PDA

View Full Version : Rambling March Thoughts During a Slow Week



OUSKINS
2/16/2009, 05:32 PM
With OU off until Saturday night in Austin and with the Tourney talk starting to heat up around the country, I figured this was a good time to assess where OU stands right now in relation to the rest of the country. Here are some rambling thoughts on the subject:

--My brother-in-law (Pitt grad) and I have a running argument about the Big 12; he says it's awful-- I say it's average. It's definitely "down" from years past, but you can still make a solid argument that the Big 12 is the third best conference in college basketball this year. I know a lot of people think the Pac 10 is better, but the Big 12 went 10-7 against the Pac 10 this year and the teams near the top of the Big 12 standings did VERY well against Pac 10 teams. Baylor, for instance, has struggled in conference, but they beat Arizona St. and Washington St. Texas A+M has also struggled, but they beat Washington. The Big East and ACC are CLEARLY superior to the Big 12 this year, but I wouldn't say the Big 12 is awful, just average.

I did make a bet with him that 6 or more teams would make the Dance from the Big 12, and it looks like he will be right by predicting 5. Mizzou, OU, UT, and KU are locks-- and I think one other team will sneak in (Baylor still being the most likely, in my opinion).

--All of the top teams will enter the tourney with a few questions. It's pretty clear that the big question for OU will be whether or not they have been tested enough. OU has a bunch of wins against "quality" teams, but none against great or elite teams. They simply haven't played anyone that would be considered to be one of the best 10 teams in the nation-- that could change depending on how good Missouri really is. It's pretty clear OU will deserve a #1 seed if they continue on this current path, but doubts will linger until they meet (and beat) a team that national pundits consider elite.

--I still think UNC is the favorite heading into March. They say defense wins championships, but in basketball, I always prefer teams that have explosive offensive potential-- UNC is extremely explosive. They seem to be going through the motions a bit this year, but I was impressed with how they handle the Dukies in Cameron. The knock on UNC will be their defense and overall toughness, but I think they are the most talented team in the country top to bottom.

--I hate to say this (my brother-in-law being the Pitt guy that he is), but I think I'd call Pitt my "second favorite" nationally right now. That team is VERY physical and can really play some defense. The good news for them is that they also seem have enough offensive firepower to not be overwhelmed if a game turns higher scoring. The knock on them, from my point of view, is that their offense does seem to stagnate at times. Not a great shooting team and they've struggled when Dejaun Blair has been in foul trouble or had off nights.

--I liked Duke earlier this season, but they are once again beginning to look soft-- and I don't see much down low for them. UCONN is very good, but losing Dyson stings. And even though the media is going nuts over Thabeet right now, I'd still take Blake in a heartbeat-- that's a match-up I'd really like to see at some point in the Dance.

--All in all, I see four teams that have separated themselves from the pack this year: OU, UNC, Pitt, and UCONN. I see those 4 being the #1 seeds unless something weird happens between now and then. Maybe UCONN dips to a #2 if the Dyson injury costs them some games--in that case, maybe a team like Louisville steps in? But other than the four mentioned, I don't see any other teams I'd consider extremely dangerous.

--The key for OU right now is to keep their cool, not get too blase', but also not peak too early. A loss (or maybe two) wouldn't be a disaster for the Sooners and probably wouldn't even cost them seeding depending on the circumstances. The Sooners do have 3 very tough games remaining in addition to the OSU game in Norman, which always has the rivalrly factor. I'm interested to see how KU and Mizzou play Blake.

JLEW1818
2/16/2009, 05:59 PM
gotta be hot going into the tourney

NormanPride
2/16/2009, 06:03 PM
You think UT is a lock but don't think KSU will make it?

Sooner04
2/16/2009, 07:23 PM
UT is a lock on name alone, and it's often very hard for the committee to get past that. Big 12 basketball history is littered with teams who deserved to get in and were left on the side of the road for a name team within the conference.

Texas Tech got the nod over Colorado just because of Bob Knight.
We got the nod over Nebraska in '99 because we're Oklahoma.
K-State got the shaft in 2007.

Believe me, if UT and K-State have the same resume you better believe UT gets in.

the_ouskull
2/16/2009, 07:53 PM
UCONN is very good, but losing Dyson stings. And even though the media is going nuts over Thabeet right now, I'd still take Blake in a heartbeat-- that's a match-up I'd really like to see at some point in the Dance.

Me too.

Sincerely,
The top and bottom of this year's NBA lottery... (That's right, I'm talking to you, Kings v. Bullets and Bucks v. Suns.)

