goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: ManBearPig on February 10, 2013, 06:36:43 PM

Title: JO
Post by: ManBearPig on February 10, 2013, 06:36:43 PM
His performance was absolutely awful yesterday. We really need him to give some good minutes on defense tomorrow versus Withey....and catch a rough ridin' pass once in awhile. That was embarrassing.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: CNS on February 10, 2013, 06:39:38 PM
Go easy. He was obvly blinded by the wonderful glory that is Shane

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: JO
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 10, 2013, 06:44:05 PM
I thought Shane's passes to JO were pretty bad.
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: CNS on February 10, 2013, 06:48:09 PM
I thought Shane's passes to JO were pretty bad.

Don't clearly recall the first, but the second was a great one

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: Rage Against the McKee on February 10, 2013, 06:55:56 PM
I thought Shane's passes to JO were pretty bad.

Don't clearly recall the first, but the second was a great one

Sent from my KFTT using Tapatalk 2

The first was way too high for JO to do anything with. The second pass was better, but I wouldn't call it great, either.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: mcmwcat on February 10, 2013, 07:26:55 PM
they were awful passes
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 10, 2013, 07:27:13 PM
His performance was absolutely awful yesterday. We really need him to give some good minutes on defense tomorrow versus Withey....and catch a rough ridin' pass once in awhile. That was embarrassing.

You couldn't have bumped the same thread from the last ISU game two weeks ago?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: 'taterblast on February 10, 2013, 09:21:01 PM
i'm sticking to the "bad matchup" talking point
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sys on February 10, 2013, 09:30:30 PM
they were horrible passes.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: ksupamplemousse on February 10, 2013, 09:50:17 PM
Is there a reason that this thread is pinned? Seems strange.
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: 8manpick on February 10, 2013, 10:11:04 PM
they were awful passes


they were horrible passes.

#TeamJO
Title: Re: JO
Post by: ManBearPig on February 10, 2013, 11:30:59 PM
they were awful passes


they were horrible passes.

#TeamJO
Sorry, i guess everyone can't have the best hands in the state of Kansas
 :gocho:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: AbeFroman on February 11, 2013, 12:52:52 AM
Just because someone used a bad example for why he thought JO was bad does not mean JO isn't still bad. He has regressed significantly.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: j-von on February 11, 2013, 01:16:30 AM
Is there a reason that this thread is pinned? Seems strange.

It's a mod conspiracy against JO.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sys on February 11, 2013, 01:31:08 AM
He has regressed significantly.

look at _fan's chart.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 11, 2013, 01:38:03 AM
He has regressed significantly.

look at _fan's chart.

The same rebuttal used when the morons brought this up last week. We have determined that it is in fact too difficult to even attempt to inform yourself before giving ones really stupid opinion. These people should just say "JO doesn't fit my expectation of what he should be so he's lazy, stupid, and a really shitty basketball player."
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: 8manpick on February 11, 2013, 01:45:36 AM
He has regressed significantly.

look at _fan's chart.

The same rebuttal used when the morons brought this up last week. We have determined that it is in fact too difficult to even attempt to inform yourself before giving ones really stupid opinion. These people should just say "JO doesn't fit my expectation of what he should be so he's lazy, stupid, and a really shitty basketball player."

JO did have a few bad minutes against Iowa State. There were three possessions in a row that he looked bad on, whether it was his fault or the passer's. Then oscar decided he was done for the day, which i hate. Even though Gip played well, there is no reason for DJamer to be taking JO's minutes.
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: ksupamplemousse on February 11, 2013, 02:38:48 AM
He has regressed significantly.

look at _fan's chart.

The same rebuttal used when the morons brought this up last week. We have determined that it is in fact too difficult to even attempt to inform yourself before giving ones really stupid opinion. These people should just say "JO doesn't fit my expectation of what he should be so he's lazy, stupid, and a really shitty basketball player."

JO did have a few bad minutes against Iowa State. There were three possessions in a row that he looked bad on, whether it was his fault or the passer's. Then oscar decided he was done for the day, which i hate. Even though Gip played well, there is no reason for DJamer to be taking JO's minutes.

But DJamer can stay in front of quicker big men...said no one ever.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: wabash909 on February 11, 2013, 08:08:19 AM
I predict JO will play tonight and make a lot of weird faces and arm gestures.


Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 11, 2013, 08:46:40 AM
i bet  he picks his nose again on tv, oh man i will LOL so hard if he does that
Title: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 11, 2013, 10:43:13 AM
JO is frickin horrible.....
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: 8manpick on February 11, 2013, 10:44:47 AM
JO is frickin horrible.....

You sir, are an idiot.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on February 11, 2013, 10:44:56 AM
i bet  he picks his nose again on tv, oh man i will LOL so hard if he does that

best part is he felt the need to go on twitter and explain how it was an itch not a pick  :lol:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: "storm"nut on February 11, 2013, 10:45:59 AM
As a declared bigot by MIR I find this thread racist and offensive.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kso_FAN on February 11, 2013, 10:52:03 AM
I hope JO can snap out of it and oscar can figure out some better ways to use him. The decision to play smaller with Shane at the 4 (which has worked wll) is the thing that has hurt JO the most. Gip has played well in oscar's system and as he's gotten better about not fouling, JO's minutes have dwindles, along with oscar being more willing to throw DJamer out there in spot duty. I like Gip's ability to post and score, but we've got a find a way to get JO's defense and rebounding on the floor. There are still plenty of games left for him to do so. No reason for him not to get 18-20 MPG and split with Gip at the 5 spot.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: SleepFighter on February 11, 2013, 10:53:52 AM
I hope JO can snap out of it and oscar can figure out some better ways to use him. The decision to play smaller with Shane at the 4 (which has worked wll) is the thing that has hurt JO the most. Gip has played well in oscar's system and as he's gotten better about not fouling, JO's minutes have dwindles, along with oscar being more willing to throw DJamer out there in spot duty. I like Gip's ability to post and score, but we've got a find a way to get JO's defense and rebounding on the floor. There are still plenty of games left for him to do so. No reason for him not to get 18-20 MPG and split with Gip at the 5 spot.

I hate this.  I mean, I really, really hate this.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: "storm"nut on February 11, 2013, 10:55:46 AM
I hope JO can snap out of it and oscar can figure out some better ways to use him. The decision to play smaller with Shane at the 4 (which has worked wll) is the thing that has hurt JO the most. Gip has played well in oscar's system and as he's gotten better about not fouling, JO's minutes have dwindles, along with oscar being more willing to throw DJamer out there in spot duty. I like Gip's ability to post and score, but we've got a find a way to get JO's defense and rebounding on the floor. There are still plenty of games left for him to do so. No reason for him not to get 18-20 MPG and split with Gip at the 5 spot.

oscar should go up to JO and tell him to Sweep Jeff's leg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kr24G8jQpM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kr24G8jQpM)

Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 11, 2013, 03:08:28 PM
JO is frickin horrible.....

