(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  1. Is there anywhere where Partner said that he's going to implement a 4 guard lineup for big chunks of the games?

2. Is there anywhere where Pastner said that he's going to abandon the inside-out game that he implement himself?


The answer is no

1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

(01-22-2014 12:23 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:12 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:01 PM)QDoodle Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:20 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:15 AM)jgardne Wrote:  If Pastner were a civil war general, would he just send charge after charge into the middle of the Union lines because he expected it to work?

Great analogy. Dead on.

Exactly, because everyone knows any general worth his salt would just do whatever the message board experts thought was best since they are most qualified to know.

Why not just bench the 4 senior guards and go with 3 SF's instead? That seems reasonable. Never mind that we are having our best season yet under Pastner, we need course correction, put in all the freshman. We know that is the answer because we spend so much more time with the players than Pastner does and just know more about their games, and the game of basketball itself, than he does in general. You'd have to be blind or a homer to not see that all we have to do is put in a freshman at the SF spot. Because he is taller, all of our problems would be solved.

This is the response I would expect from a 16 year old girl defending Pastner because she is infatuated with the fact that he is pretty...

Pretty typical over the top, unnecessary response from a daily basher of everything Pastner.

All you have to do is disagree and talk about 4 guards or something for the gazillionth time.

Instead you call the poster a teenage girl.

Incredibly lame stuff.

Pretty typical hysterical and dramatic response because a poster does not think JP is the greatest coach on the planet... I am critical of JP when I think he makes mistakes but I also compliment him when I think he does things right, for some reason people like you take anything other than sunny fields and bunny rabbits as "bashing and hating". I have stated consistently that I hope JP wins big here and is here for the rest of his career. I have absolutely no reason to have some personal vendetta against him, I simply care about the program being elite and winning. If that is with Josh, fantastic, if it is with some other coach, fantastic. If that makes me a "daily Josh basher" then I am okay with that. Let us be real though, that really is just the term you use for anybody who does not agree with you...

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  1. Is there anywhere where Partner said that he's going to implement a 4 guard lineup for big chunks of the games?

2. Is there anywhere where Pastner said that he's going to abandon the inside-out game that he implement himself?


The answer is no

1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

(01-22-2014 01:42 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:23 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:12 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:01 PM)QDoodle Wrote:  Exactly, because everyone knows any general worth his salt would just do whatever the message board experts thought was best since they are most qualified to know.

Why not just bench the 4 senior guards and go with 3 SF's instead? That seems reasonable. Never mind that we are having our best season yet under Pastner, we need course correction, put in all the freshman. We know that is the answer because we spend so much more time with the players than Pastner does and just know more about their games, and the game of basketball itself, than he does in general. You'd have to be blind or a homer to not see that all we have to do is put in a freshman at the SF spot. Because he is taller, all of our problems would be solved.

This is the response I would expect from a 16 year old girl defending Pastner because she is infatuated with the fact that he is pretty...

Pretty typical over the top, unnecessary response from a daily basher of everything Pastner.

All you have to do is disagree and talk about 4 guards or something for the gazillionth time.

Instead you call the poster a teenage girl.

Incredibly lame stuff.

Pretty typical hysterical and dramatic response because a poster does not think JP is the greatest coach on the planet... I am critical of JP when I think he makes mistakes but I also compliment him when I think he does things right, for some reason people like you take anything other than sunny fields and bunny rabbits as "bashing and hating". I have stated consistently that I hope JP wins big here and is here for the rest of his career. I have absolutely no reason to have some personal vendetta against him, I simply care about the program being elite and winning. If that is with Josh, fantastic, if it is with some other coach, fantastic. If that makes me a "daily Josh basher" then I am okay with that. Let us be real though, that really is just the term you use for anybody who does not agree with you...

Doubling down here was poor form on your part.

You overacted and insulted the other poster (calling them a 16 year old little girl) for simply not agreeing with your position, then turned around and got offended at me for calling you out on it.

(01-22-2014 01:16 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:15 AM)jgardne Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 09:02 AM)tigerderek Wrote:  That's the problem,the four guards haven't shot the ball as well as everyone has hoped and pastner was banking on that...it is what it is.

If Pastner were a civil war general, would he just send charge after charge into the middle of the Union lines because he expected it to work?

