Kruger final grade - D

Exactly. Grade for Boca F-.

Kruger can only do what he can with these guys. Not many athletes and not much speed. Throw in not much size and it's a recipe for disaster.

He drops Goff(who isn't that good) and brings in a post player that is as equally bad. He had scholarships and he added a PG that couldn't score and a post player that couldn't play and transfer that can't play til next year. This falls on him. Capel had just as much time in his 1st year as a head coach as Kruger did to bring in some players...And he failed.
 
He drops Goff(who isn't that good) and brings in a post player that is as equally bad. He had scholarships and he added a PG that couldn't score and a post player that couldn't play and transfer that can't play til next year. This falls on him. Capel had just as much time in his 1st year as a head coach as Kruger did to bring in some players...And he failed.

Sorry, but it's time to nip this Grooms bashing in the bud (if it's not already too late for that). The guy ranks high nationally in assists-to-TO ratio, and that's what's most important. If you're counting on your PG to score prolifically, you are a seriously flawed team.

But let's compare Grooms' performance to a PG who is widely revered by Sooner fans.

Quannas White averaged 7.6 ppg his first season at OU and 8.5 ppg his senior season.

Grooms averaged 6.5 points per game.

And in his first season at OU, Quannas averaged 4.7 assists to 1.9 to turnovers; in his senior season, his ratio was 4.1 to 1.6.

In Grooms' first season, he averaged 6 assists to 2 turnovers per game.

If QW was a good PG, so is Grooms. In fact, Grooms' stats are arguably better than Quannas'. The difference is Grooms is surrounded by significantly less talent.
 
Sorry, but it's time to nip this Grooms bashing in the bud (if it's not already too late for that). The guy ranks high nationally in assists-to-TO ratio, and that's what's most important. If you're counting on your PG to score prolifically, you are a seriously flawed team.

But let's compare Grooms' performance to a PG who is widely revered by Sooner fans.

Quannas White averaged 7.6 ppg his first season at OU and 8.5 ppg his senior season.

Grooms averaged 6.5 points per game.

And in his first season at OU, Quannas averaged 4.7 assists to 1.9 to turnovers; in his senior season, his ratio was 4.1 to 1.6.

In Grooms' first season, he averaged 6 assists to 2 turnovers per game.

If QW was a good PG, so is Grooms. In fact, Grooms' stats are arguably better than Quannas'. The difference is Grooms is surrounded by significantly less talent.

Instead of comparing him to a previous OU PG on a Previous year...lets compare him to other big 12 PGs.

These are the PGs on Big 12 teams that will most likely be headed to the NCAA tournament.
P. Jackson 14.4ppg 6.6apg
Christopherson 14.2ppg 2.7apg
Taylor 18.6ppg 4.7apg
Spradling 8.2ppg 2.9apg or Rodriguez 8.2ppg 3.8apg
Pressey 9.6ppg 6.3apg or Dixon 13.8ppg 3.2apg
Kabongo 9.7ppg 5.2apg

A team that finished higher than us in conference
Page 18.8ppg 2.6apg or Brown 12.1ppg 2.1apg

Our PG
Grooms 5.9ppg 6.4apg
 
Instead of comparing him to a previous OU PG on a Previous year...lets compare him to other big 12 PGs.

You don't have Grooms' stats right, so I have no idea if you have the others correct. But even if you do, I see some pitiful -- and I mean pitiful -- assist totals on that list, and you didn't even bother to include turnover stats.

Often, a point guard who scores in double figures, but ranks low in assists is doing his team a disservice, because he's not getting the most out of his teammates. That kind of PG is often a shoot-first ballhawk whose stats look impressive if you check only the scoring column, but who doesn't make the players around him any better.
 
You don't have Grooms' stats right, so I have no idea if you have the others correct. But even if you do, I see some pitiful -- and I mean pitiful -- assist totals on that list, and you didn't even bother to include turnover stats.

