The unofficial online home for fans of the Kent State University Golden Flashes. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-29-2018 01:06 PM)cleveland Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 07:11 AM)Slinkin Street Flash Wrote:  For a long time, it seemed like Kent State couldn't close out games. Coming from behind late was rare. Forcing 2 turnovers and coming back from 8 down with 1:30 left is outstanding. It would be great if we can have that late-game toughness all year.

REALLY ..??? ... Go check the play-by-plays just for MAC games last year in the MAC center. Without looking I would venture to say, inside the last 10 minutes, Kent was down at some point in most of them, and that includes the Buffalo game and NIU.

I folo the MAC pretty close and would say, at least last season (and down the stretch in 2017) more often than not Kent was one of the top teams in the league at closing out games or coming from behind to win.

I do think there was improvement in that area last season. But I agree with SSF, it was a real problem there for a while.

Even playing 4 guards most of the game, we still out rebounded them by 12, 47 to 35. As long as bigs are slow, we will be OK.

(11-29-2018 01:06 PM)cleveland Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 07:11 AM)Slinkin Street Flash Wrote:  For a long time, it seemed like Kent State couldn't close out games. Coming from behind late was rare. Forcing 2 turnovers and coming back from 8 down with 1:30 left is outstanding. It would be great if we can have that late-game toughness all year.

REALLY ..??? ... Go check the play-by-plays just for MAC games last year in the MAC center. Without looking I would venture to say, inside the last 10 minutes, Kent was down at some point in most of them, and that includes the Buffalo game and NIU.

I folo the MAC pretty close and would say, at least last season (and down the stretch in 2017) more often than not Kent was one of the top teams in the league at closing out games or coming from behind to win.

You know how it is...I remember the defeats twice as long as the victories

(11-29-2018 04:41 PM)Slinkin Street Flash Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 01:06 PM)cleveland Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 07:11 AM)Slinkin Street Flash Wrote:  For a long time, it seemed like Kent State couldn't close out games. Coming from behind late was rare. Forcing 2 turnovers and coming back from 8 down with 1:30 left is outstanding. It would be great if we can have that late-game toughness all year.

REALLY ..??? ... Go check the play-by-plays just for MAC games last year in the MAC center. Without looking I would venture to say, inside the last 10 minutes, Kent was down at some point in most of them, and that includes the Buffalo game and NIU.

I folo the MAC pretty close and would say, at least last season (and down the stretch in 2017) more often than not Kent was one of the top teams in the league at closing out games or coming from behind to win.

You know how it is...I remember the defeats twice as long as the victories

SO TRUE... SO TRUE ...

that's why it's a little less stress keeping an eye on them all, instead of one or two.

(11-29-2018 06:18 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  I agree about Gerwig and Edwards. Both were good, true "big men" that played important roles in the 2001/02 success. But for one reason or another, often foul trouble, Kent State often had a very small lineup on the court with the game on the line. I'm sure if I tried I could think of many other times over the many years when Kent State had very small lineups on the court. I think that is common in basketball except probably at the very "elite" levels. There are a heck of a lot more quality 1s, 2s and 3s out there than there are quality 4s and 5s and therefore the 4s and 5s are tougher to get, especially at the mid-major level. And size is more important defensively than offensively and a good perimeter defense like they had in 2001/02, can often negate at least to some extent the lack of size inside.

Well said. You're exactly right. What you're describing is basically the reason small ball has become such a big thing.

Let's think about the blueprint for the 01/02 team. You start with elite two-way perimeter players that are matchup problems. They have to be great shooters, be able to handle the ball, and defend. Like you mentioned, two-way guards are easier to find at our level than two-way bigs. The same principal is true in the post. You can get a more talented player if you look a little smaller, but for that to work the guy has to be strong enough to not get bulled over by bigger guys and he has to be a strong defender. That's why Gates was so important to that team. His unique skillset made him a matchup nightmare for anyone.
Then ideally you want a big that can defend and rebound but it's not incredibly important that he be an offensive threat.