(...and yes, I AM saying that I think the Kings and Bullets will have the two worst records in the NBA at the end of the year, and I think that the Bucks and the Suns will be the top two teams in their respective conferences that are left out of the playoffs. It's not exactly a Ruthian prediction or anything...)

..because, if Blake and Thabeet DO meet, those teams that are at the bad end of the lottery are going to watch Blake to destroy Thabeet on a national stage so that they have a shot at drafting Thabeet. So, since they're going to want Blake to kill Thabeet, during the pre-game hype, they will do nothing except talk about how dominant Thabeet is going to be.

...it's kinda like how you're happy when Lee Corso picks against OU in football. It's the only way that I really know to describe it. Anyway, the "talking heads" will be picking Thabeet to kill Blake in order to curse themselves, when, in fact, it will do the exact opposite, by allowing Thabeet, (who I think has the potential to become a more offense-minded Dikembe Mutumbo) a better chance of falling to those teams that are picking between 10-13ish.

Am I just completely alone on this? I know this isn't an NBA forum, but it's kinda related to OU basketball, and to the topic at hand, and, besides, since a lot of you are Thunder fans, I don't really have anybody around here to talk NBA with. :D

And, for those of you keeping score, at the beginning of the year, I said that the Thunder wouldn't win 20 games. I said that they would be vastly overachieving if they got to 20 games, in fact. They currently sit at 13-40 with 29 games to play. (13 home, 16 away) If they're going to make me mow down some crow, (alliteration doesn't have to fall at the beginning of a word, you know - although it is more of a poetic device than a literary one, to place it elsewhere) they're going to have to win over half of their games at home, 'cause I don't see them pulling off a lot of late-season road wins. (Only 5 of those 16 road games are against teams who likely, barring a miracle along the lines of "Rock Me, Sexy Jesus" getting some air play, won't be in the playoff hunt...)

So, how's about those Sooners, eh? Oh, and the Thunder too. Good times. Good times.

the_ouskull

OUSKINS
2/16/2009, 10:21 PM
UT has wins over UCLA and Villanova that will really help come selection time. KSU just doesn't have the resume....yet. They have work to do-- Baylor has a better shot, IMO, if they finish strong. Their wins over Arizona St. and Providence will help them.

OUSKINS
2/16/2009, 10:31 PM
Skull....good post....looking at potential landing spots for Blake, I see some good ones and some bad ones as well...

I'm a Cavs fan, so obviously, my team has no chance to land Blake. With that in mind, I'd prefer to see him go to the Thunder, which I think would be a great fit for him for a wide range of reasons.

I also think Washington would be a pretty good spot for him. Not a whole lot of tradition there, but if Arenas comes back healthy, the Wizards would have a pretty intruiging foursome of Gilbert, Butler, Jamison, and Blake.

Minnesota is another team that might work for Blake. Al Jefferson can play the 5, and he and Blake could form a pretty stout frontcourt.

The bad spots? I think the Kings are in the midst of a total rebuild and in the NBA, that can last a LONG time. They have little in the cupboard right now and they still need to unload some veterans before they can move on to the full rebuild process. If I'm Blake, I do not want to go to Sacramento.

And then you have the Clippers...on paper, if they added Blake, they'd have a really nice core of talent with Camby, Baron Davis, Eric Gordon, etc. but the Clippers are the Clippers for a reason and it's simply a cursed place for NBA rookies.

One more team that would make some sense is Indiana, who will probably find themselves in the middle of the lottery. They have good fans, a generally solid front office, and Danny Granger is a great scorer who could use a boost down low.

the_ouskull
2/16/2009, 11:01 PM
Skull....good post....looking at potential landing spots for Blake, I see some good ones and some bad ones as well...

I'm a Cavs fan, so obviously, my team has no chance to land Blake. With that in mind, I'd prefer to see him go to the Thunder, which I think would be a great fit for him for a wide range of reasons.

Unless some ridiculous trade happens, which won't happen since, to involve a Top-5 pick, it would have to involve LeBron, or the other four starters... neither of which would work under the cap for most Lottery teams, Cleveland needs to worry about keeping their potential future free agents - not the draft. Also, I don't know how deep of a Cavs fan you are, but your management should probably lay off of Camby over in Clip Land. For some drunken buffoon reason... wait, they're the Clippers, that's it... they think Camby's "untouchable" as far as trades go. He would be nice with the Cavs though...

I also think Washington would be a pretty good spot for him. Not a whole lot of tradition there, but if Arenas comes back healthy, the Wizards would have a pretty intruiging foursome of Gilbert, Butler, Jamison, and Blake.

