| « View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message |
TJWaldo
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 1812
Location: Cincinnati
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:12 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| JohnnyMac wrote: | Despite what Billy Packer says, only a couple of teams play a true match-up zone. Temple is one of them. Oklahoma is another. I doubt Butler was playing a true match.
I have just read the Butler boards, and they make no mention of a zone vs. Miami. I have to believe they played a man.
Are there really people on this board who can watch a game, and not know how the other team defended? |
Apparently.
A lot of teams will zone off an inbounds play under the basket. Maybe that's what some people saw. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JohnnyMac
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 8887
Location: Born and raised in South Detroit (which is Toledo, BTW)
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can buy that.
I wish the Butler guy would come back and answer.
_________________
And the days that I keep my gratitude higher than my expectations
Well, I have really good days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer.
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJWaldo
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 1812
Location: Cincinnati
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! 
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hawkgrad'03
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 303
Location: The Krazy Streetz of Lebanon
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! |
WE got to keep this quote chain going - AMAZING!!!
_________________
Sincerely,
Your reporter on the street, HG-03 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSR
Speculative Rapscallion
Joined: 08 Nov 2002
Posts: 3970
Location: the homeland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:59 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mollautt wrote:
TJWaldo wrote:
mollautt wrote:
TJWaldo wrote:
mollautt wrote:
TJWaldo wrote:
mattsledge wrote:
JohnnyMac wrote:
DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not?
Look earlier in the thread for that answer.
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable.
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on?
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went.
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer.
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer.
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow!
WE got to keep this quote chain going - AMAZING!!!
|
I give up
I have no idea who posted what now
and I don't have the energy to go back and read it post by post
I do know that mollautt was at the game, and mollautt knows basketball
but I also know the rascal will post anything just to mess with us
_________________
Play the best, beat the best, be the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mattsledge
Site Admin
Joined: 03 Dec 2001
Posts: 18104
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To lift a quote from Major League:
"Who gives a sh*t? The game's over!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RSR
Speculative Rapscallion
Joined: 08 Nov 2002
Posts: 3970
Location: the homeland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
obviously some do
mollautt and TJ for two
_________________
Play the best, beat the best, be the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Beerman
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 28 Jul 2002
Posts: 5763
Location: Forest Park
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hawkgrad'03 wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! |
WE got to keep this quote chain going - AMAZING!!! |
I heard that Gene Seals might be transferring to Michigan State.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnnyMac
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 8887
Location: Born and raised in South Detroit (which is Toledo, BTW)
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Beerman wrote: | | hawkgrad'03 wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! |
WE got to keep this quote chain going - AMAZING!!! |
I heard that Gene Seals might be transferring to Michigan State. |
`
Do you see my question in that tiny little box up there? Based on this thread, the Butler board, and other folks PM'ing me, I have come to the conclusion that only molluat saw Butler playing a zone on Saturday.
_________________
And the days that I keep my gratitude higher than my expectations
Well, I have really good days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JohnnyMac wrote: | | Beerman wrote: | | hawkgrad'03 wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! |
WE got to keep this quote chain going - AMAZING!!! |
I heard that Gene Seals might be transferring to Michigan State. |
`
Do you see my question in that tiny little box up there? Based on this thread, the Butler board, and other folks PM'ing me, I have come to the conclusion that only molluat saw Butler playing a zone on Saturday. |
=>A. You need to this thread very closely. Our fearless leader Redsteve
| Quote: | | Butler's interior defense had a lot to do with this. The zone stymied our entry passes and saw us passing too much around the perimeter. |
and Chris W
| Quote: | | As to the game, Moll made an excellent point-the Bulldogs were smart enough to play zone against us, and that hurt. |
both posted on this thread that they saw Butler play zone as well. I think that is called a gross visualization. I am willing to sign a sworn affidavit to attest that both of them also went to the Butler as I saw them there in Hinkle Fieldhouse with my own two eyes. Maybe they made it up just to support my position? probably not given that they both posted it before this debate about Butler zoning us came about. Maybe Chris and Steve are just part of the vast right wing zone conspiracy. See first page of this thread.
B. I looked over the Butler board. I did not see where anyone wrote there that Miami did not play a zone.
C. Who is PM'ing you about zones? I would assume it would be someone posting in this thread as it would be silly not to include this info in a thread here.