You sir, are an idiot.

 :ohno:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: 'taterblast on February 11, 2013, 03:08:54 PM
we need JO vs withey
Title: Re: JO
Post by: SwiftCat on February 11, 2013, 03:10:11 PM
I feel bad for JO. He's a really fun player to watch when he's on.
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: 8manpick on February 11, 2013, 03:19:58 PM
JO is frickin horrible.....

You sir, are horribly wrong on this issue.

 :ohno:

That was harsh, I fixed it.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Emo EMAW on February 11, 2013, 03:30:27 PM
The only problem with DJamer (last game) was he bit on the old "hey Ima big man Ima fake this here three pointer oh you bit WOOOP! to the hoop for a layup."
Title: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 11, 2013, 09:32:01 PM
THought I'd bump this up since our man JO is having another steller performance :barf:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: shivvyman on February 11, 2013, 09:35:54 PM
First dunk!
Title: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 11, 2013, 09:39:28 PM
Just posterized by withey! :facepalm:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: shivvyman on February 11, 2013, 09:41:41 PM
crap he got embarassed. What do we always look like a bunch of nancys against KU?

Is it football season yet?
Title: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 11, 2013, 09:53:06 PM
I like JO
Title: Re: JO
Post by: wetwillie on February 11, 2013, 09:53:52 PM
oscar has basically turned his back on him, poor bastard
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Dugout DickStone on February 11, 2013, 09:54:06 PM
oscar should go to jail for what he did to JO.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: shivvyman on February 11, 2013, 09:58:10 PM
Why is it oscar's fault JO can't catch a rough ridin' basketball? I'm not talking about scoring, blocking shots, or passing. I'm just asking him to see basketball and catch basketball.

They need to sit him in front of a jug machine and throw footballs at his ass all day long. Once he can catch those, a basketball should be easy.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 11, 2013, 09:58:38 PM
You guys blaming oscar for JO's inability to play the game of basketball are funny
Title: JO
Post by: puniraptor on February 11, 2013, 10:06:27 PM
It's not like there is a blame shortage. No need to be conservative.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sys on February 11, 2013, 10:19:49 PM
I like JO

yeah, me too.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 11, 2013, 10:22:33 PM
Jo is great, you just never know what you're gonna get from play to play.  Could be a dunk or a block, or a ball fumbled out of bounds or a dumbass foul.

Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 11, 2013, 10:38:35 PM
look at these dudes posting on the basketball board who haven't been here all year, called it in chat

now that the KU game is over these tucks can go back to the football board now
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Powercat Posse on February 11, 2013, 10:45:18 PM
He is trying to impress NBA scouts IMO.  Guards wont pass him the ball because he always squares up and shoots on first touch.  Remember when JO would shoot the ball off of the glass inside of 5 feet on a short jumper or baby hook?   I remember that JO

Unless you throw a freaking perfect Oop, he cant do anything with it.  Angel doesnt even trust him anymore to DOB
Title: Re: JO
Post by: KSUBrian on February 11, 2013, 10:45:42 PM
Weber needs to put the whitey dunk and taunt on an infinite loop on the video board at practice and a monitor above JO's locker. Maybe that would light a fire under his ass.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 11, 2013, 10:49:30 PM
He is trying to impress NBA scouts IMO.

THE definition of talking out of ones ass.
Title: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 11, 2013, 10:52:14 PM
He is trying to impress NBA scouts IMO.
:flush:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: bigwillie20 on February 11, 2013, 10:52:47 PM
Jo is great, you just never know what you're gonna get from play to play.  Could be a dunk or a block, or a ball fumbled out of bounds or a dumbass foul.

Yep
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Berries and Cream on February 11, 2013, 11:09:08 PM
He is trying to impress NBA scouts IMO.

THE definition of talking out of ones ass.

Agree with you here, MIR, but just curious - have seen multiple posts in which you refer to your thoughts on JO. For those of us with short attention spans, can you summarize your thoughts on him?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 11, 2013, 11:12:36 PM
we've got a find a way to get JO's defense and rebounding on the floor.

:lol:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 11, 2013, 11:15:17 PM
He is trying to impress NBA scouts IMO.

THE definition of talking out of ones ass.

Agree with you here, MIR, but just curious - have seen multiple posts in which you refer to your thoughts on JO. For those of us with short attention spans, can you summarize your thoughts on him?

Not sure if serious, I'd bet 10% of my posts are about JO. He is a serviceable D1 big man. I believe, statistically he is still our best rebounder. He is average around the basket considering his build. He is great facing up and above the rim. People that complain about him haven't been able to formulate coherent thought about why he sucks. People hate him because for some reason they expect him to be a 15/8/3 guy and I have no idea why. His numbers would be better in the pinch post offense but that offense isn't here, c'est la vie.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 11, 2013, 11:16:55 PM
He is trying to impress NBA scouts IMO.

THE definition of talking out of ones ass.

Agree with you here, MIR, but just curious - have seen multiple posts in which you refer to your thoughts on JO. For those of us with short attention spans, can you summarize your thoughts on him?

Not sure if serious, I'd bet 10% of my posts are about JO. He is a serviceable D1 big man. I believe, statistically he is still our best rebounder. He is average around the basket considering his build. He is great facing up and above the rim. People that complain about him haven't been able to formulate coherent thought about why he sucks. People hate him because for some reason they expect him to be a 15/8/3 guy and I have no idea why. His numbers would be better in the pinch post offense but that offense isn't here, c'est la vie.

You do know JO's post defense is rough ridin' horrid, don't you?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 11, 2013, 11:17:40 PM
I believe, statistically he is still our best rebounder...People that complain about him haven't been able to formulate coherent thought about why he sucks. People hate him because for some reason they expect him to be a 15/8/3 guy and I have no idea why.

on cue

we've got a find a way to get JO's defense and rebounding on the floor.

:lol:

see berries, the dumbasses make it pretty easy
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sys on February 11, 2013, 11:18:19 PM
we've got a find a way to get JO's defense and rebounding on the floor.

:lol:

had five rebounds in 18 minutes.  two of the team's six oboards.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 11, 2013, 11:18:47 PM
I believe, statistically he is still our best rebounder...People that complain about him haven't been able to formulate coherent thought about why he sucks. People hate him because for some reason they expect him to be a 15/8/3 guy and I have no idea why.

on cue

we've got a find a way to get JO's defense and rebounding on the floor.

:lol:

see berries, the dumbasses make it pretty easy

Protip: It can't be "on cue" if I posted before you.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 11, 2013, 11:19:01 PM
He is trying to impress NBA scouts IMO.

THE definition of talking out of ones ass.

Agree with you here, MIR, but just curious - have seen multiple posts in which you refer to your thoughts on JO. For those of us with short attention spans, can you summarize your thoughts on him?

