Here's the deal on UT Hoops

#27
#27
Vercingetorix said:
I'd be happy if somebody would just press Pearl on why 60 percent of our team's shots against Oklahoma State were threes. Or, specifically, why our gameplan against a much shorter team involved having our center shoot twice as many threes as twos.

It's like if Arizona Cardinals lost in the playoffs because they had Edgerrin James come out and run the ball 40 times in a row. And yet Pearl has gotten a free pass in the media for it.
Click to expand...


Bert ask him both questions right after the game. His answer was everytime they took the ball inside they turned it over. (9 out of 11 turnovers were in the paint) What somebody should have asked him is why did B. Williams get more minutes than Negedu in the game? Williams improved the last part of the season but played miserable in the game.
 
#28
#28
So is Chism coming back for sure? I'm not sure why we haven't heard more about him. Also, I don't think Tyler goes first round in the NBA draft. He needs to come back, he has a lot of areas he needs to improve in before going to the league, IMO.
 
#29
#29
Goliver24 said:
So is Chism coming back for sure? I'm not sure why we haven't heard more about him. Also, I don't think Tyler goes first round in the NBA draft. He needs to come back, he has a lot of areas he needs to improve in before going to the league, IMO.
Click to expand...

The sports animal said the day after the Ok st game that Chism was coming back. I haven't heard anything else on it so I'm assuming he is back. As far as Tyler I think it depends whether he wants to go over seas or not. He can make from 250k to 1mil in certain parts and it is tax free. I can't remember his exact age and I'm too lazy to look it up, but Tyler will be like a 5th year senior next year because of military school. I would love to see him but it would also be hard for the NBA to draft a 24 year old kid next year. Either way I think he is going over seas.
 
#30
#30
Pearl was asked about the number of 3-point shots....
Anyone who watched the game (and understands it) could see what happened -- UT could not score in the paint.

When you hit 33-percent from 3, as the Vols did, it equals 50-percent from two....so that really wasn't the problem.

I did ask Pearl many times why Negedu didn't play more, and at times it was obvious Brian Williams was playing better. However, part of the reason was Negedu had trouble running plays....Pearl went with the more experienced guy who he felt gave him a better chance.

I think you could second-guess that decision in hindsight.

But let us remember, it came down to Eaton hitting on a drive with 7.2 seconds left and Tyler missing at the buzzer.

Overall, I thought Oklahoma State was the better team -- particularly with Chism unable to use his left hand in the lane to receive passes

I can ask Pearl anything, and I do, and sometimes he gets upset, and sometimes I get upset.

It's business for me -- I don't approach him or anyone else at UT as a fan. I get the callbacks, and I get the answers, and I try to put it into perspective.

Not everyone likes Pearl's answers, but it's foolish to shoot the messenger or question whether or not he's being asked about the game.

UT lost to OSU in my opinion because it got out-rebounded and didn't get the second-shot opportunities it has against other teams.
 
#32
#32
Writer32 said:
Pearl was asked about the number of 3-point shots....
Anyone who watched the game (and understands it) could see what happened -- UT could not score in the paint.

When you hit 33-percent from 3, as the Vols did, it equals 50-percent from two....so that really wasn't the problem.
Click to expand...

It's not about making the math balance out; it's about a failure to even reasonably attempt to take advantage of what should have been an exploitable weakness for Oklahoma State. Plan A didn't work, so we had to immediately go to Plan B, which was having a crummy shooting team throw up threes. UT was the worst 3pt-shooting team in the field this year; we're lucky we hit enough to keep it close.

I find it hard to believe that many other of the $2m-per-year coaches would just give up on that size advantage so easily and switch to hoping that what their team does worst (in this case, shooting three-pointers) will work instead.

It's not the result that bothers me as much as the additional evidence that our coaching staff is just overmatched when they have to try to win a game in the halfcourt.
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
I have a question: If the intensity/focus/execution/freshman getting better as season progresses is a direct reflection on coaching, how would you grade Pearl this season?

Honestly I think we totally failed in all those areas.
 
#34
#34
The 33% on 3s=50% on 2s completely ignores the reality that a team is infinitely more likely to get to the foul line getting the ball inside than thay are jacking jumpshots. Well, unless JP Prince or Scotty Hopson is guarding the jumpshooter. Thus, the chances of getting something positive out of a possession where the ball goes into the post is larger than if you just chuck it from behind the line.
 
#35
#35
hatvol96 said:
The 33% on 3s=50% on 2s completely ignores the reality that a team is infinitely more likely to get to the foul line getting the ball inside than thay are jacking jumpshots. Well, unless JP Prince or Scotty Hopson is guarding the jumpshooter. Thus, the chances of getting something positive out of a possession where the ball goes into the post is larger than if you just chuck it from behind the line.
Click to expand...

That makes me sad.
 
#36
#36
That simple explanation is pretty much garbage because that's just taking the raw numbers. The majority of us watching the game remembers they went several straight possessions in a row where they didn't even attempt to go inside at all and launched 3s before they even had a chance to set anything up. Go back to the game thread and see how many posts said the same thing..."Stop taking 3s!!" Plus how many of those turnovers were from driving in and making the stupid passes where they left their feet with no idea where they were going with the ball?

I'm beginning to think someone actually did not watch the game
 
#37
#37
Lol at the 33% from 3-point land = 50% from 2.

So what about the teams shooting 50% from 2 against us and like 40% from three?
 
#38
#38
Vercingetorix said:
It's not about making the math balance out; it's about a failure to even reasonably attempt to take advantage of what should have been an exploitable weakness for Oklahoma State. Plan A didn't work, so we had to immediately go to Plan B, which was having a crummy shooting team throw up threes. UT was the worst 3pt-shooting team in the field this year; we're lucky we hit enough to keep it close.

I find it hard to believe that many other of the $2m-per-year coaches would just give up on that size advantage so easily and switch to hoping that what their team does worst (in this case, shooting three-pointers) will work instead.

It's not the result that bothers me as much as the additional evidence that our coaching staff is just overmatched when they have to try to win a game in the halfcourt.
Click to expand...

Great post. I don't care if a sportswriter justifies Pearl's sentiment. . . .it makes no sense. We should have gone inside, inside, and then, inside again. If the best our coach can come up with is having our poor-shooting team shoot a be-jillion threes because of some fuzzy math. . . .then I'm thoroughly underwhelmed.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top