Bear Down Wildcats

Shoutout to Pinder. A big difference maker in this game.

So here’s where I’m at with this team. For 4 to 6 minute stretches in games, we look like a damn contender. The defense is working, we’re rebounding and pushing, and we’re finding our bigs for high percentage shots. Then, however, things unravel. The defense falters, our guys start settling for 3s, we turn the ball over, and we hand the momentum to our opponent. This has happened pretty consistently, though we do tend to come out on top. It’s frustrating because we all know this team has it in them to get hot and go on a long winning streak.

This is a special team, however you cut it. We have a future NBA star in Ayton and two outstanding wings in Trier and Rawle. Next year, all three are gone, not to mention Ristic, PJC, and Pinder. I don’t think BR or EA are going anywhere. So it’s hard not to feel some urgency with this team. Ayton is a once in a generation player, and if we fall short of the FF this year, it’s going to be a tough pill. I still think we’re gonna get there. Regardless of what happens in Pac play from here on out, I love this team’s chances to win 4 games in the dance and send us over the moon. Our guys know they have an opportunity to do something special, and I have a feeling the basketball gods are finally going to smile upon Sean Miller this year.

Bear down!

No way this team makes the Final Four unless they learn how to play D.

We aren't going to just learn to play D.

Our only deep run chance is to have Ayton and Trier clicking on all cylinders for 4 straight games

Beachcat97 wrote:So here’s where I’m at with this team. For 4 to 6 minute stretches in games, we look like a damn contender. The defense is working, we’re rebounding and pushing, and we’re finding our bigs for high percentage shots. Then, however, things unravel. The defense falters, our guys start settling for 3s, we turn the ball over, and we hand the momentum to our opponent. This has happened pretty consistently, though we do tend to come out on top. It’s frustrating because we all know this team has it in them to get hot and go on a long winning streak.

This is a special team, however you cut it. We have a future NBA star in Ayton and two outstanding wings in Trier and Rawle. Next year, all three are gone, not to mention Ristic, PJC, and Pinder. I don’t think BR or EA are going anywhere. So it’s hard not to feel some urgency with this team. Ayton is a once in a generation player, and if we fall short of the FF this year, it’s going to be a tough pill. I still think we’re gonna get there. Regardless of what happens in Pac play from here on out, I love this team’s chances to win 4 games in the dance and send us over the moon. Our guys know they have an opportunity to do something special, and I have a feeling the basketball gods are finally going to smile upon Sean Miller this year.

Bear down!

Co-signed

Lots of talent. Very mentally weak. A weak overall conference that protects its own and doesn't know how to push its few successful brands is not going to help. SOS numbers have borne this out for years.

Go up against another Wichita State in the tourney and this team is toast, barring a huge upswing in maturity in the next six weeks.

catgrad97 wrote:Lots of talent. Very mentally weak. A weak overall conference that protects its own and doesn't know how to push its few successful brands is not going to help. SOS numbers have borne this out for years.

Go up against another Wichita State in the tourney and this team is toast, barring a huge upswing in maturity in the next six weeks.

I feel you, cg. I really do. Why would we expect this shaky, streaky team to beat a steadier, more mature team in the tourney? Bottom line: we need huge games from our role players and seniors. Ayton and Trier are gonna do what they do. We need timely 3s from Smith and Randolph, smart passes and minimal turnovers from PJC, and good minutes from Pinder and Lee. It’s a lot to ask, but it’s not inconceivable. This team could get hot and reach the FF. Or they could crap the bed in the second round. I still think the former is more likely. Opposing teams have to deal with Ayton/Ristic, which just isn’t easy.

Puerco wrote:No way this team makes the Final Four unless they learn how to play D.

A response two parts:

Part I

I and others here express opinions contrary to Miller's coaching, and Miller is always proven right in the end, which isn't surprising.

Exhibit A

"What is Miller thinking with Ristic on the floor? The team can't defend with him on the floor!"