Not sure if serious, I'd bet 10% of my posts are about JO. He is a serviceable D1 big man. I believe, statistically he is still our best rebounder. He is average around the basket considering his build. He is great facing up and above the rim. People that complain about him haven't been able to formulate coherent thought about why he sucks. People hate him because for some reason they expect him to be a 15/8/3 guy and I have no idea why. His numbers would be better in the pinch post offense but that offense isn't here, c'est la vie.

You do know JO's post defense is rough ridin' horrid, don't you?

no, tell me. Can you also tell me how his rebounding is also rough ridin' horrid?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 11, 2013, 11:22:22 PM
He is trying to impress NBA scouts IMO.

THE definition of talking out of ones ass.

Agree with you here, MIR, but just curious - have seen multiple posts in which you refer to your thoughts on JO. For those of us with short attention spans, can you summarize your thoughts on him?

Not sure if serious, I'd bet 10% of my posts are about JO. He is a serviceable D1 big man. I believe, statistically he is still our best rebounder. He is average around the basket considering his build. He is great facing up and above the rim. People that complain about him haven't been able to formulate coherent thought about why he sucks. People hate him because for some reason they expect him to be a 15/8/3 guy and I have no idea why. His numbers would be better in the pinch post offense but that offense isn't here, c'est la vie.

You do know JO's post defense is rough ridin' horrid, don't you?

no, tell me. Can you also tell me how his rebounding is also rough ridin' horrid?

No, because it's not (not as good as it should be, but not horrid). But his post D is.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Powercat Posse on February 12, 2013, 12:01:11 AM
I would like him better if he just played his role better.  I feel he is too concerned with scoring points.  He can get that 12-14 foot jumper whenever he wants, but sometimes, he has it in his mind as soon as the catches the ball, he is going to square up and shoot

We dont need him to score unless its off of a rebound or being 2 feet from the goal and actually catching a ball when his man goes to help. 

I have no issue with his rebounding, but he hasnt put focus into being a very good defensive player this year. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 12:13:45 AM
There were at least 3 times tonight that he had that shot and passed it up only to lead to no points. If you can't/don't want to take open 12 footers you should quit basketball. There is no level beyond B team middle school that any coach play anyone and tell them not to take open 12 footers. If you have a player that even isn't a threat to shoot from there they should get off the court because you're playing 5 on 4.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Powercat Posse on February 12, 2013, 01:16:03 AM
There were at least 3 times tonight that he had that shot and passed it up only to lead to no points. If you can't/don't want to take open 12 footers you should quit basketball. There is no level beyond B team middle school that any coach play anyone and tell them not to take open 12 footers. If you have a player that even isn't a threat to shoot from there they should get off the court because you're playing 5 on 4.

Went and looked at box scores.  Now i know i talked about him shooting 12 footers, but JO has missed 11 of last 13  and is 5-19 on shots being deemed a "jump shot" in conf play.  Those could be 5 foot shots or 12 foot jump shots, but 5-19 is terrible dude.  16-22 on layups/dunks/tips.   Sorry, but if he is not getting a stickback or a dunk or from someone driving in and giving him an easy layup,  i dont want him thinking offense.  Focus on being a stud on D.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 01:49:05 AM
There were at least 3 times tonight that he had that shot and passed it up only to lead to no points. If you can't/don't want to take open 12 footers you should quit basketball. There is no level beyond B team middle school that any coach play anyone and tell them not to take open 12 footers. If you have a player that even isn't a threat to shoot from there they should get off the court because you're playing 5 on 4.

Went and looked at box scores.  Now i know i talked about him shooting 12 footers, but JO has missed 11 of last 13  and is 5-19 on shots being deemed a "jump shot" in conf play.  Those could be 5 foot shots or 12 foot jump shots, but 5-19 is terrible dude.  16-22 on layups/dunks/tips.   Sorry, but if he is not getting a stickback or a dunk or from someone driving in and giving him an easy layup,  i dont want him thinking offense.  Focus on being a stud on D.

that is well below 2 shots a game, its fine man.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: mocat on February 12, 2013, 07:42:17 AM
oscar should go to jail for what he did to JO.

This was the first thing that made me laugh since last night.  :lol:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2013, 07:45:01 AM
Just catch the ball and dunk it Jo.   

A 7 footer that gets stuffed by the rim is not good.

Title: Re: JO
Post by: meow meow on February 12, 2013, 08:13:10 AM
pretty hilarious watching JO try and take a charge last night
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 12, 2013, 09:00:21 AM
JO has been fine in some other games.  He played great against Florida, for instance.  And I think he'll be alright in our next four against non-good big men - Baylor, WVU, Texas, Tech. 

But, narrowed exclusively to the KU game, he was absolutely, unequivocally, horrible.  That's all there is to it.  His stat line was rough ridin' garbage.  18 minutes - 2pts, 0 FT attempts, 5 boards, 3 turnovers.  Meanwhile, Withey and Kevin rough ridin' Young combined for 30 pts.  JO and Gip got absolutely abused. 

Posterized, figuratively and literally.     

Like I said, against the rest of our schedule - teams who don't have good big men - I anticipate that JO, and especially GIP, will be much better. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: bigwillie20 on February 12, 2013, 09:07:03 AM
Just catch the ball

That would be a good start
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kso_FAN on February 12, 2013, 09:07:58 AM
JO has been fine in some other games.  He played great against Florida, for instance.  And I think he'll be alright in our next four against non-good big men - Baylor, WVU, Texas, Tech. 

But, narrowed exclusively to the KU game, he was absolutely, unequivocally, horrible.  That's all there is to it.  His stat line was rough ridin' garbage.  18 minutes - 2pts, 0 FT attempts, 5 boards, 3 turnovers.  Meanwhile, Withey and Kevin rough ridin' Young combined for 30 pts.  JO and Gip got absolutely abused. 

Posterized, figuratively and literally.     

Like I said, against the rest of our schedule - teams who don't have good big men - I anticipate that JO, and especially GIP, will be much better. 

Yes, you made the point well yesterday about our bigs and last night affirmed it.

KU is an awful match-up for us inside, but very few teams have a Withey. Most of the time we'll have better match-ups and Gip will be able to get a few in the lane. And Rodney won't be blocked every other time he attacks the rim. And in general our players won't go in the lane and change their shots.

Also reaffirmed that our best strategy against a team like that is what we tried in the first game; shoot 30 3s and hope you make 40%.

Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 12, 2013, 09:26:36 AM
JO has been fine in some other games.  He played great against Florida, for instance.  And I think he'll be alright in our next four against non-good big men - Baylor

what?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 12, 2013, 10:06:15 AM
JO has been fine in some other games.  He played great against Florida, for instance.  And I think he'll be alright in our next four against non-good big men - Baylor

what?

Yeah, Baylor's bigs are quality.  However, I'm still not concerned like I am with a Withey.  Austin and Jefferson are both solid, but I've seen several games where Austin has dissapeared under pressure.  He's still a freshman.  Puts up some solid numbers, but he doesn't change a team's game plan like Withey does, IMO. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 11:18:50 AM
JO has been fine in some other games.  He played great against Florida, for instance.  And I think he'll be alright in our next four against non-good big men - Baylor

what?

