Started By
Message
re: Give me your grade on KA in his first year
Posted on 3/16/15 at 7:38 pm to reedus23
Posted on 3/16/15 at 7:38 pm to reedus23
The difference is their upperclassmen are impact players, while ours aren't at all. Any team that relies on underclassmen (outside of top 20 HS players) as much as we did this year is going to have a garbage record.
This post was edited on 3/16/15 at 7:40 pm
0
Posted on 3/16/15 at 7:55 pm to reedus23
Vandy - Top 3 scorers a FR or SO. 4 of 5 leading rebounders were freshmen or sophomores.
UAB - 6 of top 7 scorers a FR or SO. Top 3 rebounders a FR or SO.
Seton Hall - 3 of top 5 a FR. 4 of top 5 rebounders are a FR.
kU - 6 of top 7 scorers a FR or SO. 4 of 5 for rebounders.
Indiana - 3 of top 3 scorers a FR or SO. Top 2 rebounders too.
Michigan - 2 of their top 3 scorers and rebounders were SO.
Vermont - 2 of their top 3 scorers were FR or SO. 2 of 4 top rebounders were JR.
UNLV - Top 3 scorers and top 2 rebounders were FR or SO.
Purdue - You found the apparent exception to the rule.
Duke - Top 3 of 4 scorers and top 3 of 4 rebounders were FR.
Utah State - Top 2 scorers and top 2 rebounders were FR or SO.
Stony Brook - Another exception to the rule. Top 3 scorers and top 2 rebounders were JR or SR.
James Madison - 2 of top 3 scorers and 2 of top 3 rebounders were FR or SO.
Pepperdine - Another exception. Top 2 scorers and rebounders were JR or SR.
UCLA - Mixed bag. 2 of top 3 scorers were FR or SO along with top rebounder.
LSU - Top 2 scorers and top 2 rebounders were SO.
In comparison, Mizzou's 3 of top 4 scorers were FR or SO and only 2 of top 4 rebounders were FR or SO. So very comparable.
That was a lot or work to say that first, I never said the expectation was .500 for this year. I thought double digit wins and consistent improvement were fair to expect. Those expecting .500 were asking too much from this team.
The question was asked which teams as young as Mizzou were .500. I listed them. A couple of those did have upperclassmen leading the way but the it is pretty clear, there were plenty of teams that played .500 ball with as young or younger teams. If I were trying to make a point, I would have listed every team on that list that had more wins, but that would have increased the list to 34 teams.
At the end of the day, I don't like or dislike KA as a coach. I dislike the job he did this last season, just as I dislike some of the issues with the players, whether it was talent, IQ or discipline. But those trying to hold KA free from all blame for this past season just aren't being honest IMO. He's the CEO of this program and bears some of the burden for its performance no matter what.
As I've said a million times, I'm all for KA turning it around as soon as next year because that is the quickest route to Mizzou basketball being relevant, which is all I give a shite about. I don't give a shite who the coach is and certainly don't give a shite if that coach is a "true son" or all the other warm fuzzies. I just want to win and run a respectable program no matter who the coach is. Hopefully it is KA.
UAB - 6 of top 7 scorers a FR or SO. Top 3 rebounders a FR or SO.
Seton Hall - 3 of top 5 a FR. 4 of top 5 rebounders are a FR.
kU - 6 of top 7 scorers a FR or SO. 4 of 5 for rebounders.
Indiana - 3 of top 3 scorers a FR or SO. Top 2 rebounders too.
Michigan - 2 of their top 3 scorers and rebounders were SO.
Vermont - 2 of their top 3 scorers were FR or SO. 2 of 4 top rebounders were JR.
UNLV - Top 3 scorers and top 2 rebounders were FR or SO.
Purdue - You found the apparent exception to the rule.
Duke - Top 3 of 4 scorers and top 3 of 4 rebounders were FR.
Utah State - Top 2 scorers and top 2 rebounders were FR or SO.
Stony Brook - Another exception to the rule. Top 3 scorers and top 2 rebounders were JR or SR.
James Madison - 2 of top 3 scorers and 2 of top 3 rebounders were FR or SO.
Pepperdine - Another exception. Top 2 scorers and rebounders were JR or SR.
UCLA - Mixed bag. 2 of top 3 scorers were FR or SO along with top rebounder.
LSU - Top 2 scorers and top 2 rebounders were SO.
In comparison, Mizzou's 3 of top 4 scorers were FR or SO and only 2 of top 4 rebounders were FR or SO. So very comparable.