D. I am glad that you agree that I saw a zone Saturday. 
E. Butler may have played some man during the game. Whenever I made a conscious attempt to see what defense Butler was in, it was a zone. I really cannot say that Butler was in a zone all the time as I was too wrapped up in the game at times to notice. Also, zones can look like man at times when the defense pushes out on the perimeter. This is particularly true with Miami. I can see how someone who is not as basketball enlighted and uniquely intelligent as myself could make such a mistake. 
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RSR wrote: | obviously some do
mollautt and TJ for two |
=>TJ and I are in Debate Club. Rule #1 about Debate Club, you don't talk about Debate Club.
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER
Last edited by mollautt on Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JohnnyMac
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 8887
Location: Born and raised in South Detroit (which is Toledo, BTW)
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rule #2?
_________________
And the days that I keep my gratitude higher than my expectations
Well, I have really good days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJWaldo
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 1812
Location: Cincinnati
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! |
I am back for more Debate Club (and to extend the quote chain one more time).
Sorry to get chippy, Mollautt. I do enjoy good debates.
| Quote: | | 5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season. |
Although I agree with you on points 2&3, that is precisely why teams run different offenses against a man than they do against a zone. Man offenses are more motion and cutting oriented; zone offensive are more ball movement oriented. When I played, whenever we weren't sure whether our opponents were playing man or zone -- which is possible with high school kids, I guess -- we would have a wing cut through the lane. If someone followed him, man defense; if no one did; zone. We would then adjust the offense we ran accordingly.
My point is, the last several years, we didn't attack either type of offense very well. There are several reasons, IMHO. No matter what type of defense a team runs, the best way to attack is from the inside out. Good post players that get the ball down low are tough to stop one-on-one. If teams double down, the ball can be kicked out to the shooters, who are in great position to score (receiving a pass from the post is the best way to shoot a jump shot because you pretty much get lined up with the basket receiving the ball).
If you can't get the ball inside, you are going to struggle. The reason the Princeton offense was developed was to find a way -- against a man defense -- to get the ball inside without having big, physical post players to dump it in to. It gets the ball inside on back door cuts, and it is beautiful when it works (one of the most enjoyable games I have ever watched was Princeton beating UCLA in the NCAA's a few years back at the RCA Dome). It is also a good offense if you don't have a real solid point guard, because it spreads the ball handling out. One thing that Princeton usually has the we haven't the past few years is good outside shooters, and that is key in the Princeton offense; if teams don't have to respect your outside shooting, they pack their defense in and the back door cuts aren't there. Which often times last year left Miami last year passing around the perimeter and forcing up a shot late in the clock.
These same weaknesses -- not much inside presence, poor shooting, no true point guard -- caused teams to play a lot of zone against Miami last year as well. Both were effective.
I have seen some very positive changes in Miami this year. First, personnel wise, Hatcher and Troyer are pretty much handling the PG duties. Chet, Peavy and Hausfeld are playing wings (Chet and Haus are not PG's). Danny and Monte and Nate VS are playing post. The roles are much more defined.
Offense wise, Miami has made some changes in their man offense. instead of relying soley on back door cuts, Miami is screening away from the ball and sending the cutters through the lane. Miami is posting up Danny and Monte and even Nate VS at times. If you taped the Xavier game, Miami ran a beautiful down screen to set up Danny for a three late in the first half. Danny was on the weakside low post and Haus was at the point withthe ball. He passed to the wing and went down the lane, setting a screen for Danny just below the foul line. Danny popped up to the top of the key off the screen and hit a wire open three. Perfectly executed, and not a staple of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, at least against Xavier, we executed much better than last year, forcing them back into a man. Two of Haus' treys came from great ball reversal to the weak side wing. It's not just that Miami MADE a couple shots, but they used good ball movement to GET better shots. Once again, much better than what I saw last year.
Miami's weaknesses last year? No true PG, an inability to get the ball inside and poor outside shooting. And poor shooting gets worse when the opponent doesn'r respect you inside game.
Improvements this year. A better point guard and a better job of getting the ball inside -- against either man or zone -- has led to better shooting.
OK, I have said more than enough. Fire away if you wish, although the more I read back, the more I think we agree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! |
I am back for more Debate Club (and to extend the quote chain one more time).
