(02-03-2015 02:05 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote: We may have short term issues, but University of Memphis basketball is in the fabric of the city. I think it will survive on all terms despite this seasons issues.
It can be damaged with decay over a long term problem, but the current season will not impact us long term provided it is a blip.
But here's the issue. A lot of the people in the Forum at Tiger games are old and middle aged people. We've grown up and watched Tiger basketball do great things. What if we stay down for an extended period of time? The younger generation will grow up seeing Tiger basketball as mediocre. They'd rather go see the Grizzlies. That's dangerous for our future.
(02-03-2015 01:52 PM)Brother Bluto Wrote: 10 sweet 16s in 27 years between 1982-2009. How many schools have done that? 10? Maybe not a blueblood, but the best we did with two top 5 recruiting classes was a round of 32. If we are fine with that why pay a coach 2.7 mil a year? Archie Miller made a sweet 16 making 300K
If they cant get Pearl, this would be the next call I make.
(02-03-2015 10:37 AM)Stammers Wrote: IF Pastner is replaced after this season, we return everyone but Godfrey and have the Lawsons coming in. IF Pastner is this supposedly crappy coach, any breathing replacement should be able to get us into the top 10 next year.
Why is anyone worried? According to the usual bunch of clowns, Pastner hasn't achieved anything, and any coach can walk in here and get us to Sweet 16's and Elite 8's in no time.
Well, conversely - if Pastner is a good coach, he isn't proving it this season AND, as you say, we still will return an undersized front line minus Godfrey and slow, short guards and add a 195 PF in Lawson. So, for the rebuilding crowd. What exactly will the rebuild yield next season?
What happens when next year's team has to play another Gonzaga, Michigan State, Virginia, Baylor, etc.?
Seems like more of the same.
The Tigers had finesse teams long before Pastner took over. With the exception of his first two seasons, Larry's teams always struggled with physical teams. Huggin's Cincinnati teams always give Larry's teams fits.
Calipari's early teams got man-handled inside as well. Kansas's bigs gave us all kinds of problems in the finals, and Cal's early teams regularly got pushed around.
Right on the money. Here are the Tiger basketball records to prove it.
Not sure what those records have to do with the topic. Sounds like just a bunch of .500 or so years to say we've been bad before. Problem with your theory is that those teams were bad because they had no good players, but when they got a good player or two, they got better (3 losing seasons before the Lee era, the last year of Finch/Tic/Johnny/first year of Cal before picking up steam under Cal.) You think that's the problem now?
(02-03-2015 02:05 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote: We may have short term issues, but University of Memphis basketball is in the fabric of the city. I think it will survive on all terms despite this seasons issues.
It can be damaged with decay over a long term problem, but the current season will not impact us long term provided it is a blip.
But here's the issue. A lot of the people in the Forum at Tiger games are old and middle aged people. We've grown up and watched Tiger basketball do great things. What if we stay down for an extended period of time? The younger generation will grow up seeing Tiger basketball as mediocre. They'd rather go see the Grizzlies. That's dangerous for our future.
Future is the key word here. Best decisions give the future a lot of weight. When many Futures are struggling to take form, it's good to recall the overall goal of our university, it's athletic program and how that affects the community.
Seems to me there's been some pretty decent decision making going on lately. I'm pretty up beat about the potential outcome in our BB program too.
(02-03-2015 12:37 PM)HoopDreams Wrote: I like the addition of the Lawsons - just have seen no one proclaim them difference makers right from the start, and even so the roster will still be undersized, still have shortish, slow guards for the most part, and still be devoid of shooters.
Other teams are going to have to adjust to us for a change. Dedric is a stretch 4 or a good big 3. So what do you do? Zone us and hope for best. Woodson, KJ, Dedric, Crawfird, Pookie etc should take double team off Austin opening inside up. I'm optimistic. Whatever happens, have to keep Lawson's or it going to be not good. All predicated on just a decent PG who will not lose games for us with mistakes.
BTW, I have seen them play. Dedric weighs more than 195 right now, guessing 205-210. Could be a Shawne Williams caliber player-much better passer, not quite as good a rebounder. Fans will love KJ-hustles his but off and will dive after every ball and HATES losing. Bobby Parks is best I could think of if KJ continues to develop. Not quite the athlete Bobby was.
(02-03-2015 02:05 PM)Sundanceuiuc Wrote: We may have short term issues, but University of Memphis basketball is in the fabric of the city. I think it will survive on all terms despite this seasons issues.
It can be damaged with decay over a long term problem, but the current season will not impact us long term provided it is a blip.
But here's the issue. A lot of the people in the Forum at Tiger games are old and middle aged people. We've grown up and watched Tiger basketball do great things. What if we stay down for an extended period of time? The younger generation will grow up seeing Tiger basketball as mediocre. They'd rather go see the Grizzlies. That's dangerous for our future.
