(04-16-2017 06:36 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 06:30 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 05:20 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 03:40 PM)BandwagonJumper Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 03:37 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  Why are people who have realistic, but not positive outlooks told to pump the breaks because the "season has yet to play out" yet those same folks don't tell super fans to pump the breaks when someone is called Dorsey 2.0 or that a 3* frosh will lead the team in scoring?

A realist would not have a positive outlook on next season.

For a lot of reasons.

Yep. By any measure our talent is worse than last year and we are less experienced and less cohesion given large numbers of new faces. Coaching staff is the same.

So, sure, people could play out of their minds and we could gel early and all sorts of probabilities could occur to make us better, but when you look at the objective picture we are just worse all over with the exception of not having a divide on the team over Lawsons treatment.

We will be better at the point we will be better at the 5.

There was no cohesion last year either...New coaching Staff and only 1 guy returning who had a role on the team previously.

Have more size and interchangeable parts on defense where there wont be constant mismatches...(3 guys over 230 instead of 1).

Depending on the toughness of the guys coming in rebounding should be better.

If the guys coming in have any type of athleticism defense should be better as well...Last year there was always someone out there that couldn't guard their man and required help.

Offensively we will likely take a step back unless a couple of shooters emerge and unfortunately I think we are likely to see a boring style of basketball because of this.

I think it's misleading to say better at point and better at the 5. If you say martin is our PG and Rivers is our Center then sure, yes, we're better at both positions because of a year of progress.

But what Martin is off the ball as our SG and Azab our Center and Rivers our 4? Then we're worse positions 1-5 probably

It's a lot of unknowns is what it is

Lol...Semantics...

Ok 2 of our 5 starters will be better...

Do you accept that statement...LOL

(04-16-2017 08:33 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 06:36 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 06:30 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 05:20 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 03:40 PM)BandwagonJumper Wrote:  A realist would not have a positive outlook on next season.

For a lot of reasons.

Yep. By any measure our talent is worse than last year and we are less experienced and less cohesion given large numbers of new faces. Coaching staff is the same.

So, sure, people could play out of their minds and we could gel early and all sorts of probabilities could occur to make us better, but when you look at the objective picture we are just worse all over with the exception of not having a divide on the team over Lawsons treatment.

We will be better at the point we will be better at the 5.

There was no cohesion last year either...New coaching Staff and only 1 guy returning who had a role on the team previously.

Have more size and interchangeable parts on defense where there wont be constant mismatches...(3 guys over 230 instead of 1).

Depending on the toughness of the guys coming in rebounding should be better.

If the guys coming in have any type of athleticism defense should be better as well...Last year there was always someone out there that couldn't guard their man and required help.

Offensively we will likely take a step back unless a couple of shooters emerge and unfortunately I think we are likely to see a boring style of basketball because of this.

I think it's misleading to say better at point and better at the 5. If you say martin is our PG and Rivers is our Center then sure, yes, we're better at both positions because of a year of progress.

But what Martin is off the ball as our SG and Azab our Center and Rivers our 4? Then we're worse positions 1-5 probably

It's a lot of unknowns is what it is

Lol...Semantics...

Ok 2 of our 5 starters will be better...

Do you accept that statement...LOL

Sure

Do you accept that we lost our 3 best starters and 5 best bench players and we don't have any guarantees that anybody coming in is better than anybody we lost?

You think a year for Martin and Rivers will make it better because 2 starters are returning.i think we lost our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players and think that this is going to mean a step back because the 2 starters returning were not focus of our team and are being asked to take on huge roles they're probably not ready for. Nothing against them, it's a pretty huge ask.

(04-16-2017 08:51 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:33 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 06:36 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 06:30 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 05:20 PM)jgardne Wrote:  Yep. By any measure our talent is worse than last year and we are less experienced and less cohesion given large numbers of new faces. Coaching staff is the same.

So, sure, people could play out of their minds and we could gel early and all sorts of probabilities could occur to make us better, but when you look at the objective picture we are just worse all over with the exception of not having a divide on the team over Lawsons treatment.

We will be better at the point we will be better at the 5.

There was no cohesion last year either...New coaching Staff and only 1 guy returning who had a role on the team previously.

Have more size and interchangeable parts on defense where there wont be constant mismatches...(3 guys over 230 instead of 1).

Depending on the toughness of the guys coming in rebounding should be better.

If the guys coming in have any type of athleticism defense should be better as well...Last year there was always someone out there that couldn't guard their man and required help.

Offensively we will likely take a step back unless a couple of shooters emerge and unfortunately I think we are likely to see a boring style of basketball because of this.