What Miller knew, and we didn't know, was that Ira Lee was completely lost on defense. The only viable option has been Pinder, who also can't defend (though he's better than Ristic), and is negligible on the offensive end. So Ristic's minutes aren't an exchange of offense for defense. They're really because Miller has no choice.

Part II

There's a difference between adjusted defensive efficiency and defensive quality. I don't think this team is sliding downwards in the way Kenpom would seem to indicate.

Ristic's limitations aside, this team's defense has improved qualitatively. Switches are better, screens aren't killing us, penetration has been sealed, and players who get in the paint are finishing like they used to. More importantly, Arizona is showing an effective half-court press, too.

The defense needs to continue to improve, but what this team really needs to do to make a Final Four is to:

1) limit turnovers on fundamentally bad passes into the low post. Part of that is mechanics. But a big part of that is reading the help defense. Oregon, for example, anticipated passes by sending double and triple teams at Ayton, instead of collapsing on him when he got the ball. If teams are doing that, you need your floor properly spread and you need to find Trier, Alkins, or PJC. Once the defensive players are recovering, they're a step behind as you continue to the move the ball and free up the bigs again or find the open perimeter shooter;

and

2) Rebound better.

We should be dominating the glass every game. Strange it hasn’t gone this way.

In the Oregon game it was Trier’s lack of D that killed us, not Dusan’s. This is really concerning, because he has all the tools, and yet statistically Trier is the worst defender amongst the starters. By far. Dusan is a known commodity, and the team is versatile enough to compensate if there’s a bad matchup. We cannot compensate for Ristic AND Trier particularly since neither Smith nor Randolph are an upgrade on D. This has got to be sould crushing for Miller.

So is Froling still in the picture?
I'd like Doutrive, but right now I'd take almost anyone and Harris would suit me just fine.
I don't think our prospects will improve unless the NCAA moves faster than usual.

Ultimately if Arizona is going to get the to the final four it's going to need some production, hell any kind of production, from its bench at some point. We desperately need to get Randolph and/or Akot up to speed.

Rawle out with soreness in his foot

CatHoops wrote:Rawle out with soreness in his foot

anyone with more detailed info on this? how precautionary is this vs should we be worried he's re-injured it ?

PieceOfMeat wrote:

CatHoops wrote:Rawle out with soreness in his foot

anyone with more detailed info on this? how precautionary is this vs should we be worried he's re-injured it ?

X-rays were negative

UAEebs86 wrote:

PieceOfMeat wrote:

CatHoops wrote:Rawle out with soreness in his foot

anyone with more detailed info on this? how precautionary is this vs should we be worried he's re-injured it ?

X-rays were negative

thanks.

This is the most Anti- Miller coached team I have ever seen. Defense turnovers rebounding... nothing this team does resembles anyThing Miller hangs his hat on.

Frybry02 wrote:This is the most Anti- Miller coached team I have ever seen. Defense turnovers rebounding... nothing this team does resembles anyThing Miller hangs his hat on.

Except run that final play of the half/game where Miller just has the best most experienced guard on the team dribble the ball aimlessly until there's a few seconds left and throws up whatever bullshit that the guard decides is best. This team has Miller play nailed down to a tee!

Miller needs to go learn a couple of plays from Brad Stevens

Miller needs to go learn a couple of plays from anybody.

People are way too hard on Miller. We're still an extremely efficient offensive team.

Half ending situations are tough because coaches want the last shot. This artificially creates a situation where the offense starts from a standstill at halfcourt with a short clock. I'd bet if you looked at normal game situations, they would have about the same percentage in late clock stagnant situations.

It's a tactic that reduces your chance of scoring in order to eliminate their chance of scoring.

To give a percentage based explanation of the strategy I'm discussing and why it's worth it even if it leads to ugly, lower efficiency possessions, here's an example.

We're currently producing 1.142 points per possession. We allow .986 points per possession. That's a difference of .156 points gained for a 1 to 1 possession ratio per possession.

