Oregon @ Stanford

[duckgrad99]

I'm a stats guy, but I also found this interesting..

When Armstead has 5 or more assists, we are 6-0.. And when he was getting those assists, where do you think a good chunk of those went? *cough* Dunigan.

When Porter turns it over 4 or more times, we are 1-4 (only win over UC Davis).

The sad part is that there is no adjustment in our game.. We suck, so why not feed the ball 20 times a game to Dunigan? Sure he'll turn it over 3-4 times, but he has the highest FG% IN THE PAC 10, so he's likely to get a good shot off or get fouled. And when I say get the ball to him, I mean on the freaking block. Not 10-15 feet from the basket..

Can I coach? Please?

You've got my vote. As far as Porter goes, I'm not sure he is a better player now than he was as a freshman. Not sure if you can blame that all on coaching, but it's pretty pathetic. At this point, he needs to play less minutes and come off of the bench. The team is going nowhere, so get the younger players more experience. Unless he is in foul trouble, Dunigan should be playing about 30 minutes a game. This business of him playing 15 minutes and getting just a few shot attempts is a joke.

[dthomas=ddixon]

I'm a stats guy, but I also found this interesting..

When Armstead has 5 or more assists, we are 6-0.. And when he was getting those assists, where do you think a good chunk of those went? *cough* Dunigan.

When Porter turns it over 4 or more times, we are 1-4 (only win over UC Davis).

The sad part is that there is no adjustment in our game.. We suck, so why not feed the ball 20 times a game to Dunigan? Sure he'll turn it over 3-4 times, but he has the highest FG% IN THE PAC 10, so he's likely to get a good shot off or get fouled. And when I say get the ball to him, I mean on the freaking block. Not 10-15 feet from the basket..

Can I coach? Please?

Its really just sad. Its painfully obvious how badly coached this team is. It wouldn't even take a genius Xs & Os game plan, all we need to be competitive is to GIVE THE BIG MIKE THE EFFING BALL. Like you said, he either scores or gets fouled. And if he turns the ball over then you haven't lost anything because every possossion is essentailly a turn over anyways.

I remember when we played at the beevs last year & there was a stretch where we kept giving Crittle & Dunigan the ball down low & EVERY time they either scored or got fouled. We were starting to pull away then out of no where we stopped giving them the ball. And of course we went on a huge drought & ended up losing. A friend of mine who's a big beev fan texted me & was like, "Why did you guys stop going down low? You were on your way to blowing is out."

Its beyond reasoning anymore. I'm starting to just not even care anymore. If Kent isn't fired I will be completely done with this bball program. Its becoming too much to watch these games, know what we need to do to be a good competitive team (All I want at this point) & see us do the exact opposite.

I feel really bad for these players. A lot of them who were lured away from other big time programs & are on their way to accomplishing NOTHING and leaving here having not improved or gotten better at all. What a freaking waste.

[bellsduck]

I'm a stats guy, but I also found this interesting..

When Armstead has 5 or more assists, we are 6-0.. And when he was getting those assists, where do you think a good chunk of those went? *cough* Dunigan.

When Porter turns it over 4 or more times, we are 1-4 (only win over UC Davis).

The sad part is that there is no adjustment in our game.. We suck, so why not feed the ball 20 times a game to Dunigan? Sure he'll turn it over 3-4 times, but he has the highest FG% IN THE PAC 10, so he's likely to get a good shot off or get fouled. And when I say get the ball to him, I mean on the freaking block. Not 10-15 feet from the basket..

Can I coach? Please?

Actually I was thinking of, oh I don't know, me. Come on I've got head coaching experience with a U-16 AAU team.

[gofightingducks]

Another great coaching effort. It is looking like the 2 Oregon teams will probably finish as the 2 worst teams in the conference. Hopefully the Beavers finish worse. It is time to say goodbye to Kent, no harm in letting him go now since there are no recruits seriously considering Oregon. Let Dunlap coach the rest of the season, he couldn't do no worse.

