The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-22-2018 07:15 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  How? By watching games and remembering what these guys look like their first year and what they are their senior year.

SK could barely dribble the ball without turning it over as a freshman, 1st team AA as a senior. JJ couldn't score in an empty gym as a freshman, damn solid player as a senior. Gary Clark developed a 40% 3 point shot by his senior year and dominated all advanced metrics. Cumberland is developing towards being an all american. There are more examples but this is what comes to mind in the 37 seconds I'll donate to this ridiculous conversation.

But yeah, no development in the UC program...

(03-22-2018 07:31 AM)apoe Wrote:  JJ couldn't score in an empty gym as a freshman, damn solid player as a senior.

I thought you were talking about Jenifer for a minute until I saw the second part about his senior year. Jenifer still can't score in an empty gym but maybe he'll come out of nowhere as a senior.

But I agree with you talent development is not an issue in the program. Not having enough high end talent is.

I've never understood the "can't develop talent" statement. In order for UC to be good, they HAVE to develop talent. No 5 stars come here. There's no way we win the AAC this year over Wichita St. and Houston if Cronin and staff can't develop talent.

It's also the reason I think some 5 stars should give Mick a chance. If he can develop SK and Gary Clark, he should be able to make a 5 star talent even better after a year.

(03-22-2018 09:26 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  I've never understood the "can't develop talent" statement. In order for UC to be good, they HAVE to develop talent. No 5 stars come here. There's no way we win the AAC this year over Wichita St. and Houston if Cronin and staff can't develop talent.

It's also the reason I think some 5 stars should give Mick a chance. If he can develop SK and Gary Clark, he should be able to make a 5 star talent even better after a year.

To the contrary, I believe that a lot of 5 star recruits would be neutered by Mick's poor halfcourt offense.

I think our consistency at being one of the top teams in the conference is more due to our style of play, rather than us having players that are individually "better" than the other teams'.

If I were a 5 star recruit and my goal were to play in the NBA, I would not trust Mick to give me the most opportunities to showcase my talents on the court. As much as I love UC, the prospect of losing out on millions of dollars per year would make me think twice.

(03-22-2018 07:31 AM)apoe Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 07:15 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  How? By watching games and remembering what these guys look like their first year and what they are their senior year.

SK could barely dribble the ball without turning it over as a freshman, 1st team AA as a senior. JJ couldn't score in an empty gym as a freshman, damn solid player as a senior. Gary Clark developed a 40% 3 point shot by his senior year and dominated all advanced metrics. Cumberland is developing towards being an all american. There are more examples but this is what comes to mind in the 37 seconds I'll donate to this ridiculous conversation.

But yeah, no development in the UC program...

We will see next year. Nsome, Brooks, and Scott will be counted on heavily. If the development aspect is what you say I'm sure one of the 3 will be able to provide solid contributions on the post. We'll also see how much better Williams and Moore are.

(03-22-2018 10:27 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 09:26 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  I've never understood the "can't develop talent" statement. In order for UC to be good, they HAVE to develop talent. No 5 stars come here. There's no way we win the AAC this year over Wichita St. and Houston if Cronin and staff can't develop talent.

It's also the reason I think some 5 stars should give Mick a chance. If he can develop SK and Gary Clark, he should be able to make a 5 star talent even better after a year.

To the contrary, I believe that a lot of 5 star recruits would be neutered by Mick's poor halfcourt offense.

I think our consistency at being one of the top teams in the conference is more due to our style of play, rather than us having players that are individually "better" than the other teams'.

If I were a 5 star recruit and my goal were to play in the NBA, I would not trust Mick to give me the most opportunities to showcase my talents on the court. As much as I love UC, the prospect of losing out on millions of dollars per year would make me think twice.

Most 5-star recruits are already polished on the offensive end. Good coaches, like Calipari, succeed because they get those kids to play defense. If Mick reeled in a few more, they would certainly be better off for it. You'll have proof when Jacob Evans gets drafted for his defense.

I'm most interested to see how Diarra progresses. From what i've seen of the front court returnees, he clearly had the most offensive skills albeit in a limited audition. He seems to have a good attitude, and i know we'll see a lot of growing pains, but he has skills and athleticism out the wazoo.

(03-22-2018 07:43 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 07:31 AM)apoe Wrote:  

But I agree with you talent development is not an issue in the program. Not having enough high end talent is.

Exactly. This is by far the biggest issue. Not nearly enough high end talent on the roster. Guys tend to develop to the best of their abilities, but for the majority their talent level and ceiling is still relatively low.

