1/10/2009 2:03:27 PM

look on the positives, clemson is good we are bad. we lost by 12. If we can improve our offense against the press we are a good team. We just held clemson to 62 points even with all the TO's and points off of them. Oh well.

GO PANTHERS

1/10/2009 2:03:50 PM

at least we rebounded a lot before we missed easy shots.

1/10/2009 2:04:32 PM

Quote :

"Close all game (within 5 points), and then Clemson pulls ahead at the end to win by 10+."

Fixed that for myself.

1/10/2009 2:04:53 PM

anyone have the lollerskates pic? its in none of the threads, like it got deleted

1/10/2009 2:07:44 PM

its good to see that the defense legitimately increased year over year, especially when our talent decreased. That indicates some sort of coaching is going on.

1/10/2009 2:08:24 PM

I was just saying

is this the reemergence of CHEEZEBURGERS?

^agreed

Defense kept us in the game cause we obviously cant do shit with the ball in our hands.


[Edited on January 10, 2009 at 2:10 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/10/2009 2:09:33 PM

I'm not gonna hate on Costner for this one, he's not the same as last year and actually tries sometimes

the problem was the team collectively gave up on this one

1/10/2009 2:11:08 PM

besides the freshmen and Fergie

How many points did oglesby have? Did he even hit a 3 all game? Cause fergie was all over him.

1/10/2009 2:12:06 PM

The defense needs to get turnovers, though, and we need to make layups when we get those breaks. If we don't get turnovers, that puts more pressure on our set offense.

1/10/2009 2:13:24 PM

Oglesby was taken out of the game pretty effectively, that's one positive I guess...

1/10/2009 2:15:50 PM

We lost because our big guys were scared to death of getting their shit blocked by Sykes/Booker. They rarely looked to shoot, and when they did, they had to alter their shots so much it was almost laughably bad.

But the main reason we lost is because we suck. And outside of Ferguson, no one seems to know how to handle the ball.

1/10/2009 2:16:47 PM

Quote :

"this message board is far more embarrassing than anything we can put on the basketball court"

That's not possible.

We are all bad fans because our team sucks and we tell it how it is!

1/10/2009 2:20:43 PM

our team isn't very good, that's pretty obvious...i was responding to the guy that said they are an embarrassment to the school...

1/10/2009 2:23:57 PM

they are

1/10/2009 2:33:54 PM

oh, i guess to each his own. you are embarrassed for your school as a result of the basketball team...i judge a school on other criteria...i'm sorry you are embarrassed, i hope you feel better

1/10/2009 4:03:38 PM

Quote :

"But the main reason we lost is because we suck"

that's some insightful analysis right there, kudos to you sir

1/10/2009 4:21:27 PM

We lost because we put the ball in the hole less times than the other team?

1/10/2009 5:01:11 PM

^You can put the ball in the hole less times than the other team and still win, so no Madden comment for you.

1/10/2009 6:57:16 PM

we need a pg. and we would be a decent ACC team.

1/10/2009 7:02:12 PM

good observation

1/11/2009 3:29:55 AM

missed the game yesterday because of work. i saw that we lost. this morning i started watching the game and after the first 5 minutes i had enough and turned it off. people talk about how great our front court is and we just need guards to get them the ball...no. we need better players at every position.

mccauley and costner have good games from time to time (more so costner than mccauley as of late) but they're really just not that good (costner can be if he keeps his head in the game). of course they are going to get the stats when they are our only options. aside from the acc tourney run two years ago, they haven't showed anything. it was embarrassing seeing them try to play in the paint against clemson's bigs. even when they had wide open, point blank layups, they were such pussbags they would miss the rim entirely. it was pathetic seeing our supposed "best" players playing like that. and i'm not saying necessarily that they are not our best players. i'm just saying i'm not going to call for sid's head or get any lofty expectations until these herb leftovers are out of the system and sid's got all of his players. if sid continues to get jj-type recruits and still puts this product out on the floor, then yeah, show him the door. but until then, as always, i'll just say....

wait til next year!

1/11/2009 4:04:49 PM

all i'm saying is it's hard to be a big man when you can be doubleteamed w/o consequence.

1/11/2009 4:06:09 PM

ya. true. certainly having guards would make it easier for them and they would play better as a result. next year i expect tracy smith to have a monster year- not just bc he'll take mccauley's minutes, but because hopefully with wood and brown, teams won't be able to double him every time he touches it.

1/11/2009 4:16:25 PM

Also, for anyone who was wondering...

Ferguson 2-9 from the field 0-4 from 3 pt range. 3 turnovers, 0 steals in 37 minutes.

Dude played almost the entire game with a stat line like that. Tell me again how him being injured was not addition by subtraction? Lowe must have some retarded infatuation with the kid for him to be getting those kind of minutes with so little game production. It's not like this game was some sort of anomaly either.

