Arkansas need to get bigger

[HogAllMighty]

Post play is lacking in size and strength.

[chiti66]

Post play is lacking in size and strength.

Just depends on who we play.  We have excellent guard play, hopefully we get Garland cleared to play this year, which will make our guard play even better.  We just played a good team today, and we didn't play our best....period.

Go Hogs!!!!

[nwahogfan1]

Just depends on who we play.  We have excellent guard play, hopefully we get Garland cleared to play this year, which will make our guard play even better.  We just played a good team today, and we didn't play our best....period.

Go Hogs!!!!

To beat the best you have to be able to play and win different ways. We need to be bigger so we can beat against bigger line ups like NC. Mike knows this. Chaney will be reat but we need more like him.  Unless we shoot 60%+ we must get bigger

[bigred223]

To beat the best you have to be able to play and win different ways. We need to be bigger so we can beat against bigger line ups like NC. Mike knows this. Chaney will be reat but we need more like him.  Unless we shoot 60%+ we must get bigger

Gafford being out for the entire first half didn't help either.

[ballinhog]

Gafford being out for the entire first half didn't help either.

That was the difference in the game imo. In the 2nd half before he picked up the other 2 fouls he completely changed the course of the game. Looked like the best player on the court for either team. He's gotta stay out of foul trouble. If he can do that, the sky is the limit for him and the team.

[TexArkHogFan]

Post play is lacking in size and strength.

That's what my wife said.

[King Kong]

Against the UK, Duke and UNC's yes. 90% of teams that won't be an issue

[pigbacon]

Gafford being out for the entire first half didn't help either.

Why was this...early foul trouble? I missed a lot of the game.

[Youngsta71701]

Post play is lacking in size and strength.

Yeah, against North Carolina.

[Knot2brite]

I was told months ago that we didn't need true post players because the game has changed. Looks like someone forgot to tell UNC and Duke about that....we need mobile true post players that are about 6'8-6'11 that can hold their own in the low post

[chiti66]

Against the UK, Duke and UNC's yes. 90% of teams that won't be an issue

Add aTm to the group, at least for this year, but you are correct.  Would I love to see another 6'9 with similar game as Gafford?  Yes indeed.  We have Henderson and Chaney coming next year and they should fit in quite nicely with Gafford.

Go Hogs

[hogwood]

Add aTm to the group, at least for this year, but you are correct.  Would I love to see another 6'9 with similar game as Gafford?  Yes indeed.  We have Henderson and Chaney coming next year and they should fit in quite nicely with Gafford.

Go Hogs

Yes they would, but the problem is will Gafford be here?

[hawgmasta]

Yes they would, but the problem is will Gafford be here?

If he keeps it up I don't know.

[King Kong]

Add aTm to the group, at least for this year, but you are correct.  Would I love to see another 6'9 with similar game as Gafford?  Yes indeed.  We have Henderson and Chaney coming next year and they should fit in quite nicely with Gafford.

Go Hogs

A&M is for sure in that group. Last year we overcame that from there bad guard play. But they are much improved this year.

[HawgHeadCheese]

Post play didn't kill us, Luke Maye did. The other post players were non existent and most of the easy lay ups they got came from beating the press in transition.

[TexArkHogFan]

If we had played like we did against Oklahoma we would have won the NC game.  Missed too many shots including dead layups.

[LumberBacks]

Add aTm to the group, at least for this year, but you are correct.  Would I love to see another 6'9 with similar game as Gafford?  Yes indeed.  We have Henderson and Chaney coming next year and they should fit in quite nicely with Gafford.

Go Hogs

aTm and KY will each start 3 guys that range from 6'8" - 6'10".  How we gonna cover that?

[ShadowHawg]

aTm and KY will each start 3 guys that range from 6'8" - 6'10".  How we gonna cover that?

A&M started that many last year and we swept them.

Have you watched Kentucky?