If you were a general, you would be the general that can't read; the general that every soldier would hate because you don't appreciate anything. You would probably get everyone killed since you don't have enough common sense to use your best soldiers.

The best soldiers is the true argument.

(01-22-2014 01:44 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  1. Is there anywhere where Partner said that he's going to implement a 4 guard lineup for big chunks of the games?

2. Is there anywhere where Pastner said that he's going to abandon the inside-out game that he implement himself?


The answer is no

1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

Did you watch the UConn game? How many touches did the bigs get when the ball was swung around? A lot

(01-22-2014 01:44 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  1. Is there anywhere where Partner said that he's going to implement a 4 guard lineup for big chunks of the games?

2. Is there anywhere where Pastner said that he's going to abandon the inside-out game that he implement himself?


The answer is no

1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

Yet you can't argue with the results. Strictly speaking based on who we've played and who we've beaten, this is one of the two seasons in the past 14 years in which we've beaten two top 15 teams and the season is only half finished.

(01-22-2014 01:49 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:44 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  1. Is there anywhere where Partner said that he's going to implement a 4 guard lineup for big chunks of the games?

2. Is there anywhere where Pastner said that he's going to abandon the inside-out game that he implement himself?


The answer is no

1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

Did you watch the UConn game? How many touches did the bigs get when the ball was swung around? A lot

No they didn't.

(01-22-2014 01:51 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:49 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:44 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

Did you watch the UConn game? How many touches did the bigs get when the ball was swung around? A lot

No they didn't.

Yeah, Austin especially got an awful lot of feeds that game. Shaq, Pellom and Austin combined for 19 attempts, almost half of our 2 pt attempts.

(01-22-2014 01:49 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:44 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  1. Is there anywhere where Partner said that he's going to implement a 4 guard lineup for big chunks of the games?

2. Is there anywhere where Pastner said that he's going to abandon the inside-out game that he implement himself?


The answer is no

1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

Did you watch the UConn game? How many touches did the bigs get when the ball was swung around? A lot

I did watch. And I saw wildly inconsistent guard play, amazing in the first half and really bad in the second half...

(01-22-2014 01:49 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:44 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  1. Is there anywhere where Partner said that he's going to implement a 4 guard lineup for big chunks of the games?

2. Is there anywhere where Pastner said that he's going to abandon the inside-out game that he implement himself?


The answer is no

1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

Yet you can't argue with the results. Strictly speaking based on who we've played and who we've beaten, this is one of the two seasons in the past 14 years in which we've beaten two top 15 teams and the season is only half finished.

I simply think we could have a better record and will have a better future record if the offense was post oriented.

I am not saying the season is a failure or that JP should be fired...

(01-22-2014 01:47 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:42 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:23 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:12 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:01 PM)QDoodle Wrote:  Exactly, because everyone knows any general worth his salt would just do whatever the message board experts thought was best since they are most qualified to know.

Why not just bench the 4 senior guards and go with 3 SF's instead? That seems reasonable. Never mind that we are having our best season yet under Pastner, we need course correction, put in all the freshman. We know that is the answer because we spend so much more time with the players than Pastner does and just know more about their games, and the game of basketball itself, than he does in general. You'd have to be blind or a homer to not see that all we have to do is put in a freshman at the SF spot. Because he is taller, all of our problems would be solved.

This is the response I would expect from a 16 year old girl defending Pastner because she is infatuated with the fact that he is pretty...

Pretty typical over the top, unnecessary response from a daily basher of everything Pastner.

All you have to do is disagree and talk about 4 guards or something for the gazillionth time.

Instead you call the poster a teenage girl.

Incredibly lame stuff.

Pretty typical hysterical and dramatic response because a poster does not think JP is the greatest coach on the planet... I am critical of JP when I think he makes mistakes but I also compliment him when I think he does things right, for some reason people like you take anything other than sunny fields and bunny rabbits as "bashing and hating". I have stated consistently that I hope JP wins big here and is here for the rest of his career. I have absolutely no reason to have some personal vendetta against him, I simply care about the program being elite and winning. If that is with Josh, fantastic, if it is with some other coach, fantastic. If that makes me a "daily Josh basher" then I am okay with that. Let us be real though, that really is just the term you use for anybody who does not agree with you...

Doubling down here was poor form on your part.

