2012-2013- Back to team basketball

[madness31]

Scoring balance is great but not necessary. I don't care if 3 guys score all the points as long as they play as a team. I want ball movement and movement without the ball. I want to see guys look for open teammates rather then 85% of possessions be 1 on 1 type plays. I basically want to see a real offense and guys pulling for one another. It has been years since X has had that. There were moments of course and they finished strong but most of the season was bad basketball.

There was plenty of talent on the team last season but the offense was structured in a way to benefit only a few guys. There was a change at year end so maybe Mack is learning.

[Mr. Neutral]

There was plenty of talent on the team last season but the offense was structured in a way to benefit only a few guys.

So, in the face of all the evidence, you're sticking with that argument, are you? In spite of the fact that there was no showing whatsoever that Travis Taylor could put the ball on the floor, make a midrange jumper, or even make a layup? And even though the same held true for Andre Walker and Jeff Robinson? Or that Dee Davis showed very little offense for 95% of the season? Or that Redford can't get a shot off unless his man is 10 feet away? Or that Kenny was more passive than not until the last half-dozen games of the season?

Remember Matt Painter's comment how X only had a few guys you had to worry about offensively? He was right.

[Mr. Neutral]

When the Bulls' Derrick Rose went down with a torn ACL in the first game of this year's playoffs, it really exposed the offensive shortcomings of the other guys on the floor. Without their best offensive player available, who could almost always get off his own shot AND took defensive attention away from the other Bulls' players, we saw how mediocre most of the other guys' were.

Remember how sad X's offense looked when Holloway and/or Lyons were out after the UC game? THAT'S what Taylor, Walker, Robinson, etc., brought to the table without TH or ML to bail out the offense, and it wasn't pretty, if you recall, though I'm not sure I want to rely on your memory at this point.

[muskieman]

I bet we would all love that the team ran on all its talent all the time but S-16 happened and most of you guys thought no way after the shootout. Some thought no NCAA at all. Good thing that they were not the coaches.

[jct1941]

This may be too simplistic but here goes. Lets say that the remaining players from last year just make small improvements. Points scored last year versus a slight increase in 2012-2013. Robinson from 4 to 6, Taylor from 5 to 7, Redford from 3 to 6, Davis from 2 to 5, Martin from 3 to 6, Wells from 10 to 15, Philmore from 0 to 5 and I am not counting Stenger. That's 50 points. Last year we average 71 points so the four new players would only have to account for 21 points to get to 71 points. I realize that some players have more upside than others (Martin and Davis) may make more improvement than others. I think that Christon and Reynolds have a very good chance of averaging double figures by themselves. Farr and Davis (Myles) may surprise. I know it is all conjecture at this point but, to me, it seems very possible. Go Xavier!

[madness31]

Actually the X offense never looked better than the game Tu and Lyons were out. The ball movement was great, the problem was that everyone was cold that game and Frease was double and triple teamed because everyone was shooting bricks. Some will say it proves they can't play at this level. I suppose that is possible but there are plenty of examples of teams with all their starters just having an off night - UNLV (I think it was UNLV but might have been another MWC team shooting blanks) in the tourney this past season.

No doubt teams only had to worry about a couple X players because they were the only ones shooting. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you need to key on Tu and Lyons to stop X when they shoot a majority of the shots. There were plenty of players that struggled this year but a big part of that is a lack of a true offense. There was no real player or ball movement for much of the season and that makes it very difficult to get clean looks. The only players that benefits are the ones that like to create their own shots.

We don't know what the other guys could have produced in a real offensive set. It didn't happen so maybe they would have still struggled or maybe they would have been a factor. We don't know how much better the D would have been if Tu and Lyons played 30 minutes or less a game but went all out. Maybe the other guys would have filled in nicely during these breaks or maybe they would have struggled. I personally liked what I saw when Tu and Lyons were suspended (other than forcing the ball into a triple team) and would have liked several more games of it to see if they could have found their rhythm.

I know some of you can't possibly think that the other players on scholarship might actually have talent and that a big part of why they didn't excel was poor coaching or selfish teammates but it could actually be true. It also might be true that they can't play at this level but seeing the numerous short comings of the offensive set lead me to believe it is at least partially a teammate and coaching issue not simply a lack of talent. Seeing the results of actually going inside to Kenny during the tournament adds additional support to this argument.

[Mr. Neutral]

Actually the X offense never looked better than the game Tu and Lyons were out.

You must be kidding. Really. Sadly, you're not.

Our first game after the UC game was a 64-42 loss to Oral Roberts, and we looked p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c. We didn't look much better in the 68-58 loss to Long Beach State.

madness, you don't have to change your opinion(s), but just 'fess up. Say it loud, say it proud, and repeat after me---"I hate Chris Mack, I hate Holloway, I hate Lyons, I have a mancrush on Frease, I think Taylor/Robinson/Walker are the next coming of Romain Sato, and nothing, including facts and repeated first-hand observations, will change my mind".

[Sonoma Muskie]

Xavier will have perhaps GREAT chemistry BUT will that mean a sweet 16 or NCAA bball appearance??
That is the bottom line!

Is that REALLY The Bottom Line? Or does having an ethical athletic program which advances the ideals stated in the University Mission Statement at all enter into the picture? If not, why not become a version of UNLV with a Midwestern Catholic twist? Surely some donor dollars could seduce a young, ambitious Calipari-like clone to help us sell our soul to the devil for the glory a NCAA Championship run.

[madness31]

No man crush. No hatred. Just disappointment with playing style. And yes blowouts typically happen when shots don't drop but that does not mean the offense looked terrible. The execution was terrible but those are two very different things.

As for the Forward trio, not much feelings at all toward them. They didn't do much but weren't really asked to do much. Would they have produced more under my leadership, yes. Would they be stars, no. Was last year a disappointment, very much so. Not just the record but style of play and the negative media attention.

I respect Tu for the hard work he puts in. I also think his ability to take and make big shots is incredible. He frequently carried the team and for the most part he was forced to because a poor offensive set that forced players to create for themselves rather than work the ball around.

Lyons was a huge waste of talent and athleticism. If he ever gets his head in the game he will be amazing. I suspect Miller will get that to happen and he will put up big numbers next season.

I have no feelings toward Mack other than he seems to be able to attract talent but isn't ready for a head coaching job. His record is very good and his success in the tourney solid but it seems to be more about the talent carrying him then him leading the team. I could be wrong but that is what my analysis tells me. I know your "evidence" tells you other things but surface information is not enough for me. I look at not only what is being done but what could be done. Dribbling is nice and so is taking the ball in for contested lay-ups but passing, cutting, setting screens, etc frequently work better.

[Mr. Neutral]

but that does not mean the offense looked terrible. The execution was terrible but those are two very different things.

No, they're not. If your offensive execution (which is more than hitting shots) is terrible, than your offense IS terrible. When TH and ML were out, it was painfully apparently that the remaining guys (as Wells was out, too), could not, repeat, could not, create a shot, nor could they hit the terrible shots they took.

Would (our forwards) have produced more under my leadership, yes.

Now, that makes me laugh! Thanks! For the record, exactly what is your "leadership"? And, please, dear God, don't point to some grade school or high school coaching. What college-level or higher coaching have you done that backs up this "leadership"??