Often, a point guard who scores in double figures, but ranks low in assists is doing his team a disservice, because he's not getting the most out of his teammates. That kind of PG is often a shoot-first ballhawk whose stats look impressive if you check only the scoring column, but who doesn't make the players around him any better.

Those are his big 12 stats. Those are the stats when he plays solid competition game n and game out.

We finished 3rd to last in the big 12...you take that into consideration when looking at their stats.
 
Instead of comparing him to a previous OU PG on a Previous year...lets compare him to other big 12 PGs.

These are the PGs on Big 12 teams that will most likely be headed to the NCAA tournament.
P. Jackson 14.4ppg 6.6apg
Christopherson 14.2ppg 2.7apg
Taylor 18.6ppg 4.7apg
Spradling 8.2ppg 2.9apg or Rodriguez 8.2ppg 3.8apg
Pressey 9.6ppg 6.3apg or Dixon 13.8ppg 3.2apg
Kabongo 9.7ppg 5.2apg

A team that finished higher than us in conference
Page 18.8ppg 2.6apg or Brown 12.1ppg 2.1apg

Our PG
Grooms 5.9ppg 6.4apg

So by using your limited criteria of PPG & APG Grooms is better than Spradling, Rodriguez, & Brown. Plus he is virtually identical to Christopherson. Funny thing about assists they result in points. Assuming 2.1 points per assist the combined point value of the players listed is as follows:

  1. Taylor (KU) 28.47
  2. Jackson (BU) 28.26
  3. Page (OSU) 24.26
  4. Pressey (MU) 22.83
  5. Kabongo (UT) 20.62
  6. Christopherson (ISU) 19.87
  7. Grooms (OU) 19.34
  8. Brown (OSU) 17.56
  9. Rodriguez (KSU) 16.18
  10. Spradling (KSU) 14.29

If you factor in Turnovers it would look like this:

  1. Taylor (KU) 25.25
  2. Jackson (BU) 24.37
  3. Page (OSU) 22.48
  4. Pressey (MU) 20.05
  5. Christopherson (ISU) 18.04
  6. Kabongo (UT) 17.40
  7. Grooms (OU) 17.40
  8. Brown (OSU) 14.95
  9. Rodriguez (KSU) 13.35
  10. Spradling (KSU) 12.46
 
Thats if TOs lead to Pts.

Of course TO's takeaway opportunities to score points. Get the picture, less turnovers=more shots.

Multiply points per possession times Turnovers and you see how many points TO's cost you. I know that is really complex for someone of your ilk to understand; so I apologize for confusing you in advance.
 
So by using your limited criteria of PPG & APG Grooms is better than Spradling, Rodriguez, & Brown. Plus he is virtually identical to Christopherson.

Even though Christopherson is their PG..its their post player that gets the majority of their assists...but I didn't feel like putting White down as their pg even though he averages 6.1apg to go along with 12.8ppg. But he does bring the ball up the court alot so just throw out Christopherson and put in White if it makes you feel better.

And as for Brown...he runs an offense that is not made up of guys getting a lot of assist b/c Fords offense sucks but if you want to throw in turnovers we could throw in rebounds b/c Brown is getting almost 3 more rebounds a game than Grooms.

And as for Spradling and Rodriguez...even though I don't think Grooms is better than them, I dont think he is worse...but you can give them credit...they're going to the dance while Grooms gets to sit at home.
 
Even though Christopherson is their PG..its their post player that gets the majority of their assists...but I didn't feel like putting White down as their pg even though he averages 6.1apg to go along with 12.8ppg. But he does bring the ball up the court alot so just throw out Christopherson and put in White if it makes you feel better.

And as for Brown...he runs an offense that is not made up of guys getting a lot of assist b/c Fords offense sucks but if you want to throw in turnovers we could throw in rebounds b/c Brown is getting almost 3 more rebounds a game than Grooms.

