|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 0:00:26 GMT -5
Well, we're 2-1 against BCS schools this year. Miami's a good team. We had a chance and couldn't make a shot when we needed to and Larkin's kid was scorching hot. That was the game right there. I don't consider Nova to be a BCS team. Also, I didn't hear kale but I think he must be quoted out of context. Could he have meant that we needed to play like there was nothing to lose? Nothing to lose implies we are where we were when we came into the game. No closer and no further toward the goal. Need to win about 11 more games to get a sniff of the bubble. Games vs temple and at sLu and vs butler loom large.
|
|
|
Post by Gnocchi on Jan 3, 2013 0:05:44 GMT -5
I feel like mocking him is like stealing kid from a candy. He probably rehearsed those answers for weeks. Next time talk about basketball for more than 15 seconds, thanks. Agreed. It's too easy. He sounded clueless to me. Spouting platitudes. It was disheartening. They need an AD who 1.) has a clue and 2.) shows some initiative. Xavier's Mike Bobinski, chair of the Division I Men's Basketball Committee
|
|
|
Post by lasalle69bestever on Jan 3, 2013 9:11:33 GMT -5
Does Brennan attend all away games or just the ones in Florida?
|
|
|
Post by Gnocchi on Jan 3, 2013 11:24:15 GMT -5
Quiz, when was the last tyime we beat a top 50 team away from home. Answer probably is at least 15 years. One of the years we had Steve Smith, we smoked a decent Xavier team at Cincy Gardens. Not sure if they were Top 50, but it's possible. Explos won at Xavier, 79-70, on Feb. 11, 2006. Xavier's RPI was 74. statsheet.com/mcb/teams/la-salle/schedule?season=2005-2006Explos played 3 Top 50 RPI teams on the road in Smith's senior season and lost each by double-digits: 'Nova 98-57; Overbrook 66-54; and GW 77-65.
|
|
|
Post by victoriouslasalle on Jan 3, 2013 11:47:35 GMT -5
ACC talent exposed our many weaknesses. Ramon's ballhandling is not strong enough to get him separation when defenses get up on him. Tyreek may be our most complete player but he is undersized and it showed tonight. Sam is not up to this level. Garland has to develop a jumpshot. DJ is a stand still shooter with limited skills. Steve is much improved but lacks the athleticism for this level and Jerrell has limited offense and is slow defensively. The disturbing fact to me is that this is a fairly talented La Salle team and we still aren't at the level of what is likely a middle of the pack ACC team. In many ways we remain a MAAC team. Sorry for the long post , just frustrated at our inability to compete with this type of program. 71, Agree with much of what you say here about our personnel. But, my perspective differs a bit regarding judging our talent level and our Conference affiliation. Unlike days gone by, I am feeling more at home in the A10 and I am solidly A10 focused. There was a time I was not sure we could be A10 competitive, had a fear of being chronically, Fordam-esque. I think we have arrived as solidly A10 competitive, and we can expect to be a definite mid pack A10 team. Add a few more pieces and we can challenge the top wrung here. I am not sure whether we get better than this. When NCAA berths are the goal I guess MAC positioning might be arguable for us. If there, maybe we compete for the top there more readily and have greater birth ops........maybe? can we maintain current recruiting there?. I personally like where we are at.
|
|
|
Post by explorerman on Jan 3, 2013 11:55:15 GMT -5
That is La Salle in a nutshell. Kale has been taught well. Unfortunately, this mentality continues to cripple La Salle. The fact that he was promoted 4-5 years ago then to only be hired over with the inclusion of Jim Gulick. Well speaks to this mentality in the administration of the athletic department (and well represents the university).
|
|
|
Post by explorerman on Jan 3, 2013 12:07:00 GMT -5
I, unfortunately, with the sediment that we did have the personnel to contend with Miami.
However, if someone wanted to say.. Hey we were up for a majority of the game, we just ran out of the steam because we didn't the bigs to continue to put out there... well I can't disagree with that either..
But that falls on Coach G... Not having the personnel available.. that is on G..
What is not on G.. Zack's 1st foul where he was flying out of control going over the back or running into someone from behind for a his second foul.
Wright not having the athletic ability and size to contend with BCS low post players.. He is a tweener.. Good for A-10 and mid major opponents, not against high end BCS teams..
On G.. I do not care if Mills was playing in his high school gym.. You coach to win games and considering how important this game was to our resume.. After analyzing the first half, you start Garland over Mills and bring Mills off the bench. Garland actually has offensive ability, where Mills struggles. The first half Mills was horrible missing open 3, after open 3, as a Division 1 head coach, it is your job that determine who your best players are right now and you play them to give your team the best chance to win. If G says at anytime that he played Mills over Garland because he was playing at home.. I would as an AD, look to first have a talk with him and if I didn't get the response I wanted, I would look to replace him in the offseason. Too much money and resources on the line in NCAA basketball to allow irrational thinking to take place.
|
|
|
Post by theneumann64 on Jan 3, 2013 12:19:32 GMT -5
If you have legitimate criticism of Kale, and the job he's doing either in the broadcast booth or in the AD's office, that's fine. Let's try to come up with something a little better than calling him a "turd."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2013 12:29:28 GMT -5
This looking at the box score, after the fact, and calling out mandatory starting lineup switches based on who was making shots yesterday is garbage analysis. We saw the same stuff last year during a stretch in which Galloway couldn't hit shots, even though it was mere days after his 10 for 11 performance, the experts at lasalle-explorers.com thought he should have been benched. In favor of whom? It didn't matter, because it was hindsight analysis. And hindsight is always right. usually.
When Garland has 26 minutes and 20 points off the bench, there aren't that many more minutes he can take. It's not right to say he's being underutilized. Giannini got 16 shots to the best performer of the game. That's a lot of running the right plays, especially in the second half. Yet, he's openly criticized for leaving Galloway and Mills in there during the second half and that Garland should have gone in. (Never mind that he was already in for two third of the game, it's those other 14 minutes that cost us!)
Stick to your day jobs, folks.
|
|