Printable View
He had a really good preseason but they were worried he wouldn't get enough minutes. Now we have a depleted bench and he has much needed length and athleticism at the 2/3 position, plus he can shoot! Plus he can match up with more physical guards unlike Tyson.
It was the right move. Even without Nick, we have a 4 man rotation at the 1-2-3 which is fine. Howland just needs to play Q more at the 2 with Woody at the 3.
Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time, it was a good move especially for the future. When Nick is reinstated, all will be good.
Yep. Especially against bigger teams like UT.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
I think he is pretty raw. He has a ton of potential but I don't believe he was ready this year, Weatherspoon or not.
We just won 2 road games that we could have just as easily lost with Nick lol
I'd start Tyson, Q, Woodard, Perry, Ado and bring Lamar & Holman in as subs.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
You just can't not start Lamar at this point in the season. Keep starting Lamar but increase Tyson's minutes. I'd only use Holman if one of the bigs gets into foul trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
You feeling confident on that? I'm notQuote:
Originally Posted by KentuckyDawg13
Tyson played 39min Wednesday can't play much more than that. Holman played as many as he did because Woodard got 2 fouls in the 1st half & didn't play the last 8min of the half.Quote:
Originally Posted by msudawglb
Yep it was the right move. If we hadn't RS him there would be complaints about us wasting a year for DJ & him not playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
This. We're not a very good defensive team, even with Nick W on the floor. Knowing that, I'd rather be better offensively with Carter.Quote:
Originally Posted by chef dixon
Eli Wright is who we miss the most with Nick out. Sure would be nice to have him
Whose coming back next year Lamar and/or Woodard?Quote:
Originally Posted by msudawglb
Wow.. just wowQuote:
Originally Posted by Maroons
I don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chef dixon
Im going to cover for you and assume you mean more minutes for Tyson at the point. The only guy who needs more minutes is Woody.Quote:
Originally Posted by msudawglb
We aren't good defensively. We're 148th in def efficiency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...ive-efficiency
Meanwhile in offensive efficiency, we're 24th
https://www.teamrankings.com/ncaa-ba...ive-efficiency
I'm not gonna pretend to know what balance of nick/Tyson is the best; but I can certainly see the argument that going best offense may be our best bet since we stink defensively anyway
Why? Howland can play who he wants. No one is a "have to start guy" unless their performance dictates it.Quote:
Originally Posted by msudawglb
Don't know how those metrics are computed but right now ... I feel pretty decent about us defensively. We've held our last 3 opponents in the 60s in scoring ... which is my personal metric. 2 of those are without Nick. If we keep doing that then we have to execute and finish on the break and in the half court offense. We keep playing D and do those 2 things, we'll be alright.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
This team likes to "relax" too much in games to suit me tho. And then our half court O ball movement and shot selection gets pitiful too much IMO.
We're playing pretty good D but we can play some flat out stupid basketball at times.
We are acting like its the end of the world and we shouldn't have redshirted a guy when we are 2-0 (on the road no less) since the suspension. People have short memories and act like we were playing sooooo much better when Nick was in the line up. We weren't. Of course its a loss but people are losing their minds about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
1 guy mentioned and everyone in this thread disagreed with it, but ok. And we are a better team with Nick in the lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by chef dixon
There were threads discussed this redshirt the other day. No one has disagreed with that part highlighted either, but will it ultimately affect how far we go this season? Unlikely but no one can say for sure. For a program that hasn't been dancing in 11 years, it was always make the tournament this year and anything else is a bonus. That has not changed with him going down and it doesn't look like we are going to blow it without him.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
Well if your so great with stats .. and that seems to be the one factor you always go toQuote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Compare Nicks offensive stats to Tyson’s
Im not saying we don?t need Tyson or that he needs less minutes
But the damn knee jerk reaction with the we dont really need Nick that it gives more minutes to Tyson and RWII or Nick isnt a big of a factor on defense is ****ing absurd.
Asking anyone that knows anything about basketball or just listen to how key Nick is both ends of the court and to our team making a run in the dance
If we don’t get him back it’s a huge blow.
