So much for that!

Donate To GopherHole
XMan said:
I don't mind people who come on with criticism for tubby and the development of the team, etc. The purpose of the board is to blog your thoughts. But some come on with comments like the one above just to be a jerk. That is the stuff that gets old. People don't mind honest open debate or discussion....but coming on a team website just to bash and troll is annoying. You know what you are doing....everyone does.
Click to expand...


Follow the posts backwards and you will discover that I was talking basketball and serious criticism, and honest debate until the pouting posse started the personal insulting. And in that particular reply, maybe I misread the other comment. Maybe it was honest praise, but I doubt it.
 

Parski1 said:
Come on Doc Don you have admit that being called a "little female orifice" is kind of humorous.
Click to expand...


I totally agree. Being called a "little female orifice" by most people would be an insult, but being called a "little female orifice" by goober is a compliment. :)
 


GophersInIowa said:
It certainly is possible to win with a lot of young players, but it's hardly the norm.

Just for comparison sake, 64% of their minutes and 69% of their points come from upperclassmen. For the Gophers, its 44% and 48% respectively. Wisconsin freshmen play 6.5% of their minutes, 27% for the Gophers.

Its not an excuse, its just the facts. It is harder to win with younger players. Just like in football, our problem isn't all talent, its keeping guys in the program. If we can keep these younger guys around for four or five years, I think we will see different results.
Click to expand...

I think that's where the comparison of kids in the program is more meaningful than the minutes played. There's no rule that says 10 players have to play every game. Even after Andre's awesome game on Thursday, he and Maverick still have two of the worst ORtg's in the Big Ten. There are tons of complaints about Coleman's game here. Those 3 guys are at about 49 minutes combined per game, or almost 25% of the available minutes. Why?

If you play 10 guys every year, you're going to have a 'young team' every year according to the minute breakdown. The reason that Bo Ryan's teams always seem more experienced is that freshmen just don't see the floor as much.
 

justthefacts said:
I think that's where the comparison of kids in the program is more meaningful than the minutes played. There's no rule that says 10 players have to play every game. Even after Andre's awesome game on Thursday, he and Maverick still have two of the worst ORtg's in the Big Ten. There are tons of complaints about Coleman's game here. Those 3 guys are at about 49 minutes combined per game, or almost 25% of the available minutes. Why?

If you play 10 guys every year, you're going to have a 'young team' every year according to the minute breakdown. The reason that Bo Ryan's teams always seem more experienced is that freshmen just don't see the floor as much.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying but I don't think that's the case this year. If Tubby were to go to an 8-man rotation, all that would mean probably is two young guys playing less minutes and other young guys playing more. Certainly Maverick would be one of the two out, and that would mean Andre Hollins playing more. That move would make us even younger.

Even if Sampson, Williams, and Welch each averaged 30 minutes a game, that's still less than 50% of our minutes from upperclassmen.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom