JJ, Crawford, Geron, Adonis and DJ is a tough match up for any team. Harvard only had one player that was 6'7 on the floor. The Tigers went from 2 points down to a double digit win....Get over it....

Southern Miss spaces the floor and start 2 guards that are 6'0 and 2 players 6'5 one player thats 6'7... Look for small ball to take place more often.

So, a guy who by his own admission just listens to a few minutes of the game on the radio gets to get on here and slam the coach like crazy? The world is really nutty.

This is not a poster that we need as a Tiger fan, and message boards have evidently outlived their usefulness.

It is time for us to quit responding to junk like this and to put posters like this on ignore.

(01-21-2013 10:27 AM)lenetzach Wrote:  So to sum it up, you were wrong bc of the situation but still think you were right?

No. Sometimes in the past we have been forced to go small bc of situation. Also, a coach trusts players that show they can reliably make plays. This includes practice. And, in games like STL and Harvard, inside size on offense can be negated by packing the paint on defense. And on defense, being taller and bigger is not always an advantage if an opponent can shoot from farther out and drive.

You have to look at the whole picture in reality, not just on paper.

Oh, you mean like StL and harvard? hmm.

(01-21-2013 12:02 PM)covingtontiger Wrote:  So, a guy who by his own admission just listens to a few minutes of the game on the radio gets to get on here and slam the coach like crazy? The world is really nutty.

This is not a poster that we need as a Tiger fan, and message boards have evidently outlived their usefulness.

It is time for us to quit responding to junk like this and to put posters like this on ignore.

Good advice...

Don't Feed the Trolls

(01-20-2013 10:41 AM)shirley temple Wrote:  Going small against a small team is basically saying , not gonna try and outcoach you. But i do have more talent,which is ok i guess.my smalls are better than yours!

I think I remember a few years back a team by the name of Villanova stayed highly ranked and had high seed and made it decently far in the NCAA tourney with a 4 guard lineup.

You can win playing small.

Also it is hard to play bigs when 1) Shaq had 4 fouls and 2)Tarik was mentally weak.

I don't know about you, but if I had the choice of going with a small lineup or put in Simpson and Hall. I'm going with the small lineup

can we interchange "energy" with "intensity"?
Cuz it would make more sense to me.
Basketball and football are games you play with intensity on every play...or you do not play well.

(01-21-2013 12:49 PM)tigers0830 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:41 AM)shirley temple Wrote:  Going small against a small team is basically saying , not gonna try and outcoach you. But i do have more talent,which is ok i guess.my smalls are better than yours!

I think I remember a few years back a team by the name of Villanova stayed highly ranked and had high seed and made it decently far in the NCAA tourney with a 4 guard lineup.

You can win playing small.

Also it is hard to play bigs when 1) Shaq had 4 fouls and 2)Tarik was mentally weak.

I don't know about you, but if I had the choice of going with a small lineup or put in Simpson and Hall. I'm going with the small lineup

i knew somebody would use that villanova example. They actually started 4 guards and a big, but what you don't remember is that they had an 8 man rotation essentailly with 4 bigs and 4 guards. Those 4 guards started but were running in and out for each other, not other guards on the bench.

If you add up the minutes the nova bigs played, it averaged 64 minutes a game of bigs, which means over half the time they were playing 2 big men.

http://www.villanova.com/sports/m-baskbl...mcume.html

(01-21-2013 11:25 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  I don't get it, and I thought the OP was being sarcastic at first. I guess this was serious though.

You are against the decision to go small, even though you concede that the decision to go small won the game for us?

You also assume that we'll go small against every other team in the C-USA? Why?

Again for the millionth time….I said BEFORE the game we would probably go small because of the makeup of their team.

The reason I think we’ll continue to go small against CUSA is because we’ve done it in the past and I don’t see this changing.

You asked why and this is the very question I’ve been asking for over a year, so you tell me.

(01-21-2013 12:16 PM)TigerTimmy Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:02 PM)covingtontiger Wrote:  So, a guy who by his own admission just listens to a few minutes of the game on the radio gets to get on here and slam the coach like crazy? The world is really nutty.

This is not a poster that we need as a Tiger fan, and message boards have evidently outlived their usefulness.

It is time for us to quit responding to junk like this and to put posters like this on ignore.

Good advice...

Don't Feed the Trolls

From post #36...

” I didn’t listen to the radio in transit because I wanted to see the remainder on DVR when I returned."

Both of you dudes should learn to READ & COMPHEREND before you reply.

(01-21-2013 12:49 PM)tigers0830 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:41 AM)shirley temple Wrote:  Going small against a small team is basically saying , not gonna try and outcoach you. But i do have more talent,which is ok i guess.my smalls are better than yours!

I think I remember a few years back a team by the name of Villanova stayed highly ranked and had high seed and made it decently far in the NCAA tourney with a 4 guard lineup.

You can win playing small.

Also it is hard to play bigs when 1) Shaq had 4 fouls and 2)Tarik was mentally weak.