Can we still win and make a run ? Yes
But the undervalue of losing Nick is mind blowing to me
Tyson is 2nd on the team in pts/min played. Q leads teamQuote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
ETA... I'm indifferent on who should play more between them. I do think it's a go offense (Tyson) or go defense (nick) choice. I want nick back, and I can live with whatever balance howland decides
Ok, disprove me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
I'm not saying we won't miss him. We need the depth and ball handling. But I do think overall we're better with Carter on the court.
Well that’s ur opinion .Quote:
Originally Posted by Maroons
Back and forth with you is useless...Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
but all you have is based on points / minutes played then ok ..
Points per min played is a useless determining who the better offensive player is? OkQuote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
I'm not even arguing. I just presented facts... I said I don't care who plays
I don't think it should be a question of Nick or Tyson, but I get why some of ya'll are going there. I like our team best with Nick at the PG and Tyson at the SG with Lamar coming off the bench.Quote:
Originally Posted by msstate7
Two different knee jerk reactions jump out at me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Gold
On the one side is the crowd "Gotta have Nick back, can't play certain teams without him, etc." or "he's our savior".
On the other side is the crowd "I think we just as good without him" or "our best 5 on the floor are Tyson, Q, Ado, Perry, Woodard".
So both are knee jerking probably and we certainly could use Nick for depth. But I don't think he's an indispensable player on this team. He is however a key component of it. We've played just as good of team D without him so far, and I would argue Arky is out best game of the season so far overall.
A little perspective. I 2005 we were destroying teams and playing some lights out ball when Frazier went down with broken ankle against OM. Either the next game or 2 games later we lost to Bama in T-town by 49. That's indispensable.
We end up limping into the tourney as an 8 seed. With Frazier we probably end up no worse that a 2 seed and possibly could've been a 1 (probably not tho).
just a heads up, lamar only played 26 minutes vs Arkansas. That's right where I have argued he should be. 24-26 minutes per game unless he is on fire like the Clemson game.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgday166
Agree with this 100%Quote:
Originally Posted by HoopsDawg
Our best 2 line ups might be
Nick Q RWII Perry Ado
Nick Tyson Q Perry Ado
It all about who is playing well that game , and what the matchups are ..
Peters is extremely important but he can disappear really quick from games if he isn’t scoring
But The games he is right and palyin well and if / when we get Nick back
This team is very dangerous
Damn I forgot Frazier got hurt late in that season. Stansbury really had some bad luck with the tourney. One year he loses Lawrence Roberts right before the tourney, another he loses Frazier, another he has to face a scrappy Butler program that eventually would build itself to back to back NC games, another year he has to face tourney runner up Memphis, another year he faces Duke and another year he gets sent out West to face Washington. NCAA committee didn't like Stansbury. They also didn't vote him into the field several times when he was on the bubble.
what about his last year =we are 7 up on Ky and Hood gets hurt and leaves the game. then Moultrie gets hurt against LSU and is gone. Big time injuries. Caused us to miss the NCAAs. although Refs screwed us out of the SEC tourney.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
I believe you're mistaken on Roberts. Never lost Roberts for the tourney, although he was a "no-show" against Xavier in '04 ... horrible game. Worst game I ever saw him play. Only had 7 rebound and that's a low number for Roberts. 2005 he played his ass off against Duke's big man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawg61
Butler game ... That's when I started doubting Stans. Team was too uptight (as usual under Stans). Z & Bowers shooting bricks ... and I mean bricks too. Clankers. Puts Frazier in (he's only a soph but a helluva a backup for Bowers at the SG). Frazier playing lights out D as usual. Hits a couple of 3s right off the bat. After 2nd one Stans calls timeout I believe (he may have waited for a TV timeout but don't think so). Anyway he sits Frazier and doesn't put him back in the game. Pissed me off something fierce. We needed a spark and Frazier gave us one. Then Stans sits him. Butler was good but we should've beat them. They weren't that good just yet, although they did always play good fundamental ball. Very disciplined.
Not sure if he would have been the difference in any of our losses. Maybe USC and UM game 1