Year in review - thoughts?

J

jaymOU

Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2009
Messages
986
Reaction score
12
Really have mixed emotions about this season.

1) Disappointing record. Maybe my expectations were too high - but thinking OU was a tournament team to start the year and especially during pre-conference play, I was disappointed with the NIT bid.

2) Impressed with Moser's energy - fantastic, an infusion I think OU basketball needed.

3) Disappointing talent - not all Moser's fault. It was on display in the St. Bonnie's game, where OU literally had zero athletic miss-matches. They were not more athletic than St. Bonnies at any position. Hard to win that way, unless you have a really established system.

4) Disappointed in the way OU closed games - or didn't close games. 8 times they had a chance to win or send a game to OT and failed all 8 times. Last night was a perfect example. WTH did Mo Gibson not even get a touch on that last possession? Moser or Goldwire at fault - I have no idea, but given Moser's body language, he seemed upset at Goldwire often last night and much of the season.

5) Positive sign regrouping after the Harkless injury. OU lost Harkless and had two awful games, but then bounced back and went on to defeat Baylor and almost Tech. Impressed with Moser and the team's resiliency.

I'd love to hear other's thoughts.....I'd give Moser a B- in his first year. Wonder what grade he would give himself?
 
I'd go C or C+. Very disappointed that in a 35-game season, the staff never solved the two issues that were an issue from the start: turnovers, and poor late-game execution. Some on the board have argued that those things can be partially explained by the roster turnover and a new coaching staff, but seeing teams from our own league (TT and ISU) succeed with tons of new players and coaches shows it can be done. Suffice it to say, ISU was a mess last season, and look where they are now. And the vast majority of Tech's transfers are from low majors, and they obviously integrated very well.

It was also disappointing that Harkless not only didn't improve, but took a big step back. He didn't understand his limitations or accept his role, and I think Moser waited too long to bench him and send that message. Even after he came back, he still had too many moments when he tried to do things that are simply beyond his skill set.

Unlike some, I think Tanner showed he is absolutely a Big 12 player. Star, no, but a guy who can be a valuable player on a good team in this league. He needs to become more consistent and find ways to contribute even when he is facing bigger, more athletic teams.

Hill had a very nice season and is a winning player. Does so many things well and unlike Harkless, knows his limitations. If anything, he needs to be more aggressive.

Mo had a few games where his size really hurt him, and it's disappointing he was a nonfactor a handful of times. The consistency he showed the last three weeks was great to see, and if he decides to come back, that's what we need.

Noland and Cortes both showed signs of being useful players. Cortes needs to cut down on the careless turnovers, develop confidence in his shot, and show he can be counted on. Noland shot it well and had a nice season in a limited role. I agree with those who think that his ceiling will be higher if he gets himself in better shape. He may never be an explosive athlete, but he will improve in that area if he improves his body.

The end of the season gave me hope, but it also was basically three good games (KSU, Baylor, and Tech). Overall, too much bad basketball to go higher than a C+. And I'll always wonder what our ceiling could have been if Marvin had taken care of his responsibilities and been a factor all season. He provided an element none of our other guards have.

I am more excited about the incoming class than any of our past three or four classes. They seem more athletic, and are certainly higher rated as a group. I think we may have a real steal in Schroeder. It's been a long time since we had a wing with size. If he is athletic and a good shooter, that could be a game changer for us.
 
WichitaSooner said:
I'd go C or C+. Very disappointed that in a 35-game season, the staff never solved the two issues that were an issue from the start: turnovers, and poor late-game execution. Some on the board have argued that those things can be partially explained by the roster turnover and a new coaching staff, but seeing teams from our own league (TT and ISU) succeed with tons of new players and coaches shows it can be done. Suffice it to say, ISU was a mess last season, and look where they are now. And the vast majority of Tech's transfers are from low majors, and they obviously integrated very well.

It was also disappointing that Harkless not only didn't improve, but took a big step back. He didn't understand his limitations or accept his role, and I think Moser waited too long to bench him and send that message. Even after he came back, he still had too many moments when he tried to do things that are simply beyond his skill set.

Unlike some, I think Tanner showed he is absolutely a Big 12 player. Star, no, but a guy who can be a valuable player on a good team in this league. He needs to become more consistent and find ways to contribute even when he is facing bigger, more athletic teams.

