Re: 2016-2017 Arizona Basketball
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 12:15 pm
We have 2 nati9nal championships in that world.Main Event wrote:Whole different world if Brandon Ashley doesn't break his foot at Cal
A co-op community for Arizona Fans
http://beardownwildcats.com/
We have 2 nati9nal championships in that world.Main Event wrote:Whole different world if Brandon Ashley doesn't break his foot at Cal
Is it ok that this is another reason I dislike CAL? And you are so right SS....Damn.Spaceman Spiff wrote:We have 2 nati9nal championships in that world.Main Event wrote:Whole different world if Brandon Ashley doesn't break his foot at Cal
maybe he is beachcat. it's possible he could have more than one account here.Bangkok Wildcat wrote:Good grief....you sound like BeachCat97RiseAndFire wrote:I've been watching and then with the UCLA game I actually got my hopes up. That was the first big game we've defied the odds and won since @Michigan? Duke in 2011?....., maybe we CAN rely on the three pointer in every game and the team will actually add up to more than the sum of its parts for onceChicat wrote:You can call it whatever you like. I just think it's hilarious you've been waiting and hoping for a semi-subpar performance to pay us a visit.RiseAndFire wrote:um RPI 194 team that ASU just smoked came in, played a simple zone D and held us to 14 damn points in the first 3/4 of the first half and yes led at halftimeChicat wrote:Now you're dropping in after 11 point wins and calling them potential upsets? Average margin of victory is like 14+ in league games.
I call that a potential upset
then the three shooting came back to earth and we struggle with two +100 RPI bottom dwellers and welp, we are who I thought we were
I get that you you try to me out to be this wild renegade that Bucks the conventional wisdom, a true maverick,. That's cool but I'm really just a fan that sees a team with 8 straight (soon to be 9) top 10 recruiting classes always coming up short in March, and searching for answers.
''always coming up short in March".....exaggerate much? 2011 we over-exceeded.....yes, we have definitely under-performed in the NCAAs relative to our abilities overall.....Lute's teams included.
However, being negative this early on is really annoying....Care to make a wager like BC97 did?
ha nice!Fishclamps wrote:Didn't wanna start a new thread for this reddit thread I saw, but it's a pretty good MS paint logo for us based off of the AP not having one for Northwestern.
Do they play any sort of defense outside of that zone?baconus66 wrote:They should break out some of that 1-3-1 zone just for old times sake
Am I remembering wrong. Doesn't tinkle have them playing some other zone? It was during the Craig Robinson years they played that super gimmicky 1-3-1 that gave us issues no matter how good we were.ChooChooCat wrote:Do they play any sort of defense outside of that zone?baconus66 wrote:They should break out some of that 1-3-1 zone just for old times sake
Yeah I think Tinkle plays an exclusive 2-3 zone or at least he did his first year. I honestly don't even remember what they ran last year.baconus66 wrote:Am I remembering wrong. Doesn't tinkle have them playing some other zone? It was during the Craig Robinson years they played that super gimmicky 1-3-1 that gave us issues no matter how good we were.ChooChooCat wrote:Do they play any sort of defense outside of that zone?baconus66 wrote:They should break out some of that 1-3-1 zone just for old times sake
Didn't the Cats play a lot of 1 3 1 in 2003-2006?baconus66 wrote:Am I remembering wrong. Doesn't tinkle have them playing some other zone? It was during the Craig Robinson years they played that super gimmicky 1-3-1 that gave us issues no matter how good we were.ChooChooCat wrote:Do they play any sort of defense outside of that zone?baconus66 wrote:They should break out some of that 1-3-1 zone just for old times sake
If you'd found a way to integrate the 2-3 zone into your boweling, that thing would have slipped out in a huge, beautifully coiled pile and you wouldn't even have needed to wipe afterwards.Puerco wrote:A couple of months ago I was sitting on the toilet. Strained and grunted for a long tome. Worked really hard and was finally successful. Flushed and walked away with a big smile on my face, because at that point I thought RiseandFire posts were gone from my life forever.
I guess I was wrong.
Should have been checked but not a huge deal. I bet we miss things all the time for other schools and never realize it.ASUHATER! wrote:we play our away games away from McHale center. you learn something new every day!
Someone else want a stab at this one? Its all set up for you, just send it homeASUHATER! wrote:we play our away games away from McHale center. you learn something new every day!
