MVCfans.com

bleach wrote:

rlh04d wrote:

bleach wrote:Not saying they won't win the league but expected a little more depth to be there.

10-0 isn't impressive to you? 4-0 record against top 100 RPI teams? WSU has 4 of the Valley's 9 top 100 RPI wins, and two of the three top 50 wins (and that's not even counting Tennessee, who are forecast as #51). There are certainly weaknesses, but let's be real ... this is one of the best starts in Valley history.

I do think our depth is a bit off right now. I think Darius Carter is starting to come on, though, which is pretty typical for a JUCO newcomer adjusting to D1 ball. Coleby's been a bit of a disappointment for me, as has Wessel, and Wiggins is off-and-on. Lufile is much better than I expected, though.

Never said I wasn't impressed.
Said I thought the first 4 were REAL good.
Said I expected more depth.
I don't think this team at this point is as good as last year, that's all.

2livewu wrote:
You and your 16 year old son don't know squat about basketball.

Black wrote:Name me any team in the country and I'll point out some weaknesses for you. If you're expecting to see the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers, you're expectations are a bit too high.

It's kinda hard starting out 10-0, especially against some decent competition with everybody gunning after you. Considering that early looked lost for a large part of the game, and Baker was playing with half a good ankle, I'll take a 9 point win over a high to mid sec team. Still covered the spread.

bleach wrote:

Black wrote:Name me any team in the country and I'll point out some weaknesses for you. If you're expecting to see the 1976 Indiana Hoosiers, you're expectations are a bit too high.

It's kinda hard starting out 10-0, especially against some decent competition with everybody gunning after you. Considering that early looked lost for a large part of the game, and Baker was playing with half a good ankle, I'll take a 9 point win over a high to mid sec team. Still covered the spread.

We just hadn't seen the Shox yet this year and reading on here had come to the conclusion the Shox were unbeatable, much better than last year, and a sight to be seen!
They just didn't live up to the billing (except the top 4 of Baker, Van Vleet, Early, and Cotton) they had gotten. WSU will win the league easily and should finally win in the Lou. Really enjoyed their tourney run last year and love the respect they bring the Valley. They also raise the bar for the other league schools.

Wufan wrote:

bleach wrote:I guess we saw different games. My 16 yr old son and I both thought the Shox looked very beatable. We both rode the Shox final 4 ride last year but thought they looked REAL good 4 players deep and there wasn't much else this year. Tenn isn't very good (not poor by any means) and played the Shox equal.

Not saying they won't win the league but expected a little more depth to be there.

bleach wrote:Never said I wasn't impressed.
Said I thought the first 4 were REAL good.
Said I expected more depth.
I don't think this team at this point is as good as last year, that's all.

Fair enough on the second quote, however, what game did you see that was different than the consensus in this thread?

Since you are only using this game as a barometer, which four are the four that are "real" good?

Cdizzle wrote:Which WSU team from last year are you comparing them to? The inexperienced team that started 9-0? The injury-laden team that went 17-8? Or the more experienced, healthy team that went 4-1 against some of the best teams in the country?

Wufan wrote:Carter had 11 and 14 and held Stokes to 8 points. How the hell did you miss that?

bleach wrote:

Wufan wrote:

bleach wrote:I guess we saw different games. My 16 yr old son and I both thought the Shox looked very beatable. We both rode the Shox final 4 ride last year but thought they looked REAL good 4 players deep and there wasn't much else this year. Tenn isn't very good (not poor by any means) and played the Shox equal.

Not saying they won't win the league but expected a little more depth to be there.

bleach wrote:Never said I wasn't impressed.
Said I thought the first 4 were REAL good.
Said I expected more depth.
I don't think this team at this point is as good as last year, that's all.

Fair enough on the second quote, however, what game did you see that was different than the consensus in this thread?

Since you are only using this game as a barometer, which four are the four that are "real" good?

I didn't see a great win considering I expected a romp over a mid level SEC team.
Baker, Van Vleet, Early, Cotton. I knew those 4 were good from last year but didn't see any new parts that stood out. Wondered what would happen with injuries or foul troubles.

bleach wrote:

Cdizzle wrote:Which WSU team from last year are you comparing them to? The inexperienced team that started 9-0? The injury-laden team that went 17-8? Or the more experienced, healthy team that went 4-1 against some of the best teams in the country?

The team I saw in person twice, on TV numerous times, and that went to the national title game. The team that went about 10 deep without losing a step. The team that lost 3 starters without much effect.

Cdizzle wrote:What part of 13-1 against average-great competition didn't lose a step at 17-8 against average competition? The fact that WSU could lose 3 starters and play .670 is really good. But let's not pretend that the healthier version wasn't on another level.