And as for Spradling and Rodriguez...even though I don't think Grooms is better than them, I dont think he is worse...but you can give them credit...they're going to the dance while Grooms gets to sit at home.

You do realize that you are not being objective at all and are simply looking for negative material, right?
 
You do realize that you are not being objective at all and are simply looking for negative material, right?

Why is it negative to look at the facts and present it to you?

Would I be out of line to state that If Sampson would have stayed and D. James and S. Reynolds came here and we added Blake Griffin in that mix that I believe we would have won a Natnl Chmpshp? Is it OU bias or is it looking at what Blake, Reynolds, and James did individually and if you add that up, it 9-10 times equals a championship.

Do I believe that if Warren, TMG, and Gallon would have returned to this team to go along with Cade Davis, Fitz, and Pledger that we would have been in the tournament last year?? yes Or if Gallon and TMG was on this team would we be going to the tournament...YES

Can Kruger coach...hell yes. But i'm not going to put blinders on and say well...it doesn't matter what Hoiberg is doing or Martin, or BCG, or Self...Now that we have Kruger...game over for them.
 
Why is it negative to look at the facts and present it to you?

Would I be out of line to state that If Sampson would have stayed and D. James and S. Reynolds came here and we added Blake Griffin in that mix that I believe we would have won a Natnl Chmpshp? Is it OU bias or is it looking at what Blake, Reynolds, and James did individually and if you add that up, it 9-10 times equals a championship.

Do I believe that if Warren, TMG, and Gallon would have returned to this team to go along with Cade Davis, Fitz, and Pledger that we would have been in the tournament last year?? yes Or if Gallon and TMG was on this team would we be going to the tournament...YES

Can Kruger coach...hell yes. But i'm not going to put blinders on and say well...it doesn't matter what Hoiberg is doing or Martin, or BCG, or Self...Now that we have Kruger...game over for them.

I'm not sure what you are getting at with all this if this or that player stayed stuff, but I can assure you that I don't want you to put blinders on. What I would ask you to do is exercise some common sense when you evaluate this season and to take a wait and see approach to next season (at least a handful of games) before you start proclaiming it a failure.
 
I'm not sure what you are getting at with all this if this or that player stayed stuff, but I can assure you that I don't want you to put blinders on. What I would ask you to do is exercise some common sense when you evaluate this season and to take a wait and see approach to next season (at least a handful of games) before you start proclaiming it a failure.

I'm not jumping ship on Kruger. I like him and I know he can coach. The problem is that I am taking everything into perspective and I am not liking what I am seeing. Right now I know that we should be back in the tournament next year but right now I see that we will have Clark and MBaye the following season with Neal, Hornbeak and Hield. One of those 3 may start, doubtful 2. That means we are going to have to add a bunch of fresh faces which usually doesn't end well in that first year. And that lineup right there is not getting us into the tournament.
 
I'm not jumping ship on Kruger. I like him and I know he can coach. The problem is that I am taking everything into perspective and I am not liking what I am seeing. Right now I know that we should be back in the tournament next year but right now I see that we will have Clark and MBaye the following season with Neal, Hornbeak and Hield. One of those 3 may start, doubtful 2. That means we are going to have to add a bunch of fresh faces which usually doesn't end well in that first year. And that lineup right there is not getting us into the tournament.

I understand your concerns about the season after next, I think everyone shares them. But what can Kruger truly do to fix it?

I don't know about you, but I feel pretty confident that we will be better in 2013-2014 than we are today. The way I see it we will have M'Baye, Clark, Neal, Hornbeak, Hield, Henry, plus whomever we add to this class (from the little I know about recruiting it appears we are at least recruiting athletic players, if not tremendously skilled players). Plus it seems that we have a shot at landing some highly regarded in-state players for that season. So I think/hope this will turn out to be the most difficult season we will endure under Kruger. I'm not saying 2013-2014 will be smooth sailing but I think it will be better than this season.
 