Jefe wrote:Someone else want a stab at this one? Its all set up for you, just send it homeASUHATER! wrote:we play our away games away from McHale center. you learn something new every day!
so what you're saying is that since year two the summary is "average" or slightly better than. fair assessmentSpaceman Spiff wrote:My 2 cents on Miller's tenure here:
Year 1: Above average. Our roster was devastated. With decent returners in Fogg, Wise and nothing else but freshmen, a .500 season wasn't great but it stabilized things.
Year 2: Just fantastic. Making the Elite Eight and being a heartbeat from the FF was so far above where anyone thought we would be it isn't funny.
Year 3: Below average. It was a letdown coming off tourney success and with a really good recruiting class. That said, if it wasn't for year 2, it would be easy to see this as performing to expectations.
Year 4: Above average. Given the state of the roster (lots of freshmen and Lyons trying to be a pg) a Sweet 16 was a good result. It loses a little luster when seen against the success we had early in the year, but overall, not bad.
Year 5: Very good. The only reason this wasn't an incredible success was the Ashley injury and getting nipped by Wisky. Other than that, this year was filled with a ton of highs.
Year 6: As expected. We were supposed to be a top five team and we were. The bar was high and we hit it for the most part. That this was not a huge success is a measure of how much Milelr has done.
Year 7: Below average. There were some good moments, but the team never really came together and the early exist to Wichita State was ugly.
Year 8: Pretty good so far, but...?
McHale was a power forward. Parish was a center.ASUHATER! wrote:we play our away games away from McHale center. you learn something new every day!
When we start top 20 every year, performing to expectations or exceeding them means a whole lot. Take 14-15. We performed to expectations, and really could have only exceeded them by winning a national championship.RiseAndFire wrote:so what you're saying is that since year two the summary is "average" or slightly better than. fair assessmentSpaceman Spiff wrote:My 2 cents on Miller's tenure here:
Year 1: Above average. Our roster was devastated. With decent returners in Fogg, Wise and nothing else but freshmen, a .500 season wasn't great but it stabilized things.
Year 2: Just fantastic. Making the Elite Eight and being a heartbeat from the FF was so far above where anyone thought we would be it isn't funny.
Year 3: Below average. It was a letdown coming off tourney success and with a really good recruiting class. That said, if it wasn't for year 2, it would be easy to see this as performing to expectations.
Year 4: Above average. Given the state of the roster (lots of freshmen and Lyons trying to be a pg) a Sweet 16 was a good result. It loses a little luster when seen against the success we had early in the year, but overall, not bad.
Year 5: Very good. The only reason this wasn't an incredible success was the Ashley injury and getting nipped by Wisky. Other than that, this year was filled with a ton of highs.
Year 6: As expected. We were supposed to be a top five team and we were. The bar was high and we hit it for the most part. That this was not a huge success is a measure of how much Milelr has done.
Year 7: Below average. There were some good moments, but the team never really came together and the early exist to Wichita State was ugly.
Year 8: Pretty good so far, but...?
that's precisely what I have said. Fantastic recruiting, average results. What's the problem?
he grew up listening to stories of it on Boeheim's kneeSpaceman Spiff wrote:When we start top 20 every year, performing to expectations or exceeding them means a whole lot. Take 14-15. We performed to expectations, and really could have only exceeded them by winning a national championship.RiseAndFire wrote:so what you're saying is that since year two the summary is "average" or slightly better than. fair assessmentSpaceman Spiff wrote:My 2 cents on Miller's tenure here:
Year 1: Above average. Our roster was devastated. With decent returners in Fogg, Wise and nothing else but freshmen, a .500 season wasn't great but it stabilized things.
Year 2: Just fantastic. Making the Elite Eight and being a heartbeat from the FF was so far above where anyone thought we would be it isn't funny.
Year 3: Below average. It was a letdown coming off tourney success and with a really good recruiting class. That said, if it wasn't for year 2, it would be easy to see this as performing to expectations.
Year 4: Above average. Given the state of the roster (lots of freshmen and Lyons trying to be a pg) a Sweet 16 was a good result. It loses a little luster when seen against the success we had early in the year, but overall, not bad.
Year 5: Very good. The only reason this wasn't an incredible success was the Ashley injury and getting nipped by Wisky. Other than that, this year was filled with a ton of highs.
