Dear rugbdawg.....

[HD6]

still concerned about "rebounding fundamentals"?

REBOUNDING MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Ole Miss............ 26 1070 41.2 925 35.6 +5.6
2.Mississippi State... 26 1070 41.2 928 35.7 +5.5
3.Georgia............. 25 964 38.6 845 33.8 +4.8
4.Arkansas............ 26 966 37.2 844 32.5 +4.7
5.Florida............. 27 982 36.4 866 32.1 +4.3
6.Kentucky............ 25 863 34.5 785 31.4 +3.1
7.Alabama............. 27 1014 37.6 951 35.2 +2.3
8.Tennessee........... 28 1089 38.9 1056 37.7 +1.2
9.Vanderbilt.......... 28 1007 36.0 1014 36.2 -0.2
10.Auburn.............. 25 823 32.9 836 33.4 -0.5
11.LSU................. 26 916 35.2 991 38.1 -2.9
12.South Carolina...... 26 879 33.8 995 38.3 -4.5

 

[HD6]

still concerned about "rebounding fundamentals"?

REBOUNDING MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Ole Miss............ 26 1070 41.2 925 35.6 +5.6
2.Mississippi State... 26 1070 41.2 928 35.7 +5.5
3.Georgia............. 25 964 38.6 845 33.8 +4.8
4.Arkansas............ 26 966 37.2 844 32.5 +4.7
5.Florida............. 27 982 36.4 866 32.1 +4.3
6.Kentucky............ 25 863 34.5 785 31.4 +3.1
7.Alabama............. 27 1014 37.6 951 35.2 +2.3
8.Tennessee........... 28 1089 38.9 1056 37.7 +1.2
9.Vanderbilt.......... 28 1007 36.0 1014 36.2 -0.2
10.Auburn.............. 25 823 32.9 836 33.4 -0.5
11.LSU................. 26 916 35.2 991 38.1 -2.9
12.South Carolina...... 26 879 33.8 995 38.3 -4.5

 

[HD6]

still concerned about "rebounding fundamentals"?

REBOUNDING MARGIN
## Team G TEAM Avg OPP Avg Margin
--------------------------------------------------------
1.Ole Miss............ 26 1070 41.2 925 35.6 +5.6
2.Mississippi State... 26 1070 41.2 928 35.7 +5.5
3.Georgia............. 25 964 38.6 845 33.8 +4.8
4.Arkansas............ 26 966 37.2 844 32.5 +4.7
5.Florida............. 27 982 36.4 866 32.1 +4.3
6.Kentucky............ 25 863 34.5 785 31.4 +3.1
7.Alabama............. 27 1014 37.6 951 35.2 +2.3
8.Tennessee........... 28 1089 38.9 1056 37.7 +1.2
9.Vanderbilt.......... 28 1007 36.0 1014 36.2 -0.2
10.Auburn.............. 25 823 32.9 836 33.4 -0.5
11.LSU................. 26 916 35.2 991 38.1 -2.9
12.South Carolina...... 26 879 33.8 995 38.3 -4.5

 

[Three Putt]

the answer to your inquiry may lie in the age-old metric that is the hallmark of The Pasture: It only matters if we are better than Mississippi. And, obviously, we don't measure up there.

[bleat]

 

[rugbdawg]

offensive rebounds. For example, we beat Auburn on the boards by 7 but they had more offensive rebounds (16) than defensive boards (14). Against South Carolina and Ole Miss we gave up 16 and 18 respectively. It has gotten better but there is still a problem there whether you want to admit it or not. If we were getting a ton of offensive boards, then I guess it wouldn't matter. But we usually don't. There is no reason why we can't eliminate this problem. When we play better teams in close games, the extra shots they get will put them over the top.

Your stats are all games, which is why Ole Miss is at the top. We are actually 4th in SEC games in margin (still damn good) and ahead of Ole Miss.

 

[Stormrider81]

Quote:_________________________________________________When we play better teams in close games, the extra shots they get will put them over the top._________________________________________________

We're 14-3 in our last 17 games.

 

[Seshomoru]

I could say, that having sat there and watched the game, the reason we didn't just kill Auburn on the glass was this:

Rhodes was having to guard on the perimeter. Auburn saw this and was jacking some stuff up, knowing they could crash to the boards and only have Varnado to worry about. Especially if Jamont's man had him way out on the perimeter. It's also very hard to rebound when your in a zone that's being stretched out. It was either give up a rebound here and there or give up a few more threes. The team chose wisely, and they still rebounded very well.