Best team in the Cronin era and not one sure 1st rounder on the team, recruiting.

(03-22-2018 01:21 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 07:43 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-22-2018 07:31 AM)apoe Wrote:  

But I agree with you talent development is not an issue in the program. Not having enough high end talent is.

Exactly. This is by far the biggest issue. Not nearly enough high end talent on the roster. Guys tend to develop to the best of their abilities, but for the majority their talent level and ceiling is still relatively low.

(03-22-2018 01:32 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Best team in the Cronin era and not one sure 1st rounder on the team, recruiting.

Three players on the team are likely to get at least a shot in the NBA at some point in their careers (Clark, Evans, Cumberland) and Evans/Cumberland are potential first round picks. In addition, we have quite a few other players who have NBA level athleticism (Scott, Nsoseme, Williams, Diarra) - though they all need significant work on their game if they are going to make the NBA. If that's your defintion of bad recruiting, you might need to go be a fan of one of the blue bloods, because that's the only thing likely to satisfy you.

(03-22-2018 09:26 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  I've never understood the "can't develop talent" statement. In order for UC to be good, they HAVE to develop talent. No 5 stars come here. There's no way we win the AAC this year over Wichita St. and Houston if Cronin and staff can't develop talent.

It's also the reason I think some 5 stars should give Mick a chance. If he can develop SK and Gary Clark, he should be able to make a 5 star talent even better after a year.

How come we wouldn't? Our recruits better than both houston and wichita st by far.

(03-21-2018 01:01 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Gotta be honest, I almost felt bad for Musselman after he got the tech. It legitimately seemed like he and the rest of Nevada were completely embarrassed. It's a wonder how they managed to regain their composure.

Does anyone know a link to watch the UC -Nevada game in it's entirety? I always watch the game but with no volume. I don't need anyone conning me into what my eyes are seeing. Many of you should try it. Very "eye opening."

But I do wanna hear the talking heads and hear their take(around nine minute mark and on) I feel I may learn just a tad......something intriguing. TIA

(03-23-2018 12:13 AM)BringBackthe Glory Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:01 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Gotta be honest, I almost felt bad for Musselman after he got the tech. It legitimately seemed like he and the rest of Nevada were completely embarrassed. It's a wonder how they managed to regain their composure.

Does anyone know a link to watch the UC -Nevada game in it's entirety? I always watch the game but with no volume. I don't need anyone conning me into what my eyes are seeing. Many of you should try it. Very "eye opening."

But I do wanna hear the talking heads and hear their take(around nine minute mark and on) I feel I may learn just a tad......something intriguing. TIA

Check YouTube. I’ve seen games posted there quite frequently, especially recent ones.

I recorded the game and rewatched it this evening, partly because I’m a glutton for punishment, but mostly because I wanted to evaluate what I saw better.

It was so insanely clear watching the game again that we got sped up bad in the last 12 minutes, and not a single person on the floor or Mick ever got the team composed. We went from playing our game to playing their game just like that. We completely forgot who we were. We let them dictate the game for about 5 minutes from 11minutes to 6 minutes, and that was all they needed to get us to play tight. Add in some unfavorable bounces (and some awful whistles) in the last 5minutes and that’s the recipe for a crazy comeback. There is plenty of blame to go around re watching that. It was nightmarish.

The other obvious point I noticed was our lack of a PG. The biggest hole for this team was what did them in. We never had a PG all year and it killed us in the end.

(03-23-2018 12:23 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 12:13 AM)BringBackthe Glory Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:01 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Gotta be honest, I almost felt bad for Musselman after he got the tech. It legitimately seemed like he and the rest of Nevada were completely embarrassed. It's a wonder how they managed to regain their composure.

Does anyone know a link to watch the UC -Nevada game in it's entirety? I always watch the game but with no volume. I don't need anyone conning me into what my eyes are seeing. Many of you should try it. Very "eye opening."

But I do wanna hear the talking heads and hear their take(around nine minute mark and on) I feel I may learn just a tad......something intriguing. TIA

Check YouTube. I’ve seen games posted there quite frequently, especially recent ones.

I recorded the game and rewatched it this evening, partly because I’m a glutton for punishment, but mostly because I wanted to evaluate what I saw better.

