Thatch Out a 'Week or So'

[Reinert310]

7 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

WTF ... I regress, I thought his rebounding was fantastic. I'll be excited if he keeps that pace. And if you ask me the thing I want most from the player subbing for French it'd be defend and rebound. Can we not mention something we didn't like anymore? 

I wasn’t making a personal attack against you. I see where you’re coming from. I just think some perspective is needed. It’s 1 game. There’s no reason to believe Has will be out long term. We still have Jimmy Bell too. And I thought Linssen did do a lot of things well in his first game with a new team. I understand your point about rebounding, but we do have a lot of other guys who can rebound. Let’s see where’s things stand after the OOC.

[3star_recruit]

21 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Nobody should have expected Linnsen to be a strong rebounder.  He never showed any signs of being one to this point. What he was last season was one of the most effective and efficient scoring big men in the country last season when he was on the floor.

Wasn't surprised based on his UNCW stats at how effective he was in the paint against SIUE.  I was surprised at how well he moved laterally to defend quicker players.  We'll need a repeat performance against LSU.

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, 3star_recruit said:

Wasn't surprised based on his UNCW stats at how effective he was in the paint against SIUE.  I was surprised at how well he moved laterally to defend quicker players.  We'll need a repeat performance against LSU.

That was a nice a nice surprise.

[slufanskip]

5 minutes ago, brianstl said:

I not saying he is fantastic.  I just knew he wasn’t a good rebounder going in.  So the two boards yesterday is about what I was expecting.  I expect some improvement before he leaves.  Tate has been effective before with improving big men when it comes to rebounding.

I wouldn't call his prior 2 years "not a good rebounder" 4.6 in 20 is about 7 per 30. Not great, but not bad. Also we were playing SIUE. I'm not even saying he isn't or won't be a good rebounder. I've made no statements regarding how good or bad I believe he'll be. I commented on 1 game noting that his offense was good but lt was against SIUE so I'm not sold yet and I was disappointed in his rebounding in that 1 game. Period, that's it and I don't see how that isn't a fair take. 

[slufanskip]

6 minutes ago, Reinert310 said:

I wasn’t making a personal attack against you. I see where you’re coming from. I just think some perspective is needed. It’s 1 game. There’s no reason to believe Has will be out long term. We still have Jimmy Bell too. And I thought Linssen did do a lot of things well in his first game with a new team. I understand your point about rebounding, but we do have a lot of other guys who can rebound. Let’s see where’s things stand after the OOC.

And I was commenting on 1 game. Offensively good, but I can't forget it was against SIUE so before I say I'm impressed I'd like to see it against better competition, and during this 1 game he didn't rebound well against an inferior opponent. That's it. 

[hmart23]

2 hours ago, slufanskip said:

I highly doubt we had a plan to have our bigs not rebound as much so our guards could crash the boards allowing us to push the tempo. How would a guard getting the rebound rather than a big allow you to push the tempo easier than if a big got the board? 

NBA and college coaches stress this fairly regularly. This isn’t something new. If you have a better ball handler grab a rebound you can push the tempo faster? You don’t have to make a pass to a ball handler. It’s a super simple concept. 

[HoosierPal]

47 minutes ago, hmart23 said:

NBA and college coaches stress this fairly regularly. This isn’t something new. If you have a better ball handler grab a rebound you can push the tempo faster? You don’t have to make a pass to a ball handler. It’s a super simple concept. 

Yes.  Ford has used this plan since he got here. 

[Old guy]

If I was asked what I wanted to see in a player subbing for French DURING THE LAST FIVE MINUTES OF A GAME, I would put the ability to score FTs high in the list.

[HenryB]

7 hours ago, slufanskip said:

WTF 

Clean it up, Skip...you are better than that. I would be happy to donate my reactions to you so you can award me more trolls. Much rather you do that than continue to see you pout and use profane, immature language because you can't deal with criticism.  Like I said before you love to pile on others but sure can't take any push back. Hope you grow up, but if not continue your petty troll reactions. If you would rather do that than save them to praise the many good posts that appear each day, you are only hurting yourself. Again, show some class.

[HenryB]

3 hours ago, HenryB said:

Clean it up, Skip...you are better than that. I would be happy to donate my reactions to you so you can award me more trolls. Much rather you do that than continue to see you pout and use profane, immature language because you can't deal with criticism.  Like I said before you love to pile on others but sure can't take any push back. Hope you grow up, but if not continue your petty troll reactions. If you would rather do that than save them to praise the many good posts that appear each day, you are only hurting yourself. Again, show some class.

Thanks, Rich!!

[Billiken Rich]

Call them as I see them......

[slufanskip]

10 hours ago, hmart23 said:

NBA and college coaches stress this fairly regularly. This isn’t something new. If you have a better ball handler grab a rebound you can push the tempo faster? You don’t have to make a pass to a ball handler. It’s a super simple concept. 