1/12/2009 1:16:28 PM

how many points did Ogelsby score on him?

Quote :

"It's not like this game was some sort of anomaly either."

yeah, it's not like both teams were having a hard time making shots or anything...

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 1:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2009 1:17:36 PM

Ogelsby had 3 it appears, but I'm not sure Ferg was even on Ogelsby most of the game. It's certainly not as though Ogelsby touched the ball consistently throughout the game and Ferg 'D'ed him up. He was just invisible during this game. I will give Trevor and the team credit for not letting their SG have a career game on us for once.

Besides, although it may not be obvious on page 8 of this thread, my post was less about calling out Ferg for a shitty game (hell, most of our team had a shitty game offensively) and more about responding to the knuckleheads on page ~2 arguing that Trevor is our best 3 point threat and perimeter defender-- neither of which are remotely true.

Also, it's hard for me to believe that Trevor Ferguson who at best holds his own defensively and is basically a non factor on offense consistently gets the most minutes on the team.

1/12/2009 1:26:05 PM

Quote :

"Ogelsby had 3 it appears, but I'm not sure Ferg was even on Ogelsby most of the game. It's certainly not as though Ogelsby touched the ball consistently throughout the game and Ferg 'D'ed him up. He was just invisible during this game. I will give Trevor and the team credit for not letting their SG have a career game on us for once."

You must not have been watching the game then, Ferg was on Oglesby every second he was in the game, and he denied him from doing anything. I'm actually almost certain that the only points Oglesby had were when Ferguson wasn't in the game.

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 1:29 PM. Reason : spelling Oglesby's name wrong]

1/12/2009 1:27:57 PM

Who else is going to play 2? Fells is the only other guy on the team who can shoot consistently. You can't play Javi or Farnold at 2. They can't shoot or defend an ACC shooting guard.

^ Oglesby is almost exclusively a spot up jump shooter. Ferg will get owned laterally by a 2 like Ellington, Scheyer or most any other ACC 2.

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 1:29 PM. Reason : x]

1/12/2009 1:28:11 PM

Can't hate on Turd too much. Lowe wanted him in to make a few shots and build some confidence, rather than miss the first couple and be scared because of the finger cast thing. Although not many went in, his shot did start to look better as the game went on.

And for the people saying he isn't, Turd is actually our best 3-point shooter statistically (at least that's what they've said during the last 2 games on TV). Might not be the case now after going 0-4...

1/12/2009 1:31:31 PM

Mays, Fells and Ferg can all play the 2. There are plenty of minutes to go around. I'm not suggesting sitting him down the entire game, but 35+ minutes/game? I think it should be more in the ~15 minutes/game range and they should be to get Fells some time at the 3.

After watching the games, if you had to pick the player(s) who get the most minutes, how many of you would seriously pick Trevor Ferguson?

1/12/2009 1:34:42 PM

^Fells should NOT be playing the two. He made that abundantly clear in the Florida game. And last year.

1/12/2009 2:21:58 PM

^^Ferguson is the only guard on the team that doesn't seem a) careless and b) scared when the ball is in his hands. He's not perfect by any stretch, he just tends to do less-stupid stuff than the other guards on our team (including Fells). He's also a great shooter -- just not so much with a cast on his hand.

Defensively, he plays hard as hell ... unlike others ... and he smothered Oglesby most of the game. But guys like Teague, Ellington, and Henderson are going to eat him alive I'm afraid.

1/12/2009 3:02:14 PM

^^ I'd agree with you that, in general, Fells isn't an ideal solution at the 2. But he would be a better solution at the 2 than Ferg.

1/12/2009 3:18:33 PM

Then who plays the three?

1/12/2009 3:29:14 PM

^^no, ferguson has proven that he is better at the two than Fells. Just individually, Fells looks much more comfortable at the 3. And when he is at the two, he consistently makes unforced turnovers when he tries to dribble and bring the ball up. With who we have on our team right now, Ferguson is our best 2. Which is sad, because he's by no-means a great player. But he does play with heart, he plays decent defense, he can handle the ball decently, and he's one of, if not our best perimeter shooter. Ferguson should get 20-30 minutes a game at least. I do wish Williams would get a little time. He looked somewhat promising. I understand why he was getting some time early in the season, but why was he starting and getting huge minutes, only to have not seen the court in the last several games?

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 3:45 PM. Reason : (and oh yeah, mentioned above, who plays the 3 if fells is at 2? horner?)]

1/12/2009 3:43:52 PM

My ideal solution is to give Ferg ~15 minutes a game at the two.. split the rest of the time there between Fells and Mays with Fells playing SF as well. When Fells is SG or on the bench, give Horner some time ~10 minutes a a game or slide Costner over for small stretches and bring in Tracy Smith at the four. We also have Thomas and Williams that look no more clueless or ineffective than Ferg does.