Sorry to get chippy, Mollautt. I do enjoy good debates.
| Quote: | | 5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season. |
Although I agree with you on points 2&3, that is precisely why teams run different offenses against a man than they do against a zone. Man offenses are more motion and cutting oriented; zone offensive are more ball movement oriented. When I played, whenever we weren't sure whether our opponents were playing man or zone -- which is possible with high school kids, I guess -- we would have a wing cut through the lane. If someone followed him, man defense; if no one did; zone. We would then adjust the offense we ran accordingly.
My point is, the last several years, we didn't attack either type of offense very well. There are several reasons, IMHO. No matter what type of defense a team runs, the best way to attack is from the inside out. Good post players that get the ball down low are tough to stop one-on-one. If teams double down, the ball can be kicked out to the shooters, who are in great position to score (receiving a pass from the post is the best way to shoot a jump shot because you pretty much get lined up with the basket receiving the ball).
If you can't get the ball inside, you are going to struggle. The reason the Princeton offense was developed was to find a way -- against a man defense -- to get the ball inside without having big, physical post players to dump it in to. It gets the ball inside on back door cuts, and it is beautiful when it works (one of the most enjoyable games I have ever watched was Princeton beating UCLA in the NCAA's a few years back at the RCA Dome). It is also a good offense if you don't have a real solid point guard, because it spreads the ball handling out. One thing that Princeton usually has the we haven't the past few years is good outside shooters, and that is key in the Princeton offense; if teams don't have to respect your outside shooting, they pack their defense in and the back door cuts aren't there. Which often times last year left Miami last year passing around the perimeter and forcing up a shot late in the clock.
These same weaknesses -- not much inside presence, poor shooting, no true point guard -- caused teams to play a lot of zone against Miami last year as well. Both were effective.
I have seen some very positive changes in Miami this year. First, personnel wise, Hatcher and Troyer are pretty much handling the PG duties. Chet, Peavy and Hausfeld are playing wings (Chet and Haus are not PG's). Danny and Monte and Nate VS are playing post. The roles are much more defined.
Offense wise, Miami has made some changes in their man offense. instead of relying soley on back door cuts, Miami is screening away from the ball and sending the cutters through the lane. Miami is posting up Danny and Monte and even Nate VS at times. If you taped the Xavier game, Miami ran a beautiful down screen to set up Danny for a three late in the first half. Danny was on the weakside low post and Haus was at the point withthe ball. He passed to the wing and went down the lane, setting a screen for Danny just below the foul line. Danny popped up to the top of the key off the screen and hit a wire open three. Perfectly executed, and not a staple of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, at least against Xavier, we executed much better than last year, forcing them back into a man. Two of Haus' treys came from great ball reversal to the weak side wing. It's not just that Miami MADE a couple shots, but they used good ball movement to GET better shots. Once again, much better than what I saw last year.
Miami's weaknesses last year? No true PG, an inability to get the ball inside and poor outside shooting. And poor shooting gets worse when the opponent doesn'r respect you inside game.
Improvements this year. A better point guard and a better job of getting the ball inside -- against either man or zone -- has led to better shooting.
OK, I have said more than enough. Fire away if you wish, although the more I read back, the more I think we agree. |
=>I pretty much agree with you on everything you have wrote above other than 1) I think Miami has been pretty successful the few times teams have tried man and 2) Miami's O vs. the zone has not been as bad as some think (Miami milks clock on offense which tends to keep the score low).
IN order to keep this quote chain going, I submit the following to Debate Club: Miami's improved shooting in 3 of the 4 games is a direct result of the changes the basketball teams have made in the way they are now tying their shoes. In the past, Miami laced the shoes from the outside in. Now, laces come from the inside out. Coupled with triple knots over the previous double knots These changes have created more balance as the players push off the court on the jump shot.
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IndySkin
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 21 Dec 2003
Posts: 1644
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Once and for all. I just called Bulter and spoke with asst. coach Jordan and confirmed that they played:
drumroll ...
MAN TO MAN the whole game |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
=>Famous Monty Python Sketch:
The Cast (in order of appearance.)
M= Man looking for an argument
R= Receptionist
Q= Abuser
A= Arguer
C= Complainer
H= Head Hitter
M: Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.
R: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?
M: No, I haven't, this is my first time.
