Mercer head coach Bob Hoffman:

BigTime

The Red Wig
Joined
Nov 2, 2008
Messages
11,629
Reaction score
16
"That was a serious butt-whooping by a really good team."

Quoted from the post game press conference
 
That is was. I know that Mercer has been on a long long road trip.

The burst of scoring and defense that put us out in front with a large lead was impressive. When DJ came in he immediately blocked a shot, got a slam, and tipped a rebound to his own man in just a short time on the floor. I was impressed.

Cousins has to be careful about getting to much of the "let me shoot@ let me shoot!" mentality. (no I in team)

Cam is having a stupendous year!
 
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.
 
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.

From the 13 point half time lead, we opened the 2nd half on an 18-0 run and went on cruise control from there. That is a butt whipping.
 
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.

What Gary said, plus, they are a veteran team who played us in a dead gym. I think they will be a tourney team that could upset some folks.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Very nice then. I realize sports(games) scores can be misleading with a tight score but the losing team never actually threatening to win.
 
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'm happy to say my words of caution didn't materialize. OU came out ready to play and didn't let up until the game was totally out of reach for another mid-major upset.

This OU team will not be an easy out for any team they play, providing they continue to put the peddle down from the get-go. Coach Kruger knows his players feed off of their intensity on defense, so he brought the heat from the opening tap against Mercer to create turnovers and kick-start our offense. I would like to see that against every team on our schedule for the remainder of the season. If it doesn't work, we can always back off and rely on our half court defense.
 
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.
 
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.

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. Heck, I thought the game was over when SH was up by six with 44 seconds left. I'm pleased to say our players didn't see it that way. Their come from 18 down against the #1 team in the country to cut the lead to 4 was nothing short of amazing. Most teams would have folded under those circumstances.

There is definitely a lot to like about this team. I also recognize our weaknesses, the most glaring one a lack of quality depth in the post. We're one key injury or foul trouble from being in a heap of hurt in our frontcourt. In short, we don't have the luxury of assuming a win over a team like Mercer is a given. I'm with you, as long as our kids continue to come out ready to play, that's not something we'll have to worry about.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Agreed.

I was thinking about 3/4 of the way through the Mercer game how determined our guys looked. They were up a bunch. Crowd wasn't very big. And Hield and Woodard were still slapping the floor, getting down in defensive position. I love that. I know we put it in cruise control a little after that, but I agree, this team seems hungrier than any OU team I can remember in recent memory. And I love that. I love watching that.

People underestimate intangibles in sports all the time, IMO. We were talking about stats yesterday, and intangibles are one of the things I argue about on a STL Cardinals' message board all the time. Those guys are VERY sabermetric heavy in all of their analysis. If they can't measure it, they want to act like it doesn't exist. And while the Cardinals have a roster loaded with talent, the other thing they have is a bunch of leaders, and a roster full of guys that genuinely like each other. I think both of those things are priceless.

Same is true with our basketball team. I think Ro was a good leader, but leadership in general has been lacking from a player-prospective. I think we're getting some of that now. I also think this roster likes each other. There aren't those one or two guys that don't really fit in. Again, I think that is something that shows up in the year end W/L record.
 
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.
 
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.

I couldn't agree more about Booker. Like you, I have watched him exclusively at times to get a better feel about his game overall. Seems to me he has improved markedly in the last three games. He's clearly a smart kid with a solid coaching background that gives him the ability to make up for most of the shortcomings first year players struggle with early on.

I knew from the things I learned during the recruiting process that he had good instincts and a nose for the ball. But his quick hands and a lot better hops than I expected came as a complete surprise. He's going to be an exciting player when the shots he's a little off on now start to fall. The stroke is there. All he needs is a healthy dose of confidence.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top