I like Angelo’s energy, but his threes aren’t inspiring confidence yet.WU takes the lead. Angelo air balls the three after overshooting the last two. Bummer.
I like Angelo’s energy, but his threes aren’t inspiring confidence yet.WU takes the lead. Angelo air balls the three after overshooting the last two. Bummer.
Ah. Important distinction. FWIW, it was 0-0 during that stint for about two minutes.All my numbers are tied to Nicholson/Barnhizer/Mullins.
It may be different without Barnhizer. (i.e. Mullins is replacing Barnhizer) and we still have two guards.
Really could use those 2 points back from that unnecessary technical foul from earlier. We never have those types of moronic plays.Ah. Important distinction. FWIW, it was 0-0 during that stint for about two minutes.
Hurts to be at such a height disadvantage as well. Looking forward to all that height coming in next year who knows if they will play but we fortunately As Time Marches On will have some good height on this team for the first time in a while.WU takes the lead. Angelo air balls the three after overshooting the last two. Bummer.
Probably a game over at this point now that they're hitting their shots but we sure put up a good fight given how under man we were and how much height Advantage they have and three-point shooting advantageHurts to be at such a height disadvantage as well. Looking forward to all that height coming in next year who knows if they will play but we fortunately As Time Marches On will have some good height on this team for the first time in a while.
This is probably Nick's 4th or fifth game in a row shooting well under 50% for two-point shots. I don't know if it's cuz he plays too much or because teams know how to defend him but it's a world of difference from where he was earlier in the year.Martinelli ice cold at wors possible time
A *lot* of bricks.Martinelli ice cold at worst possible time
Wisconsin is shot three times as many free throws as we haveNick looks a bit desperate which leads to poor shooting imho. WU making shots now is a problem, but refs not calling shooting fouls against them is becoming a problem. Nick getting mugged in the middle.
Rebounding was a big difference, somewhat to your point on height disadvantage.Probably a game over at this point now that they're hitting their shots but we sure put up a good fight given how under man we were and how much height Advantage they have and three-point shooting advantage
Thank God we've got leech on the team he's having a a great game passing shooting Etc.Rebounding was a big difference, somewhat to your point on height disadvantage.
Is...is Leach our best player right now? With Barney hurt and Nick seemingly figured out, Leach might just be the best Wildcat.Thank God we've got leech on the team he's having a a great game passing shooting Etc.
the refs called a lot of shooting fouls on us, and very few shooting fouls on them. That’s how it’s been going.Wisconsin is shot three times as many free throws as we have
Free throw and rebound disparity was the difference.Leach is a strong offensive player, and as long as he isn’t facing a top point guard, he’ll get his numbers.
the refs called a lot of shooting fouls on us, and very few shooting fouls on them. That’s how it’s been going.
So correct. Other teams have more and better players who make key shots to maintain / gain back momentum when needed.NU was up 8 with 13 minutes left and had a wide open three. Less than a minute later it was tied.
I think we can put this talent debate to bed. We clearly don't have the talent level other BIG teams have.So correct. Other teams have more and better players who make key shots to maintain / gain back momentum when needed.
I choose every game to compare talent. Do you think we could ever see a guy come off our bench and do that? When has that ever happened? And why do so many of our board members ask why other guys have great games against us?A few of you guys are just pathetic.
Our best player is out injured and you choose that game to compare talent?
Thats what we call a loser move.
It took a career game from Carter Gilmore to beat NU today.
120 games played. 18 of 80 from 3 point land.
His career high was 8 points. He used to be terrible.
Today 15 points on 5 of 7 shooting. 3 of 5 from distance.
Credit to his coaches for turning that kid into a decent bench player.
Well certainly in today's game he was. Going forward he might be as well with Barney goneIs...is Leach our best player right now? With Barney hurt and Nick seemingly figured out, Leach might just be the best Wildcat.
I do this to argue a point with which you disagree, PWB. But I don’t call a fellow board member pathetic while doing so. I’ve put you on ignore before and it’s time again.I choose every game to compare talent. Do you think we could ever see a guy come off our bench and do that? When has that ever happened? And why do so many of our board members ask why other guys have great games against us?
Correct. 46-38 and Wisconsin was not playing well at all. The open 3 missed was a real change in momentum for them. Make that 3 and it's 49-38. The place would have been electric.NU was up 8 with 13 minutes left and had a wide open three. Less than a minute later it was tied.
Since I just did compare talent, I assume you aimed this at me. I think you made my point exactly.... every team we play has different guys who seem to step forward and take over in addition to their star players. (Or their star player is just at another level from our stars as in the Rutgers game). And though you focused on one guy for Wisconsin, they had multiple guys today who made big plays along the way to get them the win. We may get bright spots from individual players at times, but they don't get enough support from everybody else. In the end, you are what your record says you are and our record says we are pretty much where the pundits predicted us to be.A few of you guys are just pathetic.
Our best player is out injured and you choose that game to compare talent?
Thats what we call a loser move.
It took a career game from Carter Gilmore to beat NU today.
120 games played. 18 of 80 from 3 point land.
His career high was 8 points. He used to be terrible.
Today 15 points on 5 of 7 shooting. 3 of 5 from distance.
Credit to his coaches for turning that kid into a decent bench player.
So does that mean the last 2 years we had top 4 talent in the B1G? I don’t think so but we had a good amount of talent and we were tough and had better players than some teams in the B1G. This whole “Everyone in the B1G has more talent than us” gets really old.Since I just did compare talent, I assume you aimed this at me. I think you made my point exactly.... every team we play has different guys who seem to step forward and take over in addition to their star players. (Or their star player is just at another level from our stars as in the Rutgers game). And though you focused on one guy for Wisconsin, they had multiple guys today who made big plays along the way to get them the win. We may get bright spots from individual players at times, but they don't get enough support from everybody else. In the end, you are what your record says you are and our record says we are pretty much where the pundits predicted us to be.