R: I see. Well, do you want to have just one argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?
M: Well, what is the cost?
R: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.
M: Well, I think it would be best if I perhaps started off with just the one and then see how it goes.
R: Fine. Well, I'll see who's free at the moment.
Pause
R: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory.
Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.
M: Thank you.
(Walks down the hall. Opens door.)
Q: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
M: Well, I was told outside that...
Q: Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings!
M: What?
Q: Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!
M: Look, I CAME HERE FOR AN ARGUMENT, I'm not going to just stand...!!
Q: OH, oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse.
M: Oh, I see, well, that explains it.
Q: Ah yes, you want room 12A, Just along the corridor.
M: Oh, Thank you very much. Sorry.
Q: Not at all.
M: Thank You. (Under his breath) Stupid git!!
(Walk down the corridor)
M: (Knock)
A: Come in.
M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven't.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't
A: I did!
M: You didn't!
A: I'm telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I'm sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let's get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.
M: Now look.
A: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
M: What?
A: That's it. Good morning.
M: I was just getting interested.
A: Sorry, the five minutes is up.
M: That was never five minutes!
A: I'm afraid it was.
M: It wasn't.
Pause
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue anymore.
M: What?!
A: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
M: Yes, but that was never five minutes, just now. Oh come on!
A: (Hums)
M: Look, this is ridiculous.
A: I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
M: Oh, all right. (pays money)
A: Thank you.
short pause
M: Well?
A: Well what?
M: That wasn't really five minutes, just now.
A: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
M: I just paid!
A: No you didn't.
M: I DID!
A: No you didn't.
M: Look, I don't want to argue about that.
A: Well, you didn't pay.
M: Aha. If I didn't pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
A: No you haven't.
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
M: Oh I've had enough of this.
A: No you haven't.
M: Oh Shut up. (Walks down the stairs. Opens door.)
http://www.duke.edu/~pms5/humor/argument.html
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TJWaldo
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 10 Jun 2002
Posts: 1812
Location: Cincinnati
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! |
I am back for more Debate Club (and to extend the quote chain one more time).
Sorry to get chippy, Mollautt. I do enjoy good debates.
| Quote: | | 5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season. |
Although I agree with you on points 2&3, that is precisely why teams run different offenses against a man than they do against a zone. Man offenses are more motion and cutting oriented; zone offensive are more ball movement oriented. When I played, whenever we weren't sure whether our opponents were playing man or zone -- which is possible with high school kids, I guess -- we would have a wing cut through the lane. If someone followed him, man defense; if no one did; zone. We would then adjust the offense we ran accordingly.
My point is, the last several years, we didn't attack either type of offense very well. There are several reasons, IMHO. No matter what type of defense a team runs, the best way to attack is from the inside out. Good post players that get the ball down low are tough to stop one-on-one. If teams double down, the ball can be kicked out to the shooters, who are in great position to score (receiving a pass from the post is the best way to shoot a jump shot because you pretty much get lined up with the basket receiving the ball).
If you can't get the ball inside, you are going to struggle. The reason the Princeton offense was developed was to find a way -- against a man defense -- to get the ball inside without having big, physical post players to dump it in to. It gets the ball inside on back door cuts, and it is beautiful when it works (one of the most enjoyable games I have ever watched was Princeton beating UCLA in the NCAA's a few years back at the RCA Dome). It is also a good offense if you don't have a real solid point guard, because it spreads the ball handling out. One thing that Princeton usually has the we haven't the past few years is good outside shooters, and that is key in the Princeton offense; if teams don't have to respect your outside shooting, they pack their defense in and the back door cuts aren't there. Which often times last year left Miami last year passing around the perimeter and forcing up a shot late in the clock.
These same weaknesses -- not much inside presence, poor shooting, no true point guard -- caused teams to play a lot of zone against Miami last year as well. Both were effective.
I have seen some very positive changes in Miami this year. First, personnel wise, Hatcher and Troyer are pretty much handling the PG duties. Chet, Peavy and Hausfeld are playing wings (Chet and Haus are not PG's). Danny and Monte and Nate VS are playing post. The roles are much more defined.