Yeah, Baylor's bigs are quality.  However, I'm still not concerned like I am with a Withey.  Austin and Jefferson are both solid, but I've seen several games where Austin has dissapeared under pressure.  He's still a freshman.  Puts up some solid numbers, but he doesn't change a team's game plan like Withey does, IMO.

Yeah the Baylor bigs, while skilled, aren't nearly as physical or aggressive as Withey is. I actually think Gip would have been pretty good last night if he could have stayed on the floor. He looked pretty aggressive and his energy was good the few minutes he had.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 12, 2013, 11:22:55 AM
JO has been fine in some other games.  He played great against Florida, for instance.  And I think he'll be alright in our next four against non-good big men - Baylor

what?

Yeah, Baylor's bigs are quality.  However, I'm still not concerned like I am with a Withey.  Austin and Jefferson are both solid, but I've seen several games where Austin has dissapeared under pressure.  He's still a freshman.  Puts up some solid numbers, but he doesn't change a team's game plan like Withey does, IMO.

Yeah the Baylor bigs, while skilled, aren't nearly as physical or aggressive as Withey is. I actually think Gip would have been pretty good last night if he could have stayed on the floor. He looked pretty aggressive and his energy was good the few minutes he had.

His nonchalant, "Well, wtf can I do?" walk to the bench after #5 last night was the highlight of the evening for me. We were cracking up at his face (a combination of :dubious: and :rolleyes:).
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Gooch on February 12, 2013, 12:28:09 PM
I want good JO back from the end of last year. :cry:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 12, 2013, 12:41:02 PM
Just remember that JO wasn't "good" last year against KU either.  He had 8pts and 9boards in both games combined. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: theKSU on February 12, 2013, 12:44:45 PM
He appeared to be roughly a foot shorter than Withey in the game last night.

Also guards pass him the ball too often, and it results in a turnover about 70% of the time. He should just have his face to the basket at all times waiting for a rebound.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: CNS on February 12, 2013, 12:52:49 PM
I didn't think JO was bad last night.   :dunno:  Have not looked at stats.

Also, JO's miss last night was def a bad dump off pass. 

He also was the recipient of two of the worst lobs I have seen from our guards, in the last two years.

I still wish we could see him as a 4 that plays 10-12' out and faces up.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 12:54:34 PM
I didn't think JO was bad last night.   :dunno:  Have not looked at stats.

Also, JO's miss last night was def a bad dump off pass. 

He also was the recipient of two of the worst lobs I have seen from our guards, in the last two years.

I still wish we could see him as a 4 that plays 10-12' out and faces up.

:thumbs:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2013, 01:00:28 PM
The first lob was off a little, but you don't go up one handed, the second was just fine and Jo made it absolutely comical.

Title: Re: JO
Post by: CNS on February 12, 2013, 01:01:31 PM
The first lob was off a little, but you don't go up one handed, the second was just fine and Jo made it absolutely comical.

He had to attack that one one handed.  it was very high and behind where JO was positioned.  He had to one hand it just to get to it.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2013, 01:04:20 PM
The first lob was off a little, but you don't go up one handed, the second was just fine and Jo made it absolutely comical.

He had to attack that one one handed.  it was very high and behind where JO was positioned.  He had to one hand it just to get to it.

Which is why Jo is a 7 footer, playing at about 6-6, it wasn't off by that much.

The guy is 7 feet tall and got stuffed by the rim last night and he was right at the rim to start.


Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 01:05:49 PM
The first lob was off a little, but you don't go up one handed, the second was just fine and Jo made it absolutely comical.

He had to attack that one one handed.  it was very high and behind where JO was positioned.  He had to one hand it just to get to it.

Which is why Jo is a 7 footer, playing at about 6-6, it wasn't off by that much.

The guy is 7 feet tall and got stuffed by the rim last night and he was right at the rim to start.

He isn't quite 7 feet tall, but the fact that he plays way smaller with the ball is an absolute legit critique.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: wabash909 on February 12, 2013, 01:05:56 PM
JO, for the most part sucks.

Title: Re: JO
Post by: CNS on February 12, 2013, 01:06:57 PM
The first lob was off a little, but you don't go up one handed, the second was just fine and Jo made it absolutely comical.

He had to attack that one one handed.  it was very high and behind where JO was positioned.  He had to one hand it just to get to it.

Which is why Jo is a 7 footer, playing at about 6-6, it wasn't off by that much.

The guy is 7 feet tall and got stuffed by the rim last night and he was right at the rim to start.

7' ers (which he isn't) can still be overthrown. 

Also, JO has been here long enough for us to get over his lack of physicality at the rim.  It's been 4 yrs and yet most ppl can't get over that and actually see the value he does bring. 

Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 01:08:03 PM
JO, for the most part sucks.

fantastic insight, great take
Title: Re: JO
Post by: wabash909 on February 12, 2013, 01:11:49 PM
JO, for the most part sucks.

fantastic insight, great take

You're right, it's better to hyper-analyze it a thousand times over.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 01:19:16 PM
JO, for the most part sucks.

fantastic insight, great take

You're right, it's better to hyper-analyze it a thousand times over.

true, not being sarcastic this time
Title: Re: JO
Post by: sonofdaxjones on February 12, 2013, 01:26:39 PM
The first lob was off a little, but you don't go up one handed, the second was just fine and Jo made it absolutely comical.

He had to attack that one one handed.  it was very high and behind where JO was positioned.  He had to one hand it just to get to it.

Which is why Jo is a 7 footer, playing at about 6-6, it wasn't off by that much.

The guy is 7 feet tall and got stuffed by the rim last night and he was right at the rim to start.

He isn't quite 7 feet tall, but the fact that he plays way smaller with the ball is an absolute legit critique.

Yeah, with the ball.

Really the only thing that really bugs me about Jo are his silly fouls and his hands.   I know people get tired of hearing about his hands, but how many more times could we be all  :love: about Jo if he'd just handle the ball cleanly??   On the fouls, straight up, don't come down with the arms/hands and go up with both hands at times keeping the other forearm off the offensive players body.   From my observation he wants to Mutumbo too many shots rather than just making the shooter adjust or slightly deflecting the ball.

To me, the two almost go hand in hand, better hands probably means more clean boards and more put backs, and fewer fouls means he's in the game more.

Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 12, 2013, 01:28:35 PM
The first lob was off a little, but you don't go up one handed, the second was just fine and Jo made it absolutely comical.

He had to attack that one one handed.  it was very high and behind where JO was positioned.  He had to one hand it just to get to it.

Which is why Jo is a 7 footer, playing at about 6-6, it wasn't off by that much.

The guy is 7 feet tall and got stuffed by the rim last night and he was right at the rim to start.

