(03-07-2012 02:42 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 07:29 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Everybody is so caught up in all the 6" 6" 190 pound guys on this team. That's great and it causes match up problems, but if you really want to build a better than 500 club you need another body down low.

Shooting can be learned by taking 500 shots a day all summer.

I think you're missing the point. Would it be great to have a 7 foot monster like Faried from Morehead State who can just jump out of the building or a guy like Matt Howard from Butler who you can throw the ball down low and get a hoop? Of course. However, this is college basketball and big guys are REALLY hard to find, especially at the mid major level. Northwestern is on the verge of making the tournament with John Shurna playing center right now.

NIU's probably isn't interior play. Do they occasionally come up on a big, talented kid who they'll struggle to guard? Yes, but they aren't alone with that problem. One of this team's strengths is rebounding, and as long as Nader and Bolin are on the team and Montgomery is the coach, it will be.

There's just bigger needs than a big guy, specifically a PG and guys who can make shots. Saying you can learn to shoot is incredibly nieve. If it was that easy everybody would be able to do it.

I agree with you, except on the last point regarding learning to shoot.
I believe whole heartedly that a guy who is a poor shooter can improve with lots of time and effort put into it. A guy who is an average shooter can improve to become a good shooter. A guy who is a good shooter can improve to be a very good shooter. Guys who are bad shooters maybe can't become excellent or very good, but they can improve a lot. I don't think we have ANY "bad" shooters on our team. I think with lots of effort and work any of our guys could become good shooters. YOU CAN LEARN TO SHOOT BETTER, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive and arrogant since coaches who are experts spend a lot of time trying to get guys to improve their shooting (they wouldn't do it if guys couldn't learn to shoot better!).
You say that then "everybody would do it". Not true. Most players don't have the desire or patience to work that long and hard to become a much better shooter. They may "workout" a lot, "play" a lot, even "shoot around" a lot, but they don't work on becoming a better shooter. That's too hard and too boring to do for most players.

(03-07-2012 04:23 PM)High On NIU Hoops Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 02:42 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 07:29 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Everybody is so caught up in all the 6" 6" 190 pound guys on this team. That's great and it causes match up problems, but if you really want to build a better than 500 club you need another body down low.

Shooting can be learned by taking 500 shots a day all summer.

I think you're missing the point. Would it be great to have a 7 foot monster like Faried from Morehead State who can just jump out of the building or a guy like Matt Howard from Butler who you can throw the ball down low and get a hoop? Of course. However, this is college basketball and big guys are REALLY hard to find, especially at the mid major level. Northwestern is on the verge of making the tournament with John Shurna playing center right now.

NIU's probably isn't interior play. Do they occasionally come up on a big, talented kid who they'll struggle to guard? Yes, but they aren't alone with that problem. One of this team's strengths is rebounding, and as long as Nader and Bolin are on the team and Montgomery is the coach, it will be.

There's just bigger needs than a big guy, specifically a PG and guys who can make shots. Saying you can learn to shoot is incredibly nieve. If it was that easy everybody would be able to do it.

I agree with you, except on the last point regarding learning to shoot.
I believe whole heartedly that a guy who is a poor shooter can improve with lots of time and effort put into it. A guy who is an average shooter can improve to become a good shooter. A guy who is a good shooter can improve to be a very good shooter. Guys who are bad shooters maybe can't become excellent or very good, but they can improve a lot. I don't think we have ANY "bad" shooters on our team. I think with lots of effort and work any of our guys could become good shooters. YOU CAN LEARN TO SHOOT BETTER, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive and arrogant since coaches who are experts spend a lot of time trying to get guys to improve their shooting (they wouldn't do it if guys couldn't learn to shoot better!).
You say that then "everybody would do it". Not true. Most players don't have the desire or patience to work that long and hard to become a much better shooter. They may "workout" a lot, "play" a lot, even "shoot around" a lot, but they don't work on becoming a better shooter. That's too hard and too boring to do for most players.

