Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

droop10 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:11 pm Man, there's a lot of negativity in this thread for a team that has probably had the best start to a Ducks' season since the Final Four team. They have the same record as the '19-'20 team, but I'd argue their resume is much better than that team's. Do they have flaws? Sure, but it's still a very good team. I think we all knew coming in they lacked interior size. Cook is a bit undersized, which basically leaves Bittle. Evans has good length, but not really the strength to bang down low and isn't an outside threat at all. Angel has had some shooting struggles and lacks the speed to be a great perimeter defender, but I don't think he's near deserving of the flack that he gets on here. Even with his shooting slump, his 3 point percentage would have been the highest of anyone on the team last year, and he's important, because he can spell Bittle at the 5 for short periods of time and is one of the few with the size to guard the 4.

They won't win a natty, but they are certainly capable of a Sweet 16 run, and will be dangerous in March. It's a much deeper team than last year (largely a result of the injuries last year), and that team would have made the Sweet 16, barring the late collapse against Creighton. I think people get too fixated on the flaws of this team, while ignoring that most teams in the nation have some kind of flaws. They have the second most Quad 1 wins in the nation, so I don't think you can say that this team is not good, regardless of how ugly it might look at times.

droop10 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:11 pm Man, there's a lot of negativity in this thread for a team that has probably had the best start to a Ducks' season since the Final Four team. They have the same record as the '19-'20 team, but I'd argue their resume is much better than that team's. Do they have flaws? Sure, but it's still a very good team. I think we all knew coming in they lacked interior size. Cook is a bit undersized, which basically leaves Bittle. Evans has good length, but not really the strength to bang down low and isn't an outside threat at all. Angel has had some shooting struggles and lacks the speed to be a great perimeter defender, but I don't think he's near deserving of the flack that he gets on here. Even with his shooting slump, his 3 point percentage would have been the highest of anyone on the team last year, and he's important, because he can spell Bittle at the 5 for short periods of time and is one of the few with the size to guard the 4.

They won't win a natty, but they are certainly capable of a Sweet 16 run, and will be dangerous in March. It's a much deeper team than last year (largely a result of the injuries last year), and that team would have made the Sweet 16, barring the late collapse against Creighton. I think people get too fixated on the flaws of this team, while ignoring that most teams in the nation have some kind of flaws. They have the second most Quad 1 wins in the nation, so I don't think you can say that this team is not good, regardless of how ugly it might look at times.

UOducksTK1 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:13 pm

droop10 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:11 pm Man, there's a lot of negativity in this thread for a team that has probably had the best start to a Ducks' season since the Final Four team. They have the same record as the '19-'20 team, but I'd argue their resume is much better than that team's. Do they have flaws? Sure, but it's still a very good team. I think we all knew coming in they lacked interior size. Cook is a bit undersized, which basically leaves Bittle. Evans has good length, but not really the strength to bang down low and isn't an outside threat at all. Angel has had some shooting struggles and lacks the speed to be a great perimeter defender, but I don't think he's near deserving of the flack that he gets on here. Even with his shooting slump, his 3 point percentage would have been the highest of anyone on the team last year, and he's important, because he can spell Bittle at the 5 for short periods of time and is one of the few with the size to guard the 4.

They won't win a natty, but they are certainly capable of a Sweet 16 run, and will be dangerous in March. It's a much deeper team than last year (largely a result of the injuries last year), and that team would have made the Sweet 16, barring the late collapse against Creighton. I think people get too fixated on the flaws of this team, while ignoring that most teams in the nation have some kind of flaws. They have the second most Quad 1 wins in the nation, so I don't think you can say that this team is not good, regardless of how ugly it might look at times.

I don't think interior size is necessarily the issue. In conference play, we are 5th in blocked shots. OPPG is 8th in the conference. Our outside shooting is very inconsistent. The days Bittle/Shelstad are hot, we win. The days they are not, we lose.

Main issues:
-Offensive rebounding (We just don't crash the offensive boards, we are one of the worst in the Big Ten, 16th). If we want to beat some of the top half teams in the Big Ten, we gotta rebound better.
-Inconsistent 3-point shooting. Outside of Barthelemy, our 3-point shooting is in the bottom half of the league.
-No 3rd scorer. Outside of Bittle/Shelstad, we don't have much contribution. TJ Bamba's shooting percentages are like the worst in the Big Ten, if he can step into that role as a top 3 scorer, I think we will finish the season strong. Bamba is shooting 17.9% from 3point range in conference play.

