TG's OU Game Article

[Blue & Gold]

Here is TG's OU game article. TG's OU ArticleA win's-a-win? Yeah, maybe. But when athletics are a form of entertainment I think style does come into play a bit. I agree with Tom & wish our games weren't so difficult to watch. I took a group of guys to the game last night and, while I am definitely happy that we won, the game just wasn't a whole lot of fun to watch. Let me clarify that last statement: it was fun for me - I'm a diehard Zips fan who hates OU. But for my newbie friends it kinda just looked like a sloppy, not-so-well played ballgame. When for loooooooong stretches neither team looked like they could throw the ball into the ocean, in order to keep the guys zealous for the game I had to keep reminding them of how tall the players were and how good of defense each team was playing and how physical it was down low. That's okay, but I wish the guys had left the game saying, "Wow, those players can flat-out light it up!"

[RootforRoo44]

just get them hammered at the Barley House or OBC before the game with their good happy hour deals. Then they wont know what the heck good basketball is. It works on my friends at least.

[johnnyzip84]

just get them hammered at the Barley House or OBC before the game with their good happy hour deals. Then they wont know what the heck good basketball is. It works on my friends at least.

Before AND after!

[Dave in Green]

I understand that defensive basketball is all about minimizing the number and quality of shots taken by opponents, and that one part of a total defensive game is running the shot clock down on every offensive possession to use up more of the game clock and give the opponents fewer possessions in which to score. I can't argue with the defense the Zips apply on the defensive end. They generally do hold their opponents to low shooting percentages, and the pressure generally results in many steals and turnovers. This is all good, even if some may find it ugly to watch.The part I'm having trouble with is running the clock down on the offensive end. My impression is that the Zips players sometimes do better when they set up quickly than when they spend a lot of time dribbling around the perimeter and allowing opponents to set up their defenses to contest a shot they know is coming in the last few seconds of the shot clock.I'm wondering if it might not be better to have a hybrid defensive philosophy where the focus remains the same on the defensive end, but where more plays are run earlier in the shot clock on the offensive end. This is not the same as getting into a wide open offensive game, where the Zips might get blown out by teams that thrive on run and gun.One of the problems of always shooting late in the shot clock is that it's too predicatable. It allows the defense to be loose for 30 seconds, and then clamp down and contest the shot they know is coming. It also builds pressure on the offensive players that they are on deadline, and so they have to force something up to beat the shot clock. Could that be part of the reason that the Zips' perimeter shooting percentage is so poor?I think a less predictable offense could serve the Zips well. Go ahead and continue to walk the ball up and run the shot clock down on some plays. On others, drive the ball upcourt in a hurry, get the defense off balance and find an open man to shoot early in the shot clock. And on other possessions, start slowly but trigger a shot 15-20 seconds into the shot clock.That might be a way to not only make Zips games more watchable, but also result in more wins.

[Captain Kangaroo]

I understand that defensive basketball is all about minimizing the number and quality of shots taken by opponents, and that one part of a total defensive game is running the shot clock down on every offensive possession to use up more of the game clock and give the opponents fewer possessions in which to score. I can't argue with the defense the Zips apply on the defensive end. They generally do hold their opponents to low shooting percentages, and the pressure generally results in many steals and turnovers. This is all good, even if some may find it ugly to watch.The part I'm having trouble with is running the clock down on the offensive end. My impression is that the Zips players sometimes do better when they set up quickly than when they spend a lot of time dribbling around the perimeter and allowing opponents to set up their defenses to contest a shot they know is coming in the last few seconds of the shot clock.I'm wondering if it might not be better to have a hybrid defensive philosophy where the focus remains the same on the defensive end, but where more plays are run earlier in the shot clock on the offensive end. This is not the same as getting into a wide open offensive game, where the Zips might get blown out by teams that thrive on run and gun.One of the problems of always shooting late in the shot clock is that it's too predicatable. It allows the defense to be loose for 30 seconds, and then clamp down and contest the shot they know is coming. It also builds pressure on the offensive players that they are on deadline, and so they have to force something up to beat the shot clock. Could that be part of the reason that the Zips' perimeter shooting percentage is so poor?I think a less predictable offense could serve the Zips well. Go ahead and continue to walk the ball up and run the shot clock down on some plays. On others, drive the ball upcourt in a hurry, get the defense off balance and find an open man to shoot early in the shot clock. And on other possessions, start slowly but trigger a shot 15-20 seconds into the shot clock.That might be a way to not only make Zips games more watchable, but also result in more wins.

Steve French told Dambrot that in the post game interview. Dambrot's reply - "Why don't you tell the guys that on the bus ride to K.e.n.t. Sunday?"

