That was pathetic


#1

Too much talent on this team to lay an egg like that.


#2

Is there really? Who beyond Talor has proven that they could be anything other than a bench guy on a quality Big 10 team? These guys are either too young, not talented enough or both.


#3
[quote="Great Santini, post:1, topic:615"]Too much talent on this team to lay an egg like that.[/quote]

Is there really? Who beyond Talor has proven that they could be anything other than a bench guy on a quality Big 10 team? These guys are either too young, not talented enough or both.

Completely agree. I don’t understand the frustration. This board has dramatically overestimated PSU’s talent level all season - almost to the point where it’s comical.

Unfortunately, we will see a lot more nights like this over the next few years.

This is a bad loss. My main concern is ED losing the team - particularly Battle. To be remotely successful this season, ED needs Talor to continue buying into the program. I worry what happens when it gets to 2-7 in conference.

While Ott has his limitations, congrats for putting up 8. Besides Babb and DJ, there is not much else on this team right now.


#4

Wait a second, I know this is supposed to be a lovefest and all positive, but have you ever seen a team outplayed and a coach out-coached like that. What happened to all the talk about how much experience this team gained from the NIT run. Too much is being put into this idea of rebuilding. This isn’t as huge a rebuilding job as some might believe.


#5

I disagree. This was a 3 man team last year that also had Danny. Now it is a 1 man team that has what else, another year of experience for Brooks and Jones?


#6
[quote="Great Santini, post:1, topic:615"]Too much talent on this team to lay an egg like that.[/quote]

Is there really? Who beyond Talor has proven that they could be anything other than a bench guy on a quality Big 10 team? These guys are either too young, not talented enough or both.

It’s a combo, I think. Part structural, IMO. Why don’t we do what Michigan does, start 4 guards? If we’re only going to play the perimeter, put our best perimeter players out there…start Highberger over Brooks. Start Woodyard over Jones. Why not? Put DJ vs. Sims when we play Michigan. Makes sense. Why start forwards and a center when they play like guards? Get better handles out there, and better shooting, quicker on transition, and maybe better rebounding.


#7

I agree…way too much put into the rebuilding idea. You lose 2 guys…maybe 2.5 and we are rebuilding.

PSU cannot run a set offense…even the announcers pointed out that confusion.


#8
[quote="Great Santini, post:1, topic:615"]Too much talent on this team to lay an egg like that.[/quote]

Is there really? Who beyond Talor has proven that they could be anything other than a bench guy on a quality Big 10 team? These guys are either too young, not talented enough or both.

It’s a combo, I think. Part structural, IMO. Why don’t we do what Michigan does, start 4 guards? If we’re only going to play the perimeter, put our best perimeter players out there…start Highberger over Brooks. Start Woodyard over Jones. Why not? Put DJ vs. Sims when we play Michigan. Makes sense. Why start forwards and a center when they play like guards? Get better handles out there, and better shooting, quicker on transition, and maybe better rebounding.

Your best 5 players should get the majority of the minutes…period.


#9
[quote="hoopla, post:4, topic:615"]Wait a second, I know this is supposed to be a lovefest and all positive, but have you ever seen a team outplayed and a coach out-coached like that. What happened to all the talk about how much experience this team gained from the NIT run. Too much is being put into this idea of rebuilding. This isn't as huge a rebuilding job as some might believe.[/quote]

I agree…way too much put into the rebuilding idea. You lose 2 guys…maybe 2.5 and we are rebuilding.

PSU cannot run a set offense…even the announcers pointed out that confusion.

But you guys have to remember we lost 2.5 guys from a team that had no depth whatsoever.

We’ve now got a lineup of like 10 guys who can all give us quality minutes. We’re not as refined yet, but extremely deeper.

I really just feel like the biggest piece of this puzzle missing so far is Ed figuring out how to manage all these guys best.


#10
[quote="Great Santini, post:1, topic:615"]Too much talent on this team to lay an egg like that.[/quote]

Is there really? Who beyond Talor has proven that they could be anything other than a bench guy on a quality Big 10 team? These guys are either too young, not talented enough or both.

