Can anyone here shoot?


#1

Was very pleased that the squad recovered to beat a credible opponent on their court. But from what I’ve seen this year, there are some serious fundamental problems. There is absolutely nobody to bury open jump shots (including three’s) from the outside!

Battle is already doing too much and can’t be asked to be that guy also. Frazier, while a real star in the making, is not that type of player. It is absolutely essential to have at least one guy who can shoot lights out when left open. Otherwse the defense packs it down so deep that there is no room inside at all. And I think we can all agree that our inside guys need alot of room. Wait till other teams in the Big Ten get on to this fundamental flaw.

This is not to say that the players aren’t talented. There is alot of quickness, ball-handling ability, and athleticism. But somebody needs to emerge who can keep a defense honest. With the graduation of Pringle, I thought Babb might be this guy. The early returns are not looking good.


#2

say bye to your karma lol


#3

Just think, a year ago many people wanted Morrisey to get buried deeper on the bench so that Babb could be in there.

If a serious “sharpshooter” is to emerge from this team, it’s Babb. He seems to be very streaky, however he’s our best bet to be a deadly 3-point threat.


#4

Apparently Woodyard is a very good 3-pt shooter and jump shooter…Hasn’t really been showcased yet, but that’s what I’ve read and heard.

I wouldn’t worry about it so much yet, we have a lot of athletes. When you’re an athlete, you find a way to put the ball in the hole, period.


#5

[quote=“Slash, post:4, topic:399”]Apparently Woodyard is a very good 3-pt shooter and jump shooter…Hasn’t really been showcased yet, but that’s what I’ve read and heard.

I wouldn’t worry about it so much yet, we have a lot of athletes. When you’re an athlete, you find a way to put the ball in the hole, period.[/quote]

and Edwards won the three point shooting contest (in a shoot off against Woodyard).


#6

[quote=“Slash, post:4, topic:399”]Apparently Woodyard is a very good 3-pt shooter and jump shooter…Hasn’t really been showcased yet, but that’s what I’ve read and heard.

I wouldn’t worry about it so much yet, we have a lot of athletes. When you’re an athlete, you find a way to put the ball in the hole, period.[/quote]

sounds good in theory. but remember how UNC looked against Syracuse’s zone just a week and a half ago? twas not pretty… and i can’t believe MSU didn’t zone them up last night at all.


#7
[quote="Slash, post:4, topic:399"]Apparently Woodyard is a very good 3-pt shooter and jump shooter...Hasn't really been showcased yet, but that's what I've read and heard.

I wouldn’t worry about it so much yet, we have a lot of athletes. When you’re an athlete, you find a way to put the ball in the hole, period.[/quote]

sounds good in theory. but remember how UNC looked against Syracuse’s zone just a week and a half ago? twas not pretty… and i can’t believe MSU didn’t zone them up last night at all.

Illinois actually played some zone last night against Clemson. Very rare for Bruce Webber to play zone but it worked.


#8
[quote="Slash, post:4, topic:399"]Apparently Woodyard is a very good 3-pt shooter and jump shooter...Hasn't really been showcased yet, but that's what I've read and heard.

I wouldn’t worry about it so much yet, we have a lot of athletes. When you’re an athlete, you find a way to put the ball in the hole, period.[/quote]

sounds good in theory. but remember how UNC looked against Syracuse’s zone just a week and a half ago? twas not pretty… and i can’t believe MSU didn’t zone them up last night at all.

Illinois actually played some zone last night against Clemson. Very rare for Bruce Webber to play zone but it worked.

Weber has impressed me since he got to Illinois. It was a brilliant move at the time and one that they rarely pull out of the bag. When they went zone, my wife and I both commented that we didn’t know they knew how to play zone. They really played it well which is a reflection of a good coach. I laughed when the Illini Nation were calling for Bruce’s head a few years ago and glad that he and the program have battled through the rocky times.


#9

Some coaches view Zone as giving up b/c you can’t hang in man, but it is really a valuable tool to have in your bag. It never hurts to be able to throw a change up. I really like it when a coach changes up the D.


#10

Ain’t that the truth.

My karma went from 13 to zero in two weeks. And for what? For saying I don’t like the term wing, that I think the term is limiting? I still think that. You know who the best wing in the Big 10 is? Diebler on OSU. He can shoot lights out, but he’s limited to that, and he’s the best wing. He can’t drive, he can’t post up, he can’t beat guys off the dribble, but he can shoot. Would love to have him, but he’s limited, and he’s the best one. Danny M. was a good wing, PSU’s undeniably best last year, but was he not limited? When I suggested last year that Brooks should post up, I am replied to that, “it’s not his game, he’s a wing. He’s a perimeter player.” How is that not putting limits on a player’s game?

I posted twice yesterday, once saying some were still skeptical of Battle after the Seton Hall game his freshman year, and my karma dropped 1 point. I guess the truth hurts. Too bad we can’t still get the Jan '08 posts to prove some felt that way. I get called out for predicting two dunks per game. Was that any worse than saying Battle shouldn’t start in January '08? Talk about being out in left field.