Heh. Arenas. If they could unload him, today, without it crushing their cap number, they'd do it. Caron Butler is "The Man" for that team now. And, while I'm on it, there haven't been any rumblings out of Washington in a while, so, chances are, they're going to make some crazy-*ssed move. Yay, Bullets!

Minnesota is another team that might work for Blake. Al Jefferson can play the 5, and he and Blake could form a pretty stout frontcourt.

Well, I mean, if Kevin Love, last year's 1st round pick, and owner of one of the league's best rebound rates, doesn't mind coming off of the bench, sure. I like Randy Foye (finally) blowing up a lil' bit for the Wolves though. They haven't really been right up there since Malik Sealy died...

The bad spots? I think the Kings are in the midst of a total rebuild and in the NBA, that can last a LONG time. They have little in the cupboard right now and they still need to unload some veterans before they can move on to the full rebuild process. If I'm Blake, I do not want to go to Sacramento.

Ironically, if they can keep Salmons and Martin, they're on the right track... If they're able to get a point guard and Blake at the same time, that wouldn't be a bad foursome. Not a lick of defense on that court though...

And then you have the Clippers...on paper, if they added Blake, they'd have a really nice core of talent with Camby, Baron Davis, Eric Gordon, etc. but the Clippers are the Clippers for a reason and it's simply a cursed place for NBA rookies.

On paper, if they added Blake, they'd have to do it on the back of the page. Randolph, Kaman, Camby, Thornton, and even DeAndre Jordan are all people who can play the 4 or 5. I'm not even counting Brian Skinner, 'cause until he cuts that ferret off of his chin, I don't think he's going to be allowed to play.

One more team that would make some sense is Indiana, who will probably find themselves in the middle of the lottery. They have good fans, a generally solid front office, and Danny Granger is a great scorer who could use a boost down low.

- T.J. Ford. Check. Jarrett Jack. Check. We're set at the point.
- Who's playing 2 for us? Wait, what? Shut up, isn't he like, 6'9" and slow, and, you know, kinda... "white?" Really? Are you SURE you don't mean his dad? Oh well, along with Marquis Daniels (who actually is decent in limited minutes) and Brandon Rush, they're like, 3/4th's of a good off guard. Still no defense though.
- Danny Granger. Set for the next six years until he gets tired of losing and starts eating. (Kidding... He's awesome.)
- Troy Murphy. He's the incumbent.
- Jeff Foster.

Yeah, considering a front court of Murphy, Foster, and Rasho Nesterovich, Blake might see some time there... I don't like their point guard situation though. I think that Blake would be best served playing with someone like Iverson. It'd be like when a puppy dies and goes to Puppy Heaven and there's rabbits everywhere, and they're all slow and stuff. That's what it would be like for Blake, chasing down Iverson's rebounds.

the_ouskull

cheezyq
2/16/2009, 11:30 PM
I'm watching this UConn/Pitt game, and would like to add my random thoughts.

1. Blake vs. Thabeet - First of all, Thabeet is super-tall, and super-long. He's probably 9 1/2 feet just putting up his arms without jumping. He's fairly athletic, too. It allows him to watch what the defender is doing before he jumps to block the shot. So the defender has already committed and Thabeet uses his length to get up quickly for the block. But he's incredibly weak on the inside (especially on offense). He's easily boxed out and gets pushed around inside against bigger guys (like Blair). So far I'm watching Blair own him on the inside. Speaking of which, Blair is immensely strong, and very talented, but not that athletic. Where Blake tops them all is that he's strong AND athletic...and smart.

One on one - I think Blake tears Thabeet apart. Thabeet would get his share of blocks and would alter the game because of his length. But after a while, Blake would just destroy him. He's faster and stronger. Eventually Blake would figure him out and would dominate from that point on.

#2 - Pitt is probably going to be in the final four. I thought that before tonight, but they confirmed it tonight. They remind me the most of us. They've got athletes, shooters, and a fantastic inside presence. The matchup I REALLY want to see is Blake vs. Dejaun Blair. Blair is the only guy I've seen that can match-up with Blake strength- and skill-wise. Blake is just more athletic and can jump higher.

JLEW1818
2/17/2009, 08:03 AM
Hard road ahead guys, we are about to see how good we are. @ Texas, Kansas at home. @ tech, @ Missouri, then the pokes at home. I'm excited, and so are the players.

OUSKINS
2/17/2009, 11:59 AM
Also, I don't know how deep of a Cavs fan you are, but your management should probably lay off of Camby over in Clip Land. For some drunken buffoon reason... wait, they're the Clippers, that's it... they think Camby's "untouchable" as far as trades go. He would be nice with the Cavs though...


