Stubbornness and narrow minded. Not giving his team the best chance to win.why Oskar from 8:00 to 4:00 then? I'd love to know the reasoning. I can speculate, but in the end really don't know
Stubbornness and narrow minded. Not giving his team the best chance to win.why Oskar from 8:00 to 4:00 then? I'd love to know the reasoning. I can speculate, but in the end really don't know
The signal to noise ratio is just too low for me to justify committing to that word countThe thing is that he makes some good points. But then I get to the PPG game thing for the 1,000th time and then my head explodes and then I am dead so the other points are lost on me.
Are you for playing Gavin and JaMike to help for the future?Stubbornness and narrow minded. Not giving his team the best chance to win.
This all makes sense.I explained that the guards and depth (Simpson, Davis, Griffiths) needed to be developed so there's someone on the roster with game experience, that would help in 2024-25. You cried that Spencer and Mulcahy are missed and felt that having NO guards with experience left on the roster in 2024-25, is a better solution. You (based on results so far) would be wrong again.....why??
Because now, the guard production is not improved from last year to this year.....which is where I was WRONG......BUT I still believe it was the correct move, because Mulcahy and Spencer are not going to be here in 2024-25 and Davis, Simpson and Griffiths are expected to be.
My expectations for Simpson, Davis, Griffiths and the entire backcourt are higher.....I expected them to play better than what they have so far.....which I own 1000%....
I always agreed with Hawk on this regarding Mag. People had convinced themselves that he was something he was not.You (and others) on the other hand, now completely IGNORE my main point, that Mag and his injury was the real reason we collapsed. We look today like February and March last year, because the guards are playing like Mulcahy and Spencer did in February and March last year.
What you are missing??? Hello....Mag is playing and is on the court.....soooo, where is the impact....?I.?? What BS excuse do you have today??
You have ZERO to stand on....Mag has gone scoreless in THREE straight games....what makes me believe that couldn't have happened last year, when it is happening NOW??
I had no expectations that Mag is or was some driving force that others want to believe....I don't see anyone saying anything now....wonder why???
Problem is this refusal to look at objective reality here. When you try to go 100% eye test you get people saying things like "actually our offense is slightly better than last year" and complaining about defensive rebounding in games where we d-rebounded well (see Hawk / Michigan State) etc.So, I don't know what you are seeing or watching....the PPG is actually slightly better against legitimate opponents this year. YOU and others may value beating Stonehill by 20 and then only scoring 43 vs Seton Hall, 45 vs Michigan at the RAC, as some sort of difference.
I look at "opponents that matter "....& as of today, I was wrong oh our backcourt being better this year, but it is being done to look beyond this year....and you clearly are still in denial about Mag.....
And yes the novel length posts and audacity to take a condescending tone while not understanding something that has been the standard metric for evaluation (adjusted efficiency) since the early 2000s is why I like to generally quote these and make fun of them rather than actually attempt to read them.The signal to noise ratio is just too low for me to justify committing to that word count
I don’t care if you’re mad at him about that, as upperclassman/senior leaders, you go over to your teammate. Frustration aside.Interesting take about helping Simpson up. Could certainly be something there. I wasn’t really watching.
To try to get the point thru to Hawk , let’s try to be clear. We had Cliff , Cam , Paul and Caleb on the court with Mag. Some of those guys were the top 2 players on everybody’s scouting reports. So Mag was becoming a viable offensive option as he was driving more and perfecting his shot within 10 feet. Teams had to pick their poison , double Cliff or overplay Cam but now Mag was be coming an offensive force so they couldn’t him and his offensive confidence in games was at an all time high. We had a threat at 5 positions and that is why we were winning. Plus you had 3 of the best defensive players in the conference ( Caleb , Mag and Cliff) so no team was scoring easily against us. Guess what we were winning and dominating teams in conference.The first half of the B1G schedule happened last year
You constantly talk about the cupcakes we crushed. True but it's better to crush them then not. We were incapable of beating teams like that this season bc we are so much worse
Then we started the B1G schedule very strong. We were talking about double bye. We didn't go from crushing cupcakes to sucking. We were very good to start B1G play. The team had no depth. When Mag went down, the depth was exposed and we sucked it up. Paul was banged up all year and depth sucked
This year's team isn't last year's team and Mag is coming off a major injury. It's different can't compare the two situations as if they are equal
What evidence to you have of that? In 7 games this season to date he is shooting 23.8%.Chol can create his own offense.
