Can I ask what may be a stupid question? I did not get to watch as I forgot. Makes me sick when I have a chance to watch and forget. How is it a butt whippin, when we outscore, what sounds like a below average team, by 13 in the first half and 1 in the second? Am I wrong here? Sounds like another good offensive performance with a lot of defensive let downs.
Can I ask what may be a stupid question? I did not get to watch as I forgot. Makes me sick when I have a chance to watch and forget. How is it a butt whippin, when we outscore, what sounds like a below average team, by 13 in the first half and 1 in the second? Am I wrong here? Sounds like another good offensive performance with a lot of defensive let downs.
Maybe they were tired, but I wasn't very impressed with Mercer. They weren't very athletic at all. Had a few guys that could shoot it some, but just didn't seem very athletic.
I know you are an true OU fan but you seem very pessimistic this year. Prior to the game I think you were saying if OU didn't play well Mercer could beat them. When OU crushes Mercer you criticize Mercer. I don't get it. It was a good win for OU. Those guys beat Seaton Hall. They are a solid mid-major team.
You might want to go check back about what I've been saying. I didn't say that about Mercer. I actually jumped on the poster that said Mercer could give us a game. Nothing pessimistic about my take on this team at all. A little down on the defense, but I think it'll get better. It's not hard to fact check something like this before calling me out. Ya know?
Fact is, I'm one of two or three posters who cautioned about overlooking a team like Mercer. If I had said that about SFA last year, no one would question it after the fact . There is always a risk of losing, even at home, when a team begins to believe they're good enough to beat a veteran team with a host of seniors in their rotation by coasting to a win.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I think OU, and really, most every team in the country, can lose if they simply show up and try to go through the motions. That is a recipe for a disaster, even against lesser teams, a lot of times.
I was really only disagreeing with the poster(s) that I thought was saying that even if OU showed up and played well, this could be a close game. Mercer isn't that talented. IMO, of course. I just feel like as long as our guys show up and play anywhere near the level they are capable of, we really don't have to worry about losing home games to teams like Mercer. That is more of a compliment to OU, LK, and the team, than a slap in the face of Mercer. Those good OU teams (good, not great) under Kelvin, we never really worried about such games.
For the first 30 minutes it was a Kruger type game. Up tempo and full court pressure. Best news to me was that Neal, Bennett and Booker were in the mix without a drop off. We were unable to do that with Michigan State because Neal was ineffective and Booker never left the pine.
We were able to do that in the second half of the Michigan State game we got back into the game with Kruger type basketball but didn't have the quality depth to go the whole game.
We just have to get Neal, Bennett and Booker ready to go by conference time. We have enough winnable games left before January to get them ready. I think they have the ability, just need playing time.
That's how I feel, too. This group of kids are as determined as any team we've had in years. They don't get down on themselves when the score is not in their favor.
To me, the part I put in bold could be a key to our continued success. Neal has looked good at times. Bennett and Booker are getting better. But all three players will have to take that next step in their progression to at least maintain the status quo while they're on the floor.
I agree, the potential is there. Not so much in Tyler, because I'm not sure he can play a lot better than what we have seen so far. Booker and Bennett have a much higher ceiling.
You and SoonerinNC make great points, and I wholeheartedly agree. I'd like to add the following editorial comment about Coach Kruger and the role he wants for Booker. I think Lon sees much potential for Frank, based on the way he's using the kid. It's not so much that Booker is getting big minutes, but Coach seems to be making sure that Frank is on the floor for short stretches through the entire game.
Booker's shot looks really good when he has time to square himself up. He's not yet hit a high percentage of his shots, but unless we believe his high school career was an aberration, it's just a matter of time. And if you watch him play defense, the kid hustles all the time and is actually much more athletic than I ever dreamed he'd be. That will allow Kruger to teach him to become a good defender.
I'm guessing Mr. Booker could become the kid everyone but Kruger whiffed on.