You overacted and insulted the other poster (calling them a 16 year old little girl) for simply not agreeing with your position, then turned around and got offended at me for calling you out on it.

Ya, you are giving yourself way too much credit... I am not sure why you think you offended me. Was that your intent? It is a message board, maybe you are taking all of this a little too serious... The person I responded to was not even responding to me. He gave an extremely hyperbolic response so I added a little sarcasm, I assumed everyone would realize it was tongue in cheek.

But thanks for policing the situation, where should I send your plastic badge to? Again, this is tongue in cheek sarcasm, not meant to be offensive but maybe lighten things up a little around here.

(01-22-2014 01:55 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  I simply think we could have a better record and will have a better future record if the offense was post oriented.

I am not saying the season is a failure or that JP should be fired...

Well, the posters, coaches, players, everyone seem to agree that the offense should be inside-out.

I think buttholes get tight are certain points and some of our guards try to freelance more than they should. It's on Pastner to find the happy balance of letting the guards play their game and keeping them corralled in the overall "inside-out" philosophy of our half court offense.

(01-22-2014 02:02 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:55 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  I simply think we could have a better record and will have a better future record if the offense was post oriented.

I am not saying the season is a failure or that JP should be fired...

Well, the posters, coaches, players, everyone seem to agree that the offense should be inside-out.

I think buttholes get tight are certain points and some of our guards try to freelance more than they should. It's on Pastner to find the happy balance of letting the guards play their game and keeping them corralled in the overall "inside-out" philosophy of our half court offense.

I pretty much agree with all of that.

(01-22-2014 02:00 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:47 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:42 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:23 PM)Jedi Master Sipho-Dyas Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:12 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  This is the response I would expect from a 16 year old girl defending Pastner because she is infatuated with the fact that he is pretty...

Pretty typical over the top, unnecessary response from a daily basher of everything Pastner.

All you have to do is disagree and talk about 4 guards or something for the gazillionth time.

Instead you call the poster a teenage girl.

Incredibly lame stuff.

Pretty typical hysterical and dramatic response because a poster does not think JP is the greatest coach on the planet... I am critical of JP when I think he makes mistakes but I also compliment him when I think he does things right, for some reason people like you take anything other than sunny fields and bunny rabbits as "bashing and hating". I have stated consistently that I hope JP wins big here and is here for the rest of his career. I have absolutely no reason to have some personal vendetta against him, I simply care about the program being elite and winning. If that is with Josh, fantastic, if it is with some other coach, fantastic. If that makes me a "daily Josh basher" then I am okay with that. Let us be real though, that really is just the term you use for anybody who does not agree with you...

Doubling down here was poor form on your part.

You overacted and insulted the other poster (calling them a 16 year old little girl) for simply not agreeing with your position, then turned around and got offended at me for calling you out on it.

Ya, you are giving yourself way too much credit... I am not sure why you think you offended me. Was that your intent? It is a message board, maybe you are taking all of this a little too serious... The person I responded to was not even responding to me. He gave an extremely hyperbolic response so I added a little sarcasm, I assumed everyone would realize it was tongue in cheek.

But thanks for policing the situation, where should I send your plastic badge to? Again, this is tongue in cheek sarcasm, not meant to be offensive but maybe lighten things up a little around here.

May have been mentioned but UL just won a Nat'l Championship with basically a 3 guard lineup. Can be done.

(01-22-2014 12:05 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:01 PM)QDoodle Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:20 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 10:15 AM)jgardne Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 09:02 AM)tigerderek Wrote:  That's the problem,the four guards haven't shot the ball as well as everyone has hoped and pastner was banking on that...it is what it is.

If Pastner were a civil war general, would he just send charge after charge into the middle of the Union lines because he expected it to work?

Great analogy. Dead on.

Exactly, because everyone knows any general worth his salt would just do whatever the message board experts thought was best since they are most qualified to know.

Why not just bench the 4 senior guards and go with 3 SF's instead? That seems reasonable. Never mind that we are having our best season yet under Pastner, we need course correction, put in all the freshman. We know that is the answer because we spend so much more time with the players than Pastner does and just know more about their games, and the game of basketball itself, than he does in general. You'd have to be blind or a homer to not see that all we have to do is put in a freshman at the SF spot. Because he is taller all, of our problems would be solved.

You must see everything in black and white with zero gray area.