Taking as a given that bleeding the clock produces an inefficient possession. Say it cuts in half to around .60 points per possession. It also eliminates the other team's possession, turning them from .986 to zero. So the net effect by going from a 1 to 1 possession ratio to 1 to 0 is increasing the point differential from .156 to .600 even if the possession looks like hot dog turds.

That doesn’t explain the lack of anything resembling a play called off an inbounds.

Puerco wrote:That doesn’t explain the lack of anything resembling a play called off an inbounds.

Exactly. And oddly, too many times the end result is someone (usually Trier) trying to dribble through 3 people, losing it, resulting in a break the other way and a reasonable attempt by the other team to make the final shot. Like, say, LAST F&#@ING NIGHT.

What I'd like to see against Stanford is to come out hard with three unforced turnovers leading to easy Stanford buckets, the crowd going nuts, and a sizable hole to try to climb up out of from the get-go. Hopefully Arizona will try to get back into it by forcing contested 3-pointers early in the shot clock, and the soul-deflating clanks will lead to mental lapses on the defensive end with dagger-like draining of Stanford open 3's and emphatic slam dunks, along with Arizona drooping shoulders and Miller burning through most of his time outs. What I hope to see from Miller during those minutes is a sense of expansive, internal pressure that inflates his face and neck, pushing his eyeballs out beyond the frame of his sockets and brow line.

Then in the second half when it sinks in to the team that Stanford has come to play today with the intention of winning, the Wildcats will commit to sticking to their defensive assignments, and do so with intensity, while on the other end getting the ball to Ayton in the post and freeing up space for Trier, Alkins, and PJC to work the perimeter. That way, Arizona will show us and everyone else how good they can be when they just do what they're supposed to do, and maybe carry that lesson forward and recall it in the second half of future games that they let get away from them in the first half.

But for the moment, they'll succeed at coming back and tie the game against the Cardinal before they decide to go for the win by letting Ristic put the offense on his back as the Trees swarm him in the block, swat the ball out of his hands, and rattle him into several missed layups.

That's what I hope to see against Stanford. Don't disappoint me, Arizona.

Pop McKale wrote:

Puerco wrote:That doesn’t explain the lack of anything resembling a play called off an inbounds.

Exactly. And oddly, too many times the end result is someone (usually Trier) trying to dribble through 3 people, losing it, resulting in a break the other way and a reasonable attempt by the other team to make the final shot. Like, say, LAST F&#@ING NIGHT.

Some of that is the natural perimeter orientation inherent in late game situations. Post looks are basically impossible. You can run people of screens for jumpers, but we don't have many people who shoot well in that scenario.

Most teams run high pick and roll, even though it is extraordinarily unimaginative. There's always a way to be better, though.

This Stanford game will be a good report card on where we are this season.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:People are way too hard on Miller. We're still an extremely efficient offensive team.

Half ending situations are tough because coaches want the last shot. This artificially creates a situation where the offense starts from a standstill at halfcourt with a short clock. I'd bet if you looked at normal game situations, they would have about the same percentage in late clock stagnant situations.

It's a tactic that reduces your chance of scoring in order to eliminate their chance of scoring.

SPIFF

You're totally correct, except that last night the play resulted in a turnover and a fast break layup for the other team. We didn't need the bucket or the stop, we were still up 10 afterwards, and I'm glad we're out there practicing those plays now instead of in a close game. But the execution last night on that end of half play was the weakest. And of course it reminded many of us of the heartbreak we've seen on many of those "final possession" plays.

I like the idea if we can execute it, but if not maybe we should just be moving the ball and looking for a good shot then running back on D rather than running out the clock and stumbling through a blown play.

Longhorned wrote:What I'd like to see against Stanford is to come out hard with three unforced turnovers leading to easy Stanford buckets, the crowd going nuts, and a sizable hole to try to climb up out of from the get-go. Hopefully Arizona will try to get back into it by forcing contested 3-pointers early in the shot clock, and the soul-deflating clanks will lead to mental lapses on the defensive end with dagger-like draining of Stanford open 3's and emphatic slam dunks, along with Arizona drooping shoulders and Miller burning through most of his time outs. What I hope to see from Miller during those minutes is a sense of expansive, internal pressure that inflates his face and neck, pushing his eyeballs out beyond the frame of his sockets and brow line.

