Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)
Open TigerLinks
 

Post Reply 
Basketball IQ of this team
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
RekeHavoc Offline
#DoIt4Dez
*

Posts: 2,097
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 92
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Memphis
Post: #41
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-04-2015 10:55 AM)snowtiger Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 10:38 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 09:56 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No idea.

That team won 31 games though and 2 starters are in the NBA.

Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

I'm not sure that anyone can do what you are asking. That being said, in general, our problem has been that we didn't always take care of business in the regular season to ensure better seeding in the tournament. Last year was a prime example. We had enough talent and experience to make the S16, but we got punked too many times during the regular season, and then again in the conf tourney, to secure a decent seed.

And the AAC didn't have a representative on the seeding committee.

Doesn't matter.
03-04-2015 11:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
salukiblue Offline
Liaison to the Dummies
*

Posts: 31,099
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 1292
I Root For: Space Mountain
Location: Tennessee
Post: #42
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
That was the first season (third into JP's tenure) in which his coaching became a concern. He was still doing things most people clear up by the time they have coached church league for two seasons.

Notably in the Murray State game (outside of letting Chris shoot about 0 for 100) he didn't sub in for offense/defense at the end of the game when a couple of the starters had 4 fouls and it was time to start fouling. Simple, rudimentary stuff that he didn't do.

I also recall in the Georgetown game in Maui, Memphis had a one point lead in overtime with a minute to go and at least one timeout left. For whatever reason, Antonio Barton went under a screen on Jason Clark (who was on fire that night) and Clark nailed a three.

There should have been NO reason for anyone going under a screen on Clark. That should have been hammered home in every timeout, at the end of the first half, at the end of regulation and all points in between. Whether Pastner failed to recognize this or whether he failed to communicate the importance of this I dunno, but that was also a concern.
03-04-2015 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
salukiblue Offline
Liaison to the Dummies
*

Posts: 31,099
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation: 1292
I Root For: Space Mountain
Location: Tennessee
Post: #43
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-04-2015 10:55 AM)snowtiger Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 10:38 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 09:56 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No idea.

That team won 31 games though and 2 starters are in the NBA.

Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

I'm not sure that anyone can do what you are asking. That being said, in general, our problem has been that we didn't always take care of business in the regular season to ensure better seeding in the tournament. Last year was a prime example. We had enough talent and experience to make the S16, but we got punked too many times during the regular season, and then again in the conf tourney, to secure a decent seed.

And the AAC didn't have a representative on the seeding committee.

Nor does the Pac-12.
03-04-2015 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HoopDreams Offline
Better Than Diamond Rings
*

Posts: 28,998
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 441
I Root For: EXPECTATIONS
Location: Park Avenue Campus
Post: #44
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-04-2015 10:50 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 09:56 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No idea.

That team won 31 games though and 2 starters are in the NBA.

Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

Simple enough.

The 2011-12 team:

Joe Jackson
Adonis (NBA cup of coffee)
Tarik (NBA reserve)
DJ (NBA cup of coffee)
Will (NBA reserve)
Chris Crawford

plus:
Witherspoon (top 40 recruit)
Simpson (Top 10 JUCO)
Ferro Hall
Antonio Barton

Lost to St. Louis in the first game. Pretty much lost to every team with a pulse during the regular season (including home to Murray State), save Xavier at home.

I have no idea what is being argued/discussed.

All I said was one day we will look back and realize the talent that was on the rosters during this era.
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2015 11:16 AM by HoopDreams.)
03-04-2015 11:15 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HoopDreams Offline
Better Than Diamond Rings
*

Posts: 28,998
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 441
I Root For: EXPECTATIONS
Location: Park Avenue Campus
Post: #45
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-04-2015 11:06 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  I also recall in the Georgetown game in Maui, Memphis had a one point lead in overtime with a minute to go and at least one timeout left. For whatever reason, Antonio Barton went under a screen on Jason Clark (who was on fire that night) and Clark nailed a three.