Offense wise, Miami has made some changes in their man offense. instead of relying soley on back door cuts, Miami is screening away from the ball and sending the cutters through the lane. Miami is posting up Danny and Monte and even Nate VS at times. If you taped the Xavier game, Miami ran a beautiful down screen to set up Danny for a three late in the first half. Danny was on the weakside low post and Haus was at the point withthe ball. He passed to the wing and went down the lane, setting a screen for Danny just below the foul line. Danny popped up to the top of the key off the screen and hit a wire open three. Perfectly executed, and not a staple of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, at least against Xavier, we executed much better than last year, forcing them back into a man. Two of Haus' treys came from great ball reversal to the weak side wing. It's not just that Miami MADE a couple shots, but they used good ball movement to GET better shots. Once again, much better than what I saw last year.
Miami's weaknesses last year? No true PG, an inability to get the ball inside and poor outside shooting. And poor shooting gets worse when the opponent doesn'r respect you inside game.
Improvements this year. A better point guard and a better job of getting the ball inside -- against either man or zone -- has led to better shooting.
OK, I have said more than enough. Fire away if you wish, although the more I read back, the more I think we agree. |
=>I pretty much agree with you on everything you have wrote above other than 1) I think Miami has been pretty successful the few times teams have tried man and 2) Miami's O vs. the zone has not been as bad as some think (Miami milks clock on offense which tends to keep the score low).
IN order to keep this quote chain going, I submit the following to Debate Club: Miami's improved shooting in 3 of the 4 games is a direct result of the changes the basketball teams have made in the way they are now tying their shoes. In the past, Miami laced the shoes from the outside in. Now, laces come from the inside out. Coupled with triple knots over the previous double knots These changes have created more balance as the players push off the court on the jump shot. |
I couldn't disagree more. It has nothing to do with the shoelaces and everthing to do with Monte's Elvis sideburns. Not really sure why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IndySkin wrote: | Once and for all. I just called Bulter and spoke with asst. coach Jordan and confirmed that they played:
drumroll ...
MAN TO MAN the whole game |
A: No you didn't
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mollautt wrote: | | TJWaldo wrote: | | mattsledge wrote: | | JohnnyMac wrote: | | DICK, Moll, and Butler lurker: Can we get an answer to if Butler played zone or not? |
Look earlier in the thread for that answer. |
Which part of the thread? The part where somebody said they played a zone. Or the part where somebody said they didn't.
This whole zone defense discussion is ridiculous. Teams run different offenses versus man than they do versus zone. Miami didn't run either very well last year. The fact that Purdue and/or Xavier ran less zone has NOTHING to do with how well Miami played offensively. Miami ran both well against Xavier and Purdue.
The Princeton offense is run against man defense. It is open post and relies mainly on back door cuts. This year, Miami -- against man defense -- has used weakside screens, down screens, and interior passing much more than last year, none of which are major features of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, Miami has moved the ball much better this year (two of Hausfeld's treys against Xavier came off great ball reversals). More inside out passing as well.
To say the main difference in Miami's offensive performance this year is that teams are playing less zone is not only wrong but is so simplistic it is laughable. |
=>Laugh all you want, but it is the truth this year as it was last year. Remember SMS playing man to start the game against Miami? Remember Miami scoring at will? Remember SMS switching to zone late in the first half? Remember Miami being stymied from that point on? |
So you are basing your entire analysis on one game last year. Got it.
As I said, Miami didn't play very well offensively last year against either man or zone. Miami has played better this year against both in three out of four games. They are doing some things differently this year -- as I mentioned above. Miami playing well against SW Mo St's man for part of a half is hardly indicative of how the entire season went. |
=>Where did I base it all on one game? I used SMS as a clear example of where Miami destroyed a man and then struggled against a zone. You overstate an example of evidence as the entire evidence.
The vast majority of teams do not play zone. The vast majority of teams play man. The vast majority of teams play zone against Miami. If Miami sucked against either defense, then why did basically every team Miami play use a zone? What explanation is there for this Miami anomally? Everyone knows my answer. |
Where did you base it all on one game? In your post. It was the only evidence you stated.
Didn't anyone tell Gene Keady and Sean Miller about this "Miami Anomaly?" They must have missed it on film, the fact that all you have to do against Miami is play zone? I guess you can forgive Miller; he's young. What about Keady? How could he be so dumb as to play man against Miami? He's been around a few years.