Then in the second half when it sinks in to the team that Stanford has come to play today with the intention of winning, the Wildcats will commit to sticking to their defensive assignments, and do so with intensity, while on the other end getting the ball to Ayton in the post and freeing up space for Trier, Alkins, and PJC to work the perimeter. That way, Arizona will show us and everyone else how good they can be when they just do what they're supposed to do, and maybe carry that lesson forward and recall it in the second half of future games that they let get away from them in the first half.

But for the moment, they'll succeed at coming back and tie the game against the Cardinal before they decide to go for the win by letting Ristic put the offense on his back as the Trees swarm him in the block, swat the ball out of his hands, and rattle him into several missed layups.

That's what I hope to see against Stanford. Don't disappoint me, Arizona.

This should come with a trigger warning.

YoDeFoe wrote:

Longhorned wrote:What I'd like to see against Stanford is to come out hard with three unforced turnovers leading to easy Stanford buckets, the crowd going nuts, and a sizable hole to try to climb up out of from the get-go. Hopefully Arizona will try to get back into it by forcing contested 3-pointers early in the shot clock, and the soul-deflating clanks will lead to mental lapses on the defensive end with dagger-like draining of Stanford open 3's and emphatic slam dunks, along with Arizona drooping shoulders and Miller burning through most of his time outs. What I hope to see from Miller during those minutes is a sense of expansive, internal pressure that inflates his face and neck, pushing his eyeballs out beyond the frame of his sockets and brow line.

Then in the second half when it sinks in to the team that Stanford has come to play today with the intention of winning, the Wildcats will commit to sticking to their defensive assignments, and do so with intensity, while on the other end getting the ball to Ayton in the post and freeing up space for Trier, Alkins, and PJC to work the perimeter. That way, Arizona will show us and everyone else how good they can be when they just do what they're supposed to do, and maybe carry that lesson forward and recall it in the second half of future games that they let get away from them in the first half.

But for the moment, they'll succeed at coming back and tie the game against the Cardinal before they decide to go for the win by letting Ristic put the offense on his back as the Trees swarm him in the block, swat the ball out of his hands, and rattle him into several missed layups.

That's what I hope to see against Stanford. Don't disappoint me, Arizona.

This should come with a trigger warning.

my eye is twitching

YoDeFoe wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:People are way too hard on Miller. We're still an extremely efficient offensive team.

Half ending situations are tough because coaches want the last shot. This artificially creates a situation where the offense starts from a standstill at halfcourt with a short clock. I'd bet if you looked at normal game situations, they would have about the same percentage in late clock stagnant situations.

It's a tactic that reduces your chance of scoring in order to eliminate their chance of scoring.

SPIFF

You're totally correct, except that last night the play resulted in a turnover and a fast break layup for the other team. We didn't need the bucket or the stop, we were still up 10 afterwards, and I'm glad we're out there practicing those plays now instead of in a close game. But the execution last night on that end of half play was the weakest. And of course it reminded many of us of the heartbreak we've seen on many of those "final possession" plays.

I like the idea if we can execute it, but if not maybe we should just be moving the ball and looking for a good shot then running back on D rather than running out the clock and stumbling through a blown play.

That's fair. Even good strategies are foiled by poor execution. I posted about the strategy, and I do thino the strategy is valid. It's an inherently ugly looking strategy though, and when executed poorly, doubly unpleasant.

My unprofessional opinion is that Miller likes to force his teams to learn how to play the best strategy. My only counterpoint would be that games like Cal are the perfect "practice" scenarios. If we blow it, we still win and we get game practice for a strategy we want to use vs better teams.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote: SPIFF

You're totally correct, except that last night the play resulted in a turnover and a fast break layup for the other team. We didn't need the bucket or the stop, we were still up 10 afterwards, and I'm glad we're out there practicing those plays now instead of in a close game. But the execution last night on that end of half play was the weakest. And of course it reminded many of us of the heartbreak we've seen on many of those "final possession" plays.

