Anyone read the Murdock article on the OU rivals page?

[thebigabd]

I just read the Murdock article on Willie Warren and TMG, and it raised some interesting points.

He basically questioned whether or not it should be WW's team or TMG's team, and that the emergence of TMG might mean Willie will play "second fiddle" for OU again.

I see where he is going, but I don't see a reason why they can't play extraordinary basketball together. Why does it have to be TMG's team, or WW's team? Why does someone have to play second fiddle? With this team being the way it is, there should be no shortage of shots for either of them.

Thoughts?

 

[SoonerfanTU]

I don't care how well TMG is playing, it isn't his team. He isn't the leader. I'd say it's been Crocker's team most of the year, especially given that he is a senior.

JMO.

 

[BigTime]

I just read the Murdock article on Willie Warren and TMG, and it raised some interesting points.

He basically questioned whether or not it should be WW's team or TMG's team, and that the emergence of TMG might mean Willie will play "second fiddle" for OU again.

I see where he is going, but I don't see a reason why they can't play extraordinary basketball together. Why does it have to be TMG's team, or WW's team? Why does someone have to play second fiddle? With this team being the way it is, there should be no shortage of shots for either of them.

Thoughts?

I agree with you, abd. I really don't think it has to be one or the other. What I do think needs to happen from now on is that TMG not defer to Willie so much in the halfcourt sets. I think we saw a lot of that early in the year, and I want TMG to be the playmaker and to set Willie up for easy shots instead of the other way around.

I don't think either of them are selfish guys, so I don't see this being an issue.

 

[sanguinetti]

i think framing the article as one player or another's team is moronic and mostly about writing a web article.

 

[pillmanj]

If it takes someone else to be Batman and WW wants to be Robin (like last year with BG)...I am all for it if it means WW plays better.

 

[Shooterms]

i think framing the article as one player or another's team is moronic and mostly about writing a web article.

I think we have a winner!!

 

[Capel's Mustache]

I don't care how well TMG is playing, it isn't his team. He isn't the leader. I'd say it's been Crocker's team most of the year, especially given that he is a senior.

JMO.

I agree that is should be Crock's team but it isn't. He just isn't a leader. Not knocking him but some guys just aren't leaders. WWIII should be the leader but he doesn't have TC or CD's respect. It's obvious from their interactions on the court. As many have said winning and the Griffins kept this team together last year

 

[38red]

I agree that is should be Crock's team but it isn't. He just isn't a leader. Not knocking him but some guys just aren't leaders. WWIII should be the leader but he doesn't have TC or CD's respect. It's obvious from their interactions on the court. As many have said winning and the Griffins kept this team together last year

And AJ!

 

[coolm]

Actually, I think it almost does hafta be about being WW's or TMG's team. They are about 180 degrees apart when it comes to their decisionmaking.

WW jacks up an ill-advised jumper or drives to the bucket amidst 4 defenders as a default. OTOH TMG seems to look to score when we need his scoring .... otherwise looking for the assist.

It's not to say WW isn't talented. He is. But he doesn't use his talent to bring out the abilities of his teammates. TMG does. TMG makes us a better team just by playing. WW makes us a better team if he's playing really well.

 

[SoonerNorm]

I haven't noticed any leaders yet.

 

[SoonerEyeDoc]

I haven't noticed any leaders yet.

I couldn't agree more with Norm and with what Cool said as well. WW has not shown an ability to be a leader on the floor (I don't know what happens in the locker room, during practice, etc) in my opinion and I really felt like the team played more fluidly offensively (for the most part, excluding some stretches in the 2nd half) with Warren on the bench Wed night.

Like Cool said, if Warren is playing well everything is great, but it not, look out (the TO syndrome, just for one example).

 

[MO]

I'm sure no one will like this, but I think one of the reasons we looked good the other night is Crocker didn't play and TMG took more of a leadership role.

There is little doubt that either because of effort or simple longevity many consider Crocker to be the leader. I have argued over and over that he should be a sixth man providing effort and intensity. Those work in limited time frames, but if you go for longer periods you get saddled with ability.

Our best starting lineup is TMG, WW, Cade Davis and two bigs with Crocker playing important minutes as first off the bench.

Agree or not, I've been saying the same thing since day one. The other night gave you a first glimpse. Slide WW in (and he will play an excellent supporting role to TMG) and move Cade in where Ray Willis played and you are there.

 

[seniorsooner]

No offense to anyone, but Murdock's kind of a moron.

 

[TexasEx4OU]

If you combined Cade Davis's effort and Willie Warren's talent...you'd have your leader.

 

[BigTime]

I'm sure no one will like this, but I think one of the reasons we looked good the other night is Crocker didn't play and TMG took more of a leadership role.