[Captain Kangaroo]

One thing that stood out to me regarding last night's game was the fact that, for once, a Zips-related story had a happy ending.The usual blue print for a game like Nate's finale is a heart-breaking loss. Whether it's to K.e.n.t., OU, BG, Central Michigan...how many seasons have the Zips closed out the JAR with a gut wrenching loss? Too many.Despite the overall team playing poorly, Guest of Honor Nate Linhart wouldn't let the team lose. He hit the big floater...snatched the big rebound...hit the clutch free throw...he grabbed the team by the scruff of their neck and willed them to the 9-point win.There are a lot of games in Nate's career where he "did the things that didn't show up in the box score." Last night he did it all...the "box score stuff" and those things not statistically defined. After the game he was hopping around with the Rowdies having a blast. I couldn't be happier for him. And if you heard his post game interview, you'd wish he had another four years. If he weren't a player, he'd have been an AK-Rowdie. Sweep K.e.n.t, then get a ring Zips!

[Dave in Green]

I understand that defensive basketball is all about minimizing the number and quality of shots taken by opponents, and that one part of a total defensive game is running the shot clock down on every offensive possession to use up more of the game clock and give the opponents fewer possessions in which to score. I can't argue with the defense the Zips apply on the defensive end. They generally do hold their opponents to low shooting percentages, and the pressure generally results in many steals and turnovers. This is all good, even if some may find it ugly to watch.The part I'm having trouble with is running the clock down on the offensive end. My impression is that the Zips players sometimes do better when they set up quickly than when they spend a lot of time dribbling around the perimeter and allowing opponents to set up their defenses to contest a shot they know is coming in the last few seconds of the shot clock.I'm wondering if it might not be better to have a hybrid defensive philosophy where the focus remains the same on the defensive end, but where more plays are run earlier in the shot clock on the offensive end. This is not the same as getting into a wide open offensive game, where the Zips might get blown out by teams that thrive on run and gun.One of the problems of always shooting late in the shot clock is that it's too predicatable. It allows the defense to be loose for 30 seconds, and then clamp down and contest the shot they know is coming. It also builds pressure on the offensive players that they are on deadline, and so they have to force something up to beat the shot clock. Could that be part of the reason that the Zips' perimeter shooting percentage is so poor?I think a less predictable offense could serve the Zips well. Go ahead and continue to walk the ball up and run the shot clock down on some plays. On others, drive the ball upcourt in a hurry, get the defense off balance and find an open man to shoot early in the shot clock. And on other possessions, start slowly but trigger a shot 15-20 seconds into the shot clock.That might be a way to not only make Zips games more watchable, but also result in more wins.

Steve French told Dambrot that in the post game interview. Dambrot's reply - "Why don't you tell the guys that on the bus ride to K.e.n.t. Sunday?"

Maybe I'm missing something, but that makes it sound as if that's what KD has been trying to tell the players, they aren't listening, and he wants someone else to reinforce his message. It makes no sense at all that KD can't get players to shoot earlier in the shot clock, unless KD is so hard on them when they miss that no one wants to risk feeling his wrath.If that's the case, then the only solution is for KD to back off a notch on the player criticisms. No one else can do that for him.

[Hilltopper]

I understand that defensive basketball is all about minimizing the number and quality of shots taken by opponents, and that one part of a total defensive game is running the shot clock down on every offensive possession to use up more of the game clock and give the opponents fewer possessions in which to score. I can't argue with the defense the Zips apply on the defensive end. They generally do hold their opponents to low shooting percentages, and the pressure generally results in many steals and turnovers. This is all good, even if some may find it ugly to watch.The part I'm having trouble with is running the clock down on the offensive end. My impression is that the Zips players sometimes do better when they set up quickly than when they spend a lot of time dribbling around the perimeter and allowing opponents to set up their defenses to contest a shot they know is coming in the last few seconds of the shot clock.I'm wondering if it might not be better to have a hybrid defensive philosophy where the focus remains the same on the defensive end, but where more plays are run earlier in the shot clock on the offensive end. This is not the same as getting into a wide open offensive game, where the Zips might get blown out by teams that thrive on run and gun.One of the problems of always shooting late in the shot clock is that it's too predicatable. It allows the defense to be loose for 30 seconds, and then clamp down and contest the shot they know is coming. It also builds pressure on the offensive players that they are on deadline, and so they have to force something up to beat the shot clock. Could that be part of the reason that the Zips' perimeter shooting percentage is so poor?I think a less predictable offense could serve the Zips well. Go ahead and continue to walk the ball up and run the shot clock down on some plays. On others, drive the ball upcourt in a hurry, get the defense off balance and find an open man to shoot early in the shot clock. And on other possessions, start slowly but trigger a shot 15-20 seconds into the shot clock.That might be a way to not only make Zips games more watchable, but also result in more wins.