I’ve given about 10 negative karma votes in the last year, usually in response to a direct insult, not a differing opinion. I have a feeling some give them every single day. Children will be children when they don’t get their way. It’d be a lot better if your karma votes were public. Okay, I’m ready for the karma dumping, children.

Tim should be the only one with the karma voting. At least we’d get the message he didn’t like the tone of some posts and it’d act as a warning. Now, it’s a “homer popularity contest,” with your karma suffering if you dissent. Got a new term for it, “karmagate.”


#11
[quote="Craftsy21, post:2, topic:399"]say bye to your karma lol[/quote]

Ain’t that the truth.

My karma went from 13 to zero in two weeks. And for what? For saying I don’t like the term wing, that I think the term is limiting? I still think that. You know who the best wing in the Big 10 is? Diebler on OSU. He can shoot lights out, but he’s limited to that, and he’s the best wing. He can’t drive, he can’t post up, he can’t beat guys off the dribble, but he can shoot. Would love to have him, but he’s limited, and he’s the best one. Danny M. was a good wing, PSU’s undeniably best last year, but was he not limited? When I suggested last year that Brooks should post up, I am replied to that, “it’s not his game, he’s a wing. He’s a perimeter player.” How is that not putting limits on a player’s game?

I posted twice yesterday, once saying some were still skeptical of Battle after the Seton Hall game his freshman year, and my karma dropped 1 point. I guess the truth hurts. Too bad we can’t still get the Jan '08 posts to prove some felt that way. I get called out for predicting two dunks per game. Was that any worse than saying Battle shouldn’t start in January '08? Talk about being out in left field.

I’ve given about 10 negative karma votes in the last year, usually in response to a direct insult, not a differing opinion. I have a feeling some give them every single day. Children will be children when they don’t get their way. It’d be a lot better if your karma votes were public. Okay, I’m ready for the karma dumping, children.

Tim should be the only one with the karma voting. At least we’d get the message he didn’t like the tone of some posts and it’d act as a warning. Now, it’s a “homer popularity contest,” with your karma suffering if you dissent. Got a new term for it, “karmagate.”

Karma doesn’t mean crap. You and Craftsy should quit worrying about it. It’s only there in case a real outlier shows up and Tim can take action without having to monitor the board on an hourly/daily basis. Who cares if it goes up or down a couple of points a day?


#12
[quote="Craftsy21, post:2, topic:399"]say bye to your karma lol[/quote]

Ain’t that the truth.

My karma went from 13 to zero in two weeks. And for what? For saying I don’t like the term wing, that I think the term is limiting? I still think that. You know who the best wing in the Big 10 is? Diebler on OSU. He can shoot lights out, but he’s limited to that, and he’s the best wing. He can’t drive, he can’t post up, he can’t beat guys off the dribble, but he can shoot. Would love to have him, but he’s limited, and he’s the best one. Danny M. was a good wing, PSU’s undeniably best last year, but was he not limited? When I suggested last year that Brooks should post up, I am replied to that, “it’s not his game, he’s a wing. He’s a perimeter player.” How is that not putting limits on a player’s game?

I posted twice yesterday, once saying some were still skeptical of Battle after the Seton Hall game his freshman year, and my karma dropped 1 point. I guess the truth hurts. Too bad we can’t still get the Jan '08 posts to prove some felt that way. I get called out for predicting two dunks per game. Was that any worse than saying Battle shouldn’t start in January '08? Talk about being out in left field.

I’ve given about 10 negative karma votes in the last year, usually in response to a direct insult, not a differing opinion. I have a feeling some give them every single day. Children will be children when they don’t get their way. It’d be a lot better if your karma votes were public. Okay, I’m ready for the karma dumping, children.

Tim should be the only one with the karma voting. At least we’d get the message he didn’t like the tone of some posts and it’d act as a warning. Now, it’s a “homer popularity contest,” with your karma suffering if you dissent. Got a new term for it, “karmagate.”

Karma doesn’t mean crap. You and Craftsy should quit worrying about it. It’s only there in case a real outlier shows up and Tim can take action without having to monitor the board on an hourly/daily basis. Who cares if it goes up or down a couple of points a day?

I agree - it’s dumb. I just think it’s funny to watch how people’s karma suddenly drops the second they don’t gush over everything the team does. Like, I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be a tool to measure how people act on the board in terms of behavior, not some kind of voting system on whether you like what they’re saying or not. lol.

It’s whatever really, but nobody likes to be unpopular lol. Except rokk.


#13

Speaking of rokk. It would been interesting to hear him during the NIT run last year.


#14

We have a few guys that can shoot the heck out of the ball. We aren’t going to be lighting it up every night by any means but I think what we are seeing now as far as the overall product is not anything close to what the end result will be. And I mean that for better or worse. The glimpses of a very solid basketball team we’ve seen might have been mirages. Same for the down moments.

