Moderators: UAdevil, JMarkJohns
Game times are MST.
Well, here were my predictions to begin the season:Olsondogg wrote:You've been so spot on with your predictions, why not make more of 'em?
What a constructive, civil response.Olsondogg wrote:So much stupid in all of that.
It's really more between PJC and Nic after the weight loss. Similar tendencies offensively. Quick first step. Nice stroke from three. Not afraid to take it to the rim despite being undersized.Longhorned wrote:What resemblance to you see between PJC and Nic Wise?
Stanley would have to get on some kind of streak the next few weeks to come close to AG.Alieberman wrote:7. Stanley Johnson will be very, very good, but he won't make quite the impact that AG did (correct)
This is very much TBD. Stanley is capable of making a game winning shot.... AG was never able to.
8. Pitts will get more PT than York (York has more minutes, but Pitts is gaining)
No.
this is preposterousBeachcat97 wrote:
Stanley would have to get on some kind of streak the next few weeks to come close to AG.
Yeah, I don't get it BC. Stanley does all the things that AG does and a few that he doesn't. The only thing that AG had over Stanimal was his motor.97cats wrote:this is preposterousBeachcat97 wrote:
Stanley would have to get on some kind of streak the next few weeks to come close to AG.
Stanley Johnson might be the best player in America
I would've never made this connection. Two very different players.Beachcat97 wrote:It's really more between PJC and Nic after the weight loss. Similar tendencies offensively. Quick first step. Nice stroke from three. Not afraid to take it to the rim despite being undersized.Longhorned wrote:What resemblance to you see between PJC and Nic Wise?
Despite his height, PJC has elite length and uses it. He's better driving to his left, and his slick spin moves get him space to finish in traffic. PJC is a significantly better rebounder and his length is an advantage on defense. Nic's outside shot was really good his sophomore and junior year, but PJC has a smoother stroke and I won't be surprised if he's better. Nic was a good passer, but PJC's passing and vision are on a different level. Different body types, different approaches to the game. I have a hard time making a comparison meaningful.gumby wrote:I would've never made this connection. Two very different players.Beachcat97 wrote:It's really more between PJC and Nic after the weight loss. Similar tendencies offensively. Quick first step. Nice stroke from three. Not afraid to take it to the rim despite being undersized.Longhorned wrote:What resemblance to you see between PJC and Nic Wise?
Chicat wrote:Yeah, I don't get it BC. Stanley does all the things that AG does and a few that he doesn't. The only thing that AG had over Stanimal was his motor.97cats wrote:this is preposterousBeachcat97 wrote:
Stanley would have to get on some kind of streak the next few weeks to come close to AG.
Stanley Johnson might be the best player in America
There was a special chemistry and vibe on last year's team, and I think a lot of it had to do with AG. So while I can't argue with SJ's overall superiority as a player, I originally said that SJ's impact on the team would not equal AG's. I think some are already forgetting the impact that AG had on defense and on our team's chemistry. Sometimes the superior player is not the more valuable player. Sort of like how SJ is better than TJ, but does anyone think SJ is more valuable to this year's team?97cats wrote:Gordon was a better individual/team defender, dunker, and glue guy.
Johnson is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better all-around offensive player, shooter, scorer (specifically finishing from from 10ft in) & passer and is almost as good a rebounder.
in terms of body each player is superior in different aspects making that somewhat of a wash -- Johnson's overall strength and body control is his advantage while Gordon is better laterally and obviously more athletic.
they are more similar in their own specific ways in terms of impact and neither is anywhere near far better than the other -- that will be validated and reflected in where Johnson is drafted, as it will be similar to Gordon.
where Johnson may yet separate himself is in March at the end of games where he is far better at creating opportunities not only for himself but also his teamates.
This difference between Gordon and Johnson bears itself out on a teamwide level too. With Gordon, we were an elite team on D and the glass. With Johnson, we're just very good in those areas (with a concerning tendency to give up stuff on the offensive glass).97cats wrote:Gordon was a better individual/team defender, dunker, and glue guy.