I am tired of trying to explain this to you. Go ahead and think it is all about teams not playing zone if that make you happy. After all, "Everyone" knows your answer. |
=>1. You are taking this "zone debate" a little too personally. Relax, it is just a debate.
2. As for SMS, I do not have the energy (or the perfect memory) to list out every example from last season. However, SMS was a perfect example to illustrate my point b/c SMS used both defenses and Miami's offensive effectiveness changed like night and day as soon as it happened.
3. Keady, or his assistants, did not do their homework. Sometimes in OOC games you get things like this to happen when the teams are not familiar with each other. That is likely why SMS started playing man last year. Or maybe just stupid pride b/c they are Big Ten school and Miami needs to adjust to them and not the other way around (remember Lloyd Carr having his punter continually punting to Ryne Robinson?).
4. Sean Miller started off playing man. Eventually switched to zone in the X game. Miami hit the outsdie shots and X had to go back to man do to Miami's significant lead. As I am sure you know, zone defense obviously is not effective when you are down 16 points in the 2nd half.
5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season.
6. I am glad to have worn you down. Rest up, we shall continue this debate tomorrow! |
I am back for more Debate Club (and to extend the quote chain one more time).
Sorry to get chippy, Mollautt. I do enjoy good debates.
| Quote: | | 5. Zones can be effective against a cutting offense b/c 1) You cannot lead a man into a screen if said man is not following you, and/or 2) You have a weak inside presence that allows for the defense to not defend the interior and push out on the outside shooters, and/or 3) outside shooting is suspect. 3 is magnified when 2 is in place as it was for Miami last season. |
Although I agree with you on points 2&3, that is precisely why teams run different offenses against a man than they do against a zone. Man offenses are more motion and cutting oriented; zone offensive are more ball movement oriented. When I played, whenever we weren't sure whether our opponents were playing man or zone -- which is possible with high school kids, I guess -- we would have a wing cut through the lane. If someone followed him, man defense; if no one did; zone. We would then adjust the offense we ran accordingly.
My point is, the last several years, we didn't attack either type of offense very well. There are several reasons, IMHO. No matter what type of defense a team runs, the best way to attack is from the inside out. Good post players that get the ball down low are tough to stop one-on-one. If teams double down, the ball can be kicked out to the shooters, who are in great position to score (receiving a pass from the post is the best way to shoot a jump shot because you pretty much get lined up with the basket receiving the ball).
If you can't get the ball inside, you are going to struggle. The reason the Princeton offense was developed was to find a way -- against a man defense -- to get the ball inside without having big, physical post players to dump it in to. It gets the ball inside on back door cuts, and it is beautiful when it works (one of the most enjoyable games I have ever watched was Princeton beating UCLA in the NCAA's a few years back at the RCA Dome). It is also a good offense if you don't have a real solid point guard, because it spreads the ball handling out. One thing that Princeton usually has the we haven't the past few years is good outside shooters, and that is key in the Princeton offense; if teams don't have to respect your outside shooting, they pack their defense in and the back door cuts aren't there. Which often times last year left Miami last year passing around the perimeter and forcing up a shot late in the clock.
These same weaknesses -- not much inside presence, poor shooting, no true point guard -- caused teams to play a lot of zone against Miami last year as well. Both were effective.
I have seen some very positive changes in Miami this year. First, personnel wise, Hatcher and Troyer are pretty much handling the PG duties. Chet, Peavy and Hausfeld are playing wings (Chet and Haus are not PG's). Danny and Monte and Nate VS are playing post. The roles are much more defined.
Offense wise, Miami has made some changes in their man offense. instead of relying soley on back door cuts, Miami is screening away from the ball and sending the cutters through the lane. Miami is posting up Danny and Monte and even Nate VS at times. If you taped the Xavier game, Miami ran a beautiful down screen to set up Danny for a three late in the first half. Danny was on the weakside low post and Haus was at the point withthe ball. He passed to the wing and went down the lane, setting a screen for Danny just below the foul line. Danny popped up to the top of the key off the screen and hit a wire open three. Perfectly executed, and not a staple of the Princeton offense.
Against zone, at least against Xavier, we executed much better than last year, forcing them back into a man. Two of Haus' treys came from great ball reversal to the weak side wing. It's not just that Miami MADE a couple shots, but they used good ball movement to GET better shots. Once again, much better than what I saw last year.
