hanbrough's goofy and has beady eyes, but he doesn't run his mouth or anything

12/7/2005 10:54:06 PM

Quote :

" Bullshit. The best thing they do right now is running the transition game. It's the perfect style for those freshmen--they're young but they're athletic. So instead of using half-court plays, they rely on the transition scores (and you can even see some of that in the game tonight, even as they play like ass). Add to that the fact that Williams's teams traditionally don't develop a good half-court offense, so if you stop the transition game they struggle to score."

Short memory? In case you forgot, we were talking about how NC STATE should use their talent. The fact that UNC runs their break better than their half court has NOTHING to do with how they defend the break.

Furthermore, just because UNC is relatively good at the break doesnt mean they are absolutely good at the break. Last year they were absolutely good. This year, them running is a turnover against an experienced team.

Back on the topic of what OFFENSE is best for NC STATE:

Quote :

"You can run traps on the fullcourt, too. Durrrr."

Which do you think has a better probability of success -- duke trapping with its personnel back or duke trapping with its personnel trailing. Think hard about it.


What's the best way to exploit a trap -- have an athletic team that runs. Your comments perfectly illustrate the pussy mentality that has been ingrained here. When duke goes into the trap, an athletic opponent's eyes should light up and see that as an opportunity to score easy points.

A slow team with poor ball handlers are afraid of the trap.

Want to take a couple more whiffs, here?

Quote :

" I don't see what this has to do with anything I said. In fact, saying settling into the halfcourt is a viable way to attack both of them agrees with me. "

That's easy -- you created a strawman to avoid defeating the real argument here -- with our athleticism, we should run a different, uptempo offense. For some reason (ie. you suck at reasoning), you assumed "uptempo" exclusively meant running the break and you tried to explain how that would be baad (and failed, too).

Back to the actual point here, taking advantage of our atheltecism means changing how we run half court sets. IMAGINE THAT -- exploiting athleticism involves doing something other than passing the ball around the arc for 30 seconds.


[Edited on December 7, 2005 at 11:10 PM. Reason : FDG]

12/7/2005 10:59:55 PM

^^ok, thats true. harbrough LOOKS LIKE the biggest douche in the ACC. i think thats more fair.

12/7/2005 11:04:49 PM

Heels win again and ^^points made very well

12/7/2005 11:08:32 PM

Quote :

"2-10 = .200 is a perfect example of good math?"

haha...2 wins and 10 losses was the 16% he posted (16.67 to be exact)

not 2 out of 10...

12/7/2005 11:18:18 PM

^I edited, i'll own up. It proves my point even more, after all.

[Edited on December 7, 2005 at 11:20 PM. Reason : sdf]

12/7/2005 11:19:27 PM

I started to respond to the whole thing, but it would take way too long and it's really not worth my time.

So let's deal with your most basic misconception here:

Quote :

"For some reason (ie. you suck at reasoning), you assumed "uptempo" exclusively meant running the break and you tried to explain how that would be baad (and failed, too). Back to the actual point here, taking advantage of our atheltecism means changing how we run half court sets. IMAGINE THAT -- exploiting athleticism involves doing something other than passing the ball around the arc for 30 seconds."

Please explain, in any possible way, how the Princeton offense doesn't allow us to take advantage of our athleticism. The entire idea behind it is that any player is coming from the triple threat position. Anyone can drive, anyone can shoot, anyone can cut.

Now, State EXECUTES its offense badly a lot of the time. That's not the fault of the offensive system itself.

When things run right, we do play an uptempo transition game, and we properly move the ball and create scoring opportunities.

"Passing the ball around the arc for 30 seconds" is NOT in any way the offense. It is what happens when the players don't execute the offense.

12/7/2005 11:23:11 PM

Its still boring, you guys can defend it all you want...

12/7/2005 11:30:34 PM

hahaha, excellent. You made a dumb point that was already addressed ealier.

Perhaps you missed this exchange:

Quote :

"Tracer: i just said the system was perfect. i didnt say we ran it perfectly."

Quote :

"^sophistry at it's finest In theory, communism works..."

In case the subtext was too complicated for you to understand: the fact that our offense is so hard to execute well is a HUGE WEAKNESS of our offense. Herb has been using it for a while, he has the players he wants, and he has had the experience he wanted.

Despite all of this, we still suck at running it. The low probability of us running the offense well shows one thing: the offense sucks. A theoretically good idea that is not practical is worthless. It's communism. It sucks. It's ivory tower bullshit.
Fact: an offense that is easier to execute and has a lower probability of failure is better than one that is hard to execute and has a highe probability of failure. I can't believe that I am forced to explain this to a college student.

[Edited on December 7, 2005 at 11:32 PM. Reason : sdf]

12/7/2005 11:31:22 PM

No, you are once again completely misrepresenting what I'm saying so you can try to act like this is the Soap Box.

I did not say it works "in theory." It works on the court.

