• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

fence rider moving BuzzOut...

"We try and we try and we try! We just don't get it!"

- WFU fans, 24 post game losses last season
 
pourman, I used Statsheet to do a breakdown of Bz' teams rebounding last week. I'm sure you can find it with the Search.
 
pourdeac said:
Do you have the opponents eFG%? KenPom is charging these days.
Click to expand...

No, I got these from statsheet.com - it would take a long time to compile the opponent numbers as it is not a readily available stat on the site.
 
morrison2951 said:
Bz says that he emphasizes blocking out and rebounding in practice, and then he consistently throws the players under the bus after every game because we get out-rebounded!

What exactly are they practicing?! :tard:
Click to expand...

I mean, Travis is the only player who shows a heartbeat on the boards, let alone anything resembling fundamentals and he's 6'6 on a good day.

I actually see Daniel boxing out, which is nice, but he's so skinny that I don't know how much it matters. When we refer to his motor/energy, etc. I think that's what people are talking about, too. He's in position to get the ball because he works to get there...

Nikita and Carson both rotate like morons, but are bad on the boards for different reasons. Nikita is always out of position on defense and rarely sticks with the post player (either by Bz's scheme or by his own idiocy...either works), so he's just never near the rim, let alone fighting for position and boxing out.

Carson is skinny and soft. There's just no way around it. Without improving one of those, he's just never going to be able to get position against some of these guys and he's not quick enough to just "get it" in the way that Travis does. You can teach Carson lots of things but until he wants "it," then he's never going to get "it."

I don't doubt that they're working on rebounding, but our frontcourt is embarrassing enough (our best rebounder is 6'6) that I think it's safe to say that this team is just awful at rebounding. I think it's yet another case of wait-and-see. If we don't improve next year with Rountree, Moto, and Thomas crashing the boards consistently, then Bz'out for sure..

Nobody has to tell Thomas Robinson or Arsalan Kazemi to rebound the basketball...
 
DaDeacs said:
No, I got these from statsheet.com - it would take a long time to compile the opponent numbers as it is not a readily available stat on the site.
Click to expand...
Ha...I just found some team rankings on the NCAA site of all places.

http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/ranksummary

At Colorado it looks like the offensive stats went up, but the defensive stats were flat or went down. Colorado's scoring D ranking dropped from 71 to 159 to 296. FG% Defense ranking dropped from 163 to 293 to 304.

We look much better through 12-4 than we did last year. We'll see how well that holds up.

2dqt0ur.jpg


2m5miko.jpg


1zefrid.jpg


2z7qwe8.jpg


24l29l5.jpg
 
pourdeac said:
Ha...I just found some team rankings on the NCAA site of all places.

At Colorado it looks like the offensive stats went up, but the defensive stats were flat or went down. Colorado's scoring D ranking dropped from 71 to 159 to 296. FG% Defense ranking dropped from 163 to 293 to 304.

We look much better through 12-4 than we did last year. We'll see how well that holds up.
Click to expand...

I would assume that he upped the tempo considerably while at Colorado so that explains part of it, but certainly not all of it. That's a horrific drop.
 
Even with efficiency taken into account it went from 79th to 149th to 183rd while at Colorado.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
Even with efficiency taken into account it went from 79th to 149th to 183rd while at Colorado.
Click to expand...

Ouch.

For whatever reason (I really have none), Corbean strikes me as a defensive type so maybe he can help us out in this regard.
 
Nothing can really be assessed until league play, other than that we no longer completely embarrass ourselves on the court. But we're still not good.

The question has always been, what's the ceiling to which Bzz can bring a BCS team? Right now it feels like a .500 club, but we'll see.
 
.500 overall? As a ceiling? What he basically did at a worse BCS program in 3 years and had everyone returning?
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
.500 overall? As a ceiling? What he basically did at a worse BCS program in 3 years and had everyone returning?
Click to expand...

Yep. I haven't seen anything that indicates he's more than middle of the pack coach in any BCS conference. But, as I said, we'll see.
 
Well that is just nonsense. I'm not saying he will take us far, but there is no way that is a reasonable assessment of his ceiling.
 
.500 in the ACC is a big difference than .500 overall. You can say his cieling is .500 in the ACC (which is terrible), that's reasonable.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Yep. I haven't seen anything that indicates he's more than middle of the pack coach in any BCS conference. But, as I said, we'll see.
Click to expand...

Middle of the pack in any BCS conference does not equal .500 overall record. Maybe .500 in the conference in the ACC.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
.500 in the ACC is a big difference than .500 overall. You can say his cieling is .500 in the ACC (which is terrible), that's reasonable.
Click to expand...

If the ACC gets better than it is then I think he will end-up being a 0.500 in the ACC kind of coach. Some years a bit above that, some years a bit below, but I don't see us competing with UNC and Duke for the top.
 
Fuck Your Couch said:
Well that is just nonsense. I'm not saying he will take us far, but there is no way that is a reasonable assessment of his ceiling.
Click to expand...

I think it's reasonable to rate a career .484 coach with a 250 game sample size as a .500 coach. I think it's more reasonable that to assume otherwise.

I should be clear that I was referring mainly to conference record, however. (64 BCS games, 11-53, 0.208 lifetime)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top