Some of the walk ons are pretty good shooters during warm ups .I think they could make 6/10 foul shots.“We are excited to welcome Antonio Chol to the Rutgers basketball family,” head coach Steve Pikiell said. “In Antonio we get another big-time shooter, who at 6-foot-8 can do a lot of things on the basketball court. He’s a high-energy guy. Whenever you can bring in a high-flying, high-energy player who can really shoot the basketball, you’re excited. I am looking forward to getting him here as soon as we can.”
Is that enough for you?
I do wonder who the other big time shooters we have.
I am playing guys that earn the right and are not a liability on the court . JMike is working hard and deserves some time but that is not saying much considering Derek , Noah and Austin have been less than overwhelming.Are you for playing Gavin and JaMike to help for the future?
What if sitting Gavin is giving the team the best chance for the win? Are you for that?
Maybe playing Oskar was looking towards the future. I am pretty sure it was.
Bro how shell shocked are you? The two prized recruits ain’t going anywhere. A down year and bad team having a bad loss isn’t making Ace nor Dylan run for the hills. Why do people on this board keep typing nonsense like this.Overall, the staff stinks at everything except maybe team defense. If they finish last and lose one their prize recruits Pike should maybe get one more year and then shown the door.
I stayed home. Didn’t feel good about this one.
Well to start how has gavin eanred that right to play?I am playing guys that earn the right and are not a liability on the court . JMike is working hard and deserves some time but that is not saying much considering Derek , Noah and Austin have been less than overwhelming.
Gavin has been much more active offensively , defensively and rebounding the last 2 games and he seems to have a skill set that if developed properly would be great for this year ‘s team and next year and beyond. Before the last 2 , he was doing nothing. I am playing Gavin because he gives us the better chance to win. You cannot win unless you score as was painfully observed last night . I am not necessarily doing it for the future.
Playing Oscar at the expense of Hyatt or Gavin or even Mag , can only be done when all 3 are giving you nothing. Oskar gets stripped at least 1-2 times a game whenever he ball handles , gives up offensive rebounds and put backs at an alarming rate , and his passing and dribble handoffs are adventures. His value is that he is a 3 point shooter when teams play zone and when we need another 3 point shooter , he can get minutes. But this year , we are not even getting 3 point shooting from him and he is missing wide open 3’s as well and not quick enough to get in position to shoot a 3 when he is passed the ball. Pike sitting Hyatt yesterday was idiotic , stubborn , and an argument could be made cost Rutgers a win.
If Oskar was even remotely or a little better than either of the 3 , then maybe he gets minutes but he is not . Not offensively , defensively or on the boards , not shot making.
How has Gavin not earned the right to play after the last 3 halves?Well to start how has gavin eanred that right to play?
Because in the last 2 games , more so the Purdue game against better competition he finally competed. He hustled , he crashed the boards , he played help defense with Cliff , he moved without the ball and cut harder and if his 3 pointer from the top of the key through the double screen goes down we probably knock off Purdue ( assuming Austin doesn’t make that terrible foul on Loyer with 3:28 to go. ) .Well to start how has gavin eanred that right to play?
Hawk literally does not want to even try to understand the concept. I'm pretty sure he is capable of understanding. He just chooses not to
The eye test and basically every metric say this year's team is horrible offensively. There is no point in trying to debate it with him at this point. He's just being stubborn
Perfect recap Bac. No sugar coating it. That was the worst performance of the Pikiell era - from coaching to effort to player performances. Absolute rock bottom. Hard to believe it was the same team that hung with Purdue and beat Nebraska and IU. Lack of team chemistry and talent are the major culprits. These guys don't play for each other and no one is talented enough for us to win with me-ball. Time to play Gavin and J Mike for extended minutes so they develope for next year.There are no words
Dogshit effort
Dogshit coaching
2 bright spots...J Mike and Gavin. Only ones who belonged in a uni tonight
The awful maac level recruiting playing a role and Pike has gotten away with murder there
Next year...good luck. ive seen much better coaches than Pikiell struggle with talent
Have at it folks.
I always agreed with Hawk on this regarding Mag. People had convinced themselves that he was something he was not.
I always saw the Mag arguments as missing the point entirely.