Hill had a very nice season and is a winning player. Does so many things well and unlike Harkless, knows his limitations. If anything, he needs to be more aggressive.

Mo had a few games where his size really hurt him, and it's disappointing he was a nonfactor a handful of times. The consistency he showed the last three weeks was great to see, and if he decides to come back, that's what we need.

Noland and Cortes both showed signs of being useful players. Cortes needs to cut down on the careless turnovers, develop confidence in his shot, and show he can be counted on. Noland shot it well and had a nice season in a limited role. I agree with those who think that his ceiling will be higher if he gets himself in better shape. He may never be an explosive athlete, but he will improve in that area if he improves his body.

The end of the season gave me hope, but it also was basically three good games (KSU, Baylor, and Tech). Overall, too much bad basketball to go higher than a C+. And I'll always wonder what our ceiling could have been if Marvin had taken care of his responsibilities and been a factor all season. He provided an element none of our other guards have.

I am more excited about the incoming class than any of our past three or four classes. They seem more athletic, and are certainly higher rated as a group. I think we may have a real steal in Schroeder. It's been a long time since we had a wing with size. If he is athletic and a good shooter, that could be a game changer for us.
Click to expand...

I Mostly agree. It’s disappointing we didn’t fix those things throughout the season. Yes, we lack talent, but that doesn’t mean we have to be so careless with the turnovers and poor decision making. I am excited about the incoming recruiting class but I’m not that excited about anyone returning, except Mo. We don’t have anyone we can hang our hat on that steps up to shoulder the load when needed. We have a team full of role players. I hope Mo Gibson comes back but I’d understand if he wanted to get on with his life.

I think we need to add at least 2 more players , not just bodies. We need talent and athleticism and we need a PG and a center/PF.
 
I am very positive about the future under Moser. Generally, I like what I saw.

I had only seen the Groves against Kansas, and I thought they would be better than they played. However, I see potential in both players and if they will put in the work, they can be winning player next year.

All in all, I thought all of the players progressed as the year went on and that is a sign of good coaching.

I would like to see 2-3 portal additions of kids that can play winning basketball at this level. A point guard, and a big would be at the top of my wish list. Then, a taller wing that can shoot would be next.

And finally, I hope at least one of the freshman signees is a really good player and can contribute. If two or all three can contribute then that would be icing on the cake.
 
I’ll stick with a B grade for the season. I could be talked into a B- for sure. I think C/C+ is a bit harsh. I’m giving Moser a pass for one year on the recruiting/talent front and judging only on what he had/how he coached them. Prior to our late season run, it was C-/C for me, but he showed a lot these past several weeks.

I definitely downgrade based on the turnover issue and the inability to fix that. Even lacking talent that’s something that should have been addressed throughout season. I don’t grade very harshly on the late game failures because I DO think that was a talent issue. We actually got some good looks in those situations, just never executed. A mix of missing a playmaker and bad luck. Last night a prime example— down two, if you get a wide open 10 footer from a wing player, you’ll take that. We just don’t have many guys we’d want taking that shot.

An under-talented team in a brutal conference. Finished pretty strong and wound up a shot away from NCAA Tournament. Looked like a well coached team to me for the most part. Now, the work really begins.
 
OUSKINS said:
I’ll stick with a B grade for the season. I could be talked into a B- for sure. I think C/C+ is a bit harsh. I’m giving Moser a pass for one year on the recruiting/talent front and judging only on what he had/how he coached them. Prior to our late season run, it was C-/C for me, but he showed a lot these past several weeks.

I definitely downgrade based on the turnover issue and the inability to fix that. Even lacking talent that’s something that should have been addressed throughout season. I don’t grade very harshly on the late game failures because I DO think that was a talent issue. We actually got some good looks in those situations, just never executed. A mix of missing a playmaker and bad luck. Last night a prime example— down two, if you get a wide open 10 footer from a wing player, you’ll take that. We just don’t have many guys we’d want taking that shot.

An under-talented team in a brutal conference. Finished pretty strong and wound up a shot away from NCAA Tournament. Looked like a well coached team to me for the most part. Now, the work really begins.
Click to expand...

Well-coached, really? That's hard to justify with all the boneheaded plays, turnovers, and bad execution. Those relate directly to coaching.
 
steverocks35 said:
Well-coached, really? That's hard to justify with all the boneheaded plays, turnovers, and bad execution. Those relate directly to coaching.
Click to expand...