+1

Becoming a good shooter requires hours per day of repetition, repetition, repetition. And, if you're fortunate enough to have a dependable workout partner, that helps A LOT.

(03-07-2012 04:58 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 04:23 PM)High On NIU Hoops Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 02:42 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 07:29 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Everybody is so caught up in all the 6" 6" 190 pound guys on this team. That's great and it causes match up problems, but if you really want to build a better than 500 club you need another body down low.

Shooting can be learned by taking 500 shots a day all summer.

I think you're missing the point. Would it be great to have a 7 foot monster like Faried from Morehead State who can just jump out of the building or a guy like Matt Howard from Butler who you can throw the ball down low and get a hoop? Of course. However, this is college basketball and big guys are REALLY hard to find, especially at the mid major level. Northwestern is on the verge of making the tournament with John Shurna playing center right now.

NIU's probably isn't interior play. Do they occasionally come up on a big, talented kid who they'll struggle to guard? Yes, but they aren't alone with that problem. One of this team's strengths is rebounding, and as long as Nader and Bolin are on the team and Montgomery is the coach, it will be.

There's just bigger needs than a big guy, specifically a PG and guys who can make shots. Saying you can learn to shoot is incredibly nieve. If it was that easy everybody would be able to do it.

I agree with you, except on the last point regarding learning to shoot.
I believe whole heartedly that a guy who is a poor shooter can improve with lots of time and effort put into it. A guy who is an average shooter can improve to become a good shooter. A guy who is a good shooter can improve to be a very good shooter. Guys who are bad shooters maybe can't become excellent or very good, but they can improve a lot. I don't think we have ANY "bad" shooters on our team. I think with lots of effort and work any of our guys could become good shooters. YOU CAN LEARN TO SHOOT BETTER, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive and arrogant since coaches who are experts spend a lot of time trying to get guys to improve their shooting (they wouldn't do it if guys couldn't learn to shoot better!).
You say that then "everybody would do it". Not true. Most players don't have the desire or patience to work that long and hard to become a much better shooter. They may "workout" a lot, "play" a lot, even "shoot around" a lot, but they don't work on becoming a better shooter. That's too hard and too boring to do for most players.

+1

Becoming a good shooter requires hours per day of repetition, repetition, repetition. And, if you're fortunate enough to have a dependable workout partner, that helps A LOT.

That reminds me... If anyone wants to practice their shooting and dribbling with me, I'd be a willing workout partner.

http://dimemag.com/2011/06/efficiency-en...ctiveness/

and
it's all about Myelin. If you play or coach,...
http://thetalentcode.com/2012/02/06/the-...er-genius/

This may be a dumb question but since we're already a little off-topic on practicing shooting - you know how they're all shooting baskets at the same time before a game - sometimes one guy will shoot and it's unclear if the ball would have gone in if another ball shot by someone else flies in at the same time and knocks it out. How does that help? When you're learning fine motor control in shooting, don't you need the feedback of whether your shot went in or not? Just wondering. From playing pool a lot, I don't see how shooting a ball for practice would help if you don't know whether the ball went in.

(03-07-2012 06:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  This may be a dumb question but since we're already a little off-topic on practicing shooting - you know how they're all shooting baskets at the same time before a game - sometimes one guy will shoot and it's unclear if the ball would have gone in if another ball shot by someone else flies in at the same time and knocks it out. How does that help? When you're learning fine motor control in shooting, don't you need the feedback of whether your shot went in or not? Just wondering. From playing pool a lot, I don't see how shooting a ball for practice would help if you don't know whether the ball went in.

It's more of finding the feel of your shot and getting in a rhythm. Most of the time you can tell how your shot is going to end up when you let it go. Plus you shoot a ton in pre game warm ups so having one or two of your shots knocked off course doesn't really effect anything.