Mag wasn't some magic bullet player - it wasn't that we lost him specifically, but that we lost a key element to the "greater whole" of the team. What had been a humming machine started to grind loudly when a different gear was swapped into the engine.... but that would have happened if any of the five starters had gone down, because we had no redundancy in our depth.
It's like the difference between blackjack and poker. You swap out a 10 for an 8 in blackjack, the hand is weaker but still competitive. You swap out a 10 for an 8 in poker, and you can quickly go from a straight to a pair. Last year's team was like a Jack-high flush.... no Kings or Aces, but everyone was the same suit and together would beat a lot of other hands. We swapped out a 7 of clubs for a 5 of diamonds and ended up folding instead of taking the pot.
It wasn't about Mag as some great individual player - it wasn't about his stat line vs. the stat line of Palmquist. It was about how everything was working in sync, and then suddenly wasn't. On paper, you can look at the performance delta between Mulcahy and Davis, or Spencer and Fernandes and say it shouldn't be a huge dropoff.... but that misses the impact to someone like Omoruyi who suddenly isn't getting the same looks that he was before.
This
I thought most people understood this. Not sure where this new narrative came from
We lacked depth last year...thats on Pike poor recruiting which I keep mentioning. Yet our 6-7 man mainly rotation was working. All cogs spinning the wheel. Remove Mag it fell apart
This years team has nothing. Any greater offensive data is virtually meaningless
I don't want to spend too much time rehashing last season's arguments, but both the supposed straw man and what you claim to be the actual argument don't make a lot of sense to me.The arguments last year from certain corners were that the loss of Mag couldn't have possibly caused the downslide we saw, because he wasn't individually an elite player who performed so far "above replacement" that his loss couldn't be overcome... which morphed into the straw man that those who pointed to the loss of Mag as a turning point in the season must be claiming Mag was our best player or was some transcendent talent.
My feeling is that we'd have had the same spiral last year if any of our starting five were lost in the same game Mag was. We just didn't have any role redundancy where a bench player could fill the fundamental place in the team that the departed player had filled.
I don't want to spend too much time rehashing last season's arguments, but both the supposed straw man and what you claim to be the actual argument don't make a lot of sense to me.
Mag was playing the fewest minutes of any of the starters when he went down last season (on the order of 25mpg if I remember correctly) which suggests both that the staff did not feel he was some generational talent but also that they did not feel that the team could not function without him.
I supposed it is theoretically possible that the team was some beautiful but delicate house of cards and that the removal of any one piece was destined to bring the whole thing down. I certainly can't prove it isn't the case.
That said, it seems far more likely to me that a number of things started to go wrong around the same time. The most visible and obvious change was the absence of Mag so the entire change in the team's play gets attributed to that (or things that were supposedly direct consequences of that).
Mag's absensce hurt us, for sure, especially on the defensive end. But there is no obvious reason that going from 25 minutes Mag/15 minutes Hyatt to like 32 minutes Hyatt + slightly increased roles for Palmquist and other backups needed to kill us. At that time Mag was starting to edge Hyatt out for PT but they were still viewed as similar quality players and there were serious debates on this board about who was better.
Instead, what happened was Paul tanked, Hyatt tanked, and we were left with the shitshow we saw. Did Mag's absence reduce our ability to adapt to this bad play from Paul and Hyatt? Absolutely. Did it cause the bad play? There is no obvious mechanism for how it did.
I need to stop before I get in to Hawk level length territory so tldr a lot of stuff including Mag's injury went wrong at the same time. I don't think they're as connected as you and many others on the board believe.
No he wasn't. You think we were playing the DPOY 25 minutes per game? Come on.Mag was going to be defensive player of the year in the Big 10, he was better than Caleb. People are forgetting how good we were defensively last year
I don't want to spend too much time rehashing last season's arguments, but both the supposed straw man and what you claim to be the actual argument don't make a lot of sense to me.
Mag was playing the fewest minutes of any of the starters when he went down last season (on the order of 25mpg if I remember correctly) which suggests both that the staff did not feel he was some generational talent but also that they did not feel that the team could not function without him.
I supposed it is theoretically possible that the team was some beautiful but delicate house of cards and that the removal of any one piece was destined to bring the whole thing down. I certainly can't prove it isn't the case.
