A more relevant corelation to football...

[seshomoru]

We could run the **** out of the ball, so that's what we did. Over, and over, and over, and over. When the run was bottled up, we didn't have the passing game to offset it. To relate it to basketball, the running game is our three point shooting, and the passing game is what we'll have to do if we aren't hitting our threes. That's what people are worried about, some more than others, and some just to be antagonistic. They're concerned we don't have the passing game to the running game, the inside game to the perimeter game, the yin to the yang.

 

[ckDOG]

[No message]

 

[Curly Bill]

as he related it to fans bitching about what we did while winning a game. Sort of like the dickclowns here that ***** about Stans winning games. Just my opinion. I guess it's easier to tell what info a poster is trying to relay if you don't nitpick the hell out of every little thing while being a smartass.

 

[SallyStansbury]

We had to run it last year because we had a nicely developing offensive line, a strong SEC back, and a quality fullback in Hanrahan. Had we not done that, it would have been foolish. The nice thing about Mullen is that he was able to incorporate just enough passing to throw off opposing defenses.

Passing over and over wasn't an option (see either Lee or Relf) or really much of a "Plan B". Thanks Croom.

We will not shoot 3 pointers @ 50% all season. I think we can agree upon that. Rick's "Plan B" is to force it in to Jarvis who will be double and triple teamed. That has generated mixed results at best.

We appear to have additional Plan B options with Ravern driving to the basket (maybe he will prove me wrong, but I still think that a physical defender is going to dislocate Ravern's labia soon) and Osby under the basket and Kodi appears to be able to take people if he receives an entry pass within about 10-15 ft of the basket (Kodi please stop driving over people from the perimeter). These guys can score and appear to do so fairly consistently. These kind of plays are the "Plan B" that we don't run plays for at all. So if this is our passing game, we appear to have better quarterbacks than either Lee or Relf available to give it a shot.
Rick obviously recruited better than Croom, credit Rick.

What I don't want to see is Rick coaching like Croom. Recall Dixon up the middle on first and second down for a gain of nothing with 9 men in the box. This would be like Rick yelling motion, getting none and Randy throwing up a 3 with 6 seconds left on the shot clock (which he hit over and over last night...Credit Barry!). However when the 3's aren't falling, Rick needs to make the adjustment and be ready to run some plays to free up Osby, Kodi, and Ravern. That would be like Mullen coming along and sprinkling in just enough misdirection plays and passing plays to keep us in the ballgame.

 

[Coach34]

as he related it to fans bitching about what we did while winning a game. Sort of like the dickclowns here that ***** about Stans winning games. Just my opinion. I guess it's easier to tell what info a poster is trying to relay if you don't nitpick the hell out of every little thing while being a smartass.

I dont ***** about him beating the Wright State's and the St Bonnie's...his record against top 50 teams is what I ***** about. He doesnt beat good teams very often. Hell, CB9 can coach us to a win over St Bonaventure- its the big games where we see his coaching come into play. My sig says it all

 

[Curly Bill]

so let's just keep it that way. But that's okay since basketball is by far my least favorite and interested sport, which may contribute to why I like Stans. Just win, and he does.

 

[Dawgfan61]

I have no idea why you think you are an authority over sarcasm over I, but nonetheless, the main point I am making is that it seems to be ok to ***** (if your username ends in 99 or 34) about any win Stansbury has (large, small, right on the point spread, etc...) and its obviously better to ***** when he loses. We get it already a small but HIGHLY vocal group of you want Stans gone its obvious and its cool, hell I even understand your reasons. Doesn't mean that I agree or will ever agree.

Make the same identical post on a football win (and your name doesn't end in 34 or 99) and its not ok. Seriously what's the difference. My 3 yr old could detect sarcasm in the egg bowl post. Am I violating some rule? Are any usernames ending in 34 or 99 violating some rule? I just don't get it. If you say just because its your board that's cool I understand, then you will be acting like the very reason this board was created in the first place.

 

[seshomoru]

Am I violating some rule?

yes

 

[Dawgfan61]

nm

 

[Johnson85]

as he related it to fans bitching about what we did while winning a game. Sort of like the dickclowns here that ***** about Stans winning games. Just my opinion. I guess it's easier to tell what info a poster is trying to relay if you don't nitpick the hell out of every little thing while being a smartass.

It would have been a better analogy if Mullen was sitting on talent to have a decent passing game, but had to rely on the run because he wasn't good enough with x's and o's to teach an offense that involved wide receivers.

 

[Dawgfan61]

I don't agree with you but at least you make a valid rebuttal. Does anyone remember when we had Mario Austin? Did we ever try that many 3 pointers then? Has Stans just always been an idiot (in some of your eyes) however he decides to coach? i.e. less 3 point shooting vs. more 3 point shooting?

 

[DerHntr]

i know that 34 fella but not the 99er

 

[DerHntr]

but if you are looking for consistent intelligent responses then i don't believe you have come to the right place. you do know this is a message board on the interwebs right? without the smartasses i wouldn't read the board at all.

 

[pDigital32Dawg]

along with coach.

 

[DerHntr]

wow. referring to him as 99 instead of fish threw me.

it could also be the ignore button that did it.

 

[Dawgfan61]

Do disagree with criticizing a coach for their offensive style when they WIN. No one criticized Mullen for winning with the run in the Egg Bowl. The strength of Stans team may be perimeter players. Or maybe just maybe he is trying to spread the floor to get Jarvis in one-on-one matchups. I don't know what Stans is thinking and neither does 99 or 34, when he wins WHICH IS MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, I am going to give the man the benefit of the doubt. When it reaches a point where he is losing too often I will call for his head just like 99 or 34.

People can post as they please and thats fine. I just don't see what is wrong when I call them out or try to catch them in a contradiction when they do. Like you said its a message board.