Need to look for some brights spots when your team gets blown out.

Don't have to look too far. Ricky Davison scored 15 points on 5-7 shooting in 27 minutes is certainly a bright spot. This time he did it, not only against a quality team with excellent guards, but early in the game when the outcome was still somewhat in doubt. I would think he's earned himself another start.

Derrick Bails scored 12 points on 6-8 shooting in only 17 minutes. I think he's earned himself a start on Saturday. Especially since Wayne can't seem to stay in the game more than a couple of minutes without fouling.

A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential. Of course Davison and Bails have to show production in more than just one game (actually Davison has shot it well two games in a row).

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  Need to look for some brights spots when your team gets blown out.

Don't have to look too far. Ricky Davison scored 15 points on 5-7 shooting in 27 minutes is certainly a bright spot. This time he did it, not only against a quality team with excellent guards, but early in the game when the outcome was still somewhat in doubt. I would think he's earned himself another start.

Derrick Bails scored 12 points on 6-8 shooting in only 17 minutes. I think he's earned himself a start on Saturday. Especially since Wayne can't seem to stay in the game more than a couple of minutes without fouling.

A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential. Of course Davison and Bails have to show production in more than just one game (actually Davison has shot it well two games in a row).

Can your suggested lineup stop anyone?

Ricky looked good in man to man. Bails lost his man, which means you get to talk to joe kliene. I think one talking to by joe would be enough to last me a life time.

(11-26-2009 07:42 PM)insideualr Wrote:  Ricky looked good in man to man. Bails lost his man, which means you get to talk to joe kliene. I think one talking to by joe would be enough to last me a life time.

It would definitely get your attention.

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  Need to look for some brights spots when your team gets blown out.

Don't have to look too far. Ricky Davison scored 15 points on 5-7 shooting in 27 minutes is certainly a bright spot. This time he did it, not only against a quality team with excellent guards, but early in the game when the outcome was still somewhat in doubt. I would think he's earned himself another start.

Derrick Bails scored 12 points on 6-8 shooting in only 17 minutes. I think he's earned himself a start on Saturday. Especially since Wayne can't seem to stay in the game more than a couple of minutes without fouling.

A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential. Of course Davison and Bails have to show production in more than just one game (actually Davison has shot it well two games in a row).

I agree that Ricky should be starting, but I don't like Mike and Bails,or any of the other big guys playing at the same time. Courtney is a little different big guy, so he could fit in with Mike or Derrick, but I don't like seeing Mike in the lineup with either Bails, Thornton or Burton. Too much like Byron and JJ. Too similar. I still like Alex at the four. A four guard lineup like La Tech used. Obviously I want to see III in the lineup, but that's just me.

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential.

I figure that might be it, but it will depend upon how we match up with them.

(11-26-2009 08:01 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  Need to look for some brights spots when your team gets blown out.

Don't have to look too far. Ricky Davison scored 15 points on 5-7 shooting in 27 minutes is certainly a bright spot. This time he did it, not only against a quality team with excellent guards, but early in the game when the outcome was still somewhat in doubt. I would think he's earned himself another start.

Derrick Bails scored 12 points on 6-8 shooting in only 17 minutes. I think he's earned himself a start on Saturday. Especially since Wayne can't seem to stay in the game more than a couple of minutes without fouling.

A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential. Of course Davison and Bails have to show production in more than just one game (actually Davison has shot it well two games in a row).

I agree that Ricky should be starting, but I don't like Mike and Bails,or any of the other big guys playing at the same time. Courtney is a little different big guy, so he could fit in with Mike or Derrick, but I don't like seeing Mike in the lineup with either Bails, Thornton or Burton. Too much like Byron and JJ. Too similar. I still like Alex at the four. A four guard lineup like La Tech used. Obviously I want to see III in the lineup, but that's just me.

Olu is a 6'7" 230lbs guard. He is a freak. We don't anyone like that on staff. He was recruited by Big East schools but had some ties to this part of the world or tech probably would not have gotten him.

(11-27-2009 12:02 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential.

I figure that might be it, but it will depend upon how we match up with them.

I'm not saying that's a bad lineup, but let's analyze it's offensive potential. And I'll use our last game, since Ricky and Derrick both had career highs, which might be misleading, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion. Ricky get's us 15 points. Solo we give 11, which is good for a point guard. And I applaud him for his improvement in playing good team ball. Alex 7. Mike 6. And Derrick 12. That's 51 points from your starting five.