He isn't quite 7 feet tall, but the fact that he plays way smaller with the ball is an absolute legit critique.

Yeah, with the ball.

Really the only thing that really bugs me about Jo are his silly fouls and his hands.   I know people get tired of hearing about his hands, but how many more times could we be all  :love: about Jo if he'd just handle the ball cleanly??   On the fouls, straight up, don't come down with the arms/hands and go up with both hands at times keeping the other forearm off the offensive players body.   From my observation he wants to Mutumbo too many shots rather than just making the shooter adjust or slightly deflecting the ball.

To me, the two almost go hand in hand, better hands probably means more clean boards and more put backs, and fewer fouls means he's in the game more.

Maybe I'm misremembering things, but other than last night JO hasn't been sitting due to foul trouble. He's been sitting due to shittiness.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 12, 2013, 01:35:12 PM
I didn't think JO was bad last night.   :dunno:  Have not looked at stats.


Look at the stats. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 01:37:53 PM
Maybe I'm misremembering things, but other than last night JO hasn't been sitting due to foul trouble. He's been sitting due to shittiness.

He sat against ISU because the matchup was bad for him, every other both he and Gip have lost minutes because oscar insists on giving decent minutes to Nino and DJamer. There was a two game stretch where he and Gip had bad foul trouble and Weber had to use Nino and DJamer more and oscar just kind of stuck to that rotation for whatever reason.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 01:52:32 PM
JO bashers, in case you missed it

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg740095#msg740095

I'm guessing many of you don't keep up with that thread, you should less chance that you'll appear to just be talking out of your asses
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Powercat Posse on February 12, 2013, 03:16:50 PM
Last 6 games of last year, JO played great ball.    Dont expect him to put up those stats with this team this system.   But just for comparison=

------------- 2012 last 6 games ----- 2013 conf games (11)-------
Min/gm            31.7 (190 toal)               16.2 (178)
FTAs                 31                                 12
ORs                  32                                 16
Blocks               21                                17
Fouls                 18                                29

His fouls are a lot worse.   And 12 FTA in 11 games. Really?   So he gets to the line and shoots 2 FTs once every 30 minutes.
Luis Colon was an invisible body on offense and in 16 conf games in 2010, he shot 17 FTs (playing 15.4 min/gm).   So basicly the exact same

His 5-19 on shooting short or medium range jumpers are not what we need.  Go be a beast on the O-boards and do a better job of playing defense (thus not committing so many fouls)
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 12, 2013, 04:50:29 PM
Look, JO is a decent player.  But, under oscar's system, he just isn't doing very well in a lot of games.  Maybe oscar should change his system.  I think most fans are good with the system, though, and would prefer that JO adapt. 

It's really easy to explain away his sub-par performances as "matchup problems," but I'd argue that good players create matchup problems much more often than they do suffer from them. 

We're 11 games through Conference play and JO has been entirely ineffective in 5 of these games because of matchup problems.  KUx2, ISUx2, and OSUx1.  In these 5 games, JO's got 10 pts and 17 boards.  This is startling ineffective.  It's also startling because these just happen to be the 3 other best teams in the Conference. 

So, in other words, JO has performed well against all Conference opponents except the good ones.   

Title: Re: JO
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on February 12, 2013, 04:53:07 PM
Is JO the biggest post-foul whiner we've had recently?
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: 8manpick on February 12, 2013, 04:53:47 PM
JO bashers, in case you missed it

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg740095#msg740095

I'm guessing many of you don't keep up with that thread, you should less chance that you'll appear to just be talking out of your asses

This
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: 8manpick on February 12, 2013, 04:54:26 PM
Is JO the biggest post-foul whiner we've had recently?
:ck:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 12, 2013, 04:57:39 PM
Is JO the biggest post-foul whiner we've had recently?


NO, Curtis Kelly wins that award 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 12, 2013, 05:01:12 PM
Is JO the biggest post-foul whiner we've had recently?


NO, Curtis Kelly wins that award 

Hence,

:ck:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 05:02:39 PM
Look, JO is a decent player.  But, under oscar's system, he just isn't doing very well in a lot of games.  Maybe oscar should change his system.  I think most fans are good with the system, though, and would prefer that JO adapt. 

Nice to see the softening stance. As far as JO adapting, he isn't a programmable robot, his skills are what they are and they aren't changing. I don't understand why people can't accept this for what it is. He is a bad fit for what the new coach wants to do, it isn't anyone's fault it is just the sitch. It's too bad for JO but I'm also happy for Gip that he is in a system that will allow him to be isolated on the blocks against players that he can take advantage of.

I wonder how many threads we have that are simply titled JO followed by some huffy post about why he sucks?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: CNS on February 12, 2013, 05:12:03 PM
Look, JO is a decent player.  But, under oscar's system, he just isn't doing very well in a lot of games.  Maybe oscar should change his system.  I think most fans are good with the system, though, and would prefer that JO adapt. 

Nice to see the softening stance. As far as JO adapting, he isn't a programmable robot, his skills are what they are and they aren't changing. I don't understand why people can't accept this for what it is. He is a bad fit for what the new coach wants to do, it isn't anyone's fault it is just the sitch. It's too bad for JO but I'm also happy for Gip that he is in a system that will allow him to be isolated on the blocks against players that he can take advantage of.

I wonder how many threads we have that are simply titled JO followed by some huffy post about why he sucks?

I agree about the fit and the sitch.  My complaint is that we aren't exactly dripping with bigs, so we should be finding ways to make the two we have successful.  I get the oscar component, but rome wasn't built in a day.  Use what you have and transition into what you want as you get the players you want. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: michigancat on February 12, 2013, 05:22:35 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS7IxxHI0M8
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Powercat Posse on February 12, 2013, 05:35:45 PM
Its just not his offense that is the issue for me.   If he was being a beast on defense, i could overlook some of the problems on O.   But his D has been way too inconsistent.  He fouls too much.  His blocks are not down that much but i dont feel he changes as many shots as he was last year either

Isu was a bad matcup for him defensivly, but everyone else in this league he shouldnt have that much difficulty
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 12, 2013, 05:40:28 PM
I feel like he's changed 10x the shots he changed his previous 3 years combined. I bet both of our feelings are just reinforcing our feelings about JO instead of a reflection of what is actually happening.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: EllRobersonisInnocent on February 12, 2013, 05:50:49 PM
Is JO the biggest post-foul whiner we've had recently?


NO, Curtis Kelly wins that award 

Hence,

:ck:

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgifsforum.com%2Fimages%2Fgif%2Fomg%2Fgrand%2F25697554_omg_reaction_gif.gif&hash=0ab721920d59b56b9c1cb78851f8d239ebe24851)
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 12, 2013, 06:22:16 PM
I feel like he's changed 10x the shots he changed his previous 3 years combined. I bet both of our feelings are just reinforcing our feelings about JO instead of a reflection of what is actually happening.

