A lot of Memphis' rebounding issues are due to the desire to block shots every time by the bigs. Obviously, when one is swatting at a ball, that person is in NO position to rebound or to quickly turn and box the shooter, so a big that misses a block attempt essentially takes himself out of the rebounding picture. Plus it leads to dumb fouls. To the most extent it is a high risk low reward move that should be left to "specialists" (DJ, Noel, Davis, Withey...)

If the bigs (particularly Shaq and Tarik) stayed at home more, contested the shot (not jumping and swatting) then turned and boxed, they would likely grab at least two more rebounds a game just by doing that. Not to mention shaving off at least one dumb foul a game, leaving them more floor time.

(04-01-2013 08:07 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  I really hate the "we'll be fine" posts. What does that mean exactly? We'll have a winning record? We'll win our conference? We'll make the Final Four? We'll win enough games to keep pople coming to the games?

I take the "we'll be fine" posts to mean we won't end up being DePaul next year

(04-01-2013 09:11 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 09:02 AM)midtowncowboy Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 08:29 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  Memphis' Offensive rebounding % was 50th in the nation. Better than Michigan's, but worse than Cuse, Louisville and Wichita State.

Memphis' Defensive rebounding % was 134th in the nation. Better than Louisville and Syracuse, worse than Wichita State and Michigan.

Memphis, statistically, as a team (if you average defensive and offensive rebounding ranking), was a better rebounding team than Michigan, Syracuse and Louisville.

So please, tell me how Memphis is a "poor rebounding team". If that's even true, it obviously doesn't matter all that much because 3 of 4 Final Four teams this season are worse.

Memphis is a poor defensive rebounding team. Watch the games against good teams. Throw out the stats because they are padded. See Rice. And to claim 3 of the 4 Final Four teams are worse is comical. How did they do when it was time to play against good teams?

I watched every game. Allowed UL to get 10 Offensive rebounds (we pulled down 13 offensive rebounds). Allowed Minny to grab 11 (we grabbed 17). Held VCU to 10 (we only grabbed 8). Allowed St. Mary's 15 (we grabbed 10). MSU grabbed 14 (we grabbed 11).

All of those games save the MSU game we kept Oreb% in the .300s. It doesn't put us up there in the elite teams, but it is far, far from poor.

For reference, how did Syracuse do against "good teams"? They just let Marquette have 19 offensive rebounds on Saturday.

Some of that is a by-product of fg%. When Marquette goes 12-53 from the field that means there are 41 opportunities for offensive rebounds.

Had Marquette gone 21-43 from the field, they have essentially half the opportunities for offensive rebounds.

The reb% is probably a better indicator, I guess, than the raw number.

(04-01-2013 03:56 AM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:02 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 02:56 AM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 12:27 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  [quote='BealeStreetTiger' pid='9180299' dateline='1364793352']

Everyone has known for 3 years that we need more bigs. Nothing has changed and we still need another. This is not front page news or a new story, everyone has known this all along.

Your perspective is not as unique as you are thinking it is.

I think you are misunderstanding what other poster think about it.

I’m not misunderstanding what was typed in black & white. I also know there are some here who agree with my perspective on the subject.

After we missed on all our real bigs other than Shaq there were posters here and elsewhere saying we’ll be fine. Some were even saying we didn’t need another big and should save a scholarship to avoid issues like with Stokes. There was even a thread posted here a few weeks ago titled Playing Small where some thinks we play much better with mainly guards and Shaq & Black on the bench.
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=624045

There are many more threads on here where some have implied they like the smaller lineup much better and most were during our run in CUSA. The only reason for the change by some now is they just saw what happens when you use a small frontcourt against a good big one.

Start a poll and ask how many people DON'T think we need more bigs or still need another.

It will be about 90-10 in favor of more bigs.

(04-01-2013 11:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 09:11 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  I watched every game. Allowed UL to get 10 Offensive rebounds (we pulled down 13 offensive rebounds). Allowed Minny to grab 11 (we grabbed 17). Held VCU to 10 (we only grabbed 8). Allowed St. Mary's 15 (we grabbed 10). MSU grabbed 14 (we grabbed 11).