I think it's misleading to say better at point and better at the 5. If you say martin is our PG and Rivers is our Center then sure, yes, we're better at both positions because of a year of progress.

But what Martin is off the ball as our SG and Azab our Center and Rivers our 4? Then we're worse positions 1-5 probably

It's a lot of unknowns is what it is

Lol...Semantics...

Ok 2 of our 5 starters will be better...

Do you accept that statement...LOL

Sure

Do you accept that we lost our 3 best starters and 5 best bench players and we don't have any guarantees that anybody coming in is better than anybody we lost?

You think a year for Martin and Rivers will make it better because 2 starters are returning.i think we lost our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players and think that this is going to mean a step back because the 2 starters returning were not focus of our team and are being asked to take on huge roles they're probably not ready for. Nothing against them, it's a pretty huge ask.

I think we lost 3 out of our 4 best players (I put Martin ahead of KJ because KJ shot a horrible percentage and didnt defend)

Also, we didn't really have a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players because they were just filler...If we get anything from the bench it will be an improvement.

Yes, it is tough to point to a statistical reason to say that we will be better due to the unknowns...But to say we are worse all over is just a silly statement as you stated earlier. Bench should be better and as you conceded 2 of the starters should be better, that is a reason for at least a little positivity.

(04-16-2017 08:59 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:51 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:33 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 06:36 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 06:30 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  We will be better at the point we will be better at the 5.

There was no cohesion last year either...New coaching Staff and only 1 guy returning who had a role on the team previously.

Have more size and interchangeable parts on defense where there wont be constant mismatches...(3 guys over 230 instead of 1).

Depending on the toughness of the guys coming in rebounding should be better.

If the guys coming in have any type of athleticism defense should be better as well...Last year there was always someone out there that couldn't guard their man and required help.

Offensively we will likely take a step back unless a couple of shooters emerge and unfortunately I think we are likely to see a boring style of basketball because of this.

I think it's misleading to say better at point and better at the 5. If you say martin is our PG and Rivers is our Center then sure, yes, we're better at both positions because of a year of progress.

But what Martin is off the ball as our SG and Azab our Center and Rivers our 4? Then we're worse positions 1-5 probably

It's a lot of unknowns is what it is

Lol...Semantics...

Ok 2 of our 5 starters will be better...

Do you accept that statement...LOL

Sure

Do you accept that we lost our 3 best starters and 5 best bench players and we don't have any guarantees that anybody coming in is better than anybody we lost?

You think a year for Martin and Rivers will make it better because 2 starters are returning.i think we lost our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players and think that this is going to mean a step back because the 2 starters returning were not focus of our team and are being asked to take on huge roles they're probably not ready for. Nothing against them, it's a pretty huge ask.

I think we lost 3 out of our 4 best players (I put Martin ahead of KJ because KJ shot a horrible percentage and didnt defend)

Also, we didn't really have a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players because they were just filler...If we get anything from the bench it will be an improvement.

Yes, it is tough to point to a statistical reason to say that we will be better due to the unknowns...But to say we are worse all over is just a silly statement as you stated earlier. Bench should be better and as you conceded 2 of the starters should be better, that is a reason for at least a little positivity.

I disagree that it's a silly statement. Jucos are huge unknowns. If they are like Massie and geron we'll be better. If they're like Stan Simpson not so much

(04-16-2017 09:06 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:59 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:51 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:33 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 06:36 PM)jgardne Wrote:  I think it's misleading to say better at point and better at the 5. If you say martin is our PG and Rivers is our Center then sure, yes, we're better at both positions because of a year of progress.

But what Martin is off the ball as our SG and Azab our Center and Rivers our 4? Then we're worse positions 1-5 probably

It's a lot of unknowns is what it is

Lol...Semantics...

Ok 2 of our 5 starters will be better...

Do you accept that statement...LOL

Sure

Do you accept that we lost our 3 best starters and 5 best bench players and we don't have any guarantees that anybody coming in is better than anybody we lost?

You think a year for Martin and Rivers will make it better because 2 starters are returning.i think we lost our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players and think that this is going to mean a step back because the 2 starters returning were not focus of our team and are being asked to take on huge roles they're probably not ready for. Nothing against them, it's a pretty huge ask.

I think we lost 3 out of our 4 best players (I put Martin ahead of KJ because KJ shot a horrible percentage and didnt defend)

Also, we didn't really have a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players because they were just filler...If we get anything from the bench it will be an improvement.

Yes, it is tough to point to a statistical reason to say that we will be better due to the unknowns...But to say we are worse all over is just a silly statement as you stated earlier. Bench should be better and as you conceded 2 of the starters should be better, that is a reason for at least a little positivity.

