2015 SF Chris Clarke

[go_jays]

"Unfortunately the staff forgot to make any preparations in case we didn't get him."

So, Troll... You know this how... Just curious.

Here you go again with the "troll." You have yet to actually back up that point. To you, new to the board and not 100% with the coaching staff's decision making = troll? Must be a lot of trolls on this board then...

I don't "know this 100%" but I believe this is the case because they had stopped recruiting guys like Zane Meeks and David Skogman and haven't made any offers to other '19 PFs for quite a while. As far as I know, we only were on 2 grad transfers who fit the mold, but were out of the picture on Pierce fairly early and Seattle transfer Matej Kavas committed to Nebraska on his first visit, before we could get really involved.

Uhhhh... so, according to this, they DID have a plan. Just because it wasn't maybe YOUR plan doesn't mean they didn't have a plan. Now, right or wrong, they had a plan. When you stop recruiting someone, there's usually a reason why. And sometimes, the information you get from your recruits isn't as solid as you'd like it to be. Beyond who they offered, maybe they concluded that there wasn't anyone available that fit the criteria they were looking for. So why waste a 'ship on someone who wasn't going to play?

Recruiting is a constantly fluid and dynamic situation. Sometimes you get the bear... and sometimes the bear gets you. But for gawd's sake, man... give this staff a little bit of credit and don't think so shallowly.

Walks like a troll, smells like a troll, talks like a troll... IS a troll. Until you stop posting LIKE A TROLL, you will BE A TROLL... get it?

[drbluejay]

“Ballock and Mahoney are too small when matched up against a major conference 4”. Accurate regarding Mitch. Mahoney is 6’5” with a 7’0” wingspan and weighs 240/250. Very good post defender, does not give an inch once he establishes defensive position. He matches up very well against any major conference 4. He also can drop 3’s at a plus 35% rate.

Even with the 7'0 wingspan, at 6'5 he's giving up several inches to BE peers. This is more on a concern with rebounding than post defense. It's not an issue if he can go get boards like Jefferson, but if he can't sky like him then he's going to be in a similar position as Mitch if we're using the same rebounding principles as we did last year.
But it's encouraging to hear that he's solid in the low block. Is that an observation from his OVC games or from CU practices? If it's the latter that's a good sign.

You constantly slam Ballock for his size and rebounding but are you aware that Ballock was 2nd on the team in rebounds per game at 4.4 and also was 2nd in total rebounds? Let's talk about how many 3's Ballock is going to drain on those slow 6'-9" 250 lb PF's. I think you might be under rating Ballock just a bit. Ballock is complete basketball player and whether he plays the 2,3 or 4 position, I have confidence in him and he will outplay most players he goes up against.

[bluejayfan00]

That’s the problem. Your 2nd leading rebounder shouldn’t be averaging just 4 a game.

Ballock is a good player, but trying to defend the decision to play him exclusively at the 4, which he did much of last season, is dumb. We’re playing him there because we have to. Not cause it’s where he should be.

[ZMagic30]

There's no point in even explaining. There are three different types of people on this board. People who refute all criticism of the team/coaching staff with sunshine, people who are extremely skeptical of Mac, and Waylon and CUFF.

[mredle]

That’s the problem. Your 2nd leading rebounder shouldn’t be averaging just 4 a game.

Ballock is a good player, but trying to defend the decision to play him exclusively at the 4, which he did much of last season, is dumb. We’re playing him there because we have to. Not cause it’s where he should be.

Which is it? “Exclusively” or “much of last season”

[Chicagojayfan]

That’s the problem. Your 2nd leading rebounder shouldn’t be averaging just 4 a game.

Ballock is a good player, but trying to defend the decision to play him exclusively at the 4, which he did much of last season, is dumb. We’re playing him there because we have to. Not cause it’s where he should be.

Which is it? “Exclusively” or “much of last season”

Good question.. which is it?

To provide a bit of clarity, Ballock didn't start at the 4 until Jefferson went out with the ankle injury. After that he did for every game except one when Alexander was out of the lineup.

First 16 games at the 3, remaining 19 including NIT he started 18 of them, but it was also clear that Jefferson wasn't 100% after coming back.

on a per 40 basis, Ballock pulled down 5.3 per game while Jefferson pulled down 9 rebounds per game.

In the games Ballock started we averaged a -1.167 rebound differential. With Jefferson we averaged a plus 1.29 (although Jefferson started the entirety of the pre-conference season at the 4 so he may have padded his numbers a bit, except for ETSU that killed us on the boards for no reason I can figure out!)

With Ballock we won the boards 6 time, tied twice, and lost 10 time
With Jefferson we won the boards 9 times and lost 8 times

With Ballock our record was 10-8 (average points given up 70.55)
With Jefferson our record was 10-7 (again with the caveat about the pre-conference season) (average points given up 75.94)

average points for Ballock likely helped due to our overall improved team D in the second half, but we have to also give him some credit for that as well.

We ended the season 7-2 and held teams to an average of 67.33 pts in those games. I don't think the coaches have a big desire to start Ballock at the 4 (I think he's a natural fit at the 3), but when Jefferson went down they took the lineup they thought would do the best and it's hard to argue with the way they finished the season.

[drbluejay]

That’s the problem. Your 2nd leading rebounder shouldn’t be averaging just 4 a game.

Ballock is a good player, but trying to defend the decision to play him exclusively at the 4, which he did much of last season, is dumb. We’re playing him there because we have to. Not cause it’s where he should be.

I agree

[bluejayb13]

That’s the problem. Your 2nd leading rebounder shouldn’t be averaging just 4 a game.

Ballock is a good player, but trying to defend the decision to play him exclusively at the 4, which he did much of last season, is dumb. We’re playing him there because we have to. Not cause it’s where he should be.

Which is it? “Exclusively” or “much of last season”

Good question.. which is it?

To provide a bit of clarity, Ballock didn't start at the 4 until Jefferson went out with the ankle injury. After that he did for every game except one when Alexander was out of the lineup.

First 16 games at the 3, remaining 19 including NIT he started 18 of them, but it was also clear that Jefferson wasn't 100% after coming back.

on a per 40 basis, Ballock pulled down 5.3 per game while Jefferson pulled down 9 rebounds per game.

In the games Ballock started we averaged a -1.167 rebound differential. With Jefferson we averaged a plus 1.29 (although Jefferson started the entirety of the pre-conference season at the 4 so he may have padded his numbers a bit, except for ETSU that killed us on the boards for no reason I can figure out!)

With Ballock we won the boards 6 time, tied twice, and lost 10 time
With Jefferson we won the boards 9 times and lost 8 times

With Ballock our record was 10-8 (average points given up 70.55)
With Jefferson our record was 10-7 (again with the caveat about the pre-conference season) (average points given up 75.94)

average points for Ballock likely helped due to our overall improved team D in the second half, but we have to also give him some credit for that as well.

We ended the season 7-2 and held teams to an average of 67.33 pts in those games. I don't think the coaches have a big desire to start Ballock at the 4 (I think he's a natural fit at the 3), but when Jefferson went down they took the lineup they thought would do the best and it's hard to argue with the way they finished the season.

This also is in the interest in keeping Mitch on the court, because Marcus was added to the starting lineup when DJ went down and proved we needed him in it. We have a roster overloaded with talented guards and in order to keep the spacing of our offense we have to put ourselves at a disadvantage a lot of times because we don't have a true stretch 4. Unfortunately this is the same case this year unless Bishop magically develops a 3 point shot.