(05-01-2021 03:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:37 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:33 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:45 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:20 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  He's quick, very talented, excellent distributor & offensive threat ..... but he's about 5'9". I think he's listed at 5'10-11" in some places but standing next to him that's a stretch. Very talented & tenacious but we already have an ample collection of short guards.

Ehh.. top 5 in the country last year in Turnovers and a mediocre to poor shooter from both 3 and the FT line. Pass.

He'll find a good home, he's very talented. I can tell you haven't seen him play.

What we currently have has to be VERY close to those stats if NOT worse.......We had gobs of turnovers and was last in foulshot percentages......I'm not necessarily advocating, I just don't think were in a place to turn our noses up.....

Our problem as the roster stands now is we can't defend a Jarreau-type at the PG. LQ is a high level defender but not quick enough to stay in front of a high level PG. And it's down hill from there. Use one of the short guards and a Jarreau-type will shoot over him or post him up. We need a quick PG with some height, who can defend without giving advantage defensively, who can distribute & be a perimeter threat at the same time - yes a high level PG, if we want more than a 2nd Rd exit.

That's what I'm thinking, otherwise we're just making do with what we have instead of actually having it. And God forbid Lomax get injured again. I think point guard has our biggest need and I hope the staff feels the same way.

(05-01-2021 03:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:37 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:33 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:45 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:20 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  He's quick, very talented, excellent distributor & offensive threat ..... but he's about 5'9". I think he's listed at 5'10-11" in some places but standing next to him that's a stretch. Very talented & tenacious but we already have an ample collection of short guards.

Ehh.. top 5 in the country last year in Turnovers and a mediocre to poor shooter from both 3 and the FT line. Pass.

He'll find a good home, he's very talented. I can tell you haven't seen him play.

What we currently have has to be VERY close to those stats if NOT worse.......We had gobs of turnovers and was last in foulshot percentages......I'm not necessarily advocating, I just don't think were in a place to turn our noses up.....

Our problem as the roster stands now is we can't defend a Jarreau-type at the PG. LQ is a high level defender but not quick enough to stay in front of a high level PG. And it's down hill from there. Use one of the short guards and a Jarreau-type will shoot over him or post him up. We need a quick PG with some height, who can defend without giving advantage defensively, who can distribute & be a perimeter threat at the same time - yes a high level PG, if we want more than a 2nd Rd exit.

I’d also love a big PG, but we did okay with Jarreau this year with our #1 defense. Obviously, we didn’t neutralize him…but “okay” in the sense that we forced him into 10 turnovers. Not sure who/what to credit with that, other than defensive schemes and team effort.

(05-01-2021 07:58 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:37 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:33 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:45 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  Ehh.. top 5 in the country last year in Turnovers and a mediocre to poor shooter from both 3 and the FT line. Pass.

He'll find a good home, he's very talented. I can tell you haven't seen him play.

What we currently have has to be VERY close to those stats if NOT worse.......We had gobs of turnovers and was last in foulshot percentages......I'm not necessarily advocating, I just don't think were in a place to turn our noses up.....

Our problem as the roster stands now is we can't defend a Jarreau-type at the PG. LQ is a high level defender but not quick enough to stay in front of a high level PG. And it's down hill from there. Use one of the short guards and a Jarreau-type will shoot over him or post him up. We need a quick PG with some height, who can defend without giving advantage defensively, who can distribute & be a perimeter threat at the same time - yes a high level PG, if we want more than a 2nd Rd exit.

I’d also love a big PG, but we did okay with Jarreau this year with our #1 defense. Obviously, we didn’t neutralize him…but “okay” in the sense that we forced him into 10 turnovers. Not sure who/what to credit with that, other than defensive schemes and team effort.

Jarreau had 10 TOs? The entire UH team only had 10 TOs. Jarreau had 19-8-3 in the league game, 11-5-3 in the championship & the entire UH team had 14 TOs. And BTW, we lost to UH twice. And we also had guards playing that are no longer on the team.

(05-01-2021 10:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:58 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:37 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:33 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  He'll find a good home, he's very talented. I can tell you haven't seen him play.

What we currently have has to be VERY close to those stats if NOT worse.......We had gobs of turnovers and was last in foulshot percentages......I'm not necessarily advocating, I just don't think were in a place to turn our noses up.....

Our problem as the roster stands now is we can't defend a Jarreau-type at the PG. LQ is a high level defender but not quick enough to stay in front of a high level PG. And it's down hill from there. Use one of the short guards and a Jarreau-type will shoot over him or post him up. We need a quick PG with some height, who can defend without giving advantage defensively, who can distribute & be a perimeter threat at the same time - yes a high level PG, if we want more than a 2nd Rd exit.

I’d also love a big PG, but we did okay with Jarreau this year with our #1 defense. Obviously, we didn’t neutralize him…but “okay” in the sense that we forced him into 10 turnovers. Not sure who/what to credit with that, other than defensive schemes and team effort.