Guards crashing the boards and bigs intentionally not rebounding so guards can are two different things. This discussion was about A big not rebounding and it was suggested that it was intentional so that the guards could get the board, sorry but that's just wrong. No big in any scheme is not going after a board or blocking out on a board they could get so that a guard can get that board. Ford's guards crash the boards because 1st we have JGood and 2nd we spend a lot of time small at the 4 which necessitates the guards crashing the boards. It's done as much to prevent giving up a lot of offensive boards as it to start a break. A guard rebounding and pushing the tempo is fine but it's not a faster way down the floor than a big rebounding, making a quick outlet to the 1, who hits a cutting wing streaking down the floor. 

 

[Aquinas]

Another reason we had a lot of rebounds is that we missed a lot of shots. For example, I suspect we led the league in free thow rebounds. Ford preaches that rebounding is positioning and desire. I dont believe he is backing our big guys off, so guards can rebound. J Good has the desire and rexceptional nose for the ball.

[billiken_roy]

20 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

This discussion was about A big not rebounding and it was suggested that it was intentional so that the guards could get the board, sorry but that's just wrong. 

 

skip who "suggested" this?   i said goodwin wasnt sharing rebounds, but that doesnt mean the other players werent trying to get rebounds.   it means goodwin is just the best rebounding guard maybe in history and goes after rebounds like nobody else ever did.   you are really blowing up this linnsen rebounding thing big time.   why cant you accept he is just a good backup big that might give us the most rounded bench in billiken history?   he only started the other night because french was out and bell had only practiced twice this year due to his foot injury to start the practices.   i am sure when everyone is back linnsen will be the third option at the inside again.  there is no reason to tear down his rebounding skills or lack thereof.   as i said previously let's all be happy we got him and his positives.   i know i am not trying to make him more than he is and realize he is a two year backup.  a backup we have never had before.  

[hmart23]

36 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

Guards crashing the boards and bigs intentionally not rebounding so guards can are two different things. This discussion was about A big not rebounding and it was suggested that it was intentional so that the guards could get the board, sorry but that's just wrong. No big in any scheme is not going after a board or blocking out on a board they could get so that a guard can get that board. Ford's guards crash the boards because 1st we have JGood and 2nd we spend a lot of time small at the 4 which necessitates the guards crashing the boards. It's done as much to prevent giving up a lot of offensive boards as it to start a break. A guard rebounding and pushing the tempo is fine but it's not a faster way down the floor than a big rebounding, making a quick outlet to the 1, who hits a cutting wing streaking down the floor. 

 

I literally never used the word intentional. I just suggested the goal is for our guards to rebound as often as possible. We can push the pace of the game, utilize our depth by running a bit more, and minimize silly dribbling mistakes by our bigs. Not really worth the discussion anymore. Anytime someone disagrees you seem to take it personally. Enjoy the game today

[BIG BILL FAN]

10 minutes ago, hmart23 said:

I literally never used the word intentional. I just suggested the goal is for our guards to rebound as often as possible. We can push the pace of the game, utilize our depth by running a bit more, and minimize silly dribbling mistakes by our bigs. Not really worth the discussion anymore. Anytime someone disagrees you seem to take it personally. Enjoy the game today

With the number of 3 point shots taken, and the subsequent number of long rebounds, it’s imperative that your guards focus on rebounding as well.

[slufanskip]

2 hours ago, hmart23 said:

I literally never used the word intentional. I just suggested the goal is for our guards to rebound as often as possible. We can push the pace of the game, utilize our depth by running a bit more, and minimize silly dribbling mistakes by our bigs. Not really worth the discussion anymore. Anytime someone disagrees you seem to take it personally. Enjoy the game today

Clearly than it was me reading something into your post that wasn't intended.  I mentioned I was disappointed in his rebounding and you said you disagreed, which I read to mean his rebound #'s were down intentionally so that the guards could rebound more. I agree our guards need to rebound and we want that. 

[slufanskip]

2 hours ago, billiken_roy said:

skip who "suggested" this?   i said goodwin wasnt sharing rebounds, but that doesnt mean the other players werent trying to get rebounds.   it means goodwin is just the best rebounding guard maybe in history and goes after rebounds like nobody else ever did.   you are really blowing up this linnsen rebounding thing big time.   why cant you accept he is just a good backup big that might give us the most rounded bench in billiken history?   he only started the other night because french was out and bell had only practiced twice this year due to his foot injury to start the practices.   i am sure when everyone is back linnsen will be the third option at the inside again.  there is no reason to tear down his rebounding skills or lack thereof.   as i said previously let's all be happy we got him and his positives.   i know i am not trying to make him more than he is and realize he is a two year backup.  a backup we have never had before.  

I took something Hmart23 said and it appears misinterpreted his meaning or intent. 

However, I'm not blowing anything up. I made a statement obviously based on 1 game. I wasn't saying he wasn't or wasn't going to be a good or even an adequate back up. My comment was that he scored a bit but it was against SIUE (meaning simply that we've had plenty of players score in early non conference games that weren't able to duplicate it against better opponents ) and that he did not rebound well. So no, I wasn't impressed as others seem to be. Maybe impressed was the wrong word and sold yet would have been better. But honestly, that's nitpicking and I think it's clear what I meant. It's one game. He scored well against a poor opponent and rebounded poorly. Free throw shooting was great. I never intended nor did I make a statement regarding his long term viability as a back up. Sorry that my statement seems to be interpreted as me trashing him. 

