Arkansas Pine Bluff

[cincrulz11]

My biggest thing with Cane right now is it would be hard for anyone to not realize he is the more valuable player. I think coach sees that. The only question is...can we just go ahead and start out the game with him. I feel like getting off to a big start is so huge in the big games. Set the tone...get everyone amped up etc.

I am not one of those guys that thinks hey...as long as he gets more minutes it's fine. Setting the tone early in a big game is a big deal IMO. WE have one more game (maybe 2) where this may not be as big of a factor...but after that point I think we want to have Cane in the game right away.

i mean obviously i would like to see him start, its impossible to play 35 minutes when you dont even get into the game until 6 minutes are gone. and i think there are games we might need him 35 minutes.



but my biggest issue with the cane situation was always the 4 game stretch starting with xavier. they were massive games that will have direct impact on our seeding. we went into the xavier game with our best 5 players rarely having any playing time together. of course the chemistry and everything looked off.


i will never understand why we didn't use the first 7 games to get those guys more familiar with each other in a game setting. it just never made sense to me. to me it feels like wasted opportunities, as we can now clearly see how good our best 5 lineup is.

 

[waterhead]

and his freshman year Guyn still played half the minutes, even to the bitter end. a full season of learning for troy wasn't enough.


and i've said it from the start cane is not a turnover prone player. he had a sloppy first game after a year off, followed that up with 3 turnovers his next 3 games. then another sloppy 5 turnover game. he's only turned it over more than 2 times in those 2 games.

if we are going to compare, evans has 4 games with over 2 turnovers, cumberland has 3.



cane seems to be the type of guy that continues to raise his game as the competition grows. i wouldn't say he plays down to his competition, he just has another gear as the competition grows. he definitely learned the lesson on being sloppy in a blowout game vs a scrub team.

I don't think there is any question Cane has raised his game. I think the learning curve is going away really fast. Still some questionable passes but those can be looked at after the game as opposed to in game punishment...lol!

He needs to be in there from the start of the game by SMU... even though it should be happening now. We still need Jenifer to have confidence so I am okay with a couple of more starts from him if it helps him or Cronin feel better.

 

[cincrulz11]

He needs to be in there from the start of the game by SMU... even though it should be happening now. We still need Jenifer to have confidence so I am okay with a couple of more starts from him if it helps him or Cronin feel better.

if it happens it happens tonight i think. if not then jenifer will remain there all year.


mick got mad at jenifer twice last game (haven't seen that all year) and the final time benched him for the rest of the game. we'll see where it goes from there.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

if it happens it happens tonight i think. if not then jenifer will remain there all year.


mick got mad at jenifer twice last game (haven't seen that all year) and the final time benched him for the rest of the game. we'll see where it goes from there.

This really would be a perfect time to put Broome back in and hit the gas.

 

[waterhead]

i mean obviously i would like to see him start, its impossible to play 35 minutes when you dont even get into the game until 6 minutes are gone. and i think there are games we might need him 35 minutes.



but my biggest issue with the cane situation was always the 4 game stretch starting with xavier. they were massive games that will have direct impact on our seeding. we went into the xavier game with our best 5 players rarely having any playing time together. of course the chemistry and everything looked off.


i will never understand why we didn't use the first 7 games to get those guys more familiar with each other in a game setting. it just never made sense to me. to me it feels like wasted opportunities, as we can now clearly see how good our best 5 lineup is.

I think the bottom line is Cronin doesn't sacrifice bench teaching moments for letting a player figure it out himself on the court.

I know Mack did it with Sumner but that team played better without Sumner. Mack could have been lucky getting the injury in that case. They gelled better as a team later on in the year by accident.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

Should we call him Cane Zoom? Or Cane Vroom? Or neither?

 

[cincrulz11]

Should we call him Cane Zoom? Or Cane Vroom? Or neither?

some announcers call him cane boom (on accident)

 

[jacobkdoyle]

some announcers call him cane boom (on accident)

Smh. They said "McCarron" too for Cumberland.

 

[cincrulz11]

I think the bottom line is Cronin doesn't sacrifice bench teaching moments for letting a player figure it out himself on the court.

I know Mack did it with Sumner but that team played better without Sumner. Mack could have been lucky getting the injury in that case. They gelled better as a team later on in the year by accident.

not really. the team actually fell apart and had a 6 game losing streak and were very fortunate to get into the tournament at all.


but bluiett hard carried them in the tournament with 21 vs maryland, 29 vs fsu, and 25 vs arizona. he was a 1 man wrecking crew.

