Stop the bandwagon, I want to get off.

kollege stewdent · Post by **kollege stewdent** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:24 am

The problem, as I see it, is that in the 4 MAC games minutes are being given to some of our players that are not playing well. Moton, Larson, Sims, Bland Leifield and Dusan are struggling right now. They represent over 26% of our total playing time per game, .07% of our points, 25% of our turnovers and only 10% of our assists. I’m not saying that our 1 and 3 start is the fault of only these 6 guys. But I feel that DD needs to give more playing time to the other guys that are producing.

BGGrad01 · Post by **BGGrad01** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 7:49 am

kollege stewdent wrote:The problem, as I see it, is that in the 4 MAC games minutes are being given to some of our players that are not playing well. Moton, Larson, Sims, Bland Leifield and Dusan are struggling right now. They represent over 26% of our total playing time per game, .07% of our points, 25% of our turnovers and only 10% of our assists. I’m not saying that our 1 and 3 start is the fault of only these 6 guys. But I feel that DD needs to give more playing time to the other guys that are producing.

As I said last night after the game, I do not understand what is so difficult about throwing Hamblet, Samarco, Miller, Marschall, and Polk onto the floor. Keep those guys out there until they need a break or until things start going really sideways. When that happens, coach them up on the sidelines and get Moten, Clements, Lefeld, and Larson some minutes. It just makes way too much sense to me.

I can't stand the quick hook method of substitution that Dakich has. Moten jacked up a shot in the two minutes that he was out there in the first half last night. He watched the rest of the game from the bench. If he had missed his first shot at UW-GB would DD have pulled him for the rest of that game? I guess we were lucky that he made his first shot and ended up making the all-tournament team.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:57 am

Yep, the starting lineups and playing time baffles me. If I am not mistaken both Larson and Polk started last night. Neither one of these guys is a threat at the offensive end other then getting a put-back. So with Miller, Samarco and Guerin on the floor with these guys, who do you want shooting the ball???

But add this in, Samarco played 16 mins in the first half and took all of 4 freakin' shots. How is that shooting too much? I don't get it.

And at this point in the season we still have no substitution rotation. We should be at the point where 8-9 guys see 10+ minutes per game. The other 4 or 5 need to watch, period. Yet we had all 13 players that were dressed get minutes. This wasn't an OOC game against Podunk St. This was an important league game on the road when our team is struggling. Yet the coach plays one Sr. for 3 minutes and sits the other (and best player) the entire second half. Stupid.

One more thing, Dusan was 0-5 on threes last night. Why the hell wasn't his ass on the bench? Is he the guy Dakich wants taking 3's in an important game?

Hypothetically, those were Samarco's shots. Martin makes two of those five and the game is tied.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:25 am

Warthog wrote:Yep, the starting lineups and playing time baffles me. If I am not mistaken both Larson and Polk started last night. Neither one of these guys is a threat at the offensive end other then getting a put-back. So with Miller, Samarco and Guerin on the floor with these guys, who do you want shooting the ball???

But add this in, Samarco played 16 mins in the first half and took all of 4 freakin' shots. How is that shooting too much? I don't get it.

And at this point in the season we still have no substitution rotation. We should be at the point where 8-9 guys see 10+ minutes per game. The other 4 or 5 need to watch, period. Yet we had all 13 players that were dressed get minutes. This wasn't an OOC game against Podunk St. This was an important league game on the road when our team is struggling. Yet the coach plays one Sr. for 3 minutes and sits the other (and best player) the entire second half. Stupid.

As far as Samarco goes, it would be shooting too much if they were not open shots.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:33 am

Samarco's made a living the last year and a half off of making contested shots. If Dan is specifically telling him not to shoot certain shots, and then he did anyway, then Dan is justified in doing what he did.

Of course, that would beg the question -- why would our coach be telling our leading scorer and our only reliable shooter to take less shots on a team that has a lot of trouble scoring points? If we don't want him shooting, we might as well just leave him at home and get another walk-on. From what I've seen, Samarco's only contribution comes at the offensive end. If he's not allowed to shoot, he's pretty much useless out there.

I'm also wondering why Samarco was left in the entire game in a blowout in which he went 4-20 from the field, and then benched in the next game when he only put up a few shots. I'm confused, but not surprised. Why would you choose a winnable road game against a division rival in which to make a point that could've been made months ago? It doesn't make any logical sense.

Post by **ZiggyZoomba** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 10:51 am

I did not see the game, nor do I have any "insider info" on this, but I don't think any of this is directly related to Martin's "shots" per se. I think it has more to do with a team "vision" of offense.

Martin Samarco is a great shooter and a great scorer. As the old adage goes, "Shooters shoot." He thinks points first... HIS points. That's just how it is and it's what we've needed sometimes.

It's my guess, and I believe it was evidenced in the second half last night, that Dan feels we're a better offensive TEAM (and maybe a better team altogether) when the TEAM has a common goal of scoring as opposed to a player scoring. It's a subtle difference, but one I think I get. It's like my signature below... it should ALWAYS be team first. Even if Martin was taking (and MAKING) OPEN shots that weren't what the offense was supposed to produce then that wasn't leading to the overall team goal.

Maureen's story had a few telling quotes IMO:

Dakich said of the second-half efforts, "We didn't jack shots, we didn't quick-shoot, we threw the ball inside, we got after it on defense."

Charlie said, "They still ran motion but got to the basket a lot quicker... They were a passing team in the first half, and a driving team in the second half."

And, Nate Miller said, "I guess you could say it's a big step, because we're doing what coach wants us to do," Miller said. "Once we start playing like that on a consistent basis, we're going to be a tough team."

When a team starts looking to an individual as opposed to an offensive scheme, it's doomed to failure. Look at the first 8 years of Michael Jordan's career. He scored 37 freaking points a game in the '88 season... did the team win a championship? Nope. Not until the supporting cast and the Triangle offense came along... not the Michael offense, the Triangle...

I'm really behind Dakich on this. I'm not sure if we're going to be winning a whole lot of games, but I totally agree with his thinking and his team philosophy.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:02 am

I am not against Martin taking fewer shots. He shoots way too damn much, no doubt about it. I'm also not against sitting someone to get a point across.

I would've liked to see him out there in the final minutes of the game, but oh well.

I definitely liked the sound of our TEAM better in the 2nd half than in the first half. Perhaps the benching of Samarco had something to do with that? It is not unheard of to have your best player be an individual star but be detrimental to the team picture at the same time; this is especially true in basketball. I'm thinking guys like Steve Francis, Stephon Marbury, etc. Those guys may get good shots, and they may put up huge numbers, but in the end they are also detrimental to their team.

I was upset about it last night, but when I got back to thinking about it, our TEAM definitely played better in the 2nd half, and that is the goal. Ideally you'd have your best player buy into this team concept and help open things up for other guys, etc, but that doesn't seem to happen. Our team is known for the offensive lulls and one of the biggest reasons is because we sit back and wait for Samarco to do something.

I don't know...we just got blown out in 2 games against good conference competition. We were getting blown out in a 3rd. At halftime Dan benches our seemingly best player and we make a comeback to fall short by a couple points. I was pissed off last night, but looking back it seems to me that perhaps this was the right thing to do?

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:05 am

ZiggyZoomba wrote:I did not see the game, nor do I have any "insider info" on this, but I don't think any of this is directly related to Martin's "shots" per se. I think it has more to do with a team "vision" of offense.

Martin Samarco is a great shooter and a great scorer. As the old adage goes, "Shooters shoot." He thinks points first... HIS points. That's just how it is and it's what we've needed sometimes.

It's my guess, and I believe it was evidenced in the second half last night, that Dan feels we're a better offensive TEAM (and maybe a better team altogether) when the TEAM has a common goal of scoring as opposed to a player scoring. It's a subtle difference, but one I think I get. It's like my signature below... it should ALWAYS be team first. Even if Martin was taking (and MAKING) OPEN shots that weren't what the offense was supposed to produce then that wasn't leading to the overall team goal.

Maureen's story had a few telling quotes IMO:

Dakich said of the second-half efforts, "We didn't jack shots, we didn't quick-shoot, we threw the ball inside, we got after it on defense."

Charlie said, "They still ran motion but got to the basket a lot quicker... They were a passing team in the first half, and a driving team in the second half."

And, Nate Miller said, "I guess you could say it's a big step, because we're doing what coach wants us to do," Miller said. "Once we start playing like that on a consistent basis, we're going to be a tough team."

When a team starts looking to an individual as opposed to an offensive scheme, it's doomed to failure. Look at the first 8 years of Michael Jordan's career. He scored 37 freaking points a game in the '88 season... did the team win a championship? Nope. Not until the supporting cast and the Triangle offense came along... not the Michael offense, the Triangle...

I'm really behind Dakich on this. I'm not sure if we're going to be winning a whole lot of games, but I totally agree with his thinking and his team philosophy.

On another thread we were discussing Dan recruiting players and how that may hamper things for another coach next year. This right here is a case of Dakich developing things for the future (next game, next week, next year) avoiding the reliance on one player that Grant alluded to that will stunt the development of the rest of the team. We have shown that we can barely win against Buffalo with Samarco scoring 43. I am sure we are looking for better things from the TEAM as a whole.

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:10 am

ZiggyZoomba wrote:I did not see the game, nor do I have any "insider info" on this, but I don't think any of this is directly related to Martin's "shots" per se. I think it has more to do with a team "vision" of offense.

Martin Samarco is a great shooter and a great scorer. As the old adage goes, "Shooters shoot." He thinks points first... HIS points. That's just how it is and it's what we've needed sometimes.

It's my guess, and I believe it was evidenced in the second half last night, that Dan feels we're a better offensive TEAM (and maybe a better team altogether) when the TEAM has a common goal of scoring as opposed to a player scoring. It's a subtle difference, but one I think I get. It's like my signature below... it should ALWAYS be team first. Even if Martin was taking (and MAKING) OPEN shots that weren't what the offense was supposed to produce then that wasn't leading to the overall team goal.

Maureen's story had a few telling quotes IMO:

Dakich said of the second-half efforts, "We didn't jack shots, we didn't quick-shoot, we threw the ball inside, we got after it on defense."

Charlie said, "They still ran motion but got to the basket a lot quicker... They were a passing team in the first half, and a driving team in the second half."

And, Nate Miller said, "I guess you could say it's a big step, because we're doing what coach wants us to do," Miller said. "Once we start playing like that on a consistent basis, we're going to be a tough team."

When a team starts looking to an individual as opposed to an offensive scheme, it's doomed to failure. Look at the first 8 years of Michael Jordan's career. He scored 37 freaking points a game in the '88 season... did the team win a championship? Nope. Not until the supporting cast and the Triangle offense came along... not the Michael offense, the Triangle...

I'm really behind Dakich on this. I'm not sure if we're going to be winning a whole lot of games, but I totally agree with his thinking and his team philosophy.

I don't disagree with the philosophy. My only beef is why did this wait until last night to happen. It's not like Martin all of a sudden started jacking up a lot of shots this week. It's been happening for a year and a half. I guess I don't understand the timing.

Whatever helps us be a better team by tourney time, I'm all for.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:16 am

Why not put him and tell him not to shoot?

Jacobs4Heisman · Post by **Jacobs4Heisman** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:17 am

Globetrotter wrote:Why not put him and tell him not to shoot?

That's what we have people like Bland for. Martin is a liability on defense.

Post by **ZiggyZoomba** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:22 am

Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Whatever helps us be a better team by tourney time, I'm all for.

Yeah, I don't know about the timing either... but your statement above is where I'm at right now. I think there's a lot of talent on this team, getting it to work together as a whole towards a common goal with a singular philosophy could result in some unexpected wins!

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:46 am

I am all for whatever helps the team improve. But as J4H stated, why did it take a year and a half for Dan to decide we would be better off with Martin on the bench? And what triggered that decision at this point in this game? I mean Samarco only put up 4 shots in the first half. It's not like he was shooting like crazy in this particular game. Now he might have done some of that in earlier games, but Dakich didn't take him out then.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:50 am

ZiggyZoomba wrote:
Jacobs4Heisman wrote:Whatever helps us be a better team by tourney time, I'm all for.
Yeah, I don't know about the timing either... but your statement above is where I'm at right now. I think there's a lot of talent on this team, getting it to work together as a whole towards a common goal with a singular philosophy could result in some unexpected wins!

There is more talent on this team than what we have seen at this point. Otis Polk is a boatload of untapped potential by himself.

One thing I noticed at the end of the Akron game is that Darryl Clements can get to the hoop off the dribble...sounded like he did again in the 2nd half last night.

Miller has shown some very good flashes, as has Hamblet.

There is talent on this team right now. Maybe a change in the philosophy of allowing Samarco to shoot 300 times a game was needed in order to make this the best possible team by tourney time?

Like I said, I was upset about it at the time last night, but after thinking about it the team certainly played better with him on the bench than it had in the past 2 1/2 games. Ideally Samarco will buy into this philosophy and become a valuable member of that group on the floor and play within the team concept. Hopefully sitting for a half will wake him up and we'll be a better team for it.

Or we'll be lousy the rest of the year, infighting will begin, Dan will be gone, and we'll start over next year. Who the hell knows at this point. All I know for sure is this team is better than the hockey team, and has a chance to be better than the football team was. I'm gonna enjoy the ride, whether we win or lose.

HoopsFan · Post by **HoopsFan** » Thu Jan 18, 2007 12:30 pm

Globetrotter wrote:Samarco was slow to get back on D and forcing shots at OU. If he has played that same way since then I have no problem with trying to send him a message. I do have a problem with keeping him out for the entire second half.

Was this the 4-20 Samarco? He has been that way all season and he doesn't know the meaning of the word pass.

Besides, I have BG picked to be 6-10 on the season so a few sacrifices can't hurt

Hamblet and Samarco have been unfriendly toward each other most of the season as I see it. Maybe a little forced humility will fix the problem. If not, seeing the kid on the bench will give me a little more respect for Dakich.

Hoopsfan