|[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, , 8, 9, 10 ]|
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You asked for expectations but...... -- loyal, Tuesday, September 02, 10:02:16pm 
Agree with your projected win total of 8...though it may be a bit generous. This year, we have no front line scoring, inside defense or rebounding. Quite the trifecta.
To have any chance during the balance of Dunne's tenure,we have to hope against hope that at least two of the newbies can eventually morph into above average MAAC players....and that Bacon makes the quantum leap this roster so badly needs him to make.
Based on last years performance, only Jenkins would get significant time on a good MAAC club...and only Jenkins and Bacon would see the floor. This is going to be another very trying season.
Let's hope the frosh show some promise; however, gearing up for another PIG appearance.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I give you credit -- Peacock, Tuesday, September 02, 10:59:00pm 
for one who saw a pre judged group of good talent coupled with two MAAC All Stars perform as poorly as they did, you assume that the returning group will emulate the piss poor planning given to them. As time wore on the offensive flow deteriorated consistently with little to no adjustments. Now taking your poor personnel report, I have to assume that this should hold for the next three seasons as I doubt the performance of a Conley can turn around what you classify as poor. Loyal's comment about newbies would need to preface by superman newbies considering his analysis as we only have one actually to give over and above Conley.
Now we have your take, bolstered buy the eternal pessimist, Loyal, that believes the game plan implemented by your hero was adequate to win more than six games, as I must assume that as no where do you fault his performance, and believe that poor talent was responsible.
Well unlike you and the pessimist, I feel the coach will indeed change and actually provide a more compatible offense for his players. I always felt last years recruits were among the best we have had, but the hard headed approach by Dunne rivaled the hard headed behavior of Sowell. He now loses his two slowest players upon which the offense was premised and continued throughout the season. Dunne was respected by many outside our confines, and I do believe he is not as stupid to maintain his past management history. While I expect you to stand and cheer when they start to show improvement due to game plans that actually utilize their abilities. To paraphrase a more sedate Sludge last year, they were mostly freshman. They now are sophs with experience and hopefully a coach who will modify his approach.
So I project a 12 game win season and much more in the MAAC than you project. You do seem to give the talent in the MAAC as much credit as the infant minds placing you in their category. You will see much more speed starting with defensive pressure pressing and running the floor. When stopped the half court game plan will revolve more around screens, a forgotten entity last season, that works on getting the three point shooters their shots. While you seem to have a hard time considering the coach in all this, I at least think he will improve along with the team and donít take your approach that the team will perform poorly because they are indeed poor.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I give you credit -- loyal, Tuesday, September 02, 11:50:54pm 
I hope you are right about a different style making a difference.
I just don't think this group can score, defend or rebound inside in the half court.
Hope I am wrong.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You do attempt to alter things -- Sludge, Wednesday, September 03, 12:42:07am 
I provided no commentary on Dunne, yet half your post was devoted to his shortcomings, anticipated improvements in his game plan, better utilization of personnel, etc., and of course, my stealth defense of him.
You cite the two returning "all stars" from last year and the freshmen "among the best we have had". First, one of those two stars was injured for a good part of the year, and the other, showed his "hard headed behavior" (your words). Any novice watching those freshmen would disagree with your assessment of their talent. Lampley was a head case, was not suited for the point. Leon tried, but lacked the skills and maybe experience to play the point. Both were consistently abused defensively. Jenkins probably best lived up to his billing but he, in many cases forced, or was forced to do things he was not capable or ready for. Only Bacon performed well inside but, like most newcomers showed defensive lapses and was overmatched physically against many opponents. Physical concerns arose from his injury and this remains a concern for this year (note: little play this summer).
And to your quote:
"To paraphrase a more sedate Sludge last year, they were mostly freshman. They now are sophs with experience and hopefully a coach who will modify his approach".
Where did you pull this from? You certainly do take liberties with paraphrase. Maybe the word for me should have been intoxicated, not sedate, because I certainly don't remember ever using these words or opinion, whether in context or not.