I disagree that it's a silly statement. Jucos are huge unknowns. If they are like Massie and geron we'll be better. If they're like Stan Simpson not so much

Quote: but when you look at the objective picture we are just worse all over

The above statement is the one I was questioning...

If you break a team down into 6 components (5 starters and bench)...Some would say you should do 7. We would better at 3 of those components likely a lot better in one of them (bench)

(04-16-2017 01:10 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 11:32 PM)Steve davis Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 11:22 PM)dwash Wrote:  Trying to get behind it but that starting lineup isnt moving me. At all.

Dwash! Have you seen the videos on these guys?

Have you EVER seen a highlight video which does not make the player look like a superstar?????

They do not put miscues in those videos.

Stan Simpson didn't look like a superstar in his highlight video.

(04-16-2017 09:14 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 09:06 PM)jgardne Wrote:  I disagree that it's a silly statement. Jucos are huge unknowns. If they are like Massie and geron we'll be better. If they're like Stan Simpson not so much

Quote: but when you look at the objective picture we are just worse all over

The above statement is the one I was questioning...

If you break a team down into 6 components (5 starters and bench)...Some would say you should do 7. We would better at 3 of those components likely a lot better in one of them (bench)

I'll give you a stat you can believe about next year's team -- 99% probability they shoot better from outside. That, alone, means several aspects of our offense will improve.

And I would have to think the coaching job also has a high probability of being less of a challenge, even with players who might not be as good individually. There will definitely be areas of improvement, whether they amount to more wins or not. Unfortunately for the staff, that's the number one criteria on which they will be judged.

(04-16-2017 09:51 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 01:10 PM)ncrdbl1 Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 11:32 PM)Steve davis Wrote:  

(04-15-2017 11:22 PM)dwash Wrote:  Trying to get behind it but that starting lineup isnt moving me. At all.

Dwash! Have you seen the videos on these guys?

Have you EVER seen a highlight video which does not make the player look like a superstar?????

They do not put miscues in those videos.

Stan Simpson didn't look like a superstar in his highlight video.

You've forgotten a lot about Stan and his suitors. He had lots of people fooled, not just us.

(04-16-2017 08:25 AM)Hoots Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 07:30 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 07:05 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It would be prudent, IMO, to brace for losing the most games since Iba's last season. Our current team is made up of JUCOs, three 3* star freshmen, a project (Azab), two returnees with heart but limited talent, and lead by a coach who has won only one NCAA tourney game in ten years and lost the last two games by margins not seen in decades.

Wow! Talk about a negative post! I sure don't share your opinion and look forward to seeing you proved wrong when the games are actually played. This team will play better defense than last year, be more athletic, and play more as at team. i see it actually winning more games than last year.

I see it the same way. Getting more excited and optimistic as players come on board.

I am excited about the next season. I will make no claims about w-l records but think I recognize a turning point.

(04-16-2017 10:18 PM)eltigre Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:25 AM)Hoots Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 07:30 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 07:05 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  It would be prudent, IMO, to brace for losing the most games since Iba's last season. Our current team is made up of JUCOs, three 3* star freshmen, a project (Azab), two returnees with heart but limited talent, and lead by a coach who has won only one NCAA tourney game in ten years and lost the last two games by margins not seen in decades.

Wow! Talk about a negative post! I sure don't share your opinion and look forward to seeing you proved wrong when the games are actually played. This team will play better defense than last year, be more athletic, and play more as at team. i see it actually winning more games than last year.

I see it the same way. Getting more excited and optimistic as players come on board.

I am excited about the next season. I will make no claims about w-l records but think I recognize a turning point.

I think Tubby has done enough recruiting wise if he get Darrington to quell those worries for this season, but he still needs to mold this group into a team that improves...If this team implodes at the end of the year as well Tubby should be on the hot seat

(04-16-2017 09:14 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 09:06 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:59 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:51 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:33 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  Lol...Semantics...

Ok 2 of our 5 starters will be better...

Do you accept that statement...LOL

Sure

Do you accept that we lost our 3 best starters and 5 best bench players and we don't have any guarantees that anybody coming in is better than anybody we lost?

You think a year for Martin and Rivers will make it better because 2 starters are returning.i think we lost our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players and think that this is going to mean a step back because the 2 starters returning were not focus of our team and are being asked to take on huge roles they're probably not ready for. Nothing against them, it's a pretty huge ask.

I think we lost 3 out of our 4 best players (I put Martin ahead of KJ because KJ shot a horrible percentage and didnt defend)

Also, we didn't really have a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players because they were just filler...If we get anything from the bench it will be an improvement.