Will the defense of this group be able to contain most other opponent's starting five to under 51 points? I can't see that happening most nights. So now you're left with only one other player who has ever shown the ability to score in big numbers against D1 competition, and we're not using him enough to utilize his scoring abilities.

La Tech had three players who scored more than 20 points each against us. In all of Steve's career, have we ever had even two players scoring 20 points in the same game? And I'm counting games against D1 competition only. The Hardings and St. Gregory's are meaningless in this discussion. There might have been a game or two in six plus years, but I can't remember one.

I know we have to improve on defense, but is it possible we can be a great defensive team? I don't think so. We can be better than we are, but unless we can hold most teams to under 55 points, we're going to struggle. I would love to have five players who could score 15 points a game and play John Fowler type defense, but guys it just isn't going to happen. Steve can be the greatest defensive coach in the world, and this team doesn't have the type of players to play shut down defense on a consistent basis. So what is the coaches answer? Let's play better defense.

Yes, and I'm going to start hitting my golf drives over 300 yards straight down the middle and making every putt. If Tiger Woods can do it, I should be able to, so I'm going to really work hard until I achieve that goal. Now how many think, no matter how hard I work, I'll be able to accomplish that feat? Now. How many of you believe that really working hard on defense is going to make this group of players a great defensive team? Maybe better. But good enough to offset the lack of offense. We're in trouble guys. Oh, we'll probably beat Cal Poly, and maybe even miracles still occur, and with the same strategy that has led us to a 1-4 start, we might beat Oral Roberts and Mo State, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. Somehow, we have to be able to develop more offensive firepower on the offensive end. If we're depending strictly on our defensive ability, we're probably looking at a disastrous year. Unless the SBC is even weaker than we've ever known it to be.

(11-27-2009 09:06 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  Now how many think, no matter how hard I work, I'll be able to accomplish that feat?

(11-27-2009 09:06 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 12:02 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential.

I figure that might be it, but it will depend upon how we match up with them.

I'm not saying that's a bad lineup, but let's analyze it's offensive potential. And I'll use our last game, since Ricky and Derrick both had career highs, which might be misleading, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion. Ricky get's us 15 points. Solo we give 11, which is good for a point guard. And I applaud him for his improvement in playing good team ball. Alex 7. Mike 6. And Derrick 12. That's 51 points from your starting five.


Will the defense of this group be able to contain most other opponent's starting five to under 51 points? I can't see that happening most nights. So now you're left with only one other player who has ever shown the ability to score in big numbers against D1 competition, and we're not using him enough to utilize his scoring abilities.

La Tech had three players who scored more than 20 points each against us. In all of Steve's career, have we ever had even two players scoring 20 points in the same game? And I'm counting games against D1 competition only. The Hardings and St. Gregory's are meaningless in this discussion. There might have been a game or two in six plus years, but I can't remember one.

I know we have to improve on defense, but is it possible we can be a great defensive team? I don't think so. We can be better than we are, but unless we can hold most teams to under 55 points, we're going to struggle. I would love to have five players who could score 15 points a game and play John Fowler type defense, but guys it just isn't going to happen. Steve can be the greatest defensive coach in the world, and this team doesn't have the type of players to play shut down defense on a consistent basis. So what is the coaches answer? Let's play better defense.

Yes, and I'm going to start hitting my golf drives over 300 yards straight down the middle and making every putt. If Tiger Woods can do it, I should be able to, so I'm going to really work hard until I achieve that goal. Now how many think, no matter how hard I work, I'll be able to accomplish that feat? Now. How many of you believe that really working hard on defense is going to make this group of players a great defensive team? Maybe better. But good enough to offset the lack of offense. We're in trouble guys. Oh, we'll probably beat Cal Poly, and maybe even miracles still occur, and with the same strategy that has led us to a 1-4 start, we might beat Oral Roberts and Mo State, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. Somehow, we have to be able to develop more offensive firepower on the offensive end. If we're depending strictly on our defensive ability, we're probably looking at a disastrous year. Unless the SBC is even weaker than we've ever known it to be.

Not trying to pick on you, but a few weeks ago you said this team has more talent than you've ever seen us have. You were talking about 20 wins and getting to the tournament final. Now you're talking about a "disastrous year". I thought we'd do well to go 14-15 (15-14, if we were lucky) in a rebuilding season. Haven't seen anything yet to change my opinion. I may actually be a little more optimistic seeing that Davison may be better than I expected and Bails may be finally seeing the light.