Your prospects for this season are very upbeat and surprisingly, I must admit, uncharacteristically filled with specifics regarding the game plan. Could it be that you got to John and he has agreed to adopt all of what you have suggested? The strategy sounds good........only problem is you need players with the speed and strength to run what you are suggesting. As far as your half court, screen set is concerned, what is forgotten is, that aside from Jenkins and Leon, we do not have any 3-point shooters.
Twelve wins would be a nice target to reach but, as in past years, I regretably must play the under, and likely end up again closer than you to the final number.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You do attempt to alter things -- oldtimer#1, Wednesday, September 03, 08:28:38am 
Although not willing to get too involved in this argument, I am struck by how one can change the facts (or not recognize them) to support a particular theory.To suggest that the "offensive flow" was not there on a consistent basis last year is quite accurate. One can lay blame to the players, including all those new freshman or can point the finger at the staff. One could even point to the disappearance of Orta and the injuries to Bacon and Hogga. The answer is probably a combination of the above with each protaganist choosing his own agenda.
One additional comment. Anyone who states that screens and picks were not part of the offensive scheme doesn't know what they are talking about. Indeed it often seemed that our only offensive game plan was to set screens left or right for Jenkins and Orta. If we are going to criticize lets atleast be accurate. Yes, ball movement was poor but screens and plays to that effect were constantly being run.
Turning towards the future Bacon is indeed the real deal. However, he does seem to be injury prone which should be a major concern. That is why Sutton or Conley would have been so valuable. Even if they weren't that good they would have given us some options and not have us rely on Ryan as much as we need to this year. Conley, by the way, is a stud. While I haven't seen him play, he is built like a Big Ten or Big East forward and is now 6'7"plus. If he makes it through he should be an impact player.
Reid looks like a player, is exceptionally strong and has a reasonable outside shot, even at the 3pt. area. Problem is that at 6'4" he'll have the same problem as 6'5" Gooding. Akheem is a great leaper but also undersized to play upfront. Contrary to some opinions posted above JD and staff will have their work cut out for them this year.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Will disagree -- Peacock, Wednesday, September 03, 01:09:06pm 
One does not suggest the complete absence of screens but they were few and far between. The poor performance we saw was more in the from of lack of attempted execution of plays, than poor execution of a designed play. We can disagree, but I just don't think the players were as poor as the conclusion of the above posts make them.
Now one can not count on Conley and his impact just will not be that great if the players are as poor as suggested. The problem then becomes that this is the team for the next three years and the only way improvement will be seen is if that talent is there. Now out of all these arguments, choosing the poor side reflects on the coach and staff from every angle, game plan, talent level, recruiting and so on. I choose to say the talent is there and was not utilized properly last season. I also believe the staff will understand the level that they are at and the concessions they need to make to have this team function. Failure to do so dooms them to two to three more years of single digit wins.
Now I know you have inside knowledge and it does surprise me the lack of comment on Hill. Word coming out that he is looking like the best player not only among the freshman but possibly the team and will most likely start. Comparing Reid and Gooding doesn't work, as Gooding just doesn't have an outside shot. To state that Reid does puts him well ahead of Gooding if your observations are correct. This doesn't take away from Gooding who brings quite a lot to the party but makes me question your analysis. I wonder if you or your buddy observed Franklin on Siena. Not exactly one of your bigs, but dominates. Also wonder where have you ever seen a dominant front line in the MAAC. Talented speed always seems to overcome the height at the MAAC level. Right now the league is looking bigger, but no one knows if they can cut it. If you also recall, Siena is not a big rebounding team yet is judged the best. The talented front court players generally range from 6'5" to 6'8" in the MAAC and have mobility. If there is one thing you can say about us this year, is that we have mobility and better hands, something few commented on. When you boil it all down, the success or failure will depend more on the game style and plan and will we design more into the talent that really exists rather force feeding them into a system that just doesn't fit.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Will disagree -- oldtimer#1, Wednesday, September 03, 08:02:09pm 
Getting past our disagreement, here are some observations and I emphasize observations which are strictly my own.