Johnson is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better all-around offensive player, shooter, scorer (specifically finishing from from 10ft in) & passer and is almost as good a rebounder.
in terms of body each player is superior in different aspects making that somewhat of a wash -- Johnson's overall strength and body control is his advantage while Gordon is better laterally and obviously more athletic.
they are more similar in their own specific ways in terms of impact and neither is anywhere near far better than the other -- that will be validated and reflected in where Johnson is drafted, as it will be similar to Gordon.
where Johnson may yet separate himself is in March at the end of games where he is far better at creating opportunities not only for himself but also his teamates.
I hope you're right, SS!Spaceman Spiff wrote:This difference between Gordon and Johnson bears itself out on a teamwide level too. With Gordon, we were an elite team on D and the glass. With Johnson, we're just very good in those areas (with a concerning tendency to give up stuff on the offensive glass).97cats wrote:Gordon was a better individual/team defender, dunker, and glue guy.
Johnson is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better all-around offensive player, shooter, scorer (specifically finishing from from 10ft in) & passer and is almost as good a rebounder.
in terms of body each player is superior in different aspects making that somewhat of a wash -- Johnson's overall strength and body control is his advantage while Gordon is better laterally and obviously more athletic.
they are more similar in their own specific ways in terms of impact and neither is anywhere near far better than the other -- that will be validated and reflected in where Johnson is drafted, as it will be similar to Gordon.
where Johnson may yet separate himself is in March at the end of games where he is far better at creating opportunities not only for himself but also his teamates.
With Gordon, we suffered from a lineup with at least one (2 with Rondae) nonshooters on the floor. Stanley commands attention when he has the ball and makes it easier for everyone else where Aaron, as much as I loved to watch him play, made it harder b/c his man could sag nonstop. We don't have nearly as many stretches of ugly offense. We had a skid in Pac play last year where in 8 games, we shot under 40% three times and over 50% zero times. Not to mention an inability to score 55 points in the Elite 8...
We traded being a lockdown defensive team with offensive issues to a very good defensive team and a very good offensive team. There are no guarantees in March, but I think we're a more dangerous team without the offense limitations of last year, and the character change from Aaron to Stanley (and it pains me to say it b/c Aaron was awesome) is representative of that.
Do think a comment about "the amount of sand in your vajayjay" would have been more constructive and civil? I wish I had a $ for every time I read a post of yours with that or similar sophomoric nonsense.Beachcat97 wrote:What a constructive, civil response.Olsondogg wrote:So much stupid in all of that.
Beachcat's game has been really lacking as of late.Olsondogg wrote:So much stupid in all of that.
Gordon was NOT a better finisher around the basket. Have we all forgotten the bunny woes last year? Gordon was an elite leaper and rebounder so he cleaned up a lot of his own misses but there were many occasions when he had to rebound two or more of his own missed layups in a row.Merkin wrote:I see more potential with PJC than with Wise. I don't think Miller would have even offered Nic Wise, and Lute probably wishes he didn't offer him as a freshman.
Defense too, besides attitude. AG was also a better finisher close to the basket.Chicat wrote:Yeah, I don't get it BC. Stanley does all the things that AG does and a few that he doesn't. The only thing that AG had over Stanimal was his motor.97cats wrote:this is preposterousBeachcat97 wrote:
Stanley would have to get on some kind of streak the next few weeks to come close to AG.
Stanley Johnson might be the best player in America
Which doesn't mean Johnson isn't the best player in the land, he most certainly well can be when he wants too.
Apples are better than oranges. Or maybe the other way around.RockyRaccoon wrote:In Miller's system:
AG>SJ
That doesn't necessarily mean AG is a better basketball player than Johnson.
True, they shouldn't be directly compared. That being said, if I were forced to choose one it would be AG because as I said earlier he just fits Miller's system better.Spaceman Spiff wrote:Apples are better than oranges. Or maybe the other way around.RockyRaccoon wrote:In Miller's system:
AG>SJ
That doesn't necessarily mean AG is a better basketball player than Johnson.
On that concerning tendency to give up stuff on offensive glass, we lead the nation in defensive rebounding percentage. Believe that means that no team does a better job of limiting offensive rebounds than Arizona.Spaceman Spiff wrote:This difference between Gordon and Johnson bears itself out on a teamwide level too. With Gordon, we were an elite team on D and the glass. With Johnson, we're just very good in those areas (with a concerning tendency to give up stuff on the offensive glass).97cats wrote:Gordon was a better individual/team defender, dunker, and glue guy.