That said, it seems far more likely to me that a number of things started to go wrong around the same time. The most visible and obvious change was the absence of Mag so the entire change in the team's play gets attributed to that (or things that were supposedly direct consequences of that).
Mag's absensce hurt us, for sure, especially on the defensive end. But there is no obvious reason that going from 25 minutes Mag/15 minutes Hyatt to like 32 minutes Hyatt + slightly increased roles for Palmquist and other backups needed to kill us. At that time Mag was starting to edge Hyatt out for PT but they were still viewed as similar quality players and there were serious debates on this board about who was better.
Instead, what happened was Paul tanked, Hyatt tanked, and we were left with the shitshow we saw. Did Mag's absence reduce our ability to adapt to this bad play from Paul and Hyatt? Absolutely. Did it cause the bad play? There is no obvious mechanism for how it did.
I need to stop before I get in to Hawk level length territory so tldr a lot of stuff including Mag's injury went wrong at the same time. I don't think they're as connected as you and many others on the board believe.
Coaches can't shoot for players but coaches can show Derek Simpson film of himself shooting a three pointer and help him understand that if he's off balance with his feet the shot is going to be off balance. Like... what is this? It's a wide open three pointer, what are you doing with your feet my dude? Splaying them out and then landing like THAT? And you think that shot has a prayer?
If the staff is doing this and Simpson isn't working on it, then yeah, that's on him.
No he wasn't. You think we were playing the DPOY 25 minutes per game? Come on.
FWIW I don’t think it was chance based. I think Choppin (and you) are making a lot of good points. I also think there were some unrelated drops in performance, especially offensively, and especially Paul.I agree with this but disagree with the part of your view that seems to suggest that the drop off was mostly chance based.
25 minutes is still 62.5% of the game that we had to replace Mag with Oskar level defenders. That’s tough to overcome on a D first team.
Mag did some great things on D that stood out (especially in the press). With Mag, we had the horses to run an effective press while Caleb resting on the bench. Without him, the press became totally ineffective. Suddenly - Caleb couldn’t rest at all without a big drop in D (whatever stretch per game we were pressing was where we took likely the biggest MOV hit - late first half of games usually). Even if Caleb could’ve replicated Mag’s role in the press - we couldn’t afford to risk him picking up fouls so that wasn’t even an option). Pike tried a number of different strategies and we got clobbered with all of them. The few minutes Caleb sat was always brutal on D and overplaying him ultimately hurt us too.
well said. Mag was an enormous loss last year.After Mag went out, Hyatt's average mpg did not increase. He stayed at 22 mpg for the rest of the year. Mag's minutes went to Palmquist (+13 mpg), Simpson (+9 mpg), and Spencer (+4 mpg). None of those players filled his role, and the team had to adapt to a different style of play both offensively and defensively - and they were worse for it.
As the season went on, we struggled when McConnell was off the floor because there was no redundancy for the defensive versatility he could bring - Mag/Hyatt had been overlapping 9 mpg, with Mag backing up McConnell. We also struggled when Omoruyi was off the floor, because there was no redundancy in the post/paint, and Woolf was limited. We saw a lot less press and fewer traps, and when we did it was a different look without Mag's length. Palmquist's attempts came from the arc, not the post, which changed the dynamic/flow of the offense, and he didn't have the same ability defensively. With Palmquist/Simpson/Spencer taking Mag's minutes, we were playing 4 out and 1 in more often, which made it more difficult for Mulcahy to operate in the post without a PF occupying larger defenders.
Pike finally struck on a new lineup that found some success in the last few games, moving McConnell to the 4 and Mulcahy to the 3, running with 4 guards and a center. That's a completely different team dynamic than we started the year with, and it took a lot of growing pains to get there.
We had to reinvent ourselves to be a new kind of team - we didn't just slot in a similar player into the same role and keep playing the same style, because we had no one to slot in. What little depth we had were differently-shaped pieces, and had to be used to create a different puzzle entirely.
Here is what I said or have been saying since February last year and what you and others have been saying.....we can revisit who is right or not.
RU did not perform well last year down the stretch, because the guards did not perform as well as they did against the cupcakes of the schedule. Already documented 100 times over. My take last year and into the spring portal and summer was RU needs to build around its younger guards, because the veteran guards last year, didn't hold up.