I like the idea if we can execute it, but if not maybe we should just be moving the ball and looking for a good shot then running back on D rather than running out the clock and stumbling through a blown play.

That's fair. Even good strategies are foiled by poor execution. I posted about the strategy, and I do thino the strategy is valid. It's an inherently ugly looking strategy though, and when executed poorly, doubly unpleasant.

My unprofessional opinion is that Miller likes to force his teams to learn how to play the best strategy. My only counterpoint would be that games like Cal are the perfect "practice" scenarios. If we blow it, we still win and we get game practice for a strategy we want to use vs better teams.

Yeah we're in agreement - Miller playing it last night and forcing our guys to "do the right thing" in a lower pressure situation is good practice. I'm just laughing that the strategy is to run your set and limit the opponent's ability to get a final shot, and our execution resulted in the opposite. Again: glad we're working that out up 12 against Cal.

I think many of the turnovers can be chalked up to the same - our guys working what Miller is telling them and stumbling in the execution. Which is fine. More game film to watch, more experience to internalize. I mean: it's fine because we still won the game handily and Miller is pushing these guys in the right direction. Specifically regarding post entry passes - our guys need to get better at them even when the defense's number one goal is to stop them.

Story time:
Not too many years ago I took up snowboarding - my gf (now wife) loved the sport and all my friends did too so I wanted to join the party. It sucked. I fell a ton. It hurt and it was embarrassing. And my friends gave me the out: dude you can take it easy, you don't have to be good. I wouldn't accept that, so I had to accept that if I'm not falling - I'm not trying. I had to embrace that failure meant I was moving forward, and a lack of failure meant that I wasn't pushing myself. Not groundbreaking stuff but when the ground can literally break you it was a tough agreement to make every morning strapping in.

Anyways. I got good. I broke some stuff along the way and scared my wife half to death but I got really good. Only because I kept pushing and taking the licks.

Long way of saying: I'm fine seeing the struggle cause as they stumble, these guys are stumbling in the right direction.

YoDeFoe wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

YoDeFoe wrote: SPIFF

You're totally correct, except that last night the play resulted in a turnover and a fast break layup for the other team. We didn't need the bucket or the stop, we were still up 10 afterwards, and I'm glad we're out there practicing those plays now instead of in a close game. But the execution last night on that end of half play was the weakest. And of course it reminded many of us of the heartbreak we've seen on many of those "final possession" plays.

I like the idea if we can execute it, but if not maybe we should just be moving the ball and looking for a good shot then running back on D rather than running out the clock and stumbling through a blown play.

That's fair. Even good strategies are foiled by poor execution. I posted about the strategy, and I do thino the strategy is valid. It's an inherently ugly looking strategy though, and when executed poorly, doubly unpleasant.

My unprofessional opinion is that Miller likes to force his teams to learn how to play the best strategy. My only counterpoint would be that games like Cal are the perfect "practice" scenarios. If we blow it, we still win and we get game practice for a strategy we want to use vs better teams.

Yeah we're in agreement - Miller playing it last night and forcing our guys to "do the right thing" in a lower pressure situation is good practice. I'm just laughing that the strategy is to run your set and limit the opponent's ability to get a final shot, and our execution resulted in the opposite. Again: glad we're working that out up 12 against Cal.

I think many of the turnovers can be chalked up to the same - our guys working what Miller is telling them and stumbling in the execution. Which is fine. More game film to watch, more experience to internalize. I mean: it's fine because we still won the game handily and Miller is pushing these guys in the right direction. Specifically regarding post entry passes - our guys need to get better at them even when the defense's number one goal is to stop them.