Guards have to get big men the ball. Neutralize the guards and you neutralize the bigs. Nolan called it cutting the head off the snake.

[cjack]

We definitely need more help down low. When our outside shooting goes cold like it did against UNC, we need another option. Gafford is still prone to fouls.  It looked like we were evenly matched with him on the court, and it looked a little lopsided when he had to sit.  Against big teams we need that option, more so on offense.

[Hogimus Prime]

MA likes the 6'6"-6'8" combo forward/ stretch 4 to keep the lane open for cutting wings and for bigs like Portis and Kingsley more room to operate.  MA has recruited taller 4s but Kapita never made it to campus, Curry went to Minnesota and we will not talk about Perry.  Chaney and Henderson will help, but another 6'9"-6'10" athletic forward would help.

[HognitiveDissonance]

I've been saying this forever.
Yes, you can be smaller and/or guard/wing oriented and win a lot of games.
But it's hard to be an elite team without great size. Especially in the NCAA Tournament, which tends to be slower paced and more physical.
That's why the 94-95 team did so well. They had it all, but including the requisite size to bang inside.
So really it comes down to what your goals are. You can be quite good without top size.
But by and large you must have beef and height in the lane and be able to slow it down and bang it out against the teams that force you to play that way occasionally, if you want to be a national title contender.

[Mr. Barnett (rbarnet424)]

Our biggest issue early in the season is that most of our size/length is inexperienced while our experience is in guard play and smaller players.

We need to keep playing and get everyone from Gafford, Hall, Gabe, Bailey and CJ more minutes so they can stay on the court longer.

I believe there at the end of the game when we made the run to cut it to 6 it was CJ, Hall, Gafford, Barford and Thompson (first time this year we used Gafford and Thompson together) and you could tell we could matchup just fine but experience/fatigue did us in at the end.

[1highhog]

Post play is lacking in size and strength.

As Larry Johnson once told Nolan, you need to get some Men!

[The real Hogules]

If we had played like we did against Oklahoma we would have won the NC game.  Missed too many shots including dead layups.

Tired legs and our 2nd round opponent had a LOT to do with our showing.

[The Hogfather]

As Larry Johnson once told Nolan, you need to get some Men!

Really wish he wouldn't have said that because I'm tired of it being used everytime we lose a game, even though it really has little to do with why we lost.  I mean, the "man" who "killed us down low" was 4-5 from 3.  Although they outrebounded us, it is only because we missed way more shots than them allowing for way more defensive rebounds and also the way our system works.  We give up rebounds, but get more steals/turnovers.  We had 6 more steals than them and they had 14 turnovers to our 9.

[deserthog]

Arizona starts two seven-footers. They just lost all three games in their tournament!

[HognitiveDissonance]

As Larry Johnson once told Nolan, you need to get some Men!

And that's exactly what he did.
Not that he was 'listening' to Larry Johnson, necessarily.
But he recognized after the 1993 season that all the pieces were there after a Sweet 16 loss to (again, North Carolina) and that the missing pieces was more size. So in comes Robinson and Wilson to support Williamson and Stewart and suddenly Arkansas could play the bang game as well as anybody. Could play fast, could play slow, could play finesse, could play physical. That's how you win a championship, by having all your bases covered.
Richardson has said this himself many times (about the need to get bigger). He was referencing the needs of that team at that time. Me, personally, thinks it applies pretty much all the time. If you want to win a championship, you better have all bases covered and can win games in multiple ways.

[1highhog]

And that's exactly what he did.
Not that he was 'listening' to Larry Johnson, necessarily.
But he recognized after the 1993 season that all the pieces were there after a Sweet 16 loss to (again, North Carolina) and that the missing pieces was more size. So in comes Robinson and Wilson to support Williamson and Stewart and suddenly Arkansas could play the bang game as well as anybody. Could play fast, could play slow, could play finesse, could play physical. That's how you win a championship, by having all your bases covered.
Richardson has said this himself many times (about the need to get bigger). He was referencing the needs of that team at that time. Me, personally, thinks it applies pretty much all the time. If you want to win a championship, you better have all bases covered and can win games in multiple ways.

