- 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
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
inadaze
| Favorite team: | |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 5226 |
| Registered on: | 8/4/2010 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
BIG TEN = 18 Teams
10 =/= 18
It's time for a name change.
0
They've got some things lined up for football. They're bringing in a top recruiting class, and they now have Gary Patterson as DC. But they're also now in the best football conference.
Are you thinking of the OP making up a straw man that "bigs don't matter"? Because you're not talking about my posts.
Another airball.
If you watch it closely, there was about one second left when he made the pass. But calling it a mistake, I don't have an issue with that. It's a scenario with an extremely slim margin for error, though.
What I disagreed with was you putting it on the level of the 1982 and 1993 blunders.
All this to fail on a narrative about a team that got blown out by Vanderbilt in the SEC Tournament.
What I disagreed with was you putting it on the level of the 1982 and 1993 blunders.
All this to fail on a narrative about a team that got blown out by Vanderbilt in the SEC Tournament.
That's just not true.
If a first-year starter in the SEC next season passes for over 4000 yards, over 64% completion rate, and 29-12, would people say that's a good season? Yes, they would.
That was Nussmeier in 2024.
Now, the NFL is a different discussion. I have not seen enough in handling pressure well in my opinion. He did it at times. In the comeback vs. Ole Miss in 24.
He got knocked out of the game vs. Oklahoma in 24 because Campbell got beat by R Mason Thomas for a sack, then he came back and played well.
He had good games, but he also got affected by pressure at times. That's what he really needed to improve going into 25 in my opinion. And we didn't really get to see that.
If a first-year starter in the SEC next season passes for over 4000 yards, over 64% completion rate, and 29-12, would people say that's a good season? Yes, they would.
That was Nussmeier in 2024.
Now, the NFL is a different discussion. I have not seen enough in handling pressure well in my opinion. He did it at times. In the comeback vs. Ole Miss in 24.
He got knocked out of the game vs. Oklahoma in 24 because Campbell got beat by R Mason Thomas for a sack, then he came back and played well.
He had good games, but he also got affected by pressure at times. That's what he really needed to improve going into 25 in my opinion. And we didn't really get to see that.
The "spin" is being attempted by you. I don't even have an incentive or bias either way.
I guess you're trying to act like the thread wasn't blown up by people simply citing Florida as a counter example. But it was.
That continues to happen as you go back through the time frame in the OP. Arguably the best team in that time frame, 2023-24 UConn, was a guard-heavy team. Clingan was a really important part of that team too. As I said, it's really about being a complete team. But if you're giving weight by position, that team was guard-heavy. There are different ways to win, and build rosters, though.
The degree of difficulty on that last play you're trying to fixate on was high. That's why it's not the "blunder" you want to portray it as for your narrative. Would it have been a blunder if Mullins missed the shot vs. Duke? No, because that shot also had a high degree of difficulty.
I guess you're trying to act like the thread wasn't blown up by people simply citing Florida as a counter example. But it was.
That continues to happen as you go back through the time frame in the OP. Arguably the best team in that time frame, 2023-24 UConn, was a guard-heavy team. Clingan was a really important part of that team too. As I said, it's really about being a complete team. But if you're giving weight by position, that team was guard-heavy. There are different ways to win, and build rosters, though.
The degree of difficulty on that last play you're trying to fixate on was high. That's why it's not the "blunder" you want to portray it as for your narrative. Would it have been a blunder if Mullins missed the shot vs. Duke? No, because that shot also had a high degree of difficulty.
quote:
zero to do with position.
As you meant it. But again, and I realize this is hard for you to grasp, analysis doesn't begin and end with your reasoning for the reference.
We don't need a list of gaffes here. The 1982 reference is on the level of the Webber play in terms of historic blunders. That I'll agree with. But the Lee play is not on the level of those.
With the 1982 and 1993 plays, those guys had plenty of time, but blundered it at critical points of the game.
Lee had less time than Tyus Edney in 1995. Edney's shot would have to be on a list of all-time best tournament buzzer beaters.
Had Lee made a play in 4.5, it would've been considered a great play. That he wasn't able to doesn't make it a "blunder" similar to your references. Was it a good play? No. But also not a historic blunder.
You've got it backwards. In no way am I trying to tell you what you meant. I'm telling you what the implications of the reference are in a thread about different positions.
The adage that "guards win in March" is repeated so much because of their value late in games. The 1993 reference highlights that. Analysis of a reference doesn't stop at what you decide the meaning to be. This is obvious, and we don't need to keep going with it.
