SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Anyone can read this board. However, to post messages, you must register.
Post Reply
NJwave
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:18 pm

SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by NJwave »

I thought we played better. Led at the half. Hunter ejected. The effort was there but just can’t rebound and we aren’t getting to the line.

tjtlja
President's Circle
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by tjtlja »

Much better effort, but the better team won. We desperately need a PG. We need smarter basketball players. We need a low post players who can both rebound and score. Days does so many things right, but where is the offense -

SMU 24 minutes, no points, 1 shot
USF 28 minutes, 1 shot, 2 points
ECU 20 minutes, 1 shot, no points
Tulsa 24 minutes, 1 shot, 2 points
UCF 28 minutes, 4 shots, 2 points
Temple 26 minutes, no shots
UConn 24 minutes, 3 shots, 2 points

I could go on but you get the gist. Really don't understand it.

User avatar
FW
Cornerstone
Posts: 31275
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:24 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by FW »

tjtlja wrote:Much better effort, but the better team won. We desperately need a PG. We need smarter basketball players. We need a low post players who can both rebound and score. Days does so many things right, but where is the offense -

SMU 24 minutes, no points, 1 shot
USF 28 minutes, 1 shot, 2 points
ECU 20 minutes, 1 shot, no points
Tulsa 24 minutes, 1 shot, 2 points
UCF 28 minutes, 4 shots, 2 points
Temple 26 minutes, no shots
UConn 24 minutes, 3 shots, 2 points

I could go on but you get the gist. Really don't understand it.
He averaged 10 ppg his senior of HS.

NJwave
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by NJwave »

tjtlja wrote:Much better effort, but the better team won. We desperately need a PG. We need smarter basketball players. We need a low post players who can both rebound and score. Days does so many things right, but where is the offense -

SMU 24 minutes, no points, 1 shot
USF 28 minutes, 1 shot, 2 points
ECU 20 minutes, 1 shot, no points
Tulsa 24 minutes, 1 shot, 2 points
UCF 28 minutes, 4 shots, 2 points
Temple 26 minutes, no shots
UConn 24 minutes, 3 shots, 2 points

I could go on but you get the gist. Really don't understand it.
I love his effort and all the little things he does like take charges, but a freshman with no offensive ability would not be playing that many minutes on a good team. He needs to put on a lot of weight and develop some post moves and/or a little jumper. We also don’t even look for him.

Baywave1
Regent's Circle
Posts: 7416
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:48 am

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by Baywave1 »

We did shoot better but the other things like rebounding and rim protection matter against better teams. At one point, SMU had 40 points or so in the first 12 minutes of the second half. Giving up an outburst like that, it didn't matter what Tulane did for the other 70% of the game.

I'll say the obvious. The reason why the offense so often looks Conroyesque now unlike earlier in the season is that the players have run out of gas and are saving whatever energy they have for defense. If nothing else, I expect Tulane will run the weave regularly against UH simply to get the players moving on offense.

If it matters to you bettors, the three made FTs off the Hunter ejection were the difference in SMU covering. The Houston spread will be double digit, maybe as much as 14 or 15. No that does not make them an attractive underdog.

User avatar
PeteRasche
Emerald Circle
Posts: 23547
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by PeteRasche »

NJwave wrote:We also don’t even look for him.
Worth noting, and maybe something that should be considered. This reminds me of when Fritz arrived at Tulane and (supposedly) no WR wanted to come here because Fritz "ran the triple option" and "never threw". Does Hunterball not ever look inside? Will we have difficulty recruiting inside players? I never really looked to see if Hunter ever had a decent inside player at GSU. Do we even know if he cares whether he has one (has Hunter mentioned needing a big man in any interviews)? Remember, Dunleavy didn't care to have forwards, he just wanted a single center and four tall shooters at guard. Maybe Hunter basically just wants the equivalent of five 3-men or something.

NJwave
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by NJwave »

PeteRasche wrote:
NJwave wrote:We also don’t even look for him.
Worth noting, and maybe something that should be considered. This reminds me of when Fritz arrived at Tulane and (supposedly) no WR wanted to come here because Fritz "ran the triple option" and "never threw". Does Hunterball not ever look inside? Will we have difficulty recruiting inside players? I never really looked to see if Hunter ever had a decent inside player at GSU. Do we even know if he cares whether he has one (has Hunter mentioned needing a big man in any interviews)? Remember, Dunleavy didn't care to have forwards, he just wanted a single center and four tall shooters at guard. Maybe Hunter basically just wants the equivalent of five 3-men or something.

I’ll take it a step further. In a league like the Sun Belt does anybody make much of an effort to recruit a dominant big man? It’s got to be next to impossible to get a 3 or 4 star center. It’s much easier to find a a bunch of guards that can shoot.

