Will eat crow on CAM

[garyeb2]

The rest of your post sucked as well, but this paragraph was certainly the highlight. Were you dropped on your head as a child?

Both Osby and Pledger start on the majority of the teams in the Big 12. They are good college players (sometimes they're great) who are probably going to be even better next year. The fact that you still can't give Pledger credit when he's putting up 17+ a game and shooting over 40% from behind the 3 is remarkable.

You can be as cutsie and defiant as you want to be. I don't care. But, here are the facts. This years teams is one of the worst in the conference. They have the record to prove it. Things aren't the way they are because the players are so good. Things are the way they are because the players aren't so good. The failure of that reality to resonate with you, frankly, is remarkable.

 

[lk2183]

You can be as cutsie and defiant as you want to be. I don't care. But, here are the facts. This years teams is one of the worst in the conference. They have the record to prove it. Things aren't the way they are because the players are so good. Things are the way they are because the players aren't so good. The failure of that reality to resonate with you, frankly, is remarkable.

This is the type of stuff that baffles me.

C'mon Garye. Nobody is arguing that the results of this year are good, but that doesn't mean that nearly everyone on the team is devoid of talent and shouldn't be playing in the Big 12 or any other major school. What people are saying is that the process you use to make conclusions is beyond ridiculous because you are convinced that everyone not playing at OU right now is a better than everyone on our roster. The way you describe things seems like you think anyone in D1, high school or JC having some success must be better than our guys because we have a poor record. You took this approach with Arent and Grooms and now you are doing it with Hield, Hornbeak and this JC big. Keep in mind that just because someone is offered the chance to join a team it doesn't mean they are immediately better than what is already there. It means they bring something to the table that can help the team in the future. Future sometimes means next year but more often than not it means in 2-3 years down the line.

I like what I've seen from Hield and Hornbeak so far, but I haven't seen something that shows me they are going to unseat/outplay a 3 year starter averaging 17/game or even a not-so-consistent junior-to-be with loads more experience and athleticism than either of them possess. It's a great dream, but it's not likely. I expect them to come into the program, learn the system and hopefully provide some positive minutes off the bench next year. I do not expect any of the new guys to be the saviors of our poor program.

The results that this team and last years team but together are subpar, I don't think anyone is arguing with you there. But it's like Denver said. If you add the right piece to this exact same roster then it would look like a much better team.

Again, I'm not trying to attack you personally with any of this, but your logic makes no sense. Things aren't always black and white and players can't be all-world or complete busts. Life doesn't work that way and if you think it does then I'm sure you spend most of your days dealing with constant disappointment.

 

[WTSooner]

How many more wins does this OU team have if Newell stays, and Cam and Neal simply shoot the ball at the same percentages they did last year? Are we still bashing our overall talent level if that had happened? We aren't THAT far away from being a top 4-5 Big 12 team. And while that should never make us happy, that is where we need to get to first, before we can turn ourselves back into an annual top 25 team.

 

[garyeb2]

This is the type of stuff that baffles me.

C'mon Garye. Nobody is arguing that the results of this year are good, but that doesn't mean that nearly everyone on the team is devoid of talent and shouldn't be playing in the Big 12 or any other major school. What people are saying is that the process you use to make conclusions is beyond ridiculous because you are convinced that everyone not playing at OU right now is a better than everyone on our roster. The way you describe things seems like you think anyone in D1, high school or JC having some success must be better than our guys because we have a poor record. You took this approach with Arent and Grooms and now you are doing it with Hield, Hornbeak and this JC big. Keep in mind that just because someone is offered the chance to join a team it doesn't mean they are immediately better than what is already there. It means they bring something to the table that can help the team in the future. Future sometimes means next year but more often than not it means in 2-3 years down the line.

I like what I've seen from Hield and Hornbeak so far, but I haven't seen something that shows me they are going to unseat/outplay a 3 year starter averaging 17/game or even a not-so-consistent junior-to-be with loads more experience and athleticism than either of them possess. It's a great dream, but it's not likely. I expect them to come into the program, learn the system and hopefully provide some positive minutes off the bench next year. I do not expect any of the new guys to be the saviors of our poor program.

The results that this team and last years team but together are subpar, I don't think anyone is arguing with you there. But it's like Denver said. If you add the right piece to this exact same roster then it would look like a much better team.

Again, I'm not trying to attack you personally with any of this, but your logic makes no sense. Things aren't always black and white and players can't be all-world or complete busts. Life doesn't work that way and if you think it does then I'm sure you spend most of your days dealing with constant disappointment.

No, if you are going to argue with me, please try not to be dishonest about it. I did not say that everyone that doesn't play for OU is better than everyone that does. What I said was that any player that Kruger brings in is likily better than what he has now.

Kruger is an expert in evaluating basketball talent. He has been doing it a long time with good results. He knows exactly what he needs a player to be able do to make the team better.

Nor did I ever say that the current players are complete bust. What I have said and have been consistant about is that they are mid major or bottom half BCS conference caliber starters and off the bench types for good teams.

Let me tell you alittle about how life works. A person can go to work for the postal service,or be an accoutant, or work in the service and hospitality field, or practice tax law, or dozens and dozens of other honorable fields where effort is valued and means something.

Or, one can choose to compete in a competitive enviroment. Then, results are the only thing that matter. For every horse race that draws a 10 horse field, there will be one winner and 9 damned excuses. And no matter how valid the excuses seem to be, the reality is, it is almost always a simple case of the best horse won.

 

[AdaSooner]

How many more wins does this OU team have if Newell stays, and Cam and Neal simply shoot the ball at the same percentages they did last year? Are we still bashing our overall talent level if that had happened? We aren't THAT far away from being a top 4-5 Big 12 team. And that should never make us happy, that is where we need to get to first, before we can turn ourselves back into an annual top 25 team.