All of those games save the MSU game we kept Oreb% in the .300s. It doesn't put us up there in the elite teams, but it is far, far from poor.

For reference, how did Syracuse do against "good teams"? They just let Marquette have 19 offensive rebounds on Saturday.

Some of that is a by-product of fg%. When Marquette goes 12-53 from the field that means there are 41 opportunities for offensive rebounds.

Had Marquette gone 21-43 from the field, they have essentially half the opportunities for offensive rebounds.

The reb% is probably a better indicator, I guess, than the raw number.

Yeah, the reb% is important, and Cuse allowed Marq to rebound at a .422% clip on offense. 19 offensive rebounds as opposed to Cuse snagging on 26 defensive rebounds. That's really bad.

However, Cuse blew Marquette out, so perhaps this stat is way overblown.

(04-01-2013 12:04 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:56 AM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:02 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 02:56 AM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 12:27 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  [quote='BealeStreetTiger' pid='9180299' dateline='1364793352']

Everyone has known for 3 years that we need more bigs. Nothing has changed and we still need another. This is not front page news or a new story, everyone has known this all along.

Your perspective is not as unique as you are thinking it is.

I think you are misunderstanding what other poster think about it.

I’m not misunderstanding what was typed in black & white. I also know there are some here who agree with my perspective on the subject.

After we missed on all our real bigs other than Shaq there were posters here and elsewhere saying we’ll be fine. Some were even saying we didn’t need another big and should save a scholarship to avoid issues like with Stokes. There was even a thread posted here a few weeks ago titled Playing Small where some thinks we play much better with mainly guards and Shaq & Black on the bench.
http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=624045

There are many more threads on here where some have implied they like the smaller lineup much better and most were during our run in CUSA. The only reason for the change by some now is they just saw what happens when you use a small frontcourt against a good big one.

Start a poll and ask how many people DON'T think we need more bigs or still need another.

It will be about 90-10 in favor of more bigs.

After the Michigan State game the poll will probably be 100% in favor. Not one would turn down a good player big or not. Needing and actually playing another big is different.

Maybe the thread should ask do you think the Tigers play better with a smaller lineup. But this is flawed too. It’s all about match ups and if the team can go big it can most certainly go small if necessary. If it can’t or won’t go big then it can’t or won’t.

BTW, the only reason I posted one problem with rebounding is the fact we don’t play a traditional frontcourt is because I didn’t see it posted anywhere in this thread.

(04-01-2013 04:57 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 12:04 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:56 AM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  [quote='Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas' pid='9180425' dateline='1364803354']
[quote='BealeStreetTiger' pid='9180420' dateline='1364802996']

Start a poll and ask how many people DON'T think we need more bigs or still need another.

It will be about 90-10 in favor of more bigs.

After the Michigan State game the poll will probably be 100% in favor. Not one would turn down a good player big or not. Needing and actually playing another big is different.

Maybe the thread should ask do you think the Tigers play better with a smaller lineup. But this is flawed too. It’s all about match ups and if the team can go big it can most certainly go small if necessary. If it can’t or won’t go big then it can’t or won’t.

BTW, the only reason I posted one problem with rebounding is the fact we don’t play a traditional frontcourt is because I didn’t see it posted anywhere in this thread.

It hurt not landing Coleby. He may not turn out to be anything but garbage though, or at least I'm hoping he is a bust at this point. I'd hate to know we really lost a key recuit in the final seconds like that.

(04-01-2013 05:04 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 04:57 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 12:04 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:56 AM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  [quote='Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas' pid='9180425' dateline='1364803354']
[quote='BealeStreetTiger' pid='9180420' dateline='1364802996']

Start a poll and ask how many people DON'T think we need more bigs or still need another.

It will be about 90-10 in favor of more bigs.

After the Michigan State game the poll will probably be 100% in favor. Not one would turn down a good player big or not. Needing and actually playing another big is different.