You're correct, it definitely is not black and white. Personally, I feel we're having the best season under Paster yet. I'm trying to enjoy it. I don't mind taking some losses, I expected to being in a better conference. I also expected it to be a process when we hired a coach that had never coached before. Apparantly losing is hard...for some more than others, but when I look at what Josh has done I am very impressed. He has improved every year, who knows what his ceiling is? I'm interested to find out.

Even though I feel we are having a pretty decent year, I'm not unaware that there are things we don't do well or could improve upon just like every team in any sport at any level. I understand that there is some gray area where one might wonder if we could be doing much better than we are. That's not unreasonable, it's natural. However, that's not the way most of the critiques come across or are intended. It's just an excuse to insult Coach and promotes apathy....and is just incessant and over-the-top. What purpose does it serve? If we were losing to teams we shouldn't lose to over and over I would expect to see some of the stuff that is posted about our coach and players. But it is shocking to me to see some of the stuff said on here about Pastner considering the circumstances. To me it is disrespectful and counterproductive and insidious. As far as I can tell most of the Pastner detractors are dealing in absolutism, not any gray areas. It seems clear there is a lack of perspective with many Tiger fans and that is disappointing to me and ultimately is not good for our program.

(01-22-2014 01:44 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 12:48 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  1. Is there anywhere where Partner said that he's going to implement a 4 guard lineup for big chunks of the games?

2. Is there anywhere where Pastner said that he's going to abandon the inside-out game that he implement himself?


The answer is no

1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

Geron is more of a true wing 3 than a shooting guard. The question is whether we have a BETTER, true wing 3 sitting on our bench. I think Geron gets the nod based on his defensive strengths over Iverson and Wilson.

(01-22-2014 01:51 PM)450bench Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:49 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:44 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:37 PM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(01-22-2014 01:35 PM)Tygrys Wrote:  1. Personally I am not referencing a 4 guard lineup when I refer to the 4 guards. We do almost always run a 3 guard offense which I am not a fan of since we have two potentially great (albeit still raw) players who are true 3 wing players.

2. Josh has made it abundantly clear, time and time again, that everything begins and ends with the guards. While he does not abandon the inside-out game, we consistently ignore it in the games we struggle. JP has put all of his eggs in the 4 guards (not 4 guard lineup) and that is evidenced by our lineups and by his comments.

I guess this begs the question, what is wrong with this approach?

The guards are wildly inconsistent and IMO shifting the lineup to a more traditional lineup (true wing 3 and not 3 guards) and running the offense with the posts as the first option would give us a better chance at consistent success and making a deeper run come March.

Did you watch the UConn game? How many touches did the bigs get when the ball was swung around? A lot

No they didn't.

Here is what happened in the last 5:21 of the game, starting with Shaq's layup that tied it at 62.

5:21 Shaq layup - 2 points
4:46 Shaq 1/2 free throws - 1 point
4:15 Crawford misses wide open 3
4:09 Dixon misses wide open 3
3:12 Shaq misses point blank layup
2:43 Nichols makes short jumper - 2 points
1:59 Shaq makes layup - 2 points
1:00 JJ 2/2 free throws - 2 points
0:54 JJ misses short jumper
0:42 JJ turnover (pass to Shaq inside picked off)
0:35 JJ misses 3 pointer
0:16 Geron jumper - 2 points

The bigs took 5 shots; the guards took 6 shots, and the turnover was on a possession where the aim was to get the ball inside to Shaq. The offense was exactly balanced when the outcome was still in doubt.

Money in the bank that your version is the complete opposite of the facts.

(01-22-2014 08:19 AM)cmt Wrote:  The match-ups are not there, ever. That's why we lost the UCONN game. They were in foul trouble, they went small and they slowed the game all the way down to a mind-numbing crawl. And, you can't say a little extra height and energy from our forwards wouldn't have given us the lift we needed for the Cincinnati or Florida games.

Instead of putting in Wilson/King/Iverson/Woodson, he matched their smallness. We went from barely winning the rebounding war to getting absolutely dominated on the boards. You can never expect a combination of Dixon, Crawford and Jackson to ever win a rebounding war against good forwards, especially when Shaq and Nichols aren't very good rebounders anyway.



King and Iverson have proven they have work to do, but they can rebound and score. The guards are too small to do that.

dude...