 76 points, 40 rebounds, 29 turnovers and 22 fouls.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/compare...an-iverson

Side by side stats for Iverson, King, Woodson and Wilson.

Wilson has by far the smallest sample size there, but he's shooting the second best eFG% behind King, second highest offensive rating behind King, second highest +/- behind King and leading them all in steal%.

We play Crawford and Geron with 3 and 4 fouls on the wing in tight games, and while a foul-less Geron/Chris is probably a better option than King or Wilson, I'd rather see a fresh defender come in and bring 5 minutes worth of energy than watch Chris and Geron foul out early or play matador defense to avoid more foul trouble.

True, but that in the realm that DW and King are playing in "real" time, while DW is on the court with Draper and McDowell passing alley oops to himself.

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)450bench Wrote:  Nichols needs more minutes. Without question.

Nichols at times looks great and other times looks disinterested or lost. If he would play angrier/with a higher motor all the time, he'd be elite. Great shot, good timing on blocks, good athlete. Sometimes jogs slowly back on D and is out of position. Best mid range shot of any big...needs more clean bulk

(02-18-2014 11:58 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)450bench Wrote:  Nichols needs more minutes. Without question.

Nichols at times looks great and other times looks disinterested or lost. If he would play angrier/with a higher motor all the time, he'd be elite. Great shot, good timing on blocks, good athlete. Sometimes jogs slowly back on D and is out of position. Best mid range shot of any big...needs more lean bulk

I think it's a freshman hitting a wall, but when it all comes together for him,he can be Mcdermott esq...(from a low-post perspective)

Agree with pretty much all of it, but particularly:
4. Nick King needs more minutes.

(02-18-2014 10:49 AM)450bench Wrote:  Never thought Wilson was a high level player. Just never have.

Haven't seen much of him this year but he definitely provided a spark last year when subbed in. It's hard to get everyone all the minutes they need, I realize, particularly when we rarely get big leads on weak teams that would allow for substituting. I hope Wilson stays at Memphis and gets his chance next year.

(02-18-2014 12:58 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 11:58 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)450bench Wrote:  Nichols needs more minutes. Without question.

Nichols at times looks great and other times looks disinterested or lost. If he would play angrier/with a higher motor all the time, he'd be elite. Great shot, good timing on blocks, good athlete. Sometimes jogs slowly back on D and is out of position. Best mid range shot of any big...needs more lean bulk

I think it's a freshman hitting a wall, but when it all comes together for him,he can be Mcdermott esq...(from a low-post perspective)

Nichols usually looks lost defensively. Probably why he gets yanked quickly. At this point it appears unless there's a good matchup down low for him, he tends to be easily overwhelmed offensively. He is not really a post up player so far. So I can somewhat understand Josh's dilemma with Nichols.

(02-18-2014 11:43 AM)Collegiate Black Man Wrote:  I think the challenge this team had is that Pastner put too many of his eggs in the "4 kings" basket, and by the time he realized it, it was too late to look at other strategies. What this has done is shortened his bench, which was his best asset from the beginning-depth. His depth was young, but quite talented. They needed experience, which they did not get in the pre-season practices and early games. If they had been playing all along, Pastner would have had more options to deal with the better comp in the AAC. Now, coming to the home stretch, and Pastner is not beating teams he probably should (SMU, UConn, UC) considering the depth and talent he has on the squad, because he has not developed the players nor devised a system which utilizes the depth and talent on the whole team.

Because the AAC has an ESPN TV contract, we will probably go to the Tourney, but this team has been so poorly coached, managed and conceived that they will probably be one and done. There is no real need to assess what could have been if Pasnter played King, Wilson, Iverson, and Woodson more, because Pastner has no system that utilizes their strengths. He doesn't know what to do with the talent he recruits. So, our best chance in the tourney is if Crawford and Jackson get hot, and the refs let them play D on the perimeter. We will live and die by their shooting stroke.

I have to ask.....we have a high RPI, Kenpom has our offense and defense ranked in the top 50 (very few teams are in both) we're top 25 in both polls and you think we'll probably make the tournament due to ESPN's influence? Really?

Between this comment and your comments on Pastner and the team I would suggest you start watching basketball and learning something about it because the more you comment the more I'm convinced that you've never watched college basketball before.

(02-18-2014 09:44 PM)hopeum Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 12:58 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 11:58 AM)tigerjamesc Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:52 AM)450bench Wrote:  Nichols needs more minutes. Without question.

