You think Ski had a better 2012-13 than 2013-14? Or XJ? Or Scott?
Dude. They just didn't. All were much better players in 2013-14.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Wow
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
You think Ski had a better 2012-13 than 2013-14? Or XJ? Or Scott?
Dude. They just didn't. All were much better players in 2013-14.
The only talent deficit we need to make up for is the one where we lose our all american point guard and NBA lottery pick mid season. None of the players, except maybe scott, were expected to handle the kind of roles they ended up having to handle. Teams that lose what we did typically fold. Ours kept fighting best they could. Its not Tad's fault that the entire off-season was spent teaching and preparing for a certain type of offense, and then our centerpiece goes down ruining all plans and schemes.
This loss hurts. I get it. This team is not a lost cause.
Ski broke out of his slump in December.
XJ is able to do things this year that were beyond him last season (better handle and much better defender).
I was thinking the same thing. We play a very safe and fundamentally sound. Don't give up layups. We aren't a disruptive defense. That might be the next step we need to take.
XJ's skill level may have improved, but I thought he regressed mentally. He spent way too much time floating on the perimeter offensively, checked out when things weren't going his way, and didn't put in a consistent effort on the glass. That was disappointing to me.
His words - yes. But in the same answer to the question (same sound byte), right after "don't lose one guy," Tad continued with:
“We got to this point because we've got good players. Our program is on the assent, it's not on the descent. We lose two seniors who weren't in the rotation, terrific young men..."
http://www.cubuffs.com/pdf9/2661879.pdf
I don't know if he caught himself or just used the wrong words, but based on the rest of the answer to the question, he addressed the two seniors leaving. I think he probably wanted to say "we don't lose one guy who plays a lot," as he mentioned that the seniors weren't in the rotation in his next breath.
but we all saw it for what it was. Just a slump. He changed his game and improved as a complete player after Dinwiddie went down.
That's regression? As a freshman he was especially like that. It's tough making that jump from being the 4th scoring option to being the guy who is supposed to get the offense going as he's been asked to do lately. He wasn't ready for the role every night.
Sure. Ski grew as a player after Spencer got hurt. It was great to see. But even before that he was a better player this year than last year.
seattlebuff
Well-Known Member
The more you watch these other teams play today, many of them ranked lower than CU, the more you realize how far behind we are offensively. Now that teams know to simply double Scott, who on this roster can consistently be a threat, someone teams have to focus to shut down? Sure, Ski and XJ on some nights but they have as many awful games as good ones. I see very little from our other guards that give me hope, that they have the handles, quicks or shooting touch to be anything but role players. I just watched a freshman from N Dakota State come off the bench after 44 minutes and show more offensive poise on the biggest stage than most of our roster over the past month.
BTW, we're 287th in assist to turnover ratio. Tad needs to plaster the locker room wall with that. You can't win against upper tier teams with a number like that.
BTW, we're 287th in assist to turnover ratio. Tad needs to plaster the locker room wall with that. You can't win against upper tier teams with a number like that.
Spencer isn't much of a floor leader, IMO. He is certainly our best player, but I don't get the feeling anyone on the team would follow him into battle. He also has/had a sulking problem. Leaders don't do that.
As for sustaining a ranking around 15 if Spencer stays healthy, you can't be serious.
There is no way for us to know if that would be the case or not. Including you.
Would you consider ski the locker room leader?
Both are leaders, I was just responding to AZ by using the same verbage.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well if asked the roster calls ski the leader but I have never heard of a floor versus locker room leader question asked.
Spencer was our floor leader. He got guys into the right position, made sure that everyone was getting shots, and called the plays while directing traffic.
Ski is our emotional leader.
It was a great balance.
To the question about whether CU would have maintained a ranking around 15? I don't know. I think the Buffs win the game at Washington. I think the Buffs beat UCLA at Coors. I think the Buffs end up going 14-4 in the Pac-12 to finish up at 25-6 with the 2- or 3-seed in the P12T. That would likely have been good for a Top 20 ranking. It's all just speculation, though. It wasn't just Spencer's injury, it was also Fletch's injury, Scott having the back problems and Wes not being the same after the high ankle sprain. The 25-6 (14-4) assumes Spencer leading a healthy team.
Ski is our emotional leader.
It was a great balance.
To the question about whether CU would have maintained a ranking around 15? I don't know. I think the Buffs win the game at Washington. I think the Buffs beat UCLA at Coors. I think the Buffs end up going 14-4 in the Pac-12 to finish up at 25-6 with the 2- or 3-seed in the P12T. That would likely have been good for a Top 20 ranking. It's all just speculation, though. It wasn't just Spencer's injury, it was also Fletch's injury, Scott having the back problems and Wes not being the same after the high ankle sprain. The 25-6 (14-4) assumes Spencer leading a healthy team.
Yeah...
I mean, would we have lost at UW is Spencer didn't get hurt? Do we beat UCLA at home? Do we beat Cal on the road with Spencer? Do we sweep ASU and Utah? Is the UA game much closer with Spencer on Nick Johnson? I know our offense wasn't great by any means with Spencer, but Spencer was the guy to put the team on his back and will them to a victory. Ski does the same but Spencer did it much more efficiently by getting to the line a lot and him shooting 41.6% from 3. I think the only stretch in that list of games would be ASU and Utah based on how we played but that would certainly be enough to stay in the top 25 at least.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Maybe we have the exact same record. The what if game is stupid.
Then blame the person who originally brought it up, I'm just responding to the discussion. Go get some sleep.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
I already addressed this once...I used the wrong word...this program is at a fork in the road...not a crossroads
Tad addressed something today that I think totally makes sense....the teams physical maturity....we were playing men today....these guys have got to get into the weightroom....that makes this season even more remarkable in the fact that these guys are physically immature compared to many of the teams they play...get in the weight room...get some real muscle mass and you get the chance to beat the UCLA's and Arizona's...don't commit to the weights and forget it....22-10 with an early NCAA exit in 15.
Tad addressed something today that I think totally makes sense....the teams physical maturity....we were playing men today....these guys have got to get into the weightroom....that makes this season even more remarkable in the fact that these guys are physically immature compared to many of the teams they play...get in the weight room...get some real muscle mass and you get the chance to beat the UCLA's and Arizona's...don't commit to the weights and forget it....22-10 with an early NCAA exit in 15.
Way to fight stupid with stupid.
I'm not sure if I've posted this or not. So here goes.
Scott will once again be staying in Boulder this summer to strength train.
A change from last season is that Gordon will also be staying to strength train.
Dustin Thomas is also making strength training a major focus of his offseason.
I don't know about any of the guards or other players, but those are some key ones if the Buffs are going to make the progress we're all hoping for and expecting.
I just don't think we would've been much better record wise with Spencer. If you go back and look at our wins/losses before he went down there isn't anything great outside of the Kansas win. We beat an Oregon team that a lot of bad or middling Pac-12 teams beat and we beat Harvard at home. We didn't look good against Baylor or Okie State. Maybe we finish third in the Pac-12. Maybe we win a game in tournament. But we were never the 15th best team in the country. I'm sorry if some of you have such gold colored glasses that you can't watch seeds 1-5 in every region and recognize they are much better than we were at any point this season.
Well, that Harvard team just beat a 5 seed to advance to the Round of 32.
5-seed Oklahoma lost to North Dakota State.
And New Mexico State just took 4-seed SDSU into OT.
There's not anything magical about the teams in that range.
And I think that you're not realizing that teams go through progression as a season season evolves. Buffs were very young this year and had survived growing pains to be 14-2. The rotation had gotten pretty consistent with 8 or 9 guys. Then, Spencer went down along with Fletch from the top 8 guys. The Buffs had to try to re-invent themselves. Then Wes got hurt. All of this disruption to the evolution of this team made it impossible that they'd progress the way a Virginia did throughout the season. But that was on the table for these Buffs the day of the Washington game.
BuffG
Well-Known Member
I'd like to see Tad take more ownership for this loss going forward. He got out coached right from the jump. Yes, we all knew there were going to be double teams in the post but what about the double teams after the screens? He waited too long to call a TO when it was clear after the first two possessions that they had blown our whole offense up. No doubt, the players did not look ready to play and there's only so much a coach can do to influence that. It's concerning, though, that Pitt won the chess match before the game started and there wasn't much of a tactical answer. You can't only hold freshmen and sophomore players liable for what ensued afterwards.
I love Tad and I hope he never leaves. This isn't an indictment. I'm not questioning his basketball IQ. The future is indeed bright. We're the youngest team in the tournament that's not losing any of the players that played today to the draft. I'm just echoing some others in that I hope not only that the players use this as an impetus to improve their offensive approach but also Tad Boyle. There were luckier draws to be had (Umass, BYU, K State etc) but hopefully this makes us better in the long run.
I love Tad and I hope he never leaves. This isn't an indictment. I'm not questioning his basketball IQ. The future is indeed bright. We're the youngest team in the tournament that's not losing any of the players that played today to the draft. I'm just echoing some others in that I hope not only that the players use this as an impetus to improve their offensive approach but also Tad Boyle. There were luckier draws to be had (Umass, BYU, K State etc) but hopefully this makes us better in the long run.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
I'm not intimately familiar with the behind the scenes personalities of our assistants. I believe you need a mix of personalities amongst assistants. Do we have that?
Yes