Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oklahoma St. 2/21 7:00 ESPN+

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lobot
    started a topic Oklahoma St. 2/21 7:00 ESPN+

    Oklahoma St. 2/21 7:00 ESPN+

    Get to the game and support the team for this one. It is not sold out. The team Needs SUPPORT and crowd noise. If we get down, don't boo the players. Bring them back into the game together. We really can't afford to lose this one and make the NCAAs.
    Last edited by Lobot; 02-19-2024, 06:49 PM.

  • sedz
    replied
    Originally posted by leeraymond View Post

    Yeah, you are correct. However, that Nevada team was an older very aggressive team. I do not know if Miller can get that type of productivity out of such a young team. However, if nothing else, UC's bench should be light years better than what it is this year. Also, those guys will push the veteran guys very hard in practice. That is what makes a program better. When the guy behind you is trying to take your starting spot, it makes you play with more of a sense of purpose.

    It's funny. Those twins look bigger than they are.
    Again, I'm not saying a positionless lineup will be ready next year. It was just a response to a question about our bigs moving forward. We don't always need true bigs on the roster.

    Leave a comment:


  • leeraymond
    replied
    Originally posted by sedz View Post
    Cody Martin is smaller than Skillings. He's 6'6" 205.
    Yeah, you are correct. However, that Nevada team was an older very aggressive team. I do not know if Miller can get that type of productivity out of such a young team. However, if nothing else, UC's bench should be light years better than what it is this year. Also, those guys will push the veteran guys very hard in practice. That is what makes a program better. When the guy behind you is trying to take your starting spot, it makes you play with more of a sense of purpose.

    It's funny. Those twins look bigger than they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lobot
    replied
    Originally posted by SKell82155 View Post

    Dude, don’t leave us hanging !
    Are you writing a book & amping for pre-production
    sales, lol ?
    I'm waiting until I get the whole story to be honest. I know what happened. I don't exactly know why it happened. I've got a great educated guess as to why but can't confirm it so far.

    Leave a comment:


  • SKell82155
    replied
    Originally posted by Lobot View Post

    Terry is not the only one with that opinion. And there’s a little more to it than that.
    Dude, don’t leave us hanging !
    Are you writing a book & amping for pre-production
    sales, lol ?

    Leave a comment:


  • sedz
    replied
    Cody Martin is smaller than Skillings. He's 6'6" 205.

    Leave a comment:


  • bearcatbret
    replied
    Miller is by far a better coach than what we have over on the football side of the field. As others have said, this is the first year in the Big 12 and the experts did not expect UC to do much. Let Miller build his team to be built for the Big 12.

    Leave a comment:


  • leeraymond
    replied
    Originally posted by sedz View Post
    Skillings is playing PF for us right now at 6'6" 215 (205 in high school). If you don't like the idea of Betsey at PF, just keep Skillings there. The idea is to be positionless. Sure, bigger players can push Skillings around but he compensates for that in other ways. Betsey might not be heavy enough to play like a traditional power forward, but if we have four athletic guys in the 6'6" to 6'8", 190 to 220 pound range, we can compete on the glass.

    Dana Altman had several great teams like that at Oregon. The Nevada team that beat us was built like that.
    Yeah, but those Nevada guys had some weight. Those were not thin guys. Remember the twins (now NBA players)? Those guys have good size. Come on Sedz, you know Skilings is playing out of position. However, Skillings is a very good rebounder, but he cannot consistently guard at the power forward spot. I understand what you are saying about positionless basketball. During Kilpatrick's last year, UC played with a bunch of guys between about 6"3 and 6"9 and that was a very good defensive team. They could not score, but there was nothing wrong with their defense. However, that team played a switching man-to-man defense. I am all for a team where everyone is about 6"6 to 6"8 if they can defend at every position. I am not sure if Miller would employ a defensive system like that. That's where the problem may be. To be truthful with you, I do not believe in Wes Miller's coaching. I have very little confidence in Miller as a coach right now. So, it does not matter the quality of the players if Miller does NOT advance as a coach. So far I have yet to see that. I was a little nervous about Cronin in his 3rd year, but Cronin's teams did not give up a lot of points. I liked that about Cronin's coaching and because of that, I was all for allowing him to serve his contract out. I do not know if I feel the same about Miller. On the other, we have got to give Miller a chance. He is coaching in probably the best conference in the country and there is going to be a learning curve. A better indicator of how good a coach Miller is will be next year. So, let's give the man a chance.

    The lineup that you mentioned probably will be put in play sometime during next season. We will see how well it works.
    Last edited by leeraymond; 02-23-2024, 08:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carin's Dad
    replied
    Originally posted by leo from jersey View Post

    how do we adjust in the game to win. The effort on defense wasn't there and I saw nothing to change that from the bench.
    Coach said Jizzle didn't play the last 8 minutes for defensive reasons. This after Jizzle sparked a 9 point rally. Maybe more offense could make up for a little bad defense.

