Kansas Crimson

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:50 am Things like margin of victory are a pretty good indicator of future success. Barely being able to beat bad teams and looking bad doing it isn't a good sign. Loosing by 30 points is not a good indicator of future success.

We're 5-1 without Vick, but we've only looked like a good team once.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:41 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:31 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:15 am

We looked so fucking good against OSU though.

Kum Ba Meh.

Is that better or worse than the 2-4 stretch we had right before he left which included losses to WVU and UT? The logic is really breaking down here.

There is no excuse for loosing in Morgantown, it cost us the streak.

But if you're just evaluating HOW we've played, the loss at Austin was on par with the OT win at TCU and in Stillwater.

If we're any better without Vick it's a small incremental improvement, I don't think it changes our NCAA tournament projection. We didn't suddenly become a FF frontrunner by loosing Vick.

But...I'm told they're having more fun. So there's that.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:01 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:50 am Things like margin of victory are a pretty good indicator of future success. Barely being able to beat bad teams and looking bad doing it isn't a good sign. Loosing by 30 points is not a good indicator of future success.

We're 5-1 without Vick, but we've only looked like a good team once.

That’s again another straw man. For the most part, I agree with Pomeroy that overall, close losses tell you as much about a team as close wins. But, don’t tell a coach that losses are the same as wins in reality. They’re not.

And, it’s our coach that was saying that the locker room has been tighter, focus better, etc. multiple times. Some players too.

Of course, nearly everyone’s point on here was always that the 3-1 stretch sure beat the last few weeks of Vick’s tenure and was better ball.

You lost your shit over one game, I said let’s wait to see how we responded before I called the 3 good games fool’s gold. We went out the next night and played perhaps our best game of the year.

I stand by that I don’t know whether we’re better without Vick in terms of the 4 corners of the court, but that we’ve absolutely had a better 3 weeks than we had in Vick’s last 3 weeks. It’s plainly obvious and not just a product of schedule, b/c we were losing to the teams we are now beating.

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:30 am the mere fact we're even debating whether we play better or worse with a fucking senior on a team otherwise comprised of underclassmen and transfers, that says a lot.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:32 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:01 am

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:50 am Things like margin of victory are a pretty good indicator of future success. Barely being able to beat bad teams and looking bad doing it isn't a good sign. Loosing by 30 points is not a good indicator of future success.

We're 5-1 without Vick, but we've only looked like a good team once.

That’s again another straw man. For the most part, I agree with Pomeroy that overall, close losses tell you as much about a team as close wins. But, don’t tell a coach that losses are the same as wins in reality. They’re not.

And, it’s our coach that was saying that the locker room has been tighter, focus better, etc. multiple times. Some players too.

Of course, nearly everyone’s point on here was always that the 3-1 stretch sure beat the last few weeks of Vick’s tenure and was better ball.

You lost your shit over one game, I said let’s wait to see how we responded before I called the 3 good games fool’s gold. We went out the next night and played perhaps our best game of the year.

I stand by that I don’t know whether we’re better without Vick in terms of the 4 corners of the court, but that we’ve absolutely had a better 3 weeks than we had in Vick’s last 3 weeks. It’s plainly obvious and not just a product of schedule, b/c we were losing to the teams we are now beating.

Yes, I know it's Self saying that. I'm not buying it. What's fun about loosing by 30? What's fun about not extending the streak? Vick isn't there sulking, so it's all sunny. Fuck that.

We didn't have 3 good games. We've played well once, played awful once, and otherwise looked very average.

Wins and Loosses matter. But if you just evaluate the product on the court, we look like a 4 seed. And sorry, but going in thinking we were a title contender, I'm not going to join in turning backflips over it. I don't care how much better practices are.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:18 am If easily beating OSU

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:28 am

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:18 am If easily beating OSU

ok...not going to argue with someone living in a fantasy land.

I hope the team is getting better. And if someone wants to argue that by having better chemistry and better practices, we'll be much better by the end of the year, I'll listen to that argument, but I'm not going to buy in until I see real significant tangible improvement on the court.

Eeking by OSU doesn't qualify. We were down with less than 5 minutes to play and were a missed wide-open 3 away from overtime on the road. If we play like that against a 6 seed on a neutral court we probably go home.

pdub wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:21 am Or perhaps if Chai was consistently ( that was the big argument around here v Vick ) playing well ( instead of a 0 point, 2 point stretch ) you'd have something.

PhDhawk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:23 amIt looks pissy, I'm told.

CrimsonNBlue wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:38 am We are winning games that we either lost in that stretch or would have lost.