You are occasionally disproportionately mean, but very often wise my friend.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 12, 2013, 09:01:37 PM
Is JO the biggest post-foul whiner we've had recently?


NO, Curtis Kelly wins that award 

Hence,

:ck:


OMG!!! A Curtis Kelly emoticon?   That is freakin awesome!!!!!!!
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kso_FAN on February 13, 2013, 07:41:05 AM
JO is fine, the problem is JO's stretch run last year inflated his expectations. Granted, JO probably would be doing more under Frank and clearly he's the one player on this team that had benefited the least from playing in oscar's system. However, his production the last 3 seasons is pretty consistent, and its not nearly as terrible as its been made out to be by our over-reacting fans. JO is a solid player at 15-20 MPG and he benefits in certain match-ups.

JO's conference stats for each year of his career (http://statsheet.com/mcb/players/player/kansas-state/jordan-henriguez-roberts?per_game=1&tempo_neutral=1&totals=1&plusminus=1&game_type=2&chart1=points_avg&chart2=minutes_avg&chart3=fg_pct)

I think the fan reaction comes largely because he's scoring less and has become a dreadful FT shooter, otherwise he's solid in every category and is a strong rebounder and shot blocker as the numbers above and the per 100 possessions charts show. I think we all just hoped he'd be the 30 minute a game player he became last year, and in oscar's system that just wasn't happening. Plus Gip has improved a bunch and earned his half of the minutes at the 5.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 13, 2013, 08:42:34 AM

...otherwise he's solid in every category and is a strong rebounder and shot blocker as the numbers above and the per 100 possessions charts show.


Except when he plays against the best teams in the Conference, KU, ISU, and OSU, in which case he simply dissapears. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: catzacker on February 13, 2013, 08:53:03 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 09:17:14 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg741948#msg741948
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 13, 2013, 09:20:51 AM
JO is a solid player at 15-20 MPG and he benefits in certain match-ups.

He's a 6'11" senior who has played a ton throughout his career; this isn't good enough now, sorry. You can say I have unrealistic expectations if you want, but I'll disagree. I think you are settling.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 09:22:14 AM
JO is a solid player at 15-20 MPG and he benefits in certain match-ups.

He's a 6'11" senior who has played a ton throughout his career; this isn't good enough now, sorry. You can say I have unrealistic expectations if you want, but I'll disagree. I think you are settling.

settling?  how do you "settle" on the reality of a player's abilities?  your unrealistic expectations are the problem.  what a stupid argument to make.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: catzacker on February 13, 2013, 09:28:28 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg741948#msg741948

So Gip is better than JO in every category except blocks?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 13, 2013, 09:29:06 AM
JO is a solid player at 15-20 MPG and he benefits in certain match-ups.

He's a 6'11" senior who has played a ton throughout his career; this isn't good enough now, sorry. You can say I have unrealistic expectations if you want, but I'll disagree. I think you are settling.

settling?  how do you "settle" on the reality of a player's abilities?  your unrealistic expectations are the problem.  what a stupid argument to make.

Within the context of our opinions of him. My opinion is that he isn't as good as he should be based on a reasonable expectation of year-to-year improvement. I don't find that stupid.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: CNS on February 13, 2013, 09:32:07 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg741948#msg741948

So Gip is better than JO in every category except blocks?

I think this has as much to do with how oscar wants each of them to play when in as it does with Gip's improvement. 

Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 13, 2013, 09:36:10 AM

settling?  how do you "settle" on the reality of a player's abilities?  your unrealistic expectations are the problem.  what a stupid argument to make.


I think it's very realistic to expect JO to perform at a higher level against teams like TCU, Tech, WVU, UT, etc.   

Title: Re: JO
Post by: mcmwcat on February 13, 2013, 09:38:59 AM
heightism is just as bad as racism.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kso_FAN on February 13, 2013, 09:40:09 AM
Again, the JO career story is simple, of all the returners he is the worst fit for oscar's system, but oscar is still trying to find ways to use him.

(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg46.imageshack.us%2Fimg46%2F8168%2F77423971.png&hash=d3f7c071da2affe4e1a161b57232f77ccb06cbc5)

Again, the biggest difference for JO this year is he is playing less and scoring less. In all games shown in the chart his boarding and shot blocking is pretty consistent, but he drops of drastically in scoring and has a lot more turnovers in those games vs KU, ISU, and OSU (the best teams we've played in the Big 12). To me those go together because of his inability to catch in scoring position in those games, but I'll concede some of that is on the passer (Though I assume the passer got the TOs in those situations). Note he is a better rebounder and TOs are way down overall in Big 12 play this year.

And we all know that the minutes are down this year, and way down from the 30 MPG he was playing late last year because oscar's system is using different personnel and Gip/JO are splitting time now. Compounded his reduced minutes is that he's fouling a lot more than he did last year.

It is what it is, and I don't blame JO or oscar.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 09:41:51 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg741948#msg741948

So Gip is better than JO in every category except blocks?


why are you're ignoring the fact that every player on our team seems to have no issue with

oscar’s ability to motivate/coach
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 09:43:19 AM

settling?  how do you "settle" on the reality of a player's abilities?  your unrealistic expectations are the problem.  what a stupid argument to make.


I think it's very realistic to expect JO to perform at a higher level against teams like TCU, Tech, WVU, UT, etc.   



the fact that you're arguing over what's actually happened seems ridiculous
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 09:43:53 AM
JO is a solid player at 15-20 MPG and he benefits in certain match-ups.

He's a 6'11" senior who has played a ton throughout his career; this isn't good enough now, sorry. You can say I have unrealistic expectations if you want, but I'll disagree. I think you are settling.

settling?  how do you "settle" on the reality of a player's abilities?  your unrealistic expectations are the problem.  what a stupid argument to make.

Within the context of our opinions of him. My opinion is that he isn't as good as he should be based on a reasonable expectation of year-to-year improvement. I don't find that stupid.

cool, well your opinion of him is wrong. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: catzacker on February 13, 2013, 09:45:35 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg741948#msg741948

So Gip is better than JO in every category except blocks?


why are you're ignoring the fact that every player on our team seems to have no issue with

oscar’s ability to motivate/coach

You don't think Frank treated him different?  Do you honestly believe every player gets motivated the same way?  jfc, clams.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 09:49:32 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg741948#msg741948

So Gip is better than JO in every category except blocks?


why are you're ignoring the fact that every player on our team seems to have no issue with

oscar’s ability to motivate/coach

You don't think Frank treated him different?  Do you honestly believe every player gets motivated the same way?  jfc, clams.

link?

Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 09:51:08 AM
how can you honestly not see how he's been used differently in the two coaches' offenses?  do you watch the games or are you so #BiD that you boycott everything and just come here to vent?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 13, 2013, 09:58:54 AM

settling?  how do you "settle" on the reality of a player's abilities?  your unrealistic expectations are the problem.  what a stupid argument to make.


