Started By
Message
re: Give me your grade on KA in his first year
Posted on 3/12/15 at 9:43 am to Koch Snowflake
Posted on 3/12/15 at 9:43 am to Koch Snowflake
Talented? Yes... THEY ARE FRESHMAN... I don't understand why people expected our freshman to be very successful on a team dominated by said freshman. A little delusional. This team's absolute ceiling this year would be .500... We simply don't have the pieces/experience.
1
Posted on 3/12/15 at 9:47 am to reedus23
In that case, I would have to give Kim and F. If he would have finished .500 this year, I would have given him an A. Last year's team was far more talented and only finished 6th in an SEC conference that got like 3 bids to the tourney. This year 5 or 6 will be going. The combination of a better SEC and a worse Missouri team left us SOL.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 10:16 am to casublett1
quote:
Talented? Yes... THEY ARE FRESHMAN... I don't understand why people expected our freshman to be very successful on a team dominated by said freshman. A little delusional. This team's absolute ceiling this year would be .500... We simply don't have the pieces/experience.
I think everyone is saying the same thing. I think most would have considered .500, which you say was a possible ceiling, very successful. So I don't think people are delusional for thinking there was enough talent (albeit young) to be successful (i.e. getting to .500). What this team was, though, was so far below successful I don't know what to call it.
The question then is, if the talent on the team is enough to be successful/.500, why weren't they? I have my thoughts and concerns.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 10:18 am to casublett1
quote:
In that case, I would have to give Kim and F. If he would have finished .500 this year, I would have given him an A. Last year's team was far more talented and only finished 6th in an SEC conference that got like 3 bids to the tourney. This year 5 or 6 will be going. The combination of a better SEC and a worse Missouri team left us SOL.
Can't argue with that. My goal or what I thought was a fair expectation was to get to double digit wins. Had they gotten to .500, I would have been ecstatic and not just given KA an "A" but a raise.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 11:18 am to reedus23
As would I 
Posted on 3/12/15 at 11:54 am to Koch Snowflake
quote:
Those players have lots of talent
But no discipline which is the difference maker for teams that WIN.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 12:14 pm to Wtodd
So they're uncoachable.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 12:42 pm to the808bass
I wouldn't say uncoachable. Just young. These kids were just thrown into the fire due to lack of depth/experience on the roster. Time will tell. If the current freshman show no sign of improvement next year (i.e. shot selection, basketball IQ, decision making), then I will be skeptical of Kim's coaching abilities. It's definitely safe to say that our team lacks intelligence.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:09 pm to Wtodd
quote:
But no discipline which is the difference maker for teams that WIN.
On the court or off?
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:11 pm to casublett1
This team averaged 60 ppg. That is not good. Didn't eclipse 80 once. I would be willing to bet that if you simply let them play with no playbook, a team could achieve 60 ppg over the course of a season. So for that, KA gets an F.
As for recruiting, The offseason was a solid B. So far this season has been a D. So a C average in recruiting.
Defense is so tough to judge, because you can play awesome defense and still have an opponent score. We were decent on the boards. Weren't great at on-ball defending, and were pretty bad at off-ball. Giving a C-.
So an F for offense, C- for defense, and a C for recruiting. If it were a GPA that would come to a 1.22... Which is a D to D+ range.
As for recruiting, The offseason was a solid B. So far this season has been a D. So a C average in recruiting.
Defense is so tough to judge, because you can play awesome defense and still have an opponent score. We were decent on the boards. Weren't great at on-ball defending, and were pretty bad at off-ball. Giving a C-.
So an F for offense, C- for defense, and a C for recruiting. If it were a GPA that would come to a 1.22... Which is a D to D+ range.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:14 pm to reedus23
I think we are confusing potential with talent.
There are a lot of high potential high ceiling athletes on this team, but they all have significant holes in their games skill wise. Thus limiting their effectiveness/consistentcy
Andersons mark as a coach will be do these young guys stay, if how do they develop.
There are a lot of high potential high ceiling athletes on this team, but they all have significant holes in their games skill wise. Thus limiting their effectiveness/consistentcy
Andersons mark as a coach will be do these young guys stay, if how do they develop.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:28 pm to the808bass
quote:
So they're uncoachable
Not necessarily.....it's like when got that new puppy.....you had to train it to do what you wanted it to do......it fought you for awhile and did it's own thing but eventually it got it.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:29 pm to reedus23
quote:
On the court or off?
Yes
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:29 pm to wubilli
I like Kim, had high hopes for him to hit the ground running. But it didn't happen. A 9 win season, no matter what the extenuating circumstances, is an F when it comes to Mizzou basketball.
Doesn't mean he can't turn it around. But he starts out with an F, no question.
Doesn't mean he can't turn it around. But he starts out with an F, no question.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:42 pm to wubilli
quote:
There are a lot of high potential high ceiling athletes on this team,
I don't disagree. Which is why the players actually would not receive an F from me as a whole, like KA. I think the talent on the floor was much better than the record or play showed, even with being young. I am hopeful that KA sacrificed (I wanted to say tanked) this season on purpose to set boundaries and lay down who's the boss. That is the only explanation I can come up with for why players, who aren't devoid of talent, looked as if they were.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 1:58 pm to reedus23
C-. Not impressed but also not willing to flunk him out. Also believe that Izzo, self, and coach k combined couldn't have achieved much more with the 2015 tigers.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 2:01 pm to AKTigerChief
I litereally said the exact same thing last night in an argument with my roommates...
Posted on 3/12/15 at 2:09 pm to Koch Snowflake
C- or D+
Posted on 3/12/15 at 4:42 pm to Koch Snowflake
Incomplete. How many times have you heard a top mgr- coach says amazing how smarter we are with a good team/talent. Any of you that think this team should have been far superior are clueless. I get to say this because it is the rant and it is also true.
Posted on 3/12/15 at 5:14 pm to Stlweir
quote:
Any of you that think this team should have been far superior are clueless.
Not far superior, just a steady sign of improvement as the season progressed. That really didn't happen, thus an F to Kim because that's his job.
I'm also not giving up on him, I want him to succeed like we all do.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News