Maybe the thread should ask do you think the Tigers play better with a smaller lineup. But this is flawed too. It’s all about match ups and if the team can go big it can most certainly go small if necessary. If it can’t or won’t go big then it can’t or won’t.

BTW, the only reason I posted one problem with rebounding is the fact we don’t play a traditional frontcourt is because I didn’t see it posted anywhere in this thread.

It hurt not landing Coleby. He may not turn out to be anything but garbage though, or at least I'm hoping he is a bust at this point. I'd hate to know we really lost a key recuit in the final seconds like that.

Like just about everyone else I Coleby was a lock and it seemed he would have been a good fit. Kinda weird the way his recruitment went down. Parker, Poythress, and the 7 footer from Florida (name??) could have helped our frontcourt.

The other day Josh seemed confident he could get more good players so he will have to wait and see if anyone leaves first then go from there.

(04-01-2013 11:43 AM)Willie Becton Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 08:07 AM)misplaced tiger Wrote:  I really hate the "we'll be fine" posts. What does that mean exactly? We'll have a winning record? We'll win our conference? We'll make the Final Four? We'll win enough games to keep pople coming to the games?

I take the "we'll be fine" posts to mean we won't end up being DePaul next year

Right; we'll be fine.

If we win the NCAA National Championship next year...a real possibility...is that fine?

Is it fine if we win it while being outrebounded in some games?

(gee mimi you must not recognize that rebounding matters...yep)

(04-01-2013 03:02 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Everyone has known for 3 years that we need more bigs. Nothing has changed and we still need another. This is not front page news or a new story, everyone has known this all along.

Your perspective is not as unique as you are thinking it is.

I think you are misunderstanding what other poster think about it.

You act like the only big bodies on the roster are Shaq and Tarik. Besides those 2, we also have:

6-8 235 Hipp

6-10 236 Stan Simpson

6-8 220 Ferro

These 3 were recruited by Pastner. These 3 have not been developed by Pastner. It's pretty simple.

We play the majority of our games every year against garbage CUSA teams and against garbage buy game teams. These 3 bigs (or at least 1 or 2 of them) should have been developed during practice and during these games. But Pastner chooses to play small ball every year and allow our big bodies to rot away on the bench.

I'm not saying any of those 3 are world beaters. What I am saying is that they were badly mishandled and under-coached, so when we need a big to play spot minutes when Black and Shaq get into foul trouble, Pastner has nowhere to turn.

(04-01-2013 09:24 PM)Mothball Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:02 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Everyone has known for 3 years that we need more bigs. Nothing has changed and we still need another. This is not front page news or a new story, everyone has known this all along.

Your perspective is not as unique as you are thinking it is.

I think you are misunderstanding what other poster think about it.

You act like the only big bodies on the roster are Shaq and Tarik. Besides those 2, we also have:

6-8 235 Hipp

6-10 236 Stan Simpson

6-8 220 Ferro

These 3 were recruited by Pastner. These 3 have not been developed by Pastner. It's pretty simple.

We play the majority of our games every year against garbage CUSA teams and against garbage buy game teams. These 3 bigs (or at least 1 or 2 of them) should have been developed during practice and during these games. But Pastner chooses to play small ball every year and allow our big bodies to rot away on the bench.

I'm not saying any of those 3 are world beaters. What I am saying is that they were badly mishandled and under-coached, so when we need a big to play spot minutes when Black and Shaq get into foul trouble, Pastner has nowhere to turn.

Hipp and Stan were recruited by coach Cyp. Those were taken as we were in need of bodies, and Cyp told JP he would stay on them! Well, he left... Its ultimately JPs responsibility... But know those two guys were not "JP guys"... They were Cyps.

LOL, seriously? What a lame way to circle the wagons around the head coach. Josh is paid the big bucks. It's his program. EVERYTHING, especially recruiting is 100% on his shoulders. Not to mention player development. Trying to blame an assistant coach for Pastner bringing in 3 big guys and having them rot away on the bench is laughable.

(04-01-2013 09:24 PM)Mothball Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:02 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Everyone has known for 3 years that we need more bigs. Nothing has changed and we still need another. This is not front page news or a new story, everyone has known this all along.

Your perspective is not as unique as you are thinking it is.

I think you are misunderstanding what other poster think about it.

You act like the only big bodies on the roster are Shaq and Tarik. Besides those 2, we also have:

6-8 235 Hipp

6-10 236 Stan Simpson

6-8 220 Ferro

These 3 were recruited by Pastner. These 3 have not been developed by Pastner. It's pretty simple.

We play the majority of our games every year against garbage CUSA teams and against garbage buy game teams. These 3 bigs (or at least 1 or 2 of them) should have been developed during practice and during these games. But Pastner chooses to play small ball every year and allow our big bodies to rot away on the bench.

I'm not saying any of those 3 are world beaters. What I am saying is that they were badly mishandled and under-coached, so when we need a big to play spot minutes when Black and Shaq get into foul trouble, Pastner has nowhere to turn.

Pastner's had Hall for a year and a half, and he contributed where he could. I'm not sure what you were expecting Hall to develop into after HS, but contributing off the bench for a 31-5 team isn't too shabby.

Tsafack has never been expected to be anything more than a big body on the practice squad. He's a great guy personally, but he was a stop-gap measure.

Simpson is an enigma. I'd be quicker to criticize Pastner if Pastner had developed him his entire college career, but he only got two years with him. On top of that, Simpson didn't look good in game situations, and it was pretty clear that Pastner was unhappy with him for off the court reasons.

So we play Adonis Thomas and All-conference Defensive POY D.J. Stephens rather than give these guys minutes. What's the problem?

(04-01-2013 09:49 PM)herkermer Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 09:24 PM)Mothball Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:02 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Everyone has known for 3 years that we need more bigs. Nothing has changed and we still need another. This is not front page news or a new story, everyone has known this all along.

Your perspective is not as unique as you are thinking it is.

I think you are misunderstanding what other poster think about it.

You act like the only big bodies on the roster are Shaq and Tarik. Besides those 2, we also have:

6-8 235 Hipp

6-10 236 Stan Simpson

6-8 220 Ferro

These 3 were recruited by Pastner. These 3 have not been developed by Pastner. It's pretty simple.

We play the majority of our games every year against garbage CUSA teams and against garbage buy game teams. These 3 bigs (or at least 1 or 2 of them) should have been developed during practice and during these games. But Pastner chooses to play small ball every year and allow our big bodies to rot away on the bench.

I'm not saying any of those 3 are world beaters. What I am saying is that they were badly mishandled and under-coached, so when we need a big to play spot minutes when Black and Shaq get into foul trouble, Pastner has nowhere to turn.

Hipp and Stan were recruited by coach Cyp. Those were taken as we were in need of bodies, and Cyp told JP he would stay on them! Well, he left... Its ultimately JPs responsibility... But know those two guys were not "JP guys"... They were Cyps.

So does that mean that Pastner can't take credit for the Will Barton? We all know Cyp was the player getter for the Bartons.

By that logic, then, Josh still doesn't have a recruit that has made it to the NBA.

(04-01-2013 09:24 PM)Mothball Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:02 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Everyone has known for 3 years that we need more bigs. Nothing has changed and we still need another. This is not front page news or a new story, everyone has known this all along.

Your perspective is not as unique as you are thinking it is.

I think you are misunderstanding what other poster think about it.

You act like the only big bodies on the roster are Shaq and Tarik. Besides those 2, we also have:

6-8 235 Hipp

6-10 236 Stan Simpson

6-8 220 Ferro

These 3 were recruited by Pastner. These 3 have not been developed by Pastner. It's pretty simple.

We play the majority of our games every year against garbage CUSA teams and against garbage buy game teams. These 3 bigs (or at least 1 or 2 of them) should have been developed during practice and during these games. But Pastner chooses to play small ball every year and allow our big bodies to rot away on the bench.

I'm not saying any of those 3 are world beaters. What I am saying is that they were badly mishandled and under-coached, so when we need a big to play spot minutes when Black and Shaq get into foul trouble, Pastner has nowhere to turn.