Stan Simpson's one shining moment as a Tiger.
03-04-2015 11:16 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
snowtiger Offline
Hall of Flamers
*

Posts: 33,317
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 3704
I Root For: W's!!!
Location: Cascade Volcanic Arc
Post: #46
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-04-2015 11:08 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 10:55 AM)snowtiger Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 10:38 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 09:56 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No idea.

That team won 31 games though and 2 starters are in the NBA.

Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

I'm not sure that anyone can do what you are asking. That being said, in general, our problem has been that we didn't always take care of business in the regular season to ensure better seeding in the tournament. Last year was a prime example. We had enough talent and experience to make the S16, but we got punked too many times during the regular season, and then again in the conf tourney, to secure a decent seed.

And the AAC didn't have a representative on the seeding committee.

Nor does the Pac-12.

P5 established conference. P12

Some were under the impression that it mattered not to be represented when they were voting the seeds and whether SMU got in or not.

I figure if you're not represented in the close votes, it's gotta matter some. No one would speak up for you at all. Sounds unconstitutional..lol
(This post was last modified: 03-04-2015 11:24 AM by snowtiger.)
03-04-2015 11:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bcspiker Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 929
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Colorado
Post: #47
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-04-2015 10:38 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 09:56 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No idea.

That team won 31 games though and 2 starters are in the NBA.

Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

I'm not sure that anyone can do what you are asking. That being said, in general, our problem has been that we didn't always take care of business in the regular season to ensure better seeding in the tournament. Last year was a prime example. We had enough talent and experience to make the S16, but we got punked too many times during the regular season, and then again in the conf tourney, to secure a decent seed.

Actually, the odds makers in Vegas do it every day of their lives for every basketball game that is ever bet on. What I am saying is Pastner has never assembled a complete team without a glaring weakness that could be exploited by other good teams. The St. Louis game is a prime example. Anyone who thought we should win that game based on pure talent was a fool. That St. Louis team was built specifically to beat teams just like us. Its not the parts that win a championship, its the CORRECT combination of the parts.
03-04-2015 09:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HoopDreams Offline
Better Than Diamond Rings
*

Posts: 28,998
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 441
I Root For: EXPECTATIONS
Location: Park Avenue Campus
Post: #48
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-04-2015 09:20 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 10:38 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 09:56 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No idea.

That team won 31 games though and 2 starters are in the NBA.

Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

I'm not sure that anyone can do what you are asking. That being said, in general, our problem has been that we didn't always take care of business in the regular season to ensure better seeding in the tournament. Last year was a prime example. We had enough talent and experience to make the S16, but we got punked too many times during the regular season, and then again in the conf tourney, to secure a decent seed.

Actually, the odds makers in Vegas do it every day of their lives for every basketball game that is ever bet on. What I am saying is Pastner has never assembled a complete team without a glaring weakness that could be exploited by other good teams. The St. Louis game is a prime example. Anyone who thought we should win that game based on pure talent was a fool. That St. Louis team was built specifically to beat teams just like us. Its not the parts that win a championship, its the CORRECT combination of the parts.

So you're saying in six seasons that JP has done a poor job of assembling the correct combination of parts?
03-05-2015 09:11 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BASSDRUMMER68-75 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 61
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-02-2015 01:17 AM)Tiger Greg Wrote:  Is this supposed be another thread extolling the genius of the Tiger fan-base?
03-yawn
No. It is about the lack of Basketball IQ for this Tiger team.
03-05-2015 09:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BASSDRUMMER68-75 Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 61
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-02-2015 11:22 AM)68k Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 12:06 AM)BASSDRUMMER68-75 Wrote:  For those of you who do not what D.I.D.S. is, it is the new P.C. term for "special". Stands for Delayed Intelligence Development Syndrome.

Your ignorance is legendary. "DIDDS" refers to the Department of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, which provides funding and support to individuals and families with a wide range of developmental delays and traumatic brain injuries.

