Jump to content

kleitus

Members
  • Content Count

    479
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About kleitus

  • Rank
    Junior

Recent Profile Visitors

756 profile views
  1. They're not. Could brady have become a solid B1G player? Yeah probably. I don't think anyone was disappointed in him overall. But do we really want to wait 3 years for a solid player in the age of transfers that can get you a new one every year if that's what you want? When you get in that loop you're talking about being a good TEAM roughly every 3-4 years... and when things go bad (see: last year) you end up waiting 6-8 years for real runs. Miles built a solid team... that collapsed due to injuries. Hoiberg wants to build a consistently good team. Yeah you'll have bad stuff happen but it will be less devastating. The people complaining can't see the forest for the trees. It would be one thing if he was a superstar type guy.. but he isn't. And fit matters. Period. Note: I concentrated on Brady because well.. Nebraska is Nebraska and they'll defend the hardworking hometown kid every time. Even if the team is better off in a different direction.
  2. to be honest, i'm pretty much at the point where next year doesn't at all feel like a throwaway year that's not saying we don't need some of those guys to be really good...
  3. That ^^^^^^^^ LOL What you need is just enough inside. Length gives you good D and some rebounding. Athleticism gives some as well. Nobody is advocating ignoring the interior. What they're saying is offensive and defensive efficiency is what gives you wins. On the offensive side, it's hard to overcome something that's 50% more efficient than the alternative unless you're essentially not missing much. That is all that's being said by those who advocate lots of 3 pointers. What hoiberg basically wants to do is have a lineup similar to what we had this year pre-cope's injury but with better shooting and a light 'em up offensive philosophy. Get a lead and let Doc keep it. Frankly, for those of us who remember doc's defense -- that's a hell of a way to win a lot of games. Our team the first half of this year was pretty good -- if we're at all honest. it could easily have won an ncaa game and could have had a sweet 16 run. We didn't have the depth etc. so we fell apart but there's nothing here that says we can't win a TON of games doing it. National title? Eh... I'll take an ncaa run or 5 and not complain but that'll be a work in progress. People wonder if frost's offensive philosophy can win a title too... and frankly there's a reason we're just happy he's here in general -- we're going to win games and be competitive.
  4. 74% is a lot higher than 50% in 2 point shooting lol... get zion and you win is the message... :P (or just get good players -- period) i like good inside play too... but you can win (and win big) with lots of good shooters so if that's what we're going to do I'm all for it. it's very similar to all the people saying mike leach can't win in football because all he does is pass. it makes some manly ethos' angry for some reason because they like 3 yards and a cloud of dust and good defense. hoiberg's way works, and it's been proven to work. and frankly, at this program we have zero room to nitpick on styles of play if the coach is going to win while doing it.
  5. Yep. 35% 3 point shooting is the rough equivalent of 50% from the rest of the floor (it is actually better -- 35x3=105, 50x2=100). Point being that doing better means exponential returns at the biggest stat of all -- winning. The reason you've seen such a huge jump in 3 point shooting teams in the NBA is mostly because if you shoot a high enough % you win more often than you don't. They did the math on all the extra rebounds a taller team gets too and added it in there. Yeah, the difference in how fouls were called between say... 1995 and now is a huge part of it. But athletes can do mathematics most of the time too and 3 in a trip is a major upgrade over 2 in a trip. Realistically it is an exponential difference and those are things you take advantage of -- not ignore.
  6. If you use a little analytics you'll understand why he doesnt necessarily care about height. In theory anyway. This isnt the pros where you are going against 7'0 like durant every night. You need enough height for some rebounds. But you need shooting from everyone. Shoot 40% from 3 from 4 positions and you'll be fine. A 3 is 50% more efficient than a 2 by definition. That forces the other team to shoot 60% from 2 to keep up. Even with "bad" defense it isnt that easy. In theory anyway. It ends up being a lot more inconsistent is the issue. But can be very fun to watch if you pull it off with a couple stretch 4s in your lineup. Biggest thing is emphasizing what you do well and not playing scared. Classic ncaa tournament runs are usually defined by guard play for a reason.
  7. not even to see iowa go nuclear? pretty please?
  8. i'm an hour south... and can't go. too many things going on. c'est la vie i guess... it'll be back within a decade.
  9. UVA or tech IMO... game like that in the final (defensive top teams) it's a complete crapshoot.
  10. it probably won't hurt. might not help.... but won't hurt. Professionals should be able to identify if a guy can excel in different roles when they've been around each other enough. for all we know, wade may have thought he'd make a great college coach and would be comfortable. or... he could think the opposite. even if he thinks hoiberg would help his kid out, someone like coach k might call so who knows...
  11. I know i was on here a couple weeks ago venting about us not going after a big name and just spending the money... i know i quoted some awful large figures assuming this is really, really real (probably), the next question is how much they're paying assistants and who they will be. I'm still hoping the answer is "a lot" and "guys who bring in 5 stars". we very potentially have just hired one of the 3 or 4 great college coaches of the next 20 years (a Roy or coach K or bill self). The proof is when the rubber meets the road, but this is very legit high-end potential and people need to realize that. if you want a comp... look at rick pitino's career (minus the bad parts). coached in college, went to the pros, came back and had about 20 years of really good results. Please and thank you if that happens.
  12. If that's the case... good riddance. Frankly, the fact that we're going out there and getting a coach is a breath of freakin' fresh air on so many levels. it was the exact same thing with frost. we aren't 'settling' and paying a middling amount and stagnating anymore. Attitude (good or bad) starts at the top and there was 10-15 years where we didn't have the wherewithal to sack up at the top. And it showed. Frankly, if he didn't want to pay for a coach he shouldn't have been involved in the decision process on any level.
  13. Lue $6 Strickland $5 Maric $2 Watson $2 Peltz and trueblood fill it out reasoning? Guard heavy with maric inside. the guy was a beast. three high end guards would drive opposing coaches insane and strickland would flat lock down the top guy at any other school -- and i pretty much mean ANY guy. he did it in the NBA. biggest issue is no bench but we weren't doing a 1-8 or 1-12 *shrugs*
  14. I'm glad this seems to be handled well to be honest. I'll probably wonder "what if" about this season for the next 30 years... and always root for Tim's team whoever that turns out to be.
  15. Still... no buyout for lue or hoiberg or matta. Like it or not, building a brand takes money. Lue brings a brand. Going the safe route when you've got options to go big is destructive, not "safe". Like i said before though... I'm good with most of the upper tier options we've stated here. Pay the assistants to recruit instead I'm good with that. I'm just tired of excuses. We've got the warchest to blow some of these smaller schools out of the water on so many levels. It's time to act like the big boy we should be instead of pussyfooting around like the whipped dog we have been for so long.
×
×
  • Create New...