Then there's that thing Storm mentioned about being 14-3 in our last 17 games. Of course, it's almost inexusable that our rebounding cost us those three games. Right?

You'll never let this go, though.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Its harder to rebound in a zone because you are spread out and dont necessarily have someone close that you can box out.

 

[MSUCostanza]

We'd be 17-0 if we had Brady.

 

[Stormrider81]

to get offensive rebounds. You throw up a lot of long shots, those lead to long rebounds. The team you are in is in the zone, and thus isn't going to block out as well as a man-to-man defense. It's easy to see why they and SC had some offensive rebounds. I think it's telling that we won both games though, particularly playing a defense that isn't our natural strongsuit. Of course, people like rugbdawg can't let go of the "Stans is a poor floor coach" ******** easily so they get their jabs in where they can. I don't know what more they want. Not many teams in the nation can say they've won 14 of the last 17 games.

 

[awalkerdog]

Well if Stans wasn't such a bad floor coach and would make the team work on the fundamentals of rebounding, backside defense and free throws, we would have won the west this year and would have a chance for the SEC Championship.

no wait...

 

[Temple of the Dawg]

Quote:_________________________________________________We'd be 17-0 if we had Brady. _________________________________________________

I'm not so sure. MState doesn't have a high school on campus run by the University that produces first rounders. Also, MState doesn't have a former player that is a retired pro that is willing to basically recruit for us so that his son can be on a team with a bunch of future pros.

If we are honest with ourselves, the best Brady could probably do here is 16-1 over our last 17 game stretch.

 

[MSUCostanza]

is childishness. Some people are able to admit when they might've been wrong. Some people aren't. Pretty obvious from football and now basketball season, by reading the board, you can tell who falls into what category. Most reasonable people were able to admit that they might've been wrong about Croom. Then there are others that keep nitpicking, or come up with lame reasons as to how we "lucked" into winning 7 games + a bowl victory. Those same people are the ones that come up with the most ridiculous ways to downplay or **** on Stansbury's success.

 

[KurtRambis4]

i'm speechless

 

[SheltonChoked]

for Auburn were our defensive rebounds. Almost everyone we have played has more offensive rebounds than us because, as the nation's #1 defense, our opponents miss more shots. Therefore, there are more opportunities for rebounds. Unless we are playing Princeton in 1996, the other team will get a offensive rebound. Total rebound numbers mean more than offensive rebound numbers. Personally, I like the old rebound % numbers.

 

[patdog]

We missed 22 shots. Auburn missed 43 shots. So of course they have more offensive rebounds than we did. They had twice as many chances to get an offensive rebound. We got the rebound on 45% of our missed shots. They only got the rebound on 37% of their missed shots.

 

[Hanmudog]

Outstanding patdog. Good observation.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

[No message]

 

[Irondawg]

I'll agree that's good work by Pat - I'd like to see it done for more games this season to get a good feel.

The thing I see with my eyes and not stats is that we don't block out well, but as I've said, I haven't seen anybody in the SEC do any better.

Against SC, we gave up two offensive rebounds in the last 1 1/2 minutes of regulation that were simply b/c we made no attempt to box out. They scored on both possessions which at the time kept us for having the lead with the chance to go up two possessions.

Yes, you will give up long rebounds to teams that shoot a lot of 3's and you're just going to give up 8-10 offensive rebounds regardless, but when I watch the game, i see us give up 5-6 rebounds solely as a result of complete lack of effort to box a guy out.

All rug and I have been saying that this is something that is not beating us now, but something that can very easily be corrected with a small amount of mental effort and it's something that could cost us later.

As an example - KY did a horrible job boxing out last night and OM's offensive rebounding almost helped them steal a victory. Curtis works VERY hard at offensive rebounding, but rarely did I see him fight through a box-out to get a rebound.

 

[MSUCostanza]

</JR>

 

[8dog]

blocking out when the opponent shoots free throws.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

was that most of the time when Auburn did get an offensive rebound, it was because it took an odd bounce. They were shooting so many threes and for most of the first half we were in man and our bigs were guarding guys on the perimeter away from the basket. I thought that we did a fairly good job last night but that would be obvious with the small line up for AU.

