(11-22-2017 09:44 PM)UCinNKY Wrote:  Call me a pessimist, but it's just impossible to get a gauge on how good we are, based on the level of competition. Every team we've played other than Buffalo has looked plain awful, no playmakers or any sense of real quality. Always love to see UC win, but so far I just don't know if we're really a dark horse for the final 4.

Can't read much from the first 2 games (in fact the Buffalo game was cause for concern). But beating a top 80 team on a neutral court by 25 UC still kinda finds themselves is a very good sign. We are about to have 4 games that will really show just how good we are though, 3 of which won't be at home.

(11-22-2017 09:53 PM)Overrated Wrote:  

(11-22-2017 09:44 PM)UCinNKY Wrote:  Call me a pessimist, but it's just impossible to get a gauge on how good we are, based on the level of competition. Every team we've played other than Buffalo has looked plain awful, no playmakers or any sense of real quality. Always love to see UC win, but so far I just don't know if we're really a dark horse for the final 4.

Can't read much from the first 2 games (in fact the Buffalo game was cause for concern). But beating a top 80 team on a neutral court by 25 UC still kinda finds themselves is a very good sign. We are about to have 4 games that will really show just how good we are though, 3 of which won't be at home.

Just to emphasize my point, Wyoming beat South Dakota St by 12, who in turn beat Buffalo by 14 tonight.

Our first game of this tournament sucked. The last 2 nights are why everyone is excited about this team. And that's with our offense still trying to find its groove...

The thing to know about Wyoming is that they aren't Western Carolina or Savannah State. They aren't Buffalo either for that matter. The kids got woken up and answered. They still have to take it up a notch, but I feel a lot better about the season after that.

Gary Clark is a genius. Love Mick shilling for All-American.

I thought our defense was relentless last night. Overall the teams we have played so far have not been good so not really sure where we stand exactly right now. But with new starting point guards and trying to give some talented freshman real game time, I'm glad the schedule has worked out like this. We will know real quick-like where we stand as we have some big games in December.
Overall I have no complaints with UC right now.
My impressions are:

Good:
-We can score at every position
-Full court pressure is going to be the norm
-We play a LOT faster than any previous Mick team
-Very deep with lots of rotations and hardly any drop off (only drop off I've noticed so far is when Gary is out and its slight)
-We like to run the break (finally)
-Team appears to be bought in to Mick and staff
-I think we have good leadership among the upperclassmen


Bad:
-Free throws need to be better (oddly, the bigs seems to be pretty good at it and its the guards/small fwds that need to improve so there's hope)
-Turnovers: we have to get better at this. I know we are playing faster and so we are going to have more than normal but we can't do 15-20 turnovers or we are in trouble. If we can average 12-13 turnovers a game max, that is doable because our pressure is going to force more than that)


I wish we had a low post thumper but maybe that wouldn't work in Mick's system. I suppose Kyle and Gary are exactly what he wants and I love them both as they are really skilled offensively. But neither of them are what I would call 'muscle' down low. I remember in the Fortson days when we would play a team like us now, Danny would dominate the lighter, more mobile power forwards/centers and wear them down. We don't have a lot of power down low and I'm afraid if we match up to a team in the ncaa that has that really big strong PF or C, we are going to be in trouble. Seems like the B1G always has teams with that guy, some SEC too.

(11-23-2017 06:30 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I thought our defense was relentless last night. Overall the teams we have played so far have not been good so not really sure where we stand exactly right now. But with new starting point guards and trying to give some talented freshman real game time, I'm glad the schedule has worked out like this. We will know real quick-like where we stand as we have some big games in December.
Overall I have no complaints with UC right now.
My impressions are:

Good:
-We can score at every position
-Full court pressure is going to be the norm
-We play a LOT faster than any previous Mick team
-Very deep with lots of rotations and hardly any drop off (only drop off I've noticed so far is when Gary is out and its slight)
-We like to run the break (finally)
-Team appears to be bought in to Mick and staff
-I think we have good leadership among the upperclassmen


Bad:
-Free throws need to be better (oddly, the bigs seems to be pretty good at it and its the guards/small fwds that need to improve so there's hope)
-Turnovers: we have to get better at this. I know we are playing faster and so we are going to have more than normal but we can't do 15-20 turnovers or we are in trouble. If we can average 12-13 turnovers a game max, that is doable because our pressure is going to force more than that)


I wish we had a low post thumper but maybe that wouldn't work in Mick's system. I suppose Kyle and Gary are exactly what he wants and I love them both as they are really skilled offensively. But neither of them are what I would call 'muscle' down low. I remember in the Fortson days when we would play a team like us now, Danny would dominate the lighter, more mobile power forwards/centers and wear them down. We don't have a lot of power down low and I'm afraid if we match up to a team in the ncaa that has that really big strong PF or C, we are going to be in trouble. Seems like the B1G always has teams with that guy, some SEC too.

I believe the Cats only had 10 TOs last night. That's a step in the right direction, especially with our up tempo offense.

This team can really shoot the 3. Other than Keith Williams, all of our guys are shooting at a high rate and we are averaging over 42% as a team. I'm sure that will drop as the open looks diminish with better competition, but if we can stay near 40% (we were under 35% last year) we are going to be really dangerous.

