As a result of the Nebraska loss, I’ve seen a lot posts mentioning that Lutz’s style does need lead to consistency. But I’m not exactly sure what that means. No team went undefeated this season. So in that sense you can say every team in the country was inconsistent.
Does having 5, 20 win seasons in 10 seasons mean inconsistency? What about going to the post season 8 out of 10 seasons? Does having the most wins all time as a Niner coach mean inconsistency? What about having a winning record against virtually everybody you face on a regular basis? This season, we won more than we lost and we were competitive in all but 3 games out of 34. I would say that is consistent.
I don’t know. But I am genuinely curious. Maybe it’s as simple as getting a 1st round win in the NCAA every season.
Well I for one am a Lutz fan, but IMO the crowd that says we need to be consistent looks at three things.
We have not been to the second weekend of the NCAA tourney since 1977. Lutz has won game 1 but can not get us to the second weekend. So that means consistently losing. This leads me to point 2.
The perception that we over rely on the deep ball. Lutz has a love affair with the 3 and therefore the “live by the three, die by the three” (I really hate that quote) crowd claims we can not be consistent while relying so much on the three ball. I understand why we do though, particularly in CUSA our players we overmatched against the Louisvilles and Sincys. The three pointer is the great equalizer when playing a superior team. The problem is now we are not playing that many superior teams which leads me to point 3.
The one major complaint that I do have of Lutz is that his squads ALWAYS drop games that we should not lose. It was happening in the CUSA days and it happens today. His teams consistently lose to inferior opponents.
So I would actually say Lutz’s problem is not being inconsistent - it is being very consistent. Very consistent in not getting past the second round, loving the three and losing to lesser teams.
Inconsistent is beating teams such as Clemson, Wake Forest, etc. and losing to Monmouth and Hofstra. Inconsistent is scoring 19 points in the first half, then having to score 50 in the second half to win. I could keep going, but those are the examples that come to me right now.
[QUOTE=Submarley734;307700]Inconsistent is beating teams such as Clemson, Wake Forest, etc. and losing to Monmouth and Hofstra. Inconsistent is scoring 19 points in the first half, then having to score 50 in the second half to win. I could keep going, but those are the examples that come to me right now.
I agree with Ninerwupass though.[/QUOTE]
I agree with that, but also this-
Goldwire scoring 8 points, then 39, then 31, 12 and 4.
I’m proud of how the team played this year and I love Lee because he is one of the best individuals to come through the program in the last few years, but that being said… our team won and died by Lee this year. We won tight games were Lee made the shot to win and lost the games where he missed it.
Lee is a good shooter but he is a streaky shooter. We were a streaky team this year.
I'm proud of how the team played this year and I love Lee because he is one of the best individuals to come through the program in the last few years, but that being said... our team won and died by Lee this year. We won tight games were Lee made the shot to win and lost the games where he missed it.
Lee is a good shooter but he is a streaky shooter. We were a streaky team this year.
Agreed. I was talking about this the other day with someone, and really, without Lee this year showing up and having one of his games, we probably wouldve only had 14/15 wins tops. Of course there is always “ifs,” but bottom line, Lee will be missed quite a bit.
I agree with that, but also this-
Goldwire scoring 8 points, then 39, then 31, 12 and 4.
That’s ridiculous. Every player in the country has streaks. Hansbrough, probable player of the year, in a stretch from 1/2-1/12 he went 25, 12, 23, 13.
Inconsistent is beating teams such as Clemson, Wake Forest, etc. and losing to Monmouth and Hofstra. Inconsistent is scoring 19 points in the first half, then having to score 50 in the second half to win. I could keep going, but those are the examples that come to me right now.
This is kind of my point. No team is undefeated in the country. So that means they lose games they’re not supposed to lose. Every team.
As far as your scoring example, again that happens to every team. If they score a combined 69 points, then using your logic, we would have 34 in the first half and 35 in the second half every game.
That's ridiculous. Every player in the country has streaks. Hansbrough, probable player of the year, in a stretch from 1/2-1/12 he went 25, 12, 23, 13.
As much as I hate the guy… what were his rebounds in those games?
