Bennett

[bgrch1350]

Re: Bennet

On the European tour Spangler and Bennett were on the floor together about half the time. In the times that I have seen them practice that way, it is obvious the Bennett is much better when he has a running partner.

Kruger's options are limited this season. I think that defensive fix is more complex that a tempo adjustment on offense.

The Europe competition was weaker then the teams we have played in our non-conference.

Kruger isn't playing him that much b/c he knows hes not that good. But Gary...you just keep telling Bennett to play mad and maybe Kruger will play him more.

 

[garyeb2]

Re: Bennet

Mankin is a wing...so is Neal and Clark. What position have they been playing this year. The 4. So I will compare their minutes.

No, if you are going to argue, at least pay attention. Mankin was in for Buddy. Bennett backs up only Spangler. Tyler typically backs up Cam.

 

[garyeb2]

Re: Bennet

Is that why he redshirted...b/c he looked better then those 3. Heck, one of those didn't even play last year.

Argue with what I say. Not what you dream up. You asked who did he look good against. He looked good against those 3 for a year. I never said he was better.

 

[garyeb2]

Re: Bennet

The Europe competition was weaker then the teams we have played in our non-conference.

Kruger isn't playing him that much b/c he knows hes not that good. But Gary...you just keep telling Bennett to play mad and maybe Kruger will play him more.

You have no idea the caliber of the completion in Europe relative to our non conference schedule. Nor do you have any idea what Kruger thinks about Bennett's abilities. Why do you pretend that you do?

Like I said earlier, it is OK with me if Spangler plays 40 minutes. It is just that you started bashing Bennett before he ever showed up on campus from a position of complete ignorance of Bennett or his abilities. You did the same thing with Spangler.

You can continue on with this if you want. But, there is nothing you can do at this point to redeem yourself. You can only look dumber.

 

[AdaSooner]

Re: Bennet

You have no idea the caliber of the completion in Europe relative to our non conference schedule. Nor do you have any idea what Kruger thinks about Bennett's abilities. Why do you pretend that you do?

Like I said earlier, it is OK with me if Spangler plays 40 minutes. It is just that you started bashing Bennett before he ever showed up on campus from a position of complete ignorance of Bennett or his abilities. You did the same thing with Spangler.

You can continue on with this if you want. But, there is nothing you can do at this point to redeem yourself. You can only look dumber.

He did the same thing with M'Baye last year. One doesn't have to look too hard to discover a pattern in the players he chooses to find fault with and those he continues to praise.

 

[BigTime]

garyeb just brought the wood!

 

[SoonerTraveler]

Re: Bennet

... You can continue on with this if you want. But, there is nothing you can do at this point to redeem yourself. You can only look dumber.

At least bgrch1350 has been consistent in this one regard, over a long period of time.

 

[NickZepp]

He did the same thing with M'Baye last year. One doesn't have to look too hard to discover a pattern in the players he chooses to find fault with and those he continues to praise.

Basically all JUCOs suck. Have to be a freshman to be any good.

Sent from my galaxy s2

 

[bocabull]

Re: Bennet

You have no idea the caliber of the completion in Europe relative to our non conference schedule.

This is nonsense.

As for Bennett, in the little we have seen against our extremely weak competition he's not capable of giving us much, if anything, against real teams. Obviously Kruger knows this and has him stuck on the bench for that reason.

The next couple weeks are going to reveal what we really have. I'm braced for a run of ugly losses. Our only hope is that the other big XII teams are not top 100 teams.

 

[WTSooner]

Re: Bennet

I haven't been overly impressed with Bennett. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the foot, or missing time for the foot at this point. Bad hands. Limited offensively. Passive rebounder. Maybe some of that changes, and he "gets it" next year, but I'm thinking not. About the only thing he offers at this point is a long body with reach and bounce around the rim, in terms of defense. If the kid has bad hands now, as a redshirt junior (I believe), it is doubtful that will change before he graduates.

He'd be fine as maybe a 4th or 5th big. The problem is that currently he is our 2nd or 3rd, depending on how you classify Clark.

But he is going to get important minutes this year, b/c LK has no other option. Hopefully he can make the most of them.

 

[bgrch1350]

Re: Bennet

You have no idea the caliber of the completion in Europe relative to our non conference schedule. Nor do you have any idea what Kruger thinks about Bennett's abilities. Why do you pretend that you do?

Like I said earlier, it is OK with me if Spangler plays 40 minutes. It is just that you started bashing Bennett before he ever showed up on campus from a position of complete ignorance of Bennett or his abilities. You did the same thing with Spangler.

You can continue on with this if you want. But, there is nothing you can do at this point to redeem yourself. You can only look dumber.

Thats not true. I started on him as soon as I found out he was going to redshirt coming out of juco. Juco players rarely ever redshirt in Div 1. There is a reason. They are brought in to have an immediate impact. And the fact that he redshirted when we only had Fitz, Osby and Arent as the only post players last year told me a lot of how good he was and now that we only have 2 true post players on this team(him being one), its even more clear that he isn't that good.

I don't understand why you are defending him. If somehow he became good...then great for OU. But you defending him with nothing to back it up is ridiculous. He played 6 minutes against LT..and that game went into overtime so there was more minutes to give out. aTm he played 5. Enough said!