There is no such thing as "Delayed Intelligence Development Syndrome." This is not a "PC" issue. The real issue is that you're simply an idiot.
WOW!!! I didn't know I was a legend. Well, don't tell the psych nurses (my wife is one) that DIDS is not a real thing. They have that in the charts. I may be an idiot, but you don't even know me. So I guess that make you a judgemental prick, but I don't know you.
03-05-2015 10:07 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bcspiker Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 929
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Colorado
Post: #51
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-05-2015 09:11 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 09:20 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 10:38 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 09:56 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No idea.

That team won 31 games though and 2 starters are in the NBA.

Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

I'm not sure that anyone can do what you are asking. That being said, in general, our problem has been that we didn't always take care of business in the regular season to ensure better seeding in the tournament. Last year was a prime example. We had enough talent and experience to make the S16, but we got punked too many times during the regular season, and then again in the conf tourney, to secure a decent seed.

Actually, the odds makers in Vegas do it every day of their lives for every basketball game that is ever bet on. What I am saying is Pastner has never assembled a complete team without a glaring weakness that could be exploited by other good teams. The St. Louis game is a prime example. Anyone who thought we should win that game based on pure talent was a fool. That St. Louis team was built specifically to beat teams just like us. Its not the parts that win a championship, its the CORRECT combination of the parts.

So you're saying in six seasons that JP has done a poor job of assembling the correct combination of parts?

Yes. I believe his recruiting when looked at relative to assembling complete teams is poor. He has always done a good job getting "the next best guys" (ie. the guys that are not going to UK, Duke, KU, etc.) or guys that are great in high school but have an obvious weakness that if they fix it will make them great in college and beyond. Our best NBA product at this point has been Will Barton. When he came in, he was obiously very thin and needed to not even "muscle up" as much as just get "game strong" to allow him to finish at the rim. Adonis should have been our automatic by the eye test but he didn't have enough "mean" in him to be able to play the game his physical gifts require. If Jelan Kendrick isn't crazy, those teams are dangerous as he might to this day be the best offensive recruit that Pastner has gotten so far. The problem is, a non-crazy Kendrick (even though it turns my stomach to say it) probably goes to UK. So in the end, we got good recruiting classes that get everyones hopes up but the actual TEAM usually had big holes.

As an example, look at the National finalist team. They were great for three basic reasons. 1.Depth of talent. Our second team would have beat 80% of the teams in D1 that year. This helped to push the first team both because they wanted to keep their jobs and the intensity of practices was greater than what they faced on most game nights. 2. Some truely elite level talent with balance of talent. List the team on pure talent and I bet you make a complete team by position in the first 6 players and they were good on a national scale. You can not do that with any team we have had in the Pastner era. 3. The thing that can make up for all manner of sins, an incredible floor leader. On any other team, Rose would have been the automatic floor leader but on that team it was Antonio Anderson without a doubt. The guy just wouldn't allow himself to lose. And on that earlier talent list the argument could be made that he doesn't break the top 5. But would you ever take him off the floor other than to rest him? That is the type of player that is fundamental for a team to have extended success both during the season and especially in the postseason because everyone else in the postseason (with the possible exception of autobids from weak leagues) has that guy.

The problem is everybody has looked at the "stars" and gone "Why haven't we done more?" when they should have been looking at how the "stars" would align on a team and see if we were really solving our problems.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 12:32 PM by bcspiker.)
03-05-2015 12:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HoopDreams Offline
Better Than Diamond Rings
*

Posts: 28,998
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 441
I Root For: EXPECTATIONS
Location: Park Avenue Campus
Post: #52
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-05-2015 12:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-05-2015 09:11 AM)HoopDreams Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 09:20 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-04-2015 10:38 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

I'm not sure that anyone can do what you are asking. That being said, in general, our problem has been that we didn't always take care of business in the regular season to ensure better seeding in the tournament. Last year was a prime example. We had enough talent and experience to make the S16, but we got punked too many times during the regular season, and then again in the conf tourney, to secure a decent seed.