Exactly, we didn't just need tall players, we needed big nasty.  We needed and intimidator on the court just as Nolan was the intimidator on the sidelines.

[Paul]

That's how Mich St beat UNC today. They were much more physical & Izzo had a great defensive plan

[ShadowHawg]

And that's exactly what he did.
Not that he was 'listening' to Larry Johnson, necessarily.
But he recognized after the 1993 season that all the pieces were there after a Sweet 16 loss to (again, North Carolina) and that the missing pieces was more size. So in comes Robinson and Wilson to support Williamson and Stewart and suddenly Arkansas could play the bang game as well as anybody. Could play fast, could play slow, could play finesse, could play physical. That's how you win a championship, by having all your bases covered.
Richardson has said this himself many times (about the need to get bigger). He was referencing the needs of that team at that time. Me, personally, thinks it applies pretty much all the time. If you want to win a championship, you better have all bases covered and can win games in multiple ways.

That team had a losing record when they played games in the high 60's.

That bunch won by playing even faster than they did before. They weren't anymore diverse than they were before. If anything they learned to play better while playing faster.

Size did help but the style of play wasn't effected by adding it. Juwan Howard did everything but assault our cheerleaders in the elite eight.

[HognitiveDissonance]

That team had a losing record when they played games in the high 60's.

That bunch won by playing even faster than they did before. They weren't anymore diverse than they were before. If anything they learned to play better while playing faster.

Size did help but the style of play wasn't effected by adding it. Juwan Howard did everything but assault our cheerleaders in the elite eight.

Ok, I give.
Pick up the phone and call Nolan Richardson and a) tell him he didn't say what he said b) if he did, he didn't mean it c) if he did, he wasn't really correct anyway

This isn't about winning random games. It's specifically about winning tournament games, when you had to face elite competition, in order to win a national title. The coach knew what he needed in order to accomplish that. He was right then, and it's true now.

[ShadowHawg]

Ok, I give.
Pick up the phone and call Nolan Richardson and a) tell him he didn't say what he said b) if he did, he didn't mean it c) if he did, he wasn't really correct anyway

This isn't about winning random games. It's specifically about winning tournament games, when you had to face elite competition, in order to win a national title. The coach knew what he needed in order to accomplish that. He was right then, and it's true now.

Nolan said he knew he had to get some men.

You added your own "have to be able to play all different styles" garbage.

That team increased it's ppg nearly 10 points over the previous season. They didn't do it by playing to the strengths of their opponents.

[leroyhawg]

Really wish he wouldn't have said that because I'm tired of it being used everytime we lose a game, even though it really has little to do with why we lost.  I mean, the "man" who "killed us down low" was 4-5 from 3.  Although they outrebounded us, it is only because we missed way more shots than them allowing for way more defensive rebounds and also the way our system works.  We give up rebounds, but get more steals/turnovers.  We had 6 more steals than them and they had 14 turnovers to our 9.

I remember this as if it were yesterday, Nolan knew it was true, I loved it when Nolan owned Memphis, as for getting men, Coach is working on it, Gafford has a high ceiling, for the first time since Nolan left I feel good about BB.

[leroyhawg]

I've been saying this forever.
Yes, you can be smaller and/or guard/wing oriented and win a lot of games.
But it's hard to be an elite team without great size. Especially in the NCAA Tournament, which tends to be slower paced and more physical.
That's why the 94-95 team did so well. They had it all, but including the requisite size to bang inside.
So really it comes down to what your goals are. You can be quite good without top size.
But by and large you must have beef and height in the lane and be able to slow it down and bang it out against the teams that force you to play that way occasionally, if you want to be a national title contender.

Perfect Sir.

[Biggus Piggus]

When we get more players fully involved in the rotation, and the freshmen are playing within the system and under control, this team will really be something else.

