|
Post by motorcitysam on Dec 28, 2020 7:52:18 GMT -5
If that last shot in regulation from Fraser had fallen, I'd be feeling better about the game, but the issues would still be there. Too many turnovers, beaten on the boards, another poor shooting game from AD, etc, etc. On the plus side, Kuol played well, and has exceeded my expectations so far. It was good to see Waterman make his debut, and he had his moments. Koka didn't score much, and didn't shoot well with his limited shot attempts, but in his 26 minutes he had 8 boards, 2 blocks, 2 steals, and as assist. I'll take that for a guy who is still getting acclimated to the system and his teammates. I'm torn on Waterman. He showed some positive things, and Coach loves him, but he's 6-11 and had three rebounds and no blocks in 23 minutes in a game we got killed on the glass and gave up a ton of interior points. I know they do this gimmicky thing of listing Waterman as a guard, but if his game is going to give us an average guard impact, I'd rather just have Brandon get the bulk of those minutes and leave the guard play to Fraser, Johnson, Rose, etc. Of course, it's early. I'm not passing judgement on him either way. Did you watch the replay on ESPN? We have some guys on this board who are better at watching games than me, so maybe they want to chime in, but I think you'd be higher on Waterman if you'd been able to watch the game rather than listened on the radio. I thought he did a lot both yesterday and today that doesn't show up in the box. In the zone he plays up top or on the wings, and is really a problem for shooters with that long reach. He's not going to get rebounds from there, though. He forced a couple jump balls both days, seems to make pretty good decisions to pass or shoot, and is a real problem for other teams on the perimeter. They did try him today at the high post and he struggled a bit there, but he is a freshman. I was impressed by Waterman, and he's only going to get better. Today: 19 points; 7-12 overall, 3-6 from three; 3 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 steals. I don't think this is the only time we'll see that type of stat line from Waterman. Didn't see either game, and I know it's early, which is why I said I wasn't passing judgement yet. OU hit 14-31 from three, so if he was hurting their outside shooting, he must have been the only one. He had a good line, but again, it's a guard's line. 3 rebounds in 28 minutes. So far his good things are duplicates of what we get from other players. That's not a bad thing, but I was hoping having a another seven foot player would give us more of what we've been lacking, especially since Thompson isn't working out so far. Again, it's early.
|
|
|
Post by fan on Dec 28, 2020 8:30:01 GMT -5
"Again, it's early"....not really!
|
|
|
Post by fan on Dec 28, 2020 8:30:22 GMT -5
"Again, it's early"....not really!
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Dec 28, 2020 8:39:26 GMT -5
Did you watch the replay on ESPN? We have some guys on this board who are better at watching games than me, so maybe they want to chime in, but I think you'd be higher on Waterman if you'd been able to watch the game rather than listened on the radio. I thought he did a lot both yesterday and today that doesn't show up in the box. In the zone he plays up top or on the wings, and is really a problem for shooters with that long reach. He's not going to get rebounds from there, though. He forced a couple jump balls both days, seems to make pretty good decisions to pass or shoot, and is a real problem for other teams on the perimeter. They did try him today at the high post and he struggled a bit there, but he is a freshman. I was impressed by Waterman, and he's only going to get better. Today: 19 points; 7-12 overall, 3-6 from three; 3 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 steals. I don't think this is the only time we'll see that type of stat line from Waterman. Didn't see either game, and I know it's early, which is why I said I wasn't passing judgement yet. OU hit 14-31 from three, so if he was hurting their outside shooting, he must have been the only one. He had a good line, but again, it's a guard's line. 3 rebounds in 28 minutes. So far his good things are duplicates of what we get from other players. That's not a bad thing, but I was hoping having a another seven foot player would give us more of what we've been lacking, especially since Thompson isn't working out so far. Again, it's early. And again, you need to watch the games. OU’s outside shooting on Saturday was 20.7%, and came to life in the second half when Waterman was not much in the court. In yesterday’s game, the Titans played less zone. And it wasn’t Waterman who was not closing out—OU pretty much avoided him on the perimeter. But that aside, you wouldn’t take his stat line from a guard? 19 points; 7-12 overall, 3-6 from three; 3 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 steals? That doesn’t cut it for you? Of course after just two games the jury is still out, but whether you watched the games or just looked at the stat line , it was a pretty impressive debut weekend.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Dec 28, 2020 9:03:07 GMT -5
