Started By
Message
Re: Mo St scrimmage
Posted on 11/8/17 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 11/8/17 at 1:26 pm
I've heard that we started Geist and Van Leer in the back court.
Don't frick this up Zo....
Don't frick this up Zo....
Posted on 11/8/17 at 1:30 pm to JesusQuintana
I heard different.
It was Robertson, CVL, Barnett, MPJ, Tilmon.
And after today’s media availability, that sounds like the probable starting 5.
I don’t really have an issue with CVL being the designated shooter, as long as he is making shots. Which he hasn’t really done efficiently his first 2 years.
It was Robertson, CVL, Barnett, MPJ, Tilmon.
And after today’s media availability, that sounds like the probable starting 5.
I don’t really have an issue with CVL being the designated shooter, as long as he is making shots. Which he hasn’t really done efficiently his first 2 years.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 1:58 pm to wubilli
The problem with CVL is he is a shooter that can't shoot (unless that's changed drastically). The bigger issue is that he is a complete liability on defense.
I don't really like Robertson at the 1 either if that is accurate. Not if it means CVL at the 2. Seems we'd be much better with Harris/Phillips at the 1 and Robertson at the 2.
I don't really like Robertson at the 1 either if that is accurate. Not if it means CVL at the 2. Seems we'd be much better with Harris/Phillips at the 1 and Robertson at the 2.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 2:02 pm to JesusQuintana
Or Cuonzo was auditioning guys for backup spots. I wouldn't look into a scrimmage against MOST as indications of anything
Posted on 11/8/17 at 2:10 pm to JesusQuintana
I wouldn’t worry about the defense. Cuonzo has shown he’s a great defensive coach. Mizzou is also likely to be a zone heavy team this year.
CVL looked solid against kU.
I still would bet that Harris plays more than CVL as well.
CVL looked solid against kU.
I still would bet that Harris plays more than CVL as well.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 2:41 pm to wubilli
Their interior defense doesn't look too good. They just don't have the horses there.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 2:44 pm to Zou brownmajic
quote:
interior defense doesn't look too good.
I guess I don’t follow. Mizzou has Tilmon, Jontay, MPJ, Nikko and Smith as options on the inside.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 2:47 pm to wubilli
Yeah, interior defense looks fine to me. Tilmon is one of the most physical bigs in the country, and Jontay is an adept shot blocker.
Can't say I agree with that assessment.
Can't say I agree with that assessment.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 2:52 pm to JesusQuintana
I didn’t anticipate CVL getting regular minutes, but if he shoots the ball well it’s not hard to see him having a role.
The only question about Tilmon is how long does it take for him to adjust and quit fouling so much.
The only question about Tilmon is how long does it take for him to adjust and quit fouling so much.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 4:16 pm to wubilli
CVL will have to shoot 40% from 3 to get PT. Its possible he does that. Anything below that, he becomes a major liability to this team due to his poor passing, defense, and FG%.
My guess is that he has shown to hit those 3s in practice, which is why w're hearing his name.
My guess is that he has shown to hit those 3s in practice, which is why w're hearing his name.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 4:33 pm to mizslu314
quote:
poor passing,
That’s a new one. Passing hasn’t been s problem for CVL.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 7:47 pm to JesusQuintana
CVL can shoot...Kid gets a ton of flack, but if given the right roll he can be a solid piece on a very good team.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 7:49 pm to mizslu314
passing? really. Kid generally is a heady player and makes the right pass, doesn't turn the ball over etc.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 8:11 pm to seaniec04
The more I think about this, the more I REALLY dislike this backcourt combo.
I just don't understand moving our 2 to the point when he's never played there and then replacing him with a guy who's never shown the ability to do it in games. It's not like you don't have any options at the point. This one is just really hard to make sense of. I didn't even expect CVL to be in the rotation, much less start. I remember being at braggin rights last year. We were in the game late. 5 or 6 minutes left. Down by 2. We came down and CVL had a wide open 3 from the top of the key, barely even hit the backboard. They got a run out and the game never got that close again.
Zo is doing what he thinks is best, and he watches practice everyday so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but I'm going on record with my disapproval here.
I just don't understand moving our 2 to the point when he's never played there and then replacing him with a guy who's never shown the ability to do it in games. It's not like you don't have any options at the point. This one is just really hard to make sense of. I didn't even expect CVL to be in the rotation, much less start. I remember being at braggin rights last year. We were in the game late. 5 or 6 minutes left. Down by 2. We came down and CVL had a wide open 3 from the top of the key, barely even hit the backboard. They got a run out and the game never got that close again.
Zo is doing what he thinks is best, and he watches practice everyday so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt but I'm going on record with my disapproval here.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 8:30 pm to JesusQuintana
I think early on, Cuonzo will experiment with different lineups to see who gels. Then by conf season, he’ll be set on the 5 that start, and the 5 that come off the bench. I think Phillips does well coming off the bench. I can’t see Puryear or CVL being a starter by then either. Barnett is the only holdover from KA that might start by then. I think Harris and possibly Robertson will see action on the point, with Robertson sliding over to the 2 guard when Harris takes the point. Then MPJ, Barnett, and Tilmon will be the first 5. I think Cuonzo is looking for leadership at the point. Someone to quarterback the team. Tough to put that on the shoulders of a freshman.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 9:17 pm to seaniec04
quote:
CVL can shoot if he’s being guarded by a kid from St. Clair or Sullivan.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 9:24 pm to wubilli
quote:
It was Robertson, CVL, Barnett, MPJ, Tilmon.
And after today’s media availability, that sounds like the probable starting 5.
If that's the case, it's gonna be a long season and some of these guys are worse than we thought.
CVL should get 5-10 minutes per game. I'm ok with him coming in for short spurts to hopefully hit some open 3's. He can't create a shot because he's too slow but with the other targets on the floor, he might have the chance to play HORSE. As was said, he's also a liability defensively.
As to the OP, everything I heard was Geist barely saw the floor. I'm hoping CVL was just given a chance to see if he has any role at all on this team.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 9:28 pm to seaniec04
quote:
CVL can shoot...Kid gets a ton of flack, but if given the right roll he can be a solid piece on a very good team.
Kid can play HORSE. He's too slow to create on his own. He's too slow to defend. But yes, in the right spot at the right time in limited play, he could have a role.
Posted on 11/8/17 at 9:29 pm to the808bass
quote:
CVL can shoot if he’s not being guarded
Posted on 11/8/17 at 9:52 pm to reedus23
I'd agree that it doesn't say good things about Harris or Phillips.
But hey, maybe CVL was just playing lights out in practice. My hope though, is if he comes out looking like the same game player we've always seen that Zo shows the flexibility to try something else out quickly.
I could see him finding his shot. That's not far fetched, but I just can't see how he's improved that much defensively. That's a bit of a stretch considered his athletic ability or lack thereof.
But hey, maybe CVL was just playing lights out in practice. My hope though, is if he comes out looking like the same game player we've always seen that Zo shows the flexibility to try something else out quickly.
I could see him finding his shot. That's not far fetched, but I just can't see how he's improved that much defensively. That's a bit of a stretch considered his athletic ability or lack thereof.
Popular
Back to top

2