[HognitiveDissonance]

It's not garbage, it's fact.

Some games you are forced to win 65-63, and some you may have to win 91-87.

If you don't have the ability to win in more than one way, you may be in trouble when trying to win a national title.

I didn't add anything. What Nolan said is exactly what I'm saying. I'm merely repeating what he said. He lost in the Sweet 16 to North Carolina and knew he simply needed some more size to complement what he already had. His words, not mine. Anyone could see that. The Hogs were simply too small in 1993. They got bigger and more physical the next two years and the results speak for themselves. The coach knew what he was doing.

Yet by simply stating the obvious it is somehow spun as an attack on "hogball' and is viewed as some type of slight. Whatever.

[bigred223]

Just need to put in Hall and Gabe O when we need some length.

[Hog Fan...DOH!]

Tired legs and our 2nd round opponent had a LOT to do with our showing.

Totally overlooked.  UNC drew Portland State, UA dealt with OU... a little different, right? 

[ShadowHawg]

It's not garbage, it's fact.

Some games you are forced to win 65-63, and some you may have to win 91-87.

If you don't have the ability to win in more than one way, you may be in trouble when trying to win a national title.

I didn't add anything. What Nolan said is exactly what I'm saying. I'm merely repeating what he said. He lost in the Sweet 16 to North Carolina and knew he simply needed some more size to complement what he already had. His words, not mine. Anyone could see that. The Hogs were simply too small in 1993. They got bigger and more physical the next two years and the results speak for themselves. The coach knew what he was doing.

Yet by simply stating the obvious it is somehow spun as an attack on "hogball' and is viewed as some type of slight. Whatever.

You keep adding the play mutiple styles crap. You are making this part up. You also ignore that the 94 championship team actually lost more games than it won when forced to play at a slower pace. That doesn't fit the whole multiple styles required to win big assertion.

Nolan always said let the other team worry about how we play. He also said he wasn't married to a particular style of play if he had a team that wasn't able to play up tempo or lacked depth. But the belief that he taught multiple styles to his teams is you making stuff up.

[gmarv]

When we get more players fully involved in the rotation, and the freshmen are playing within the system and under control, this team will really be something else.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This.

[swinesation]

Minnesota is big too.

[The Hogfather]

As Larry Johnson once told Nolan, you need to get some Men!

Most overused line in the history of Arkansas sports.  If the basketball team loses, we need to get us some big men.  If we run Connecticut out of the building, crickets.  We did not lose the UNC game because we didn't have enough "men" (meaning big men who bang down low).

[HognitiveDissonance]

No one said Nolan taught 'multiple styles'.
They had a preferred way of playing, and tried to do that all the time.
He simply acknowledged a need his team had, and went out and solved it.
It's also acknowledgment that you can't get what you want all the time i.e. play the way you want, or have each game go the way you want it to.
He was trying to win at the highest level, and knew what the deficiency of his current team in 1993 was: more physicality.
A deficiency like that doesn't even show up in most games...but it definitely would be a weakness in certain games, against certain opponents. These would tend to be the very best teams in the country, those who have skill, talent, and also beef/length. We were missing the size part and already had the skill part. Probably 80% of the games we played in 94 and 95 we didn't even need those big guys.

Put it another way, as someone said, the 94 team actually averaged more points per game? I won't even bother to look that up, because it's irrelevant to my point anyway.
No one is disputing that Nolan said what he said. So the question is why did he say it? And to me, he doesn't come to that conclusion (to get bigger) because he wanted to go from 80 ppg to 90 ppg (or whatever). He needed those guys for a few key games where they would absolutely be needed in the paint to combat big teams. He was trying to advance deeper in the NCAA Tournament and knew his Achilles heel at that time.

[HognitiveDissonance]

Most overused line in the history of Arkansas sports.  If the basketball team loses, we need to get us some big men.  If we run Connecticut out of the building, crickets.  We did not lose the UNC game because we didn't have enough "men" (meaning big men who bang down low).

