Denver beats Western Kentucky 72-67.
Well, since all the teams go to Hot Springs I'll be rooting for UALR for one game, but after that its "Go Pioneers!"
I agree, Denver is fun to watch! They should definately be in the mix for the title.
Denver is fun to watch. They play good crisp basketball. Seeing actual team work and good fundamentals is refreshing compared to some of the one on one plays you see a lot of time. They remind me a lot of the Drake team we beat in the tournament back in '08.
The only thing that keeps me from saying that they are the favorites to win the regular season title is that 8 of thier last 12 conference games are on the road. Have they slayed that demon? We shall see.
(01-10-2010 05:48 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]Denver is fun to watch. They play good crisp basketball. Seeing actual team work and good fundamentals is refreshing compared to some of the one on one plays you see a lot of time. They remind me a lot of the Drake team we beat in the tournament back in '08.
The only thing that keeps me from saying that they are the favorites to win the regular season title is that 8 of thier last 12 conference games are on the road. Have they slayed that demon? We shall see.
I'm certainly not ready to say they will beat you guys in the tournament, but it will be any interesting final if it happens.
(01-10-2010 05:48 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]Denver is fun to watch. They play good crisp basketball. Seeing actual team work and good fundamentals is refreshing compared to some of the one on one plays you see a lot of time.
Thank you for saying that! Good basketball is fun to watch, even if it is the Princeton offense and not run and gun.
(01-10-2010 08:55 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2010 05:48 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]Denver is fun to watch. They play good crisp basketball. Seeing actual team work and good fundamentals is refreshing compared to some of the one on one plays you see a lot of time.
Thank you for saying that! Good basketball is fun to watch, even if it is the Princeton offense and not run and gun.
Like I've said before you can go to any playground in the "hood" and watch run and gun. I really don't think too many of the elite coaches play run and gun anymore. They may play more uptemp, but they do it in a more controlled fashion then the "run and gun" offenses that were popular for awhile.
(01-10-2010 08:55 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2010 05:48 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ]Denver is fun to watch. They play good crisp basketball. Seeing actual team work and good fundamentals is refreshing compared to some of the one on one plays you see a lot of time.
Thank you for saying that! Good basketball is fun to watch, even if it is the Princeton offense and not run and gun.
I enjoy watching a good motion offense.
(01-10-2010 08:55 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for saying that! Good basketball is fun to watch, even if it is the Princeton offense and not run and gun.
Just my opinion on the whole "system" debate. I don't think system matters. People support wins, and you can win slow or you can win fast.
For us, we have had coaches that won either way. Willard won with fun and gun, Felton won by slowing things down and moving the ball around. McDonald is something in between. Our attendance was just fine during the slower Felton years.
(01-10-2010 11:26 PM)Hilltopper2K Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2010 08:55 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for saying that! Good basketball is fun to watch, even if it is the Princeton offense and not run and gun.
Just my opinion on the whole "system" debate. I don't think system matters. People support wins, and you can win slow or you can win fast.
For us, we have had coaches that won either way. Willard won with fun and gun, Felton won by slowing things down and moving the ball around. McDonald is something in between. Our attendance was just fine during the slower Felton years.
Excellent point. Fans just want their teams to win. In the end they don't care, and most don't even know, what kind of offense their coach runs. Fans in NW Arkansas blamed Stan Heath's slow offense for poor attendance. Now their attendance is the lowest in 35 years and supposedly Pelphrey runs an uptempo offense (actually I don't have a clue what he is trying to run most of the time).
(01-10-2010 10:46 PM)LR Alum Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy watching a good motion offense.
Absolutely! Done well it is poetry in motion.
And speaking of that, late in the game our offense looked liked a pro team. Standing around.
(01-11-2010 08:00 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2010 10:46 PM)LR Alum Wrote: [ -> ]I enjoy watching a good motion offense.
Absolutely! Done well it is poetry in motion.
And speaking of that, late in the game our offense looked liked a pro team. Standing around.
Motion offense is great. But it's just like any other offense. You have to have players to run it. Our true problem isn't what offense we run. It's the fact that we don't have all the parts to the puzzle to make the offense that we are running work. If we had inside players who could get position and score, it would be fine. And they don't have to be giants.
Stan Blackmon was one of our best inside players ever, and he wasn't more than 6'4" or 6'5". Our only truly tall inside player I can ever remember who had some ability to do that was Too Tall. Jones-Jennings was a great rebounder, and did average around 12 points a game, but he wasn't skillful. He was just strong and got many of his points on putbacks.
The other area where we've always been weak in the recruiting area is that 6'5"-6'7" wing player who can put the ball on the floor and shoot from the outside some. Shane Edwards and Joe Stephens are the two that come to mind. Other than that, we don't normally have those greyhound types. So what's the answer? It's obvious. Recruit better players. How do we do that? If I knew that, I'd be running the program, and although some of you think I am, it's not true. Just an loyal observer.
C fits that bill for your ideal wing player. Just needs time to develop. Trust me. He'll be very special if we give him a chance.
(01-11-2010 08:57 PM)eh9198 Wrote: [ -> ]C fits that bill for your ideal wing player. Just needs time to develop. Trust me. He'll be very special if we give him a chance.
If the kid can put up points, I'd be playing him right now. We need every scorer we can get.
