- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Running a zone while getting blown out mid way through the 2nd half
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:37 pm
What the hell? Basically ole miss could waste away 25 seconds off the clock everytime without any pressure at all, then either hit an open 3 or get it deep into the paint with no problem. Even when they'd miss an open 3 ole miss would have no problem getting an offensive rebound. This team doesn't bother to block out in a man to man defense, so i guess why bother when they're in a zone, after all it does require a little more effort. Our offense is so pathetic its not even worth talking about. Pretty much everybody is lost out there.
I hate seeing an LSU team get totally out played and out hustled by a terrible team like ole miss. This team has some serious coaching issues. We have enough talent to play with most SEC teams, so the lack of talent excuse just doesn't fly. The team finally had a decent sized crowd today and blew it. I'm sure many of them will not be back. Its ashame the 81 and 86 teams had to watch that today. I hope the coaches AND the players are totally embarassed by what went on at the PMAC today.
I hate seeing an LSU team get totally out played and out hustled by a terrible team like ole miss. This team has some serious coaching issues. We have enough talent to play with most SEC teams, so the lack of talent excuse just doesn't fly. The team finally had a decent sized crowd today and blew it. I'm sure many of them will not be back. Its ashame the 81 and 86 teams had to watch that today. I hope the coaches AND the players are totally embarassed by what went on at the PMAC today.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:40 pm to T
I WILL SAY AGAIN...MARCUS THORNTON MADE THIS GUY LOOK LIKE A GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!
When you are this bad, you look at the COACH.
When you are this bad, you look at the COACH.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:41 pm to T
We run the zone due to our lack of talent and athleticism on the perimeter. We were getting killed earlier in the year allowing teams to get into the lane with ease. Our talent is why we run the zone. TJ hates the zone and would much rather play man.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:41 pm to jr33
quote:
I WILL SAY AGAIN...MARCUS THORNTON MADE THIS GUY LOOK LIKE A GENIUS!!!!!!!!!!
When you are this bad, you look at the COACH.
Pretty awesome that Thornton played for him at Stanford and Nevada as well.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:45 pm to T
quote:
We have enough talent to play with most SEC teams,
In, the West, maybe, but in the East, I do think we would compare with UF, UK and UTk.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:47 pm to Tiger Authority
1994–95 Mike Montgomery 20–9 10–8 5 NCAA Second Round
1995–96 Mike Montgomery 21–8 12–6 3 NCAA Second Round
1996–97 Mike Montgomery 22–8 12–6 2T NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1997–98 Mike Montgomery 30–5 15–3 2 NCAA Final Four
1998–99 Mike Montgomery 26–7 15–3 1 NCAA Second Round
1999–00 Mike Montgomery 27–4 15–3 1T NCAA Second Round
2000–01 Mike Montgomery 31–3 16–2 1 NCAA Elite Eight
2001–02 Mike Montgomery 20–10 12–6 2T NCAA Second Round
2002–03 Mike Montgomery 24–9 14–4 2 NCAA Second Round
2003–04 Mike Montgomery 30–2 17–1 1 NCAA Second Round
2004–05 Trent Johnson 18–13 11–7 3 NCAA First Round
2005–06 Trent Johnson 16–14 11–7 4T NIT Second Round
2006–07 Trent Johnson 18–13 10–8 6 NCAA First Round
2007–08 Trent Johnson 28–8 13–5 2 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
thank the lopez twins for the 28-8. don't make stupid comments like that if you are that clueless. Stanford was a top 10 program when he took over.
1995–96 Mike Montgomery 21–8 12–6 3 NCAA Second Round
1996–97 Mike Montgomery 22–8 12–6 2T NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1997–98 Mike Montgomery 30–5 15–3 2 NCAA Final Four
1998–99 Mike Montgomery 26–7 15–3 1 NCAA Second Round
1999–00 Mike Montgomery 27–4 15–3 1T NCAA Second Round
2000–01 Mike Montgomery 31–3 16–2 1 NCAA Elite Eight
2001–02 Mike Montgomery 20–10 12–6 2T NCAA Second Round
2002–03 Mike Montgomery 24–9 14–4 2 NCAA Second Round
2003–04 Mike Montgomery 30–2 17–1 1 NCAA Second Round
2004–05 Trent Johnson 18–13 11–7 3 NCAA First Round
2005–06 Trent Johnson 16–14 11–7 4T NIT Second Round
2006–07 Trent Johnson 18–13 10–8 6 NCAA First Round
2007–08 Trent Johnson 28–8 13–5 2 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
thank the lopez twins for the 28-8. don't make stupid comments like that if you are that clueless. Stanford was a top 10 program when he took over.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:50 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
Pretty awesome that Thornton played for him at Stanford and Nevada as well.