Nichols at times looks great and other times looks disinterested or lost. If he would play angrier/with a higher motor all the time, he'd be elite. Great shot, good timing on blocks, good athlete. Sometimes jogs slowly back on D and is out of position. Best mid range shot of any big...needs more lean bulk

I think it's a freshman hitting a wall, but when it all comes together for him,he can be Mcdermott esq...(from a low-post perspective)

Nichols usually looks lost defensively. Probably why he gets yanked quickly. At this point it appears unless there's a good matchup down low for him, he tends to be easily overwhelmed offensively. He is not really a post up player so far. So I can somewhat understand Josh's dilemma with Nichols.

Nichols blocked shots per minute are very high. He needs a jump start on his motor, I agree, but he needs to be in the game more. I personally think Nichols would benefit greatly if he had a legit small forward with a bit of size playing with him.

I see no REAL upside to DW. Other than the OSU game he has never shown me he could play at this level each night. He could not start or play much for Oak Hill Academy. His best feature is his size. IMHO Josh could find dozens of players better than him. Wish I was wrong but to me he is a wasted scholarship. Most everyone has hired the wrong person, married the wrong woman, or took the wrong road. DW to me is the wrong road.

(02-19-2014 01:08 AM)blutgr39 Wrote:  I see no REAL upside to DW. Other than the OSU game he has never shown me he could play at this level each night. He could not start or play much for Oak Hill Academy. His best feature is his size. IMHO Josh could find dozens of players better than him. Wish I was wrong but to me he is a wasted scholarship. Most everyone has hired the wrong person, married the wrong woman, or took the wrong road. DW to me is the wrong road.

From Grant Milner's article a few days ago-

“I’ve got to keep it up because if the team sees me down, I feel like I am plaguing the team more than anything," Wilson explained. "I don’t want to be that, and not get any minutes because then everybody will be mad at me. Putting pressure on these guys to still go 100 percent at the end of the year, even when their legs are tired will help them. And in the end, I’ll get recognized for something.”


Doesn't sound like a wasted scholarship to me. The coaching staff doesn't consider him a wasted scholarship.


There are a dozen or so high major programs which offered Damien, even though he didn't start for Oak Hill.

http://sports.yahoo.com/footballrecruiti...lson-89225

(02-18-2014 10:14 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Just thought I'd take this space to list and discuss the things that we know are true about this team:

1. A seven man rotation is too shallow for this roster.

2. The three guard lineup is the way to go for a majority of the opponents that we've faced this season.

3. The four guard lineup should only be used when we're down big late or up big late.

4. Nick King needs more minutes.

5. Damien Wilson needs more minutes.

6. Iverson is better off in the front court than the back court at this point.

7. Crawford is strictly a better option at the 3 than Nick King right now.

8. Although King struggles to stay with defenders on the perimeter, there's no reason not to play him at the 3 5-10 minutes of the game when Crawford is on the bench.

9. We have no one that can guard an elite SF.

#1 by far should be POOR interior defense; has cost us most games we have lost-can't concede 8-10 pts a game on uncontested layups (many times to avoid fouls) and expect to win.

(02-19-2014 11:21 AM)tigers1125 Wrote:  

(02-18-2014 10:14 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Just thought I'd take this space to list and discuss the things that we know are true about this team:

1. A seven man rotation is too shallow for this roster.

2. The three guard lineup is the way to go for a majority of the opponents that we've faced this season.

3. The four guard lineup should only be used when we're down big late or up big late.

4. Nick King needs more minutes.

5. Damien Wilson needs more minutes.

6. Iverson is better off in the front court than the back court at this point.

7. Crawford is strictly a better option at the 3 than Nick King right now.

8. Although King struggles to stay with defenders on the perimeter, there's no reason not to play him at the 3 5-10 minutes of the game when Crawford is on the bench.

9. We have no one that can guard an elite SF.

#1 by far should be POOR interior defense; has cost us most games we have lost-can't concede 8-10 pts a game on uncontested layups (many times to avoid fouls) and expect to win.

Our guard rotations (actually our rotations overall) are putting us in several predicaments:

1) Guards are logging too many minutes; due to foul situations;unwillingness/inability to develop a real SF (ie King/Wilson/Iverson);
a) This ^ also causes us to sub in guards that may not have had adequate rest and come back in and play matador defense because of the foul issues.
2) Some of the energy ebs and flows instead of a 2 by 2 rotation that would allow for constant pressure and pushing the ball up the floor in constant wave(s)

3) Gives us less flexibility with the options that we have due to under-utilizing/underdevelopment of the players that give us mismatch advantages over other teams.

Even if we exercised a 4 guard line-up from time to time (to spread the floor) it would makes us more volatile than using a 3 guard line-up religiously.....teams would have difficulties trying to understand what we will do....A three guard line-up gives teams something to exploit and that's what the better teams will do.....Once we get into foul-trouble, we are left to scrambling for alternatives....But of-course, this would take developing players that we obviously are comfortable with them not being developed