I think the question really isn't how good we are at this point, but rather we're we are at in Feb. and March. One of the ramifications of playing 10 or 11 guys in many configurations is you're going to have turnovers. To many new moving parts. Cronin admitted in the post game that they've been playing multiple different strategies to see what works and what doesn't. The one thing that seems clear early is the offensive game is going to run thru Clark until it doesn't work. I suspect in the shootout we'll see he and Washington early and often given X's big guys often picking up fouls. Key is to get the perimeter players involved and get them comfortable and rolling. Cumberland didn't have much of a tourney, and i suspect he will be hungry at the shootout. He was pivotal last year, and looks to be much more assertive this year. If the perimeter guys are not comfortable pulling the trigger when Clark is doubled and kicks it back out, we're back where we started. However, i do not see the Cumberland's and Broome's of the world turning those looks down. We'll see, long season.

We have more weapons than we have had in a looooooong time. The key is to get them firing on all cylinders. Not worried about the defense. Slightly concerned about the turnovers. Excited about what this offense can do.

(11-23-2017 07:46 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 06:30 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I thought our defense was relentless last night. Overall the teams we have played so far have not been good so not really sure where we stand exactly right now. But with new starting point guards and trying to give some talented freshman real game time, I'm glad the schedule has worked out like this. We will know real quick-like where we stand as we have some big games in December.
Overall I have no complaints with UC right now.
My impressions are:

Good:
-We can score at every position
-Full court pressure is going to be the norm
-We play a LOT faster than any previous Mick team
-Very deep with lots of rotations and hardly any drop off (only drop off I've noticed so far is when Gary is out and its slight)
-We like to run the break (finally)
-Team appears to be bought in to Mick and staff
-I think we have good leadership among the upperclassmen


Bad:
-Free throws need to be better (oddly, the bigs seems to be pretty good at it and its the guards/small fwds that need to improve so there's hope)
-Turnovers: we have to get better at this. I know we are playing faster and so we are going to have more than normal but we can't do 15-20 turnovers or we are in trouble. If we can average 12-13 turnovers a game max, that is doable because our pressure is going to force more than that)


I wish we had a low post thumper but maybe that wouldn't work in Mick's system. I suppose Kyle and Gary are exactly what he wants and I love them both as they are really skilled offensively. But neither of them are what I would call 'muscle' down low. I remember in the Fortson days when we would play a team like us now, Danny would dominate the lighter, more mobile power forwards/centers and wear them down. We don't have a lot of power down low and I'm afraid if we match up to a team in the ncaa that has that really big strong PF or C, we are going to be in trouble. Seems like the B1G always has teams with that guy, some SEC too.

I believe the Cats only had 10 TOs last night. That's a step in the right direction, especially with our up tempo offense.

That's the thing...our turnover rate (TOs/possession) is very similar to last year. We simply have more possessions due to the pace of play that the people who only take face value stats don't see the correlation.

(11-23-2017 11:26 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 07:46 AM)crex043 Wrote:  

(11-23-2017 06:30 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I thought our defense was relentless last night. Overall the teams we have played so far have not been good so not really sure where we stand exactly right now. But with new starting point guards and trying to give some talented freshman real game time, I'm glad the schedule has worked out like this. We will know real quick-like where we stand as we have some big games in December.
Overall I have no complaints with UC right now.
My impressions are:

Good:
-We can score at every position
-Full court pressure is going to be the norm
-We play a LOT faster than any previous Mick team
-Very deep with lots of rotations and hardly any drop off (only drop off I've noticed so far is when Gary is out and its slight)
-We like to run the break (finally)
-Team appears to be bought in to Mick and staff
-I think we have good leadership among the upperclassmen


Bad:
-Free throws need to be better (oddly, the bigs seems to be pretty good at it and its the guards/small fwds that need to improve so there's hope)
-Turnovers: we have to get better at this. I know we are playing faster and so we are going to have more than normal but we can't do 15-20 turnovers or we are in trouble. If we can average 12-13 turnovers a game max, that is doable because our pressure is going to force more than that)


I wish we had a low post thumper but maybe that wouldn't work in Mick's system. I suppose Kyle and Gary are exactly what he wants and I love them both as they are really skilled offensively. But neither of them are what I would call 'muscle' down low. I remember in the Fortson days when we would play a team like us now, Danny would dominate the lighter, more mobile power forwards/centers and wear them down. We don't have a lot of power down low and I'm afraid if we match up to a team in the ncaa that has that really big strong PF or C, we are going to be in trouble. Seems like the B1G always has teams with that guy, some SEC too.

I believe the Cats only had 10 TOs last night. That's a step in the right direction, especially with our up tempo offense.

That's the thing...our turnover rate (TOs/possession) is very similar to last year. We simply have more possessions due to the pace of play that the people who only take face value stats don't see the correlation.

I keep having to remind myself of the same thing in regards to defense. Seems in previous years these types of teams had trouble scoring 50+ on us, but we are speeding the game up, and both teams are getting more possessions. From my Freshman year at UC, I have basically been trained to think of Cronin teams of all defense and slow offense, and it is finally evolving.