What/who has surprised you the most?

The thing I am most surprised about is the fact that Foad and Poison haven't become St Johns fans yet. 
Just kidding   

The cheerleaders look nothing like ucla's or USC

Not even the male cheerleaders?

Most surprised by Big Chris' offensive smooth play. His numbers may not indicate anything offensively, but he appears to have a nice stroke, picks things up quickly and passes adequately. Nothing laboring about him.

Not even the males

I'm surprised that the Sly Fox is still the only bar within walking distance to the arena.

I'm surprised that the Sly Fox is still the only bar within walking distance to the arena.

RIP Gantry's

Quote from: MCNPA on December 03, 2012, 10:34:29 PM

I won't say Lavin's coaching has surprised me, but I love the improvement I've seen, substitutions as well as adjustments made.  We have played a good mix of man and zones and adjusted st halftime of every game we needed to.  In our bad games we really were unable to execute despite adjustments. 

What I WAS surprised about is to see Lavin's fire and comfort level on the sidelines this year.  Since Lavs has been here he hasn't hit his stride?  His first sesason he got back to coaching, had a ton of recruiting and rebuilding onto do.  Second season he had life threatening health issues.  This season he looks comfortable and happy to be here.  Eye of the tiger is there and I always hoped he'd get to that point.  I feel good where we're headed because coach Lavin seems in a very good place with a good team at his side.

Good grief. I hope you were wearing a bib when you typed this. My niece is less effusive describing Justin Bieber. I'm sorry, did I say effusive? I meant objective obviously.

I'll lend you the bib.  I knew you'd be all over anything I wrote.  I actually waited to respond to give you time to get your flag to at least half mast.  "You know I never tased meatloaf quite like this, what's your secret?"

Quote from: MCNPA on December 03, 2012, 10:34:29 PM

I won't say Lavin's coaching has surprised me, but I love the improvement I've seen, substitutions as well as adjustments made.  We have played a good mix of man and zones and adjusted st halftime of every game we needed to.  In our bad games we really were unable to execute despite adjustments. 

What I WAS surprised about is to see Lavin's fire and comfort level on the sidelines this year.  Since Lavs has been here he hasn't hit his stride?  His first sesason he got back to coaching, had a ton of recruiting and rebuilding onto do.  Second season he had life threatening health issues.  This season he looks comfortable and happy to be here.  Eye of the tiger is there and I always hoped he'd get to that point.  I feel good where we're headed because coach Lavin seems in a very good place with a good team at his side.

Good grief. I hope you were wearing a bib when you typed this. My niece is less effusive describing Justin Bieber. I'm sorry, did I say effusive? I meant objective obviously.

Point was i thought Lavin has done a good job thus far and looks like he's finally settled in coaching here.  I've seen nothing of the rumors that we'd collapse with Dunlap gone and that Lavin doesn't have any idea how to coach.  Team has work to do, but Lavin's fire has been surprising on the sidelines.  Never saw Lavin get heated like he did with Amir and D'Lo.  Fwiw Foad, what's wrong with being enthusiastic about having a healthy coach on the sidelines and finally some talent too? 

Quote from: Foad on December 04, 2012, 07:47:08 AM

Quote from: MCNPA on December 03, 2012, 10:34:29 PM

I won't say Lavin's coaching has surprised me, but I love the improvement I've seen, substitutions as well as adjustments made.  We have played a good mix of man and zones and adjusted st halftime of every game we needed to.  In our bad games we really were unable to execute despite adjustments. 

What I WAS surprised about is to see Lavin's fire and comfort level on the sidelines this year.  Since Lavs has been here he hasn't hit his stride?  His first sesason he got back to coaching, had a ton of recruiting and rebuilding onto do.  Second season he had life threatening health issues.  This season he looks comfortable and happy to be here.  Eye of the tiger is there and I always hoped he'd get to that point.  I feel good where we're headed because coach Lavin seems in a very good place with a good team at his side.

Good grief. I hope you were wearing a bib when you typed this. My niece is less effusive describing Justin Bieber. I'm sorry, did I say effusive? I meant objective obviously.

I'll lend you the bib.  I knew you'd be all over anything I wrote.

Well not anything. Like if you'd made a reasonable obervation about Obekpa's shot blocking ability or Balamou's contributions I wouldn't have said a word. However, slobbering over the great and powerful halftime adjustments in the Baylor game, that garners a mention.

I actually waited to respond to give you time to get your flag to at least half mast.

I'm flattered that you think about my junk before posting, but don't think of it as a flag: think of it as the eye-rection of the tiger.

Pleasantly surprised by: Jekarr's Jump shot, Felix's overall play, Obekpa's shot blocking ability (I knew he would be good but can't believe he's this good).

Unpleasant surprises/concerns: Sanchez's eligibility, our free throw shooting the past 4 games, doesn't seem like we have any one who can consistently beat their defender off the dribble.

All in all I'm happy with the team's overall play. I wish we would've pulled out the win against Murray State but if we can close out the non-conference schedule strongly then we will be in good shape.

Quote from: MCNPA on December 04, 2012, 11:15:00 AM

Quote from: Foad on December 04, 2012, 07:47:08 AM

Quote from: MCNPA on December 03, 2012, 10:34:29 PM

I won't say Lavin's coaching has surprised me, but I love the improvement I've seen, substitutions as well as adjustments made.  We have played a good mix of man and zones and adjusted st halftime of every game we needed to.  In our bad games we really were unable to execute despite adjustments. 

What I WAS surprised about is to see Lavin's fire and comfort level on the sidelines this year.  Since Lavs has been here he hasn't hit his stride?  His first sesason he got back to coaching, had a ton of recruiting and rebuilding onto do.  Second season he had life threatening health issues.  This season he looks comfortable and happy to be here.  Eye of the tiger is there and I always hoped he'd get to that point.  I feel good where we're headed because coach Lavin seems in a very good place with a good team at his side.

Good grief. I hope you were wearing a bib when you typed this. My niece is less effusive describing Justin Bieber. I'm sorry, did I say effusive? I meant objective obviously.

I'll lend you the bib.  I knew you'd be all over anything I wrote.

Well not anything. Like if you'd made a reasonable obervation about Obekpa's shot blocking ability or Balamou's contributions I wouldn't have said a word. However, slobbering over the great and powerful halftime adjustments in the Baylor game, that garners a mention.

Quote

I actually waited to respond to give you time to get your flag to at least half mast.

I'm flattered that you think about my junk before posting, but don't think of it as a flag: think of it as the eye-rection of the tiger.

Not to beat a dead horse, but Lavin made adjustments in the Baylor game.  The team just didn't execute down the stretch and got killed on the glass.  Not much he could have done about it.  I believe that most game-coaching in basketball is substitutions and changing defenses.  The offense executes what they learn in practice.  I'm still a big believer that teams enter a game with the ability to win an most of the time, it isn't the game-coaching that's effing it up,mit is execution.  I've made that point before.  It has nothing to do with Lavin and thought that so far he has made good adjustments for the most part.  Lots of coaches never change their game plan.  Boeheim always uses the 2-3 win or lose.  He wins with his formula and more importantly talent on the court.  I didn't intend to rehash this.  Just making the point that I think our coach has done a decent job with the team thus far, including game situations. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but Lavin made adjustments in the Baylor game.  The team just didn't execute down the stretch and got killed on the glass.  Not much he could have done about it.  I believe that most game-coaching in basketball is substitutions and changing defenses.  The offense executes what they learn in practice.  I'm still a big believer that teams enter a game with the ability to win an most of the time, it isn't the game-coaching that's effing it up,mit is execution.  I've made that point before.  It has nothing to do with Lavin and thought that so far he has made good adjustments for the most part.  Lots of coaches never change their game plan.  Boeheim always uses the 2-3 win or lose.  He wins with his formula and more importantly talent on the court.  I didn't intend to rehash this.  Just making the point that I think our coach has done a decent job with the team thus far, including game situations.

I am always willing to learn.

