Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Thoughts on Mizzou

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Thoughts on Mizzou

    Mizzou has finally started to play. A lot of things have happened but what we have now is a solid rotation with less bodies. KYoung and Kroenke get some minutes but essentially it's McKinney, Gardner, Paulding, Bryant, Johnson and Conley. That's not too shabby. This team would even be better come tournament time if they had Kleiza - Young does nothing offensively - but honestly, Kleiza was a guy that looked to shoot every time he touched the ball, and that's not what this team needs.

    I am encouraged by their play of late. A win at KSU - that has to happen. At Texas Tech sounded formidable a while back but Tech is playing terrible right now - just managed only 44 at Nebraska tonight. Then KU - and they have been exposed as not that good and not that deep, and that that game is at Hearnes on senior night and in the final game of that arena.

    I think this team has finally learned how to play without a true point guard. They have figured out how to help each other out - you rarely see the 5-second calls that plagued them earlier in the season. Meanwhile, I was so impressed tonight at their efforts to get the ball down low against a team that while good was overmatched size-wise.

    Things are looking up. Yes, with the result so far one would think 3-0 is too much to ask for. But I don't think this is the team any more that lost 10 games. I think this is the team that was ranked top 5 preseason.

    I expect 3-0.

    Thoughts?
    Dude. Can. Fly.

  • #2
    But you know double overtime AT HOME to me is almost a loss.
    It's a win and all, but double OT at home is not impressive.
    Be passionate about what you believe in, or why bother.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by madyaks@Feb 25 2004, 02:06 AM
      But you know double overtime AT HOME to me is almost a loss.
      It's a win and all, but double OT at home is not impressive.
      madyaks -

      this is the #7 ranked team we beat. They are a very good team so give Mizzou some credit.

      han solo

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by hansolo+Feb 25 2004, 09:09 AM-->
        QUOTE(hansolo @ Feb 25 2004, 09:09 AM)

      • #5
        Originally posted by madyaks+Feb 25 2004, 08:11 AM-->
        QUOTE(madyaks @ Feb 25 2004, 08:11 AM)
        Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:09 AM

      • #6
        Yup. Hats off on an excellent win.

        Can they keep up the intensity?
        Official sponsor of the baseball gods and other missalaneous stuff.

        Comment


        • #7
          My knowledge on Mizzou is kinda non-existant, but doesn't this thing seem to be a yearly pattern? I mean starting off real slow before getting to the NCAAs by fighting at the end.

          Comment


          • #8
            Originally posted by Weird_English_Guy@Feb 25 2004, 08:13 AM
            My knowledge on Mizzou is kinda non-existant, but doesn't this thing seem to be a yearly pattern? I mean starting off real slow before getting to the NCAAs by fighting at the end.
            You're absolutely right.

            I'd hoped that this "loaded" roster would finally translate to good play early in the season. But it wasn't to be.

            Quin's pattern:
            - terrible early in the season
            - they get it together and squeak into the tournament
            - they win a game or 2 in the tourney

            It would be nice to start finishing in the top 3-4 of the conference.
            "Need some wood?" -- George W. Bush, October 8, 2004

            "Historians will judge if this war is just, not your punk ass." -- Dave Glover, December 8, 2004

            Comment


            • #9
              Originally posted by dvyyyyyy+Feb 25 2004, 09:12 AM-->
              QUOTE(dvyyyyyy @ Feb 25 2004, 09:12 AM)
              Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 08:11 AM
              Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:09 AM

            • #10
              Originally posted by dvyyyyyy@Feb 25 2004, 01:06 AM
              This team would even be better come tournament time if they had Kleiza - Young does nothing offensively - but honestly, Kleiza was a guy that looked to shoot every time he touched the ball, and that's not what this team needs.
              It's funny. When Kleiza first went down, I said they'd play better ball. That side of the fence was pretty lonely.

              Comment


              • #11
                Originally posted by madyaks+Feb 25 2004, 08:24 AM-->
                QUOTE(madyaks @ Feb 25 2004, 08:24 AM)
                Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:12 AM
                Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 08:11 AM
                Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 09:09 AM

              • #12
                Originally posted by BW23+Feb 25 2004, 08:33 AM-->
                QUOTE(BW23 @ Feb 25 2004, 08:33 AM)

              • #13
                Originally posted by BW23+Feb 25 2004, 08:33 AM-->
                QUOTE(BW23 @ Feb 25 2004, 08:33 AM)

              • #14
                Originally posted by phantom+Feb 25 2004, 08:42 AM-->
                QUOTE(phantom @ Feb 25 2004, 08:42 AM)
                Originally posted by [email protected]Feb 25 2004, 08:33 AM

              • #15
                Yeah, choice 1 is probably it. dvyyyyyy touched on it. I've always said that Kleiza in Lithuanian means SHOOT.

                Comment

                Working...
                X