[UOducksTK1]

I'm a stats guy, but I also found this interesting..

When Armstead has 5 or more assists, we are 6-0.. And when he was getting those assists, where do you think a good chunk of those went? *cough* Dunigan.

When Porter turns it over 4 or more times, we are 1-4 (only win over UC Davis).

The sad part is that there is no adjustment in our game.. We suck, so why not feed the ball 20 times a game to Dunigan? Sure he'll turn it over 3-4 times, but he has the highest FG% IN THE PAC 10, so he's likely to get a good shot off or get fouled. And when I say get the ball to him, I mean on the freaking block. Not 10-15 feet from the basket..

Can I coach? Please?

Its really just sad. Its painfully obvious how badly coached this team is. It wouldn't even take a genius Xs & Os game plan, all we need to be competitive is to GIVE THE BIG MIKE THE EFFING BALL. Like you said, he either scores or gets fouled. And if he turns the ball over then you haven't lost anything because every possossion is essentailly a turn over anyways.

I remember when we played at the beevs last year & there was a stretch where we kept giving Crittle & Dunigan the ball down low & EVERY time they either scored or got fouled. We were starting to pull away then out of no where we stopped giving them the ball. And of course we went on a huge drought & ended up losing. A friend of mine who's a big beev fan texted me & was like, "Why did you guys stop going down low? You were on your way to blowing is out."

Its beyond reasoning anymore. I'm starting to just not even care anymore. If Kent isn't fired I will be completely done with this bball program. Its becoming too much to watch these games, know what we need to do to be a good competitive team (All I want at this point) & see us do the exact opposite.

I feel really bad for these players. A lot of them who were lured away from other big time programs & are on their way to accomplishing NOTHING and leaving here having not improved or gotten better at all. What a freaking waste.

For real, I'm with you as are many other fans.

[Brophdog88]

I never thought I would see the day when oregon didn't have enough shooters, but I am saying it now, We have to be able to shoot the three to open up the inside, but we just don't have it. The changed three point line is killing us, all they have to do is play a zone, we can't shoot from deep and they can keep us from scoring....Feeding Dunigan is tough to do if you really don't have a threat from outside. We rank middle of the road on 3 point percentage in the Pac-10, but we only have one player shooting 40% from 3, Teondre Williams and his minutes have been limited due to grades, (well okay, Elloriaga, but he has made 1 on 1 attempt). Ernie needs shooters for his offense to thrive, and they haven't been hitting their shots. Does that put the blame on the players? No, coaches have to adjust to their personnel, but Ernie believes he still has shooters...I just dunno. Also, wow that Catron has played in only 4 games this year, I know he was injured, but he really must have fell off Ernie's favorites...cause that was a sudden drop....hey TK1, maybe Ernie was cruising the boards and took advice from you.....

[duckgrad99]

Reading an article in the register guard, sounds like Ernie plans on going with a bigger lineup, playing more zone and playing fewer players. Will that help? Considering Kent doesn't know how to handle big men, I'm going to say no. Where will the scoring come from?

[justducky0]

I never thought I would see the day when oregon didn't have enough shooters, but I am saying it now, We have to be able to shoot the three to open up the inside, but we just don't have it. The changed three point line is killing us,

ya have you watched people shoot three's the extra foot does not make a difference peopel with the old line would shoot from there anyways. Dont blame the shooting woes on the line

[Brophdog88]

I never thought I would see the day when oregon didn't have enough shooters, but I am saying it now, We have to be able to shoot the three to open up the inside, but we just don't have it. The changed three point line is killing us,

ya have you watched people shoot three's the extra foot does not make a difference peopel with the old line would shoot from there anyways. Dont blame the shooting woes on the line