Didn't see either game, and I know it's early, which is why I said I wasn't passing judgement yet. OU hit 14-31 from three, so if he was hurting their outside shooting, he must have been the only one. He had a good line, but again, it's a guard's line. 3 rebounds in 28 minutes. So far his good things are duplicates of what we get from other players. That's not a bad thing, but I was hoping having a another seven foot player would give us more of what we've been lacking, especially since Thompson isn't working out so far. Again, it's early. And again, you need to watch the games. OU’s outside shooting on Saturday was 20.7%, and came to life in the second half when Waterman was not much in the court. In yesterday’s game, the Titans played less zone. And it wasn’t Waterman who was not closing out—OU pretty much avoided him on the perimeter. But that aside, you wouldn’t take his stat line from a guard? 19 points; 7-12 overall, 3-6 from three; 3 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 steals? That doesn’t cut it for you? Of course after just two games the jury is still out, but whether you watched the games or just looked at the stat line , it was a pretty impressive debut weekend. So, he gets credit for holding them to 21% on threes on Saturday, but he wasn't responsible for the 45% from OU on Sunday? I said he had a good stat line. And it's a guard stat line. We've gotten that kind of line and better from Johnson, Fraser, and Kuol. He gave us another guy giving us what we were getting from others. If he gives us more, good. If the just gives us that, that's fine, too. I hope to get more from a seven footer with touch in the HL. Bottom line, as always, is wins. We didn't really play better with him in the lineup than we have previously this season. We lost two to a team that came into the weekend 0-9. I'm not trashing Waterman, just making an observation. We've had a lot of "things will get better once Waterman is eligible" sentiment on the board.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Dec 28, 2020 9:56:58 GMT -5
And again, you need to watch the games. OU’s outside shooting on Saturday was 20.7%, and came to life in the second half when Waterman was not much in the court. In yesterday’s game, the Titans played less zone. And it wasn’t Waterman who was not closing out—OU pretty much avoided him on the perimeter. But that aside, you wouldn’t take his stat line from a guard? 19 points; 7-12 overall, 3-6 from three; 3 rebounds, 3 assists, 2 steals? That doesn’t cut it for you? Of course after just two games the jury is still out, but whether you watched the games or just looked at the stat line , it was a pretty impressive debut weekend. So, he gets credit for holding them to 21% on threes on Saturday, but he wasn't responsible for the 45% from OU on Sunday? I said he had a good stat line. And it's a guard stat line. We've gotten that kind of line and better from Johnson, Fraser, and Kuol. He gave us another guy giving us what we were getting from others. If he gives us more, good. If the just gives us that, that's fine, too. I hope to get more from a seven footer with touch in the HL. Bottom line, as always, is wins. We didn't really play better with him in the lineup than we have previously this season. We lost two to a team that came into the weekend 0-9. I'm not trashing Waterman, just making an observation. We've had a lot of "things will get better once Waterman is eligible" sentiment on the board. Yes, he gets credit Saturday and avoids blame Sunday. You have to watch the replay. OU was totally flummoxed on Saturday by the 1-3-1 w/ Waterman up top. They adjusted, but Waterman also was pulled from lineup, and they improved a bit. Sunday was a different game. Oakland took advantage of other players. One of my early football heroes was the Lions defensive back Lem Barney. Lem Barney's interceptions went way down after his first couple years. Was Barney not as good? Not all that good to begin with? No. If you saw Barney play over the years, you know his interceptions went down because nobody ever threw the ball into his part of the field. And the Lions still lost. And their porous pass defense had nothing to do with Lem Barney. So when you ask, "So, he gets credit for holding them to 21% on threes on Saturday, but he wasn't responsible for the 45% from OU on Sunday?" Yes. Exactly. That's right. My sense is that the Titans were definitely a better team when Waterman was on the Court. After these two games he has the second highest offensive rating and the highest plus/minus rating on the team, which lend statistical support to my observation. Sure, it's just two games. That does not a season or career make. He's a freshman. I think we have every reason to be excited about Waterman at this point, as long as we temper it with the knowledge that it's just two games. You're bigger point is that the Titans got the same result. Yes, but I still like the team better with Waterman. If you thought Waterman would be a 9 rebound/2 block type of player, I don't think you've been attention. He was never billed as such. Whether they could use him more in an inside game, we don't know, because he wasn't used that way. The Titans went with Koka and Brandon for the inside game. Maybe your disappointment is there. The fact is that the Titans added three important rotation players, and got nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by therealcoach on Dec 28, 2020 11:01:23 GMT -5
The last two assessments of what and who we got contributions from when they were on floor basically comes down to coaching. Those are in game coaching decisions, who is giving us what and when. That’s what a staff decides during timeouts/ halftime etc. Our coach/coaches don’t do any of that. The only thing I’ve witnessed this year after a timeout is an offensive set drawn up to get AD a shot. As stated in several post, we have the pieces on the team. We don’t have a coach or staff to get it done for us Period!
|
|
|
Post by udballer on Dec 28, 2020 11:06:53 GMT -5
The two games over the weekend were against (easily) the worst team we've seen this season. I think it must be easy to forget that when watching the games or looking at the stat line. Sam's point that it's a good stat line, but a guards stat line is valid. I believe we've seen Rose Jr also post similar stat lines in the past.