I think it's very realistic to expect JO to perform at a higher level against teams like TCU, Tech, WVU, UT, etc.   



the fact that you're arguing over what's actually happened seems ridiculous

what?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: catzacker on February 13, 2013, 10:01:35 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg741948#msg741948

So Gip is better than JO in every category except blocks?


why are you're ignoring the fact that every player on our team seems to have no issue with

oscar’s ability to motivate/coach

You don't think Frank treated him different?  Do you honestly believe every player gets motivated the same way?  jfc, clams.

link?

pfft.  ok, dax.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kso_FAN on February 13, 2013, 10:05:15 AM
how can you honestly not see how he's been used differently in the two coaches' offenses?  do you watch the games or are you so #BiD that you boycott everything and just come here to vent?

Numerical support: http://www.hoop-math.com/KANSAS%20STATE2013.html

Last year JO shot 58% of his shots at the rim (layups/dunks) and made 69%. This year he's shooting 40% of his shots at the rim and making 72%.
Last year JO shot 42% of his shots as 2PT jumpers and made 34%. this year he's shooting 60% of his shots as 2PT jumpers and making 36%.
Plus his FT rate is down from 64% to 47% and his FT% is down from 56% to 30%.

oscar's offense is different, and I'm fine with it.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 10:31:22 AM
JO should be more than a 15-20mpg guy.  His linear growth over the last 3 seasons would indicate he should be more.  Why he’s not?  Probably a variety of reasons (his motivation, oscar’s ability to motivate/coach, ect), but primarily his skill set and how it relates to what oscar wants in his offense.  You can’t simply see a growth pattern over the last 3 years in one “system” and then regression in another “system” and not draw some correlation. 

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=25815.msg741948#msg741948

So Gip is better than JO in every category except blocks?


why are you're ignoring the fact that every player on our team seems to have no issue with

oscar’s ability to motivate/coach

You don't think Frank treated him different?  Do you honestly believe every player gets motivated the same way?  jfc, clams.

link?

pfft.  ok, dax.

a stupid post deserves at least as stupid a response, in my book anyway.  just an imo.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 10:36:39 AM
how can you honestly not see how he's been used differently in the two coaches' offenses?  do you watch the games or are you so #BiD that you boycott everything and just come here to vent?

Numerical support: http://www.hoop-math.com/KANSAS%20STATE2013.html

Last year JO shot 58% of his shots at the rim (layups/dunks) and made 69%. This year he's shooting 40% of his shots at the rim and making 72%.
Last year JO shot 42% of his shots as 2PT jumpers and made 34%. this year he's shooting 60% of his shots as 2PT jumpers and making 36%.
Plus his FT rate is down from 64% to 47% and his FT% is down from 56% to 30%.

oscar's offense is different, and I'm fine with it.

as someone who was very critical in the past of frank's offense, i am fine with oscar's o as well. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: catzacker on February 13, 2013, 10:41:04 AM
My comment about oscar’s coaching/motivation was in specific reference to JO.  Your comment about other players seemed to suggest that everyone else on the team is fine with oscar’s coaching/motivatation, hence my response that JO probably needs something different to motivate him – Frank obviously found that – whether it was burning houses or eye hernias.   But again, those items are periphery (in my opinion) to the driver which is the style of play.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 13, 2013, 10:46:21 AM
JO is a solid player at 15-20 MPG and he benefits in certain match-ups.

He's a 6'11" senior who has played a ton throughout his career; this isn't good enough now, sorry. You can say I have unrealistic expectations if you want, but I'll disagree. I think you are settling.

settling?  how do you "settle" on the reality of a player's abilities?  your unrealistic expectations are the problem.  what a stupid argument to make.

Within the context of our opinions of him. My opinion is that he isn't as good as he should be based on a reasonable expectation of year-to-year improvement. I don't find that stupid.

cool, well your opinion of him is wrong. 

No, my opinion is that he's not good enough relative to what he should be as a senior. I'm sure there are plenty of people in the basketball world who would agree.

oscar's offense isn't causing him to suck ass at the line, suck ass on defense (he does), and suck ass at simple things he still can't do, like catch a ball in close quarters, execute a post move on the low block, etc.

He isn't playing 15 mpg because he doesn't "fit oscar's offense"...he's playing 15 mpg because he sucks at things that are system-independent.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 10:50:39 AM
My comment about oscar’s coaching/motivation was in specific reference to JO.  Your comment about other players seemed to suggest that everyone else on the team is fine with oscar’s coaching/motivatation, hence my response that JO probably needs something different to motivate him – Frank obviously found that – whether it was burning houses or eye hernias.   But again, those items are periphery (in my opinion) to the driver which is the style of play.

so you've chosen to exclude evidence (_FAN's stats) that oscar's coaching/motivational approach is fine (essentially every player on the team, including JO, is playing better than they did the previous year) and instead are measuring him up against an arbitrary level at which you and kougz believe he should be playing.  that's cool too.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 13, 2013, 11:02:24 AM
Most people, including me, want JO to be good.  This team struggles bad when our bigs (see KU) don't contribute......

Some can say it is Bruces' system, others say it is his skill set......It is probably both

Some things to look at:

Getting an alley oop at the rim and getting blocked by.....what for it......the rim=poor skill set
Getting a rebound underneath and getting blocked/tied up by someone 6" shorter than him=poor skill set
Losing a ball under the goal due to stone hands=poor skill set
Complaining after every call against him=poor sportsmanship :ck:
More fouls called on him=poor skill set/out of position
Less minutes=oscar's system/poor skill set/bad match ups/foul trouble

Most of his problems appear to be poor skill set.....he get's those corrected, he will be a force!
Title: Re: JO
Post by: catzacker on February 13, 2013, 11:12:38 AM
My comment about oscar’s coaching/motivation was in specific reference to JO.  Your comment about other players seemed to suggest that everyone else on the team is fine with oscar’s coaching/motivatation, hence my response that JO probably needs something different to motivate him – Frank obviously found that – whether it was burning houses or eye hernias.   But again, those items are periphery (in my opinion) to the driver which is the style of play.

so you've chosen to exclude evidence (_FAN's stats) that oscar's coaching/motivational approach is fine (essentially every player on the team, including JO, is playing better than they did the previous year) and instead are measuring him up against an arbitrary level at which you and kougz believe he should be playing.  that's cool too.

i don't think it's arbitrary to expect the same type of growth that existed in between his fr-so-jr years.  jfc, who doesn't expect it?  Rod was always going to be Freshman rod?  gmafb.  If JO's #'s are just as "effecient" at 20mpg game last year as they are at 15mpg this year, then oscar is an idiot for not playing him more. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 11:15:59 AM
it's called a ceiling. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 13, 2013, 11:32:51 AM
it's called a ceiling. 

If you hit your ceiling your sophomore year, fans have a right to be disappointed in you.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 12:40:12 PM
it's called a ceiling. 