Modibo Diarra
Almamy Thiero
Simplice Njoya
Hashim Bailey
Waki Williams
Pierre Niles
Matt Simpkins

Agree with you. It's the coach's fault when a player doesn't become a significant contributor.

I was at our game at U of IL in 03 with some IL fans who got me good tickets.

They looked at our roster in the program and said your team is so big

I laughed and said you tell me when you see them on the floor

(04-02-2013 10:42 AM)lenetzach Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 09:24 PM)Mothball Wrote:  

(04-01-2013 03:02 AM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  Everyone has known for 3 years that we need more bigs. Nothing has changed and we still need another. This is not front page news or a new story, everyone has known this all along.

Your perspective is not as unique as you are thinking it is.

I think you are misunderstanding what other poster think about it.

You act like the only big bodies on the roster are Shaq and Tarik. Besides those 2, we also have:

6-8 235 Hipp

6-10 236 Stan Simpson

6-8 220 Ferro

These 3 were recruited by Pastner. These 3 have not been developed by Pastner. It's pretty simple.

We play the majority of our games every year against garbage CUSA teams and against garbage buy game teams. These 3 bigs (or at least 1 or 2 of them) should have been developed during practice and during these games. But Pastner chooses to play small ball every year and allow our big bodies to rot away on the bench.

I'm not saying any of those 3 are world beaters. What I am saying is that they were badly mishandled and under-coached, so when we need a big to play spot minutes when Black and Shaq get into foul trouble, Pastner has nowhere to turn.

Modibo Diarra
Almamy Thiero
Simplice Njoya
Hashim Bailey
Waki Williams
Pierre Niles
Matt Simpkins

Agree with you. It's the coach's fault when a player doesn't become a significant contributor.

I was at our game at U of IL in 03 with some IL fans who got me good tickets.

They looked at our roster in the program and said your team is so big

I laughed and said you tell me when you see them on the floor

Yes, that list does show that bigs are often a low reward investment.

However, JP felt it appropriate to START Ferro and Stan a different parts of their respective careers, so those guys either 1) were serviceable to an extent or b) JP completely failed to assess their skills. Most of the guys listed above got limited minutes from the get go.

I always thought Stan could have served a purpose on this team. He had a nice touch, but was just slow afoot. Seemed slow to grasp concepts.

With that beng said, how could he be utiltized? Dunno, maybe use him in a zone package where his job was to literally stand within three feet of the basket and prevent drives to the basket and to get rebounds.

Offensively, he was pretty decent in the post and could hit the 10 foot shot. A lot of that is getting players to buy into a limited role and do their best.

Just thoughts as a message board poster, please spare the "coach knows best" or "send your resume".

I thought Ferro came in last year and gave us some very good minutes - battled hard on the inside. We were so short on the front line, he had to insert Stan and/or Ferro up front - gave them both a chance to play and produce. Ferro looked like the better option of the two, I thought it was pretty clear.

Last year he couldn't give DJ major minutes because of his health plus AThomas was out of the line-up the last part of the season. That leaves Black, Barton, Ferro, Simpson & Hipp.

This year the rotation was a bit longer - Black, Shaq, DJ, AThomas, Ferro, Simpson, Hipp.

It's not about failing to assess their skills or coaching the bigs appropriately. Coach has gotta play the best players. Last years options were different than this years options.

(04-02-2013 12:26 PM)Tiger USA Wrote:  Last year he couldn't give DJ major minutes

Why couldn't he give DJ major minutes his Jr. year?

He played 233 minutes his Jr. year, 358 his soph year and 261 his frosh year.

Before AT went down, DJ only played in nine of the first 16 games--for a total of 64 minutes, or 4 mpg.

After AT went down, DJ played every game and averaged double digit minutes for the last 12 games of the season...curiously, his last three games saw minute totals of 1, 21 and 2 (vs. Stl).

Ferro made a HUGE impact last year. Look no further than the UT game in Maui without him and the UT game later that year in the FEF with him.