It’s a combo, I think. Part structural, IMO. Why don’t we do what Michigan does, start 4 guards? If we’re only going to play the perimeter, put our best perimeter players out there…start Highberger over Brooks. Start Woodyard over Jones. Why not? Put DJ vs. Sims when we play Michigan. Makes sense. Why start forwards and a center when they play like guards? Get better handles out there, and better shooting, quicker on transition, and maybe better rebounding.

The sad thing is that I am actually thinking about whether or not starting Highberger and Woodyard over Brooks and Jones would give us better rebounding. ;D


#11

I’m sad right now…I had readjusted my expectations for this season based on our non-conference performance, in fact I told myself not to expect too much tonight. The first half was enjoyable to watch, obviously the second half was not. I’m not angry, just sad. I really enjoy college basketball and I really want my favorite team to be relevant. Right now they’re not. I hope the team doesn’t give up on the remainder of the season.


#12
[quote="Great Santini, post:1, topic:615"]Too much talent on this team to lay an egg like that.[/quote]

Is there really? Who beyond Talor has proven that they could be anything other than a bench guy on a quality Big 10 team? These guys are either too young, not talented enough or both.

It’s a combo, I think. Part structural, IMO. Why don’t we do what Michigan does, start 4 guards? If we’re only going to play the perimeter, put our best perimeter players out there…start Highberger over Brooks. Start Woodyard over Jones. Why not? Put DJ vs. Sims when we play Michigan. Makes sense. Why start forwards and a center when they play like guards? Get better handles out there, and better shooting, quicker on transition, and maybe better rebounding.

It’s just not that easy. That’s fantasy football type logic.

There’s a reason guys like Shawn Bradley make it so far in basketball despite being almost no threat offensively. Size matters.

If we had four guards the caliber of Villanova a few years ago - I could understand your argument. But we lose a TON from guard 1 (Battle) to guard 2 (Frazier) - and by guard 4, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrell and asking the whole team to play out of position and over-help on defense.


#13
[quote="Great Santini, post:1, topic:615"]Too much talent on this team to lay an egg like that.[/quote]

Is there really? Who beyond Talor has proven that they could be anything other than a bench guy on a quality Big 10 team? These guys are either too young, not talented enough or both.

It’s a combo, I think. Part structural, IMO. Why don’t we do what Michigan does, start 4 guards? If we’re only going to play the perimeter, put our best perimeter players out there…start Highberger over Brooks. Start Woodyard over Jones. Why not? Put DJ vs. Sims when we play Michigan. Makes sense. Why start forwards and a center when they play like guards? Get better handles out there, and better shooting, quicker on transition, and maybe better rebounding.

It’s just not that easy. That’s fantasy football type logic.

There’s a reason guys like Shawn Bradley make it so far in basketball despite being almost no threat offensively. Size matters.

If we had four guards the caliber of Villanova a few years ago - I could understand your argument. But we lose a TON from guard 1 (Battle) to guard 2 (Frazier) - and by guard 4, you’re scraping the bottom of the barrell and asking the whole team to play out of position and over-help on defense.

But Craftsy,

We've now got a lineup of like 10 guys who can all give us quality minutes.

#14
[quote="hoopla, post:4, topic:615"]Wait a second, I know this is supposed to be a lovefest and all positive, but have you ever seen a team outplayed and a coach out-coached like that. What happened to all the talk about how much experience this team gained from the NIT run. Too much is being put into this idea of rebuilding. This isn't as huge a rebuilding job as some might believe.[/quote]

I agree…way too much put into the rebuilding idea. You lose 2 guys…maybe 2.5 and we are rebuilding.

PSU cannot run a set offense…even the announcers pointed out that confusion.

But you guys have to remember we lost 2.5 guys from a team that had no depth whatsoever.

We’ve now got a lineup of like 10 guys who can all give us quality minutes. We’re not as refined yet, but extremely deeper.

I really just feel like the biggest piece of this puzzle missing so far is Ed figuring out how to manage all these guys best.