The Baylor game was tied at the half (45-42). In the second half Baylor scored 52 points, on their way to a 20 point victory. Can you name the adjustments Lavin made at halftime and explain how the the players failure to execute his eye of the tiger strategy led to the defeat? Also, can you explain how you were able to recognize adjustments that the players never implemented? Thanks.

Quote from: MCNPA on December 04, 2012, 11:44:43 AM

Not to beat a dead horse, but Lavin made adjustments in the Baylor game.  The team just didn't execute down the stretch and got killed on the glass.  Not much he could have done about it.  I believe that most game-coaching in basketball is substitutions and changing defenses.  The offense executes what they learn in practice.  I'm still a big believer that teams enter a game with the ability to win an most of the time, it isn't the game-coaching that's effing it up,mit is execution.  I've made that point before.  It has nothing to do with Lavin and thought that so far he has made good adjustments for the most part.  Lots of coaches never change their game plan.  Boeheim always uses the 2-3 win or lose.  He wins with his formula and more importantly talent on the court.  I didn't intend to rehash this.  Just making the point that I think our coach has done a decent job with the team thus far, including game situations.

I am always willing to learn.

The Baylor game was tied at the half (45-42). In the second half Baylor scored 52 points, on their way to a 20 point victory. Can you name the adjustments Lavin made at halftime and explain how the the players failure to execute his eye of the tiger strategy led to the defeat? Also, can you explain how you were able to recognize adjustments that the players never implemented? Thanks.

We changed from zone to man defense in the second half for a while.  By then we were already tired out and neither was working.  We were losing our guys on defense, getting burnt on fast breaks and standing around on offense.  The players were exhausted.  Finally settled down an made a comeback and it was only a 1 or 2 possession game with a little over 3 minutes to go.  Again, we broke down at both ends, turned the ball over and lights out.  It's not difficult to see when execution is hampered by something like fatigue.

You see, strategy doesn't mean much when the players are exhausted and playing half speed, henceforth breakdown in execution.  The fact that they tired out was obvious as the breakdown was at the same time at oth ends of the court.  Gotta play full speed 40 minutes of bball.  We didn't and it was 2 lapses, one after the half and the ore at the end which cost us the game.  It didn't help that we ran into Heslip having a big game.  He was sprinting to screens all day.  We could follow him playing man defense nor zone at those points.

NJIT game in the firs  we were chasing like we did in the Baylor game.  We weren't playing sound defense, just chasing and we OT burned.  Agains NJIT it wasn't fatigue, it was lack of hustle though.  Second half we defended properly and it was a totally different game.  I think we even threw some 1-3-1 at them which we didn't use in other games.

Like I said, we are still learning how to put a full 40 together and play smart and aggressive defense consistently for the entire game.  I will add as well that it was our 4th game that week which makes it increasingly difficult to prepare for.  Different teams, strengths, weaknesses etc.  I think that something like a 2-3 zone might have helped us a little in the Baylor game.  Problem is that with an early season tournament like this one, it is impossible to install 10 different zones and optimize for every opponent.  We had one zone and man defense at that point and had to go with what was in our arsenal.

We changed from zone to man defense in the second half for a while.  By then we were already tired out and neither was working.  We were losing our guys on defense, getting burnt on fast breaks and standing around on offense.  The players were exhausted.  Finally settled down an made a comeback and it was only a 1 or 2 possession game with a little over 3 minutes to go.  Again, we broke down at both ends, turned the ball over and lights out.  It's not difficult to see when execution is hampered by something like fatigue.

You see, strategy doesn't mean much when the players are exhausted and playing half speed, henceforth breakdown in execution.  The fact that they tired out was obvious as the breakdown was at the same time at oth ends of the court.  Gotta play full speed 40 minutes of bball.  We didn't and it was 2 lapses, one after the half and the ore at the end which cost us the game.  It didn't help that we ran into Heslip having a big game.  He was sprinting to screens all day.  We could follow him playing man defense nor zone at those points.

Your theory seems to be that any change is an "adjustment" and if it doesn't work that's on their players for their failure to execute the change satisfactorily. Something of a no lose situation for the staff. They change from man to zone - brilliant adjustment! - which fails to pan out because of the players. I don't see how you can characterize something as successful if it didn't work. My definition of a successful adjustment that demonstrates the eye of the tiger would be one that's effective because it takes games situations - like fatigue - into account and addresses them satisfactorily, Like if they were to change from man to zone because they were tired and the zone stopped the other team from scoring, that would be a successful adjustment. Or if they switched to a pentagram and none and that shut Halslip down, that would be a successful adjustment. Whereas I wouldn't laud a change that does nothing to stop the other team from scoring 50 points in the second half. I don't see the point of crediting the staff for strategies that don't work, especially if as you maintain it's ultimately the skill of the players that's of paramount importance. If that's the case any old "adjustment" will do and none is ultimately more effective than any other.

The one thing that has been the biggest surprise to me is the amount of mid range jumpers this team has made. Honestly I think we've made more mid range shots so far this year than in the previous two years combined. Jakkar has been money, and obkepa, jones, felix, Phil, and Deangelo have made their fair share.

The one thing that has been the biggest surprise to me is the amount of mid range jumpers this team has made. Honestly I think we've made more mid range shots so far this year than in the previous two years combined. Jakkar has been money, and obkepa, jones, felix, Phil, and Deangelo have made their fair share.

Exactly.  You live by the 3 you die by the 3.  We know our limitations.

Quote from: MCNPA on December 04, 2012, 12:32:34 PM

We changed from zone to man defense in the second half for a while.  By then we were already tired out and neither was working.  We were losing our guys on defense, getting burnt on fast breaks and standing around on offense.  The players were exhausted.  Finally settled down an made a comeback and it was only a 1 or 2 possession game with a little over 3 minutes to go.  Again, we broke down at both ends, turned the ball over and lights out.  It's not difficult to see when execution is hampered by something like fatigue.

You see, strategy doesn't mean much when the players are exhausted and playing half speed, henceforth breakdown in execution.  The fact that they tired out was obvious as the breakdown was at the same time at oth ends of the court.  Gotta play full speed 40 minutes of bball.  We didn't and it was 2 lapses, one after the half and the ore at the end which cost us the game.  It didn't help that we ran into Heslip having a big game.  He was sprinting to screens all day.  We could follow him playing man defense nor zone at those points.

Your theory seems to be that any change is an "adjustment" and if it doesn't work that's on their players for their failure to execute the change satisfactorily. Something of a no lose situation for the staff. They change from man to zone - brilliant adjustment! - which fails to pan out because of the players. I don't see how you can characterize something as successful if it didn't work. My definition of a successful adjustment that demonstrates the eye of the tiger would be one that's effective because it takes games situations - like fatigue - into account and addresses them satisfactorily, Like if they were to change from man to zone because they were tired and the zone stopped the other team from scoring, that would be a successful adjustment. Or if they switched to a pentagram and none and that shut Halslip down, that would be a successful adjustment. Whereas I wouldn't laud a change that does nothing to stop the other team from scoring 50 points in the second half. I don't see the point of crediting the staff for strategies that don't work, especially if as you maintain it's ultimately the skill of the players that's of paramount importance. If that's the case any old "adjustment" will do and none is ultimately more effective than any other.

Again, spoken like a person who has never played a sport in a life.  Not every adjustment works to negate the opponent's effectiveness.  Specifically adjustments made when a team doesn't have the legs to execute.  In that case you are right.  Any adjustment will do, or won't do depending how you look at it, because idiot the players are tired and we don't have the depth to make 40 minutes because at the time we were going to redshirt Balamou and Bourgault wasn't game-ready.

You are using 6-8 minutes of the Baylor game to make your point.  I think we have more good halves than bad this young season evidenced by our record.   The majority of the Baylor game, we hung with Baylor.  In fact, we were beating them up pretty good when we were not fatigued.  No we were not able to negate Heslip because we tired out.  Baylor had more than we did down the stretch.  If every adjustment worked 100% we'd win the national championship every year.  In reality there are other factors, most of which is players putting the ball in the hoop, defending and rebounding. 

My question to you Fun, is if coaching adjustments were the main factor, then why did Izzo one of the best coaches in the game, lose to a novice head coach like Kevin Ollie?  Why has Howland's team lost several to the likes of powerhouses SD State and Cal Poly?  Adjustments can only do so much in most games.  IMO most of it is player execution.

Again, spoken like a person who has never played a sport in a life.

How many gold medals have you won Marcus? What'd you play, intramural softball at Smithtown High School? Junior varsity lacrosse? Field hockey? If you'd like me to be impressed by your sports background have a go at posting it. If it's as magnificent as you pretend I'll disqualify myself from further discussions based upon your extensive athletic expertise. Until then, Zzzz.

I think we have more good halves than bad this young season evidenced by our record.

Yeah, we've had excellent halves against Fashion Institute of Technology and Concordia and I don't doubt that you're slobbering all over yourself about Lavin's masterful halftime adjustments against South Carolina and Holy Cross. He's Pete Carill, nearly.

My question to you Fun, is if coaching adjustments were the main factor, then why did Izzo one of the best coaches in the game, lose to a novice head coach like Kevin Ollie?  Why has Howland's team lost several to the likes of powerhouses SD State and Cal Poly?  Adjustments can only do so much in most games.

I didn't say anything about adjustments being a main factor and I don't know why you have to drag poor Tom Izzo into it. I was addressing this, which you said "surprised" you this year:

"I love the .. adjustments  .... We ... adjusted st halftime of every game we needed to."

I thought that an absurd statement and still do. I find it stultifyingly coming from someone who describes himself an objective observer of SJ basketball in discussing a game we lost by 20 points while giving up 50 points after halftime. Thank god we adjusted, they'd have scored 80.

Quote from: MCNPA on December 04, 2012, 03:00:51 PM

Again, spoken like a person who has never played a sport in a life.

How many gold medals have you won Marcus? What'd you play, intramural softball at Smithtown High School? Junior varsity lacrosse? Field hockey? If you'd like me to be impressed by your sports background have a go at posting it. If it's as magnificent as you pretend I'll disqualify myself from further discussions based upon your extensive athletic expertise. Until then, Zzzz.

Quote

I think we have more good halves than bad this young season evidenced by our record.

Yeah, we've had excellent halves against Fashion Institute of Technology and Concordia and I don't doubt that you're slobbering all over yourself about Lavin's masterful halftime adjustments against South Carolina and Holy Cross. He's Pete Carill, nearly.

Quote

My question to you Fun, is if coaching adjustments were the main factor, then why did Izzo one of the best coaches in the game, lose to a novice head coach like Kevin Ollie?  Why has Howland's team lost several to the likes of powerhouses SD State and Cal Poly?  Adjustments can only do so much in most games.

I didn't say anything about adjustments being a main factor and I don't know why you have to drag poor Tom Izzo into it. I was addressing this, which you said "surprised" you this year:

"I love the .. adjustments  .... We ... adjusted st halftime of every game we needed to."

I thought that an absurd statement and still do. I find it stultifyingly coming from someone who describes himself an objective observer of SJ basketball in discussing a game we lost by 20 points while giving up 50 points after halftime. Thank god we adjusted, they'd have scored 80.

My point about playing sports still stands.  It has nothing to do which level you've played or which I played.  I've already said I never played at a real high level.   You just post like a guy who has never played a competitive sport at any level whether it be high school, college or anywhere else.  Nobody who has ever played competitive sports of any type would claim that coaching adjustments can fix everything. 

Your refusal to conceptualize the idea of a team being plainly and obviously fatigued regardless of adjustments in the Baylor game tells me you don't get it. I knew you'd refuse to answer my question about Izzo and continue to dance around any actual basketball discussion.  It's pointless to continue this.

I'm most surprised that some "fans" think such a young team is going to come out on fire and be in tune with each other and the system from the first game out.   Can take time even for experienced teams to hit their stride, let alone a team made up of 4 sophs and the remainder- first year players on this level.