(03-07-2012 06:09 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  This may be a dumb question but since we're already a little off-topic on practicing shooting - you know how they're all shooting baskets at the same time before a game - sometimes one guy will shoot and it's unclear if the ball would have gone in if another ball shot by someone else flies in at the same time and knocks it out. How does that help? When you're learning fine motor control in shooting, don't you need the feedback of whether your shot went in or not? Just wondering. From playing pool a lot, I don't see how shooting a ball for practice would help if you don't know whether the ball went in.

Learning to shoot is best done with just you and your partner on the court. Shooting in pregame is mainly just for warming up and getting a feel for the arena, the shooting background, etc.

(03-07-2012 04:23 PM)High On NIU Hoops Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 02:42 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 07:29 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Everybody is so caught up in all the 6" 6" 190 pound guys on this team. That's great and it causes match up problems, but if you really want to build a better than 500 club you need another body down low.

Shooting can be learned by taking 500 shots a day all summer.

I think you're missing the point. Would it be great to have a 7 foot monster like Faried from Morehead State who can just jump out of the building or a guy like Matt Howard from Butler who you can throw the ball down low and get a hoop? Of course. However, this is college basketball and big guys are REALLY hard to find, especially at the mid major level. Northwestern is on the verge of making the tournament with John Shurna playing center right now.

NIU's probably isn't interior play. Do they occasionally come up on a big, talented kid who they'll struggle to guard? Yes, but they aren't alone with that problem. One of this team's strengths is rebounding, and as long as Nader and Bolin are on the team and Montgomery is the coach, it will be.

There's just bigger needs than a big guy, specifically a PG and guys who can make shots. Saying you can learn to shoot is incredibly nieve. If it was that easy everybody would be able to do it.

I agree with you, except on the last point regarding learning to shoot.
I believe whole heartedly that a guy who is a poor shooter can improve with lots of time and effort put into it. A guy who is an average shooter can improve to become a good shooter. A guy who is a good shooter can improve to be a very good shooter. Guys who are bad shooters maybe can't become excellent or very good, but they can improve a lot. I don't think we have ANY "bad" shooters on our team. I think with lots of effort and work any of our guys could become good shooters. YOU CAN LEARN TO SHOOT BETTER, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive and arrogant since coaches who are experts spend a lot of time trying to get guys to improve their shooting (they wouldn't do it if guys couldn't learn to shoot better!).
You say that then "everybody would do it". Not true. Most players don't have the desire or patience to work that long and hard to become a much better shooter. They may "workout" a lot, "play" a lot, even "shoot around" a lot, but they don't work on becoming a better shooter. That's too hard and too boring to do for most players.

I guess that depends how you define "good" and "bad" shooters. Nader shot 34% from the field this year which is putrid, but I wouldn't call him a bad shooter (not yet at least).

Was MJ a great shooter coming out of college or even a marginal 3 pt. shooter? The answer is no. Same case for Derrick Rose. Not a good shooter coming to the Bulls. What do they have in common? A drive to improve by working on their game.

To say that you cannot improve your shooting is incredibly naive.

(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Was MJ a great shooter coming out of college or even a marginal 3 pt. shooter? The answer is no. Same case for Derrick Rose. Not a good shooter coming to the Bulls. What do they have in common? A drive to improve by working on their game.

To say that you cannot improve your shooting is incredibly naive.

+1

Jordan's effective range was maybe 16-18 ft. when he came into the NBA. Pretty much the same for D-Rose. Look at Rose now, vs. 2008 when he came into the league. He was not a 3-point threat then. Now, he has to guarded at the 3-point line. Makes him much more effective and harder to defend.

(03-08-2012 01:10 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Was MJ a great shooter coming out of college or even a marginal 3 pt. shooter? The answer is no. Same case for Derrick Rose. Not a good shooter coming to the Bulls. What do they have in common? A drive to improve by working on their game.

To say that you cannot improve your shooting is incredibly naive.