That was a lot or work to say that first, I never said the expectation was .500 for this year. I thought double digit wins and consistent improvement were fair to expect. Those expecting .500 were asking too much from this team.
The question was asked which teams as young as Mizzou were .500. I listed them. A couple of those did have upperclassmen leading the way but the it is pretty clear, there were plenty of teams that played .500 ball with as young or younger teams. If I were trying to make a point, I would have listed every team on that list that had more wins, but that would have increased the list to 34 teams.
At the end of the day, I don't like or dislike KA as a coach. I dislike the job he did this last season, just as I dislike some of the issues with the players, whether it was talent, IQ or discipline. But those trying to hold KA free from all blame for this past season just aren't being honest IMO. He's the CEO of this program and bears some of the burden for its performance no matter what.
As I've said a million times, I'm all for KA turning it around as soon as next year because that is the quickest route to Mizzou basketball being relevant, which is all I give a shite about. I don't give a shite who the coach is and certainly don't give a shite if that coach is a "true son" or all the other warm fuzzies. I just want to win and run a respectable program no matter who the coach is. Hopefully it is KA.
Posted on 3/16/15 at 8:19 pm to reedus23
It's not really about Mizzou being young. It's more a lack of basketball skills. This was the worst shooting team in about 50 years for Mizzou. Outside of Sham ball handling was shaky.
The team as a whole was weak and continuously got pushed off their spots.
No players were really able to get their shot off, when they wanted.
I do like the potential of the freshmen though. I think if they put in work this offseason, & add 1-2 pieces they can be good.
The team as a whole was weak and continuously got pushed off their spots.
No players were really able to get their shot off, when they wanted.
I do like the potential of the freshmen though. I think if they put in work this offseason, & add 1-2 pieces they can be good.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 8:34 am to wubilli
Shamburger would start in most places for his consistency. He was a 4 year starter at 3 places.
When you say young, that gives you a 10 game excuse at the beginning of the year. Not an entire season. After living and playing with the same 12 guys for 6 months, you should probably have it figured out.
The only other time it applies is the postseason, which is invariably different than the regular season. That is when having upperclassmen is valuable. They have been through it and know what to expect.
Personally, there are players on Mizzou's team that I don't like their style of play. But it doesn't mean that they aren't talented. Wes Clark is one. Love the kid, like what he says about the program, just hate his style of play. Don't confuse your dislike for a style or player as lack of talent. This team had the talent to be a fringe NCAA team. Coaching is the difference.
When you say young, that gives you a 10 game excuse at the beginning of the year. Not an entire season. After living and playing with the same 12 guys for 6 months, you should probably have it figured out.
The only other time it applies is the postseason, which is invariably different than the regular season. That is when having upperclassmen is valuable. They have been through it and know what to expect.
Personally, there are players on Mizzou's team that I don't like their style of play. But it doesn't mean that they aren't talented. Wes Clark is one. Love the kid, like what he says about the program, just hate his style of play. Don't confuse your dislike for a style or player as lack of talent. This team had the talent to be a fringe NCAA team. Coaching is the difference.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 9:41 am to 5thTiger
I think there was a lot a athletic talent on the team, problem was they were physically weak. That is something that can be rectified this offseason. And they lacked basketball specific skills such as ball handling, shooting, defense both on and off ball. All of their issues can be addressed this offseason. Get those skills & strength down and they are a 20+ win team.
Florida was similar to us this year in having great athletic talent, but not the basketball skills.
Florida was similar to us this year in having great athletic talent, but not the basketball skills.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 12:31 pm to wubilli
Reedus, I randomly picked Michigan. Not a good comparison. Their leading scorer and rebounder is a Jr. 4th leading scorer a jr. 2nd and 3rd Sophs. Our jrs are Bello and Rosburg, the two lowest scorers on the team. Rosberg averaged 3.1 pts and 2.6 Rebs a game. Even DeAngelo Allen averaged more pts and rebs. WOW. KA had 11 scholarship players to work with. Bello was a non factor. Gant missed the first 9, Clark the last ? With suspensions, injuries and foul problems he had to play an overmatched team that featured 7 players seeing the floor for the first time as a Missouri Tiger. I hope we see Clark JWIII, Wright, Gant and Teki have long successful careers as Tigers. Allen will hopefully develope and contribute. Issabell has some talent. I hope he can mature as a person and player. They need help and we shall see what the freshman bring to the table. On paper they are rated as only 3 stars and this team desperately needs size. Let's see how the class finishes out. KA was dealt a tough hand. When someone says this team should be a .500 team or a fringe tourney team I can only ask how? The answer is not better coaching. The answer is more good players.