I have said it before, it'd be one thing if Ferg was a lethal shooter, but he isn't. He is, at best, a non-factor on offense and we just can't afford to play 4 on 5 offensively for 35+ minutes a game. It may turn out that our other options with Horner/Mays/Smith don't work out, but since they never get any significant minutes we wouldn't know.

1/12/2009 4:58:19 PM

Quote :

"responding to the knuckleheads on page ~2 arguing that Trevor is our best 3 point threat and perimeter defender-- neither of which are remotely true."

who is, then?

1/12/2009 5:00:41 PM

some of you guys are delusional about ferg. i don't know if it's because you masturbate to stat sheets or if you hate red hair, or what, but ferguson is our best option at the 2, especially with breaking the press. fells is more suited for the 3, feels more comfortable there, and makes poor decisions if he has to handle the ball for a period of time.

even though ferg didn't score a lot, he did many things well for us. he had a few bad passes, but overall, makes very good decisions with the ball. he did an unbelievable job in guarding oglesby. fought through screens well, denied him the ball, stayed close to him so he couldn't get his shot off the dribble like he likes to do. you can tell he's one of the few that reads the scouting report before the game. the fact that he was even able to play 37 min after missing a couple games and practices is a great thing.

1/12/2009 5:07:21 PM

^ I agree Ferguson is underrated and played some solid minutes, but he is still a backup SG in the ACC and in spite of his shooting ability is an offensive liability.

IMO Julius Mays needs to get more minutes. He needs to get some experience running the point, b/c our other options suck. Degand is quick but reckless, and Gonzalez is simply a disaster waiting to happen. I have no ill-will toward Javi, truly, but he's in over his head at this level. Get Mays in the game to speed his development so that he can potentially be the returning starter next year. Such would would take considerable pressure off of Lorenzo Brown when he comes in next fall.

1/12/2009 5:25:37 PM

^^^ costner is our best three point threat and fells is by far our best perimeter defender.

^yes

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 5:28 PM. Reason : d]

1/12/2009 5:26:44 PM

Quote :

"he is still a backup SG in the ACC and in spite of his shooting ability is an offensive liability."

all of our current guards are backups in the ACC, but we have to put five on the floor.

1/12/2009 5:32:06 PM

mays does need to get more playing time. i think a rotation between him degand and ferguson is our best option right now. javi has become more of a liability for us, especially with breaking the press. he's become too much of a "slow it down" pg. thinks way too much, and was actually waiting for the trap to come instead of pushing the ball forward. he's way too uncomfortable out there now and i feel bad for him. he's got a lot of work to do just to be decent again.

i wouldn't say ferguson is a liability on offense, we just don't have elite guards, plain and simple. he does do a lot of things well for us that don't show up in the numbers though. the college game is dominated by good guard play and we have to do our best to keep our head above water this year. he at least understands spacing, moves well without the ball, picks his spots well when the ball is in the post, etc. he's not going to be our leading scorer, that's not what is getting asked of him. he at least knows his role. we want to feed the post because those are our most effective scorers and his entry passing has improved. i think mccauley and smith played way too soft in the clemson game FTR.

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 5:50 PM. Reason : go up strong smith]

1/12/2009 5:48:13 PM

Quote :

"at least understands spacing, moves well without the ball, picks his spots well when the ball is in the post, etc. he's not going to be our leading scorer, that's not what is getting asked of him. "

Exactly. He does things that make the team as a whole play better -- making entry passes, running backdoor screens, spacing himself accordingly on fast breaks, etc. He's not a great player, but he's got a great feel for the game and his role on the team. If you can't see that, then you're just trying to hate him.

Also agree though that Mays needs more time -- he just has better instincts than Degand and is more creative on offense. And nothing against Javi, but I really don't want him in the regular rotation this year. Or at least not until he stops looking so damn lost out there.



[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2009 6:14:36 PM

not sure what all the bickering is about who needs to get the most minutes at what position when all the options we have available are turds. It is a winless argument.

1/12/2009 6:36:41 PM

^ exactly.

1/12/2009 6:43:05 PM

True, but some turds stink worse than others. And when you don't turd in the right place, things can get pretty shitty.

1/12/2009 7:56:12 PM

it is pretty bad when you basketball program has the fans arguing which player should get the most playing time based on who is the least shitty player.

[Edited on January 12, 2009 at 7:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2009 7:57:21 PM

and as it's been said, you can't polish a turd. sid is doing his best with what we've got.

1/12/2009 8:17:48 PM

^Be fair now, Sid recruited all but 3 players on the roster.....and those aren't "turds"

1/12/2009 11:07:48 PM