VTTW Board Index

We are terrible defensively. We don't contest anything.

Offensively we have some guys, and I think this team will get better as the season goes, but we're a poor defensive team.

I don't think they are poor defensively... I think last night they were fatigued because of the travel and I think Oakland made some shots. I think the opposite is true, actually. We will struggle to score against good defensive teams (Oakland is not one) and we will ugly up some games for people on the defensive end.

Last night was the first game I watched . . . great timing . . . but I have been keeping up with the stats and I have to disagree. I didn't see anything, nor do the stats tell me anything, that would make me think this is a good team defensively. To this point they're performing far worse than any of Bruce's teams on the defensive end. But I think you're right about the offense . . . as the season goes by I think we will struggle to score against quality teams.

It's early and we don't have many data points, but that's how things look to me.

Also, I just learned something terrible this morning . . . Ken Pomeroy's detailed team data is now a subscription service. $20. It's your right, Ken, but I am disappointed. And I'm not paying for it.

The stats probably don't back me up and I really don't think you or 'nut are off base in making the observation based on what we saw last night... it's more of a gut feeling based on the transition the guys are making to Cuonzo's style and the fact that there are a lot of young players getting minutes. I think they have the tools and the tenacity to play good defense and I think they will find their stride there.

I also think that games against Duke and Memphis might skew things a little statistically but I haven't checked and don't know for sure.

I think this team competes and will fight but I don't think they are making the tourney. Going 2-4 against UF, UK, and VU would be an accomplishment for this team.

I tend to agree with Revolver. I think this team will be better than most think on the defensive end as the season progresses. Obviously last night was a piss-poor effort on the defensive end, but let's not under-estimate Oakland. This is a team that took Texas to the wire in the NCAA tourney last year, and I think they look at least as good this year, if not a little better than they looked last year.

(BTW, did you all know that Oakland beat Tennessee last year? I kept waiting for the ESPNU guys to tell us that, but they never did...)

I'd agree that they look like a NIT team to me right now, but we have the schedule to be able to make the NCAA if we pull off some upsets. One thing I have seen is offensive improvement from just about everyone that is back.

The Duke and Memphis games are factored in, as it's adjusted by the offenses we've played. With the adjustment, we're 131st. Without it, we'd be 275th. But it's early. I think what's bugging me is there is this tendency to think Martin is a top-notch defensive coach and that this will be the strength of our teams, but there's no data anywhere that backs that up. Our performance so far is right in line with his three Missouri State teams, which never ranked in the top 100 in defense.

As for the overall team projection, I agree. They will fight and won't quit. But this is not a tournament team unless the Duke/Memphis efforts are the norm.

That's true about the schedule. 18-19 wins with our schedule will put us on the bubble if we are over .500 in conference.

I think they run a better half court offense but this set of players still takes dumb shots at times. I'm really worried that once we get into league play teams will throttle us offensively. But, overall I'm pleasantly surprised with the effort and I have no quibble with Cuonzo right now. I think he's already shown me that if he can get players he will have good teams.

Yeah I noticed that they take shots very quickly, a little impatient sometimes (especially Golden). I like what I see from Jordan Mcrae, he looks like he can fill up the scoring stat sheet, has range, can handle the ball, and knocks down FTs. IMO if we can get Golden to be a little more patient and get Maymon to be consistent, we can sneak up on some ppl.

The only problem with McRae is that he is one of the weaknesses on defense. Against both Duke and Memphis Cuonzo sat him down the stretch of the game because he was getting burned on D. Richardson is a better defensive player.

That being said, McRae can be the x factor on offense. He can score.

Interesting... I did not know that.

Yeah. His first team was awful at both ends, and the progress that allowed them to win 20+ and get a conference title in the next two seasons was on the offensive end, where he improved them to a top-50 offense. His defense stayed about the same and was actually markedly worse than his predecessor's.

There's no reason Martin can't succeed at UT and I hope he does, but you know me . . . I find hope in data and so far there is none to be found. I was encouraged by the Duke and Memphis efforts but what I witnessed last night was awful, tired legs or not.

I don't know that Martin is a great defensive coach as much as he will not tolerate less than 100% effort on defense or on the court for that matter.  Pearl would continue to go with someone if they loafed on D, Martin will not.  Usually, that looks like better D overall when the stats sometimes don't add up in the end.

There's not any real evidence for either of these statements.

My biggest gripe about Pearl, in hindsight, is his offense, not his defense. It never performed as it should have after Chris Lofton graduated. The only times the flex ran smoothly and we got good looks at the basket were when JP Prince was on the floor, because seemingly he was that rare UT guard/wing that was smart enough to attack the defense where it was weak. Ironically, he was the most maligned player of the Pearl era. He is what was missing more than anything last year.

I like Martin's offense better because it's simpler. If he can bring in good players (a big "if" right now), the offense should be solid. The jury remains out re: defense.

JP Prince. Casey Clausen. I made this parallel during Prince's senior year. Anybody agree with me now?

These two guys just confirm how little we can trust our senses and intuition as sports fans. We bitch and moan and praise and glorify what we think we see in players, but we are very frequently wrong.

I noticed the tendency to rush shots last night.  Did not see much of that vs. Duke, which is the other game I watched.

I do think the half court offense is much crisper than Pearl's, or at least what it was the last two years he was here.  Last year our half court offense was almost painful to watch.  A bunch of individuals watching each other play.  Very little motion and hardly any picks.  And how many times did time run out?   :frown:  Worse, several times it ran out at the end of closely contested games!  There is simply no excuse for that.

What I noticed last night about this half court O is that I reallly didn't notice it.  :biggrin: Which speaks volumes.  I always noticed Pearl's (lack of) half court offense.   :rolleyes:

In both cases, UT fans hated on them because of their perceived attitudes. Casey was a Cali kid with a laid back air and spiked hair, but he was also our last leader worth a damn. As a SOPHOMORE he told his locker room after the 2001 SECCG that if they wanted to quit after that to not get on the bus to Orlando and to stay home. Can you see Bray doing that now?

People hated Prince because they saw him as a cocky thug from Memphis. I felt like he became the symbol of what more conservative UT fans hated about Pearl's teams. Yet he was the only one who didn't wear a headband, he never got in trouble, and he had no tattoos plus the numbers backed up how important he was. We never sniff the elite 8 without JP Prince.

I disliked Clausen for what he left on the field.  In reality he did not see the field very well.  He tended to focus on only a small segment (the 2001 SECC was a classic case in point). 

I was very much in Prince's corner and not in Clausen's.  Nothing I have seen or heard since they were seniors has changed my position.

He was still better than anybody we've had since, except a healthy Bray.

Casey Clausen was a winner, period dot.

Not only was he a leader, Casey was tough.

AGREE 100%................................never understood why some hated  either one?.....................attitude?......................maybe, but yhey gave 100% every game.

 :powert:

We need more players like both...............................................NOW :box:

 :powert: