SEC Tourney lines and totals

[Coach34]

Bammer/Georgia- Dawgs -1, 122 1/2

Kentucky/Mississippi- Kentucky -9 1/2, 144

Fla/Tenn- Fla -3 1/2, 131 1/2

No line on State/Vandy yet due to Jenkins (It was set at Vandy -8 then pulled off the board)....interesting fun fact- the last 10 games, State and Vandy have alternated wins....and Vandy won during the season soooooo....

 

[615dawg]

Ezell will have a field day, but that will be it if Jenkins doesn't play. I think I'd rather play Florida than Tennessee for some reason, but we did beat both of them in the regular season.

and Ole Miss may very well beat Kentucky. I think Alabama rolls Georgia.

 

[karlchilders.sixpack]

....</p>

 

[jbulldog]

all the favs. If MSU ends up -8 I take MSU.

 

[Coach34]

by everybody that played. We do indeed "live and die by the 3-ball" quite a bit-especially against a zone because thats the only way we know how to attack it.

Jenkins being out helps us tremendously though

 

[Coach34]

.

 

[Columbus Dawg]

nm

 

[Coach34]

Ezekial and Malacai would be too physical for him

 

[Athlete34]

We actually did a good job in a couple of games earlier in the year of getting the ball to Kodi around the foul line against the 2-3 and either having him take the open mid-range shot or playing the high-low game with Sidney.<div>
</div><div>If we were so terrible against the zone, everyone would probably use it against us a lot more... They don't</div>

 

[Coach34]

but very few and far between.

"If we were so terrible against the zone, everyone would probably use it against more... They don't"

we see zone against us every game out- Aubarn used it against us the entire game and slowed the tempo. And we lost- scoring only 62 points

Against SC, we shot 26 3-balls and only 25 2 pt shots- scoring 60 points. Thank goodness Rayvern went 7-14 or we would have lost that one as well.

You might want to watch us play a little more

 

[DawgatAuburn]

You knew they would beat LSU. While I pray we win, if we don't I think it will be Ezeli, Goulbourne and Tchiengana doing a lot of damage. If they do beat us, then they get a third game.

 

[Athlete34]

We shot 42% from 3 point range vs USC compared to 32% from inside the arc, it's not like open 3's against the zone are not what you want, shooting that many when that's your strength and you're getting open shots is not a bad thing. "Shooting too many 3's" vs USC wasn't our problem, nor is it ever when you shoot 42% from 3, allowing them 13 more FG attempts was a little more of the problem<div>
</div><div>You still failed to argue the point. Have we gotten the ball the the foul line against the zone and played "inside out" or thrown over the top of the zone to Sidney? We have, so saying we don't know any other way to attack it is inaccurate.</div><div>
</div><div>Do teams play twice as much man against us as zone? Also a yes</div><div>
</div><div>Using the argument that we scored a certain amount of points or won/lost the game doesn't have anything to do with how we attack the zone, the one thing you said that was right is that the zone slows the tempo, makes you work for a shot more, prolonging each possession, therefore leading to less points scored, which is contradictory to your argument.</div><div>
</div><div>You may want to learn a little more about basketball and spend less time on the internet. Why are you at home watching tv in the middle of every day anyway?</div><div>
</div><div>#WINNING</div><div>
</div>

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

nm

 

[Coach34]

We shot 42% from 3 point range vs USC compared to 32% from inside the arc, it's not like open 3's against the zone are not what you want, shooting that many when that's your strength and you're getting open shots is not a bad thing. "Shooting too many 3's" vs USC wasn't our problem, nor is it ever when you shoot 42% from 3, allowing them 13 more FG attempts was a little more of the problem- we had one guy blow up- the rest of the team was 4-12 from three- 33%...we also had 16 turnovers because we fail so miserable at breaking down a zone...that factors into your "offense" as well

<div>
You still failed to argue the point. Have we gotten the ball the the foul line against the zone and played "inside out" or thrown over the top of the zone to Sidney? We have, so saying we don't know any other way to attack it is inaccurate.- saying that we do a good job of attacking a zone would be the only thing that is "innaccurate"</div><div>
</div><div>Do teams play twice as much man against us as zone? Also a yes</div><div>
</div><div>Using the argument that we scored a certain amount of points or won/lost the game doesn't have anything to do with how we attack the zone, the one thing you said that was right is that the zone slows the tempo, makes you work for a shot more, prolonging each possession, therefore leading to less points scored, which is contradictory to your argument.-
</div><div>
State vs Aubarn- played zone vs us the whole game- 12-24 from 2 pt range (50%)...9-24 from 3 pt range (37.5%)- LOSS...aGAIN- clearly showing that all we know how to do against a zone is jack up 3-balls, and it doesnt matter what kind of success or lack thereof we are having from 2 pt range. Not to mention that 16 turnovers against a team playing zone against you is ridiculous.

</div><div>You may want to learn a little more about basketball and spend less time on the internet. Why are you at home watching tv in the middle of every day anyway?-
</div><div>
Condom salesmen have their offices at home- DUH
</div><div>#WINNING</div><div>
</div>

.