Johnson is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better all-around offensive player, shooter, scorer (specifically finishing from from 10ft in) & passer and is almost as good a rebounder.
in terms of body each player is superior in different aspects making that somewhat of a wash -- Johnson's overall strength and body control is his advantage while Gordon is better laterally and obviously more athletic.
they are more similar in their own specific ways in terms of impact and neither is anywhere near far better than the other -- that will be validated and reflected in where Johnson is drafted, as it will be similar to Gordon.
where Johnson may yet separate himself is in March at the end of games where he is far better at creating opportunities not only for himself but also his teamates.
With Gordon, we suffered from a lineup with at least one (2 with Rondae) nonshooters on the floor. Stanley commands attention when he has the ball and makes it easier for everyone else where Aaron, as much as I loved to watch him play, made it harder b/c his man could sag nonstop. We don't have nearly as many stretches of ugly offense. We had a skid in Pac play last year where in 8 games, we shot under 40% three times and over 50% zero times. Not to mention an inability to score 55 points in the Elite 8...
We traded being a lockdown defensive team with offensive issues to a very good defensive team and a very good offensive team. There are no guarantees in March, but I think we're a more dangerous team without the offense limitations of last year, and the character change from Aaron to Stanley (and it pains me to say it b/c Aaron was awesome) is representative of that.
I mean in the close ones. When we win on the glass, we win. The games we've tied or lost on the glass are UTEP, UNLV, Gonzaga, OSU and ASU. The only outlier was losing on the glass to Missouri but still winning convincingly.gumby wrote:On that concerning tendency to give up stuff on offensive glass, we lead the nation in defensive rebounding percentage. Believe that means that no team does a better job of limiting offensive rebounds than Arizona.Spaceman Spiff wrote:This difference between Gordon and Johnson bears itself out on a teamwide level too. With Gordon, we were an elite team on D and the glass. With Johnson, we're just very good in those areas (with a concerning tendency to give up stuff on the offensive glass).97cats wrote:Gordon was a better individual/team defender, dunker, and glue guy.
Johnson is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better all-around offensive player, shooter, scorer (specifically finishing from from 10ft in) & passer and is almost as good a rebounder.
in terms of body each player is superior in different aspects making that somewhat of a wash -- Johnson's overall strength and body control is his advantage while Gordon is better laterally and obviously more athletic.
they are more similar in their own specific ways in terms of impact and neither is anywhere near far better than the other -- that will be validated and reflected in where Johnson is drafted, as it will be similar to Gordon.
where Johnson may yet separate himself is in March at the end of games where he is far better at creating opportunities not only for himself but also his teamates.
With Gordon, we suffered from a lineup with at least one (2 with Rondae) nonshooters on the floor. Stanley commands attention when he has the ball and makes it easier for everyone else where Aaron, as much as I loved to watch him play, made it harder b/c his man could sag nonstop. We don't have nearly as many stretches of ugly offense. We had a skid in Pac play last year where in 8 games, we shot under 40% three times and over 50% zero times. Not to mention an inability to score 55 points in the Elite 8...
We traded being a lockdown defensive team with offensive issues to a very good defensive team and a very good offensive team. There are no guarantees in March, but I think we're a more dangerous team without the offense limitations of last year, and the character change from Aaron to Stanley (and it pains me to say it b/c Aaron was awesome) is representative of that.
On another note, Arizona is one of only four teams to be top 15 in Adjusted Offense and defensive efficiency. Good balance. Good rebounding. Good turnover margin. More steals than usual.
I love last years team alot I really do but we talk about them like the won a championship. If this years team breaks through elite 8 into the Final 4 or Championship game then people will not give two shits about the "Special Chemistry" of last years team.Beachcat97 wrote:There was a special chemistry and vibe on last year's team, and I think a lot of it had to do with AG. So while I can't argue with SJ's overall superiority as a player, I originally said that SJ's impact on the team would not equal AG's. I think some are already forgetting the impact that AG had on defense and on our team's chemistry. Sometimes the superior player is not the more valuable player. Sort of like how SJ is better than TJ, but does anyone think SJ is more valuable to this year's team?97cats wrote:Gordon was a better individual/team defender, dunker, and glue guy.