 

[justinhub2003]

Give me a break. You had a meltdown in the Florida game and declared that we aren't as good as last year and team chemistry is 100% why. That's not realistic in game 9 of the season. It's ridiculous. Then you spent the next few days acting as if we'd be lucky to get in the tournament. And you still somewhat have that tone. That's not realistic...or at least it shouldn't be for someone who watches every game 2-3 times. In all those viewings, you should notice that we're better than most years...I mean even in this post you called it Mick's best team. So what's up with that?

I bitched about chemistry. And chemistry is something you do on the court together. It can improve and it has.

It’s still not there all the way but it will grow. I’d rather have a chemistry problem than a personnel problem.

Dude it being a chemistry problem has nothing to do with it being micks best team. Some of the best teams in the country have chemistry problems. They need to work it out. Look at Xavier, they figured it out at the right time. My talks about chemistry are not a reflection of the talent on the team.


And not making the tourney was mostly before the UCLA game. We needed that game to at least have something in the non conference. Everything I said has been realistic. I was going off the way the team performed at that snapshot in time and at the time we hadn’t earned a trip to the tourney based on what we had done. If it ended today we’d be in just not a good seed.

Being a realist is seeing what happens on paper doesn’t always translate To on court succces. I know this is micks most talented team. But our on court performance has not reflected that yet. This team has not even come close to hitting its ceiling yet. But until I see it done, I can only go by what I’ve seen.

I know we’re a great team and because of that I have high expectations, this team has not met my expectations on court yet. Doesn’t mean they won’t.


I mean seriously why can’t I say that this is micks best team and yet also say we have a chemistry issue and we haven’t looked as good as we should ?

 

[waterhead]

not really. the team actually fell apart and had a 6 game losing streak and were very fortunate to get into the tournament at all.


but bluiett hard carried them in the tournament with 21 vs maryland, 29 vs fsu, and 25 vs arizona. he was a 1 man wrecking crew.

Yes they fell apart for a while...but when Goodin had enough time with the crew they started to get better. Blueitt was always there. Then the lucky draw in the tourney didn't hurt of course.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

I bitched about chemistry. And chemistry is something you do on the court together. It can improve and it has.

It’s still not there all the way but it will grow. I’d rather have a chemistry problem than a personnel problem.

Dude it being a chemistry problem has nothing to do with it being micks best team. Some of the best teams in the country have chemistry problems. They need to work it out. Look at Xavier, they figured it out at the right time. My talks about chemistry are not a reflection of the talent on the team.


And not making the tourney was mostly before the UCLA game. We needed that game to at least have something in the non conference. Everything I said has been realistic. I was going off the way the team performed at that snapshot in time and at the time we hadn’t earned a trip to the tourney based on what we had done. If it ended today we’d be in just not a good seed.

Being a realist is seeing what happens on paper doesn’t always translate To on court succces. I know this is micks most talented team. But our on court performance has not reflected that yet. This team has not even come close to hitting its ceiling yet. But until I see it done, I can only go by what I’ve seen.

I know we’re a great team and because of that I have high expectations, this team has not met my expectations on court yet. Doesn’t mean they won’t.


I mean seriously why can’t I say that this is micks best team and yet also say we have a chemistry issue and we haven’t looked as good as we should ?

Bc you flat out said "we aren't as good as last year". That's why.

 

[waterhead]

I bitched about chemistry. And chemistry is something you do on the court together. It can improve and it has.

It’s still not there all the way but it will grow. I’d rather have a chemistry problem than a personnel problem.

Dude it being a chemistry problem has nothing to do with it being micks best team. Some of the best teams in the country have chemistry problems. They need to work it out. Look at Xavier, they figured it out at the right time. My talks about chemistry are not a reflection of the talent on the team.


And not making the tourney was mostly before the UCLA game. We needed that game to at least have something in the non conference. Everything I said has been realistic. I was going off the way the team performed at that snapshot in time and at the time we hadn’t earned a trip to the tourney based on what we had done. If it ended today we’d be in just not a good seed.

Being a realist is seeing what happens on paper doesn’t always translate To on court succces. I know this is micks most talented team. But our on court performance has not reflected that yet. This team has not even come close to hitting its ceiling yet. But until I see it done, I can only go by what I’ve seen.

I know we’re a great team and because of that I have high expectations, this team has not met my expectations on court yet. Doesn’t mean they won’t.


I mean seriously why can’t I say that this is micks best team and yet also say we have a chemistry issue and we haven’t looked as good as we should ?