Steve French told Dambrot that in the post game interview. Dambrot's reply - "Why don't you tell the guys that on the bus ride to K.e.n.t. Sunday?"

Maybe I'm missing something, but that makes it sound as if that's what KD has been trying to tell the players, they aren't listening, and he wants someone else to reinforce his message. It makes no sense at all that KD can't get players to shoot earlier in the shot clock, unless KD is so hard on them when they miss that no one wants to risk feeling his wrath.If that's the case, then the only solution is for KD to back off a notch on the player criticisms. No one else can do that for him.

I think what French was really getting at was, why does it take the Zips 9.5 seconds on every possesion to get the ball in the front court. Just a little bit of hustle could get an extra 5 seconds of time to run a play.

[Valpo Zip]

That game was so ugly and so not worth the money (or the drive in my case) and i call myself a diehard zip.The only entertaining part (to me) was after the rowdies rolled out their banner and Nate went their way and started their little thing.I think the two main reasons zips bball is not entertaining anymore are Bardo and Conyers. I just can't enjoy watching a player who looks clueless every time he touches the ball. Let alone someone who is the tallest on the floor but is still consistently outrebounded. Here is the most confusing statement i've ever heard from a coach:quoting Dambrot from Mike Rasor's blog:"I like Bardo. I told him until he tells me a little extra work. I'm not speaking to him until he gives me more work on his own. Throw his numbers out the window; he's a good player. You might not see the rebounds, but he's not letting his guy get it."So coach calls a good player someone who can't score, can't block shots, can't make an assist, and can't rebound as long as his guy doesn't get it.

[Dave in Green]

Bardo, who averages only about 15 minutes per game, leads the Zips in blocked shots with 17. Linhart, who averages about 30 minutes per game, is second with 15 blocked shots. So Bardo averages more than twice as many blocked shots per minute played as the Zips next best shot blocker.And despite the fact that fans might cringe when he shoots, Bardo has the best field goal average on the team at .489.I'm with KD: Bardo contributes more to the team than shows up in the newspaper box scores. He's a defensive-oriented role player who plays his heart out for 15 minutes per game.

[Valpo Zip]

Dear Dave,It is one thing to be supportive of your coach and your team and another thing to be absolutely ridiculous. You are seriously telling me that you appreciate Bardo's value on the floor? and why ? because of his 0.6 blocks per game. It doesn't stop here, you're also showing Nate Linhart off in that comparison? Bardo's head is 3 inches above that of Linhart and his thing is "supposedly" deffense. And you are comparing his stats to Linhart who is running at the arc grabbing steals. Next thing would be to compare Bardo's Blocks to those of Humpty If you want to play this game, compare Bardo to someone of his sizeBardo got 0.6 blocks/game in 15.6 min/gameSwiech got 0.4 blocks/game in 4 min/gam (extrapolate that to 1.6 blocks/16 minutes/game)Even more ridiculous, bringing up that Bardo's FG% is 0.489. ARE YOU AWARE THAT BARDO ATTEMPTED 45 FGs IN 468 MINUTES? That's less than 1 attempt per 10 minutes on the floor. That's not enough to make a statistical sample. The guy would only consider looking at the basket if he was no more than 2 feet away. And you're still happy with his 0.489?

[Zip Watcher]

I'm in the camp that thinks Bardo helps this team .. he can't be an offensive centerpiece .. no one is saying that. But he's an athletic banging body .. a big that we need.Cut Mike some slack.Go Zips!

[Valpo Zip]

I'm in the camp that thinks Bardo helps this team .. he can't be an offensive centerpiece .. no one is saying that. But he's an athletic banging body .. a big that we need.Cut Mike some slack.Go Zips!

I totally agree that we do need a big body in the middle. Our main problem this season has been the lack of inside game. After trying Bardo for two years, he is obviously not the answer. Since we do have another big guy on the bench, does anyone feel that he deserves a chance.And Zipwatcher, please before you hit me with the political: "if coaches thought he could do the job, he would have played", just tell me what is it that Bardo is doing that another 6-10 can't do.

[Zip Watcher]

Did the guy steal your girl? Why the axe grinding?The guy is physically stronger and more aggressive than our other current options. He's in his 3rd year .. why is it so hard to understand that he's ahead of some other guys? If you don't want to accept the truth, I won't restate it for you.He's a defensive specialist on this team. He plays limited minutes .. you're beating the drum, you know the statistics .. the guy's playing a whole 15 MPG .. he's the 7th guy in the rotation. Today didn't happen because of Bardo.

[Dave in Green]

It is one thing to be supportive of your coach and your team and another thing to be absolutely ridiculous.

And the same applies to those who are not supportive of the coach and his professional decisions regarding the playing time of individual players. The following old saying is applicable here: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.Coach says you can throw the statistics out the window because they don't tell the whole story on Bardo.That works for me.