Story time:
Not too many years ago I took up snowboarding - my gf (now wife) loved the sport and all my friends did too so I wanted to join the party. It sucked. I fell a ton. It hurt and it was embarrassing. And my friends gave me the out: dude you can take it easy, you don't have to be good. I wouldn't accept that, so I had to accept that if I'm not falling - I'm not trying. I had to embrace that failure meant I was moving forward, and a lack of failure meant that I wasn't pushing myself. Not groundbreaking stuff but when the ground can literally break you it was a tough agreement to make every morning strapping in.

Anyways. I got good. I broke some stuff along the way and scared my wife half to death but I got really good. Only because I kept pushing and taking the licks.

Long way of saying: I'm fine seeing the struggle cause as they stumble, these guys are stumbling in the right direction.

RG, I agree. I'm fine with Miller using the season as an extended lesson in what we need to improve in. Right now, Randolph is in a terrible shooting slump, but Miller needs to play him so he can break out and hopefully be producing when it's one and done time.

When every game is do or die, you have to start employing any strategy it takes to win and advance. Right now, it's better to take a few L's in the name of creating the habits we need to create. One lesson from Cal is how not to eff up last shot situations.

Apply that lesson and use it to press the team to be better. If we still suck at execution in the Sweet 16, say eff it and just run normal offense.

I would actually this is a growth area for Miller. I was critical of him in 13-14 for going to a short rotation of 6.5 guys with York being the .5. Then Ashley went down and we needed minutes from people like Pitts and Korcheck but they weren't ready. Miller has adjusted to compromising the win now mentality to a develop and win now mentality.

Any news on Rawle?

YoDeFoe wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:People are way too hard on Miller. We're still an extremely efficient offensive team.

Half ending situations are tough because coaches want the last shot. This artificially creates a situation where the offense starts from a standstill at halfcourt with a short clock. I'd bet if you looked at normal game situations, they would have about the same percentage in late clock stagnant situations.

It's a tactic that reduces your chance of scoring in order to eliminate their chance of scoring.

SPIFF

You're totally correct, except that last night the play resulted in a turnover and a fast break layup for the other team. We didn't need the bucket or the stop, we were still up 10 afterwards, and I'm glad we're out there practicing those plays now instead of in a close game. But the execution last night on that end of half play was the weakest. And of course it reminded many of us of the heartbreak we've seen on many of those "final possession" plays.

I like the idea if we can execute it, but if not maybe we should just be moving the ball and looking for a good shot then running back on D rather than running out the clock and stumbling through a blown play.

There was a time late in Lute's tenure where end of half or end of game, the fanbase was literally just hoping we held the ball until the clock ran out. It seemed like this same scenario bit us multiple times over a 3 to 4 year period, where end half (mostly, since they are the most common) plays turned into turnovrers and run-outs for layups and 3s at the buzzer. I would have killed for a guard to pound the floor until :02 and then shoot a desperation 3.

But, yes...everything Spiff wrote. X 100. As for the Final Four talk, or deep tournament (EE...the horror) talk...you need skill (we have it), focus (we wane here, but the tournament tends to draw player's attention), a little bit of luck (D Will's block, Salim hits the shot vs OSU and then we give a perfect look from 3 at the buzzer), a thrown up spin shot over your head to go in (Tommy T), whatever....

We have the skill and talent. And this team gets incrementally better at the important things. Our bench doesn't score, but you get 3 minute time outs, and 10 TV time outs, in the tournament...our bench is sufficient.

You just have to win a couple of toss up games. We'll see...

Wins a win on the road in the Pac 12. Can never be upset with a road sweep. Thought Miller really played the Ayton situation very well. Our key players made plays down the stretch, even guys who had off/bad games. These guys got a bit more resiliency than most of us give them credit for. Still time to iron out the kinks and oh, by the way, we are sitting atop of the Pac 12 as we should be. Gonna be a wild ride.

Great win but we really need a bench.... I thought for sure we’d have one this year

who would've thunk that Dylan would basically be our entire bench at this point of the season

I would say that Ira Lee can give our big starters some minutes.

Still don't know about Pinder, though.