+1

Jordan's effective range was maybe 16-18 ft. when he came into the NBA. Pretty much the same for D-Rose. Look at Rose now, vs. 2008 when he came into the league. He was not a 3-point threat then. Now, he has to guarded at the 3-point line. Makes him much more effective and harder to defend.

Those are absolutely terrible examples. You just named the best basketball player in history and the MVP of the league. Both Rose and Jordan were incredibly talented as basketball players.

(03-08-2012 01:15 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:10 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Was MJ a great shooter coming out of college or even a marginal 3 pt. shooter? The answer is no. Same case for Derrick Rose. Not a good shooter coming to the Bulls. What do they have in common? A drive to improve by working on their game.

To say that you cannot improve your shooting is incredibly naive.

+1

Jordan's effective range was maybe 16-18 ft. when he came into the NBA. Pretty much the same for D-Rose. Look at Rose now, vs. 2008 when he came into the league. He was not a 3-point threat then. Now, he has to guarded at the 3-point line. Makes him much more effective and harder to defend.

Those are absolutely terrible examples. You just named the best basketball player in history and the MVP of the league. Both Rose and Jordan were incredibly talented as basketball players.

Doesn't matter. Jordan and Rose were NOT good shooters when came into the league. They made themselves good shooters through hard work. It didn't just happen because they're talented.

Kenny Battle is an example of a player that was extremely talented, but never developed his outside shot. Great college player, but because he didn't have a shot, he didn't last long in the NBA.

(03-07-2012 06:15 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 04:23 PM)High On NIU Hoops Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 02:42 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 07:29 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Everybody is so caught up in all the 6" 6" 190 pound guys on this team. That's great and it causes match up problems, but if you really want to build a better than 500 club you need another body down low.

Shooting can be learned by taking 500 shots a day all summer.

I think you're missing the point. Would it be great to have a 7 foot monster like Faried from Morehead State who can just jump out of the building or a guy like Matt Howard from Butler who you can throw the ball down low and get a hoop? Of course. However, this is college basketball and big guys are REALLY hard to find, especially at the mid major level. Northwestern is on the verge of making the tournament with John Shurna playing center right now.

NIU's probably isn't interior play. Do they occasionally come up on a big, talented kid who they'll struggle to guard? Yes, but they aren't alone with that problem. One of this team's strengths is rebounding, and as long as Nader and Bolin are on the team and Montgomery is the coach, it will be.

There's just bigger needs than a big guy, specifically a PG and guys who can make shots. Saying you can learn to shoot is incredibly nieve. If it was that easy everybody would be able to do it.

I agree with you, except on the last point regarding learning to shoot.
I believe whole heartedly that a guy who is a poor shooter can improve with lots of time and effort put into it. A guy who is an average shooter can improve to become a good shooter. A guy who is a good shooter can improve to be a very good shooter. Guys who are bad shooters maybe can't become excellent or very good, but they can improve a lot. I don't think we have ANY "bad" shooters on our team. I think with lots of effort and work any of our guys could become good shooters. YOU CAN LEARN TO SHOOT BETTER, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive and arrogant since coaches who are experts spend a lot of time trying to get guys to improve their shooting (they wouldn't do it if guys couldn't learn to shoot better!).
You say that then "everybody would do it". Not true. Most players don't have the desire or patience to work that long and hard to become a much better shooter. They may "workout" a lot, "play" a lot, even "shoot around" a lot, but they don't work on becoming a better shooter. That's too hard and too boring to do for most players.

I guess that depends how you define "good" and "bad" shooters. Nader shot 34% from the field this year which is putrid, but I wouldn't call him a bad shooter (not yet at least).

Once Nader's shot selection improves, holy cats look out.

(03-08-2012 01:51 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  Once Nader's shot selection improves, holy cats look out.

What was up with all the air-balls last night?

(03-08-2012 01:26 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:15 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:10 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Was MJ a great shooter coming out of college or even a marginal 3 pt. shooter? The answer is no. Same case for Derrick Rose. Not a good shooter coming to the Bulls. What do they have in common? A drive to improve by working on their game.