Nearly two decades ago, all Kent fans knew that this was a blueprint where a team that doesn't have the recruiting pull could compete with the bigger teams if you hit on a couple of those under recruited guys. Now think about that blueprint... It's nearly identical to the blueprint the 14/15 Golden State Warriors used to change the game and usher in the small ball era. Get elitely talented two way guards that are matchup problems, elite shooter, can handle, and defend but might have been passed up on because they aren't great leapers or overly tall for their position (Thompson and Curry). A solid defender and rebounder in the middle (Bogut), then the key, a versatile undersized big whose quickness makes him a matchup problem for other teams bigs, but his strength and defensive ability prevents him from being exploited defensively by bigger players. He's only available to you because he's 2 or 3 inches too short so he gets passed over. The parallels between Draymond Green breaking out and putting GS over the top and Gates putting us over the top in uncaney. Even the third wing player on both teams (Iggy and Shaw) had oddly similar games.

(11-29-2018 07:27 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 06:18 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  I agree about Gerwig and Edwards. Both were good, true "big men" that played important roles in the 2001/02 success. But for one reason or another, often foul trouble, Kent State often had a very small lineup on the court with the game on the line. I'm sure if I tried I could think of many other times over the many years when Kent State had very small lineups on the court. I think that is common in basketball except probably at the very "elite" levels. There are a heck of a lot more quality 1s, 2s and 3s out there than there are quality 4s and 5s and therefore the 4s and 5s are tougher to get, especially at the mid-major level. And size is more important defensively than offensively and a good perimeter defense like they had in 2001/02, can often negate at least to some extent the lack of size inside.

Well said. You're exactly right. What you're describing is basically the reason small ball has become such a big thing.

Let's think about the blueprint for the 01/02 team. You start with elite two-way perimeter players that are matchup problems. They have to be great shooters, be able to handle the ball, and defend. Like you mentioned, two-way guards are easier to find at our level than two-way bigs. The same principal is true in the post. You can get a more talented player if you look a little smaller, but for that to work the guy has to be strong enough to not get bulled over by bigger guys and he has to be a strong defender. That's why Gates was so important to that team. His unique skillset made him a matchup nightmare for anyone.
Then ideally you want a big that can defend and rebound but it's not incredibly important that he be an offensive threat.

Nearly two decades ago, all Kent fans knew that this was a blueprint where a team that doesn't have the recruiting pull could compete with the bigger teams if you hit on a couple of those under recruited guys. Now think about that blueprint... It's nearly identical to the blueprint the 14/15 Golden State Warriors used to change the game and usher in the small ball era. Get elitely talented two way guards that are matchup problems, elite shooter, can handle, and defend but might have been passed up on because they aren't great leapers or overly tall for their position (Thompson and Curry). A solid defender and rebounder in the middle (Bogut), then the key, a versatile undersized big whose quickness makes him a matchup problem for other teams bigs, but his strength and defensive ability prevents him from being exploited defensively by bigger players. He's only available to you because he's 2 or 3 inches too short so he gets passed over. The parallels between Draymond Green breaking out and putting GS over the top and Gates putting us over the top in uncaney. Even the third wing player on both teams (Iggy and Shaw) had oddly similar games.

SO MUCH OF THIS IS TRUE ... ON PAPER.

But three players turned that team from a 1-win NCAA Tournamet team into a power. Obviously, the first was Gates. But the freshman Gerwig was equally important because his presence allowed Gates to have the freedom to operate. Ditto Edwards.

I often wondered what that Kent team would have looked like with Gerwig and 6-9 Mike Perry (he left the team as a junior) instead of Gerwig and GAtes?

Gates clearly the better overall player/scorer/rebounder. But Perry was no slouch in his own right. Elite 8, perhaps not, but who said that for the Gates team?

But still a NCAA Tournament team capable of winning NCAA Tournament games.

As a final note ... thought that 2003 Gates team could have been a strong NCAA Tournament team, too ... if they had made it.