#1) Hill has potential. Decent moves around the basket but thinner than Bacon. Don't know what source gave information on Hill but tonight was really the first of the "pick-up" games and Hill did not play nursing a minor injury. Overall, I agree that he could be a pleasant suprise but no one has really seen him play yet.
#2) Bacon looks good. A legit MAAC player on a higher level. Problem, as mentioned before, could be injuries and fatigue if he has to carry too much of the burden.
#3) Gooding and Reid are similar types of players -height wise, strength wise and position wise. You misintrepret a previous post (or I didn't clarify enough). Reid can shoot the ball but not in Jenkins or Leon's class. Decent but not great. By the way, for all the bad mouthing Gooding gets about his shot (and it is ugly) he had one of the best shooting percentages on the team last year and I could name several players who shoot it worse.
#4) Conley, as stated, will be an impact player. Very strong, knows the game, unselfish with decent moves offensively that need to be improved. Could be a rebound and dunking machine.
#5) Lampley looks more in control and is looking to pass more (thank God) but still doesn't have much of a shot.
#6) Leon and Jenkins will be our only real outside threats. It may suprise you but I believe that Nick has the best shot on the team. A fun debate on that one.
Again, I emphasize that these are my observations only but if it helps what few fans we have read atleast one point of view that's fine.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Will disagree -- Peacock, Thursday, September 04, 01:57:56pm 
Others have seen Hill. And he is projected very well versus our present people. All the comments on Conley also fit into the same area as Hill. I know what the kid did down in the peninsula and in his All Star games and feel your comments are unjustified as yet, and are more the opinions of the staff. It is not a secret how Dunne feels about Conley, having told all who have talked to him and that is good, but justifying the impact comment yet considering all what passes for logic on this board is premature.
Again, Gooding and Reid are only similar in size and athleticism. On the floor they will have to be defended differently and could actually cause mismatched problems when there together as they can concede Gooding his shot but will need to pay closer attention to Reid. Where they are similar is on defense where both can cause great trouble for the opposition when pressure is needed. If we failed one thing last season was the use of pressure, and came most to light in the second game of the season when he took forever to implement it.
I disagree with your comment on Lamply not having a shot, and I think you might get a fair amount of others who will. He is no Clark, but has more talent than a number of your favorite players.
No question that Nick and Jenkins will be the outside threat, but I do believe you will see Lampley out there. Left unsaid is what kind of shot Hall has and some think he will be the point rather quickly. Also unsaid is the fact that Mumford is very good three point shooter but hampered by attitude and could suffer the problem of not being used at all.
Being familiar with both the Owes and Spann situation, one needs to worry about the over the top control that might exist on the team. We all want the discipline, but in each of the cases above leaving was unwarranted. Different reasons for each, but exposes areas that might impact a Lampley or a Mumford.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Will disagree -- oldtimer#1, Friday, September 05, 01:33:56am 
Peacock, some follow up to what we disagree on.
#1) Conoly - I've have now seen Conoly play and the opinion I posted is from that observation. Who knows what will happen but I feel more comfortable with my assessment than almost any other. I could be wrong but then I could point out many of your "assessments" that have turned out to be incorrect. As you say why be afraid to render an opinion. I'm not.
#2) Hill- If you remember I was among (if not) the first to state that Hill could be a sleeper. That was based on the same reports that you refer to.No one has seen him play up here as of yet, so I will urge the same caution on Hill that you have on Conoly. Bottom line I like the kids potential.
#3) Lampley - as stated I like what I've seen in Lampley so far but I don't care how many immaginary people think that Lampley is a good shooter, he is not. Potentially streaky yes but just check out last years shooting stats. He's an exciting player and will contribute in any event. Actually. I was hoping that he worked on his shot over the summer because he could be special if he could knock it down consistently. What I did notice is that he is passing more and becoming more of the team player that we need him to be. I'm hopeful.
