Pages:
Actions
  • #51 by niels_boar on 19 May 2017
  • That 93-94 team would crush this team, too much depth , too much size , to much strength an to much shooting..

    I'm not arguing that any team next year or in my case the next is better than the '93-'94 team.  I haven't even seen 75% of those rosters play.  Just looking at needs.

    However, I don't think we have a crying need to add more bigs for 2018 at this point for the sake of adding a big.  We will if Gafford is one-and-done.  Otherwise, it will depend on how the roster pans out next year that will determine our greatest need. 

    Will some combination of Jones, Garland, Bailey, and Hall finally solve our small wing problem?  The most dire shortcoming that we have had in size is perpetually playing a 6-3 guard on the wing.  Going from 6-2 or 6-3 to 6-6 or 6-7 on the wing would do more to increase our effective size than going from 6-7 to 6-9 at PF, which we will be doing in any case with Perry. 

    Can Hazen, Bailey, Perry, or Hall be a legit shooting option at the four?  If they can't, I'd rather add a skilled combo player at the four than a project big when we already have three 6-9+ players to rotate underneath. 

    Will Harris or Garland be ready to take over the point?  Another PG might be necessary if they can't.

    If all those needs are met, and I'm not saying they aren't, add a development big that sits for year like Thompson did.  I'm assuming a top-100 big will look at Henderson, Gafford, and Perry and look elsewhere for playing time.

  • #52 by Hollywood_HOGan45 on 19 May 2017
  • That 93-94 team would crush this team, too much depth , too much size , to much strength an to much shooting..

    That team would crush a lot of teams. One of the best teams of the 1990s. Any team that could overcome Duke in a title game in North Carolina, stop Kentucky's 35 game home winning streak, and paste a #1 seed undefeated big 8 team by over 50 points has IT.

    Those guys will never get the credit they deserve nationally due to not winning against UCLA for #2 but in my mind they're one of the better teams since the NCAA went to 64 teams in 1985.
  • #53 by HogsonHicks on 19 May 2017

  • I'm not changing the .............. narrative.  When I said the team would be bigger, I was thinking of what we would probably put on the court in 2018 versus what we actually put on the court in '94.  By your reasoning the team would have been bigger the last four years if we had put Skipper in uniform and had him wave a towel on the bench for forty minutes.  That doesn't make sense. There's a reason Pomeroy weights by minutes when looking at sizes of teams.

    Look at what happened in the championship game the next season.  UCLA and Arkansas were exactly the same height when weighted by minutes.  Other than Zidek, Arkansas had a lot more beef.  However, UCLA could guard our one undersized elite post-scorer one-on-one with Zidek.  UCLA played 6-8, 217 lb Ed O'Bannon for 40 minutes at PF.  He was basically a sleek combo SF/PF.  We had two guys on the bench 6-10+ and 250 lb+ and another 6-9/265 lb PF.  Not one of them could punish UCLA inside for playing a string bean at PF and force Zidek on a big.  Dillard played almost as much as Wilson and Robinson combined off the bench.

    The Bruins shut down Corliss (3-16) without doubling him. It probably isn't a coincidence that Stewart and Thurman went 2 of 12 from the arc.  Get this. UCLA had 20 TOs and made 2 treys.  They won by 11.  They moidered us inside. 21 offensive rebounds. They rebounded 55% of their misses.  They outscored us on deuces 62 - 36.  That's not a team that could bully quality opponents inside with size.  Our bigs were inconsistent role players that occasionally rose up with big games. 

    Wilson and Robinson put us over the hump to get a NC with a big game here and there, but the heart of that team when the chips were down was Beck, McDaniel, Thurman, Stewart, and Corliss.  That's an average sized perimeter squad with 6-6 and 6-9 at forward.  Pitino said that team was Corliss, CNR, and role players.  Corliss was our inside game.  Looking at that roster, I appreciate him more every year.  What a freak.  If you replace him with an average college forward, I'm not sure we are in the tournament, probably the bubble. All those shooters would have had to take a lot more contested shots. I don't see how you can argue that the '94 team was effectively big if we played Scotty Thurman at SF and the most important player was a 6-6 PF.  We rarely had two guys over 6-6 on the court at the same time.

    Good grief, you type novels Tolstoy would be proud of seeing. I agree with most of this, although UCLA beat us inside not with size, but with breaking our press and scoring easy baskets (layups/dunks) against our press, which Nolan stubbornly refused to back off for much of the game.  Zidek did well defensively, but Corliss also missed a lot of shots he typically made.

    Again, the '94 team was huge in size and girth. The '18 team won't be as big, but still much larger than we've had since.  No volume of words changes that fact, and I agreed with the intent of your comments.

    By the way, that '94-95 team would destroy any team we've had since, while also beating  that UCLA team 8 out of 10 times. Let's not belittle them to prove your point.
  • #54 by Hollywood_HOGan45 on 22 May 2017

  • I'm not changing the .............. narrative.  When I said the team would be bigger, I was thinking of what we would probably put on the court in 2018 versus what we actually put on the court in '94.  By your reasoning the team would have been bigger the last four years if we had put Skipper in uniform and had him wave a towel on the bench for forty minutes.  That doesn't make sense. There's a reason Pomeroy weights by minutes when looking at sizes of teams.

    Look at what happened in the championship game the next season.  UCLA and Arkansas were exactly the same height when weighted by minutes.  Other than Zidek, Arkansas had a lot more beef.  However, UCLA could guard our one undersized elite post-scorer one-on-one with Zidek.  UCLA played 6-8, 217 lb Ed O'Bannon for 40 minutes at PF.  He was basically a sleek combo SF/PF.  We had two guys on the bench 6-10+ and 250 lb+ and another 6-9/265 lb PF.  Not one of them could punish UCLA inside for playing a string bean at PF and force Zidek on a big.  Dillard played almost as much as Wilson and Robinson combined off the bench.

    The Bruins shut down Corliss (3-16) without doubling him. It probably isn't a coincidence that Stewart and Thurman went 2 of 12 from the arc.  Get this. UCLA had 20 TOs and made 2 treys.  They won by 11.  They moidered us inside. 21 offensive rebounds. They rebounded 55% of their misses.  They outscored us on deuces 62 - 36.  That's not a team that could bully quality opponents inside with size.  Our bigs were inconsistent role players that occasionally rose up with big games. 

    Wilson and Robinson put us over the hump to get a NC with a big game here and there, but the heart of that team when the chips were down was Beck, McDaniel, Thurman, Stewart, and Corliss.  That's an average sized perimeter squad with 6-6 and 6-9 at forward.  Pitino said that team was Corliss, CNR, and role players.  Corliss was our inside game.  Looking at that roster, I appreciate him more every year.  What a freak.  If you replace him with an average college forward, I'm not sure we are in the tournament, probably the bubble. All those shooters would have had to take a lot more contested shots. I don't see how you can argue that the '94 team was effectively big if we played Scotty Thurman at SF and the most important player was a 6-6 PF.  We rarely had two guys over 6-6 on the court at the same time.

    The 92-93 team was still really good with Corliss injured. Scotty carried us to wins at Arizona and at Mizzou.
Pages:
Actions