goemaw.com

TITLETOWN - A Decade Long Celebration Of The Greatest Achievement In College Athletics History => Kansas State Basketball is hard => Topic started by: Acceleration Man on December 23, 2010, 09:24:15 PM

Title: It was UMKC, but
Post by: Acceleration Man on December 23, 2010, 09:24:15 PM
I'll give it my best shot.

The good:

Gruds. Pretty solid game all around.  :thumbsup:

Wally. Hey it's a double-double. Yeah, it was vastly inferior competition, but at this point, he needs anything he can get to give him a mental boost.

Sprads on offense. Made good decisions (except the lazy turnover on the steal) and found his shot again. Defense was a lot of plus/minus.

Passing the ball. We moved it around and found some good shots, plus we were pretty decent in transition. Again, inferior competition, but still a plus.

The bad:

Could not pull away. Once again, we're up by a substantial margin, but allow the opposition to come back. Not as bad as it has been, but a real disappointment still in this area.

Still can't hit FTs. Would love to see this start to improve measurably at some point.

The ugly

Point. Blank. Misses. It really is unbelievable how much we can throw it up wildly and bang it off the backboard. Eventually we made some of them, but it's still downright emberassing.

Verdict:

I call it a wash. We moved forward in some areas, while not showing improvement in others. We didn't exactly go backwards, but a lot of that was the competition. However, you take the win and move on.

 :cheese:
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: Immaculate1 on December 23, 2010, 09:28:27 PM
AND I GET IT AGAIN????? IM TOTALLY WATCHING AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :emawkid:
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: 06wildcat on December 23, 2010, 09:28:48 PM
I'll give it my best shot.

The good:

Gruds. Pretty solid game all around.  :thumbsup:

Wally. Hey it's a double-double. Yeah, it was vastly inferior competition, but at this point, he needs anything he can get to give him a mental boost.

Sprads on offense. Made good decisions (except the lazy turnover on the steal) and found his shot again. Defense was a lot of plus/minus.

Passing the ball. We moved it around and found some good shots, plus we were pretty decent in transition. Again, inferior competition, but still a plus.

The bad:

Could not pull away. Once again, we're up by a substantial margin, but allow the opposition to come back. Not as bad as it has been, but a real disappointment still in this area.

Still can't hit FTs. Would love to see this start to improve measurably at some point.

The ugly

Point. Blank. Misses. It really is unbelievable how much we can throw it up wildly and bang it off the backboard. Eventually we made some of them, but it's still downright emberassing.

Verdict:

I call it a wash. We moved forward in some areas, while not showing improvement in others. We didn't exactly go backwards, but a lot of that was the competition. However, you take the win and move on.

 :cheese:

I'd say it was slightly better than a wash...getting starting to see some of the aggression that's been lacking for about the last month. We might be a decent team towards the end of February.
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: Acceleration Man on December 23, 2010, 09:33:04 PM
I'd say it was slightly better than a wash...getting starting to see some of the aggression that's been lacking for about the last month. We might be a decent team towards the end of February.

Well, my comparison was just to the last game, but overall you're right... having some aggression 2 games in a row is a definite plus.
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: mcmwcat on December 23, 2010, 09:41:13 PM
for sys,

Quote
21 Henriquez-Roberts,J.    0-0    0-0    0-0    0  1  1   2   0  0  0  0  0   1
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: 06wildcat on December 23, 2010, 09:50:27 PM
I wouldn't even flinch if we beat one of the Nortards 47-35 (17.5 backdoor cuts) this year. I just have a feeling we're going to junkyard the eff out of a game.
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: MakeItRain on December 23, 2010, 10:01:10 PM
for sys,

Quote
21 Henriquez-Roberts,J.    0-0    0-0    0-0    0  1  1   2   0  0  0  0  0   1

Shut up MCMW
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: DQ12 on December 23, 2010, 10:03:30 PM
for sys,

Quote
21 Henriquez-Roberts,J.    0-0    0-0    0-0    0  1  1   2   0  0  0  0  0   1

It was a meaningless game in which Frank made a concerted effort to get Wally some minutes.  Nothing more, imo.
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: EMAWzified on December 23, 2010, 10:07:42 PM
Get Wally minutes and shots, apparently.
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: kougar24 on December 24, 2010, 12:03:04 AM
There was no "plus" to Spaulding's defense tonight.
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: sys on December 24, 2010, 12:14:39 AM
for sys,

Quote
21 Henriquez-Roberts,J.    0-0    0-0    0-0    0  1  1   2   0  0  0  0  0   1


good ol' 95 gets jhr's minutes.  a little "i love you guys" present from martin to the townies.
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: catzacker on December 24, 2010, 09:23:39 AM
good effort, mcgruds made some shots, we rebounded, we're still awful in transition (imo, this is what's killing or offense), defense was decent, nice to wally do something, asprilla actually dunked which was weird, bigs are still incredible pussies around the rim.  umkc is terrible.
Title: Re: It was UMKC, but
Post by: cas4ksu on December 24, 2010, 11:04:09 AM
good effort, mcgruds made some shots, we rebounded, we're still awful in transition (imo, this is what's killing or offense), defense was decent, nice to wally do something, asprilla actually dunked which was weird, bigs are still incredible pussies around the rim.  umkc is terrible.

yep.