It’s not a revelation but this team is still in the coming together process. They could be anything from a quite bad to quite good team.

Personally I think it’s going to be a really fun group to watch towards the end of the season for all the right reasons. It’s the middle I am worried about.

Back to the shooters. They will put themselves on display soon enough.


#15
[quote="Craftsy21, post:2, topic:399"]say bye to your karma lol[/quote]

Ain’t that the truth.

My karma went from 13 to zero in two weeks. And for what? For saying I don’t like the term wing, that I think the term is limiting? I still think that. You know who the best wing in the Big 10 is? Diebler on OSU. He can shoot lights out, but he’s limited to that, and he’s the best wing. He can’t drive, he can’t post up, he can’t beat guys off the dribble, but he can shoot. Would love to have him, but he’s limited, and he’s the best one. Danny M. was a good wing, PSU’s undeniably best last year, but was he not limited? When I suggested last year that Brooks should post up, I am replied to that, “it’s not his game, he’s a wing. He’s a perimeter player.” How is that not putting limits on a player’s game?

I posted twice yesterday, once saying some were still skeptical of Battle after the Seton Hall game his freshman year, and my karma dropped 1 point. I guess the truth hurts. Too bad we can’t still get the Jan '08 posts to prove some felt that way. I get called out for predicting two dunks per game. Was that any worse than saying Battle shouldn’t start in January '08? Talk about being out in left field.

I’ve given about 10 negative karma votes in the last year, usually in response to a direct insult, not a differing opinion. I have a feeling some give them every single day. Children will be children when they don’t get their way. It’d be a lot better if your karma votes were public. Okay, I’m ready for the karma dumping, children.

Tim should be the only one with the karma voting. At least we’d get the message he didn’t like the tone of some posts and it’d act as a warning. Now, it’s a “homer popularity contest,” with your karma suffering if you dissent. Got a new term for it, “karmagate.”

Karma doesn’t mean crap. You and Craftsy should quit worrying about it. It’s only there in case a real outlier shows up and Tim can take action without having to monitor the board on an hourly/daily basis. Who cares if it goes up or down a couple of points a day?

I agree - it’s dumb. I just think it’s funny to watch how people’s karma suddenly drops the second they don’t gush over everything the team does. Like, I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be a tool to measure how people act on the board in terms of behavior, not some kind of voting system on whether you like what they’re saying or not. lol.

It’s whatever really, but nobody likes to be unpopular lol. Except rokk.

I once made the comment that I only give out positive karma – and someone gave me negative karma for that. :smiley: If I like something I read, I like to reward the author. If I don’t like it, I try to ignore it as often as I can.

I for one miss Rokk.


#16

Me too.


#17

Scott’s out there. He e-mailed me a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about his kid who’s trying to make up his mind about a couple of very good colleges. He’ll probably weigh in here one of these days under another assumed name, just to throw you guys a curve.

See, it’s not so much fun when everyone colors between the lines, is it?


#18

[quote=“djones, post:17, topic:399”]Scott’s out there. He e-mailed me a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about his kid who’s trying to make up his mind about a couple of very good colleges. He’ll probably weigh in here one of these days under another assumed name, just to throw you guys a curve.

See, it’s not so much fun when everyone colors between the lines, is it?[/quote]

I enjoyed most of what Rokk brought to this forum. Sometimes he’d get stupid when arguing a point. But mostly, he just knew a heck of a lot more than I do about basketball. So I was sorry to seem him pack up and leave.

To your point about coloring between the lines, I agree with that when it comes to Rokk and some others. But, there were some here before who kept repeating the same arguments over and over and we could never get past that point in a debate – no matter what facts the other side brought to the table. The debate got very stale.

So, to continue your metaphor, I suppose as long as they were using pretty colors, it was okay if they strayed outside the lines.


#19

Lar, it’s not that I’m worried about it, but it’s childish. You put up a post at variance with the consensus, and you get negative karma. I disagree with you on the geeks vs. eyeballs, and of course rub it in when I’m right, and don’t like it when I’m wrong, but I don’t give negative karma to anybody over it. I’ve given a few negative karma, usually out of direct attacks. I think Craftsy21 is one of the more interesting posters here, and don’t understand why he’s negative all the time. Plus, he introduced me to “mathematics of poker”, to which I’m forever indebted.

I too miss ROKK, and to a lesser extent, Agent Smith. I like differing views. Did I always agree with ROKK? No, but I would read what he said. I needed to strenghten my prescription glasses from reading his moving type and alternating fonts, but what the heck. He was fun, and he knows basketball, as does Agent Smith.


#20

[quote=“djones, post:17, topic:399”]Scott’s out there. He e-mailed me a couple of weeks ago. We were talking about his kid who’s trying to make up his mind about a couple of very good colleges. He’ll probably weigh in here one of these days under another assumed name, just to throw you guys a curve.

See, it’s not so much fun when everyone colors between the lines, is it?[/quote]

Yeah he emailed me too, I expect him to show up sooner or later