Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 82
  1. #61
    Supporting Member XU 87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    Not blaming just fact. Younger players better coached. Loyola younger than Xavier without 4 stars, still more efficient.
    Ok, now I get it. When we say, "X didn't have good shooters last year", that's blaming the players, and simply ignores that Steele was the cause of the poor shooting.

    But when you say, "Loyola doesn't have as good of players", that just stating the facts, and also means their coach did a great job of coaching these less talented players.

    And why do you keep saying Loyola's offense was more efficient when the numbers say otherwise? Please note- the higher the number the better the offense.

  2. #62
    Junior xavierj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    4,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    They don't have as good a players as X, not surprising....but still better than us.
    And the competition is no where remotely the same either.

  3. #63
    Voice of Reason Masterofreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On America's Great North Coast
    Posts
    18,111
    Quote Originally Posted by XU 87 View Post
    Ok, now I get it. When we say, "X didn't have good shooters last year", that's blaming the players, and simply ignores that Steele was the cause of the poor shooting.

    But when you say, "Loyola doesn't have as good of players", that just stating the facts, and also means their coach did a great job of coaching these less talented players.

    And why do you keep saying Loyola's offense was more efficient when the numbers say otherwise? Please note- the higher the number the better the offense.
    YOU said Xavier didn't have good shooters. I never said that. I think our shooters were better than what was shown. I have clearly said that they were never put in the best positions to make shots. Is that clear?

    And the fact is that Loyola's players were not as highly recruited as Xavier's. Fact, based upon all the recruiting gurus that so many ascribe to. Plus they were less experienced than Xavier's. That also counts for something. But even with that, they ran in a good system that won 20 games. Yes, in a lesser league, but not chopped liver.

    Loyola's offensive system has carried them to a Final 4, despite having less highly regarded players. Xavier has never been and is farther away now than when Steele took over. Case closed Counselor.
    "I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell

  4. #64
    Junior xavierj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    4,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    YOU said Xavier didn't have good shooters. I never said that. I think our shooters were better than what was shown. I have clearly said that they were never put in the best positions to make shots. Is that clear?

    And the fact is that Loyola's players were not as highly recruited as Xavier's. Fact, based upon all the recruiting gurus that so many ascribe to. Plus they were less experienced than Xavier's. That also counts for something. But even with that, they ran in a good system that won 20 games. Yes, in a lesser league, but not chopped liver.

    Loyola's offensive system has carried them to a Final 4, despite having less highly regarded players. Xavier has never been and is farther away now than when Steele took over. Case closed Counselor.
    Or maybe Naji just didn't listen to the coaches. Maybe they should have just benched their most gifted player. I mean Paul shot 30% from three as a freshman under Mack to 37% under Steele the last two years. Tandy and Free both were at 35% this year. Naji and Q both at 28% but they combined to shoot 8 threes a game compared to the combined 9 that Scruggs, Free and Tandy shot. Maybe if Naji and wasn't such a ball hog we could have gotten more looks for Tandy and Scruggs. Maybe Steel's biggest mistake was not benching Naji until he got the message on how to make his team better.

  5. #65
    Supporting Member XU 87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    YOU said Xavier didn't have good shooters. I never said that. I think our shooters were better than what was shown. I have clearly said that they were never put in the best positions to make shots. Is that clear?
    LOL. I am well aware of that. I'm not sure why you're confused.

  6. #66
    Supporting Member paulxu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    14,858
    I'd say our players were in good positions to make shots.
    Most of the time they were wide open.
    ...he went up late, and I was already up there.

  7. #67
    Supporting Member AviatorX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,619
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    Yeah. Adjusted Offensive Numbers- Loyola 103, Xavier 106. Same rating on Bart Torvik. Have no idea what you are referring to. I don't subscribe to KenPom, but I can see the offensive efficiency numbers and those numbers are accurate.
    Point being, Loyola players younger and not as good but more efficient than Xavier.
    Work with me here - how is 103 points per 100 possessions (Loyola) more efficient than 106 points per 100 possessions (Xavier)? Generally you want to score more points.

    To put it more plainly - based on KenPom's adjusted offensive numbers, Xavier had the 103rd best offense and Loyola had the 159th best.

  8. #68
    Supporting Member XU 87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,577
    Quote Originally Posted by paulxu View Post
    I'd say our players were in good positions to make shots.
    Most of the time they were wide open.
    For the most part, I tend to agree with you. Take the Creighton home game- Q went 0-6 from the three.... in the first half. But those were WIDE OPEN shots, and he wasn't even coming close. Other than Tandy, who was hot and cold, X didn't have any other good deep shooters. Scruggs can shoot threes, but he needs some room and some time to get his shot off.

  9. #69
    Administrator Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    12,605
    Quote Originally Posted by XU 87 View Post
    For the most part, I tend to agree with you. Take the Creighton home game- Q went 0-6 from the three.... in the first half. But those were WIDE OPEN shots, and he wasn't even coming close. Other than Tandy, who was hot and cold, X didn't have any other good deep shooters. Scruggs can shoot threes, but he needs some room and some time to get his shot off.
    It's no mystery to me why we had wide open shots.
    "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

  10. #70
    Supporting Member XU 87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Muskie View Post
    It's no mystery to me why we had wide open shots.
    Yep- they weren't even bothering to guard him on the perimeter. It was kind of incredible. I got to the point where instead of hoping he would make one, he would have one at least go in and out. Baby steps.

    But he was so open that you would think he would at least make a couple of those. Instead he missed them, and badly.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •