|
|
Post by bhowren on Jan 14, 2016 7:08:37 GMT -8
I think it is that simple! When they have effort on the boards, it carries over into the rest of the game! More often than not, you could tell last night that Colorado was going to get the offensive rebound until they made a shot. I think GP2 will play hard every night! The others??? I haven't seen it yet! GP2 may not always have a good shooting night, but you will get his full effort! This team needs a lot more dog in them! They need to be relentless on the boards! The rest will take care of itself!
|
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jan 14, 2016 7:32:44 GMT -8
I agree about the "more dog". We seem to have some "dog" at home. But on the road everyone but Payton lose their "dog". Hopefully the freshmen can develop some "road dog".
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jan 14, 2016 8:40:57 GMT -8
We had 1 (!) defensive rebound TOTAL between Eubanks, Reid, Shaft, N'daine, Rakocevic, and Tinkle. That's right, all of our defensive rebounds came from GP II, Malcolm, LMW and Thompson. Sheesh. Ironically, we had decent offensive rebounding numbers compared to Colorado (only a -1 delta) - but they shot the ball almost 15% better than we did, so we had a lot more opportunities for them as well.
I'm not sure I can blame it all on lack of effort though. I saw Eubanks working his butt off, but still not getting boards because the players around him were a lot more crafty, stronger, and picked their moments. I saw Tinkle getting getting into position for defensive rebounds, and their bigs would then just lean on him and go over the top. GPII gets boards because he simply goes and gets it while all the bigs lean on each other. I guess that can be expected from our young guys, they just aren't very strong yet, nor do they have the instincts that the Colorado bigs have. What is really disappointing to me is that adding Gomis hasn't fixed that. At times last year he brought the kind of presence we're sorely lacking inside, and it just hasn't happened yet this year.
In retrospect, WT probably should have played Big G earlier and had him push on Scott and try to tire him. Instead, even rotating 4 bigs, it our bigs who had no legs and foul trouble by late in the game.
And when a guy has more TOs than points, rebounds or assists (yes, talking about Malcolm), I'm not sure how we can afford him playing 3/4s of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by treasurevalleybeav on Jan 14, 2016 9:06:44 GMT -8
Reid has great effort on the boards.....but it just doesn't matter, because he's not a good rebounder or defender. Olaf has almost no resistance when someone else in his vicinity goes hard after a rebound. Eubanks just plain had a freshman type of game. Something he doesn't do very often to his credit. In a game like that Gomis and N'daine and sometimes big G, just HAVE to be in there instead of Olaf/Reid.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 14, 2016 9:20:56 GMT -8
Our bigs, including Drew are not Pac 12 caliber. Drew may get there but he is a loooooong ways away. He has been dominated since league play began. He has limited experience and will improve, but he will not be a major factor overall down the stretch. We just need him to use his 5 fouls wisely and pull down 6-10 boards. Big G is rough, but has a game in flashes and needs more time... the others are not worth mentioning their worth and legacy has been proven over the past three years and other than a flash here and there can't be counted on for consistent contributions besides the depth factor,
I'm not a believer in ranking recruits/classes, and ours was better than ever... but not top half of Pac 12 (IMHO) in terms of pure talent/potential. We need two more similar (or better athletically) classes to get to the "dance" conversation. I'm not sure I see how we can because this team is so up and down, but we need to be at least 4-5 at the halfway point. With Utah, Zona, ASU on the road, and SC/UCLA at home that will be tough with this loss.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jan 14, 2016 11:46:48 GMT -8
Our bigs, including Drew are not Pac 12 caliber. This statement is inherently false. By definition of them playing in the Pac-12, they are Pac-12 caliber. They may not be upper, or even mid-level echelon Pac-12 players.
Drew may get there but he is a loooooong ways away. He's not that far away. Offensively, he needs to perfect his jumphook and come up with a couple other decent moves. IMHO, he could make huge improvements in this phase during this season. Physically, he's there. He has the height and the jumping ability. Just needs a little experience and the aforementioned fine-tuned moves.He has been dominated since league play began. He has limited experience and will improve, but he will not be a major factor overall down the stretch. We just need him to use his 5 fouls wisely and pull down 6-10 boards. Actually, we need more than rebounding from him. Solid D and some scoring are needed too.the others are not worth mentioning their worth and legacy has been proven over the past three years and other than a flash here and there can't be counted on for consistent contributions besides the depth factor, Fully agree here. Olaf, Cheikh, Jarmal, Daniel. They are what they are at this point. I'd rather see the bulk of the minutes go to younger players.I'm not a believer in ranking recruits/classes, and ours was better than ever... but not top half of Pac 12 (IMHO) in terms of pure talent/potential. We need two more similar (or better athletically) classes to get to the "dance" conversation. I'm not sure I see how we can because this team is so up and down, but we need to be at least 4-5 at the halfway point. With Utah, Zona, ASU on the road, and SC/UCLA at home that will be tough with this loss. Not sure where this is coming from. Was this a recruiting discussion? Nope.My. $0.02. |
|
billsaab
Freshman
Retired. Live in SW Washington on 73/4 Acres.