This board seems to now be a place where you can't say anything negative or if you do it's taken to the extreme. Not a good change imo

[Reinert310]

6 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I took something Hmart23 said and it appears misinterpreted his meaning or intent. 

However, I'm not blowing anything up. I made a statement obviously based on 1 game. I wasn't saying he wasn't or wasn't going to be a good or even an adequate back up. My comment was that he scored a bit but it was against SIUE (meaning simply that we've had plenty of players score in early non conference games that weren't able to duplicate it against better opponents ) and that he did not rebound well. So no, I wasn't impressed as others seem to be. Maybe impressed was the wrong word and sold yet would have been better. But honestly, that's nitpicking and I think it's clear what I meant. It's one game. He scored well against a poor opponent and rebounded poorly. Free throw shooting was great. I never intended nor did I make a statement regarding his long term viability as a back up. Sorry that my statement seems to be interpreted as me trashing him. 

This board seems to now be a place where you can't say anything negative or if you do it's taken to the extreme. Not a good change imo

You said that you weren’t as impressed by Linssen as the rest of us, and you explained why. Several of us disagreed with you, and we explained why. I’m not sure what the issue is here. 

[Quality Is Job 1]

13 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I took something Hmart23 said and it appears misinterpreted his meaning or intent. 

However, I'm not blowing anything up. I made a statement obviously based on 1 game. I wasn't saying he wasn't or wasn't going to be a good or even an adequate back up. My comment was that he scored a bit but it was against SIUE (meaning simply that we've had plenty of players score in early non conference games that weren't able to duplicate it against better opponents ) and that he did not rebound well. So no, I wasn't impressed as others seem to be. Maybe impressed was the wrong word and sold yet would have been better. But honestly, that's nitpicking and I think it's clear what I meant. It's one game. He scored well against a poor opponent and rebounded poorly. Free throw shooting was great. I never intended nor did I make a statement regarding his long term viability as a back up. Sorry that my statement seems to be interpreted as me trashing him. 

This board seems to now be a place where you can't say anything negative or if you do it's taken to the extreme. Not a good change imo

This takes me back to when I posted that Rob Loe didn't seem primed to be an impact freshman after watching his performance in a Nike Hoops Summit (or whatever) game, and many posters blasted me.  I changed my screen name to "Absurd Bills Fan" for Loe's entire career.

[hmart23]

27 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

I took something Hmart23 said and it appears misinterpreted his meaning or intent. 

However, I'm not blowing anything up. I made a statement obviously based on 1 game. I wasn't saying he wasn't or wasn't going to be a good or even an adequate back up. My comment was that he scored a bit but it was against SIUE (meaning simply that we've had plenty of players score in early non conference games that weren't able to duplicate it against better opponents ) and that he did not rebound well. So no, I wasn't impressed as others seem to be. Maybe impressed was the wrong word and sold yet would have been better. But honestly, that's nitpicking and I think it's clear what I meant. It's one game. He scored well against a poor opponent and rebounded poorly. Free throw shooting was great. I never intended nor did I make a statement regarding his long term viability as a back up. Sorry that my statement seems to be interpreted as me trashing him. 

This board seems to now be a place where you can't say anything negative or if you do it's taken to the extreme. Not a good change imo

No hard feelings here. We're going to disagree on things time to time. It's the nature of the world. We all love the Bills though. That's all that matters. Here's to a good game against the Tigers and a healthy season for the Bills. 

[slufanskip]

10 minutes ago, Reinert310 said:

You said that you weren’t as impressed by Linssen as the rest of us, and you explained why. Several of us disagreed with you, and we explained why. I’m not sure what the issue is here. 

And clearly I get that people disagree. However, it seems that my post is being interpreted as Me saying he wasn't any good, which is not what I said.  I haven't made it an issue, just responding to others. For example Roy just posted that I'm hanging my hat on his rebounding. I'm not hanging my hat on anything, just stated that he had 2 boards against a bad team and that was one reason why I was not as impressed as some others seem to be.  I get that he did some things well. I was impressed with his F/T shooting. Someone else mentioned being impressed with how well he moved his feet defensively, I'd agree with that. I'd like to see him rebound better and continue to show well offensively against better teams. I'm not saying he can't or won't. It's just 1 game. 

It was stated that I can't admit I'm wrong. How can I be wrong about what impressed ME.  

Last year I was unsold on Perkins early due to his poor shooting to start the season and suggested he take less shots. No one had to call me out to admit it turned out my initial impressions were wrong, I came back and called myself out for being wrong and I've stated many times on here cases where I was wrong. 

[almaman]

truce all. we got a whole season - 1 game ahead of us with what we think is the best team fielded in men's b ball from 1818 till today. let's enjoy, we got enough problems with the barnstorming nature of this season due to cv19. plug could be pulled any day.

[HoosierPal]

 

[dlarry]

5 hours ago, HoosierPal said:

 

 

It’s go time!!