You and others cried and whined that it was Mag and his injury, because it gave you and others an easy excuse to say "that's why RU failed down the stretch, when it was documented, that it wasn't.....
I explained that the guards and depth (Simpson, Davis, Griffiths) needed to be developed so there's someone on the roster with game experience, that would help in 2024-25. You cried that Spencer and Mulcahy are missed and felt that having NO guards with experience left on the roster in 2024-25, is a better solution. You (based on results so far) would be wrong again.....why??
Because now, the guard production is not improved from last year to this year.....which is where I was WRONG......BUT I still believe it was the correct move, because Mulcahy and Spencer are not going to be here in 2024-25 and Davis, Simpson and Griffiths are expected to be.
My expectations for Simpson, Davis, Griffiths and the entire backcourt are higher.....I expected them to play better than what they have so far.....which I own 1000%....
You (and others) on the other hand, now completely IGNORE my main point, that Mag and his injury was the real reason we collapsed. We look today like February and March last year, because the guards are playing like Mulcahy and Spencer did in February and March last year.
What you are missing??? Hello....Mag is playing and is on the court.....soooo, where is the impact....?I.?? What BS excuse do you have today??
You have ZERO to stand on....Mag has gone scoreless in THREE straight games....what makes me believe that couldn't have happened last year, when it is happening NOW??
I had no expectations that Mag is or was some driving force that others want to believe....I don't see anyone saying anything now....wonder why???
The fact remains that the issue last year and this year is the BACKCOURT.....which is what I said last year and is the issue this year.
If Mag was as impactful as YOU wanted to believe, RU could offset a younger backcourt....but that has not happened.
So, I don't know what you are seeing or watching....the PPG is actually slightly better against legitimate opponents this year. YOU and others may value beating Stonehill by 20 and then only scoring 43 vs Seton Hall, 45 vs Michigan at the RAC, as some sort of difference.
I look at "opponents that matter "....& as of today, I was wrong oh our backcourt being better this year, but it is being done to look beyond this year....and you clearly are still in denial about Mag.....
I am still bullish on Simpson, Davis and Griffiths going forward and believe that RU would be no better off burning minutes on Mulcahy and Spencer this year.
Now in February, would you rather go into 2024-25, playing Spencer, Mulcahy 32 minutes a game, now that you see Mag is essentially NOT what you and others made him out to be....
What plan would be in place, by not playing Simpson, Davis and Griffiths now, for 2024-25.....??
Fans complaining about this year, now see that next year and beyond was always the plan. And that meant dedicating minutes to Simpson, JMike and Gavin now. If you can't see that today, not sure you will ever see it.
No he wasn't. You think we were playing the DPOY 25 minutes per game? Come on.
His minutes had already been trending up before he got hurt to be fair but I'm still not buying that he was better than Caleb.Mag wouldn’t have gotten DPOY especially because he didn’t have the reputation that Caleb had built over the years.
But Mag was our best defender last year before he went down. Regardless of how many minutes he was playing (25 is still a good amount) he was our best defender. If he stayed healthy he probably would have been up to 27/28 minutes per game by the end of the season.
FWIW I don’t think it was chance based. I think Choppin (and you) are making a lot of good points. I also think there were some unrelated drops in performance, especially offensively, and especially Paul.
His minutes had already been trending up before he got hurt to be fair but I'm still not buying that he was better than Caleb.
Mag was our best defender. Cliff was our most important defender. Caleb was known as our best defender.Mag wouldn’t have gotten DPOY especially because he didn’t have the reputation that Caleb had built over the years.
But Mag was our best defender last year before he went down. Regardless of how many minutes he was playing (25 is still a good amount) he was our best defender. If he stayed healthy he probably would have been up to 27/28 minutes per game by the end of the season.
FWIW I don’t think it was chance based. I think Choppin (and you) are making a lot of good points. I also think there were some unrelated drops in performance, especially offensively, and especially Paul.
Mag was our best defender. Cliff was our most important defender. Caleb was known as our best defender.
Mag was our best defender. Cliff was our most important defender. Caleb was known as our best defender.
Mag led the press and was a great onball defender. Caleb's defense took a small step backwards last year. Mag was a better on ball defender against most players. Caleb was more destructive in a help position in the half court causing turnovers. He definitely masked Paul and Cam's deficiencies with lateral quickness, bailing them out.. Gavin would have DEFINITELY benefited having Caleb.