Jarreau had 10 TOs? The entire UH team only had 10 TOs. Jarreau had 19-8-3 in the league game, 11-5-3 in the championship & the entire UH team had 14 TOs. And BTW, we lost to UH twice. And we also had guards playing that are no longer on the team*.

4 on 3/7 & 6 on 3/13, if you believe every box score you read on the internet.

*Yes, I picked up on that. Hence, defensive schemes and team effort. Losing doesn’t diminish our defensive effort.

(05-02-2021 06:15 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 10:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:58 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:37 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  What we currently have has to be VERY close to those stats if NOT worse.......We had gobs of turnovers and was last in foulshot percentages......I'm not necessarily advocating, I just don't think were in a place to turn our noses up.....

Our problem as the roster stands now is we can't defend a Jarreau-type at the PG. LQ is a high level defender but not quick enough to stay in front of a high level PG. And it's down hill from there. Use one of the short guards and a Jarreau-type will shoot over him or post him up. We need a quick PG with some height, who can defend without giving advantage defensively, who can distribute & be a perimeter threat at the same time - yes a high level PG, if we want more than a 2nd Rd exit.

I’d also love a big PG, but we did okay with Jarreau this year with our #1 defense. Obviously, we didn’t neutralize him…but “okay” in the sense that we forced him into 10 turnovers. Not sure who/what to credit with that, other than defensive schemes and team effort.

Jarreau had 10 TOs? The entire UH team only had 10 TOs. Jarreau had 19-8-3 in the league game, 11-5-3 in the championship & the entire UH team had 14 TOs. And BTW, we lost to UH twice. And we also had guards playing that are no longer on the team*.

4 on 3/7 & 6 on 3/13, if you believe every box score you read on the internet.

*Yes, I picked up on that. Hence, defensive schemes and team effort. Losing doesn’t diminish our defensive effort.

I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

(05-02-2021 07:12 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 06:15 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 10:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:58 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Our problem as the roster stands now is we can't defend a Jarreau-type at the PG. LQ is a high level defender but not quick enough to stay in front of a high level PG. And it's down hill from there. Use one of the short guards and a Jarreau-type will shoot over him or post him up. We need a quick PG with some height, who can defend without giving advantage defensively, who can distribute & be a perimeter threat at the same time - yes a high level PG, if we want more than a 2nd Rd exit.

I’d also love a big PG, but we did okay with Jarreau this year with our #1 defense. Obviously, we didn’t neutralize him…but “okay” in the sense that we forced him into 10 turnovers. Not sure who/what to credit with that, other than defensive schemes and team effort.

Jarreau had 10 TOs? The entire UH team only had 10 TOs. Jarreau had 19-8-3 in the league game, 11-5-3 in the championship & the entire UH team had 14 TOs. And BTW, we lost to UH twice. And we also had guards playing that are no longer on the team*.

4 on 3/7 & 6 on 3/13, if you believe every box score you read on the internet.

*Yes, I picked up on that. Hence, defensive schemes and team effort. Losing doesn’t diminish our defensive effort.

I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 07:12 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 06:15 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 10:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:58 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  I’d also love a big PG, but we did okay with Jarreau this year with our #1 defense. Obviously, we didn’t neutralize him…but “okay” in the sense that we forced him into 10 turnovers. Not sure who/what to credit with that, other than defensive schemes and team effort.

Jarreau had 10 TOs? The entire UH team only had 10 TOs. Jarreau had 19-8-3 in the league game, 11-5-3 in the championship & the entire UH team had 14 TOs. And BTW, we lost to UH twice. And we also had guards playing that are no longer on the team*.

4 on 3/7 & 6 on 3/13, if you believe every box score you read on the internet.

*Yes, I picked up on that. Hence, defensive schemes and team effort. Losing doesn’t diminish our defensive effort.

I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 07:12 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 06:15 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 10:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Jarreau had 10 TOs? The entire UH team only had 10 TOs. Jarreau had 19-8-3 in the league game, 11-5-3 in the championship & the entire UH team had 14 TOs. And BTW, we lost to UH twice. And we also had guards playing that are no longer on the team*.

4 on 3/7 & 6 on 3/13, if you believe every box score you read on the internet.

*Yes, I picked up on that. Hence, defensive schemes and team effort. Losing doesn’t diminish our defensive effort.

I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

We missed 10 free throws and lost on a last second buzzer beater in the first game.

Missed 11 free throws and lost by 2 the second game.

We could have won more games making free throws regardless of the oppositions point guard.

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 07:12 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 06:15 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 10:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Jarreau had 10 TOs? The entire UH team only had 10 TOs. Jarreau had 19-8-3 in the league game, 11-5-3 in the championship & the entire UH team had 14 TOs. And BTW, we lost to UH twice. And we also had guards playing that are no longer on the team*.

4 on 3/7 & 6 on 3/13, if you believe every box score you read on the internet.