#4) Mumford - again my opinion and in disagreement with all those "so-called" reports.Think his 3pt. is not as good as advertised but he has anice little pull-up jumper and is not a bad passer or finisher. Also played decent defense in what little I saw. Bottom line though is that overall he comes up a bit short.
#5) Gooding - outstanding on the break. In trouble with the half court game. Hope we run more because that's where he shines. Problem is that you have to rebound well in order to run.
Finally if we are ever going to have dialogue about SPC basketball stop this crap about reflecting what the staff thinks. While I disagree with many of your opinions (and yes I agree with some) I assume that it's the product of your own point of view. In fact, I think it's inappropriate for one not on the basketball staff to try to pick there brains. Not my style.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As usual you avoid an issue -- Peacock, Wednesday, September 03, 12:40:52pm 
You refuse to acknowledge that the coach and his plans can make poor players out of decent players. That is your problem, and you do qualify more of a novice than any other you might like to cite. The game plan was to support the slow footed Orta and slow footed, bad hands Sowell. That was the half court game. Well Orta couldn't buy a shot even before he got hurt, and Sowell wasted more time on offense than inexperience deserved. Injury aside, Orta didn't show much before or at the end. Failure to go away from that plan gave us the 6 wins. Its not difficult to criticize the players after this type of poor year. You might not acknowledge it but you are exactly like the infantile MAAC posters you cited above but in an opposite mode. Much like the Siena faction who feel they have top 20 material because of their success last year, you chose bottom 20 material because of the limited amount that you saw. You seldom explain away the stubbornness of constantly playing Leon at the point when he continued to make poor decisions. As bad as Lampley was with his out of control, little was done to teach him the skills. They would have lost not one more game had Lampley been chosen to play the point. We had to listen to you and your supporter that Leon was more the point and the staff agreed. In fact as non-novices you held to that belief until your inane logic finally failed about Leon. In addition anyone who observed this team, knew that they not only did not have a half court offense, there was little or no plays of consequence other than the Orta Sowell plays. Contrary to what oldtimer says, there was little attempt at screens for either Leon or Jenkins. If you paid attention at the end Jenkins was attempting more to create his own shot than coming off of any screens. What screens existed were more by accident than any game plan, or in other words, not a major part of the plan.
The other problem is your touch of Alzheimerís. You did in fact indicate that the poor performance might well be the fact that they are freshman. I appreciate your denial right now, but I understand that your need never to be in a position to be wrong. Hell it explains why you are less a proactive commentator and more the sniper who loves to challenge other comments.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There you go again -- Sludge, Wednesday, September 03, 03:31:58pm 
Your usual missrepresentation of my views, mischaracterization of events, and the usual demonizing of one's personals. Perhaps we can find you a position with the New York Times in collecting DNA from the discarded panties of Sarah Paylin after they find their way into the dumpster.
How quickly you choose to forget. Orta had some decent games to begin the season despite being the marked man. He was virtually unstopable from the 3-point stripe in the SHU game as anyone in attendance would attest. Perhaps this was one of the few games you could not attend and were forced to view from your best vantage point, the radio or web report.
Where have I ever said that the coaching does not have an influence on the game and the players? Of course coaching plays a big role. Unlike you, I have been more realistic in balancing my criticism among players and coaching. Because I argued on both counts, you now come to some illogical conclusion that I don't believe coaching is a factor. How rediculous and out of character, even for you, to make such a stupid suggestion.
You again misrepresent and show your lack of insight when you infer I was a strong supporter of Leon. What you refuse to accept or acknowledge is that I have only supported Leon versus Lampley at the point, since the latter has shown nothing to recommend him for that role. Your silly argument that we would have not lost any more games with Lampley makes little sense here. At least in Leon's case he is attempting to learn and grow into the position.
Likewise your radio has probably let you down further when you speak of the lack of screens being set. If you were watching or, in your case, maybe listening more carefully, you would have seen that single and double screen sets were employed or at least tried on numerous occasions in all the games. This was worked on and stressed in practices. The inability to execute might be a reason some of this did not work (sorry, I must try to be careful and not attack the players for this).