There is plenty to like with Waterman, but so far it also appears that the fact he's 7ft tall isn't going to play much into the conversation. I think the hope was that he'd be able to use that height to his advantage. If he could, he could be a game changer ala Paris Bass. As it is he posted a good stat line in a loss to a bad team and influenced some shots on defense. That's not a bad thing, it's just not something that looks like it'll do much to change the outcomes of tons of games. We need to radically turn losses into wins to get the program where it needs to be.
I think there is talent on this team enough to compete for the conference title. However, something (maybe coaching) is severely lacking.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Dec 28, 2020 11:20:36 GMT -5
So, he gets credit for holding them to 21% on threes on Saturday, but he wasn't responsible for the 45% from OU on Sunday? I said he had a good stat line. And it's a guard stat line. We've gotten that kind of line and better from Johnson, Fraser, and Kuol. He gave us another guy giving us what we were getting from others. If he gives us more, good. If the just gives us that, that's fine, too. I hope to get more from a seven footer with touch in the HL. Bottom line, as always, is wins. We didn't really play better with him in the lineup than we have previously this season. We lost two to a team that came into the weekend 0-9. I'm not trashing Waterman, just making an observation. We've had a lot of "things will get better once Waterman is eligible" sentiment on the board. Yes, he gets credit Saturday and avoids blame Sunday. You have to watch the replay. OU was totally flummoxed on Saturday by the 1-3-1 w/ Waterman up top. They adjusted, but Waterman also was pulled from lineup, and they improved a bit. Sunday was a different game. Oakland took advantage of other players. One of my early football heroes was the Lions defensive back Lem Barney. Lem Barney's interceptions went way down after his first couple years. Was Barney not as good? Not all that good to begin with? No. If you saw Barney play over the years, you know his interceptions went down because nobody ever threw the ball into his part of the field. And the Lions still lost. And their porous pass defense had nothing to do with Lem Barney. So when you ask, "So, he gets credit for holding them to 21% on threes on Saturday, but he wasn't responsible for the 45% from OU on Sunday?" Yes. Exactly. That's right. My sense is that the Titans were definitely a better team when Waterman was on the Court. After these two games he has the second highest offensive rating and the highest plus/minus rating on the team, which lend statistical support to my observation. Sure, it's just two games. That does not a season or career make. He's a freshman. I think we have every reason to be excited about Waterman at this point, as long as we temper it with the knowledge that it's just two games. You're bigger point is that the Titans got the same result. Yes, but I still like the team better with Waterman. If you thought Waterman would be a 9 rebound/2 block type of player, I don't think you've been attention. He was never billed as such. Whether they could use him more in an inside game, we don't know, because he wasn't used that way. The Titans went with Koka and Brandon for the inside game. Maybe your disappointment is there. The fact is that the Titans added three important rotation players, and got nowhere. Okay, so your point is that if someone near him is shooting a three he can get a hand up and bother the shot, but apparently it's not that hard to adjust your game to avoid him? Since he apparently the Grizzlies didn't have that much trouble working around him on Sunday. He actually played more minutes on Sunday than Saturday, so I don't know when he was pulled. That's not exactly the difference maker on defense that your previous comments would indicate. Not sure where you got the 9/2 expectations from. I certainly didn't expect that, so maybe someone else said it and you thought it was me. I did expect more than 6 boards and zero blocks in 51 minutes against a bad team from a seven footer. I don't think that's too much to ask. Oakland beat us up pretty good on the boards. He can share some of the responsibility for that. I'm not going to put it all on Koka and Brandon and and hold Waterman blameless when he played more than either of them this weekend.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Dec 28, 2020 11:36:13 GMT -5
"Again, it's early"....not really! LOL. I meant it was early in Waterman's Titan career. It's certainly not early in the overall Titan season.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2020 11:47:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by calihanmole on Dec 28, 2020 11:58:46 GMT -5
Wow, that entire article is sad. Clearly incompetent and unprofessional when dealing with the league. Also, not taking the time to talk to a local reporter. And, finally, excuses and complaining after losing the games. It’s really sad how much this program has fallen. We’ve talked a lot in the past about “rock bottom” - I think this right here has to be it.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Dec 28, 2020 12:42:09 GMT -5