Johnson is a MUCH MUCH MUCH better all-around offensive player, shooter, scorer (specifically finishing from from 10ft in) & passer and is almost as good a rebounder.
in terms of body each player is superior in different aspects making that somewhat of a wash -- Johnson's overall strength and body control is his advantage while Gordon is better laterally and obviously more athletic.
they are more similar in their own specific ways in terms of impact and neither is anywhere near far better than the other -- that will be validated and reflected in where Johnson is drafted, as it will be similar to Gordon.
where Johnson may yet separate himself is in March at the end of games where he is far better at creating opportunities not only for himself but also his teamates.
If the NBA passed that 2 year rule we wouldn't be talking about those 3 losses. The College game would be amazing if they were forced to pay 2-3 years! Its a pipe dream I know.UAGreg wrote:AG and SJ are two completely different players, so I don't really think you can compare.
That being said, how much do we miss having someone who can completely lock down an athletic 4? In all 3 of our losses, that was one of the main issues.
Tremendously. But last year we also missed having some way to get to 60 points in freaking 45 minutes against Wisconsin.UAGreg wrote:AG and SJ are two completely different players, so I don't really think you can compare.
That being said, how much do we miss having someone who can completely lock down an athletic 4? In all 3 of our losses, that was one of the main issues.
Pretty much this. Ashley used to be able to guard Carrick Felix. He should be able to stop a stretch 4. If not, play SJ and RHJ at forwards, and if they can't pull it off, maybe we're destined to lose. At least we're less likely to have to suffer through impotent stretches where it doesn't matter how good at D we are because we can't put the f***ing ball in the basket.Longhorned wrote:Tremendously. But last year we also missed having some way to get to 60 points in freaking 45 minutes against Wisconsin.UAGreg wrote:AG and SJ are two completely different players, so I don't really think you can compare.
That being said, how much do we miss having someone who can completely lock down an athletic 4? In all 3 of our losses, that was one of the main issues.
In general, if you can score 60 points regularly, your tournament fortunes are always better. Last year, we lacked any margin of error. This year, we have some. Except against Kentucky, where we would need a lot of luck.Beachcat97 wrote:So are we better suited to defeat Wisconsin this year? Because you know the selection committee loves a rematch.
Not a factor. Pretty good article here on the process,.Beachcat97 wrote:So are we better suited to defeat Wisconsin this year? Because you know the selection committee loves a rematch.
Saw a stat a week or so ago stating that SJ only completes 50% of this shots at the basket. Never saw any like stats for Gordon, but I imagine it had to be better than 50%.Chicat wrote: Gordon was NOT a better finisher around the basket.
Don't forget the Pennell win in 2008 at U.S. Airways.gumby wrote:A rematch could happen, but they don't intentionally seek them out. Can't think of any next-year rematches for Arizona. We had that epic game against Gonzaga in 2003. Didn't play them again until last year.
The committee didn't arrange that.catgrad97 wrote:Don't forget the Pennell win in 2008 at U.S. Airways.gumby wrote:A rematch could happen, but they don't intentionally seek them out. Can't think of any next-year rematches for Arizona. We had that epic game against Gonzaga in 2003. Didn't play them again until last year.
Rematches happen, but it's more bracketing luck than scheduling.gumby wrote:Not a factor. Pretty good article here on the process,.Beachcat97 wrote:So are we better suited to defeat Wisconsin this year? Because you know the selection committee loves a rematch.
http://ericcrawford.tumblr.com/post/179 ... he-madness
A rematch could happen, but they don't intentionally seek them out. Can't think of any next-year rematches for Arizona. We had that epic game against Gonzaga in 2003. Didn't play them again until last year.
What are some examples for other teams?
I agree that it's more about the late round rematches. For instance, our rematch vs SDSU last year. Almost every year, you'll see teams seeded in the top four with a chance to face off again. I wouldn't be stunned if that meant we see Gonzaga in our bracket this year.Reydituto wrote:Rematches happen, but it's more bracketing luck than scheduling.gumby wrote:Not a factor. Pretty good article here on the process,.Beachcat97 wrote:So are we better suited to defeat Wisconsin this year? Because you know the selection committee loves a rematch.
http://ericcrawford.tumblr.com/post/179 ... he-madness
A rematch could happen, but they don't intentionally seek them out. Can't think of any next-year rematches for Arizona. We had that epic game against Gonzaga in 2003. Didn't play them again until last year.