Actually, the odds makers in Vegas do it every day of their lives for every basketball game that is ever bet on. What I am saying is Pastner has never assembled a complete team without a glaring weakness that could be exploited by other good teams. The St. Louis game is a prime example. Anyone who thought we should win that game based on pure talent was a fool. That St. Louis team was built specifically to beat teams just like us. Its not the parts that win a championship, its the CORRECT combination of the parts.

So you're saying in six seasons that JP has done a poor job of assembling the correct combination of parts?

Yes. I believe his recruiting when looked at relative to assembling complete teams is poor. He has always done a good job getting "the next best guys" (ie. the guys that are not going to UK, Duke, KU, etc.) or guys that are great in high school but have an obvious weakness that if they fix it will make them great in college and beyond. Our best NBA product at this point has been Will Barton. When he came in, he was obiously very thin and needed to not even "muscle up" as much as just get "game strong" to allow him to finish at the rim. Adonis should have been our automatic by the eye test but he didn't have enough "mean" in him to be able to play the game his physical gifts require. If Jelan Kendrick isn't crazy, those teams are dangerous as might to this day be the best offensive recruit that Pastner gotten so far. The problem is, a non-crazy Kendrick (even though it turns my stomach to say it) probably goes to UK. So in the end, we got good recruiting classes that get everyones hopes up but the actual TEAM usually had big holes.

As an example, look at the National finalist team. They were great for three basic reasons. 1.Depth of talent. Our second team would have beat 80% of the teams in D1 that year. This helped to push the first team both because they wanted to keep their jobs and the intensity of practices was greater than what they faced on most game nights. 2. Some truely elite level talent with balance of talent. List the team on pure talent and I bet you make a complete team by position in the first 6 players and they were good on a national scale. You can not do that with any team we have had in the Pastner era. 3. The thing that can make up for all manner of sins, an incredible floor leader. On any other team, Rose would have been the automatic floor leader but on that team it was Antonio Anderson without a doubt. The guy just wouldn't allow himself to lose. And on that earlier talent list the argument could be made that he doesn't break the top 5. But would you ever take him off the floor other than to rest him? That is the type of player that is fundamental for a team to have extended success both during the season and especially in the postseason because everyone else in the postseason (with the possible exception of autobids from weak leagues) has that guy.

The problem is everybody has looked at the "stars" and gone "Why haven't we done more?" when they should have been looking at how the "stars" would align on a team and seen if we were really solving our problems.

I'll agree to a point.

There was still plenty of talent and good coaching can overcome/hide deficiencies.

I say that with confidence having watched too many teams navigate brackets based on sheer will and grit. There aren't that many "perfect" teams out there - most have an exploitable weakness.

Hell, George Mason had no NBA players, barely a bench, no starter over 6-7 and went through 3 bluebloods to get to the Final Four.

And like I said in another thread - NBA doesn't always equate to DI success either - handful of recent FF teams don't have any guys in the NBA or have one guy just clinging to the league.

You can be a very good DI team without having lottery picks at every position - VCU, Wisconsin, Butler, Gonzaga, Virginia, Wichita, etc.

And like someone else pointed out - Memphis played the national champ to OT on their home floor and had a shot to win at the end against Florida on a neutral court. That's two FF teams from last year - so, Tigers had good DI talent.
03-05-2015 12:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bcspiker Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 929
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Colorado
Post: #53
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
I'm actually agreeing with you except we lost both those games. I don't think you need automatic NBA players to make the sweet 16. I do believe it is a requirement to have an Antonio Anderson type guy. Look at the teams that make it each year and they all have that guy and attitude. I have coached national champions in 3 different sports and that is the intangible that crosses over everywhere. We don't have that guy. One final thing. While I don't think that Pastner has done a good job finding that type of player, I also don't believe you can "coach" that into a player. You may help facilitate it coming out, but it is an internal thing you either have or don't.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 04:15 PM by bcspiker.)
03-05-2015 04:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Crazier Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,256
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation: 191
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-03-2015 01:03 AM)tigers0830 Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 01:27 PM)Crazier Wrote:  
(03-02-2015 11:52 AM)RheaJ Wrote:  Finally good to see some threads not outright attacking Coach Josh Wooden.