SunnyAZ wrote:who would've thunk that Dylan would basically be our entire bench at this point of the season

I'm sour that Akot got no time yesterday. I'm a Smith supporter for sure now, but you can't tell me Akot could be worse than Randolph.

Randolph has been by far and away by biggest disappointment as hes capable of so much more.

That was a real head scratcher when Cats built a nice lead, and Miller puts in Smith, Pinder and Randolph in, along with keeping PJC and Ristic.

Talk about the offense completely stopping.

At least at the half, every bench player had a negative RAP score.

Maybe just a situation where Miller really doesn't trust his bench all that much and is still experimenting at this late stage of the season? Akot not getting more time is a head scratcher. And yeah, Randolph has been disappointing, but his minutes have also been very limited. Gotta get those reps! What about Barcello?

I have to think that Akot and Randolph will be back next season, no? Neither has really established that they're pro-ready. So potentially, we're looking at a backcourt of BW, EA, BR, AB, and DS next season. Not terrible.

Akot played briefly in the 2nd half. Box score credited him 2 minutes. I still think coach should be subbing 1 freshman at a time instead of the mass substitutions he appears to prefer.

84Cat wrote:Akot played briefly in the 2nd half. Box score credited him 2 minutes. I still think coach should be subbing 1 freshman at a time instead of the mass substitutions he appears to prefer.

Yeah every time Miller puts in a lineup with both Smith and Randolph I facepalm immediately. He even goes full crazy and puts Lee or Pinder in at the same time and I further drift into madness.

I'd prefer one sub at a time also. Since none on the bench are really contributing, we have to remember that Smith was on the bench red-shirting all last year. Lee has more upside, but Pinder has more time in the system. If we ever have a 20 point lead late in the game, I'd like our bench to get more minutes until they lose half the lead.

catgrad97 wrote:I would say that Ira Lee can give our big starters some minutes.

Still don't know about Pinder, though.

Not picking on you in particular, but I completely don't understand the various comments I see in support of giving Ira Lee more minutes. Is it due to frustration with Ristic, everyones favorite scapegoat? Pinder has proven far more useful in the limited time, than Lee. Lee doesn't rotate quick, fouls too much, turns it over and has no offense at all. Pinder saved us the Oregon game, and been useful many games last year.

Yes Lee has plenty of raw talent and athleticism, but all I've seen thus far are rebounds and some blocks. His bbiq seems streetball level right now.

My faith in preseason hype for freshmen is shaken. I expected bigger things from every frosh not named Ayton. I don't see any of them being particularly good next year either.

zonagrad wrote:My faith in preseason hype for freshmen is shaken. I expected bigger things from every frosh not named Ayton. I don't see any of them being particularly good next year either.

I agree about expecting more this year but I'm not worried about them next year. They will make the freshman to sophomore leap

Alieberman wrote:

zonagrad wrote:My faith in preseason hype for freshmen is shaken. I expected bigger things from every frosh not named Ayton. I don't see any of them being particularly good next year either.

I agree about expecting more this year but I'm not worried about them next year. They will make the freshman to sophomore leap

Next year doesn't help with this year. Bench production has been abysmal and there will be games THIS season where we will need much more from them. Other than rebounding, the bench has been my biggest disappointment with this year's team.

Unless they transfer due to lack of minutes you have to expect they will all be back. And I do expect to see improvement. Randolph and Akot have both shown flashes. Give them another season being coached up, working with trainer Justin, and practicing I think we see a big jump. Remember the huge jump D-Will took....granted he was pretty good as a freshmen. But across the league a lot of teams barely even play their freshmen. Kansas is one example of a team who gets a lot of top freshmen talent and don't give them many minutes. They usually blossom as sophs or juniors.

So yeah I guess it's bad for this year but possibly good for next...especially if we have no more top recruits coming. Realistically we are looking at:

Barcello/Brandon WIlliams
Dylan Smith/Randolph/Akot
Shareef
Ira Lee
Chase Jeter

Any chance at all Rawle comes back? As of now it really looks like the type of leap the current freshmen make will really determine what type of team we have next year.