This post was edited on 3/18/15 at 12:34 pm
Posted on 3/18/15 at 1:16 pm to Stlweir
Yeah, the numbers can be nitpicked apart here and there. Bottom line, someone asked if younger teams played .500 ball. There were some.
As to all the other stuff, I don't disagree. I've never said it was all KA's fault. What I have said is that I think it's naive if people think KA holds no fault though.
For the record again, I never said this team should have even been .500 this past season. My hope from game 1 was double digit wins. My expectation is that next year is .500. The year after that is the NIT. The 4th year is the NCAA.
I will slightly disagree with you and I will bet you even KA would disagree with you. The answer is better coaching, better players, better execution. That's my only point. And I'd bet KA would say he learned from this season and did things wrong. In fact, I know he's said that. So instead of simply putting it ALL on the feet of the players, lets put it at the feet of the players AND the coach.
As to all the other stuff, I don't disagree. I've never said it was all KA's fault. What I have said is that I think it's naive if people think KA holds no fault though.
For the record again, I never said this team should have even been .500 this past season. My hope from game 1 was double digit wins. My expectation is that next year is .500. The year after that is the NIT. The 4th year is the NCAA.
I will slightly disagree with you and I will bet you even KA would disagree with you. The answer is better coaching, better players, better execution. That's my only point. And I'd bet KA would say he learned from this season and did things wrong. In fact, I know he's said that. So instead of simply putting it ALL on the feet of the players, lets put it at the feet of the players AND the coach.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 2:18 pm to reedus23
With next years schedule.500 puts Mizzou in the NIT.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 3:21 pm to wubilli
I kind of feel like in year 2 you should probably make the NIT. You just need to be a top 100 team. Although down the stretch this team didn't give a ton of optimism. I do think that Clark injury coupled with suspensions really really hurt any real growth though. That's on the players and bad luck more than anything.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 3:24 pm to wubilli
Funnt how smart a coach becomes when he has good players. I'm sure KA feels he can improve and in retrospect may have done some things differently. I hoe he gets the job done.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 3:46 pm to the808bass
quote:
Our OOC is brutal. We're not winning 11 OOC games.
But that should be the goal. Sneak up on some people and pull out a victory
Posted on 3/18/15 at 5:33 pm to outlawjoseywales
Reedus, I have randomly picked schools on your list.
UCLA's leading scorer is a senior. They have 5 players that averaged in double figures.they have a nice mix of a senior, jr, 2 Sophs, 1 frosh..
Even UABs leading scorer is a redshirt Jr. 13.1 a game. Strangely they have 6 players who average between 8 pts and 7.1 per game. A senior averages 7.1. They are a young team but like the other teams I've looked up you listed the have upperclassman leadership that are their leading scorers.
Shamburger was a nice addition who KA was forced to play extensive minutes because he did not have a better alternative.
Post 4 pts a game,
Rosberg 3.1
Bello 1.9
Love your passion, the comparisons don't hold up. I appreciate the work you put into it.
UCLA's leading scorer is a senior. They have 5 players that averaged in double figures.they have a nice mix of a senior, jr, 2 Sophs, 1 frosh..
Even UABs leading scorer is a redshirt Jr. 13.1 a game. Strangely they have 6 players who average between 8 pts and 7.1 per game. A senior averages 7.1. They are a young team but like the other teams I've looked up you listed the have upperclassman leadership that are their leading scorers.
Shamburger was a nice addition who KA was forced to play extensive minutes because he did not have a better alternative.
Post 4 pts a game,
Rosberg 3.1
Bello 1.9
Love your passion, the comparisons don't hold up. I appreciate the work you put into it.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 5:38 pm to Stlweir
I love the work the KA team puts into this.
It's still a dumpster fire.
It's still a dumpster fire.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 6:09 pm to the808bass
Vandy - Top 3 scorers a FR or SO. 4 of 5 leading rebounders were freshmen or sophomores.
UAB - 6 of top 7 scorers a FR or SO. Top 3 rebounders a FR or SO.
Seton Hall - 3 of top 5 a FR. 4 of top 5 rebounders are a FR.
kU - 6 of top 7 scorers a FR or SO. 4 of 5 for rebounders.
Indiana - 3 of top 3 scorers a FR or SO. Top 2 rebounders too.
Michigan - 2 of their top 3 scorers and rebounders were SO.
Vermont - 2 of their top 3 scorers were FR or SO. 2 of 4 top rebounders were JR.
UNLV - Top 3 scorers and top 2 rebounders were FR or SO.