Year 6: As expected. We were supposed to be a top five team and we were. The bar was high and we hit it for the most part. That this was not a huge success is a measure of how much Milelr has done.
Year 7: Below average. There were some good moments, but the team never really came together and the early exist to Wichita State was ugly.
Year 8: Pretty good so far, but...?
that's precisely what I have said. Fantastic recruiting, average results. What's the problem?
If I judged Miller's years by a 2009 prism, every year would be an unqualified success. The evolving expectations have raised the bar very high.
Can I ask where your lust for zone came from?
That was the case under Coach Olsen, too.ASUHATER! wrote:we play our away games away from McHale center. you learn something new every day!
Nobody will read this without noticing that you mistyped Markkanen.gumby wrote:That was the case under Coach Olsen, too.ASUHATER! wrote:we play our away games away from McHale center. you learn something new every day!
Meanwhile, nice roadie, Wildcats. Even with Lauri "Off The'' Markkenen shooting poorly.
Didn't see the Oregon game, but it sounds like the three ASU guards just drove and drove and drove, and the Ducks struggled to contain. So if things turn south, we can go small and give that a whirl.
I give those writers a pass because they probably spent a lot of time covering Kevin McHale.ASUHATER! wrote:we play our away games away from McHale center. you learn something new every day!
I am curious what everyone's stats are since UCLA. Seems like everyone is in a slumprgdeuce wrote:Kobi since the UCLA game: 11-32 FG, 3-13 3pfg%.
Freshman wall? Mini slump? Head not in it because Trier's back? Putting too much pressure on himself because Trier is likely taking his spot in the starting lineup? Upset that Trier came back? This was the guy some of us talked about Trier's return affecting the most.
Not penning our issues on one guy, because there isn't one who comes out of this smelling like a rose and our issues have been far from just offense. But his dropoff stands out the most and he is the one guy some of us had our eyes on after Triers return. Ill get on it though because I'm curious myself. I know Rawles isnt that bad off the top of my headFrybry02 wrote:I am curious what everyone's stats are since UCLA. Seems like everyone is in a slumprgdeuce wrote:Kobi since the UCLA game: 11-32 FG, 3-13 3pfg%.
Freshman wall? Mini slump? Head not in it because Trier's back? Putting too much pressure on himself because Trier is likely taking his spot in the starting lineup? Upset that Trier came back? This was the guy some of us talked about Trier's return affecting the most.
PHXCATS wrote:This team has not performed well since UCLA and I am not ready to say it is Trier. What I do think is this team is mentally weak or neutral. Or maybe a better thought would be drained mentally.
If this team comes out on fire and play hard on Wednesday I Have hope. If not this team ain't going to Glendale. Should win by 25 plus if they have the heart and mental attitude of champions.
This team is not mentally weak or neutral. This team took three shots to the chest early and up til Saturday, only lost twice to two top-level teams away from McKale. This team has more resilience than just about any Arizona team I can think of. I don't think they are drained either. The only think I can think of, they got PJC back, then Trier back and beat UCLA on the road and forgot that just because those two things happen, it doesnt mean you can ease up off the pedal, or they are still adjusting to life with Trier and trying to mix the old identity with the new is more difficult than first believed.PHXCATS wrote:This team has not performed well since UCLA and I am not ready to say it is Trier. What I do think is this team is mentally weak or neutral. Or maybe a better thought would be drained mentally.
If this team comes out on fire and play hard on Wednesday I Have hope. If not this team ain't going to Glendale. Should win by 25 plus if they have the heart and mental attitude of champions.
Thank you.rgdeuce wrote:This team is not mentally weak or neutral. This team took three shots to the chest early and up til Saturday, only lost twice to two top-level teams away from McKale. This team has more resilience than just about any Arizona team I can think of. I don't think they are drained either. The only think I can think of, they got PJC back, then Trier back and beat UCLA on the road and forgot that just because those two things happen, it doesnt mean you can ease up off the pedal, or they are still adjusting to life with Trier and trying to mix the old identity with the new is more difficult than first believed.PHXCATS wrote:This team has not performed well since UCLA and I am not ready to say it is Trier. What I do think is this team is mentally weak or neutral. Or maybe a better thought would be drained mentally.
If this team comes out on fire and play hard on Wednesday I Have hope. If not this team ain't going to Glendale. Should win by 25 plus if they have the heart and mental attitude of champions.