Yes, he gets credit Saturday and avoids blame Sunday. You have to watch the replay. OU was totally flummoxed on Saturday by the 1-3-1 w/ Waterman up top. They adjusted, but Waterman also was pulled from lineup, and they improved a bit. Sunday was a different game. Oakland took advantage of other players. One of my early football heroes was the Lions defensive back Lem Barney. Lem Barney's interceptions went way down after his first couple years. Was Barney not as good? Not all that good to begin with? No. If you saw Barney play over the years, you know his interceptions went down because nobody ever threw the ball into his part of the field. And the Lions still lost. And their porous pass defense had nothing to do with Lem Barney. So when you ask, "So, he gets credit for holding them to 21% on threes on Saturday, but he wasn't responsible for the 45% from OU on Sunday?" Yes. Exactly. That's right. My sense is that the Titans were definitely a better team when Waterman was on the Court. After these two games he has the second highest offensive rating and the highest plus/minus rating on the team, which lend statistical support to my observation. Sure, it's just two games. That does not a season or career make. He's a freshman. I think we have every reason to be excited about Waterman at this point, as long as we temper it with the knowledge that it's just two games. You're bigger point is that the Titans got the same result. Yes, but I still like the team better with Waterman. If you thought Waterman would be a 9 rebound/2 block type of player, I don't think you've been attention. He was never billed as such. Whether they could use him more in an inside game, we don't know, because he wasn't used that way. The Titans went with Koka and Brandon for the inside game. Maybe your disappointment is there. The fact is that the Titans added three important rotation players, and got nowhere. Okay, so your point is that if someone near him is shooting a three he can get a hand up and bother the shot, but apparently it's not that hard to adjust your game to avoid him? Since he apparently the Grizzlies didn't have that much trouble working around him on Sunday. He actually played more minutes on Sunday than Saturday, so I don't know when he was pulled. That's not exactly the difference maker on defense that your previous comments would indicate. Not sure where you got the 9/2 expectations from. I certainly didn't expect that, so maybe someone else said it and you thought it was me. I did expect more than 6 boards and zero blocks in 51 minutes against a bad team from a seven footer. I don't think that's too much to ask. Oakland beat us up pretty good on the boards. He can share some of the responsibility for that. I'm not going to put it all on Koka and Brandon and and hold Waterman blameless when he played more than either of them this weekend. Again, Sam, you didn't see the game, and at this point you insist on twisting everything said into some caricature. Yes, it's not that hard to avoid Waterman (or any one player) on three point shooting. That's what well-coached teams do. They swing the ball to the open man; they get it to the match-ups they want, not the match-ups they don't want. This is pretty basic stuff, no? As to Waterman being pulled, if you read closely, I am referring to Saturday, when he was pulled for much of the second half and OU's three-point shooting picked up some. That's why I'm talking about "Saturday," and then say, "Sunday was a different game." Maybe you didn't expect 9 rebounds and two blocks, but I think from your post it's pretty clear you were looking for Waterman to have more rebounds and blocks. Sorry if you only wanted 6 and 1, or whatever--you're correct, I guessed on the exact numbers that would have impressed you. My point stands--what you seem to want Waterman to be is not what he was billed as or what his history shows. (I actually do think you'll see more rebounds from him over time, though). You don't have to put the blame on Koka and Brandon if you don't want to (and by the way, I don't; I just thought that if your complaint was poor play from our bigs, you should focus on the guys who play in the paint). I think it's odd that you seem disappointed with Waterman--and are prepared to do battle when someone says, "no, he was actually pretty good, and did things that don't show in the stat line of a game you didn't watch." Of all the places to focus? Waterman is listed as a guard. Yet you complain that he has a guard's stat line (albeit a very good guard's stat line). Hmm. You think he should be a big forward. He's not, and he wasn't billed as such. You may as well be upset that Marquell Fraser isn't making a bunch of threes. Waterman is a freshman, and I expect his game will gradually become more complete, and you'll see a bit more "7-footer" play. If that happens, he could be a really devastating player for us. For now, he's just good, and I would give him every minute he can handle, unless the personnel match-ups dictate otherwise, or he is really off. And while this isn't on you, note that while you want the minutes to go to Fraser, Johnson, and Kuol, others on this board and elsewhere are constantly moaning that we can't rely on grad transfers, we've got to develop players over 4 years and have more continuity. You can't do both. There is no excuse for this past weekend, but I'm still MUCH more positive about this team than our first two Mike Davis squads. Davis, Johnson, Fraser, Rose, Waterman, Kuol, Isiani, Brandon strikes me as a potentially very solid 8-man rotation, particularly in era when most mid-majors use 3 guards, if they don't play "positionless" ball. I see Koka as a valuable 9th man with relatively limited minutes, perhaps 8-10 per game. LeGreair, Liedel, and Pink can learn the ropes; unfortunately, there's not much room for Cal. But that 8 or 9-man rotation has size, athleticism, difficult match-ups for the opposition, outside shooting, some presence in the paint. We ought to be able to do much better than we did this weekend. Coach has his players now. No excuses.