Disagree about PSU having any depth. PSU only has 3 guys who are capable of giving quality minutes on a winning big ten team (battle, DJ, and Babb). While our back-end roster guys may be better than their counterparts (i.e. our 8th-10th men), they aren’t ready to be contributors on a successful team. We had better depth last year - with 3 top end big ten guys.


#15

I am really thinking that Ott needs to be playing more than Jones right now. When Jones is in he just isn’t doing anything (scoring or rebounding) and he has become a defensive liability. At least Ott is playing with a spark and was doing a fairly good job on Sims.


#16

Not sure what you’re trying to prove.

I think we have 10 guys that can play, but that doesn’t mean they can all play at the same time (just mix and match any 5) and be effective. ???


#17

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:16, topic:615”]Not sure what you’re trying to prove.

I think we have 10 guys that can play, but that doesn’t mean they can all play at the same time (just mix and match any 5) and be effective. ???[/quote]

I’m saying that you are overrating the talent level of players 4-10 on your 10 player list. Those players would not see minutes on the top 7 teams in the big ten. We don’t have 10 guys that can play at this level. If we do, then ED is doing a terrible job coaching. Its not the Xs and Os, its the jimmies and joes.


#18

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:16, topic:615”]Not sure what you’re trying to prove.

I think we have 10 guys that can play, but that doesn’t mean they can all play at the same time (just mix and match any 5) and be effective. ???[/quote]

Can you give me any combination of 5 that is consistently effective? I’ll say it again, this is a one man team.

I guess i have a hard time reconciling

by guard 4, you're scraping the bottom of the barrell
with
We've now got a lineup of like 10 guys who can all give us quality minutes

#19
[quote="hoopla, post:4, topic:615"]Wait a second, I know this is supposed to be a lovefest and all positive, but have you ever seen a team outplayed and a coach out-coached like that. What happened to all the talk about how much experience this team gained from the NIT run. Too much is being put into this idea of rebuilding. This isn't as huge a rebuilding job as some might believe.[/quote]

I agree…way too much put into the rebuilding idea. You lose 2 guys…maybe 2.5 and we are rebuilding.

PSU cannot run a set offense…even the announcers pointed out that confusion.

But you guys have to remember we lost 2.5 guys from a team that had no depth whatsoever.

We’ve now got a lineup of like 10 guys who can all give us quality minutes. We’re not as refined yet, but extremely deeper.

I really just feel like the biggest piece of this puzzle missing so far is Ed figuring out how to manage all these guys best.

Disagree about PSU having any depth. PSU only has 3 guys who are capable of giving quality minutes on a winning big ten team (battle, DJ, and Babb). While our back-end roster guys may be better than their counterparts (i.e. our 8th-10th men), they aren’t ready to be contributors on a successful team. We had better depth last year - with 3 top end big ten guys.

Depth generally implies… being deep? So why would you judge a team’s top 3 as a measure of depth? If anything, you just made my argument for me, in my opinion.

And I disagree with your assessment for that matter - Frazier and Edwards are good big ten freshmen at any school, period. Neither is a great frosh so far, but both would be solid additions to any team in the league.

Jones is a disappointment, for sure. Brooks seems like he’ll never be consistent. Ott is about as good as anyone’s backup center in this league.

So let’s do some math here - We have a player as good as anybody in the league in Talor. Guys in DJ and Babb who are solid defenders that can hit open shots, making them nice 3rd options. And then a bunch of guys off the bench capable of dropping in a few buckets on any given night.

That means the only place we’re really hurting is our 2nd option - which we all assumed would be Jones, after last season’s finish. That makes him the GOAT of the lineup, as far as I’m concerned. But perhaps we just overestimated his abilities given he had Melle next to him in the block. Still - that’s where much of the overestimation of this team’s chances came from.


#20

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:16, topic:615”]Not sure what you’re trying to prove.

I think we have 10 guys that can play, but that doesn’t mean they can all play at the same time (just mix and match any 5) and be effective. ???[/quote]

I agree we do have a deep team but I don’t think we have 4 guards. I think right now we should go Battle, Babb, Frazier, DJ and Brooks. Rotate Cam and Highberger for the guards, Edwards and Sasa for DJ, and Ott and Jones in for Brooks.