To say that you cannot improve your shooting is incredibly naive.

+1

Jordan's effective range was maybe 16-18 ft. when he came into the NBA. Pretty much the same for D-Rose. Look at Rose now, vs. 2008 when he came into the league. He was not a 3-point threat then. Now, he has to guarded at the 3-point line. Makes him much more effective and harder to defend.

Those are absolutely terrible examples. You just named the best basketball player in history and the MVP of the league. Both Rose and Jordan were incredibly talented as basketball players.

Doesn't matter. Jordan and Rose were NOT good shooters when came into the league. They made themselves good shooters through hard work. It didn't just happen because they're talented.

Kenny Battle is an example of a player that was extremely talented, but never developed his outside shot. Great college player, but because he didn't have a shot, he didn't last long in the NBA.

Jordan averaged 28 PPG as a rookie in the NBA and shot 51% from the field! How can you say he wasn't a good shooter?

(03-07-2012 06:15 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 04:23 PM)High On NIU Hoops Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 02:42 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-07-2012 07:29 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Everybody is so caught up in all the 6" 6" 190 pound guys on this team. That's great and it causes match up problems, but if you really want to build a better than 500 club you need another body down low.

Shooting can be learned by taking 500 shots a day all summer.

I think you're missing the point. Would it be great to have a 7 foot monster like Faried from Morehead State who can just jump out of the building or a guy like Matt Howard from Butler who you can throw the ball down low and get a hoop? Of course. However, this is college basketball and big guys are REALLY hard to find, especially at the mid major level. Northwestern is on the verge of making the tournament with John Shurna playing center right now.

NIU's probably isn't interior play. Do they occasionally come up on a big, talented kid who they'll struggle to guard? Yes, but they aren't alone with that problem. One of this team's strengths is rebounding, and as long as Nader and Bolin are on the team and Montgomery is the coach, it will be.

There's just bigger needs than a big guy, specifically a PG and guys who can make shots. Saying you can learn to shoot is incredibly nieve. If it was that easy everybody would be able to do it.

I agree with you, except on the last point regarding learning to shoot.
I believe whole heartedly that a guy who is a poor shooter can improve with lots of time and effort put into it. A guy who is an average shooter can improve to become a good shooter. A guy who is a good shooter can improve to be a very good shooter. Guys who are bad shooters maybe can't become excellent or very good, but they can improve a lot. I don't think we have ANY "bad" shooters on our team. I think with lots of effort and work any of our guys could become good shooters. YOU CAN LEARN TO SHOOT BETTER, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive and arrogant since coaches who are experts spend a lot of time trying to get guys to improve their shooting (they wouldn't do it if guys couldn't learn to shoot better!).
You say that then "everybody would do it". Not true. Most players don't have the desire or patience to work that long and hard to become a much better shooter. They may "workout" a lot, "play" a lot, even "shoot around" a lot, but they don't work on becoming a better shooter. That's too hard and too boring to do for most players.

I guess that depends how you define "good" and "bad" shooters. Nader shot 34% from the field this year which is putrid, but I wouldn't call him a bad shooter (not yet at least).

You need to break down Nader shots. Nader takes a lot of bad shots and very few layups. The offense is not getting Nader good shots. Who's fault is that? Nader or the team running an offense? Or MM not getting Nader in the flow Bolin most of the time will only take good shots.
Do you want Nader shooting that much? I am sure MM is asking that.

(03-08-2012 01:55 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:26 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:15 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:10 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Was MJ a great shooter coming out of college or even a marginal 3 pt. shooter? The answer is no. Same case for Derrick Rose. Not a good shooter coming to the Bulls. What do they have in common? A drive to improve by working on their game.

To say that you cannot improve your shooting is incredibly naive.

+1

Jordan's effective range was maybe 16-18 ft. when he came into the NBA. Pretty much the same for D-Rose. Look at Rose now, vs. 2008 when he came into the league. He was not a 3-point threat then. Now, he has to guarded at the 3-point line. Makes him much more effective and harder to defend.