What are some examples for other teams?
UA played Kansas in B2B years (1996, 1997), and also played them in 2003.
UA has played Oklahoma three times in March Madness, and lost all of them ('88, '99, '02). UA's also lost to Seton Hall twice (1991, 2004), and Wisconsin twice (2000, 2014), but beat the Badgers in 2006. UA split with Illinois in Elite Eight games as well.
Off the top of my head,UCLA and Florida had B2B Final Four matchups in 2006 & 2007. Kentucky & Utah have played a number of times in the NCAAs. So have Duke-UConn, Duke-Kansas and Duke-Kentucky. Many of those were deeper in the tournament, so hard to allege they were intentionally set up.
I think teams are often bracketed for possible rematches in later rounds, many of which fall through, but some do come to fruition. So while I would agree that they don't intentionally schedule rematches, I do think at some point in the seeding & bracketing process the potential for a rematch in later rounds enters the equation.
Good stuff. Thanks.Reydituto wrote:Rematches happen, but it's more bracketing luck than scheduling.gumby wrote:Not a factor. Pretty good article here on the process,.Beachcat97 wrote:So are we better suited to defeat Wisconsin this year? Because you know the selection committee loves a rematch.
http://ericcrawford.tumblr.com/post/179 ... he-madness
A rematch could happen, but they don't intentionally seek them out. Can't think of any next-year rematches for Arizona. We had that epic game against Gonzaga in 2003. Didn't play them again until last year.
What are some examples for other teams?
UA played Kansas in B2B years (1996, 1997), and also played them in 2003.
UA has played Oklahoma three times in March Madness, and lost all of them ('88, '99, '02). UA's also lost to Seton Hall twice (1991, 2004), and Wisconsin twice (2000, 2014), but beat the Badgers in 2006. UA split with Illinois in Elite Eight games as well.
Off the top of my head,UCLA and Florida had B2B Final Four matchups in 2006 & 2007. Kentucky & Utah have played a number of times in the NCAAs. So have Duke-UConn, Duke-Kansas and Duke-Kentucky. Many of those were deeper in the tournament, so hard to allege they were intentionally set up.
I think teams are often bracketed for possible rematches in later rounds, many of which fall through, but some do come to fruition. So while I would agree that they don't intentionally schedule rematches, I do think at some point in the seeding & bracketing process the potential for a rematch in later rounds enters the equation.
Early warning: Cats will face and get beat by Oklahoma in the tourney in 2017. Mark it down.Reydituto wrote:Rematches happen, but it's more bracketing luck than scheduling.gumby wrote:Not a factor. Pretty good article here on the process,.Beachcat97 wrote:So are we better suited to defeat Wisconsin this year? Because you know the selection committee loves a rematch.
http://ericcrawford.tumblr.com/post/179 ... he-madness
A rematch could happen, but they don't intentionally seek them out. Can't think of any next-year rematches for Arizona. We had that epic game against Gonzaga in 2003. Didn't play them again until last year.
What are some examples for other teams?
UA played Kansas in B2B years (1996, 1997), and also played them in 2003.
UA has played Oklahoma three times in March Madness, and lost all of them ('88, '99, '02). UA's also lost to Seton Hall twice (1991, 2004), and Wisconsin twice (2000, 2014), but beat the Badgers in 2006. UA split with Illinois in Elite Eight games as well.
Off the top of my head,UCLA and Florida had B2B Final Four matchups in 2006 & 2007. Kentucky & Utah have played a number of times in the NCAAs. So have Duke-UConn, Duke-Kansas and Duke-Kentucky. Many of those were deeper in the tournament, so hard to allege they were intentionally set up.
I think teams are often bracketed for possible rematches in later rounds, many of which fall through, but some do come to fruition. So while I would agree that they don't intentionally schedule rematches, I do think at some point in the seeding & bracketing process the potential for a rematch in later rounds enters the equation.
Olsondogg wrote:People should stop comparing teams of yesteryear with the current team.
Goes for players as well.
You know who Stanley Johson reminds me of? Stanley Johnson. Oh and Aaron Gordon? He reminds me of that guy, Aaron Gordon.
Two totally different players, and this team was totally different at this time last year...much like every single basketball team out there.