This team go pt their ass beat bad on national tv. This team has been in a four game funk. Trier has been practicing so there should be no chemistry issues that extend to this. if they put a world class beat down on Stanford I will agree it was a bump in the road but if not I think there are issues with the team that are not talent or physical.Spaceman Spiff wrote:Thank you.rgdeuce wrote:This team is not mentally weak or neutral. This team took three shots to the chest early and up til Saturday, only lost twice to two top-level teams away from McKale. This team has more resilience than just about any Arizona team I can think of. I don't think they are drained either. The only think I can think of, they got PJC back, then Trier back and beat UCLA on the road and forgot that just because those two things happen, it doesnt mean you can ease up off the pedal, or they are still adjusting to life with Trier and trying to mix the old identity with the new is more difficult than first believed.PHXCATS wrote:This team has not performed well since UCLA and I am not ready to say it is Trier. What I do think is this team is mentally weak or neutral. Or maybe a better thought would be drained mentally.
If this team comes out on fire and play hard on Wednesday I Have hope. If not this team ain't going to Glendale. Should win by 25 plus if they have the heart and mental attitude of champions.
This team was a 2 loss team ranked in the top five despite losing Ray forever, Trier for a while and PJC for a month. We had to face Gonzaga at a neutral site with 7 scholarship players and hung with them.
I'd put all my money on the disease of success. I remember posting after UCLA that the challenge now was how we handled everyone jumping on the bandwagon and how that can let complacency creep in.
We lost our edge. Oregon played with an edge and we didn't.
College teams have down periods. Calling a team mentally weak because we had three games of double digit wins that weren't tremendously impressive...well, that's a standard almost no college team ever could meet.PHXCATS wrote:This team go pt their ass beat bad on national tv. This team has been in a four game funk. Trier has been practicing so there should be no chemistry issues that extend to this. if they put a world class beat down on Stanford I will agree it was a bump in the road but if not I think there are issues with the team that are not talent or physical.Spaceman Spiff wrote:Thank you.rgdeuce wrote:This team is not mentally weak or neutral. This team took three shots to the chest early and up til Saturday, only lost twice to two top-level teams away from McKale. This team has more resilience than just about any Arizona team I can think of. I don't think they are drained either. The only think I can think of, they got PJC back, then Trier back and beat UCLA on the road and forgot that just because those two things happen, it doesnt mean you can ease up off the pedal, or they are still adjusting to life with Trier and trying to mix the old identity with the new is more difficult than first believed.PHXCATS wrote:This team has not performed well since UCLA and I am not ready to say it is Trier. What I do think is this team is mentally weak or neutral. Or maybe a better thought would be drained mentally.
If this team comes out on fire and play hard on Wednesday I Have hope. If not this team ain't going to Glendale. Should win by 25 plus if they have the heart and mental attitude of champions.
This team was a 2 loss team ranked in the top five despite losing Ray forever, Trier for a while and PJC for a month. We had to face Gonzaga at a neutral site with 7 scholarship players and hung with them.
I'd put all my money on the disease of success. I remember posting after UCLA that the challenge now was how we handled everyone jumping on the bandwagon and how that can let complacency creep in.
We lost our edge. Oregon played with an edge and we didn't.
Oregon had the 3rd best offensive game in the past 15 years or so. That would explain why our beat down was worse than some other title contenders. Hell Nova lost by 23 to Oklahoma last season, the difference is OU didn't have an all time offensive game.PHXCATS wrote:Since 2002 no team to win the title has had a beat down like Saturday except for 2014 UCONN so I don't think we can just say these things happen if we want Arizona to be a title contender.
A bad game with low energy happens sure but four in a row don't to title contenders.
Last year, Villanova lost by 23 on a neutral floor to Oklahoma.PHXCATS wrote:Since 2002 no team to win the title has had a beat down like Saturday except for 2014 UCONN so I don't think we can just say these things happen if we want Arizona to be a title contender.
A bad game with low energy happens sure but four in a row don't to title contenders.
You realize that Nova had a 23 point loss last year, right? And that Duke had a 16 point home loss to an unranked team the year before, right? You have to go back to 2013 to find a champ without an embarrassing loss.PHXCATS wrote:Since 2002 no team to win the title has had a beat down like Saturday except for 2014 UCONN so I don't think we can just say these things happen if we want Arizona to be a title contender.
A bad game with low energy happens sure but four in a row don't to title contenders.