You think Lee's play is on the level of Webber's. I disagree, and gave you my reasons. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
The adage that "guards win in March" is repeated so much because of their value late in games. The 1993 reference highlights that. Analysis of a reference doesn't stop at what you decide the meaning to be. This is obvious, and we don't need to keep going with it.
You think Lee's play is on the level of Webber's. I disagree, and gave you my reasons. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
quote:
the reference had zero to do with positions.
That's not your decision.
I know you think it is, but you don't actually control the parameters of analysis in a thread about how different positions are valued.
Even within your restricted parameters, it's not a good reference.
quote:
It had zero to do with either players position.
You may not have thought it through, but that's the context of the thread. And referencing that play highlights the importance of guards.
There was no spin. It just wasn't a good reference for any point you're trying to make.
You went back to 1993 to again highlight the importance of guards. Ideally, you want a guard bringing that ball up the floor. But those plays were not really similar.
Webber had 19 seconds. Then the timeout call resulted in a technical that put the game completely out of reach for Michigan.
Lee had 4.5 seconds. He got down the court fast, but he just kind of got stuck because Iowa's defense was good.
Webber had 19 seconds. Then the timeout call resulted in a technical that put the game completely out of reach for Michigan.
Lee had 4.5 seconds. He got down the court fast, but he just kind of got stuck because Iowa's defense was good.
I disagree with all that. Stirtz ran past the Florida pressure easily to set up the game-winning shot. (This really highlights the importance of guards late in games.) Then Lee tried to make a play, but Iowa's defense was solid. Not a "fluke".
It's really a flawed starting premise. Guards and bigs are needed to win, to varying extents. It's about being a complete team. And it's going to look somewhat different from year to year.
Florida is a good example as a counter to the OP, though. They returned their main frontcourt players from the Championship team -- Condon, Haugh, Chinyelu. They lost the guards -- Clayton Jr., Martin, Richard.
Florida is a good example as a counter to the OP, though. They returned their main frontcourt players from the Championship team -- Condon, Haugh, Chinyelu. They lost the guards -- Clayton Jr., Martin, Richard.
re: McDonald's All-American Games on ESPN today
Posted by inadaze on 4/1/26 at 9:57 pm to tigerpierre
What are you asking?
Three freshmen on the floor. Take the timeout.
re: 40 minutes of hell rarely exists in the game today
Posted by inadaze on 4/1/26 at 5:51 pm to JamalMurry27
Texas Tech pressed in 2018-19. That was an all-time defense.
North Carolina A&T started pressing Hampton at the end of the NBA HBCU Classic, and got the win because of it. Hampton wasn't ready for that pressure.
But if you're trying to make a general point about Duke based on that last turnover, I disagree. UConn played that in a way a team would not in other circumstances. They left two guys wide open down the floor, and risked everything on getting that steal. And it only worked because Cayden even attempted the pass, and he didn't need to. A timeout by Scheyer before inbounding the ball probably prevents that turnover.
North Carolina A&T started pressing Hampton at the end of the NBA HBCU Classic, and got the win because of it. Hampton wasn't ready for that pressure.
But if you're trying to make a general point about Duke based on that last turnover, I disagree. UConn played that in a way a team would not in other circumstances. They left two guys wide open down the floor, and risked everything on getting that steal. And it only worked because Cayden even attempted the pass, and he didn't need to. A timeout by Scheyer before inbounding the ball probably prevents that turnover.
Arkansas got another good guard in Jordan Smith Jr. He looked fast, strong drive game, and he's a good defender.
quote:
win a ton of regular season games and then choke it away again.
You had a bad line of reasoning going, then you get here and just say frick it.
There were two specific points made in the post you replied to. I'm not surprised you skipped over that.
You failed to convince me that subtler details aren't important when assembling rosters with talented freshmen.
Potentially?
The game management there by Scheyer is puzzling to me.
Why not use the timeout with three freshmen on the floor? And why have Evans, the best free-throw shooter, so far down the court with Ngongba?
The game management there by Scheyer is puzzling to me.
Why not use the timeout with three freshmen on the floor? And why have Evans, the best free-throw shooter, so far down the court with Ngongba?
re: Top 10 mid major RBs since 2000
Posted by inadaze on 3/24/26 at 9:31 pm to saintsfan22
It doesn't necessarily have to be about career totals. With an open criteria, you could make it more about a player's peak. And with special teams as part of the criteria, that adds a lot of value for Archer.
If you want to emphasize career totals, Damion Fletcher and Marquez Cooper both had over 5000 career rushing yards. Fletcher also had over 900 receiving yards.
If you want to emphasize career totals, Damion Fletcher and Marquez Cooper both had over 5000 career rushing yards. Fletcher also had over 900 receiving yards.
Popular
50
