Houston: Round 2: The Battle for Everything

[cincyguy13]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

Do we know that John Brannen will do that?

For the last 3 years he rode 2 players (Holland & McDonald)

And in his final year, he rode just one player.


he is a guy who like to put the ball in his best players hands.



I also am a firm believer that the best teams in the country, generally know who their best player is.

No, we don’t know if brannen will do this. No one can tell the future. We are hoping he does. Hopefully he can get to the point where that is an option. Where we have enough players to choose from

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

Hmmm I just watched Houston Light us up with straight up nba iso plays.

with the same guy every play the last 10 minutes?

Sasser got hot and made 4 straight, 3 of them very tough

And then Grimes made a tough one, and then Mills made a tough one, and then Hinton made a layup.


4 straight possessions 4 different guys did it.


that sorta seems like exactly what we're talking about.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by justinhub2003

Hmmm I just watched Houston Light us up with straight up nba iso plays.

With multiple players capable of carrying that out. UCF did the same thing with guys who could handle the rock a little.

Put Keith or Harvey (right now) or Jaevin or Tre in the play maker iso and see what they can do. None of them have the ball skills (nor does Jarron) to get themselves open for a good shot. Jarron does it with brute strength and getting his man off balance. He can't use the cross over or quickness to blow by someone.

Keith has some potential if his ball skills get better. MAW is next in line. Harvey has some work to do. Gabe and Saunders have some promise. Probably even Eason if he is guarded by a 4.

[sedziobs]

Originally Posted by cincyguy13

This. If it’s truly random, we’d luck in to something over 25 years. Maybe we were doing something wrong. No one wants to entertain this idea though. Or at least the cronin defender,

We did. We lucked into a sweet sixteen in 2012 when we were 23rd in efficiency. We lucked into the round of 32 in 2015 when we were 44th in efficiency. We lucked into a sweet sixteen in 2001 also. Most seasons we performed to expectation.

Overall we have underperformed in the NCAA tournament. But our results are not even close to significant enough to dismiss random variation.

[cincrulz11]

Also I dont think sampson is a great coach on offense. And I dont think doing what he did is smart. He also did it here and it cost them the game.

Iso'ing for midrange jumpers is terrible offense. I hope he doesn't develop more of an offense than chuck it up and go rebound with all these stud athletes.

Imagine what houston could be if they weren't 222 in eFG% and 254 in 2 point shot %.

They have the talent to be a lot better than that.


But they are 22 in overall offensive efficiency cause their offensive rebounding is so crazy.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

We did. We lucked into a sweet sixteen in 2012 when we were 23rd in efficiency. We lucked into the round of 32 in 2015 when we were 44th in efficiency. We lucked into a sweet sixteen in 2001 also. Most seasons we performed to expectation.

Overall we have underperformed in the NCAA tournament. But our results are not even close to significant enough to dismiss random variation.

I think luck is the best way to put it because we didn't have a coach who regularly exceeded expectation. If we did have that...it would not be considered luck anymore...it would be contributed to the coach for having that certain something that trumped randomness. A coach that knew how to get his guys ready to play AND perform on the biggest stage.

We can go on and on about luck and randomness but the best coaches can out perform random variations IMO. And most of them don't or won't attribute results to it...or they will have lost the battle before playing. I don't think the movie Hoosiers was about luck..it was about the idea of opportunity meeting preparedness...and adding some motivation that other teams can't replicate.

[sedziobs]

Originally Posted by waterhead

I think luck is the best way to put it because we didn't have a coach who regularly exceeded expectation. If we did have that...it would not be considered luck anymore...it would be contributed to the coach for having that certain something that trumped randomness. A coach that knew how to get his guys ready to play AND perform on the biggest stage.

We can go on and on about luck and randomness but the best coaches can out perform random variations IMO. And most of them don't or won't attribute results to it...or they will have lost the battle before playing. I don't think the movie Hoosiers was about luck..it was about the idea of opportunity meeting preparedness...and adding some motivation that other teams can't replicate.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think March specific coaching ability has almost nothing to do with March success. I think random variation/luck explains results more than any narrative. Movies are made about narratives. Real life isn't so predictable.

[cincyguy13]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

We did. We lucked into a sweet sixteen in 2012 when we were 23rd in efficiency. We lucked into the round of 32 in 2015 when we were 44th in efficiency. We lucked into a sweet sixteen in 2001 also. Most seasons we performed to expectation.

Overall we have underperformed in the NCAA tournament. But our results are not even close to significant enough to dismiss random variation.

Didn’t dismiss it here wasn’t some randomness. But to blame everything on randomness is an excuse. Go win some games and make a run once in 30 years. Same with the bengals and reds. Do something in our lifetime. Not sure that asking too much. Maybe it is

[sedziobs]

"Blame" and "excuses" only exist in narratives. They're fun to talk about, but are little more than pareidolia in my opinion.

[cincrulz11]

i had to look up a word