|
|
|
Post by motorcitysam on Dec 28, 2020 12:56:04 GMT -5
Okay, so your point is that if someone near him is shooting a three he can get a hand up and bother the shot, but apparently it's not that hard to adjust your game to avoid him? Since he apparently the Grizzlies didn't have that much trouble working around him on Sunday. He actually played more minutes on Sunday than Saturday, so I don't know when he was pulled. That's not exactly the difference maker on defense that your previous comments would indicate. Not sure where you got the 9/2 expectations from. I certainly didn't expect that, so maybe someone else said it and you thought it was me. I did expect more than 6 boards and zero blocks in 51 minutes against a bad team from a seven footer. I don't think that's too much to ask. Oakland beat us up pretty good on the boards. He can share some of the responsibility for that. I'm not going to put it all on Koka and Brandon and and hold Waterman blameless when he played more than either of them this weekend. Again, Sam, you didn't see the game, and at this point you insist on twisting everything said into some caricature. Yes, it's not that hard to avoid Waterman (or any one player) on three point shooting. That's what well-coached teams do. They swing the ball to the open man; they get it to the match-ups they want, not the match-ups they don't want. This is pretty basic stuff, no? As to Waterman being pulled, if you read closely, I am referring to Saturday, when he was pulled for much of the second half and OU's three-point shooting picked up some. That's why I'm talking about "Saturday," and then say, "Sunday was a different game." Maybe you didn't expect 9 rebounds and two blocks, but I think from your post it's pretty clear you were looking for Waterman to have more rebounds and blocks. Sorry if you only wanted 6 and 1, or whatever--you're correct, I guessed on the exact numbers that would have impressed you. My point stands--what you seem to want Waterman to be is not what he was billed as or what his history shows. (I actually do think you'll see more rebounds from him over time, though). You don't have to put the blame on Koka and Brandon if you don't want to (and by the way, I don't; I just thought that if your complaint was poor play from our bigs, you should focus on the guys who play in the paint). I think it's odd that you seem disappointed with Waterman--and are prepared to do battle when someone says, "no, he was actually pretty good, and did things that don't show in the stat line of a game you didn't watch." Of all the places to focus? Waterman is listed as a guard. Yet you complain that he has a guard's stat line (albeit a very good guard's stat line). Hmm. You think he should be a big forward. He's not, and he wasn't billed as such. You may as well be upset that Marquell Fraser isn't making a bunch of threes. Waterman is a freshman, and I expect his game will gradually become more complete, and you'll see a bit more "7-footer" play. If that happens, he could be a really devastating player for us. For now, he's just good, and I would give him every minute he can handle, unless the personnel match-ups dictate otherwise, or he is really off. And while this isn't on you, note that while you want the minutes to go to Fraser, Johnson, and Kuol, others on this board and elsewhere are constantly moaning that we can't rely on grad transfers, we've got to develop players over 4 years and have more continuity. You can't do both. There is no excuse for this past weekend, but I'm still MUCH more positive about this team than our first two Mike Davis squads. Davis, Johnson, Fraser, Rose, Waterman, Kuol, Isiani, Brandon strikes me as a potentially very solid 8-man rotation, particularly in era when most mid-majors use 3 guards, if they don't play "positionless" ball. I see Koka as a valuable 9th man with relatively limited minutes, perhaps 8-10 per game. LeGreair, Liedel, and Pink can learn the ropes; unfortunately, there's not much room for Cal. But that 8 or 9-man rotation has size, athleticism, difficult match-ups for the opposition, outside shooting, some presence in the paint. We ought to be able to do much better than we did this weekend. Coach has his players now. No excuses. Not twisting anything into a caricature. Just not taking your opinion as gospel on a subject that I think I know at least as well as you. You're quick to dismiss viewpoints that don't agree with yours, even when I've said nothing that isn't factually correct.
|
|
|
Post by Commissioner on Dec 28, 2020 13:10:21 GMT -5
It's an occupational hazard of always being right!
|
|