I don't know about you, but if I had the choice of going with a small lineup or put in Simpson and Hall. I'm going with the small lineup

Yeah, we can win playing small with the schedule we have but…

With the NCAA seed we’ll probably get odds are we would be headed back to Memphis after the first game.

No lessons learned from last year I see. Same strategy = same results. Or was Einstein incorrect? Don’t think so.

(01-21-2013 04:03 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:49 PM)tigers0830 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:41 AM)shirley temple Wrote:  Going small against a small team is basically saying , not gonna try and outcoach you. But i do have more talent,which is ok i guess.my smalls are better than yours!

I think I remember a few years back a team by the name of Villanova stayed highly ranked and had high seed and made it decently far in the NCAA tourney with a 4 guard lineup.

You can win playing small.

Also it is hard to play bigs when 1) Shaq had 4 fouls and 2)Tarik was mentally weak.

I don't know about you, but if I had the choice of going with a small lineup or put in Simpson and Hall. I'm going with the small lineup

Yeah, we can win playing small with the schedule we have but…

With the NCAA seed we’ll probably get odds are we would be headed back to Memphis after the first game.

No lessons learned from last year I see. Same strategy = same results. Or was Einstein incorrect? Don’t think so.

wow...you're special...you can predict the future ?

(01-19-2013 08:43 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-19-2013 08:21 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  He plays small ball with the small ball boys. He won’t play big boy ball against small ball. WTH is up with that?

And I’ am sick of it. Been in his corner but after tonight no more. Needs to roll.

Shaq had 3 turnovers in 1:30 in the 2nd half. He picked up a technical for his 4th foul with about 9 minutes to go. So Pastner had to sit him. Usually you put him in at the 4 minute mark with 4 fouls but at that time Crawford was playing well. Black was 1-5 from the field.

You're right mairving

It was all about defensive matchups toward the end of the game when it was evident Harvard was really trying to hit 3's to get back into the game.

Tarik can't guard effectively that far from the basket.

Memphis held Harvard one of the best teams shooting 3's to 25% on 4-16.

Ended up a very smart strategy.

Harvard set season lows for field goals made, three-pointers, and three-point percentage.

Can the OP rebut those facts? No ............

(01-21-2013 04:07 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:03 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:49 PM)tigers0830 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:41 AM)shirley temple Wrote:  Going small against a small team is basically saying , not gonna try and outcoach you. But i do have more talent,which is ok i guess.my smalls are better than yours!

I think I remember a few years back a team by the name of Villanova stayed highly ranked and had high seed and made it decently far in the NCAA tourney with a 4 guard lineup.

You can win playing small.

Also it is hard to play bigs when 1) Shaq had 4 fouls and 2)Tarik was mentally weak.

I don't know about you, but if I had the choice of going with a small lineup or put in Simpson and Hall. I'm going with the small lineup

Yeah, we can win playing small with the schedule we have but…

With the NCAA seed we’ll probably get odds are we would be headed back to Memphis after the first game.

No lessons learned from last year I see. Same strategy = same results. Or was Einstein incorrect? Don’t think so.

wow...you're special...you can predict the future ?

Not Predict the future missj, PREPARE for the future (the dance).

I grew up with the Finch group and now I’m watching Obama in a parade.

Never thought back then I’d see a black American president before we won the national championship.

I don’t want to win a NCAA game, I want to win ALL of the NCAA games.

(01-21-2013 04:09 PM)Cletus

You're right mairving

It was all about defensive matchups toward the end of the game when it was evident Harvard was really trying to hit 3's to get back into the game.

Tarik can't guard effectively that far from the basket.

Memphis held Harvard one of the best teams shooting 3's to 25% on 4-16.

Ended up a very smart strategy.

Harvard set season lows for field goals made, three-pointers, and three-point percentage.

Can the OP rebut those facts? No ............

[img' Wrote:  http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2011/08/24/..._Petey.gif[/img]

We did hold Harvard to season lows so explain to me how in the heck this game was even close..If I would have known those stats before the game started I would have thought we would have won by 30 at least..I'm not being argumentative but it doesn't make sense..

(01-21-2013 04:23 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:07 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:03 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:49 PM)tigers0830 Wrote:  

(01-20-2013 10:41 AM)shirley temple Wrote:  Going small against a small team is basically saying , not gonna try and outcoach you. But i do have more talent,which is ok i guess.my smalls are better than yours!

I think I remember a few years back a team by the name of Villanova stayed highly ranked and had high seed and made it decently far in the NCAA tourney with a 4 guard lineup.

You can win playing small.

Also it is hard to play bigs when 1) Shaq had 4 fouls and 2)Tarik was mentally weak.

I don't know about you, but if I had the choice of going with a small lineup or put in Simpson and Hall. I'm going with the small lineup

Yeah, we can win playing small with the schedule we have but…

With the NCAA seed we’ll probably get odds are we would be headed back to Memphis after the first game.