What did he do there that was so special, he took over a great Stanford program and left it in the toilet, talk to me when TJ wins with guys he recruits!!!!!
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:51 pm to T
And he was an assistant at Stanford prior to coaching at Nevada so does he get credit for a few of those years? Despite your ability to cut and paste from a website, actually knowing something is sometimes important on this board.
This post was edited on 1/22/11 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:53 pm to jr33
quote:
What did he do there that was so special, he took over a great Stanford program and left it in the toilet, talk to me when TJ wins with guys he recruits!!!!!
If by left in the toilet you mean left on the heels of a sweet sixteen performance and being named Pac 10 COY. Spare me citing the Stanford record after he left.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:54 pm to Tiger Authority
Bad performance today no doubt. I think that next year is very important and I still have optimism for the future of this program under TJ.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:55 pm to Tiger Authority
who cares if he was an assistant? Being a good assistant has nothing to do with what he has done as a head coach.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:57 pm to T
quote:
who cares if he was an assistant? Being a good assistant has nothing to do with what he has done as a head coach.
So he doesn't get credit for coaching the Stanford team because of Mike Montgomery but he also doesn't get any credit for any record or recruiting while he was an assistant under Mike at Stanford? So basically, his career at Stanford never existed according to you? Great logic dude. Keep up the good work.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 4:58 pm to T
quote:
who cares if he was an assistant? Being a good assistant has nothing to do with what he has done as a head coach.
Coach of the year in three different conferences isn't bad.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:02 pm to Tiger Authority
quote:
So he doesn't get credit for coaching the Stanford team because of Mike Montgomery but he also doesn't get any credit for any record or recruiting while he was an assistant under Mike at Stanford? So basically, his career at Stanford never existed according to you? Great logic dude. Keep up the good work.
you're really stretching here.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:04 pm to T
quote:
you're really stretching here.
nah not really. You said his stanford success was due to Mike Montgomery. You then proceed to cite the record prior to him getting there. I note that he actually was an assistant there during a portion of Mike Montgomery's tenure and you shrug that off too, saying that being an assistant doesn't matter.
I bet you were just a gem when Saban left.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:12 pm to Tiger Authority
your argument here would be like one arkansas fan trying to convince another arkansas fan that john pelphry is a good head coach because he was dovavon's top assistant at florida. sure he was a great assistant, but that sure doesn't make him a great coach. i'm talking about trent as a head coach, not as an assistant coach. as an assistant stanford was great. as head coach at stanford, they weren't. they are not the same.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:16 pm to T
quote:
your argument here would be like one arkansas fan trying to convince another arkansas fan that john pelphry is a good head coach because he was dovavon's top assistant at florida. sure he was a great assistant, but that sure doesn't make him a great coach. i'm talking about trent as a head coach, not as an assistant coach. as an assistant stanford was great. as head coach at stanford, they weren't. they are not the same.
Not really. My argument about Pelphrey would be that he's in his fourth year and still doing horrible and prior to Arkansas was never overly successful at a big time school (USA is directional at best). TJ won at Stanford and Nevada, two better places than anywhere Pelphrey was even remotely successful at.
If TJ doesn't win next year, I will come here and admit I was wrong. But Pelphrey is a misplaced argument.
This post was edited on 1/22/11 at 5:16 pm
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:29 pm to Tiger Authority
i don't understand why you think trent was awesome at nevada. trent and pelphry each had one good season at small schools. trent pulled off a couple upsets in the tourney, while pelprhy lost to the national champs in the 1st round. trent got to take over a top 10 program afterwards, while pelphry didn't.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:31 pm to T
quote:
i don't understand why you think trent was awesome at nevada. trent and pelphry each had one good season at small schools. trent pulled off a couple upsets in the tourney, while pelprhy lost to the national champs in the 1st round. trent got to take over a top 10 program afterwards, while pelphry didn't.
And having coaching as an assistant at that top ten program (overshooting here if you ask me) they thought highly enough of him to bring him back to run the show. I'm simply saying that he was COY and went to the sweet sixteen at Nevada. That's something.
Posted on 1/22/11 at 5:34 pm to T
Bottom line is that you can't win games if you have people like Ludwig on your team and other players that wouldn't even be on Sun Belt teams
Popular
Back to top

5