If used across the board, yes, it can be overused, like a cliche'.
Just depends on the matchups.
I'm not using it across the board.

I do think generally speaking size absolutely matters and you need a real presence in the paint to win the NCAAs. This conversation has mostly been about the 93-94-95 teams and specifically what those teams lacked, or solved.
In real general terms, though, I think history bears that out. The championship teams do tend to have a strong inside presence. If I'm building a team, I'm trying to work inside/out. And I do think historically the elite teams are generally bigger than Arkansas. The UNCs, Kentuckys, etc. Not all the time, but generally, yes. And I don't think it's a coincidence that our 'biggest' team was the most successful.

Yes, I think UNC gives us trouble because not only are they skilled with lots of talent, but they're big. They outrebounded us 46-30 the other day. Their length gives us problems defensively. You can argue we were tired from OU, or you can say UNC gives us problems defensively. We shot our worst percentage of the year. Same thing happened last year, we didn't shoot well against them? Coincidence, I think not.

[Hogimus Prime]

The 94-95 team had all that size was on average outrebounded by it's opponents. 

[Biggus Piggus]

The 94-95 team had all that size was on average outrebounded by it's opponents.

Only if you don't know how to interpret rebounding stats.

[tconey1]

Only if you don’t know how to interpret rebounding stats.

One team gets more rebounds than the other!?!

[HognitiveDissonance]

This is a fun argument, but I guess it comes down to this: do you think Arkansas wins the Title in 1994 (and runner-up in 1995) without the addition of Lee Wilson and Darnell Robinson?

Simple question. What say ye?

I say 'no'.

I come to this conclusion kinda on my own way of thinking, but as said, I'm also parroting what the head coach at the time said i.e. that he needed to get bigger.

But one can make a case 'well, after Sweet 16 in 1993, and another year of experience, they would have won it all anyway without those guys'.

I don't think so, but no one can prove it either way, obviously.

[chiti66]

Totally overlooked.  UNC drew Portland State, UA dealt with OU... a little different, right?

Watching the game we looked eager to play, but it was obvious that our legs were gone.  Playing OU the day before, we did expend a lot of energy, our starting 3 guards played a ton of minutes. Honestly, I think we need another PG/CG more than we need size on this team.  We have 1 6'11", 1 6'9", 3 6'8"s, 2 6'6"s, 2 6'5"s (counting Garland), 2 6'3"s, 1 6'0.  We have good size, and CMA can effectively go 10 deep with what we have.  Getting Garland and Cook into the mix just might negate our lack of 6'9"-6'11"s, and another PG/CG.

Go Hogs!

[nwahogfan1]

I was told months ago that we didn't need true post players because the game has changed. Looks like someone forgot to tell UNC and Duke about that....we need mobile true post players that are about 6'8-6'11 that can hold their own in the low post

yes, I hear this all the time with I say we need at least 4 bigs 6'8 230+ on the team all the time either playing or developing.  Sure when we play the running, shorter teams we will be fine.  We will win our share but against the top 10-15 we will struggle unless we shoot 60%.   If we want to get into the sweet 16 then we better draw well or we better get more athletic bigger and stronger Big men in the Post.  Trey is ok for a back up but really needs to be more athletic.  Gafford is super but needs to develop a face up and a low post game offensively.  Right now he is a dunker and put back guy.  But in time he will be a 1st round draft pick.  He needs help plus there is going to lots of games he gets into foul trouble.

When we get more players fully involved in the rotation, and the freshmen are playing within the system and under control, this team will really be something else.

We will be fun to watch many times this year when our special 2 scorers are shooting the ball well.  Those two guys are carrying us.  I hope they continue.  But to win and get into the top 4 of the SEC and deep in the NCAAT we need to be able to win against several different styles so we need more big men scoring, rebounding and defending down low.