Lastly, it appears you have backed down on your remark paraphrasing me on the fact they were freshmen. Of course, being freshmen does influence play. As the Gatekeeper for the Board archives I look forward to reading the comment you claim that I originally made.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Quit the Holier than thou approach -- Peacock, Thursday, September 04, 01:38:46pm 
I probably have seen as many games live as you have so your innuendoes to bolster your point of view show how dishonest you are.
No one disputes that Orta could shoot the three, but he also needed to be wide open. He hesitated on many opportunities that were wasted during the game. If anyone wants to state that Orta was quick for his shot pipe up now. Well after the injury he missed many crucial shots.
Secondly, your comment " Unlike you, I have been more realistic in balancing my criticism among players and coaching. " shows you lacking in courage. Any comment on coaching you have made has been so slight hiding constantly behind "We are St Peters" and we do squat for the coach and he has little responsibility in our record. I believe this is your term for realistic. Less you forget if he accomplishes three season of single digit wins, he would be the first in the NCAA era for the school. Now that could be very real and will await your apologetic reasoning for results. Now of course I expect us to do double digits, unlike you, and you will be spared the indignity of explaining away another bad season.
I also disagree on your Lampley and Leon comments. In fact your are clairvoyant with your statement "Your silly argument that we would have not lost any more games with Lampley makes little sense here. At least in Leon's case he is attempting to learn and grow into the position." Funny how you know that Lampley didn't want to learn the position given how little opportunity in comparison he was given and how in touch you are with Lampley's desires. Saying he sucks would be honored as an opinion but telling us what he wanted not to do is very shameful. I also disagree with your fellow expert that Lampley doesn't have a shot. He missed a lot, but also attempted to work for shots constantly trying to make things happen in the moribund offense we have been shown. Yes he was out of control but not helped. Leon on the other hand needs help to set up his shot. I always supported Leon and as you know I feel he was poorly used last season. Unlike you, I don't think ether player is bad, but feel they were poorly utilized. Its amazing how people forget how Lampley single-handily got us back into the Rider game at Rider.
Also I need to clarify something. You have very often DENIED being an insider and not privy to the workings at the practices. Yet you state "This was worked on and stressed in practices. " Even if you got it second hand it shows your are both devious and dishonest. I have seen enough and talked to many who also have and your picks and screens were not a major part of the offensive play. In fact, they looked more organized in the early part of the season to basically a disjointed group at the end. Throughout the season, deterioration was more evident than the teaching and learning you profess.
I have not backed down in your comment about freshman, but have no desire to waste time searching for a post last season that may have already been removed from the archives. In fact you have shown in your current post that you will mislead and misstate to fit your needs, so I have no desire to dig for dirt on you when you leave your dirt constantly as you explain away yourself.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As usual you avoid an issue -- oltimer#1, Wednesday, September 03, 08:25:34pm 
Orta was shooting over 50% from the three for the first third of the season. One memorable performance was against Seton Hall at the Prudential Center where he buried several threes from the corner coming off screens and picks. Also hit the big game winner against Wagner, not to mention several others. He was a completely different player after the injury. Just wanted to clarify that point.
Also Lampley was no better and IMO probably worse at the point than Leon. Given that, I agree with Peacock and Sludge that neither was a true point but if I had a choice it would be Leon hands dowm. More scoring on many less attempts and an automatic from the foul line at games end. As far as assists/turnovers not much to choose from but the slight edge going to Leon.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As usual you avoid an issue -- loyal, Wednesday, September 03, 11:14:48pm 
If we step back and think about it, neither Leon nor Lampley would get more than 5 mintues a half at the point for Siena, Niagara, Canisius, Fairfield, Loyola, Marist or Iona. Rider and Manhattan.....maybe, but no sure thing.
Is this the type of debate we are resigned to having?