    Leave a comment:


  • sedz
    replied
    Skillings is playing PF for us right now at 6'6" 215 (205 in high school). If you don't like the idea of Betsey at PF, just keep Skillings there. The idea is to be positionless. Sure, bigger players can push Skillings around but he compensates for that in other ways. Betsey might not be heavy enough to play like a traditional power forward, but if we have four athletic guys in the 6'6" to 6'8", 190 to 220 pound range, we can compete on the glass.

    Dana Altman had several great teams like that at Oregon. The Nevada team that beat us was built like that.

    Leave a comment:


  • leeraymond
    replied
    Originally posted by sedz View Post
    Overall it's a pretty big lineup. It replaces size at the 5 with size on the wing. And it's athletic at every position so should be decent at rebounding.

    I think of small ball as four guards, like our 2012 team with Jaquon Parker at the 4. Even though we had a true big in Yancy at the 5, it was still a small ball lineup. This lineup only has one guard with four forwards. I don't necessarily favor anything. I think we should put our best group out there regardless of what type of lineup it is. In a couple years we don't have any true bigs committed right now, and I'm just pointing out that we don't have to go out and find one. There are other ways to construct a roster.
    Skillings is a guard. So, actually it would be two guards and three forwards. I kind of like that lineup. However, no matter how ballyhoo a player is coming in, you never know what that player really is until you get him in camp. Also, Betsy is listed as a power forward by 247 Sports. The problem is he is only 6"8' and weighs 185. He is not heavy enough to play power forward. He would get pushed around in the BIG 12 until he gains some weight and strength. Also, assuming the players remaining on the roster from this year will GET BETTER, the freshman coming in may have to ride the bench their first year.

    You know, I have always thought that if a bunch of freshman (no matter how good) can come into a serious D-1 program and move the veterans out, that program probably did not have a lot going for itself. There is no way a bunch of freshman should be able to come into a D-1 program and take positions. The only time I know of something like that happening is at the U of Michigan with the Fab Five. As good as they were, they were not able to win a national championship. They lost the championship game twice to two different teams (Duke and North Carolina). But hey, at least they were able to play in that game; twice.
    Last edited by leeraymond; 02-23-2024, 08:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • sedz
    replied
    Originally posted by leeraymond View Post

    This is an interesting lineup. However, this lineup may have problems rebounding against more physical teams (especially against Houston) or teams with big inside playing front lines. However, this group would perhaps be a very good scoring group. I see you favor small ball lineups. Also, this group is very very young.
    Overall it's a pretty big lineup. It replaces size at the 5 with size on the wing. And it's athletic at every position so should be decent at rebounding.

    I think of small ball as four guards, like our 2012 team with Jaquon Parker at the 4. Even though we had a true big in Yancy at the 5, it was still a small ball lineup. This lineup only has one guard with four forwards. I don't necessarily favor anything. I think we should put our best group out there regardless of what type of lineup it is. In a couple years we don't have any true bigs committed right now, and I'm just pointing out that we don't have to go out and find one. There are other ways to construct a roster.

    Leave a comment:


  • leeraymond
    replied
    Originally posted by sedz View Post
    Exactly. This lineup won't be ready next year, but looking ahead we could have four 6'6 to 6'8 forwards out there: Jizzle, Skillings, Rayvon, Betsey, McKinley. Obviously we should have a big body available when we need it, but that could be a dangerous group.
    This is an interesting lineup. However, this lineup may have problems rebounding against more physical teams (especially against Houston) or teams with big inside playing front lines. However, this group would perhaps be a very good scoring group. I see you favor small ball lineups. Also, this group is very very young.

    Leave a comment:


  • leeraymond
    replied
    Originally posted by Bearcat93 View Post
    13 years as a head coach with only 2 NCAA tournament appearances and zero wins. Take a good look at what Wes accomplished at UNCG. How he landed this gig is pretty unreal. Most times when a smaller school /lower league coach gets a big time job, they have led that smaller /lower league team to some deep tournament success. While it’s not the only measure of success, it should be a key criteria
    for hire.
    I am with you on this one. Miller only has small college and low mid-major coaching experience. He may have helped his career by serving as an assistant coach under a pretty good NCAA Tournament type of coach with solid defensive principles. As it is, Miller had none of those types of coaching experiences. Maybe, just maybe, that is part of the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gmann
    replied
    Originally posted by longtimefan View Post

    I haven’t. We’ll have three top 100 recruits joining the roster, Rayvon and the two Tyler’s. As far as I know only two guys, Newman and Oguama, will not be back next year. That’s another reason we must finish strong, get those 2 guys to the tournament.
    How would Bandaogo and Reynolds be back with them both being listed as seniors this year? Do they both have a Covid year available to use? Also this Lakhin situation is a bit wierd. Unless things change here down the stretch I could see him moving on....hope not.

    Leave a comment:

Responsive Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X