Our Offense
- Thread starter Hicks' Guns
- Start date
Help Support BearcatTalk:
TheLongHaul
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,036
The offense is horrible, obviously I agree with you there. But if you read the article he never once mentions that as a reason his team is struggling on offense. There is no whining whatsoever. Bill Koch took Cronin's quotes on the overall college basketball landscape and applied it to UC. Then the editor added a sensationalized header to draw interest (obviously it worked).
The video is out there somewhere to give you context.
bearcat jeff
Hoops Moderator
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 7,502
Here's the thing. He may not be making excuses and even be speaking the truth, but it sounds like excuses. UC is not shooting under 40% because of hand checking. They are shooting under 40% because they can't make lay ups and take too many 3's.
Last edited:
WAITE HOYT 2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 8,404
Folks scoring in College basketball is down accross the board. heck Wisconsin has won games scoring less than 40 points. As i stated earlier Miss and Fla barely broke a 100 between them and this is two very talented offenses. That is what Mick is refering to.
BearcatSofaKing
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2013
- Messages
- 9
Big 10 fans have complained for years that refs not calling fouls is hurting their league. First, it is just brutal to watch, as it makes bad offenses look worse. Second, the non-calls in conference play get called during the big dance, and so foul trouble and differently paced games become issues for these teams in the tourney.
Found this interesting, not sure if this was brought up already. Here's an excerpt from the Enquirer Morning Line (there was a guest blogger)
This is from an interview I did with Bob Weisenhahn of UC’s first national championship team in 1961. At 74, he’s 6-foot-4 (big for 1961) and at his playing weight of 220. He was the proverbial bruiser. His comments echo what I hear nearly everywhere:
“They need some more movement,” he said. “They run a weave with three guards. The big kids don’t want to pick across or nothing. They’re pretty predictable from what I’ve seen.” http://cincinnati.com/blogs/daugherty/2013/02/21/the-morning-line-221-replacement-player-edition/
This is from an interview I did with Bob Weisenhahn of UC’s first national championship team in 1961. At 74, he’s 6-foot-4 (big for 1961) and at his playing weight of 220. He was the proverbial bruiser. His comments echo what I hear nearly everywhere:
“They need some more movement,” he said. “They run a weave with three guards. The big kids don’t want to pick across or nothing. They’re pretty predictable from what I’ve seen.” http://cincinnati.com/blogs/daugherty/2013/02/21/the-morning-line-221-replacement-player-edition/
Last edited:
david aka the TYZ
Well-known member
I think for the article Mick was speaking more in general, but he has complained in several post-games about guys being held and it freezing up the flow of the offense. He has always followed it with he doesn't want the players to use that as an excuse and they still need to go out and execute. He's mentioned that he's tired with Parker and Kilpatrick whinig about non-calls and not playing their games. And I'm sure Mick would be the first to admit that one of the reasons we play such tough D is that we play physical on defense. Where we commit our fouls is usually on help defenders that reach in or lean out on a shot. But we get away with as much hand checking or moving screens as anyone. When you're losing you tend to find every little reason why and refereeing is always a big one. It's amazing when I watch a non-UC game how much I can see fouls on both ends of the floor, even on the team I'm rooting for. With UC, I want every call, and I see way more fouls than the crying and whining fans at the Shoe. My point is we shouldn't throw stones at Mick when we've all done our fair share of bitching about the refs. Most of the time Mick is asked a question and he gives an honest response.
UCBearcats
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,723
Not sure how anyone can watch that game and say our offense isn't the problem. Mick said before the game that the plan was to speed up UConn, not slow them down. He wanted to run and take advantage of UConn's lack of depth. Well guess what....we didn't do that. We played great defense, we KILLED UConn on the glass and we lost because our offense STINKS. We were up 55-49 with 3 minutes left and let UConn close the game on a 6-0 run. You've got to find a way to score especially when you're pulling down offensive rebounds and getting 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances at possessions. Our offense stinks, Mick's game plans on offense sink and our players execution of whatever it is Mick has them doing stinks.
Last edited:
TheLongHaul
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,036
Anyone here Mick at half time? Went something like this:
Andy Katz: "Mick, you said before the game you need to get to 60 to win. Do you see your team getting there in the second half?"
Cronin: "I think we are capable to pick up the intensity on the defensive end".
Katz: "WTF?"
Andy Katz: "Mick, you said before the game you need to get to 60 to win. Do you see your team getting there in the second half?"
Cronin: "I think we are capable to pick up the intensity on the defensive end".
Katz: "WTF?"
bearcat4life
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2012
- Messages
- 101
he was right by saying that. offense wasn't the problem in the first half, defense was.
I agree. Doesn't matter if you score 60 if the other team scores 70.
TheLongHaul
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,036
That doesn't matter. It had nothing to do with the question. He couldn't even answer a simple question without bring it back to defense even though it had absolutely nothing to do with Katz' question.
TheLongHaul
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,036
It sure as hell mattered in the second half, huh? Held the team to 18 points and still lost. How do you try to blame that on defense. 1 basket in the last four minutes of play.....again. That is an offensive problem, not defensive.
Who blamed what on the defense? What are you talking about? Simply saying Mick gave a reasonable answer. Who cares if you are on pace to break 60, which Katz was referring to, if the other team is on pace to score 70+?
TheLongHaul
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,036
How the F was it a reasonable answer? It had nothing to do with the question. Tell me you aren't being serious.
Mick obviously cares if they break 60 because he said before the game that is what they needed to get to to win. And you know what, he was right. If they would have gotten to 60 they would have won. So obviously it was a reasonable question and Mick didn't attempt to answer it, he just went on a spiel about the defense even though the question had nothing to do with that.
They were behind at the half. Did you really want him to brag about being on pace to break 60 in a game that they were losing? Then you would have been on here overreacting that Mick is talking about positives when they are down. He got blasted on here for doing that after the ND game.
TheLongHaul
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,036
You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. He was asked a question about his offense. Yes, I did expect him to answer the question asked or even give a coaches-speak answer. I just thought it was funny that when he was point blanked asked a question about the offense he didn't even try to answer it. He just started talking about defense and made him look silly. I'm sure there are a lot of casual observers out there that were wondering what the hell he was talking about.
Amberlycolonel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 443
How can you answer a question about a topic you know nothing about?
TheLongHaul
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,036
I thought it was funny.