Thompson takes the ball to the hoop well and is strong. I don’t remember us ever posting him up against a smaller guard.

I paid a lot of attention last night as to why we got destroyed on the boards. It wasn’t Days. He worked his butt off and it wasn’t the guy in his area that got the rebound. It often looks like it might be because he is near the ball, but if you really look he is boxing his guy out. It’s the wings not doing their job. Thompson does a good job boxing out and fighting for the rebound. Nobody else puts a body on anybody.

Until we get some second chance points and some easy baskets inside, we will have to shoot the lights out to be competitive.

NJwave
Regent's Circle
Posts: 5055
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:18 pm

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by NJwave »

To further my point, I just looked at Georgia State’s roster last year. Tallest player was 6’9 and nobody was listed as a center.

wavedom
Coach Level
Posts: 1939
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:22 pm

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by wavedom »

PeteRasche wrote:
NJwave wrote:We also don’t even look for him.
Worth noting, and maybe something that should be considered. This reminds me of when Fritz arrived at Tulane and (supposedly) no WR wanted to come here because Fritz "ran the triple option" and "never threw". Does Hunterball not ever look inside? Will we have difficulty recruiting inside players? I never really looked to see if Hunter ever had a decent inside player at GSU. Do we even know if he cares whether he has one (has Hunter mentioned needing a big man in any interviews)? Remember, Dunleavy didn't care to have forwards, he just wanted a single center and four tall shooters at guard. Maybe Hunter basically just wants the equivalent of five 3-men or something.
In addition to his comments about only playing zone and only playing 7 or 8 guys he also said he never had a big man and that it isn't a priority.
Here we come!

User avatar
waverider
Emerald Circle
Posts: 22450
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm
Location: North Kenner

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by waverider »

wavedom wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
NJwave wrote:We also don’t even look for him.
Worth noting, and maybe something that should be considered. This reminds me of when Fritz arrived at Tulane and (supposedly) no WR wanted to come here because Fritz "ran the triple option" and "never threw". Does Hunterball not ever look inside? Will we have difficulty recruiting inside players? I never really looked to see if Hunter ever had a decent inside player at GSU. Do we even know if he cares whether he has one (has Hunter mentioned needing a big man in any interviews)? Remember, Dunleavy didn't care to have forwards, he just wanted a single center and four tall shooters at guard. Maybe Hunter basically just wants the equivalent of five 3-men or something.
In addition to his comments about only playing zone and only playing 7 or 8 guys he also said he never had a big man and that it isn't a priority.
We make due without a big man if we had more than one outside shooter.

SMU scored 28 in the first half and 54 in the second.
Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson

tjtlja
President's Circle
Posts: 4228
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:07 am

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by tjtlja »

PeteRasche wrote:
NJwave wrote:We also don’t even look for him.
Worth noting, and maybe something that should be considered. This reminds me of when Fritz arrived at Tulane and (supposedly) no WR wanted to come here because Fritz "ran the triple option" and "never threw". Does Hunterball not ever look inside? Will we have difficulty recruiting inside players? I never really looked to see if Hunter ever had a decent inside player at GSU. Do we even know if he cares whether he has one (has Hunter mentioned needing a big man in any interviews)? Remember, Dunleavy didn't care to have forwards, he just wanted a single center and four tall shooters at guard. Maybe Hunter basically just wants the equivalent of five 3-men or something.
Pete, isn't this a major issue? Like any sport, you want and need balance. Are there any teams that make the final 16 without balance. Is that correct?

User avatar
Johnny Mac
Regent's Circle
Posts: 8705
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Charlotte

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by Johnny Mac »

I honestly hope Coach Hunter has an epiphany on what it takes to win in the AAC versus the Sunbelt or whatever conference IUPUI was in when he coached there then suddenly realizes his style needs some tweaks to be able to compete.

He needs to get over "I only do matchup zone.. but don't call it a zone" and "I don't need a big man" and "I only play 8 guys" if he wants to contend in the AAC
Image
YOGWF - of all the Tulane fans in the world, we're the Tulaniest

User avatar
PeteRasche
Emerald Circle
Posts: 23547
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:52 am
Location: Cincinnati, OH