That doesn’t mean your inconsistent… it just means you lost a few games. UCLA lost what 3 games? So they’re inconsistent too? No of course not. It’s not that we lost games its how we lose games, with erratic behavior that would make a schizophrenic look normal. We can come out and and look flawed for an entire half and then look flawless for the next one, it’s not even one game to the next. Sure, it happens, but many just ask for that to be fixed. They just want some of the fixable things that cause this overall inconsistency to be fixed (Ex: bad shots, lack of set plays, watching teammates going 1 on 1). This isn’t that hard to see so I don’t really understand what you are trying to get out of this “What does inconsistency mean?” You really shouldn’t have to ask, b/c you’ve watched the definition of it for quite sometime. If you still can’t see it, stop looking for it when you take a sip from the green kool-aid, the bottom of the glass can distort somethings for you.
I’m still a Niner and proud of the season they were able to produce against what was deemed a lost season before it began. It still doesn’t make this last loss, or the reasons why we lose any easier to take.
[QUOTE=Normmm;307713]That’s ridiculous. Every player in the country has streaks. Hansbrough, probable player of the year, in a stretch from 1/2-1/12 he went 25, 12, 23, 13.[/QUOTE]
Lee had a high of 39 and Tyler had a high of 39 this year.
Tyler’s low was 12 (one game) Lee had 9 games of less than 12 and one game of 12.
I’d say he was more consistent, but everyone kinda knew that before looking at the numbers, right?
[QUOTE=Iron9er;307723]Lee had a high of 39 and Tyler had a high of 39 this year.
Tyler’s low was 12 (one game) Lee had 9 games of less than 12 and one game of 12.
I’d say he was more consistent, but everyone kinda knew that before looking at the numbers, right?[/QUOTE]
Tyler’s teammates probably helped pick up the slack on his “off” nights as well… :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=run49er;307730]Tyler’s teammates probably helped pick up the slack on his “off” nights as well… :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Probably. I dont know how that has anything to do with who is a more consistent scorer between the two though. Which team is more consistent in winning, yeah, prob a big difference there.
This is kind of my point. No team is undefeated in the country. So that means they lose games they're not supposed to lose. Every team.
You have a horrible point. Not every team loses games they are supposed to win on a regular basis. We do. Consistency is showing up to play, no matter who we are playing, on a regular basis. We do not. We prove we can play with some of the best teams in the country, then we lose, EVERY YEAR to not lesser competition, but ridiculously pathetic competition. That is the definition of being inconsistent. Do you want me to look it up in Webster’s for you? No one has said that we think we should be 100% consistent. ****, I’d be happy with 80% of the time, but we are more hot and cold than icy hot.
As far as your scoring example, again that happens to every team. If they score a combined 69 points, then using your logic, we would have 34 in the first half and 35 in the second half every game.
I hate to tell you bud, but that’s not just my logic, that’s what the word means. Are you new to this place we call Earth? Of course there is a deviation from it, but even scoring 30 in one half and 39 in the second would be somewhat consistent. Not 19 and 50. Here, I’ll explain it in a simile; To say we are consistent is like saying Shaq is consistent at the charity stripe.
I think we do need more consistency, but the point about Bobby making postseason 8 times and all this is very valid. All I mean when I say we need more consistency is I wish we had lost to Clemson and instead beaten Monstra. I want us to beat the teams we are supposed to beat more than I want us to have the potential for a hot night and a win over a big ranked team. How far “on” and how far “off” we can be scares the bejesus out of me and this is when I really start to harp on consistency.
I may not be one of the people this post was really directed at as I don’t come on here and go crazy on the team, but I figured I’d throw out my .02 since I don’t care for our level of consistency.
Lee had a high of 39 and Tyler had a high of 39 this year.
Tyler’s low was 12 (one game) Lee had 9 games of less than 12 and one game of 12.
I’d say he was more consistent, but everyone kinda knew that before looking at the numbers, right?
Teams basically have to concentrate on Lee. Hansbrough has a supporting cast of McDonalds all americans. Hansbrough plays center and goes to the ft line more than Lee, and probably more than anybody in the country. He can get 10 points from the ft line alone. That doesn’t make him more consistent though.