You say that our system is too complex to execute. Earlier you were saying how UNC's freshmen can't play well in a simple offense because they're too inexperienced, so you can't be referring to the fact that freshmen often have trouble in our offense. So, let's continue on to the next point, because experience ties into it:

You say that our offense sucks with experience and the players Herb wants...when those two things have just happened THIS YEAR. We've played six games, won five of them by large margins, and lost one (and the team we lost to, on their home court, was doing a pretty shitty job of executing its own offense, I might add). When healthy last year, we did pretty damn well despite the fact that we didn't have anyone to play inside, which I think is fairly impressive.

So how can you justify writing off the current offense as being a theory that doesn't work in practice, when all your arguments against it are merely theoretical as well?

12/7/2005 11:45:20 PM

i think our offense has worked more times than communism has

12/8/2005 12:03:00 AM

Quote :

"You say that our system is too complex to execute. Earlier you were saying how UNC's freshmen can't play well in a simple offense because they're too inexperienced, so you can't be referring to the fact that freshmen often have trouble in our offense. So, let's continue on to the next point, because experience ties into it:"

Are you dense? FRESHMEN, SOPHS, JUNIORS, AND SENIORS HAVE TROUBLE RUNNING OUR OFFENSE.

Quote :

"You say that our offense sucks with experience and the players Herb wants...when those two things have just happened THIS YEAR."

Now you are just lying. Last year we had experienced depth in the system, and the year before that we did. Those should have been our best years and we still can't get the same monkey off our back: an inability to score consistently against real competition.

Quote :

"We've played six games, won five of them by large margins, and lost one (and the team we lost to, on their home court, was doing a pretty shitty job of executing its own offense, I might add)."

Now it's time to make the deductions:

1. Deduct the games where we could have beaten the other team if Evtimov had stood in a corner with his pants around his ankles.
2. Deduct the games where we played shitty offensively but saved ourselves defensively.

What do you have left: nothing. We haven't won a legitimate game this year because we ran our offense well. So far, there has been a 0% chance of running the offense well.

Quote :

"When healthy last year"

You mean at the begining of the year against scrub teams? That's what I thought.

Quote :

"So how can you justify writing off the current offense as being a theory that doesn't work in practice, when all your arguments against it are merely theoretical as well?"

Proof by assertion -- the last refuge of the beaten. It's plain to anyone who is honest to themselves that we rarely win a game because of offense. The preponderence of evidence shows that we can't score. We win because of defense and despite offense.

You cannot win a series of games of increasing difficulty without being able to outscore opponents in some of those games. That's why we have a strong record of choking. The defense fails and/or the other team blows up, and we don't have a plan B (unless plan B is losing).


[Edited on December 8, 2005 at 12:08 AM. Reason : l;l']

12/8/2005 12:04:14 AM

My god, this is ridiculous. It's like you can't even read a complete sentence, and then think you can argue by just throwing around debate terms.

Quote :

"Are you dense? FRESHMEN, SOPHS, JUNIORS, AND SENIORS HAVE TROUBLE RUNNING OUR OFFENSE."

Are you dense? The quoted portion clearly addressed freshmen. The quoted portion also clearly states to continue on to the next point for upperclassmen.

Quote :

"Now you are just lying. Last year we had experienced depth in the system, and the year before that we did. Those should have been our best years and we still can't get the same monkey off our back: an inability to score consistently against real competition."

'03-'04: 21-10 record, beating multiple ranked teams. Oh, right, but we can't score.
'04-'05: 21-14, Sweet 16, even though you ignore the fact that we were so fucked by injuries and sickness that Will Roach had to rejoin the team just to get an extra man in practice.

Add to that the fact that (as I already stated) we didn't have anyone to play inside. Those weren't "the players Herb wanted" (but of course, as before, you conveniently decide not to read the entire sentence and just focus on one part, because it's easier to talk out of your ass that way).

Quote :

"You mean at the begining of the year against scrub teams? That's what I thought."

Or at the end of the year, you know, where we upset Wake, Charlotte, and UConn.

Quote :

"It's plain to anyone who is honest to themselves that we rarely win a game because of offense. The preponderence of evidence shows that we can't score. We win because of defense and despite offense."

This can't even be argued, because it's impossible to make conclusions based on two parts that can't be separated. Defense is a part of the offense.

Do we depend on defense? Yes. So does every good team in the country.

"we can't score" is just meaningless hyperbole. Obviously we do, because defense doesn't put points on the board.

And you STILL have not, at any point, justified your position that our offense can't use our athleticism.

12/8/2005 12:27:43 AM

you guys are going to deep into this

ur post are like a page long, i dont wanna read that crap

12/8/2005 12:32:50 AM

Haha exactly what I was thinking. Its between them now. All of this in a Duke game thread.

12/8/2005 12:50:30 AM

Hey, isn't reading shitloads of text better than watching a Duke game anyway?

12/8/2005 12:51:39 AM

No. No it's not.

12/8/2005 12:53:26 AM

^^ i think so...

12/8/2005 7:11:35 AM

Quote :

"Proof by assertion -- the last refuge of the beaten."

HOLY SOAPBOX BATMAN

Get this shit outta here you fag.

12/8/2005 7:36:31 AM

Grow some hair

12/8/2005 6:51:22 PM

i love the people like DaveOT...

Quote :

"Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they play teams like Penn."

Penn almost beat Villanova today WITH Ray back...

12/14/2005 6:25:50 AM