Conference play PPG:
Jackson Shelstad 16.6
Nate Bittle 12.6
Keeshawn Barthelemy 10.2
TJ Bamba 8.8
Brandon Angel 8.6
Jadrian Tracey 6.1
Kwame Evans 5.3



Back to the Angel hate. Angel is also the 2nd best 3-point shooter on the team outside of Barthelemy. The reality is a 3point shooting isn't that great compared to other Big Ten teams. Evans is in a shooting slump as he hasn't scored a 3-pointer since 6 games ago (when he shot 1 for 3 against Maryland).

dd10snoop28 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 1:14 pm

droop10 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:11 pm Man, there's a lot of negativity in this thread for a team that has probably had the best start to a Ducks' season since the Final Four team. They have the same record as the '19-'20 team, but I'd argue their resume is much better than that team's. Do they have flaws? Sure, but it's still a very good team. I think we all knew coming in they lacked interior size. Cook is a bit undersized, which basically leaves Bittle. Evans has good length, but not really the strength to bang down low and isn't an outside threat at all. Angel has had some shooting struggles and lacks the speed to be a great perimeter defender, but I don't think he's near deserving of the flack that he gets on here. Even with his shooting slump, his 3 point percentage would have been the highest of anyone on the team last year, and he's important, because he can spell Bittle at the 5 for short periods of time and is one of the few with the size to guard the 4.

They won't win a natty, but they are certainly capable of a Sweet 16 run, and will be dangerous in March. It's a much deeper team than last year (largely a result of the injuries last year), and that team would have made the Sweet 16, barring the late collapse against Creighton. I think people get too fixated on the flaws of this team, while ignoring that most teams in the nation have some kind of flaws. They have the second most Quad 1 wins in the nation, so I don't think you can say that this team is not good, regardless of how ugly it might look at times.

Two out of the last 3 games (Purdue/Minnesota) were abysmal performances. I didn't watch the UW game so that could've been bad too.

My main critique is that we keep demonstrating the same mistakes.....The poor ball movement and bad team defense are issues that should've been resolved after the Illinois game, but they continue to persist. Either coaches are messing up or players aren't executing....

droop10 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 1:24 pm

UOducksTK1 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:13 pm

droop10 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 12:11 pm Man, there's a lot of negativity in this thread for a team that has probably had the best start to a Ducks' season since the Final Four team. They have the same record as the '19-'20 team, but I'd argue their resume is much better than that team's. Do they have flaws? Sure, but it's still a very good team. I think we all knew coming in they lacked interior size. Cook is a bit undersized, which basically leaves Bittle. Evans has good length, but not really the strength to bang down low and isn't an outside threat at all. Angel has had some shooting struggles and lacks the speed to be a great perimeter defender, but I don't think he's near deserving of the flack that he gets on here. Even with his shooting slump, his 3 point percentage would have been the highest of anyone on the team last year, and he's important, because he can spell Bittle at the 5 for short periods of time and is one of the few with the size to guard the 4.

They won't win a natty, but they are certainly capable of a Sweet 16 run, and will be dangerous in March. It's a much deeper team than last year (largely a result of the injuries last year), and that team would have made the Sweet 16, barring the late collapse against Creighton. I think people get too fixated on the flaws of this team, while ignoring that most teams in the nation have some kind of flaws. They have the second most Quad 1 wins in the nation, so I don't think you can say that this team is not good, regardless of how ugly it might look at times.

I don't think interior size is necessarily the issue. In conference play, we are 5th in blocked shots. OPPG is 8th in the conference. Our outside shooting is very inconsistent. The days Bittle/Shelstad are hot, we win. The days they are not, we lose.

Main issues:
-Offensive rebounding (We just don't crash the offensive boards, we are one of the worst in the Big Ten, 16th). If we want to beat some of the top half teams in the Big Ten, we gotta rebound better.
-Inconsistent 3-point shooting. Outside of Barthelemy, our 3-point shooting is in the bottom half of the league.
-No 3rd scorer. Outside of Bittle/Shelstad, we don't have much contribution. TJ Bamba's shooting percentages are like the worst in the Big Ten, if he can step into that role as a top 3 scorer, I think we will finish the season strong. Bamba is shooting 17.9% from 3point range in conference play.