Those are absolutely terrible examples. You just named the best basketball player in history and the MVP of the league. Both Rose and Jordan were incredibly talented as basketball players.

Doesn't matter. Jordan and Rose were NOT good shooters when came into the league. They made themselves good shooters through hard work. It didn't just happen because they're talented.

Kenny Battle is an example of a player that was extremely talented, but never developed his outside shot. Great college player, but because he didn't have a shot, he didn't last long in the NBA.

Jordan averaged 28 PPG as a rookie in the NBA and shot 51% from the field! How can you say he wasn't a good shooter?

That is a little misleading because of how much Jordan attacked the basket especially the first 5 to 7 years of his career. Many of shots came from 0 inches to 2 inches from the basket. He was a decent shooter but by no means spectacular.

(03-08-2012 01:59 PM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:55 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:26 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:15 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:10 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  +1

Jordan's effective range was maybe 16-18 ft. when he came into the NBA. Pretty much the same for D-Rose. Look at Rose now, vs. 2008 when he came into the league. He was not a 3-point threat then. Now, he has to guarded at the 3-point line. Makes him much more effective and harder to defend.

Those are absolutely terrible examples. You just named the best basketball player in history and the MVP of the league. Both Rose and Jordan were incredibly talented as basketball players.

Doesn't matter. Jordan and Rose were NOT good shooters when came into the league. They made themselves good shooters through hard work. It didn't just happen because they're talented.

Kenny Battle is an example of a player that was extremely talented, but never developed his outside shot. Great college player, but because he didn't have a shot, he didn't last long in the NBA.

Jordan averaged 28 PPG as a rookie in the NBA and shot 51% from the field! How can you say he wasn't a good shooter?

That is a little misleading because of how much Jordan attacked the basket especially the first 5 to 7 years of his career. Many of shots came from 0 inches to 2 inches from the basket. He was a decent shooter but by no means spectacular.

We're talking about college kids here. Jordan and Rose improved after going to the NBA and being paid to play basketball and doing nothing but working on their shots everyday.

This is college. Give me an example of somebody coming in as a bad shooter and making himself into a good one. It doesn't happen.

I'd argue that we don't know yet if our young guys are "bad" shooters. I wouldn't say they are bad shooters. They are taking shots against older, stronger, more experienced defenders and teams in an offense that was new to them this year. Percentages alone over the season may not be a good indicator by itself. Let's see how they shoot after a year of strength development, experience and maturity.

(03-08-2012 01:26 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:15 PM)7 Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 01:10 PM)huskiebob Wrote:  

(03-08-2012 11:49 AM)HuskieJ Wrote:  Was MJ a great shooter coming out of college or even a marginal 3 pt. shooter? The answer is no. Same case for Derrick Rose. Not a good shooter coming to the Bulls. What do they have in common? A drive to improve by working on their game.

To say that you cannot improve your shooting is incredibly naive.

+1

Jordan's effective range was maybe 16-18 ft. when he came into the NBA. Pretty much the same for D-Rose. Look at Rose now, vs. 2008 when he came into the league. He was not a 3-point threat then. Now, he has to guarded at the 3-point line. Makes him much more effective and harder to defend.

Those are absolutely terrible examples. You just named the best basketball player in history and the MVP of the league. Both Rose and Jordan were incredibly talented as basketball players.

Doesn't matter. Jordan and Rose were NOT good shooters when came into the league. They made themselves good shooters through hard work. It didn't just happen because they're talented.

Kenny Battle is an example of a player that was extremely talented, but never developed his outside shot. Great college player, but because he didn't have a shot, he didn't last long in the NBA.

How do you know that Kenny Battle did not work on his jump shot more than Jordan or Rose? Because the improved they worked harder? cant correlate that. Yes you can improve your shooting but that does not mean you will be a good shooter. We shot low .300s all season can this group improve to low .400s? dont know yet