Yes, it is tough to point to a statistical reason to say that we will be better due to the unknowns...But to say we are worse all over is just a silly statement as you stated earlier. Bench should be better and as you conceded 2 of the starters should be better, that is a reason for at least a little positivity.

I disagree that it's a silly statement. Jucos are huge unknowns. If they are like Massie and geron we'll be better. If they're like Stan Simpson not so much

Quote: but when you look at the objective picture we are just worse all over

The above statement is the one I was questioning...

If you break a team down into 6 components (5 starters and bench)...Some would say you should do 7. We would better at 3 of those components likely a lot better in one of them (bench)

If a team lost Michael Jordan and replaced him with me and also lost dedric Lawson and replaced him with KJ it wouldn't be a wash because one position is better and one is worse. Your "breakdown" is completely arbitrary and is making something that is a very complex system binary. No point continuing the debate, we'll see in 6 months

(04-16-2017 10:42 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 09:14 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 09:06 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:59 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:51 PM)jgardne Wrote:  Sure

Do you accept that we lost our 3 best starters and 5 best bench players and we don't have any guarantees that anybody coming in is better than anybody we lost?

You think a year for Martin and Rivers will make it better because 2 starters are returning.i think we lost our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players and think that this is going to mean a step back because the 2 starters returning were not focus of our team and are being asked to take on huge roles they're probably not ready for. Nothing against them, it's a pretty huge ask.

I think we lost 3 out of our 4 best players (I put Martin ahead of KJ because KJ shot a horrible percentage and didnt defend)

Also, we didn't really have a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players because they were just filler...If we get anything from the bench it will be an improvement.

Yes, it is tough to point to a statistical reason to say that we will be better due to the unknowns...But to say we are worse all over is just a silly statement as you stated earlier. Bench should be better and as you conceded 2 of the starters should be better, that is a reason for at least a little positivity.

I disagree that it's a silly statement. Jucos are huge unknowns. If they are like Massie and geron we'll be better. If they're like Stan Simpson not so much

Quote: but when you look at the objective picture we are just worse all over

The above statement is the one I was questioning...

If you break a team down into 6 components (5 starters and bench)...Some would say you should do 7. We would better at 3 of those components likely a lot better in one of them (bench)

If a team lost Michael Jordan and replaced him with me and also lost dedric Lawson and replaced him with KJ it wouldn't be a wash because one position is better and one is worse. Your "breakdown" is completely arbitrary and is making something that is a very complex system binary. No point continuing the debate, we'll see in 6 months

Truth nailed.

(04-16-2017 10:42 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 09:14 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 09:06 PM)jgardne Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:59 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(04-16-2017 08:51 PM)jgardne Wrote:  Sure

Do you accept that we lost our 3 best starters and 5 best bench players and we don't have any guarantees that anybody coming in is better than anybody we lost?

You think a year for Martin and Rivers will make it better because 2 starters are returning.i think we lost our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players and think that this is going to mean a step back because the 2 starters returning were not focus of our team and are being asked to take on huge roles they're probably not ready for. Nothing against them, it's a pretty huge ask.

I think we lost 3 out of our 4 best players (I put Martin ahead of KJ because KJ shot a horrible percentage and didnt defend)

Also, we didn't really have a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th best players because they were just filler...If we get anything from the bench it will be an improvement.

Yes, it is tough to point to a statistical reason to say that we will be better due to the unknowns...But to say we are worse all over is just a silly statement as you stated earlier. Bench should be better and as you conceded 2 of the starters should be better, that is a reason for at least a little positivity.

I disagree that it's a silly statement. Jucos are huge unknowns. If they are like Massie and geron we'll be better. If they're like Stan Simpson not so much

Quote: but when you look at the objective picture we are just worse all over

The above statement is the one I was questioning...

If you break a team down into 6 components (5 starters and bench)...Some would say you should do 7. We would better at 3 of those components likely a lot better in one of them (bench)

If a team lost Michael Jordan and replaced him with me and also lost dedric Lawson and replaced him with KJ it wouldn't be a wash because one position is better and one is worse. Your "breakdown" is completely arbitrary and is making something that is a very complex system binary. No point continuing the debate, we'll see in 6 months

Again as I have stated several times I am not saying they will be better, I am questioning your over the top statement that we will be worse at every position. You are moving the goalposts

At what point will the newcomers (Freshmen and Jucos) be on campus?

As it stands there are 3 scholarship player on campus right now: Martin / Rivers / Azab.

With 9-10 newcomers, they will need every minute they can get to practice together; supervised or voluntarily on their own.