There is little doubt that either because of effort or simple longevity many consider Crocker to be the leader. I have argued over and over that he should be a sixth man providing effort and intensity. Those work in limited time frames, but if you go for longer periods you get saddled with ability.

Our best starting lineup is TMG, WW, Cade Davis and two bigs with Crocker playing important minutes as first off the bench.

Agree or not, I've been saying the same thing since day one. The other night gave you a first glimpse. Slide WW in (and he will play an excellent supporting role to TMG) and move Cade in where Ray Willis played and you are there.

Wow, I could not disagree with you more. "Saddled with ability". Who Crocker? Let's see....he is the second most consistent oudside shooter on this team. He is the second best driver and finisher on this team. He is the best overall defender on this team. He has the most experience of anyone on this team. He is the only guy that can consistently hit from all three levels (deep, midrange, in the paint). He is the second best rebounder on this team (debatably the best).

I could understand your post if we were talking about Crock in a previous year, but he has put it all together this year. In no way should he ever come off the bench. No way.

 

[MO]

Someone said earlier in the year (and someone I pretty sure I disagreed with) that sometimes your starting lineup does not always include all of your individually best players.

Although statistically it is hard to argue against Crocker, there is something about his presence against better competition that diminishes team chemistry. It's something akin to a player missing his first 3 shots and going on to have a bad game or conversely TMG making his first shots the other night and going on to have a good night. Invariably, Crocker will miss his early shots or dribble the ball off his leg against better teams and that sets off a bad night for the team.

I'm not saying he isn't good enough to play, I'm saying with some creative thinking, his role could be better. I didn't expect anyone to agree and unfortunately that direction will never be tried.

We have Willie Warren, TMG, Cade Davis and Tony Crocker. Against big 12 teams one of those guys has to sit. Are you really saying that TC is a better start than any of the other 3. We tried him at the 4 and got out rebounded to death.

 

[MO]

I'm going to try to refine this argument.

As a fan, Crocker has not proven one thing to me while he has proven another. He has not proven that he is a clutch performer. TMG (just as of the other night) and WW (if you are at all objective) have shown to be clutch performers. Cade Davis may not have shown to be a clutch performer, but ultimately he has shown himself to be the most mature and consistent. I don't see how you take him out of the starting lineup. Past all of that, we are a better team against conference teams with two big guys.

Now, back to what Crocker has proven. He has proven to play with intense effort and to possess well rounded skills. He plugs in almost anywhere and can bring instant intensity.

So, you construct a team out of two clutch performers, an experienced and consistent guy and whatever two big guys you like. Crocker makes the perfect guy to add at the 6 to either maintain a run or stem the tide with skills and effort.

That is all. I promise to give it a rest.

 

[GParker]

I'm going to try to refine this argument.

As a fan, Crocker has not proven one thing to me while he has proven another. He has not proven that he is a clutch performer. As of the other night, TMG has and if you are at all objective, WW has also shown to be a clutch performer. Cade Davis may not have proven to be a clutch performer, but ultimately he has shown himself to be the most mature and consistent . I don't see how you take him out of the starting lineup. We are a better team against conference teams with two big guys.

Now, back to what Crocker has proven. He has proven to play with intense effort and to possess well rounded skills. He plugs in almost anywhere and can bring instant intensity.

So, you construct a team out of two clutch performers, an experienced and consistent guy and whatever two big guys you like. Crocker makes the perfect guy to add at the 6 to either maintain a run or stem the tide with skills and effort.

That is all. I promise to give it a rest.

What about last year against Cuse in the Sweet 16? What about Baylor his soph year? How about the shot he hit against WVU his soph year?

 

[MO]

I guess I either have a short memory (well of course I do) or I'm just a big picture guy (there may be an inside joke there)

I get it. No one likes negativity about a loyal 4 year guy. This is all academic to me, not personal.

I think WW goes pro, but you might actually see the lineup I'm talking about next year. My guess is that it will look more cohesive.

 

[Sam]

I'm going to try to refine this argument.

As a fan, Crocker has not proven one thing to me while he has proven another. He has not proven that he is a clutch performer. TMG (just as of the other night) and WW (if you are at all objective) have shown to be clutch performers. Cade Davis may not have shown to be a clutch performer, but ultimately he has shown himself to be the most mature and consistent. I don't see how you take him out of the starting lineup. Past all of that, we are a better team against conference teams with two big guys.

Now, back to what Crocker has proven. He has proven to play with intense effort and to possess well rounded skills. He plugs in almost anywhere and can bring instant intensity.

So, you construct a team out of two clutch performers, an experienced and consistent guy and whatever two big guys you like. Crocker makes the perfect guy to add at the 6 to either maintain a run or stem the tide with skills and effort.

That is all. I promise to give it a rest.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doCHJTH2y74[/ame]