I hope my fellow Peacock fans want much more.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As usual you avoid an issue -- oldtimer#1, Wednesday, September 03, 11:38:14pm 
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As usual you avoid an issue -- Peacock, Thursday, September 04, 02:09:43pm 
Do you disagree that we don't want much more or that either Lampley or Leon would see more time on those teams. Most of you are faced with a dilemma. At least Loyal has a position. I feel the players are much better than the critics here while Loyal thinks they suck and with all due respect, I have not idea what you really think. I know Sludge thinks they suck, if you weed through his verbose commentary.
Bottom line, if we are only one player away from being very competitive, then you must think the players are more than capable of securing double digit wins. If you don't we are much more than one or two players away. In the end I could be wrong on the players or Loyal could be wrong, but you and Sludge seem to walk on this tightrope on the real problems that the last two seasons have shown us and looking at the composition of the team a potential problem that will be here for the next three season if it exists.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As usual you avoid an issue -- oldtimer#1, Friday, September 05, 02:13:08am 
Peacock, I think both Leon and Lampley are better than Loyal gives them credit for. My short answer was just to respect Loyal's opinion but to disagree.
#1) Leon - an outstanding shooter and driver to the hoop. Finishes well and he makes his layups. One of the best foul shooters in the country. If he were 6'2" he would be outstanding. Think he still has that chance but if he eventually has play the #2 the open question is if he can he shoot the same (or defend against) taller opponents. Smart, tough player who seems to be respected by his fellow players.
#2) Lampley - obviously exciting but his problem last year was that he often played out of control (bad out of control, not good out of control). His detractors could say, with some justification, that he was a selfish player. His supporters will say he was the man in high school, so why shouldn't he be the man in D1. Major problem from my point of view was that he was a poor shooter which was compounded by the fact that he often took horrible shots. Actually, when he squared up and stopped taking those off balance heaves he was decent. Will never be the shooter that Jenkins and Leon are but has the potential to improve. No matter what, he will be a contributor but if his basketball IQ grows he still could be special.
By the way, and from observation only, JD was very supportive of him last year. Usually, giving him a pat on the back even in those games where he looked bad. Leon was equally supportive as I posted last year. Hope that spells out my thoughts on each player. Both are legit MAAC level players.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As usual you avoid an issue -- oldtimer#1, Friday, September 05, 02:33:57am 
Peacock, just reread your post and I'll even go futher out on a limb. If we had Conley this year (and we don't) I would be hopeful of a very good season (over 12 wins and top tier MAAC). He an Bacon would be a wonderful combination around the rim. My problem this year, and I confess to usually being an optimist, is that there are too many question marks. As figgyprez says let's wait until the season to see how those question marks pan out.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As usual you avoid an issue -- Peacock, Friday, September 05, 03:10:44pm 
I have a pretty good idea on how decent Conley could be. My point is if you are only one player away from being a competitive team, you should not be a poor team without him. You obviously feel we are one player away. Good coaches make adjustments and strategize around the deficiencies and while they still might not break five hundred they don't become single digit win teams. I have concluded that we are in the 10-14 win potential and failure will and should bring forth questions on the staff. You might not agree, but I would only ask how many single digit seasons in a row do you need to starting considering that issue. Remember three season of just sub 500 would set off even the most passive of fans in most schools.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: As usual you avoid an issue -- oldtimer#1, Friday, September 05, 06:10:24pm 
You have me pegged correctly. IMO, one impact player player away. If it's the right player (inside) who fills a gap then I would be quite optimistic. Where I differ from you is that I see too many unknowns at this point. Bacon's stamina etc., how much will Hill contribute, Hall's ability to play point early on, is Reid just a role player in his freshman year or will he be more than that, Leon's ability to provide scoring as an off guard when Hall is ready, Lampley getting it together, Shumate and Costner's contribution. I take Jenkins as a given but he's not going to play 40 minutes game in and game out. Then there is, of course, your point about the staff utilizing the players to their maximum. Often the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts and that's the job of the staff i.e. putting the pieces together.
As stated previously, I'm an optimist so I would hope for your goal of 12 wins or more but a lot has to go right for that to happen.Should be interesting.
[ Edit | View ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5|
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.