 

[patdog]

Stats for SEC games only:

MSU - 148 offensive rebounds out of 363 missed shots = 41%

Opponents - 203 offensive rebounds out of 534 missed shots = 38%

 

[dawgstudent]

[No message]

 

[patdog]

And it took all of about 3 minutes. Stans can't win in some peoples books. Play great defense and people ***** because you give up offensive rebounds. Our offensive rebounding would look a hell of lot better if we'd start missing more shots and our opponents started making more. Of course, we wouldn't be SEC West champs then either, but by damn we'd be one hell of an offensive rebounding team.

 

[hatfieldms]

well good fundamental rebounding is all that really matters. It is much more important than winning the games

 

[MSUCostanza]

[No message]

 

[Irondawg]

Good work - had been meaning to look at that for about a week now.

I'd like to go compare that to some of the other top SEC teams and some of the other conf. as well to see how it stacks up. I might try to do that this afternoon.

As far as I know rug and I have never argued that we weren't a good rebounding team or said anything about Stans being a bad coach at this. We've simply pointed out that we don't see a lot of guys making efforts to box out and it's costing us a few points a ballgame. We're not jumping on anyone's case and forecasting doom and gloom.

It's not much different than most folks who would like to see Jamont's shot selection improve to the point where he doesn't pull up for 18 foot fade-aways with 25 second on teh shot clock. Something that can easily be improved that would help us.

 

[Seshomoru]

Quote:_________________________________________________As far as I know rug and I have never argued that we weren't a good rebounding team_________________________________________________

As far as I remember, rug said our rebounding fundamentals were horrible, or sucked, or something like that. Then somehow tried to weasel out of it by saying fundamentals and rebounding success weren't related somehow. Either way, it was one of the worst points ever presented on this board and will be ridiculed for all eternity.

Congrats on taking his side.

 

[patdog]

My guess is, and I'm not going to look it up, that we're obviously in the top half of the conference in offensive rebounding percentage, but I doubt we're at the top.

 

[Three Putt]

is :

1. His ***** is annoying;
2. His kids have funny names;
3. His boy wears his pants up to his titties.

He really needs to address these.

 

[Seshomoru]

Quote:_________________________________________________3. His boy wears his pants up to his titties._________________________________________________

There was a kid that little Stans could only dream of being in the upper deck last night. Enthusiastic dancer, too. All I could think about was that SNL skit for Homocil.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Good stuff.

 

[rugbdawg]

said our rebounding fundamentals were horrible or that they sucked. Those were both words Costanza put in my mouth. I said they were "not great." All I said and still stand by is that we "aren't great" at boxing out. We could be damn near unbeatable if we improved at that. I just don't think we have reached our limit in regards to rebounding with the athletes we have.

Additionally, I have never said Stansbury was a bad coach. He is by leaps and bounds the best coach we have at State. There are things I would like to see us improve on though.

 

[MSUCostanza]

You absolutely said, as the subject line of your thread, "We suck at rebounding fundamentals."

 

[HighPointDawg]

I wish I could find the post... I also wish I had a copy of the chat room log the night of the UT game.. you went on and on and on about how we are so bad at rebounding and how nobody on our team attempts to rebound etc. etc.. then when people started slamming you ... you just logged out.

 

[Brutius]

his kids have "funny" names, but according to the social security administration's website, Noah was 15th in the top 100 boys most popular names (ahead of James and John) last year. Luke and Isaac were also in the list at 43rd and 48th. It's not like his kids are named Zebediah or Rufus or something.

Actually this social security site is pretty cool, and interesting (at least I think) to see how the popular names have changed. Looks like you can go back to 1880, where the most popular names were John and Mary.

 

[redfish66]

upward bound basketball team. They were a riot. good basketball players for that age. Isaac can shot. You can also tell he is a coaches son, he was crying for fouls with his arms out. Even for fouls on other players on the team. you call tell Noah has been around Gordon and Rhodes a lot. After Noah made a shot, he would run down the court pounding his chest.

they are actually really sweet kids and were a lot of fun to coach.

 

[KurtRambis4]

where's ronnyatmosphere, he has this **** archived...you most def said that we were not good at rebounding and our fundamentals sucked, too.

 

[rugbdawg]

during a game. My TV in the office doesn't get the Full Court feed.

Even if I was, I guarantee you I didn't leave because I was getting blasted. As everyone on the board knows, that would be completely out of character. There had to be some other reason why I left.