*Yes, I picked up on that. Hence, defensive schemes and team effort. Losing doesn’t diminish our defensive effort.

I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

(05-02-2021 09:19 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 07:12 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 06:15 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  4 on 3/7 & 6 on 3/13, if you believe every box score you read on the internet.

*Yes, I picked up on that. Hence, defensive schemes and team effort. Losing doesn’t diminish our defensive effort.

I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

We lost, Jarreau was very successful against us. We don't have anyone who can match up effectively with him or other high level guards like him. How could that be anymore clear?

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:19 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 07:12 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

We lost, Jarreau was very successful against us. We don't have anyone who can match up effectively with him or other high level guards like him. How could that be anymore clear?

You’re making me laugh now. I haven’t argued your point one way or another.

.

(05-02-2021 10:43 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:19 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

We lost, Jarreau was very successful against us. We don't have anyone who can match up effectively with him or other high level guards like him. How could that be anymore clear?

You’re making me laugh now. I haven’t argued your point one way or another.

lol He's searching for his mainline.

(05-01-2021 03:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:37 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:33 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:45 PM)tkgrrett Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 02:20 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  He's quick, very talented, excellent distributor & offensive threat ..... but he's about 5'9". I think he's listed at 5'10-11" in some places but standing next to him that's a stretch. Very talented & tenacious but we already have an ample collection of short guards.

Ehh.. top 5 in the country last year in Turnovers and a mediocre to poor shooter from both 3 and the FT line. Pass.

He'll find a good home, he's very talented. I can tell you haven't seen him play.

What we currently have has to be VERY close to those stats if NOT worse.......We had gobs of turnovers and was last in foulshot percentages......I'm not necessarily advocating, I just don't think were in a place to turn our noses up.....

Our problem as the roster stands now is we can't defend a Jarreau-type at the PG. LQ is a high level defender but not quick enough to stay in front of a high level PG. And it's down hill from there. Use one of the short guards and a Jarreau-type will shoot over him or post him up. We need a quick PG with some height, who can defend without giving advantage defensively, who can distribute & be a perimeter threat at the same time - yes a high level PG, if we want more than a 2nd Rd exit.

You described DJ as a liability and clueless many times. Boogie was an average defender, Baugh was an elite defender. Timberlake is possibly as good as Baugh defensively. All of a sudden, one of the best defensive teams in the country can't guard players like Jarreau? On what planet? Jarreau scored 30 points against us, but he also only had 6 assists and turned it over 10 times in the two games.

Penny has shown that he can get the team to play defense as a cohesive unit. I'll bet anything that Minot will be a better defender than Boogie and I know from seeing both, that Timberlake is a really good defender. We now have the length and quickness to defend anyone.

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:19 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 07:12 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

We lost, Jarreau was very successful against us. We don't have anyone who can match up effectively with him or other high level guards like him. How could that be anymore clear?

Jarreau had 6 assists and 10 turnovers against us. Is that considered successful?

We lost to Houston because of their defense on Landers Nolley, not becaise of anything Jarreau did or didn’t do. Nolley only got 12 shots combined in the 2 games.

(05-02-2021 01:42 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:19 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

We lost, Jarreau was very successful against us. We don't have anyone who can match up effectively with him or other high level guards like him. How could that be anymore clear?

Jarreau had 6 assists and 10 turnovers against us. Is that considered successful?

Us: Lots of turnovers, not successful because of it
Jarreau: Lot of turnovers, very successful

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

(05-02-2021 01:42 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:19 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:08 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.

And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

We lost, Jarreau was very successful against us. We don't have anyone who can match up effectively with him or other high level guards like him. How could that be anymore clear?

Jarreau had 6 assists and 10 turnovers against us. Is that considered successful?

....... and scored 30 pts. And we lost by a combined 5 pts in two games. Yes very successful.

(05-02-2021 01:48 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:42 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:19 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

We lost, Jarreau was very successful against us. We don't have anyone who can match up effectively with him or other high level guards like him. How could that be anymore clear?

Jarreau had 6 assists and 10 turnovers against us. Is that considered successful?

Us: Lots of turnovers, not successful because of it
Jarreau: Lot of turnovers, very successful

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

It's like the media with politics.

(05-02-2021 02:26 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 01:42 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:58 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 09:19 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 08:39 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  And now you've reached the level of absurdity. 6'10" PG? And 10 TOs in two games, trusting your stats are correct, while he scored 30 pts in two wins. Like I said we currently don't have a PG that can defend a Jarreau-type PG.

And I said our overall team defense “helps” overcome that. Is that what you’re disagreeing with?

We lost, Jarreau was very successful against us. We don't have anyone who can match up effectively with him or other high level guards like him. How could that be anymore clear?

Jarreau had 6 assists and 10 turnovers against us. Is that considered successful?

....... and scored 30 pts. And we lost by a combined 5 pts in two games. Yes very successful.

... and missed 22 free throws.