Future is the key word here. Best decisions give the future a lot of weight. When many Futures are struggling to take form, it's good to recall the overall goal of our university, it's athletic program and how that affects the community.
Seems to me there's been some pretty decent decision making going on lately. I'm pretty up beat about the potential outcome in our BB program too.
I'm not especially in basketball decisions. When your AD makes you look like an idiot on scheduling and probably scheduled the Zags game at the Kennel. Also, why are we playing at Bowling Green in football? Why is game experience rated so low in survey of Tiger fans who go to games?
(02-03-2015 12:37 PM)HoopDreams Wrote: I like the addition of the Lawsons - just have seen no one proclaim them difference makers right from the start, and even so the roster will still be undersized, still have shortish, slow guards for the most part, and still be devoid of shooters.
Other teams are going to have to adjust to us for a change. Dedric is a stretch 4 or a good big 3. So what do you do? Zone us and hope for best. Woodson, KJ, Dedric, Crawfird, Pookie etc should take double team off Austin opening inside up. I'm optimistic. Whatever happens, have to keep Lawson's or it going to be not good. All predicated on just a decent PG who will not lose games for us with mistakes.
BTW, I have seen them play. Dedric weighs more than 195 right now, guessing 205-210. Could be a Shawne Williams caliber player-much better passer, not quite as good a rebounder. Fans will love KJ-hustles his but off and will dive after every ball and HATES losing. Bobby Parks is best I could think of if KJ continues to develop. Not quite the athlete Bobby was.
Then again, with the amount preaching about inexperience with this year's team a lot of folks made, those are two kids who have never played a minute of DI ball.
And the big question is will he ever get a team to defend consistently - in games and from game to game?
If he does, then they could be better overall as well.
That's one thing this team hasn't figured out for whatever reason - you can win games with defense when the shots aren't falling. Defense, rebounding, being tougher.
(02-03-2015 12:37 PM)HoopDreams Wrote: I like the addition of the Lawsons - just have seen no one proclaim them difference makers right from the start, and even so the roster will still be undersized, still have shortish, slow guards for the most part, and still be devoid of shooters.
Other teams are going to have to adjust to us for a change. Dedric is a stretch 4 or a good big 3. So what do you do? Zone us and hope for best. Woodson, KJ, Dedric, Crawfird, Pookie etc should take double team off Austin opening inside up. I'm optimistic. Whatever happens, have to keep Lawson's or it going to be not good. All predicated on just a decent PG who will not lose games for us with mistakes.
BTW, I have seen them play. Dedric weighs more than 195 right now, guessing 205-210. Could be a Shawne Williams caliber player-much better passer, not quite as good a rebounder. Fans will love KJ-hustles his but off and will dive after every ball and HATES losing. Bobby Parks is best I could think of if KJ continues to develop. Not quite the athlete Bobby was.
Then again, with the amount preaching about inexperience with this year's team a lot of folks made, those are two kids who have never played a minute of DI ball.
And the big question is will he ever get a team to defend consistently - in games and from game to game?
If he does, then they could be better overall as well.
That's one thing this team hasn't figured out for whatever reason - you can win games with defense when the shots aren't falling. Defense, rebounding, being tougher.
I guess you didn't read the Commercial Appeal this morning?
(02-03-2015 10:37 AM)Stammers Wrote: IF Pastner is replaced after this season, we return everyone but Godfrey and have the Lawsons coming in. IF Pastner is this supposedly crappy coach, any breathing replacement should be able to get us into the top 10 next year.
Why is anyone worried? According to the usual bunch of clowns, Pastner hasn't achieved anything, and any coach can walk in here and get us to Sweet 16's and Elite 8's in no time.
Well, conversely - if Pastner is a good coach, he isn't proving it this season AND, as you say, we still will return an undersized front line minus Godfrey and slow, short guards and add a 195 PF in Lawson. So, for the rebuilding crowd. What exactly will the rebuild yield next season?
What happens when next year's team has to play another Gonzaga, Michigan State, Virginia, Baylor, etc.?
Seems like more of the same.
The Tigers had finesse teams long before Pastner took over. With the exception of his first two seasons, Larry's teams always struggled with physical teams. Huggin's Cincinnati teams always give Larry's teams fits.
Calipari's early teams got man-handled inside as well. Kansas's bigs gave us all kinds of problems in the finals, and Cal's early teams regularly got pushed around.
The only truly physical player on arguably our best team in history (84-85) was Askew and he was a freshman.
(02-03-2015 12:37 PM)HoopDreams Wrote: I like the addition of the Lawsons - just have seen no one proclaim them difference makers right from the start, and even so the roster will still be undersized, still have shortish, slow guards for the most part, and still be devoid of shooters.