Posts: 589 
|
Post by billsaab on Jan 14, 2016 12:05:28 GMT -8
I tend to agree. Eubanks Should have been Red Shirted. He lacks many Basic skills. His Steal was good, but the way he dribbled and missed the dunk was telling. Each Freshman struggled as well. Our Seniors are Soft except for Reid. We need some bigs and for our Frosh to get a lot stronger. Not likely to win any if any Road games.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jan 14, 2016 12:38:43 GMT -8
I'm sure hoping our rebounding and physicality issues are greatly helped next year by this guy:
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 14, 2016 13:01:58 GMT -8
Our bigs, including Drew are not Pac 12 caliber. This statement is inherently false. By definition of them playing in the Pac-12, they are Pac-12 caliber. They may not be upper, or even mid-level echelon Pac-12 players. Just because a kid is on a Pac12 roster in no means he's Pac12 caliber... I think you know that... we've had teams full of them lately! If OSU were in the position we'd all like to hope we're headed (top 4 caliber team in this league) Drew is redshirted at best. He was one of the best of what the state had to offer, you take him. So, define "caliber" any way you'd like. My definition is that he could play for the majority of the top level teams (we're trying to break into that top tier, right?) in the Pac12. As of now he's not close and has been over matched in league play and we have not played the best bigs yet.... only 18.8 min/g... 6ppg... .375 fg%... 2.8 boards (5 total D boards)... 3 blocks... and 13 of his 24 points came in one game. He'll improve, but that was not the point... what is he now? No one knows what any player could become.Drew may get there but he is a loooooong ways away. He's not that far away. Offensively, he needs to perfect his jumphook and come up with a couple other decent moves. IMHO, he could make huge improvements in this phase during this season. Physically, he's there. He has the height and the jumping ability. Just needs a little experience and the aforementioned fine-tuned moves. He basically can dunk and hit a couple set shots... athletically can run the floor, but has no post game yet and although can jump is out of position and does not block out which negates any athletic advantage he may have over other bigs. He plays hard... cares... but a long way from a big that is on a team going "dancing"He has been dominated since league play began. He has limited experience and will improve, but he will not be a major factor overall down the stretch. We just need him to use his 5 fouls wisely and pull down 6-10 boards. Actually, we need more than rebounding from him. Solid D and some scoring are needed too. Agreed... but he at least needs to provide one aspect. For now no offense can/should be run thru him, yet he often ends up with the ball at the end of the shot clock. His D has been ok, he just is not strong in the lower body yet and 18 min./game is not enough for a starting big. He needs to at least play smarter, board, and be on the floor with no foul trouble.the others are not worth mentioning their worth and legacy has been proven over the past three years and other than a flash here and there can't be counted on for consistent contributions besides the depth factor, Fully agree here. Olaf, Cheikh, Jarmal, Daniel. They are what they are at this point. I'd rather see the bulk of the minutes go to younger players. Agree... older guys are depth... start or bench has little difference as long as the youngsters get the bulk of the minutes. Maybe the seniors/MD will relax and contribute more if they do not start and take the pressure off them to be the "leaders" in the areas of production.I'm not a believer in ranking recruits/classes, and ours was better than ever... but not top half of Pac 12 (IMHO) in terms of pure talent/potential. We need two more similar (or better athletically) classes to get to the "dance" conversation. I'm not sure I see how we can because this team is so up and down, but we need to be at least 4-5 at the halfway point. With Utah, Zona, ASU on the road, and SC/UCLA at home that will be tough with this loss. Not sure where this is coming from. Was this a recruiting discussion? Nope. It's always a recruiting discussion when you talk players. This class was great, but it is not what most thought it would be. If you know and watch hoops, our freshman are the best class WE'VE had, but not the schools we're trying to catch. Anytime we speak of a weakness in one of our players, we are needed not only that player to improve (like all will under Tinkle), but need more players with the ready made skills we're talking about. You can't keep recruiting classes with the same development issues and climb the ladder. I have no idea what the 'ranking' will be but next year's class comes in with some skills we do not currently have. Although you never know how HS kids translate to D1 hoops. I thought "big George" would be the key to a stout interior D and rebounding!!!My. $0.02. and the $0.01 change... :>) |
|
|
|
Post by beaver94 on Jan 14, 2016 13:30:41 GMT -8
I think this class is right were I thought they'd be. It was a great recruiting class, but the Beavers don't have the current roster of all the teams we are trying to catch. These young guys wouldn't be asked to contribute the way they are on most of the teams in the Pac12. I don't think most high school recruits are ready to contribute the way this team needs, and definitely as a group. Throw one on a talented experienced team you probably get different results.
|
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jan 14, 2016 14:53:38 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Jan 14, 2016 15:10:03 GMT -8
Except it's apples and oranges... he's fighting for PT versus Kentucky's talent level... our frosh basically walked in with guaranteed PT... depth and skill wise. |
|