(11-27-2009 09:17 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:06 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 12:02 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential.

I figure that might be it, but it will depend upon how we match up with them.

I'm not saying that's a bad lineup, but let's analyze it's offensive potential. And I'll use our last game, since Ricky and Derrick both had career highs, which might be misleading, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion. Ricky get's us 15 points. Solo we give 11, which is good for a point guard. And I applaud him for his improvement in playing good team ball. Alex 7. Mike 6. And Derrick 12. That's 51 points from your starting five.


Will the defense of this group be able to contain most other opponent's starting five to under 51 points? I can't see that happening most nights. So now you're left with only one other player who has ever shown the ability to score in big numbers against D1 competition, and we're not using him enough to utilize his scoring abilities.

La Tech had three players who scored more than 20 points each against us. In all of Steve's career, have we ever had even two players scoring 20 points in the same game? And I'm counting games against D1 competition only. The Hardings and St. Gregory's are meaningless in this discussion. There might have been a game or two in six plus years, but I can't remember one.

I know we have to improve on defense, but is it possible we can be a great defensive team? I don't think so. We can be better than we are, but unless we can hold most teams to under 55 points, we're going to struggle. I would love to have five players who could score 15 points a game and play John Fowler type defense, but guys it just isn't going to happen. Steve can be the greatest defensive coach in the world, and this team doesn't have the type of players to play shut down defense on a consistent basis. So what is the coaches answer? Let's play better defense.

Yes, and I'm going to start hitting my golf drives over 300 yards straight down the middle and making every putt. If Tiger Woods can do it, I should be able to, so I'm going to really work hard until I achieve that goal. Now how many think, no matter how hard I work, I'll be able to accomplish that feat? Now. How many of you believe that really working hard on defense is going to make this group of players a great defensive team? Maybe better. But good enough to offset the lack of offense. We're in trouble guys. Oh, we'll probably beat Cal Poly, and maybe even miracles still occur, and with the same strategy that has led us to a 1-4 start, we might beat Oral Roberts and Mo State, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. Somehow, we have to be able to develop more offensive firepower on the offensive end. If we're depending strictly on our defensive ability, we're probably looking at a disastrous year. Unless the SBC is even weaker than we've ever known it to be.

Not trying to pick on you, but a few weeks ago you said this team has more talent than you've ever seen us have. You were talking about 20 wins and getting to the tournament final. Now you're talking about a "disastrous year". I thought we'd do well to go 14-15 (15-14, if we were lucky) in a rebuilding season. Haven't seen anything yet to change my opinion. I may actually be a little more optimistic seeing that Davison may be better than I expected and Bails may be finally seeing the light.

I stand by my statement that the talent is better than most years. Kids have been together since early July. Two months of practices and games should have been enough to accomplish more than we have. Obviously, our competition has been really tough. I'll give them that. But I'm putting this on the coaching staff. The talent is there. They're just not using it right, yet. If and when they finally figure it out, we'll win some games. Hopefully that will happen soon. I also said that we would be better in the SBC tournament than we have for several years.
I still believe that. Better times ahead guys. But coaches have to get their act together. I expect some personnel changes against Cal Poly.
Don't know who and how, but things have to be shaken up.

(11-27-2009 09:17 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:06 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 12:02 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential.

I figure that might be it, but it will depend upon how we match up with them.

I'm not saying that's a bad lineup, but let's analyze it's offensive potential. And I'll use our last game, since Ricky and Derrick both had career highs, which might be misleading, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion. Ricky get's us 15 points. Solo we give 11, which is good for a point guard. And I applaud him for his improvement in playing good team ball. Alex 7. Mike 6. And Derrick 12. That's 51 points from your starting five.


Will the defense of this group be able to contain most other opponent's starting five to under 51 points? I can't see that happening most nights. So now you're left with only one other player who has ever shown the ability to score in big numbers against D1 competition, and we're not using him enough to utilize his scoring abilities.

La Tech had three players who scored more than 20 points each against us. In all of Steve's career, have we ever had even two players scoring 20 points in the same game? And I'm counting games against D1 competition only. The Hardings and St. Gregory's are meaningless in this discussion. There might have been a game or two in six plus years, but I can't remember one.