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by PeteRasche »

tjtlja wrote:
PeteRasche wrote:
NJwave wrote:We also don’t even look for him.
Worth noting, and maybe something that should be considered. This reminds me of when Fritz arrived at Tulane and (supposedly) no WR wanted to come here because Fritz "ran the triple option" and "never threw". Does Hunterball not ever look inside? Will we have difficulty recruiting inside players? I never really looked to see if Hunter ever had a decent inside player at GSU. Do we even know if he cares whether he has one (has Hunter mentioned needing a big man in any interviews)? Remember, Dunleavy didn't care to have forwards, he just wanted a single center and four tall shooters at guard. Maybe Hunter basically just wants the equivalent of five 3-men or something.
Pete, isn't this a major issue? Like any sport, you want and need balance. Are there any teams that make the final 16 without balance. Is that correct?
The game is evolving so much that I'd never say never, but in general, it's really hard to rebound out of a zone defense, period. So if you don't even have a true big man in the middle (which Hunter is apparently unconcerned about) you're committing to the idea that you can still win while sacrificing the rebounding battle. That's effectively gambling that you will hit a good percentage of shots on the offensive end (because you aren't getting second-chance points) while simultaneously getting enough steals/turnovers on defense that it offsets the opponent's second-chance scoring. On the offensive end, honestly, it's not completely unlike Dunleavy's plan (shudder). The advantage it has over Dunleavy's plan is on the defensive end, Dunleavy's system didn't maximize forcing turnovers and relied on individuals to be talented enough to stop their man and get the rebound (we did not have that talent except Frazier), whereas Hunter's system allows slightly less-talented players to succeed by using quickness and strategy. The problem with both systems is they live and die by good FG%. Hunter's system also dies if we're too tired to keep up the energy level on defense and get 20+ turnovers. Dunleavy's died defensively because we're not recruiting at the level of Duke or Kentucky (or Virginia).

I honestly don't know whether you can find 7 or 8 guys who can successfully play Hunter's system through an entire season and still have the energy to move the ball, hit shots, and get steals (all at the "level" needed to overcome the accepted rebounding deficit) in February and March, at an AAC (or "national") level. It's possible the system has seen its maximum success at the GSU level (occasional conference titles and an occasional first round upset).

And I see JM basically said the same thing while I was typing this. :lol:

User avatar
OGSB
Emerald Circle
Posts: 16880
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:00 pm

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by OGSB »

Johnny Mac wrote:I honestly hope Coach Hunter has an epiphany on what it takes to win in the AAC versus the Sunbelt or whatever conference IUPUI was in when he coached there then suddenly realizes his style needs some tweaks to be able to compete.

He needs to get over "I only do matchup zone.. but don't call it a zone" and "I don't need a big man" and "I only play 8 guys" if he wants to contend in the AAC
77 wins his first 4 seasons at IUPUI, but they were an NAIA independent. When they moved to the Summit League, 44 wins in 4 seasons.
Past performance is no guarantee of future results

User avatar
FW
Cornerstone
Posts: 31275
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:24 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by FW »

I went to the UT-Chattanooga basketball game yesterday against Western Carolina. WCU had a guy who was 6-8, 280 and just dominated (15 pts, 14 rebounds). UTC's big guys were stretch 4s who could shoot 3s and couldn't guard him. There's still a place for big guys in college basketball today.

User avatar
waverider
Emerald Circle
Posts: 22450
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm
Location: North Kenner

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by waverider »

FW wrote:I went to the UT-Chattanooga basketball game yesterday against Western Carolina. WCU had a guy who was 6-8, 280 and just dominated (15 pts, 14 rebounds). UTC's big guys were stretch 4s who could shoot 3s and couldn't guard him. There's still a place for big guys in college basketball today.
Did you slip Ron Hunter’s number to him? :wink:
Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson

User avatar
FW
Cornerstone
Posts: 31275
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:24 am
Location: Chattanooga, TN

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by FW »

waverider wrote:
FW wrote:I went to the UT-Chattanooga basketball game yesterday against Western Carolina. WCU had a guy who was 6-8, 280 and just dominated (15 pts, 14 rebounds). UTC's big guys were stretch 4s who could shoot 3s and couldn't guard him. There's still a place for big guys in college basketball today.
Did you slip Ron Hunter’s number to him? :wink:
Sadly he’s a senior

ml wave
Emerald Circle
Posts: 11102
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by ml wave »

FW wrote:I went to the UT-Chattanooga basketball game yesterday against Western Carolina. WCU had a guy who was 6-8, 280 and just dominated (15 pts, 14 rebounds). UTC's big guys were stretch 4s who could shoot 3s and couldn't guard him. There's still a place for big guys in college basketball today.
Sure, there's a place...there's just not that many of them (relatively).

User avatar
waverider
Emerald Circle
Posts: 22450
Joined: Sat Jun 26, 2004 5:20 pm
Location: North Kenner

Re: SMU 82 - Tulane 67

Post by waverider »

This should help:
(Didn’t feel the need for another thread so I added here since we are talking the MBB roster.)
Congrats to two-time #BattleForGeorgia alum @SionJames14 on winning Region 8-7A Player of the Year for the second time! He's signed to play for @coachrhunter at @GreenWaveMBB next year.
Tulane Greenbackers

"It's my job to prepare the coaches. It's their job is to prepare the players and the players' job is to play lights out." Willie Fritz

"If you want to win you have to have good players." Vince Gibson

Post Reply