Purdue - You found the apparent exception to the rule.
Duke - Top 3 of 4 scorers and top 3 of 4 rebounders were FR.
Utah State - Top 2 scorers and top 2 rebounders were FR or SO.
Stony Brook - Another exception to the rule. Top 3 scorers and top 2 rebounders were JR or SR.
James Madison - 2 of top 3 scorers and 2 of top 3 rebounders were FR or SO.
Pepperdine - Another exception. Top 2 scorers and rebounders were JR or SR.
UCLA - Mixed bag. 2 of top 3 scorers were FR or SO along with top rebounder.
LSU - Top 2 scorers and top 2 rebounders were SO.
Each and every one of those are accurate. Y'all can keep trying to nitpick them apart and it doesn't change the fact that teams that were overall younger than Mizzou finished better than Mizzou. That doesn't mean they didn't have any juniors or seniors, but then again, Mizzou had 4 of them as well.
Also, I even said UCLA was a mixed bag, so not sure what point is made there.
UAB - 6 of top 7 scorers a FR or SO. Top 3 rebounders a FR or SO.
Seton Hall - 3 of top 5 a FR. 4 of top 5 rebounders are a FR.
kU - 6 of top 7 scorers a FR or SO. 4 of 5 for rebounders.
Indiana - 3 of top 3 scorers a FR or SO. Top 2 rebounders too.
Michigan - 2 of their top 3 scorers and rebounders were SO.
Vermont - 2 of their top 3 scorers were FR or SO. 2 of 4 top rebounders were JR.
UNLV - Top 3 scorers and top 2 rebounders were FR or SO.
Purdue - You found the apparent exception to the rule.
Duke - Top 3 of 4 scorers and top 3 of 4 rebounders were FR.
Utah State - Top 2 scorers and top 2 rebounders were FR or SO.
Stony Brook - Another exception to the rule. Top 3 scorers and top 2 rebounders were JR or SR.
James Madison - 2 of top 3 scorers and 2 of top 3 rebounders were FR or SO.
Pepperdine - Another exception. Top 2 scorers and rebounders were JR or SR.
UCLA - Mixed bag. 2 of top 3 scorers were FR or SO along with top rebounder.
LSU - Top 2 scorers and top 2 rebounders were SO.
Each and every one of those are accurate. Y'all can keep trying to nitpick them apart and it doesn't change the fact that teams that were overall younger than Mizzou finished better than Mizzou. That doesn't mean they didn't have any juniors or seniors, but then again, Mizzou had 4 of them as well.
Also, I even said UCLA was a mixed bag, so not sure what point is made there.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 6:10 pm to Stlweir
quote:
Love your passion, the comparisons don't hold up. I appreciate the work you put into it.
You're right. They were all better teams. And younger. That fact can't be changed.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 7:37 pm to reedus23
I think one major factor missing in your comparison is how many of those coaches are in their first year? SOs, JRs, and SRs playing in the same system have an advantage over ones playing in a new system. Those players can also help the FR learn the system faster by passing on knowledge. Those coaches also had more time to recruit players that fit their system. I think this explains the difference in teams like Vandy when comparing them to our team. I think teams like kU and Duke are a different talent level.
It is good information and fun to look at though. We should be benchmarking our team against others so thanks for the info.
It is good information and fun to look at though. We should be benchmarking our team against others so thanks for the info.
Posted on 3/18/15 at 8:48 pm to Tigersessed
Certainly think all of that is a factor.
Posted on 3/20/15 at 7:31 pm to reedus23
The we are young thing gets old. Lots of teams do it with young players. Problem is we are not getting those kids that go to Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky. If this team was coached by the coach at any one of those teams we would have been a lot better. I just don't think KA has what it takes.
Posted on 3/22/15 at 7:42 pm to ZackAttackTiger
D
You give an F to a coach that recruited his own players from start to finish, had 2-4 years to develop them, was roundly supported by his fan base, and still finished with our record.
D means potential to improve and that is available in spades for this team.
You give an F to a coach that recruited his own players from start to finish, had 2-4 years to develop them, was roundly supported by his fan base, and still finished with our record.
D means potential to improve and that is available in spades for this team.
Posted on 3/22/15 at 8:51 pm to the808bass
quote:
I love the work the KA team puts into this.
Yup....and my favorite part is some of them were probably the same ones who tore apart Mike Anderson after losing a second-round game to West Virginia. Or Quin Snyder for finishing 5th in the Big 12 when it truly was a great conference.
I was not a Quin fan by any means, but some people are bigger Norm Stewart fans than Mizzou basketball fans.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News