 

[bgrch1350]

Re: Bennet

He did the same thing with M'Baye last year. One doesn't have to look too hard to discover a pattern in the players he chooses to find fault with and those he continues to praise.

I said M'Baye was not going to be the best player on this team like you all said he was going to be...and I was right. You all were building him up like he was going to come in and be great. And he was far from it.

 

[bgrch1350]

Re: Bennet

I haven't been overly impressed with Bennett. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the foot, or missing time for the foot at this point. Bad hands. Limited offensively. Passive rebounder. Maybe some of that changes, and he "gets it" next year, but I'm thinking not. About the only thing he offers at this point is a long body with reach and bounce around the rim, in terms of defense. If the kid has bad hands now, as a redshirt junior (I believe), it is doubtful that will change before he graduates.

He'd be fine as maybe a 4th or 5th big. The problem is that currently he is our 2nd or 3rd, depending on how you classify Clark.

But he is going to get important minutes this year, b/c LK has no other option. Hopefully he can make the most of them.

Agree. I hope he turns it on in the future but for some reason Gary thinks anyone that Kruger brings in is amazing. I'm surprise he's not defending Arent. Capel brought in his fair amount of crappy players. No one is defending those guys...because they were crappy and didn't need to be defended.

 

[WTSooner]

Re: Bennet

The good news is that the post depth problem "should" be solved next season. I have pretty high hopes for all of the young guys we're bringing in next year.

So we'll go from: Spangler, Clark, Neal, and Bennett

to: Spangler, Buford, Lattin, McNease, and Bennett (as of now)

I think had LK known M'Baye was leaving, he'd have found us another post body for this year. But that happened so late, that there probably wasn't much left to get that wouldn't have been a waste.

 

[bgrch1350]

Re: Bennet

The good news is that the post depth problem "should" be solved next season. I have pretty high hopes for all of the young guys we're bringing in next year.

So we'll go from: Spangler, Clark, Neal, and Bennett

to: Spangler, Buford, Lattin, McNease, and Bennett (as of now)

I think had LK known M'Baye was leaving, he'd have found us another post body for this year. But that happened so late, that there probably wasn't much left to get that wouldn't have been a waste.

I agree. We have post players coming in. I'm not going to expect too much from the freshmen b/c usually freshmen post players don't produce to much in year 1 but hopefully one will step up.

As for a backup plan to M'Baye. He had 3 juco post players committed. Those guys not showing up was a huge set back to our depth this season.

 

[Price is Right]

Re: Bennet

Thats not true. I started on him as soon as I found out he was going to redshirt coming out of juco. Juco players rarely ever redshirt in Div 1. There is a reason. They are brought in to have an immediate impact.

If Kruger and staff didn't think dude could ball then why not do without the rs and get the scholly available sooner rather than later? He will be fine IMO

 

[AdaSooner]

Re: Bennet

I said M'Baye was not going to be the best player on this team like you all said he was going to be...and I was right. You all were building him up like he was going to come in and be great. And he was far from it.

That's not what you said. You said M'Baye wouldn't be a starter his first season. You even questioned Kruger's wisdom in using a scholarship on him.

No one that I can recall said Amath would be the best player. Everyone knew, or should have known, that Osby was the best player going into last season. Did some of feel M'Baye would be a good player. Absolutely. And we were right.

 

[StatGeek]

Re: Bennet

Bennett has been the biggest disappointment with this team thus far, but there is still plenty of time for him to carve out a role on this team.

 

[bgrch1350]

Re: Bennet

If Kruger and staff didn't think dude could ball then why not do without the rs and get the scholly available sooner rather than later? He will be fine IMO

Well we aren't hurting on scholarships so we could have redshirted Arent as well. We are only using 10 scholarships this season(thats if you include Cole) and 11 if you include Hamilton. We still had 2 scholarships available this season. We still have 3 scholarships available for next season even with Bennett coming back so. Redshirting him hasn't prevented us bringing someone in.

 

[AdaSooner]

Re: Bennet

The good news is that the post depth problem "should" be solved next season. I have pretty high hopes for all of the young guys we're bringing in next year.

So we'll go from: Spangler, Clark, Neal, and Bennett

to: Spangler, Buford, Lattin, McNease, and Bennett (as of now)

I think had LK known M'Baye was leaving, he'd have found us another post body for this year. But that happened so late, that there probably wasn't much left to get that wouldn't have been a waste.

I agree that M'Baye's announcement caught LK by surprise. Everything I have read and heard confirms that to be true. The news had our coaches scrambling to go the juco route to fill the void. And, as we all know now, Plan B didn't work out too well.

As for a backup plan to M'Baye. He had 3 juco post players committed. Those guys not showing up was a huge set back to our depth this season.

That's one thing we can agree on.

I have always been a proponent of signing an occasional juco player to fill a need, to add depth or to bring in an older, more mature player to offset inexperience. OU's tough luck with juco players the past three years has soured me on recruiting juco transfers, unless there we have no other choice. I've said this before and I'll say it again. For every good juco player we've had the last four to five years, I can name at least two or more who were all but a waste of a scholarship.