No lessons learned from last year I see. Same strategy = same results. Or was Einstein incorrect? Don’t think so.

wow...you're special...you can predict the future ?

Not Predict the future missj, PREPARE for the future (the dance).

I grew up with the Finch group and now I’m watching Obama in a parade.

Never thought back then I’d see a black American president before we won the national championship.

I don’t want to win a NCAA game, I want to win ALL of the NCAA games.

and I want to be young and beautiful and rich.

(01-21-2013 04:09 PM)Cletus Wrote:  

(01-19-2013 08:43 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-19-2013 08:21 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  He plays small ball with the small ball boys. He won’t play big boy ball against small ball. WTH is up with that?

And I’ am sick of it. Been in his corner but after tonight no more. Needs to roll.

Shaq had 3 turnovers in 1:30 in the 2nd half. He picked up a technical for his 4th foul with about 9 minutes to go. So Pastner had to sit him. Usually you put him in at the 4 minute mark with 4 fouls but at that time Crawford was playing well. Black was 1-5 from the field.

You're right mairving

It was all about defensive matchups toward the end of the game when it was evident Harvard was really trying to hit 3's to get back into the game.

Tarik can't guard effectively that far from the basket.

Memphis held Harvard one of the best teams shooting 3's to 25% on 4-16.

Ended up a very smart strategy.

Harvard set season lows for field goals made, three-pointers, and three-point percentage.

Can the OP rebut those facts? No ............

Most of you are missing my point. I knew we would go small at some point but what if it would have been Michigan, or Ohio State, or even Harvard of last year? We would have gotten our a$$ kicked at home.

If Shaq & Black can be eliminated against a small team like Harvard, what’s gonna happen if the same thing happens against a real quality team? If we stay true to form we would go small, agreed? If true we may as well throw in the towel and continue our string of losses to top 25 teams.

I like Josh but there’s one thing he could learn from Cal and other good coaches. Cal was not afraid to play bench players during actual close games to see what they could contribute. He played Rose & Reek in different schemes and once tried Spoon at point guard.

Josh won’t.

(01-21-2013 04:28 PM)tigergg Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:09 PM)Cletus

You're right mairving

It was all about defensive matchups toward the end of the game when it was evident Harvard was really trying to hit 3's to get back into the game.

Tarik can't guard effectively that far from the basket.

Memphis held Harvard one of the best teams shooting 3's to 25% on 4-16.

Ended up a very smart strategy.

Harvard set season lows for field goals made, three-pointers, and three-point percentage.

Can the OP rebut those facts? No ............

[img' Wrote:  http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2011/08/24/..._Petey.gif[/img]

We did hold Harvard to season lows so explain to me how in the heck this game was even close..If I would have known those stats before the game started I would have thought we would have won by 30 at least..I'm not being argumentative but it doesn't make sense..

Turnovers; it's been a problem all year.

1st half only 5 which is good.

2nd half we had 11 which is awful.

Shaq had 5 TO's in 22 minutes. Joe 4 in 39 minutes.

(01-21-2013 04:50 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:23 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:07 PM)missjtiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:03 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 12:49 PM)tigers0830 Wrote:  I think I remember a few years back a team by the name of Villanova stayed highly ranked and had high seed and made it decently far in the NCAA tourney with a 4 guard lineup.

You can win playing small.

Also it is hard to play bigs when 1) Shaq had 4 fouls and 2)Tarik was mentally weak.

I don't know about you, but if I had the choice of going with a small lineup or put in Simpson and Hall. I'm going with the small lineup

Yeah, we can win playing small with the schedule we have but…

With the NCAA seed we’ll probably get odds are we would be headed back to Memphis after the first game.

No lessons learned from last year I see. Same strategy = same results. Or was Einstein incorrect? Don’t think so.

wow...you're special...you can predict the future ?

Not Predict the future missj, PREPARE for the future (the dance).

I grew up with the Finch group and now I’m watching Obama in a parade.

Never thought back then I’d see a black American president before we won the national championship.

I don’t want to win a NCAA game, I want to win ALL of the NCAA games.

and I want to be young and beautiful and rich.

Lol, given a choice I would select the National Championship.

I’m sure DJ would agree.

(01-21-2013 05:01 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  I like Josh but there’s one thing he could learn from Cal and other good coaches. Cal was not afraid to play bench players during actual close games to see what they could contribute. He played Rose & Reek in different schemes and once tried Spoon at point guard.

Josh won’t.

So Pastner is a terrible coach because he experiments with a small lineup and wins a game?
But Cal is a great coach because he experiments with different lineups?

(01-21-2013 05:25 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 05:01 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  I like Josh but there’s one thing he could learn from Cal and other good coaches. Cal was not afraid to play bench players during actual close games to see what they could contribute. He played Rose & Reek in different schemes and once tried Spoon at point guard.

Josh won’t.

So Pastner is a terrible coach because he experiments with a small lineup and wins a game?
But Cal is a great coach because he experiments with different lineups?

I have major problems following his logic...glad to see I'm not the only one here.