Author Topic: It was UMKC, but  (Read 4029 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Acceleration Man

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
It was UMKC, but
« 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:


(Want to get rid of the ad? Register now for free!)

Offline Immaculate1

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2010, 09:28:27 PM »
AND I GET IT AGAIN????? IM TOTALLY WATCHING AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :emawkid:

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #2 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.

Offline Acceleration Man

  • Combo-Fan
  • **
  • Posts: 527
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #3 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.

Offline mcmwcat

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5313
  • trips: "MCMW"
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #4 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

Offline 06wildcat

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 1666
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #5 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.

Offline MakeItRain

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 45942
  • big roas man
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #6 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

Offline DQ12

  • PCKK7DC Survivor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *******
  • Posts: 22787
  • #TeamChestHair
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #7 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.


"You want to stand next to someone and not be able to hear them, walk your ass into Manhattan, Kansas." - [REDACTED]

Offline EMAWzified

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 4244
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2010, 10:07:42 PM »
Get Wally minutes and shots, apparently.

Offline kougar24

  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • ****
  • Posts: 5380
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2010, 12:03:04 AM »
There was no "plus" to Spaulding's defense tonight.

Offline sys

  • Contributor
  • Pak'r Élitaire
  • *****
  • Posts: 40815
  • your reputation will never recover, nor should it.
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #10 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.
"a garden city man wondered in april if the theologians had not made a mistake in locating the garden of eden in asia rather than in the arkansas river valley."

catzacker

  • Guest
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #11 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.

Offline cas4ksu

  • Katpak'r
  • ***
  • Posts: 2463
    • View Profile
Re: It was UMKC, but
« Reply #12 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.