Other teams are going to have to adjust to us for a change. Dedric is a stretch 4 or a good big 3. So what do you do? Zone us and hope for best. Woodson, KJ, Dedric, Crawfird, Pookie etc should take double team off Austin opening inside up. I'm optimistic. Whatever happens, have to keep Lawson's or it going to be not good. All predicated on just a decent PG who will not lose games for us with mistakes.
BTW, I have seen them play. Dedric weighs more than 195 right now, guessing 205-210. Could be a Shawne Williams caliber player-much better passer, not quite as good a rebounder. Fans will love KJ-hustles his but off and will dive after every ball and HATES losing. Bobby Parks is best I could think of if KJ continues to develop. Not quite the athlete Bobby was.
Then again, with the amount preaching about inexperience with this year's team a lot of folks made, those are two kids who have never played a minute of DI ball.
And the big question is will he ever get a team to defend consistently - in games and from game to game?
If he does, then they could be better overall as well.
That's one thing this team hasn't figured out for whatever reason - you can win games with defense when the shots aren't falling. Defense, rebounding, being tougher.
I guess you didn't read the Commercial Appeal this morning?
I glimpsed an article slobbering over some defensive stats.
All I know is they get blown out by good (name) teams.
You can rack up stats against AAC slaw and OOC cupcakes all day long though and balance out the numbers.
(02-03-2015 10:37 AM)Stammers Wrote: IF Pastner is replaced after this season, we return everyone but Godfrey and have the Lawsons coming in. IF Pastner is this supposedly crappy coach, any breathing replacement should be able to get us into the top 10 next year.
Why is anyone worried? According to the usual bunch of clowns, Pastner hasn't achieved anything, and any coach can walk in here and get us to Sweet 16's and Elite 8's in no time.
Well, conversely - if Pastner is a good coach, he isn't proving it this season AND, as you say, we still will return an undersized front line minus Godfrey and slow, short guards and add a 195 PF in Lawson. So, for the rebuilding crowd. What exactly will the rebuild yield next season?
What happens when next year's team has to play another Gonzaga, Michigan State, Virginia, Baylor, etc.?
Seems like more of the same.
The Tigers had finesse teams long before Pastner took over. With the exception of his first two seasons, Larry's teams always struggled with physical teams. Huggin's Cincinnati teams always give Larry's teams fits.
Calipari's early teams got man-handled inside as well. Kansas's bigs gave us all kinds of problems in the finals, and Cal's early teams regularly got pushed around.
Right on the money. Here are the Tiger basketball records to prove it.
Not sure what those records have to do with the topic. Sounds like just a bunch of .500 or so years to say we've been bad before. Problem with your theory is that those teams were bad because they had no good players, but when they got a good player or two, they got better (3 losing seasons before the Lee era, the last year of Finch/Tic/Johnny/first year of Cal before picking up steam under Cal.) You think that's the problem now?
Players on those teams:
Elliot Perry, Anthony Douglas, Billy Smith, Chris Garner, Cedric Henderson, David Vaughn, Omar Sneed, Hank McDowell, Dennis Isbell, Otis Jackson, Sunday Adebayo, Cheyenne Gibson, Ernest Smith.... Most of those teams had 2 or 3 good players.
The only reason of keeping (or firing) a coach is money. When people stop donating and attending the games, a change has to be made. Apathy is setting in when we underachieve every year. And now that the Grizzlies are getting better and more exciting, many fans are jumping ship to the NBA. The best thing that could happen is for someone to hire Pastner away. That way he will save face from being fired and we save the money to buy him out. Win-Win.
(02-03-2015 03:39 PM)HoopDreams Wrote: Then again, with the amount preaching about inexperience with this year's team a lot of folks made, those are two kids who have never played a minute of DI ball.
Yep, this is a major sticking point for me. I have little doubt the Lawsons will help and be good right out of the box, but freshman are freshman and except for the top 5-10 guys, growing pains are the rule, not the exception.
(02-03-2015 03:39 PM)HoopDreams Wrote: And the big question is will he ever get a team to defend consistently - in games and from game to game?
If he does, then they could be better overall as well.
That's one thing this team hasn't figured out for whatever reason - you can win games with defense when the shots aren't falling. Defense, rebounding, being tougher.
You can win with defense only, sure. Some of Cal's teams couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but guts = glory.
/
Tiger basketball in is danger
![[Image: 13-exponentials-02.gif]](http://coolmath.com/algebra/17-exponentials-logarithms/images/13-exponentials-02.gif)
![[Image: img3578.png]](http://quantummechanics.ucsd.edu/ph130a/130_notes/img3578.png)