Just my 2 cents. I think we will be better at every position besides the 4. Better team defense and better chemistry could make up for that issue.

Pg will be better. Martin served well there and will have another year of experience.

Center/ post. With Azab, Enoh, and Davenport we will have good size and athleticism. Rivers did not have the size for the position. We will be better here. Plus may add 7 footer in Haruna.

Small forward: Thornton, Nickelbery, and Rivers. We will be improved in defense, passing and playmaking as well as team play.

SG: newcomers Jamal and Brewton. Both are fierce defensively, scorers and playmakers knowing how to pass the ball. This is a wash to an improvement based on team play.

4:. With Davenport, Enoh we won't be as good scoring but may be more athletic and defensively​ better. Advantage last year.

So for me there is cause for hope and I will be fascinated to see the development over the year. At least I will see players that care and work hard.

Goal: Reach the NCAA Tourney and win games (our goal every year).

Last year we failed to reach our goal. What must change for us to reach our goal next season?

Below is my way of analyzing to derive an answer to the above question. It is not a mathematical formula, but used for roughly framing the elements required to improve next year.

Improvement = (talent in - talent out) + (experience in - experience out) + (net player intangibles [ie, physical growth, S & C, team chemistry]) + (net coaching ability).

IMO, greater weight should be given to talent. Coaches, like players, are subject to improvement. Tubby, for example, may correct his errors from last year like establishing a S&C program quickly and developing a bench.

I believe we will have less overall talent and less overall experience next season than last season. The best hope for improvement is the team gels and Tubby coaches up the team (eg, avoids slumps and soul crushing defeats).

I think the prospects for improvement are dim and we will fall well short of our goal and perhaps experience the worse season in over 43 years.

(04-17-2017 08:43 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  Just my 2 cents. I think we will be better at every position besides the 4. Better team defense and better chemistry could make up for that issue.

Pg will be better. Martin served well there and will have another year of experience.

Center/ post. With Azab, Enoh, and Davenport we will have good size and athleticism. Rivers did not have the size for the position. We will be better here. Plus may add 7 footer in Haruna.

Small forward: Thornton, Nickelbery, and Rivers. We will be improved in defense, passing and playmaking as well as team play.

SG: newcomers Jamal and Brewton. Both are fierce defensively, scorers and playmakers knowing how to pass the ball. This is a wash to an improvement based on team play.

4:. With Davenport, Enoh we won't be as good scoring but may be more athletic and defensively​ better. Advantage last year.

So for me there is cause for hope and I will be fascinated to see the development over the year. At least I will see players that care and work hard.

We will be better at the point, martin is a year older and whoever is the backup should be at least as good as whatever we tried to run last year.

We should be down at the 2. Markel was solid if not spectacular, played hard, the kind of guy you love to have. While Brewton may be solid and Johnson may end up very good, to think they are better than markel is questionable.

The 3 should be a wash. The Jucos look to be swing players, playing both the 3 and 4. I doubt they will rebound as well as KJ, but might score as much, should play better defense.

We will be better at the 4, rivers is a year older, and we have in theory a couple of backups..

We will be MUCH weaker at the 5.

I short, we should be marginally better at 2 positions, a wash at 1, and weaker at 2. hopefully we will have an 8-9 man rotation rather than 7 which could help a lot, but we'll see.

How are we going to be weaker at the five? Chad Rykhoek was the only legit five on the team and he had 4.1 ppg and 1.9 rpg.

Azab could probably do that. And if we pick up Haruna, that's two legit big men even if they are prospects.

(04-17-2017 08:43 AM)SouthernBlue Wrote:  Just my 2 cents. I think we will be better at every position besides the 4. Better team defense and better chemistry could make up for that issue.

Pg will be better. Martin served well there and will have another year of experience.

Center/ post. With Azab, Enoh, and Davenport we will have good size and athleticism. Rivers did not have the size for the position. We will be better here. Plus may add 7 footer in Haruna.

Small forward: Thornton, Nickelbery, and Rivers. We will be improved in defense, passing and playmaking as well as team play.

SG: newcomers Jamal and Brewton. Both are fierce defensively, scorers and playmakers knowing how to pass the ball. This is a wash to an improvement based on team play.

4:. With Davenport, Enoh we won't be as good scoring but may be more athletic and defensively​ better. Advantage last year.

So for me there is cause for hope and I will be fascinated to see the development over the year. At least I will see players that care and work hard.

good stuff

One of the incoming guards needs to be able to spell Martin at PG. We got lucky last season (with our starters playing such extended minutes every game) to not lose more players to fouling out and/or injury.