coleman might have just played

[Ghost]

It was a hook from about 12, but even putting facts aside, I don't think this is evidence of any similarity between the two. Christmas was rarely used on offense for three years but showed good fundamentals. Coleman has difficulty getting shots off against smaller players.

I wouldn't go so far as to echo the "bad hands" assessments in some of these posts, though. Coleman's got fine hands. His problem stems from having too little sense of what to do once he gets the ball in the post. He delays and presents the ball to opponents in a predictable way; the strongest hands in the game wouldn't prevent him from getting stripped by defenders.

I think one of the plays that highlighed my frustrations with DC yesterday (and I love what the kid gives us because we desperately need some size down there) was after a Cooney missed three in the first half.

He had the rebound, he had three options at that point. Pound his way closer to the rim with three guys in the proximity. Kick back out to Cooney after the defense collapsed on him and give a shooter a second open look from the same spot on the floor, or, kick it out to G or Mal (forget who was the other open guy was at the three). He tried to bull his way toward the rim and lost the ball. I don't think it's that he has bad hands either, he's just so tentative, slow afoot, and that lends itself to a lot of turnovers. Rak kicks that ball out for the three probably 10 out of 10 times - even as a dominant Senior. That's one gigantic difference between Rak and DC right there.

If you can give a shooter the same look from the same spot on the floor, open, twice in a row? You do it all day.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Coleman's hands are interesting phenomena. It is usually easy to label centers as having "bad hands" (e.g., McNeil, Keita) and those with "good hands" (e.g., Forth, Melo, Christmas) because they generally consistently present those respective traits. I can't figure out if Coleman has good hands or bad hands.

 

[Ghost]

I think some of you are blinded by Raks senior year. The numbers are the numbers and show their junior years to be incredibly similar. Per 100 possessions we give up the same amount of points with DC on the court as we did Raks junior year.

Okay, let's say Rak was a bumbling idiot on offense - even for all four years. Every touch he turned and threw the ball at the Carreir Dome roof...Do you think with the difference in how they play defense alone, that DC would see much floor time? I think a Frosh Rak was so superior on defense, ability to run the floor, etc..that you would see this version of DC getting very limited minutes. Outside of offensive rebounding, DC offers up very little outside of a big body. He's shown flashes of having more to give, and he hopefully keeps progressing as he gets into better shape and recovers more from the time off, but right now, I can't fathom that anyone could think it would be close in minute distribution under the scenario presented.

He has more to give obviously than just offensive rebounding - but it's limited. I don't know, just want to qualify that a bit, because I don't think he's as bad as is implied at times.

I think Keita would best him in minutes straight up right now. I don't think that would be that close either.

 

[two3zone]

Idk I remember when Christmas blew a two footer at the buzzer when we lost to BC at home.

What does this have to do with the price of beans?

He didn't miss it because he's a bad player, or for any other reason that it just didn't go in. The shot was there, it was close, 7-10 times it probably goes in.

Here I thought Rak kicked your puppy from reading your posts, but it was because you think he blew the BC game. One missed shot at the end of the game doesn't make you lose to BC. A bad game by your team makes you lose to BC.

 

[Dave85]

I just watched the BC game a second time. It's always easier to watch a game a second time when you do not have the tension about who is going to win. My assessment was the Orange played a very good game. Just like you can't score 100% on offense you can be perfect on defense. The Orange were going against Dennis Clifford, 7'0" player who is two hundred forty seven pounds. Normally, it's difficult enough for this team to defend against big guys. But Clifford was playing one of the best games of his career. There were two times he was triple teams in low post and he still scored. But even with his really good game the Orange won the game. I don't think the issue about this game is whether Coleman had bad game but more the big guy on BC played really well. Plus they had the one freshmen with 25 points and 5 made 3's. This game could have been a 30 point blow out. BC was lucky in my mind.

 

[Cusefan0307]

What does this have to do with the price of beans?

He didn't miss it because he's a bad player, or for any other reason that it just didn't go in. The shot was there, it was close, 7-10 times it probably goes in.

Here I thought Rak kicked your puppy from reading your posts, but it was because you think he blew the BC game. One missed shot at the end of the game doesn't make you lose to BC. A bad game by your team makes you lose to BC.

I think what I think. Rak missed plays/DC missed plays, that was the point. There's not much difference in the numbers, that's what I think. I have zero against Rak or DC. You don't like the aesthetics, agree to disagree.

 

[two3zone]

But Clifford was playing one of the best games of his career.

The problem is that it is the trend with opposing centers.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

It was a fantastic show compared to the poop the networks keep throwing at the wall these days.

It was very good. I don't know what you mean by poop. There are so many good shows I don't even bother to try to keep up.

However if you mean good family oriented shows you may be right.

 

[donniesyracuse]

It was very good. I don't know what you mean by poop. There are so many good shows I don't even bother to try to keep up.

Network television is awful!

 

[pulaski74]

I think one of the plays that highlighed my frustrations with DC yesterday (and I love what the kid gives us because we desperately need some size down there) was after a Cooney missed three in the first half.

He had the rebound, he had three options at that point. Pound his way closer to the rim with three guys in the proximity. Kick back out to Cooney after the defense collapsed on him and give a shooter a second open look from the same spot on the floor, or, kick it out to G or Mal (forget who was the other open guy was at the three). He tried to bull his way toward the rim and lost the ball. I don't think it's that he has bad hands either, he's just so tentative, slow afoot, and that lends itself to a lot of turnovers. Rak kicks that ball out for the three probably 10 out of 10 times - even as a dominant Senior. That's one gigantic difference between Rak and DC right there.

If you can give a shooter the same look from the same spot on the floor, open, twice in a row? You do it all day.

And tr is very adept at kicking it back out, what about tr at 5 w/ lydon on the stretch?

 

[NYCSUGrad]

Network television is awful!

I've pretty much kicked the TV habit but I still try to keep up with Gotham. Some shows I like but am way behind on are Once Upon a Time, Scandal and The Muppets. And there are probably a dozen others people have recommended that I have yet to view, especially some of the other super hero shows. Add to that premium channels, Internet content like the Netflix shows and good old PBS and there is plenty that's good to watch.

And it's especially ironic because I don't work now and have plenty of time to watch tv.

 

[donniesyracuse]

Add to that premium channels, Internet content like the Netflix shows and good old PBS and there is plenty that's good to watch.

There is indeed plenty that's good to watch. None of it is currently being supplied by the over-the-air networks (apart from sports).

 

[pulaski74]

Well, is there a forum to discuss the pros and cons of network tv?

 

[FrancoPizza]

Some shows I like but am way behind on are Once Upon a Time.

You have got to be kidding me. Season 1 was a curiosity. I bailed on season 2 when it was painfully obvious the writers had no story arc or plan beyond season 1. By season 3 even my wife - who's into that fantasy hocus pocus - realized it had become a complete turd.

 

[NYCSUGrad]

You have got to be kidding me. Season 1 was a curiosity. I bailed on season 2 when it was painfully obvious the writers had no story arc or plan beyond season 1. By season 3 even my wife - who's into that fantasy hocus pocus - realized it had become a complete turd.

It hasn't jumped the shark for me yet. I'm not particularly into fantasy in general, this show just works for me. YMMOV.