Miami's weaknesses last year? No true PG, an inability to get the ball inside and poor outside shooting. And poor shooting gets worse when the opponent doesn'r respect you inside game.
Improvements this year. A better point guard and a better job of getting the ball inside -- against either man or zone -- has led to better shooting.
OK, I have said more than enough. Fire away if you wish, although the more I read back, the more I think we agree. |
=>I pretty much agree with you on everything you have wrote above other than 1) I think Miami has been pretty successful the few times teams have tried man and 2) Miami's O vs. the zone has not been as bad as some think (Miami milks clock on offense which tends to keep the score low).
IN order to keep this quote chain going, I submit the following to Debate Club: Miami's improved shooting in 3 of the 4 games is a direct result of the changes the basketball teams have made in the way they are now tying their shoes. In the past, Miami laced the shoes from the outside in. Now, laces come from the inside out. Coupled with triple knots over the previous double knots These changes have created more balance as the players push off the court on the jump shot. |
I couldn't disagree more. It has nothing to do with the shoelaces and everthing to do with Monte's Elvis sideburns. Not really sure why. |
=>A: No it isn't.
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IndySkin
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 21 Dec 2003
Posts: 1644
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | mollautt Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:15 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IndySkin wrote:
Once and for all. I just called Bulter and spoke with asst. coach Jordan and confirmed that they played:
drumroll ...
MAN TO MAN the whole game
A: No you didn't
|
Yes, I did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skins
Wealthy Alum
Joined: 13 Jun 2002
Posts: 9769
Location: Purgatory
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Folks this is simple...Mollautt knows very little about basketball...he'll try to tell you that he does..but in reality he knows more about what Bob Knight does on daily basis...than actual basketball knowledge..
exhibit A:
Moll's diary entry on Bobby...
5:30 am - Bob wakes up (separate bed from wife)..
5:45 am - Slaps dog for wanting to go out to pee..
6:30 am - Eats breakfast (prepared by maid)...primarily all pork products and black coffee (with shot of Makers, of course)...
7:00 am - Yells at dog....throws kitchen chair at dog...
etc...
Moll's knowledge of basketball is secondary to his love for the "General"...and the root of his inital teachings/exposure to the game....and since the General only played "man-to-man!"...Moll would not recognize a zone if it bite him in the arse!
Ingnore Moll's observations...they will only cause confusion.
"xzibit" B: He once stated Larry Drake was the second coming of Calbert Chenney...
_________________
ONIONS!
'Stats are relevant until they no longer are...' -TK
'That is what the hell "Mizzou was overrated when we played them" means.' - HPM
Last edited by Skins on Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IndySkin wrote: | | Quote: | mollautt Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:15 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IndySkin wrote:
Once and for all. I just called Bulter and spoke with asst. coach Jordan and confirmed that they played:
drumroll ...
MAN TO MAN the whole game
A: No you didn't
|
Yes, I did. |
=>A: No you didn't
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mollautt
Credible Threat and Board Hussy
Joined: 26 Jun 2002
Posts: 21883
Location: Milford, Ohio
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skins wrote: | Ingnore Moll's observations...they will only cause confusion.
"xzibit" B: He once stated Larry Drake was the second coming of Calbert Chenney... |
=>"xzibit" C:
True story regarding my ability to "evaluate" players. My senior year at Miami, I went to Millett Hall for a preseason game vs. AIA or foreign exhibition. Wally was a frosh. Wally was recovering from a knee injury. During the game, Wally looked horrible. He was dribbling the ball off his foot. He could not jump. He could not hit a shot. He was turnover machine.
My roommate, who posts here as "Ben," agreed with me that Wally sucks, he will never play, and that it is laughable that Herb went all the way to Long Island to get this piece of garbage. 
First official game of the season, Wally goes 8 for 8 from the field. The entire game Ben and I are like, "Lucky bastard. But we know he really sucks." Ben and I have had many laughs about our initial observations since.
BTW, no NBA teams have contacted me about any open scouting positions. 
P.S. Larry Drake was the second coming of Calbert Cheaney. If only Larry would have stuck around the entire year last season, he would have proven it to you! 
_________________
@dandakich "Yo Minnesota ..old school IU fans didn't think a state of the art practice facility was necessary either..old school means old results"
TWITTER |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