It was so insanely clear watching the game again that we got sped up bad in the last 12 minutes, and not a single person on the floor or Mick ever got the team composed. We went from playing our game to playing their game just like that. We completely forgot who we were. We let them dictate the game for about 5 minutes from 11minutes to 6 minutes, and that was all they needed to get us to play tight. Add in some unfavorable bounces (and some awful whistles) in the last 5minutes and that’s the recipe for a crazy comeback. There is plenty of blame to go around re watching that. It was nightmarish.

The other obvious point I noticed was our lack of a PG. The biggest hole for this team was what did them in. We never had a PG all year and it killed us in the end.

Got it. Thanks and I'll take your considerations into my viewing.

I think we missed 3 layups that would have probably been enough for us to hold on too. Nevermind mind the open shots. The game just keeps playing in my head over and over.

I was waiting for a TV shot of Hep calling time out.

Re: the layups, it's hard to fathom watching how many Loyola got against Nevada last night, that we could basically go the last 6 minutes of that game and not score. Just a complete lack of offensive execution both on the floor and the coaching staff. That said, after watching this team up close in Florida and Nashville, i doubt they would have beaten Loyola based on how poorly we were playing offensively. It's hard to win when you have basically Cumberland on the offensive end. Loyola was a heck of a lot more aggressive offensively than whatever it is we were/are doing out there.

(03-23-2018 09:18 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Re: the layups, it's hard to fathom watching how many Loyola got against Nevada last night, that we could basically go the last 6 minutes of that game and not score. Just a complete lack of offensive execution both on the floor and the coaching staff. That said, after watching this team up close in Florida and Nashville, i doubt they would have beaten Loyola based on how poorly we were playing offensively. It's hard to win when you have basically Cumberland on the offensive end. Loyola was a heck of a lot more aggressive offensively than whatever it is we were/are doing out there.

I mean...we were doing the same thing to Nevada for 28 minutes. We had a ton of layups and baskets around the rim. We starting rushing and taking quick jump shots for no reason the last 12 minutes. Run our offense and we're still playing. Likely in the final four next weekend.

(03-23-2018 12:39 AM)BringBackthe Glory Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 12:23 AM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(03-23-2018 12:13 AM)BringBackthe Glory Wrote:  

(03-21-2018 01:01 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Gotta be honest, I almost felt bad for Musselman after he got the tech. It legitimately seemed like he and the rest of Nevada were completely embarrassed. It's a wonder how they managed to regain their composure.

Does anyone know a link to watch the UC -Nevada game in it's entirety? I always watch the game but with no volume. I don't need anyone conning me into what my eyes are seeing. Many of you should try it. Very "eye opening."

But I do wanna hear the talking heads and hear their take(around nine minute mark and on) I feel I may learn just a tad......something intriguing. TIA

Check YouTube. I’ve seen games posted there quite frequently, especially recent ones.

I recorded the game and rewatched it this evening, partly because I’m a glutton for punishment, but mostly because I wanted to evaluate what I saw better.

It was so insanely clear watching the game again that we got sped up bad in the last 12 minutes, and not a single person on the floor or Mick ever got the team composed. We went from playing our game to playing their game just like that. We completely forgot who we were. We let them dictate the game for about 5 minutes from 11minutes to 6 minutes, and that was all they needed to get us to play tight. Add in some unfavorable bounces (and some awful whistles) in the last 5minutes and that’s the recipe for a crazy comeback. There is plenty of blame to go around re watching that. It was nightmarish.

The other obvious point I noticed was our lack of a PG. The biggest hole for this team was what did them in. We never had a PG all year and it killed us in the end.

Got it. Thanks and I'll take your considerations into my viewing.

An interesting point about the UC PG. Evans was our de facto point guard in those last 8-10 minutes. He handled the ball OK bringing it up the court but Nevada started to double team him and Evans would wait until 4-5 seconds remained on the shot clock before attempting a move to the basket. That led to poor, often forced shots taken off-balance, or attempts to force a pass to another player, or a turnover.

There have simply been way too many games in the Cronin era where UC goes 5-8 minutes or more without a field goal. Or, holding a big lead, UC inevitably holds the ball till the shot clock is running down and then someone launches an off-balance three as the shot clock goes off.

How many times have you seen UC not get a shot off at all? If that was a stat, we would lead the country every year in that dubious category.

(03-23-2018 09:18 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Just a complete lack of offensive execution both on the floor and the coaching staff.

Yep and this is exactly why we are sitting at home now. We desperately need to replace one of our "recruiters" (Savino, Jackson), who have done much from that standpoint anyways, with a good X's and O's assistant who knows how to properly run an offense.