I know we have to improve on defense, but is it possible we can be a great defensive team? I don't think so. We can be better than we are, but unless we can hold most teams to under 55 points, we're going to struggle. I would love to have five players who could score 15 points a game and play John Fowler type defense, but guys it just isn't going to happen. Steve can be the greatest defensive coach in the world, and this team doesn't have the type of players to play shut down defense on a consistent basis. So what is the coaches answer? Let's play better defense.

Yes, and I'm going to start hitting my golf drives over 300 yards straight down the middle and making every putt. If Tiger Woods can do it, I should be able to, so I'm going to really work hard until I achieve that goal. Now how many think, no matter how hard I work, I'll be able to accomplish that feat? Now. How many of you believe that really working hard on defense is going to make this group of players a great defensive team? Maybe better. But good enough to offset the lack of offense. We're in trouble guys. Oh, we'll probably beat Cal Poly, and maybe even miracles still occur, and with the same strategy that has led us to a 1-4 start, we might beat Oral Roberts and Mo State, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. Somehow, we have to be able to develop more offensive firepower on the offensive end. If we're depending strictly on our defensive ability, we're probably looking at a disastrous year. Unless the SBC is even weaker than we've ever known it to be.

Not trying to pick on you, but a few weeks ago you said this team has more talent than you've ever seen us have. You were talking about 20 wins and getting to the tournament final. Now you're talking about a "disastrous year". I thought we'd do well to go 14-15 (15-14, if we were lucky) in a rebuilding season. Haven't seen anything yet to change my opinion. I may actually be a little more optimistic seeing that Davison may be better than I expected and Bails may be finally seeing the light.

fyi

I don't remember Bails scoring off of post ups. He scored mostly on the guards setting the table for him. Which is good and he finished them. He did not have much, if any, luck posting up. Rolle was just to much for our bigs.

(11-27-2009 09:42 AM)insideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:17 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:06 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 12:02 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential.

I figure that might be it, but it will depend upon how we match up with them.

I'm not saying that's a bad lineup, but let's analyze it's offensive potential. And I'll use our last game, since Ricky and Derrick both had career highs, which might be misleading, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion. Ricky get's us 15 points. Solo we give 11, which is good for a point guard. And I applaud him for his improvement in playing good team ball. Alex 7. Mike 6. And Derrick 12. That's 51 points from your starting five.


Will the defense of this group be able to contain most other opponent's starting five to under 51 points? I can't see that happening most nights. So now you're left with only one other player who has ever shown the ability to score in big numbers against D1 competition, and we're not using him enough to utilize his scoring abilities.

La Tech had three players who scored more than 20 points each against us. In all of Steve's career, have we ever had even two players scoring 20 points in the same game? And I'm counting games against D1 competition only. The Hardings and St. Gregory's are meaningless in this discussion. There might have been a game or two in six plus years, but I can't remember one.

I know we have to improve on defense, but is it possible we can be a great defensive team? I don't think so. We can be better than we are, but unless we can hold most teams to under 55 points, we're going to struggle. I would love to have five players who could score 15 points a game and play John Fowler type defense, but guys it just isn't going to happen. Steve can be the greatest defensive coach in the world, and this team doesn't have the type of players to play shut down defense on a consistent basis. So what is the coaches answer? Let's play better defense.

Yes, and I'm going to start hitting my golf drives over 300 yards straight down the middle and making every putt. If Tiger Woods can do it, I should be able to, so I'm going to really work hard until I achieve that goal. Now how many think, no matter how hard I work, I'll be able to accomplish that feat? Now. How many of you believe that really working hard on defense is going to make this group of players a great defensive team? Maybe better. But good enough to offset the lack of offense. We're in trouble guys. Oh, we'll probably beat Cal Poly, and maybe even miracles still occur, and with the same strategy that has led us to a 1-4 start, we might beat Oral Roberts and Mo State, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. Somehow, we have to be able to develop more offensive firepower on the offensive end. If we're depending strictly on our defensive ability, we're probably looking at a disastrous year. Unless the SBC is even weaker than we've ever known it to be.