Conference play PPG:
Jackson Shelstad 16.6
Nate Bittle 12.6
Keeshawn Barthelemy 10.2
TJ Bamba 8.8
Brandon Angel 8.6
Jadrian Tracey 6.1
Kwame Evans 5.3



Back to the Angel hate. Angel is also the 2nd best 3-point shooter on the team outside of Barthelemy. The reality is a 3point shooting isn't that great compared to other Big Ten teams. Evans is in a shooting slump as he hasn't scored a 3-pointer since 6 games ago (when he shot 1 for 3 against Maryland).

It feels like Bittle is the only true big man defensively. I know Cook is technically a 5, he's just undersized in my opinion. Would be nice to have a reliable backup big man, especially for times when Bittle gets in foul trouble. As much as I wasn't a Barthelemy fan coming into the season, he has really turned it up a notch this year. I consider him to be that guy that's capable of coming in off the bench and scoring in bunches. He has hit some big shots this year, and completely changed my opinion of him. Bamba has definitely been an enigma. This has been his worst shooting year of his career, which leads me to believe he's bound to turn it around, and is just going through a big slump. I like Evans a lot, and think he has a bright future, but he came out of high school with outside shooting concerns, and I'm not sure it's a slump, rather he's just not a great 3 point shooter. He only shot 26% last year, as well. They're at least a more dangerous threat from 3 than last year's team, though they could certainly use more shooters. I do agree that rebounding in general has been their biggest issue. If they could improve in that facet, they'll be tough to beat in March.

UOducksTK1 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:27 am

Merganzer wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:58 am

ICamel wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:35 am This years team is lacking in chemistry. Will Altman get this team rounding into shape about this time of the year? From what I have seen so far, I don't think so.

I think you nailed it. The early success covered that up, what Altman's teams have always done before, get better around now is the chemistry, It looked like it existed in the tournament, with wins over San Diego State, A & M and Alabama, we thought, "with the depth, this team is 10 deep." But the lack of movement, ball & Player that has been a problem all season, points directly to lack of chemistry.

Hero ball won't get it done consistently. The Ducks haven't had the whole team playing effectively for a game, because they don't know what to do, each player is making it up as he goes.

Chemistry is lacking. This is clearly a team with a good amount of senior transfers.

But the "get better around now" is not necessarily true. Most Altman's teams really start thriving in like Mid/Late February. If we compare Mid January to Early February records from the past we get:
2025: currently 1-2 with 3 more games in this range.
2024: 2-4
2023: 3-2
2022: 4-1 (COVID)
2021: 0-2 (COVID)
2020: 4-2
2019: 3-3
2018: 3-3

Still a lot of basketball to be played, so hopefully Altman pulls off his Mid February magic as he often does.

OregonFan4Life wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:17 pm

UOducksTK1 wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:16 pm

Phalanx wrote: Sat Jan 25, 2025 4:08 pm I thought it was a legit offensive foul.

Ducks trying to mount a comeback somehow while not making any shots.

Same I thought it was good position.

And refs gave us lots of calls. Reality is Minny wanted it more.

We really gotta beat ucla and Nebraska now before going on our Michigan road trip. That is if we wanna finish in the top 4 of the conference.

This team ain’t finishing top 4 in the conference.

UOducksTK1 wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 10:27 am

Merganzer wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:58 am

ICamel wrote: Thu Jan 30, 2025 9:35 am This years team is lacking in chemistry. Will Altman get this team rounding into shape about this time of the year? From what I have seen so far, I don't think so.

I think you nailed it. The early success covered that up, what Altman's teams have always done before, get better around now is the chemistry, It looked like it existed in the tournament, with wins over San Diego State, A & M and Alabama, we thought, "with the depth, this team is 10 deep." But the lack of movement, ball & Player that has been a problem all season, points directly to lack of chemistry.

Hero ball won't get it done consistently. The Ducks haven't had the whole team playing effectively for a game, because they don't know what to do, each player is making it up as he goes.

Chemistry is lacking. This is clearly a team with a good amount of senior transfers.

But the "get better around now" is not necessarily true. Most Altman's teams really start thriving in like Mid/Late February. If we compare Mid January to Early February records from the past we get:
2025: currently 1-2 with 3 more games in this range.
2024: 2-4
2023: 3-2
2022: 4-1 (COVID)
2021: 0-2 (COVID)
2020: 4-2
2019: 3-3
2018: 3-3

Still a lot of basketball to be played, so hopefully Altman pulls off his Mid February magic as he often does.

We finished mid Jan to early Feb, 1-5.

And now Mid/Late Feb, 4-0.

Dana Altman's team operate like clockwork during late Feb. Hope it continutes into march.