If you hit your ceiling your sophomore year, fans have a right to be disappointed in you.

the only reason you are disappointed in JO is because you're a dumbass, it really has nothing to do with anything action of oscar or JO.  this has been covered ad nauseum in this thread, but keep up the good fight.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 13, 2013, 12:59:59 PM
it's called a ceiling. 

If you hit your ceiling your sophomore year, fans have a right to be disappointed in you.

the only reason you are disappointed in JO is because you're a dumbass, it really has nothing to do with anything action of oscar or JO.  this has been covered ad nauseum in this thread, but keep up the good fight.


Great point, I'm a dumbass for expecting JO to be better as a senior than he is, based on past performance at or above the level he is now.

And by "great point" I mean "Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) point."
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 01:05:55 PM
the fact that you think that every thing and every one follows a linear development model is rough ridin' stupid, yes. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 13, 2013, 01:10:27 PM
the fact that you think that every thing and every one follows a linear development model is rough ridin' stupid, yes. 

I never said one damn thing about "linear development."
Title: Re: JO
Post by: michigancat on February 13, 2013, 01:12:10 PM
I thought JO was better as a junior than a sophomore. :dunno:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 01:23:17 PM
I thought JO was better as a junior than a sophomore. :dunno:

that doesn't fit their talking point


the fact that you think that every thing and every one follows a linear development model is rough ridin' stupid, yes. 

I never said one damn thing about "linear development."

:lol:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 13, 2013, 01:26:21 PM
I thought JO was better as a junior than a sophomore. :dunno:

If anything, the end of last year proves he's currently nowhere near the ceiling clams is referring to.

But hey, we shouldn't expect him to be, for some dumb reason.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: pissclams on February 13, 2013, 01:29:29 PM
you can want/expect whatever the eff you want, when i was a kid i wanted to be an astronaut.  fortunately for all of us, we don't have a 6 page thread here blaming oscar and wondering why i didn't make it to my potential.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kougar24 on February 13, 2013, 01:32:52 PM
you can want/expect whatever the eff you want, when i was a kid i wanted to be an astronaut.  fortunately for all of us, we don't have a 6 page thread here blaming oscar and wondering why i didn't make it to my potential.

that IS fortunate. PI'ing in space would be dangerous.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: catzacker on February 13, 2013, 01:45:52 PM
I thought JO was better as a junior than a sophomore. :dunno:

that doesn't fit their talking point


like, actually, that perfectly fits my talking point about showing improvement every year except this year.  if your opinion is that last year was his ceiling, fine.  I don't think that.  I think he could/should be better and has regressed.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 13, 2013, 02:19:56 PM
If we're ever in a tight game, needing a bucket.  Does anybody want the ball in JO's hands? 

 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: kso_FAN on February 13, 2013, 02:21:59 PM
I think the problem with JO is that people want to make his performance this year someone's "fault" and I'm not sure anyone is really at "fault".

He went from a system that played 2 true bigs, to a system that plays 1. JO didn't get worse, but Gip got better and more importantly got into better shape so he can play more effective minutes. Plus, Gip seems to "fit" better into oscar's offense. Regardless, JO is a much different offensive system, and therefore is getting different shots.

Rebounding is better. He turns it over less. Blocking shots at a similar rate. But he fouls more and is shooting more 2PT jumps shots and less at the rim, thus his shooting %-age is down and so is his scoring.

Much of last season he was Franked around, it wasn't until the last 9 games that Frank made him a 25-30 minute player and he played the best basketblal of his career. Unfortunately the changes with oscar's system haven't allowed a repeat of that and likely won't. However, JO is still a valuable player for us, even if he has struggled scoring in in our toughest league games. This season its never going to be either/or with him and Gip, and to have a chance to win the league and make a run in the tornament, we'll need him to play well and score a better rate. And he seems to have adjusted better to a different role and the changes than our fans.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: wabash909 on February 13, 2013, 02:38:56 PM
If we're ever in a tight game, needing a bucket.  Does anybody want the ball in JO's hands?

Actually putting the ball in JO's hands would be the first challenge to overcome.


Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 13, 2013, 02:46:09 PM
Against teams like TCU, JO is quite good. 

Against teams like KU, JO is quite bad. 

We just need to play more teams like TCU, I guess. 
Title: Re: JO
Post by: PIPE on February 13, 2013, 03:25:43 PM
If we're ever in a tight game, needing a bucket.  Does anybody want the ball in JO's hands?

Actually putting the ball in JO's hands would be the first challenge to overcome.

 :lol:
Title: Re: JO
Post by: steve dave on February 13, 2013, 03:27:17 PM
Against teams like TCU, JO is quite good. 

Against teams like KU, JO is quite bad. 

This goes for most players though. Especially players that rely on their size.
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 13, 2013, 09:32:54 PM
If we're ever in a tight game, needing a bucket.  Does anybody want the ball in JO's hands?

Why the hell would you want that even if JO met your expectations? If I'm KU I wouldn't want the ball in Withey's hands down the stretch. If I'm UK I wouldn't want the ball in Noel's hands down the stretch. Last year the #1 draft pick didn't get the ball in his hands when his team needed a bucket. I can't remember the last center in college basketball who got the ball in this situation, David Robinson?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: Belvis Noland on February 13, 2013, 09:34:33 PM
If we're ever in a tight game, needing a bucket.  Does anybody want the ball in JO's hands?

Why the hell would you want that even if JO met your expectations? If I'm KU I wouldn't want the ball in Withey's hands down the stretch. If I'm UK I wouldn't want the ball in Noel's hands down the stretch. Last year the #1 draft pick didn't get the ball in his hands when his team needed a bucket. I can't remember the last center in college basketball who got the ball in this situation, David Robinson?

Thomas Robinson?
Title: Re: JO
Post by: MakeItRain on February 13, 2013, 09:39:12 PM
If we're ever in a tight game, needing a bucket.  Does anybody want the ball in JO's hands?

Why the hell would you want that even if JO met your expectations? If I'm KU I wouldn't want the ball in Withey's hands down the stretch. If I'm UK I wouldn't want the ball in Noel's hands down the stretch. Last year the #1 draft pick didn't get the ball in his hands when his team needed a bucket. I can't remember the last center in college basketball who got the ball in this situation, David Robinson?

Thomas Robinson?

When Tyshawn wanted him to have it. He also wasn't their center.
Title: Re: Re: JO
Post by: 8manpick on February 13, 2013, 11:57:14 PM
If we're ever in a tight game, needing a bucket.  Does anybody want the ball in JO's hands?

Why the hell would you want that even if JO met your expectations? If I'm KU I wouldn't want the ball in Withey's hands down the stretch. If I'm UK I wouldn't want the ball in Noel's hands down the stretch. Last year the #1 draft pick didn't get the ball in his hands when his team needed a bucket. I can't remember the last center in college basketball who got the ball in this situation, David Robinson?

Thomas Robinson?

When Tyshawn wanted him to have it. He also wasn't their center.
Collison