Results 101 to 110 of 134
Thread: New Starting Line-Up?
-
01-23-2020, 12:40 PM #101
-
01-23-2020, 12:43 PM #102
-
01-23-2020, 12:54 PM #103
Why do I feel like this exact thing happened before.
I could swear that this same situation happened with Q before: Q starts to play awful for a number of games. The team really struggles. Fans become vocal about Q’s poor play, wondering what is going on with him and questioning why he is playing when he repeatedly performs so poorly. Then one game Q does not start (or play) and a report comes out that he “tweaked” his knee.
Maybe you or someone else can tell me if I am mistaken.
Your report about him moving around at the game makes me wonder about the knee story. Anyway, I agree that it is acceptable for a coach to allow a senior save face. Q seems like a really nice guy who has the ability to play at a much higher level, but is simply caught in a funk. It would be nice to see his “tweaked” knee get better soon... and see him come back playing some of his best ball.
-
01-23-2020, 01:35 PM #104
-
01-23-2020, 02:21 PM #105
I agree with this too. Think last night we had the most intense guys we have (regardless of position) to start the game who have been playing decent as of late (maybe an overstatement but you get my point and why I left Moore off).
Just needed to infuse the team at the beginning. Creighton was playing as bad as us a few games ago and our intensity was mia. Can’t blame it all on one thing and may have not change the results of that game but it just seemed to work yesterday.
-
01-23-2020, 02:58 PM #106
- Join Date
- Nov 2018
- Location
- Cincinnati
- Posts
- 67
Question (not an argument): Facing Creighton, a good 3-point shooting team, are you better off going with a smaller, quicker line-up that can stay with the Creighton players who try to slash to the basket but aren't necessarily big enough to discourage Creighton from shooting 3-pointers - or, do you stay with a big line-up that is more intimidating to shoot over but can get beat on drives? Does the big line-up force Creighton to play a different game? Could you argue that it is not a bad strategy to trade 2 pointers for 3 pointers???
Creighton shot almost 40% on 3's at Cintas; they hit 40% of their 3's against DePaul last night; they are shooting 37% from 3 on the season; most of their guards, including Balleck who shot 5 of 9 at Cintas, are 6'5" or better, so can smaller guards really stop the 3's; Balleck is shooting 3's at a 45% clip in Big East play.
Finally, by staying with the smaller line-up at Cintas, X was out rebounded 41-37.
Just a question to consider.
-
01-23-2020, 05:17 PM #107"He's a little bit ball-dominant, he needs to have the ball in his hands, and he's not a good shooter." Ball-dominant … isn't that a nice way of calling someone a ball hog? Where is my Jay Bilas Thesaurus?
Follow XH on Twitter
Follow XH on Facebook
-
01-23-2020, 05:26 PM #108
-
01-23-2020, 09:45 PM #109
It’s possible that they are a bad matchup for us this year regardless of lineup. If you go small and pressure shooters while switching everything, you better slow it down on offense and feed Jones/post over and over and hope they double while having lots of off-ball movement.
If you go big as they did against Gtown, you have to outrebound them by 10+ and make it ugly. This is likely what they will try to do, and if they fail I don’t think it’s back to the drawing board. This is likely the style X needs to play to win. Unless we somehow find depth to go 10 deep and pressure the ball some more it will have to be grind it out ugly ball. Which is probably their true identity if you look at the wins.
-
01-24-2020, 09:57 AM #110
It actually is a conundrum. I'm not sure what the answer is. Some teams you don't really match up well with, and Creighton is one.
I'm not gonna kill the staff over this one if we don't win. If they do win, they're getting big props. The only thing I'll be upset about is if we come out with a lousy effort and get outrebounded again."I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell
Bookmarks