- 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
re: If I told you we were one game back of the 4 seed at the end of the year, would you be:
Posted on 1/2/24 at 10:28 am to VOR
Posted on 1/2/24 at 10:28 am to VOR
Idk objectively 19-14 is not a bad spot to be in. But if you look at all the missed opportunities, blown games, and the fact that Zion is still out of shape in year 5 it’s a little disappointing.
January is where you find out what this team is. We’ll either sink or swim
January is where you find out what this team is. We’ll either sink or swim
0
Posted on 1/2/24 at 10:45 am to whatiknowsofar
quote:I think there's a bunch of different ways to frame what we've done to this point, they're all true but can give completely different outcomes.
If I told you we were one game back of the 4 seed at the end of the year, would you be:
1 game out of the 4 seed, that sounds pretty darn good.
But if you also told me we had the 8th easiest schedule to date and our 2 best players have been healthy all season and we'd be a half game away from the play in zone staring down the 3rd toughest January schedule, I'd say that's pretty darn disappointing.
Not really answering your specific question, but I think the team, the franchise virtually everything revolves around Zion. And we've finally gotten health from Zion, and yet I'd argue it's been a massive disappointment through 33 games. That means more than anything else to me.
This post was edited on 1/2/24 at 10:46 am
Posted on 1/2/24 at 10:48 am to whatiknowsofar
I'd probably be happy with that, but I am just numb to this team.
I really cannot find myself caring that much
I really cannot find myself caring that much
Posted on 1/2/24 at 11:09 am to shel311
quote:
And we've finally gotten health from Zion, and yet I'd argue it's been a massive disappointment through 33 games. That means more than anything else to me.
While we would all love a comfortable lead and a top 4 seed right now, we're looking more and more like a team that won't know it's fate until March.
But beyond all of that. The most important thing is still in play, and that's Ingram and Zion being available at the end of the year.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 11:29 am to whatiknowsofar
The bad news is that Zion hasn't consistently played at anything approaching the MVP level that we saw before he got hurt last season.
But the good news is that we're in decent shape in spite of that, playing our best basketball of the season, and Zion looks like he's getting better.
Again, the bad news is that we currently lack the superstar talent level to truly be considered a contender. The good news is that Zion might still have that in him.
But the starting lineup has not been good together, as Shamit regularly brings up. According to Cleaning the Glass, the starting lineup is -7.2 points per 100 possessions. Even if Zion improves, I don't really see that changing. And there's no way that we can really be happy with a starting lineup with a negative net rating.
But the good news is that we're in decent shape in spite of that, playing our best basketball of the season, and Zion looks like he's getting better.
Again, the bad news is that we currently lack the superstar talent level to truly be considered a contender. The good news is that Zion might still have that in him.
But the starting lineup has not been good together, as Shamit regularly brings up. According to Cleaning the Glass, the starting lineup is -7.2 points per 100 possessions. Even if Zion improves, I don't really see that changing. And there's no way that we can really be happy with a starting lineup with a negative net rating.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 11:35 am to shel311
quote:
our 2 best players have been healthy all season and we'd be a half game away from the play in zone staring down the 3rd toughest January schedule, I'd say that's pretty darn disappointing.
I agree it really comes down to how you view it and there are legit reasons to be both happy and disappointed. I mean from the glass half full view, CJ missed double figure games, Trey missed about 20 games, Jose, Naji and Larry missed a bunch of games, and although Zion has avoided injury, the cautiousness with how we play him has led to the team avoiding playing him back to backs and clearly cost us a couple of games. Few teams have had the injuries we've had (look at the Wolves, Clippers, Lakers, OKC, etc.), so sitting 6th isn't terrible considering.
From the glass half empty view, Zion's lack of fitness is incredibly disappointing and it doesn't appear Willie has figured out how to effectively use both BI and Zion when they are on the court at the same time. And when your two "stars" are frankly liabilities on defense, it seems obvious you need them to play at a very high level offensively to have this teams ceiling be anything other than a second round playoff exit, and to date that has not happened. And its not unrealistic to think that it may never happen.
I do think, if we stay relatively healthy, we should get some answers this month.
This post was edited on 1/2/24 at 11:39 am
Posted on 1/2/24 at 11:48 am to LSUgrad88
quote:
I do think, if we stay relatively healthy, we should get some answers this month.
I think so too. For me, the biggest question is how much better our closing unit with Larry is than our starting unit with JV. If the starting five continue to have a negative net rating as a unit, and the closing unit with Larry looks like the closing unit of last season and performs well (and we quit blowing leads), then I think that the front office will explore trading JV for another big who's a better fit.
JV has been awesome for us in many ways. I'm not hating on him at all. But he might just not be a good fit with Zion, BI, and CJ.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 12:12 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
But the starting lineup has not been good together, as Shamit regularly brings up. According to Cleaning the Glass, the starting lineup is -7.2 points per 100 possessions. Even if Zion improves, I don't really see that changing. And there's no way that we can really be happy with a starting lineup with a negative net rating.
Yeah that is a very worrying sign. Rotations shrink in the playoffs. Usually because your starters are playing more minutes. Our starters have sucked together so far. So logically we would look worse if we shrunk the rotation
Posted on 1/2/24 at 12:16 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
I think so too. For me, the biggest question is how much better our closing unit with Larry is than our starting unit with JV. If the starting five continue to have a negative net rating as a unit, and the closing unit with Larry looks like the closing unit of last season and performs well (and we quit blowing leads), then I think that the front office will explore trading JV for another big who's a better fit.
JV has been awesome for us in many ways. I'm not hating on him at all. But he might just not be a good fit with Zion, BI, and CJ.
Yeah i love JV but if he's the 4th option on offense(which he is in the starting lineup) then he's not giving you much value because he is a bad defender.
The only answers i see is trading for a defensive big like Jarrett Allen and then starting trey over herb to maintain the spacing.
Posted on 1/2/24 at 12:22 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:It's definitely a concern, and I think many or even most want a change in the starting lineup.
But the starting lineup has not been good together, as Shamit regularly brings up. According to Cleaning the Glass, the starting lineup is -7.2 points per 100 possessions. Even if Zion improves, I don't really see that changing. And there's no way that we can really be happy with a starting lineup with a negative net rating.
I can't help but wonder just how much of that is fluky though. I truly think a good part of that starting lineup number has some fluke tendencies to it. We're talking about under 200 minutes of a sample size.
Again, I'm not saying it's concerning, just wondering aloud.
For example, the starting 5 have a -5.1 net rating. If you swap just CJ for Dyson, the other 4+Dyson have a net rating of +22.4 But I highly doubt there's a single poster who thinks Dyson/CJ should swap minutes and Dyson should be our starter. I imagine 99% of Pels fans would feel better with CJ and the other 4 instead of Dyson and the other 4, which goes back to my original point of at least some of that 26 point difference can be attributed to some level of fluky due to the sample size of minutes.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News