Good point Hoopdreams on all of the talent that Josh has taken to the next level. You can be sure there is more of that to come!

Really? If those guys had a real coach then they wouldn't be struggling trying to find teams to play for. T. Black would be overseas if he didn't go to Kansas.

Because you know Tarik put up monster numbers at Kansas. Some of you say really dumb things.

Tarik is in the NBA because he showed out during the summer. Not because he went to Kansas. His numbers weren't much better there than they were here.

I'm guessing you didn't see him in the NCAA tournament and it's pretty dumb for to say he didn't improve at Kansas
03-05-2015 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MTigerBlue Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,579
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 421
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
I think it's hard to separate the "glaring weaknesses" from the "coaching input." All of our teams start out with some sort of glaring weakness. It's the coach's job to figure out a way to (1) get what you need and (2) work with what you have. If I had to pick one or the other that I believe Josh has done better, I'd go with #1. I think we've had top to bottom talent, with benches, at times in the last six years, but I don't believe we've ever come close to getting the best out of them. Heck, most of the time we couldn't even keep them on the team.
03-05-2015 05:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bcspiker Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 929
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 60
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Colorado
Post: #56
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-05-2015 05:18 PM)MTigerBlue Wrote:  I think it's hard to separate the "glaring weaknesses" from the "coaching input." All of our teams start out with some sort of glaring weakness. It's the coach's job to figure out a way to (1) get what you need and (2) work with what you have. If I had to pick one or the other that I believe Josh has done better, I'd go with #1. I think we've had top to bottom talent, with benches, at times in the last six years, but I don't believe we've ever come close to getting the best out of them. Heck, most of the time we couldn't even keep them on the team.
I would say that if you don't do a good job with number 1, it makes number 2 almost impossible at the level we as a fan base ask for. Throw in a young guy with no head coaching experience and I think what we have seen is just about what we should have expected. Not what we wanted but realistically not that unexplainable. With that said, I am in no way happy with where we are at.
(This post was last modified: 03-05-2015 07:12 PM by bcspiker.)
03-05-2015 07:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Stammers Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 38,187
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 1739
I Root For: Memphis
Location: Montreal, Canada
Post: #57
RE: Basketball IQ of this team
(03-04-2015 10:38 AM)RekeHavoc Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 10:27 PM)bcspiker Wrote:  
(03-03-2015 09:56 PM)HoopDreams Wrote:  No idea.

That team won 31 games though and 2 starters are in the NBA.

Well you can't argue the expectations of a team without that analysis. You have also repeatedly said that our wins come against crap teams so that isn't a good point either. Two guys is good but did we have any glaring weaknesses in the other positions at the time that would have led to games lost on the way to the sweet 16? Just trying to get a concrete feeling on why people think we should have gotten there.
On another note, the 2 guys that are actually in the NBA did not actually play together on that team that won 31 games and that team finished the year #19 in the AP poll and went into the NCAA tourny ranked there so objectively they should not have made the sweet 16.

I'm not sure that anyone can do what you are asking. That being said, in general, our problem has been that we didn't always take care of business in the regular season to ensure better seeding in the tournament. Last year was a prime example. We had enough talent and experience to make the S16, but we got punked too many times during the regular season, and then again in the conf tourney, to secure a decent seed.

The Houston loss and the UConn thrashing each probably cost a full seed.
03-05-2015 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.
MemphisTigers.org is the number one message board for Memphis Tigers sports.