Perhaps my only gripe is this. Yes we need the talent (and I think we have it) but we are going to face other talented teams in tourney. We need the chemistry big time to make a run. We have seen much more talented teams do much less than our teams in the past. I'm not even sure we had any business being in the tourney a couple of times. But we got there. And that is a testament to how a team is coached. What we haven't done is make a March run...so that is something coach has to figure out how to do. If we haven't had the horses in the past...we do now...and it may be our best chance in the next couple of years...or any year prior.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

Bc you flat out said "we aren't as good as last year". That's why.

You keep saying we haven't shown it on the court. But our numbers at this point are pretty much across the board as good, if not better than they've ever been. And we pass the eye test as much or more than we have in 15 years. Your refusal to acknowledge that is pessimistic. You can call yourself a realist all you want, but based on how anxious you come across a lot of the time, I just find it funny that you're trying to act like you're the level-headed rock, amongst people who freak out at the drop of a hat.

 

[cincrulz11]

You keep saying we haven't shown it on the court. But our numbers at this point are pretty much across the board as good, if not better than they've ever been. And we pass the eye test as much or more than we have in 15 years. Your refusal to acknowledge that is pessimistic. You can call yourself a realist all you want, but based on how anxious you come across a lot of the time, I just find it funny that you're trying to act like you're the level-headed rock, amongst people who freak out at the drop of a hat.

to his side though we were horrible on offense vs xavier and florida.



nobody else we've played will make the tournament. mississippi state isn't any good and ucla likely isn't a tournament team.

 

[waterhead]

You keep saying we haven't shown it on the court. But our numbers at this point are pretty much across the board as good, if not better than they've ever been. And we pass the eye test as much or more than we have in 15 years. Your refusal to acknowledge that is pessimistic. You can call yourself a realist all you want, but based on how anxious you come across a lot of the time, I just find it funny that you're trying to act like you're the level-haded rock, amongst people who freak out at the drop of a hat.

Haha. I love the pessimist, optimist, realist argument. "hey, I'm just being real"...lol! I also love the "true fan" argument...you can't be a true fan if you aren't this or that.

The question is are you being really blind to problems, really looking for negatives, or really observant in what our strengths and weaknesses are. But nobody has the same perspective so I guess it's okay. We have some things to improve on and some that we are good at. You gotta look at the whole picture. I think the whole picture looks pretty good and we have some things to shore up.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

to his side though we were horrible on offense vs xavier and florida.



nobody else we've played will make the tournament. mississippi state isn't any good and ucla likely isn't a tournament team.

That's why I said across the board. But this is dumb anyway.

 

[waterhead]

to his side though we were horrible on offense vs xavier and florida.



nobody else we've played will make the tournament. mississippi state isn't any good and ucla likely isn't a tournament team.

Yes...this might be true. But we have probably 8 conference games coming up that will be in column 1. Probably a few more in column 2. If we take care of business we can make up serious ground.

If we beat FLA what are we looking at really? Half a seed line in the end? If we are bordering on a 4-5 seed and we miss out because of the FLA game...so be it. Hell...we don't even know which seed line we might be straddling or if we will be straddling any line.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

Haha. I love the pessimist, optimist, realist argument. "hey, I'm just being real"...lol! I also love the "true fan" argument...you can't be a true fan if you aren't this or that.

The question is are you being really blind to problems, really looking for negatives, or really observant in what our strengths and weaknesses are. But nobody has the same perspective so I guess it's okay. We have some things to improve on and some that we are good at. You gotta look at the whole picture. I think the whole picture looks pretty good and we have some things to shore up.

Yeah it definitely just depends how you look at things. Someone who evaluates things in terms of snapshots in time won't look like a realist to people who try to look at the whole picture. That's why I thought it was an unrealistic joke to even talk about whether we are on the outside looking in or not. Realistically, we are a lock and we always have been.

But someone who looks at things another way would say I'm too optimistic/pessimistic/unrealistic based on X. And on and so forth. I don't think any one way is right, wrong, or otherwise when it comes to being a fan. Bc honestly every one of us is probably all of those things at some point in the season.

 

[waterhead]

Yeah it definitely just depends how you look at things. Someone who evaluates things in terms of snapshots in time won't look like a realist to people who try to look at the whole picture. That's why I thought it was an unrealistic joke to even talk about whether we are on the outside looking in or not. Realistically, we are a lock and we always have been.

But someone who looks at things another way would say I'm too optimistic/pessimistic/unrealistic based on X. And on and so forth. I don't think any one way is right, wrong, or otherwise when it comes to being a fan. Bc honestly every one of us is probably all of those things at some point in the season.

Uh...yes