2017 Recruiting needs and potential recruits

[eldonabe]

^ For the love of UMass basketball please do not derail another thread into a discussion about Kellogg.

Have you been following along? My post actually has almost nothing to do with DK actually.......

[InnervisionsUMASS]

I think the word you are looking for is DAMAGED

Excuse me, eldon... you mean SERIOUSLY DAMAGED.

[NilesGold]

^ It was directed at Swampy, your post didn't exist when I started typing mine.

[NilesGold]

I wouldn't be surprised to see UMass get involved with transfers Steven Enoch, Jared Reuter, Peter Kiss and Stephan Jiggetts.

[JoleonLescottsHair]

I think if the players made more jump shots and free throws Kellogg would still be coaching at UMass.

It's true. Such a simple game. In fact, It always amazes me that coaches are paid what they are when they have so little impact on the game. I'm actually not even sure why we have coaches. Just make shots. Simple.

[69MG]

I think if the players made more jump shots and free throws Kellogg would still be coaching at UMass.

It's true. Such a simple game. In fact, It always amazes me that coaches are paid what they are when they have so little impact on the game. I'm actually not even sure why we have coaches. Just make shots. Simple.

I realize you are kidding, but there is some truth to what Swampy said. We lost 6 games by 4 points or fewer. With just a very minor improvement in shooting we might have won between 4-6 of those. If we won all 6, we are 21-12 and 8-10 in conference. Still not great in conference, but 21-12 probably means DK is still the coach.

[jj]

I wouldn't be surprised to see UMass get involved with transfers Steven Enoch, Jared Reuter, Peter Kiss and Stephan Jiggetts.

I know Jarred. I'd be surprised to see him here.

[NilesGold]

^ Interesting, why is that?

[uz2b-len]

I think if the players made more jump shots and free throws Kellogg would still be coaching at UMass.

It's true. Such a simple game. In fact, It always amazes me that coaches are paid what they are when they have so little impact on the game. I'm actually not even sure why we have coaches. Just make shots. Simple.

I realize you are kidding, but there is some truth to what Swampy said. We lost 6 games by 4 points or fewer. With just a very minor improvement in shooting we might have won between 4-6 of those. If we won all 6, we are 21-12 and 8-10 in conference. Still not great in conference, but 21-12 probably means DK is still the coach.

There is no question that shooting is a skill that is learned and benefits from practice, and that some techniques are better than others. The coach has responsibility in this area.

[eldonabe]

I think if the players made more jump shots and free throws Kellogg would still be coaching at UMass.

It's true. Such a simple game. In fact, It always amazes me that coaches are paid what they are when they have so little impact on the game. I'm actually not even sure why we have coaches. Just make shots. Simple.

[MJatUM]

I think if the players made more jump shots and free throws Kellogg would still be coaching at UMass.

It's true. Such a simple game. In fact, It always amazes me that coaches are paid what they are when they have so little impact on the game. I'm actually not even sure why we have coaches. Just make shots. Simple.

I realize you are kidding, but there is some truth to what Swampy said. We lost 6 games by 4 points or fewer. With just a very minor improvement in shooting we might have won between 4-6 of those. If we won all 6, we are 21-12 and 8-10 in conference. Still not great in conference, but 21-12 probably means DK is still the coach.

Right. Except one of those was at URI when we were down 11 with a minute left and they threw up all over themselves at the free throw line. So throw that possible win right out the window. We can also look at the Mississippi game, when the missed shots probably had a lot more to do with the air being taken out of the ball and trying to run the clock instead of trying to score.

We also had 3 wins of 4 points or fewer (and one of 5 points) so that's 9 total games either way of 4 points or fewer and we lost more than we won. So with just a minor improvement in the other teams shooting we might have lost 2-3 of those games. If we lost all 3 we are 12-21 and still 4-14 in conference.

[Swampy]

^ It was directed at Swampy, your post didn't exist when I started typing mine.

The man who has an opinion on just about EVERYTHING is going to tell someone else what, where and when to respond. That's rich!

I didn't bring Kellogg's name into this thread. I was responding to something another poster (NOT YOU!) wrote and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself!!!

I hope that clears up any questions I might have about YOUR opinions.

[NilesGold]

^ I wasn't totally accurate, my previous post was directed at everyone, but in response to your post (not Eldon's). I'd prefer not to see this thread devolve into debate about how good or bad our previous coach was. For clarification, I'm not telling you what or when to post/respond, but I am asking you to exhibit restraint in terms of exactly where you post things. Keep it classy Swampy.

[JoleonLescottsHair]

If we won all 6,

Yes, IF being the key word. I realize you are just throwing it out there and Swampy made the original claim, but the fact is that we didn't win these games and as MJatUM points out we always seem to overlook the games we narrowly won. What if we lost those? We would have been 12-21 and DK would still not be around. Besides it is not just about making shots. Maybe we didn't play good D over the full season, maybe the rebounding wasn't there, maybe there were a boatload of turnovers. The idea that Derek Kellogg was a victim of poor shooting is as simplistic as it is desperate. He either bears a responsibility for not teaching them technique, failing to teach them better shot selection, or failing to adjust the offense to deal with the poor results. And while the team FT% was indeed very poor, maybe they should have tried to get to the line more (5+ less shots per game than opponents) rather than settling for 3s. Jacking a bunch of low percentage 3's (200th in the nation in attempts and 337 in %) when your three main big man are all shooting over 60%, when your 2 guard is shooting 76% from the stripe, and when your point guard is shooting 20% points higher from the 2 than the 3 point line is not such a good idea.

[69MG]

^ I understand, but I think you are missing the point. All other things being equal, if we made 1 or 2 more shots we have more points than the other team. There are tons of variables, but poor shooting was our #1 deficiency last year. Maybe these guys can be coached up and their shooting will improve. Maybe by better shot selection, maybe by better technique or maybe by running better plays.