It’s a fair question. There are so many factors in play; I’ll try to offer a few.So does that mean the last 2 years we had top 4 talent in the B1G? I don’t think so but we had a good amount of talent and we were tough and had better players than some teams in the B1G. This whole “Everyone in the B1G has more talent than us” gets really old.
I think if the BIG10 had a track meet of basketball players, us and Wisconsin might bring up the rear. However, when we've won, we've had a good mix of skilled players filling all the needed roles consistently. Most pertinently, last year Boo was that outstanding player, and he was complemented with consistent 3-point and spot-up from Langborg, and Ty that gave us a really nice guard group. This year we haven't had that. Leach's play just hasn't made up for all that loss. So athletes matter, but so, too, does having quality (and in Boo's case star) players in the ideal basketball roles.So does that mean the last 2 years we had top 4 talent in the B1G? I don’t think so but we had a good amount of talent and we were tough and had better players than some teams in the B1G. This whole “Everyone in the B1G has more talent than us” gets really old.
If the B1G had a track meet of basketball players, KJ Windham would probably be in the top heat. Problem is, he’s young as a D1 basketball player so not quite ready yet.I think if the BIG10 had a track meet of basketball players, us and Wisconsin might bring up the rear. However, when we've won, we've had a good mix of skilled players filling all the needed roles consistently. Most pertinently, last year Boo was that outstanding player, and he was complemented with consistent 3-point and spot-up from Langborg, and Ty that gave us a really nice guard group. This year we haven't had that. Leach's play just hasn't made up for all that loss. So athletes matter, but so, too, does having quality (and in Boo's case star) players in the ideal basketball roles.
Didn't mean it literally; a metaphor for "athletes".If the B1G had a track meet of basketball players, KJ Windham would probably be in the top heat. Problem is, he’s young as a D1 basketball player so not quite ready yet.
So, your point about skilled players that filled roles makes sense. But talking about how a track meet relates to basketball talent means nothing.
One problem this year is Collins assumes (correctly) he has little margin for error until proven otherwise.It’s a fair question. There are so many factors in play; I’ll try to offer a few.
I won’t speak for TheC, but we both watch UCONN regularly. The talent level disparity is quite large vs. NU, and I feel that’s needless to say. I also recognize we are not a “championship level” team, per our own coach’s admission, so I don’t even expect us to have talent like that.
An unusual phenomenon is that in both 22-23 and 23-24, there was very little W/L spread between a BIG team in 2nd place and one in say 11th place. The spread was only 3 or games vs. more typical years of 6-7. Not sure if this was a less competitive BIG or not (as it’s been underperforming in the NCAA for many more years), but it’s easier to see how we could finish unusually higher, all else equal.
To me, injuries, experience, depth, having a finisher (in Buie), fatigue (mental and physical) and some expected amount of randomness all played big roles. With last year’s team of Buie, Langborg, Berry, Nicholson and Barnhizer, and Martinelli off the bench, we had a really experienced, well-balanced team (especially offensively with the addition of Langborg) and one superstar / finisher. Not much other depth, though. We won more of the close games largely because of Buie. We likely would have cracked the top 2-3 teams if not for injuries to Berry and Nicholson. Our strongest team ever.
The prior year was similar in many ways but inherently a more defensively talented team with Audige.
This year, injuries have hurt us even more, it appears, with Barney and the slow recovery of Berry.
The other issues are randomness and fatigue. As you can see from this year and from other worse years, we are always way too close to falling near the bottom of the conference. With few exceptions, we see our guys play exceptionally hard, and frankly, it takes a lot out of them over the course of the year without the depth of other teams, especially when we very rarely have a leader like Buie who can carry the team’s scoring on his back. And then, a few bounces / shots / bad calls here and there and we are subject to this randomness that changes the whole tenor of the season.
We know that recognized awards are evidence of talent. We have had a first-team All-BIG the last two years, plus Audige and Barnhizer getting awards. We might be close to that level this year with Martinelli and sure would have been with a healthy Barnhizer. But even in these years, our awards are not as extensive as many other BIG teams.
Bottom-line, folks know my opinion is that Collins is one of the best coaches in the league and is perfect for us, and he’s a built a program that keeps us so very competitive in light of well-known limitations. But, what I think the above indicates is that our level and depth of talent is not yet enough to regularly overcome the typical uncertainties and challenges needed to be a consistent top tier team.
Since I just did compare talent, I assume you aimed this at me. I think you made my point exactly.... every team we play has different guys who seem to step forward and take over in addition to their star players. (Or their star player is just at another level from our stars as in the Rutgers game). And though you focused on one guy for Wisconsin, they had multiple guys today who made big plays along the way to get them the win. We may get bright spots from individual players at times, but they don't get enough support from everybody else. In the end, you are what your record says you are and our record says we are pretty much where the pundits predicted us to be.
Okay, David is merely stating how quickly the lead disappeared.NU was up 8 with 13 minutes left and had a wide open three. Less than a minute later it was tied.
Gordie shows up with his usual "our players suck" mantra, but tries to make it appear as if David Gold said the same thing, which he clearly didn't. Lame.So correct. Other teams have more and better players who make key shots to maintain / gain back momentum when needed.
And then you chime in with a weak comment that is well-below your normal standard and somewhat offensive given the Collins press conference about Barnhizer.I think we can put this talent debate to bed. We clearly don't have the talent level other BIG teams have.