EagleOutsider.com

Going to get screwed again here by the ACC on this turnaround from Sunday Night

it'll be interesting to see how wake bounces back from their heart-breaker against dook.

maybe there's a chance.

if the line is something dumb like +10 or more, i will view this an another great investment opportunity. my guess is +4 or +5

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:it'll be interesting to see how wake bounces back from their heart-breaker against dook.

maybe there's a chance.

if the line is something dumb like +10 or more, i will view this an another great investment opportunity. my guess is +4 or +5

Playing a game on less than 48 hours rest when you only play 7 guys is a recipe for disaster.

Wake is bad like BC so we can certainly win

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:it'll be interesting to see how wake bounces back from their heart-breaker against dook.

maybe there's a chance.

if the line is something dumb like +10 or more, i will view this an another great investment opportunity. my guess is +4 or +5

+6.5. that's not enough for me to pull the trigger... yet

Bowman sick apparently per Spears

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:it'll be interesting to see how wake bounces back from their heart-breaker against dook.

maybe there's a chance.

if the line is something dumb like +10 or more, i will view this an another great investment opportunity. my guess is +4 or +5

Playing a game on less than 48 hours rest when you only play 7 guys is a recipe for disaster.

Wake is bad like BC so we can certainly win

Except for the fact, that every metric out there has Wake as a top 50, some even having them as high as Top 30ish. Lunardi has Wake in the NCAAs as of right now. This would be a good win for BC and a backbreaking loss for Wake.

The practice of giving chatman a buzz cut before each game should continue, it's doing wonders for him. /shrug

Is it true Sagay played in the 1st half? How did he look?

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:Is it true Sagay played in the 1st half? How did he look?

He did play. Didn't do much and I think he got stuffed on one of his shots.

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:Is it true Sagay played in the 1st half? How did he look?

Like a freshman against the varsity.

Both Mo and Pop foul out?

JFC.

GlorytoBC {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:it'll be interesting to see how wake bounces back from their heart-breaker against dook.

maybe there's a chance.

if the line is something dumb like +10 or more, i will view this an another great investment opportunity. my guess is +4 or +5

Playing a game on less than 48 hours rest when you only play 7 guys is a recipe for disaster.

Wake is bad like BC so we can certainly win

Except for the fact, that every metric out there has Wake as a top 50, some even having them as high as Top 30ish. Lunardi has Wake in the NCAAs as of right now. This would be a good win for BC and a backbreaking loss for Wake.

Those are some bullshit metrics this early. Wake got a high RPI by losing a lot to teams with high RPIs.

BC won't beat anyone Raji'ing at least 6 chippies, but they were better than this Wake team at at least 3 spots on the floor.

need an impact 4

claver2010 {l Wrote}::thehjs

need an impact 4

Along with the above, BC wins this game if they're not playing 7 guys less than 48 hours from their last game. That 15-0 run Wake ripped off with 5 minutes left in the game was the difference.

Team was completely gassed.

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:Both Mo and Pop foul out?

JFC.

The foul calls on these guys were criminally bad.

claver2010 {l Wrote}::thehjs

need an impact 4

Agreed, but do we not need a PG that doesn't have a horrific assist-to-turnover ratio? I don't mind getting a safety-first PG who is a bit better with the ball. Shift Ky to the 2, JRob to the 3. Chatman and aj off the bench. It's not like we don't have enough schollies to give. Even heard one of the commentators talk about our turnovers, just frustrating that all yr, we turn the ball over constantly...and to lose so many close games as a result. Maddening.

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}::thehjs

need an impact 4

Agreed, but do we not need a PG that doesn't have a horrific assist-to-turnover ratio? I don't mind getting a safety-first PG who is a bit better with the ball. Shift Ky to the 2, JRob to the 3. Chatman and aj off the bench. It's not like we don't have enough schollies to give. Even heard one of the commentators talk about our turnovers, just frustrating that all yr, we turn the ball over constantly...and to lose so many close games as a result. Maddening.

I've harped on this issue, but turnovers were far from the problem tonight. They need more players, and they need Popovic, Chatman and Bowman to not miss a total of 6 chippies. Pop was brutal finishing, looked like a tall Raji.

Everyone 1-4 touches the ball on offense essentially interchangably. "Lack of a true point guard to initiate the offense" is not what is causing the turnovers. Anyone can attack when they see an opening.

On an unrelated note, whoever gave Tava the green light on 3s can take it away. We mostly killed the Mo Jeffers post up as a source of inefficient offense, let's kill this one too

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:Everyone 1-4 touches the ball on offense essentially interchangably. "Lack of a true point guard to initiate the offense" is not what is causing the turnovers. Anyone can attack when they see an opening.

On an unrelated note, whoever gave Tava the green light on 3s can take it away. We mostly killed the Mo Jeffers post up as a source of inefficient offense, let's kill this one too

Not having anyone that can dribble is definitely an issue regardless of whether they all can score sucking while dribbling.

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:Everyone 1-4 touches the ball on offense essentially interchangably. "Lack of a true point guard to initiate the offense" is not what is causing the turnovers. Anyone can attack when they see an opening.

Totally fair.

Guess my preference is for a guy that's more of a "Louis Hinnant/Howard Eisley" ball security type of guy. After all, our best NCAA tournament appearances in the 90s and 00s came with those 2 guys running the show, no?

Glad I've been wrong about Chatman.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}: Pop was brutal finishing, looked like a tall Raji.

pop needs to find his way into the weight room

he had no shot down low against that wake kid

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

MF73-Eleazar {l Wrote}:Both Mo and Pop foul out?

JFC.

The foul calls on these guys were criminally bad.

Agreed. The Wake guy was allowed to push and flail to get position in the post, but Pop and Jeffers were called for ticky tack fouls every time they pushed back.

Corporal Funishment {l Wrote}:Everyone 1-4 touches the ball on offense essentially interchangably. "Lack of a true point guard to initiate the offense" is not what is causing the turnovers. Anyone can attack when they see an opening.

On an unrelated note, whoever gave Tava the green light on 3s can take it away. We mostly killed the Mo Jeffers post up as a source of inefficient offense, let's kill this one too

Tava is now in the Odio/Owens realm in that he should be banned from shooting 3s.

They just need a guard so Bowman/Robinson aren't playing 38 a night.

claver2010 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}: Pop was brutal finishing, looked like a tall Raji.

pop needs to find his way into the weight room

he had no shot down low against that wake kid

That's true, but it doesn't excuse 3 missed uncontested layups.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}: Pop was brutal finishing, looked like a tall Raji.

pop needs to find his way into the weight room

he had no shot down low against that wake kid

That's true, but it doesn't excuse 3 missed uncontested layups.

Enjoy the fact we are getting any contribution from a freshman big man.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

claver2010 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}: Pop was brutal finishing, looked like a tall Raji.

pop needs to find his way into the weight room

he had no shot down low against that wake kid

That's true, but it doesn't excuse 3 missed uncontested layups.

Enjoy the fact we are getting any contribution from a freshman big man.

When you see Pop up close, he is put together for a 6'10 true freshman. He can/will def put on size but for where he is, he's ahead of schedule (a lot of guys that tall who get into School are bean poles. Paschal Chuckwu when he got to PC is a great example of what type of body you deal with as true freshman at that size). Much like Jeffers, both have the physical attributes to compete at this level right now, they just need to make the wide open looks inside 3 feet. Big guys develop late ofensively, that's just the nature of the position, just the growing pains you have to go thru.