Yeah except people are going to on average shoot from a farther distance with a new line are they not? Seriously don't try to tell me that an extra foot doesn't make a difference, not only does it make the normal three longer, but that same player who was jacking them up from a foot behind the line before is still gonna do it at near the same rate, but that foot behind the line is now farther away....It makes a difference, or else they wouldn't have moved it. They moved the Three point line out to open up the inside a bit more, but we used the three point line to open up the inside already, moving it out farther just hurts that gameplan, and forces Ernie to come up with ways to get it inside...kinda hurts us a bit you think? Not to mention a farther three point line allows the defense to continue to pack it in unless the opponent is making shots, but with the shots on average being tougher, they are going to miss more and shooting them out of it isn't going to happen. Now, I lead off with "I never thought I would see the day when Oregon didn't have enough Shooters, but I am saying it now...." So its pretty obvious, well, at least I figured it would be, that I was not blaming it all on the line, we don't have the shooters to handle the new line though.

[Duck07]

I never thought I would see the day when oregon didn't have enough shooters, but I am saying it now, We have to be able to shoot the three to open up the inside, but we just don't have it. The changed three point line is killing us,

ya have you watched people shoot three's the extra foot does not make a difference peopel with the old line would shoot from there anyways. Dont blame the shooting woes on the line

Yeah except people are going to on average shoot from a farther distance with a new line are they not? Seriously don't try to tell me that an extra foot doesn't make a difference, not only does it make the normal three longer, but that same player who was jacking them up from a foot behind the line before is still gonna do it at near the same rate, but that foot behind the line is now farther away....It makes a difference, or else they wouldn't have moved it. They moved the Three point line out to open up the inside a bit more, but we used the three point line to open up the inside already, moving it out farther just hurts that gameplan, and forces Ernie to come up with ways to get it inside...kinda hurts us a bit you think? Not to mention a farther three point line allows the defense to continue to pack it in unless the opponent is making shots, but with the shots on average being tougher, they are going to miss more and shooting them out of it isn't going to happen. Now, I lead off with "I never thought I would see the day when Oregon didn't have enough Shooters, but I am saying it now...." So its pretty obvious, well, at least I figured it would be, that I was not blaming it all on the line, we don't have the shooters to handle the new line though.

the extra foot only hurts poor shooters, or people who shouldn't be shooting 3s in the first place.

[justducky0]

I never thought I would see the day when oregon didn't have enough shooters, but I am saying it now, We have to be able to shoot the three to open up the inside, but we just don't have it. The changed three point line is killing us,

ya have you watched people shoot three's the extra foot does not make a difference peopel with the old line would shoot from there anyways. Dont blame the shooting woes on the line

Yeah except people are going to on average shoot from a farther distance with a new line are they not? Seriously don't try to tell me that an extra foot doesn't make a difference, not only does it make the normal three longer, but that same player who was jacking them up from a foot behind the line before is still gonna do it at near the same rate, but that foot behind the line is now farther away....It makes a difference, or else they wouldn't have moved it. They moved the Three point line out to open up the inside a bit more, but we used the three point line to open up the inside already, moving it out farther just hurts that gameplan, and forces Ernie to come up with ways to get it inside...kinda hurts us a bit you think? Not to mention a farther three point line allows the defense to continue to pack it in unless the opponent is making shots, but with the shots on average being tougher, they are going to miss more and shooting them out of it isn't going to happen. Now, I lead off with "I never thought I would see the day when Oregon didn't have enough Shooters, but I am saying it now...." So its pretty obvious, well, at least I figured it would be, that I was not blaming it all on the line, we don't have the shooters to handle the new line though.

the extra foot only hurts poor shooters, or people who shouldn't be shooting 3s in the first place.

+1

[Brophdog88]

I never thought I would see the day when oregon didn't have enough shooters, but I am saying it now

[Duck07]

I never thought I would see the day when oregon didn't have enough shooters, but I am saying it now

ive also been really shocked by how easy it is to press this oregon team the last few years. as a guards first type of coach, you would think that Ernie would be able to at least *sic fix that problem