Not trying to pick on you, but a few weeks ago you said this team has more talent than you've ever seen us have. You were talking about 20 wins and getting to the tournament final. Now you're talking about a "disastrous year". I thought we'd do well to go 14-15 (15-14, if we were lucky) in a rebuilding season. Haven't seen anything yet to change my opinion. I may actually be a little more optimistic seeing that Davison may be better than I expected and Bails may be finally seeing the light.

fyi

I don't remember Bails scoring off of post ups. He scored mostly on the guards setting the table for him. Which is good and he finished them. He did not have much, if any, luck posting up. Rolle was just to much for our bigs.

When are we going to get a transfer like Rolle?

(11-27-2009 09:38 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:17 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:06 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 12:02 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential.

I figure that might be it, but it will depend upon how we match up with them.

I'm not saying that's a bad lineup, but let's analyze it's offensive potential. And I'll use our last game, since Ricky and Derrick both had career highs, which might be misleading, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion. Ricky get's us 15 points. Solo we give 11, which is good for a point guard. And I applaud him for his improvement in playing good team ball. Alex 7. Mike 6. And Derrick 12. That's 51 points from your starting five.


Will the defense of this group be able to contain most other opponent's starting five to under 51 points? I can't see that happening most nights. So now you're left with only one other player who has ever shown the ability to score in big numbers against D1 competition, and we're not using him enough to utilize his scoring abilities.

La Tech had three players who scored more than 20 points each against us. In all of Steve's career, have we ever had even two players scoring 20 points in the same game? And I'm counting games against D1 competition only. The Hardings and St. Gregory's are meaningless in this discussion. There might have been a game or two in six plus years, but I can't remember one.

I know we have to improve on defense, but is it possible we can be a great defensive team? I don't think so. We can be better than we are, but unless we can hold most teams to under 55 points, we're going to struggle. I would love to have five players who could score 15 points a game and play John Fowler type defense, but guys it just isn't going to happen. Steve can be the greatest defensive coach in the world, and this team doesn't have the type of players to play shut down defense on a consistent basis. So what is the coaches answer? Let's play better defense.

Yes, and I'm going to start hitting my golf drives over 300 yards straight down the middle and making every putt. If Tiger Woods can do it, I should be able to, so I'm going to really work hard until I achieve that goal. Now how many think, no matter how hard I work, I'll be able to accomplish that feat? Now. How many of you believe that really working hard on defense is going to make this group of players a great defensive team? Maybe better. But good enough to offset the lack of offense. We're in trouble guys. Oh, we'll probably beat Cal Poly, and maybe even miracles still occur, and with the same strategy that has led us to a 1-4 start, we might beat Oral Roberts and Mo State, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. Somehow, we have to be able to develop more offensive firepower on the offensive end. If we're depending strictly on our defensive ability, we're probably looking at a disastrous year. Unless the SBC is even weaker than we've ever known it to be.

Not trying to pick on you, but a few weeks ago you said this team has more talent than you've ever seen us have. You were talking about 20 wins and getting to the tournament final. Now you're talking about a "disastrous year". I thought we'd do well to go 14-15 (15-14, if we were lucky) in a rebuilding season. Haven't seen anything yet to change my opinion. I may actually be a little more optimistic seeing that Davison may be better than I expected and Bails may be finally seeing the light.

I stand by my statement that the talent is better than most years. Kids have been together since early July. Two months of practices and games should have been enough to accomplish more than we have. Obviously, our competition has been really tough. I'll give them that. But I'm putting this on the coaching staff. The talent is there. They're just not using it right, yet. If and when they finally figure it out, we'll win some games. Hopefully that will happen soon. I also said that we would be better in the SBC tournament than we have for several years.
I still believe that. Better times ahead guys. But coaches have to get their act together. I expect some personnel changes against Cal Poly.
Don't know who and how, but things have to be shaken up.

Dr. J, you know I love you, but...
Do you honestly believe you know more about coaching than:
Joe Kleine- 15 years in the NBA
Steve Shields- 7th year DI head coach, 4 years Juco head coach
Coach Cunningham- 20 years of DI coaching experience
Joe Golding- 4 year letterman in college; 9 years coaching experience

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I just assume they know more than I do. Considering that their combined salaries probably approach a half million dollars, I hope they know more than you do as well.

That is pretty funny and the truth

:mysterymachine::fred::daphne::scooby::shaggy:

(11-27-2009 10:17 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:38 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:17 AM)mjs Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 09:06 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-27-2009 12:02 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(11-25-2009 11:08 PM)mjs Wrote:  A line-up of Davison, Bozeman, Alex, Bails, and Smith would appear to have some potential.