Pretty "deep" my friend :) Deep enough that I've been purchasing NBA League Pass almost since it's inception to watch them...and yes, this was WELL before Lebron arrived. In the late 80's, everyone started rooting for the Bulls, so I wanted to be different and chose a Bulls "rival" at the time-- the Cavs. Wow, bad move on my part....I figured the NBA Gods finally set Lebron my way to heal those wounds.

As for Camby and the Cavs.....I'm pretty indifferent to be honest. I think the Cavs will sink or swim with what they have now...they could use a little boost down low, but who can't?


Well, I mean, if Kevin Love, last year's 1st round pick, and owner of one of the league's best rebound rates, doesn't mind coming off of the bench, sure. I like Randy Foye (finally) blowing up a lil' bit for the Wolves though. They haven't really been right up there since Malik Sealy died...


I think Love is sort of a hybrid player that can fit into a variety of positions and roles. I think you could even go with really big line-ups at times in Minnesota, putting Love, Blake, and Jefferson on the floor at the same time.


Ironically, if they can keep Salmons and Martin, they're on the right track... If they're able to get a point guard and Blake at the same time, that wouldn't be a bad foursome. Not a lick of defense on that court though...

We'll just agree to disagree on this one. I'm not a big Martin fan and Salmons is a solid 6th-man type, but nothing else. If Martin and Salmons are your "core" than you are in huge trouble. Martin is very skilled as a scorer, but I think he's more of a SG in a PG's body-- and I think he has a touch of "fool's gold" about him.

the_ouskull
2/17/2009, 06:31 PM
See, I'd be inclined to agree with you about Martin except for one thing...

He (was, before the injury) is in the middle of a three-year straight upswing. As his team has gotten progressively worse around him, his field goal percentage has gone down... but his three-point percentage has gone up each season... telling me that he's not taking "bad," shots, per se, but necessary shots because his team can't score... but he's still taking smart three's. He's shooting 41% on his last four hundred three's attempted. Also, there's this:

- 7.1
- 9.5
- 9.7

That's how many times per game he's getting to the free throw line in each of the past three seasons... and he's shooting them at an 86% clip over that same three year time span.

Yeah. The guy's pretty freakin' good, man. Imagine what he could do on a team where he didn't have to be "The Man."

...but I'm feeling you with the whole "injury bug" thing. Although, once again, I wonder how much of that is from overexerting himself offensively night-after-night for a losing team...

the_ouskull

tommieharris91
2/18/2009, 09:05 PM
Penn State 38
Illinois 33
Final

Discuss.

Sooner04
2/18/2009, 09:10 PM
Penn State 38
Illinois 33
Final

Discuss.
Good heavens. The teams combined to miss 71 of the 99 shots taken. The two teams combined for both 28 field goals and 28 turnovers. Corraling the shrapnel from a night of cutting your toenails would bring more excitement, I presume.

Here's the box score: don't look at it too long or you'll go blind. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/boxscore?gid=200902180267)

I remember when we lost in Stillwater in 2003 by a barn-burning score of 48-46. After the game, Kelvin focused on defensive miscues down the stretch in his radio interview. I thought to myself, "Kelvin, we scored 46. There be the problem."

I wonder how long it's been since a team scored under 40 in D-1 basketball and won. Was Henry Iba involved?

SoonerDood
2/18/2009, 09:59 PM
That game set basketball back a while. Not sure how far, but a while.

Salt City Sooner
2/18/2009, 10:06 PM
Good heavens. The teams combined to miss 71 of the 99 shots taken. The two teams combined for both 28 field goals and 28 turnovers. Corraling the shrapnel from a night of cutting your toenails would bring more excitement, I presume.

Here's the box score: don't look at it too long or you'll go blind. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/boxscore?gid=200902180267)

I remember when we lost in Stillwater in 2003 by a barn-burning score of 48-46. After the game, Kelvin focused on defensive miscues down the stretch in his radio interview. I thought to myself, "Kelvin, we scored 46. There be the problem."

I wonder how long it's been since a team scored under 40 in D-1 basketball and won. Was Henry Iba involved?

http://www.enquirer.com/bearcats/1998/12/20/uc_24-11.html

Don't know if it was the last time, but it's certainly the first one that came to my mind. Bowie + Turpin + Walker = 24 points? :eek:

OUSKINS
2/18/2009, 10:13 PM
Classic Big 10 garbage. Illinois should be eliminated from Tourney consideration on this outcome alone.

SoonerDood
2/18/2009, 10:58 PM
Heh. And then the Big 12 throws out the CU-Nebbish stinker. At least they both suck and aren't in Tournament consideration.