OU also got great looks on O all season long ... that is also coaching ..
 
BoulderSooner said:
OU also got great looks on O all season long ... that is also coaching ..
Click to expand...

If I was the other team's coach I would give Goldwire, Hill, Jacob Groves, Cortes, and Harkless all the "great looks" they want.
 
You can't be well-coached in one or two areas and badly coached in 3-4 areas and call yourself well-coached.
 
"Hey we play good defense and our bad shooters get great looks, but we turn the ball over all the time, make terrible plays down the stretch, play horribly for entire halves, and have an overall bad offense. It's great coaching!"
 
I mean, I like Moser, I think he's going to get it done here at OU, but you can't look at this team and call it well-coached. I'm sorry.
 
steverocks35 said:
Yeah, we weren't well-coached, sorry. I'm sure Moser will improve but you can't look at this team and call it well-coached.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can. Coaching can improve 2 pt field goal percentages and defensive effort but coaching can't make players taller. We struggled all year when our opposition was bigger in the post position. Last night, Gibson had to guard a guy who was 4 - 6 inches taller than him.

Moser was behind the eight-ball all season because he only had 3 returning players. It's ironic that the women's team, which had suffered through 3 really bad seasons, had bonded as a team and, with one or 2 exceptions, stuck with the new coaches and it paid off for them. While the men's team, which had had better seasons, hadn't bonded as a team at all and scattered like chickens with their heads cut off when they got a new coach. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
 
MsProudSooner said:
Yes, you can. Coaching can improve 2 pt field goal percentages and defensive effort but coaching can't make players taller. We struggled all year when our opposition was bigger in the post position. Last night, Gibson had to guard a guy who was 4 - 6 inches taller than him.

Moser was behind the eight-ball all season because he only had 3 returning players. It's ironic that the women's team, which had suffered through 3 really bad seasons, had bonded as a team and, with one or 2 exceptions, stuck with the new coaches and it paid off for them. While the men's team, which had had better seasons, hadn't bonded as a team at all and scattered like chickens with their heads cut off when they got a new coach. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
Click to expand...

So getting the team to bond doesn't reflect on coaching? Hmmmm...
 
MsProudSooner said:
Yes, you can. Coaching can improve 2 pt field goal percentages and defensive effort but coaching can't make players taller. We struggled all year when our opposition was bigger in the post position. Last night, Gibson had to guard a guy who was 4 - 6 inches taller than him.

Moser was behind the eight-ball all season because he only had 3 returning players. It's ironic that the women's team, which had suffered through 3 really bad seasons, had bonded as a team and, with one or 2 exceptions, stuck with the new coaches and it paid off for them. While the men's team, which had had better seasons, hadn't bonded as a team at all and scattered like chickens with their heads cut off when they got a new coach. There's a lesson in there somewhere.
Click to expand...

Different situations. Men’s players have a lot more realistic chance of playing professionally, so they are likely to look to go somewhere they think increases those chances. Plus, they probably were all shocked by Lon’s retirement.
 
WichitaSooner said:
Different situations. Men’s players have a lot more realistic chance of playing professionally, so they are likely to look to go somewhere they think increases those chances. Plus, they probably were all shocked by Lon’s retirement.
Click to expand...

And how many times have you heard the saying, "If you have the talent, the NBA will find you." The NBA is littered with players who played at schools no one ever heard of before.

I didn't realize 20 - 22 year old young men were so emotionally fragile! I thought women were the more emotional creatures.
 
MsProudSooner said:
And how many times have you heard the saying, "If you have the talent, the NBA will find you." The NBA is littered with players who played at schools no one ever heard of before.

I didn't realize 20 - 22 year old young men were so emotionally fragile! I thought women were the more emotional creatures.
Click to expand...

Of course NBA scouts will find talent, but it's easier to display your talent if you are playing 30 minutes per night in a system that you feel best suits you. Is that really difficult to understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TEvans4Three
Year in Review - 2024
Replies
4
Views
416
TEvans4Three
TEvans4Three
B
Thoughts from Game
2
Replies
24
Views
965
TEvans4Three
TEvans4Three
B
Thoughts from the Tech Game
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
WichitaSooner
W
C
Quick Intro and a few thoughts
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
opsooner
O
B
Last Year vs This Year
Replies
5
Views
3K
inoref
I
Back
Top