I figure that might be it, but it will depend upon how we match up with them.

I'm not saying that's a bad lineup, but let's analyze it's offensive potential. And I'll use our last game, since Ricky and Derrick both had career highs, which might be misleading, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt for purposes of this discussion. Ricky get's us 15 points. Solo we give 11, which is good for a point guard. And I applaud him for his improvement in playing good team ball. Alex 7. Mike 6. And Derrick 12. That's 51 points from your starting five.


Will the defense of this group be able to contain most other opponent's starting five to under 51 points? I can't see that happening most nights. So now you're left with only one other player who has ever shown the ability to score in big numbers against D1 competition, and we're not using him enough to utilize his scoring abilities.

La Tech had three players who scored more than 20 points each against us. In all of Steve's career, have we ever had even two players scoring 20 points in the same game? And I'm counting games against D1 competition only. The Hardings and St. Gregory's are meaningless in this discussion. There might have been a game or two in six plus years, but I can't remember one.

I know we have to improve on defense, but is it possible we can be a great defensive team? I don't think so. We can be better than we are, but unless we can hold most teams to under 55 points, we're going to struggle. I would love to have five players who could score 15 points a game and play John Fowler type defense, but guys it just isn't going to happen. Steve can be the greatest defensive coach in the world, and this team doesn't have the type of players to play shut down defense on a consistent basis. So what is the coaches answer? Let's play better defense.

Yes, and I'm going to start hitting my golf drives over 300 yards straight down the middle and making every putt. If Tiger Woods can do it, I should be able to, so I'm going to really work hard until I achieve that goal. Now how many think, no matter how hard I work, I'll be able to accomplish that feat? Now. How many of you believe that really working hard on defense is going to make this group of players a great defensive team? Maybe better. But good enough to offset the lack of offense. We're in trouble guys. Oh, we'll probably beat Cal Poly, and maybe even miracles still occur, and with the same strategy that has led us to a 1-4 start, we might beat Oral Roberts and Mo State, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. Somehow, we have to be able to develop more offensive firepower on the offensive end. If we're depending strictly on our defensive ability, we're probably looking at a disastrous year. Unless the SBC is even weaker than we've ever known it to be.

Not trying to pick on you, but a few weeks ago you said this team has more talent than you've ever seen us have. You were talking about 20 wins and getting to the tournament final. Now you're talking about a "disastrous year". I thought we'd do well to go 14-15 (15-14, if we were lucky) in a rebuilding season. Haven't seen anything yet to change my opinion. I may actually be a little more optimistic seeing that Davison may be better than I expected and Bails may be finally seeing the light.

I stand by my statement that the talent is better than most years. Kids have been together since early July. Two months of practices and games should have been enough to accomplish more than we have. Obviously, our competition has been really tough. I'll give them that. But I'm putting this on the coaching staff. The talent is there. They're just not using it right, yet. If and when they finally figure it out, we'll win some games. Hopefully that will happen soon. I also said that we would be better in the SBC tournament than we have for several years.
I still believe that. Better times ahead guys. But coaches have to get their act together. I expect some personnel changes against Cal Poly.
Don't know who and how, but things have to be shaken up.

Dr. J, you know I love you, but...
Do you honestly believe you know more about coaching than:
Joe Kleine- 15 years in the NBA
Steve Shields- 7th year DI head coach, 4 years Juco head coach
Coach Cunningham- 20 years of DI coaching experience
Joe Golding- 4 year letterman in college; 9 years coaching experience

Maybe I'm just dumb, but I just assume they know more than I do. Considering that their combined salaries probably approach a half million dollars, I hope they know more than you do as well.

That must be a rhetorical question. There are many facets to coaching.
X's and O's. Recruiting, etc. No. I nor anyone on the board has that type of expertise. But I can read scoreboards, and stat sheets, and I do have eyes, and I see things that could be done differently, IMO. That's what's fun about being a fan. If you believe coaches are infallible, just go back and watch the LSU-0le Miss football game last week. And remember that most great discoveries don't come from within a particular profession. They come from people who haven't been trained to think one particular way. So no. I don't claim to know more about "coaching" then even the youngest of our coaches. But that doesn't mean I, you, or any of our devout fans might not occasionally have an idea that differs from the coaches. And I find it funny that in listing the coaches, you listed Joe above Steve. Was that a freudian slip? "We come in peace, always":bow: