Mason Thread - A-10 Opener

[POMSpidur]

He got 3 shots, maybe 1 really good look. And if he's averaging only 5 shots, then CM needs to get him more. He's a top flight shooter so it's on the head coach to find a way to get him more shots. Not a hard concept.

The team had 8 assists and 10 turnovers. The performance of the team is the coach's responsibility. Again, not a hard concept.

I’m sure you didn’t watch him at the citadel last year. I’m sure you didn’t even go back and watch any of his film from last year, other than what UR posted. So since you like easy concepts, go watch his VMI, Samford, and Pitt clips. Those are his big games from last year, watch those and tell me how many of his points came from designed plays or sets for him to get a shot.

The performance of the team is the coaches responsibility, but this team isn’t very good as I’ve stated since the summer. They lost two 2k point scorers and 2 1k point scorers. While losing two of the best passers in program history. So I cut CM some slack this year for it being a rebuild year, sorry your expectations were higher.

 

[POMSpidur]

Agree. Add to that the fact that after 18 years, don't you think every frekkin coach in the A10 know exactly what Mooney's teams will do?

The fact that you watched that game and thought, “this is all Mooney’s fault” is hard to process. We’re watching our NBA player miss free throws and get blocked on jump shots and thinking CM told him to do that..

 

[plydogg]

We are a very bad team, I don’t think Mason will reach 5 wins in conference and I think we’ll be lucky to win 2 games on the road this season. Back to being a clown college

 

[plydogg]

The fact that you watched that game and thought, “this is all Mooney’s fault” is hard to process. We’re watching our NBA player miss free throws and get blocked on jump shots and thinking CM told him to do that..

All Hail King Mooney

 

[plydogg]

Is it asking too much for 18-22 year olds to play with some passion and enthusiasm? Perhaps the coach just saps that from his players.

We’ve only got two players who play with passion and enthusiasm. One is Randolph and the other is out injured

 

[plydogg]

it’s like having Jimmy Chitwood and Gene Hackman not letting him shoot.

It’s like have Jimi Hendrix but sticking him on kazoo duty

 

[Eight Legger]

The performance of the team is the coaches responsibility, but this team isn’t very good as I’ve stated since the summer. They lost two 2k point scorers and 2 1k point scorers. While losing two of the best passers in program history. So I cut CM some slack this year for it being a rebuild year, sorry your expectations were higher.

This is such a loser mentality it makes me sick. It also completely ignores reality. The reason we are 7-7 has NOTHING to do with the fact that we lost a bunch of guys. Have you watched the games?? We aren’t losing because we don’t have Gilyard and Golden — we’re losing because in the last few minutes, we become completely inept. Just like we always do regardless of who the players are. We did the same thing a ton of times last year too with all those 2k scorers, in case you forgot.

If we truly were just a bad team, we’d be losing these games by 10-15 points and clearly outmatched. We haven’t been outmatched but once or twice this year though. We had no business losing to Charleston, Syracuse, Wichita, W&M. Yesterday’s game was right there for the taking but we gave it away. Again. This is an 18-year pattern.

Btw, Mason — a team that only shoots threes and layups and is one of the worst FT shooting teams in the country — shot only 18% from three and was 15 of 27 from the FT line. We also outbounded them. Almost unfathomable that we could still lose, but we always find a way.

 

[8legs1dream]

sorry your expectations were higher.

do they sell t-shirts with this motto on them in the SpiderShop?

 

[SpiderTrap]

Roche is going to be an on and off switch all year. Some games he will knock down 3-4 threes and get us 12-15 points, other games he will only get 2-3 shots and score 0-3 points. He even admitted in the last interview with JOC, that the shots he is taking this year are different. Some are very standstill and just catch and shoot. At the Citadel - he was given a much bigger green light to just dribble down and fire up a shot, even somewhat contested. But he can't do that at UR.

I would think given his ability to shoot, we should have 2-3 plays designed just for him, but that is not something that is part of our offense. We rely on ball movement, back cuts, and spacing. Even Burton this year is not having plays designed for him, he is many times having to create his own drives to the hoop. But driving to the hoop is not a part of Roche's game right now, so he relies on other to do it and kick out to him. And teams, especially in the A10 - with bigger scouting reports and more familiarity with our offense, will make sure to run him off the 3 point line. So I think shots will be tougher for Roche in the A10, and that is not good news - cause we need him to get about 10 points a game right now to help us win.

 

[Eight Legger]

Lazy coaching, plain and simple.

 

[spider23]

Well, we are still in line for my 12-6 conference prediction, as I had this game as a loss.

Agree with the rebuttal of POM above. Mooney did do a good job of going out and replacing talent in the portal, with guys that were highly coveted and seem like excellent fits. Seems to me like we have all the pieces in a weak A10 this season to compete for a top spot. This is why I said this is a huge litmus test year. So far, we have lost too many games that were winnable with a more dynamic and strategic coach IMO. As noted, prior to March, the Gilly/Golden/Cayo teams had the same problems of dropping games that should have been W's.

I think the Roche example is a good one in regards to Mooney's failure to adapt. As noted by Trap, the A10 coaches have him scouted and will run him off the line. Need to have a couple set plays to find him open 3's. I know the 47s and sman say: That is not our offense. But that is a Mooney indictment. You can implement a few things to get your best players involved (Burton as well) at certain points without ditching your offense.

Still a lot of games left. I think we will beat GW handily.

 

[SpiderGuy]

Well, we are still in line for my 12-6 conference prediction, as I had this game as a loss.

Agree with the rebuttal of POM above. Mooney did do a good job of going out and replacing talent in the portal, with guys that were highly coveted and seem like excellent fits. Seems to me like we have all the pieces in a weak A10 this season to compete for a top spot. This is why I said this is a huge litmus test year. So far, we have lost too many games that were winnable with a more dynamic and strategic coach IMO. As noted, prior to March, the Gilly/Golden/Cayo teams had the same problems of dropping games that should have been W's.

I think the Roche example is a good one in regards to Mooney's failure to adapt. As noted by Trap, the A10 coaches have him scouted and will run him off the line. Need to have a couple set plays to find him open 3's. I know the 47s and sman say: That is not our offense. But that is a Mooney indictment. You can implement a few things to get your best players involved (Burton as well) at certain points without ditching your offense.

Still a lot of games left. I think we will beat GW handily.

Based upon OOC and first conf game, I’m not seeing 12-6 as you do. We are currently losing to too many avg / pedestrian teams. I hope you are correct.

Totally agree with your second paragraph.

 

[urmite]

Well, we are still in line for my 12-6 conference prediction, as I had this game as a loss.

Agree with the rebuttal of POM above. Mooney did do a good job of going out and replacing talent in the portal, with guys that were highly coveted and seem like excellent fits. Seems to me like we have all the pieces in a weak A10 this season to compete for a top spot. This is why I said this is a huge litmus test year. So far, we have lost too many games that were winnable with a more dynamic and strategic coach IMO. As noted, prior to March, the Gilly/Golden/Cayo teams had the same problems of dropping games that should have been W's.

I think the Roche example is a good one in regards to Mooney's failure to adapt. As noted by Trap, the A10 coaches have him scouted and will run him off the line. Need to have a couple set plays to find him open 3's. I know the 47s and sman say: That is not our offense. But that is a Mooney indictment. You can implement a few things to get your best players involved (Burton as well) at certain points without ditching your offense.

Still a lot of games left. I think we will beat GW handily.

GW at home? The only game Wednesday that is more likely to be double digits is Dayton at home vs ST Joe…

But we will see how Duquesne at home, Davidson & Bonnie’s away turn out…

 

[SpiderTrap]

If we had a veteran team and Roche was our 4th-5th option, then I would say - sure, you can let the offense find shots for him.

But fact of the matter is - behind Burton, and maybe Grace lately - Roche is our 2b or 3rd option. Quinn is pretty much non-existent on offense more times than not. I think we all expected more out of a 7 foot all conference player from the Patriot league, but I think he needs more time learning how to play against better competition and more time to boost his own confidence. Bigelow is up and down on offense. You will always get effort, and that shows yesterday - 12 rebounds in 19 minutes, but only 1 point. And Nelson is playing like a frosh PG. Up and down - whether its turnovers, poor decisions, or fouls.

So in reality - right now, I think our best options on offense are Burton first. Grace second and then Roche. We basically need 20 points out of Burton, and then 30 between Roche and Grace. And just hope the rest of the team can give us 15-20 points.

 

[RichmondNative]

We’re watching our NBA player miss free throws and get blocked on jump shots and thinking CM told him to do that..

Missed free throws from the go to guy loom large, but at the same time he only had 7 attempts. Free throw shooting is often the key in close games and UR not only shot poorly, but didn’t get to the line enough. GMU shot poorly also, but had 11 more attempts. Thus, style of play (ie coaching) definitely had a big impact in the game.

 

[VT4700]

Need to have a couple set plays to find him open 3's. I know the 47s and sman say: That is not our offense.

Not me. I have never said that in relation to Roche. I agree with you here and have been consistent in saying he needs to shoot a lot of 3s each game. We need to find him more looks, and he needs to just take a couple more that might not be as wide open as others. He has shot 67 3s this year at 45%, which is only 4 more than Bigelow, but Bigelow is at 27%. So, yes, let's get the guy at 45% more looks, and also more of a green light when out there.

Our team is a lot different this year. We don't have Nate and Grant getting us buckets inside, so a lot of our 2s are in the mid range area, or crowded 2s at the basket, which are really not much better than shooting 3s. I had no problem with Grace shooting so many 3s last night because they were open looks, and seemed just as makeable as many of the 15 footers or tough 2s we shot. We can debate whether or not he is a good enough shooter to shoot that many 3s, but with our team this year, I think we take our chances with that if he keeps getting open looks. I thought Randolph played well again last night. He has a good looking 3 point shot, and is now 8-15 from 3 on the year.

I like your 12-6 confidence, and agree we can still get there. Losing to Mason on the road does not change my mind.

 

[MrTbone]

I think you guys are nuts that we will get to 12-6 IC. We are 7-7. It’s not like we played some juggernaut ooc schedule that got us barely over .500.

it’s of course possible but seems pretty unlikely given what we’ve seen to date.

 

[VT4700]

So far, we have lost too many games that were winnable with a more dynamic and strategic coach IMO. As noted, prior to March, the Gilly/Golden/Cayo teams had the same problems of dropping games that should have been W's.

I will start by saying your post was very fair, and you did not go into attack mode with your points. I see nothing wrong with your opinion here, but I do disagree. I think if you mention Jacob, Grant, and Nate losing close games last year before March, you need to also mention and factor in that we went 38-16 the 2 previous years with them, and also won close game after close game in the A-10 tourney and against Iowa with them. And, there was no better time to win those types of games than then. I think it's just a little too convenient to focus on the losses when we lose close ones, and not remember the close wins.

I agree we have lost some games this year that we maybe should have won, but I do think more often than not it comes down to the players and their execution. I know many will just say I am taking up for Mooney again, and whatever, that is fine, but I just haven't seen where I should say "cmon Mooney, quit messing up" down the stretch in these games. I think things could easily change and we could start winning some of these close ones, not with better coaching, but with players making plays. But, just my opinion, and no worries if people disagree like I assume they will.

 

[VT4700]

I think you guys are nuts that we will get to 12-6 IC. We are 7-7. It’s not like we played some juggernaut ooc schedule that got us barely over .500.

it’s of course possible but seems pretty unlikely given what we’ve seen to date.

Fair to think this, but most of our losses were to teams that are probably a lot better than most of the A-10 this year. 6 of our 7 losses are to teams that are 105 or better with Kenpom. Dayton (54), St. Louis (78), us (97), and then Mason (104) are the only A-10 teams higher than 105.

 

[whampas]

As long as the first 20 seconds of the shot clock is spent bringing the ball up the court and passing the ball around the perimeter 30 feet from the basket which includes your 7 footer, this offense will struggle. Too many times with 5 or 6 seconds left, Burton, Grace, somebody tries to force it to the basket and it winds up being a cluster. Hard to get Roche looks by playing inside out when everyone is out. Mooney's offense is beautiful when it works but not so much when it doesn't. Like his match up defense, A10 coaches are figuring out how to defend his offense. If you don't change things up some it gets easier and easier to do.

 

[VT4700]

We finished 53rd (3rd in A-10), 46th (2nd in A-10), and 79th (5th in A-10) in offensive efficiency the past 3 years. I don't think one game against Mason means the A-10 coaches are "figuring us out".

 

[whampas]

We finished 53rd (3rd in A-10), 46th (2nd in A-10), and 79th (5th in A-10) in offensive efficiency the past 3 years. I don't think one game against Mason means the A-10 coaches are "figuring us out".

Statistics are great and we've ranked very good in major categories thru the years including turnover rate but the only Statistic that matters is wins and losses. I would argue Mooney’s systems have been figured out sufficiently enough over the years to show him as a mediocre coach at best. Statistically Mason should have never won the game but they did. Give me more of that.

 

[RichmondNative]

Fair to think this, but most of our losses were to teams that are probably a lot better than most of the A-10 this year. 6 of our 7 losses are to teams that are 105 or better with Kenpom. Dayton (54), St. Louis (78), us (97), and then Mason (104) are the only A-10 teams higher than 105.

I agree. The saving grace this year is that the A10 is a weak conference, so there is no reason why the Spiders can’t go 12-6 in terms of talent level. This isn’t saying this years team is better than last year’s, just that they are good enough to win a bunch of conference games this year. The question is whether the staff can motivate them to do so and to maximize the strengths of individual players. Working on free throw shooting would be a good start….

 

[urmite]

It is interesting that as of now, yesterday’s game was our second toughest A-10 game per NET.

We may Only have 2 more games that should be losses, and 6 that should be wins, with the other 9 games within a basket one way or the other.

To get from 10-8 to 12-6 we may need 1 or 2 slight upsets, and no bad surprises.

However how likely is that is the question?

 

[VT4700]

Statistics are great and we've ranked very good in major categories thru the years including turnover rate but the only Statistic that matters is wins and losses. I would argue Mooney’s systems have been figured out sufficiently enough over the years to show him as a mediocre coach at best. Statistically Mason should have never won the game but they did. Give me more of that.

Well, when you are talking about teams figuring out our offense, most people would think our offensive points per possession is the most relevant thing to look at.

And, funny you said wins and losses when I ruined your offense argument. A-10 wins and losses didn't seem to be important on here when we went 14-4 in 2020, or won 4 in a row to win the tourney last year. If A-10 coaches have figured out our offense, how are we 34-19 in the A-10 the last 3+ years? LOL. So, it looks like I ruined your offense argument and your wins argument. Maybe try another way to suit this take of yours that you are clearly basing on one game.

 

[whampas]

Well, when you are talking about teams figuring out our offense, most people would think our offensive points per possession is the most relevant thing to look at.

And, funny you said wins and losses when I ruined your offense argument. A-10 wins and losses didn't seem to be important on here when we went 14-4 in 2020, or won 4 in a row to win the tourney last year. If A-10 coaches have figured out our offense, how are we 34-19 in the A-10 the last 3+ years? LOL. So, it looks like I ruined your offense argument and your wins argument. Maybe try another way to suit this take of yours that you are clearly basing on one game.

The original post wasn't intended to enlist an argument one way or the other with you or anyone else to the statistical efficiency of the Spider offense for the past 3 years. It was an observation of how we're running the offense this year, pretty much the same offense year after year, no matter the strengths or weaknesses of the personnel. It's all about the system because we'll be efficient at it in years 4, 5 and 6 of your careers here at Richmond, we'll just endure the pain of the losing seasons while you become efficient. You conveniently left those years out of your statistical argument. I'd like your take on rebounding statistics for the last 18 years and how you think that's influenced our won/lost record while we're kicking statistics around. Your statistical drivel is just another example of the "but we competed" bullshit that this program hides behind. Yeah, I brought up wins and losses when you "ruined" , LOL, my offensive argument (interesting choice of word) because in the end it's the only stat that counts. What I called an observation you call an argument which is a real "tell" on who you are. If Chris Mooney went about winning basketball games with the same vigor that you go about winning a basketball forum argument you wouldn't have to defend his 55/45, 3 ncaa bids, no regular season championships in 18 years. How about this statistic, he's lost more games than anyone in Richmond basketball history and still adding to it.

 

[VT4700]

The original post wasn't intended to enlist an argument one way or the other with you or anyone else to the statistical efficiency of the Spider offense for the past 3 years. It was an observation of how we're running the offense this year, pretty much the same offense year after year, no matter the strengths or weaknesses of the personnel. It's all about the system because we'll be efficient at it in years 4, 5 and 6 of your careers here at Richmond, we'll just endure the pain of the losing seasons while you become efficient. You conveniently left those years out of your statistical argument. I'd like your take on rebounding statistics for the last 18 years and how you think that's influenced our won/lost record while we're kicking statistics around. Your statistical drivel is just another example of the "but we competed" bullshit that this program hides behind. Yeah, I brought up wins and losses when you "ruined" , LOL, my offensive argument (interesting choice of word) because in the end it's the only stat that counts. What I called an observation you call an argument which is a real "tell" on who you are. If Chris Mooney went about winning basketball games with the same vigor that you go about winning a basketball forum argument you wouldn't have to defend his 55/45, 3 ncaa bids, no regular season championships in 18 years. How about this statistic, he's lost more games than anyone in Richmond basketball history and still adding to it.

Since you asked, our rebounding has been pretty similar for 18 years now. It is our style of play to not crash the offensive boards and prevent transition baskets, so I don't know why you would expect anything different. We are not alone with this style, and I don't think it affects our winning and losing. As a coach, I always hated giving up easy transition baskets, or even worse wide open transition 3s. Obviously, you think it has affected our winning and losing, so please explain how in 2010, we got out rebounded by over 5 a game, but went 26-9, and in 2011, we got out rebounded by over 2 a game and went 29-8. In, 2015, when we were in the 1st four out, we got out rebounded by 6 a game. In 2017, we went 22-13, and got out rebounded by nearly 6 a game. Last year, we were out rebounded by over 3 a game. Sorry bringing up stats bothers you so much, but when they don't lie, they don't lie. But, hey, you keep being you, and keep on bringing up things that show how wrong you are. LOL.

 

[Spiders4ever]

The original post wasn't intended to enlist an argument one way or the other with you or anyone else to the statistical efficiency of the Spider offense for the past 3 years. It was an observation of how we're running the offense this year, pretty much the same offense year after year, no matter the strengths or weaknesses of the personnel. It's all about the system because we'll be efficient at it in years 4, 5 and 6 of your careers here at Richmond, we'll just endure the pain of the losing seasons while you become efficient. You conveniently left those years out of your statistical argument. I'd like your take on rebounding statistics for the last 18 years and how you think that's influenced our won/lost record while we're kicking statistics around. Your statistical drivel is just another example of the "but we competed" bullshit that this program hides behind. Yeah, I brought up wins and losses when you "ruined" , LOL, my offensive argument (interesting choice of word) because in the end it's the only stat that counts. What I called an observation you call an argument which is a real "tell" on who you are. If Chris Mooney went about winning basketball games with the same vigor that you go about winning a basketball forum argument you wouldn't have to defend his 55/45, 3 ncaa bids, no regular season championships in 18 years. How about this statistic, he's lost more games than anyone in Richmond basketball history and still adding to it.

A true lifer.

 

[VT4700]

What I called an observation you call an argument which is a real "tell" on who you are.

You were the one that said argue. You literrally said the word. These were your words: "I would argue Mooney’s systems have been figured out sufficiently enough over the years to show him as a mediocre coach at best." So, what is the real tell here?

 

[VT4700]

Statistically Mason should have never won the game but they did.

Why would you say this? They shot 49%, we shot 40%. They made 15 FTs, we made 8, and they shot a better % from the line. We made more 3s, and everything else was close to even. We had 1 more rebound, they had one more assist, we had 1 more steal, they had 3 more blocks, and turnovers were even. Who won the game is all that matters, but what are you talking about when you say they never should have won stat wise?

 

[VT4700]

we'll just endure the pain of the losing seasons while you become efficient. You conveniently left those years out of your statistical argument.

LOL. "The pain of the losing seasons". Yep, they happen so often, right? Since you say I left them out, and you were the one that brought this up, I will mention that we have had 2 losing seasons the past 15 seasons.

 

[VT4700]

We are a very bad team, I don’t think Mason will reach 5 wins in conference and I think we’ll be lucky to win 2 games on the road this season. Back to being a clown college

I will take that bet. I say Mason wins at least 5 games IC, and we win at least 2 road games IC. If one of us wins both, the other doesn't post on here for a year.

 

[VT4700]

We’ve only got two players who play with passion and enthusiasm. One is Randolph and the other is out injured

???

 

[spider23]

I do think Randolph has looked very good, has shot it well and with confidence from 3. He had one game with a really rough stretch, but in general has been very solid.
Wow, that is quite some comparison of Bigs vs Roche 3 shooting. If Bigs can become more consistent and increase his 3 point percentage by 10 percent, that would be a huge help. We really need his toughness and athleticism on the floor to replace Cayo, and hopefully his offensive efficiency steps up.

 

[VT4700]

I do think Randolph has looked very good, has shot it well and with confidence from 3. He had one game with a really rough stretch, but in general has been very solid.
Wow, that is quite some comparison of Bigs vs Roche 3 shooting. If Bigs can become more consistent and increase his 3 point percentage by 10 percent, that would be a huge help. We really need his toughness and athleticism on the floor to replace Cayo, and hopefully his offensive efficiency steps up.

Agree 100%. Bigs is so active, so versatile, and was great on the boards yesterday. We need offense from him because I don't think we can play him a consistent 20+ minutes without it. He has to let the game come to him. It seems he ends up taking some forced or bad shots. I would take just a 5% increase from 3. Get it up to around 32-33% and that could be huge with everything else he does.

Randolph looks good out there. He showed yesterday he can handle the ball and bring it up when needed. No turnovers in 21 minutes. He just keeps impressing me more and more.

 

[Eight Legger]

Why would you say this? They shot 49%, we shot 40%. They made 15 FTs, we made 8, and they shot a better % from the line. We made more 3s, and everything else was close to even. We had 1 more rebound, they had one more assist, we had 1 more steal, they had 3 more blocks, and turnovers were even. Who won the game is all that matters, but what are you talking about when you say they never should have won stat wise?

I think he meant that if you just looked at their stats, you would not assume those would be the stats of a winning team. I agree. They are a three-point shooting team and shot 18% yesterday. They barely made half their free throws. Etc.

 

[urmite]

The original post wasn't intended to enlist an argument one way or the other with you or anyone else to the statistical efficiency of the Spider offense for the past 3 years. It was an observation of how we're running the offense this year, pretty much the same offense year after year, no matter the strengths or weaknesses of the personnel. It's all about the system because we'll be efficient at it in years 4, 5 and 6 of your careers here at Richmond, we'll just endure the pain of the losing seasons while you become efficient. You conveniently left those years out of your statistical argument. I'd like your take on rebounding statistics for the last 18 years and how you think that's influenced our won/lost record while we're kicking statistics around. Your statistical drivel is just another example of the "but we competed" bullshit that this program hides behind. Yeah, I brought up wins and losses when you "ruined" , LOL, my offensive argument (interesting choice of word) because in the end it's the only stat that counts. What I called an observation you call an argument which is a real "tell" on who you are. If Chris Mooney went about winning basketball games with the same vigor that you go about winning a basketball forum argument you wouldn't have to defend his 55/45, 3 ncaa bids, no regular season championships in 18 years. How about this statistic, he's lost more games than anyone in Richmond basketball history and still adding to it.

You forgot to put out the 250 banner after Clemson…

 

[whampas]

You were the one that said argue. You literrally said the word. These were your words: "I would argue Mooney’s systems have been figured out sufficiently enough over the years to show him as a mediocre coach at best." So, what is the real tell here?

I'm very aware that I used the word argue IN MY RESPONSE TO YOUR POST. The original post to which you started throwing past year statistics was an OBSERVATION. Your satistic laden response turned argument for me. Your writing style and delivery makes you come across as an argumentative know-it-all which leads to long back and forth just like this one. I'd like to think you don't intentionally do that. Maybe you're unaware. It seems you are always trying to out fact or out statistic someone to win the argument when all someone is trying to do is state an opinion or observation. It's not conversation, it's browbeating. I think you have the ability to add meaningful information to basketball conversation. I think most would be more receptive to your position if you showed just the tiniest acceptance to others' opinions.

4700, since my retirement I've created a pretty nice woodworking shop here at home and recently added a TV. The TV isn't there so much for entertainment as it is just for background noise. You've very quickly, for me, become background noise and fortunately like the TV can be turned on or off.
55/45, 3 in 18, 0 in 18, 7-7. Facts.

 

[whampas]

I think he meant that if you just looked at their stats, you would not assume those would be the stats of a winning team. I agree. They are a three-point shooting team and shot 18% yesterday. They barely made half their free throws. Etc.

Thank you. Precisely what I meant. It was there for the taking and we didn't.

 

[KE Spider]

Well, when you are talking about teams figuring out our offense, most people would think our offensive points per possession is the most relevant thing to look at.

And, funny you said wins and losses when I ruined your offense argument. A-10 wins and losses didn't seem to be important on here when we went 14-4 in 2020, or won 4 in a row to win the tourney last year. If A-10 coaches have figured out our offense, how are we 34-19 in the A-10 the last 3+ years? LOL. So, it looks like I ruined your offense argument and your wins argument. Maybe try another way to suit this take of yours that you are clearly basing on one game.

55%-45% over 17+ years with outstanding financial and facility support, not to mention over $20 mil "invested" in salary. If you cannot defend this record, you have zero argument on most anything else.

Spiders are here to win, win big, win consistently. Obvious, we don't have the right guy. Have to be blind to not recognize that.

Oh, but wait, we were 24-7 in 2020 so all is well with Spider BB. What a complete joke.