(11-29-2018 08:35 PM)cleveland Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 07:27 PM)anti-zip Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 06:18 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  I agree about Gerwig and Edwards. Both were good, true "big men" that played important roles in the 2001/02 success. But for one reason or another, often foul trouble, Kent State often had a very small lineup on the court with the game on the line. I'm sure if I tried I could think of many other times over the many years when Kent State had very small lineups on the court. I think that is common in basketball except probably at the very "elite" levels. There are a heck of a lot more quality 1s, 2s and 3s out there than there are quality 4s and 5s and therefore the 4s and 5s are tougher to get, especially at the mid-major level. And size is more important defensively than offensively and a good perimeter defense like they had in 2001/02, can often negate at least to some extent the lack of size inside.

Well said. You're exactly right. What you're describing is basically the reason small ball has become such a big thing.

Let's think about the blueprint for the 01/02 team. You start with elite two-way perimeter players that are matchup problems. They have to be great shooters, be able to handle the ball, and defend. Like you mentioned, two-way guards are easier to find at our level than two-way bigs. The same principal is true in the post. You can get a more talented player if you look a little smaller, but for that to work the guy has to be strong enough to not get bulled over by bigger guys and he has to be a strong defender. That's why Gates was so important to that team. His unique skillset made him a matchup nightmare for anyone.
Then ideally you want a big that can defend and rebound but it's not incredibly important that he be an offensive threat.

Nearly two decades ago, all Kent fans knew that this was a blueprint where a team that doesn't have the recruiting pull could compete with the bigger teams if you hit on a couple of those under recruited guys. Now think about that blueprint... It's nearly identical to the blueprint the 14/15 Golden State Warriors used to change the game and usher in the small ball era. Get elitely talented two way guards that are matchup problems, elite shooter, can handle, and defend but might have been passed up on because they aren't great leapers or overly tall for their position (Thompson and Curry). A solid defender and rebounder in the middle (Bogut), then the key, a versatile undersized big whose quickness makes him a matchup problem for other teams bigs, but his strength and defensive ability prevents him from being exploited defensively by bigger players. He's only available to you because he's 2 or 3 inches too short so he gets passed over. The parallels between Draymond Green breaking out and putting GS over the top and Gates putting us over the top in uncaney. Even the third wing player on both teams (Iggy and Shaw) had oddly similar games.

SO MUCH OF THIS IS TRUE ... ON PAPER.

But three players turned that team from a 1-win NCAA Tournamet team into a power. Obviously, the first was Gates. But the freshman Gerwig was equally important because his presence allowed Gates to have the freedom to operate. Ditto Edwards.

I often wondered what that Kent team would have looked like with Gerwig and 6-9 Mike Perry (he left the team as a junior) instead of Gerwig and GAtes?

Gates clearly the better overall player/scorer/rebounder. But Perry was no slouch in his own right. Elite 8, perhaps not, but who said that for the Gates team?

But still a NCAA Tournament team capable of winning NCAA Tournament games.

As a final note ... thought that 2003 Gates team could have been a strong NCAA Tournament team, too ... if they had made it.

Didn't they lose to the CMU team with Kamin? I'm pretty sure Gates was suffering from some sort of leg injury late in that season as well.

Having this conversation while watching the Bobby Knight 30 for 30 is kinda fun. I never realized the student that Knight grabbed while on probation that ultimately got him fired was named Kent. Watching the videos of Indiana students rioting and yelling "We want Kent dead" is pretty interesting knowing that a few months after that Indiana would get bounced in the first round by Kent. Too bad they got the last laugh the next year... At least we beat Mike Davis again last night.

OLNWFLDH, yes gates was playing with an injury. I can't recall exactly what it was, an ankle or a knee. I think it was a knee, though. He continued playing but was not 100%. I think they may have beaten CMU if he was 100%.


Right, Perry did not use his final year of eligibility. The year before Nate Meers also chose not to use his final year.

(11-30-2018 08:52 AM)Muskrat Wrote:  OLNWFLDH, yes gates was playing with an injury. I can't recall exactly what it was, an ankle or a knee. I think it was a knee, though. He continued playing but was not 100%. I think they may have beaten CMU if he was 100%.


Right, Perry did not use his final year of eligibility. The year before Nate Meers also chose not to use his final year.

Thanks I seem to recall it being a knee - I think I went to the NIT game that year and he was very hobbled and not a factor - probably hurt any shot he had at the NBA