I understand your concerns about the season after next, I think everyone shares them. But what can Kruger truly do to fix it?

I don't know about you, but I feel pretty confident that we will be better in 2013-2014 than we are today. The way I see it we will have M'Baye, Clark, Neal, Hornbeak, Hield, Henry, plus whomever we add to this class (from the little I know about recruiting it appears we are at least recruiting athletic players, if not tremendously skilled players). Plus it seems that we have a shot at landing some highly regarded in-state players for that season. So I think/hope this will turn out to be the most difficult season we will endure under Kruger. I'm not saying 2013-2014 will be smooth sailing but I think it will be better than this season.

And then we lose Neal, Clark and MBaye after that.

I'm just saying that we need some big recruits or transfers between this class and the next or we are in some trouble.
 
And then we lose Neal, Clark and MBaye after that.

I'm just saying that we need some big recruits or transfers between this class and the next or we are in some trouble.

I think projecting out past 2013-2014 is pretty difficult to do. I wouldn't let any fears you have for that season taint your attitude towards the job Kruger is doing. There are a lot of variables that need to play out before any type of accurate assessment for that team can be made.
 
Kruger will be just fine...anyone creating a firm stance on the direction of this program after 10 months under his control is being extremely short-sighted or still wishes Capel was here. Team was much more competitive than last year, which is being vastly overlooked, even though we didn't get as many W's as hoped.

I thought Capel would get another year, but the Gallon fiasco pretty much sealed his fate and Joe C. did what any of us would have done in that situation. However, if I had to do it again, would have made a stronger run at Gregg Marshall.
 
I'm not jumping ship on Kruger. I like him and I know he can coach. The problem is that I am taking everything into perspective and I am not liking what I am seeing. Right now I know that we should be back in the tournament next year but right now I see that we will have Clark and MBaye the following season with Neal, Hornbeak and Hield. One of those 3 may start, doubtful 2. That means we are going to have to add a bunch of fresh faces which usually doesn't end well in that first year. And that lineup right there is not getting us into the tournament.

I fail to see how most of what you have rattled on and on about in every thread you can find is Kruger's fault?

When he arrived on campus there was only one scholarship available with Cade's departure. Nick Thompson and Kyle Hardrick left and two more ships opened up. He filled two of those spots with upgrades in Grooms and M'Baye, and one (Arent), who has yet to prove his worth. It's not like Arent is the first player we've had who (at least so far) did not pan out. I have already named two, neither of them Kruger signees.

I get it that we'll have very little experience after next season. I don't believe LK came in with a plan to have a host of seniors on our roster next year. Five of the seven were Capel signees. How is that Kruger's fault?

It's easy to forget that with Newell''s departure, three freshmen from Capel's last recruiting class are no longer on our roster. T. J. Taylor and Abdul Ahmed left long before Kruger's arrival. He did all he could with the three available ships this season by signing three freshmen; Henry, Hornbeak and Hield. With Henry going the JUCO route, the staff is scrambling to fill his spot in the late signing period, as well as that of Calvin Newell, who decided to transfer at the mid-term. Maybe Kruger didn't do enough to keep Calvin happy. I don't know the whole story, so I'm not going to pass judgement one way or the other.

By all accounts, our coaching staff is in on some very good players in the 2013 class, including the best players available in Oklahoma. Time will tell how many, or who, OU signs for the future. It will also take time to rebuild the mess left behind by our former coach. I know that's not something you wanted to hear. But, like it or not, that's exactly what Lon Kruger inherited.
 
I expected better from our team this year. We have a better, more experienced roster than last year. We still have some holes but I (as most everybody else) just assumed Kruger would at a minimum be good for a few more conference wins. We ended with 1 less than last season where Carl Blair & Nick Thompson started some games. lol

Anyway, Kruger is a proven coach but as for him being an upgrade over Capel all we know so far is that he's costing us more.
 
Back
Top