I agree that one more consistent scoring threat would have been huge. I think it's highly likely that with Newell on the team, OU wins three to four more games this season. His presence alone would have made it more difficult to dog Pledger all over the floor, as well as double down on Fitz and Osby inside.

That said, if I had to name the #1 weakness this team has faced the entire season, it would be the lack of quality depth. There is not a single player (not one) on our bench capable of coming in and sparking the team on offense. All of our kids play hard. They're just not what I would call high D-1caliber players who can increase or sustain a lead when Kruger looks to his bench for help.

And to be perfectly honest, even our starters have weaknesses that cannot be ignored. I don't see any reason to continue to beat a dead horse, most of you know what they are by now anyway. I'll sum it up by saying that we need a serious upgrade in talent if we expect to compete for one of the top four spots in the Big 12 next season.

No doubt M'Baye and the newbies we have coming in will go a long way toward accomplishing that goal. I have been and will continue to be very optimistic that OU will be much improved next season. I also have to believe that the returning players will be better. But, in reality, there's only so much a few players on our roster can do. Our former coach didn't do us any favors in the quality depth department.

 

[campbest]

Let me tell you alittle about how life works. A person can go to work for the postal service,or be an accoutant, or work in the service and hospitality field, or practice tax law, or dozens and dozens of other honorable fields where effort is valued and means something.

Or, one can choose to compete in a competitive enviroment. Then, results are the only thing that matter. For every horse race that draws a 10 horse field, there will be one winner and 9 damned excuses. And no matter how valid the excuses seem to be, the reality is, it is almost always a simple case of the best horse won.

Thanks for the insight, please pass along any further life lessons at your leisure.

 

[garyeb2]

Thanks for the insight, please pass along any further life lessons at your leisure.

If you look up and find yourself riding a dead horse, dismount.

 

[Dr Sleep]

I just think people are expecting him to be something he's not. He's not an all-conference player. By the time he's done here I expect he'll be a 12-13 point, 6-7 rebound per game type.

I think he will be all conference by they time he graduates.

 

[bgrch1350]

You can be as cutsie and defiant as you want to be. I don't care. But, here are the facts. This years teams is one of the worst in the conference. They have the record to prove it. Things aren't the way they are because the players are so good. Things are the way they are because the players aren't so good. The failure of that reality to resonate with you, frankly, is remarkable.

Our record has little to do with our starting 5...and a whole lot to do with our bench. OU has the worst bench in the big 12. Thats why we can compete in the 1st half and then end up losing it in the 2nd. You can't win with 0 scoring coming from your bench.

 

[DenverSooner]

You can be as cutsie and defiant as you want to be. I don't care. But, here are the facts. This years teams is one of the worst in the conference. They have the record to prove it. Things aren't the way they are because the players are so good. Things are the way they are because the players aren't so good. The failure of that reality to resonate with you, frankly, is remarkable.

I think where most people differ from you is they see a team with some good parts that needs another player or two. You seem to see a team with no Big XII level players.

 

[AdaSooner]

I think where most people differ from you is they see a team with some good parts that needs another player or two. You seem to see a team with no Big XII level players.

I'm somewhere in between how Gary sees this team and how others see it. I believe we a few Big 12 level parts, just not enough of them. That's why I went into detail in giving my thoughts about our lack of quality depth, now lost at the bottom of the previous page.

While I'll admit that the jury is still out a couple of the second-tier players in our current rotation, this OU team is not blessed with a lot of talent when you get past our starting five. Truth is, even our starters have weaknesses that should be obvious to everyone by now. Cam can be streaky; Grooms can't shoot from the perimeter; Fitz is usually good from short range, but that's where his strengths end; Pledger struggles to get open shots when he's not coming off of a screen; Osby has tweener size for a major college PF.

Don't get me wrong, I like our starting five. The number one problem this team has is a lack of bench strength; players who can substitute in for a starter and spark the team on offense, or at least maintain the status quo while they're on the floor. I cringe every time Kruger goes to his bench!

 

[garyeb2]

I think where most people differ from you is they see a team with some good parts that needs another player or two. You seem to see a team with no Big XII level players.

I think Osby is a good player. Good enough to play for a good solid upper division OU team. I thought the same about Grooms for awhile. But, the kid can not shoot. That is a disqualifier.

This teams underlying problem is defense. Or the lack thereof. We rank at the bottom or near the bottom of every measureable defensive catagory. That has to make Kruger just sick at his stomach.

For the most part this group of players lacks the quickness, reaction time, and lateral speed to play big boy defense. (And for the same reason, not much offense is generated in transition either.)It isn't coachable, it isn't fixable, they just can not do it. Kruger can not even scheme and defend the way he wants to with this group of kids. Most of my many critics seem to want to believe that defense is just something to pass the time between offensive possesions. It just doesn't work that way. Bring weak D and you lose.

Sure, it would be nice to have another 3 pt. shooter. All the other conference teams seem to have 2/3 good ones. But, it wouldn't help much. We wouldn't have anything anyone else didn't have. Adding this piece or that is just playing whackamo until the underlying personel issues are solved.

OU does not have a substained history of bringing in the elite program changing players. And Kruger certainly does not have the reputation of doing that. Kruger will get the job done. But, it will be when he can get some blue collar defenders that can run the offense.

 

[DenverSooner]

I pretty much agree with you. I think if OU can add another 3 point shooter and M'Baye (I am hoping he can hit a few threes at a good percentage) it will make a big difference.

 

[sperry]

Cam Clark has definitely stepped his game up the last few games. Let's hope he can keep this momentum going into next season. We need him to be at least somewhat of a scoring threat.