That’s not even what I’m debating though, whether Lee or Hansbrough is better or more consistent. I used him as an example because he is considered the best player in the country and he has some off nights too. Lee has an off night and he’s inconsistent. We played 34 games and Lee scored in double figures in 29 of them. That’s consistent to me.
I want to win as we all do. However, we consistently lose to inferior competition every year. That drives me crazy. Take away about 3-4 of our awful losses and this season is wonderful. Instead we exceeded expectations, blah, blah, blah.
While I’m at it, consistently play smart. We play so dumb sometimes. The whole one on one, launch an impossible 3, one pass offense is frustrating. Our brand of basketball is painful to watch sometimes.
Many have said we don’t have as many good shooters as in years past. We need more than one offensive option. We need something inside. When was the last time we had a real low post player (who could score)? Maybe Phil can work on some offense in the off season. In the good ole days we had someone like Demarco. When we needed a basket bad, we went to him. He also opened up the 3 point line. I’m fine with shooting 3s IF we take good shots but everyone knows we don’t do that. Maybe we can’t right now.
I guess I don’t have one magic answer, but we have got to get better in every phase of the game including coaching. Not bashing Lutz but he has got to find a way to make us better. Whether it is recruiting or play on the court. This year was good but I expect more. BUT I will be back next season bleeding green with the rest of you.
You have a horrible point. Not every team loses games they are supposed to win on a regular basis. We do. Consistency is showing up to play, no matter who we are playing, on a regular basis. We do not. We prove we can play with some of the best teams in the country, then we lose, EVERY YEAR to not lesser competition, but ridiculously pathetic competition. That is the definition of being inconsistent. Do you want me to look it up in Webster's for you? No one has said that we think we should be 100% consistent. ****, I'd be happy with 80% of the time, but we are more hot and cold than icy hot.
I hate to tell you bud, but that’s not just my logic, that’s what the word means. Are you new to this place we call Earth? Of course there is a deviation from it, but even scoring 30 in one half and 39 in the second would be somewhat consistent. Not 19 and 50. Here, I’ll explain it in a simile; To say we are consistent is like saying Shaq is consistent at the charity stripe.
So again, using your logic, if Shaq shoots 50% from the FT line, then in 50% of our games we’ve scored 19 in one half and then 50 in the second half??? No, we did it one time. That’s what I mean about consistent.
That doesn't mean your inconsistent... it just means you lost a few games. UCLA lost what 3 games? So they're inconsistent too? No of course not.
You’re missing my point. I’m not saying we should be perfect. I’m just saying be realistic. How many games would you say we lost this season that we shouldn’t have? I’d say 4. UCLA was probably favored in all of their games and lost 3 of them. The numbers are pretty close, 4 to 3, when you look at that way. So if losing games you aren’t supposed to is the definition of inconsistent then UCLA is inconsistent too.
Then consider how many games we won where were not favored. I’d say 7. If we won 7 weren’t supposed and lost 4 that we were supposed to win, then I’d say that was successful, or consistent.
It's not that we lost games its [U][B]how we lose games[/B][/U], with erratic behavior that would make a schizophrenic look normal. We can come out and and look flawed for an entire half and then look flawless for the next one, it's not even one game to the next. Sure, it happens, but many just ask for that to be fixed. They just want some of the fixable things that cause this overall inconsistency to be fixed (Ex: bad shots, lack of set plays, watching teammates going 1 on 1). This isn't that hard to see so I don't really understand what you are trying to get out of this "What does inconsistency mean?" You really shouldn't have to ask, b/c you've watched the definition of it for quite sometime. If you still can't see it, stop looking for it when you take a sip from the green kool-aid, the bottom of the glass can distort somethings for you.
Yes I do drink the green kool aid. But I also have issues I’d like to see resolved too. I just feel “inconsistent” is a very general term that just about every coach uses it in regards to their team. I don’t think it clearly explains what issues people have in the anti-Lutz crowd.
I'm still a Niner and proud of the season they were able to produce against what was deemed a lost season before it began. It still doesn't make this last loss, or the reasons why we lose any easier to take.
Confused me here. You confess that you thought the season was lost before it began, yet it ended up a success, So how is that inconsistent? No arguments about making the last loss any easier to take. It blows and I’m pissed about it too.