WSU vs Creighton GAME THREAD

[BikeIdiot]

Murray, Stutz, Ragland.......

Seems like comparing holes in the Tiatanic.

a

[_kai_]

Yep but yet some of the really hoopity Murry fans don't even bother calling him out and are trying to use Stutz as the scapegoat. Granted, Stutz was definitely bad, horrible even, but a lot of that, as been discussed by many on here, has to do with more physical matchups for Garrett.

Murry, once again, led the team in turnovers. His number of bad shots could also be counted as turnovers but aren't. I'm willing to give TM credit when his credit is due, but all of the people who are always quick to chastise me and others when Murry has a good game suddenly disappear or completely ignore his play when he has a brutally bad game. That kinda gets annoying honestly.

And let me reiterate. Murry was not the only player that sucked. It wasn't his fault we lost. There were numerous things by lots of players that were bad.

I guess what I'd like to see are the kai's, Kung Wu's, and TMH's of the world's opinions of Toure Murry in the Creighton game since they haven't bothered mentioning an iota about him.

Murry had a horrible game. He made bad decisions all game. Just because I brought up the question about Stutz doesn't mean I lay total blame on him, and no one else. It was just a question that popped into my head I wanted to ask the board.

I'm not using Stutz as a scapegoat, what so ever. When Stutz plays bad, the team needs to pick him up and excel at their positions. The reason I say this is we have no viable 2nd option at Center. And when I say no viable option, I mean to carry the work load of Center for a majority of the game. If Stutz were to have a season ending injury, the season would all but be over in my opinion. EO at this time can not play a majority of minutes at Center, so when Stutz can't play well, we tend to run smaller lineups, and those small lineups have to excel in the backcourt to work. Our backcourt played like trash. So that's why I say Stutz is the most important player on the roster, and the position of Center is the most important to this team when we play. When Stutz can work the inside, it absolutely opens up the guard play. We have viable options to replace any other starter on the roster. Would it be a step back? Obviously it would, but not as drastic as losing Stutz. That is what prompted that question, I was not playing the blame game on Stutz at all, or not putting enough blame on other players such as your obsession, Toure.

I do feel flattered that my opinion on Toure Murry matters so much to you though Fever. Puts a big smile on my face.

[ShockerFever]

Your opinion actually doesn't matter that much to me. It was just nice to see you have to face the sunshine much like you and others of your ilk do to me whenever TM has a heroic performance.

Interesting that you think I have an obsession with TM. I could say the same thing about you.

[_kai_]

I've never made you "face the sunshine" when TM does well. What fantasy world do you live in, man?

[ShockTalk]

@_kai_:: First, let me say that GS had absolutely one of his poorest games. That said, I truly believe he is capable of playing much better against Echinique than he did the other night. I'm not sure if it was the UNLV game or not, but, at the beginning of the game, I remember watching GS not being able to hold his ground defensively and easily getting butt-bumped too close to the basket. GS came out, Hall move to center and I immediately noticed him getting a lower center of gravity, knees bent more and a wider stance. He had no problem holding the opponent out. GS came back in, did what Hall did, and had no further problems getting bumped around. You also said "The inability to score low, forced our guards to shoot 3's". Hall had a great inside game and, I don't believe, ever shot anything farther out than 2 feet. Carl and GS should be able to set up a very effective two man game whether it's forcing the opponent's 4 and 5 to double one and dishing to the other or GS pulling one out of the post area allowing Hall more room to work.

From my armchair position, we do one thing poorly most of the time. Not setting a lot of picks and not knowing how to use them effectively when they do happen. Maybe Marshall's offensive plans just aren't geared around it and that's not casting any aspersions, it's may be just the way it is. I don't know. I've just always felt that we're missing a weapon here. If you remember one of the good SUI teams of the past, Tatum would run his tush off past numerous picks, all designed so that when he reached a certain place on the floor the ball would be arriving at the same time with any defender too far away to be a problem and a quality shot was taken. Many of our lesser opponents have made us look bad at times by running players with and without the ball around the outside, just waiting to get that opportunity to penatrate, draw 2 or 3 defenders a few steps in, then kick it back out for the open 3. Against CU, most all of our players held the ball too long. GS is bad about this. Get the ball, immediately make your move, shoot, or pass. One last thing. If you pass to a teammate who is already standing at a position, it's too late....the defender will be there as well.

Everyone may now pile on the old fart sitting in the recliner.

[Kung Wu]

Your opinion actually doesn't matter that much to me. It was just nice to see you have to face the sunshine much like you and others of your ilk do to me whenever TM has a heroic performance.

Interesting that you think I have an obsession with TM. I could say the same thing about you.

I've never made you "face the sunshine" when TM does well. What fantasy world do you live in, man?

I hate to jump in the middle of your lover's quarrel, but Marshall couldn't go to the bench to sub out either Stutz or Murry. Frankly the bench was too busy checking out the cheerleaders in their New Years outfits, and getting their Ol' Lang Syne on:

[wufan]

Yep but yet some of the really hoopity Murry fans don't even bother calling him out and are trying to use Stutz as the scapegoat. Granted, Stutz was definitely bad, horrible even, but a lot of that, as been discussed by many on here, has to do with more physical matchups for Garrett.

Murry, once again, led the team in turnovers. His number of bad shots could also be counted as turnovers but aren't. I'm willing to give TM credit when his credit is due, but all of the people who are always quick to chastise me and others when Murry has a good game suddenly disappear or completely ignore his play when he has a brutally bad game. That kinda gets annoying honestly.

And let me reiterate. Murry was not the only player that sucked. It wasn't his fault we lost. There were numerous things by lots of players that were bad.

I guess what I'd like to see are the kai's, Kung Wu's, and TMH's of the world's opinions of Toure Murry in the Creighton game since they haven't bothered mentioning an iota about him.

I'm a TM fan and i have said multiple times that I think he had a bad game. Toure had some good games, but don't recall you saying anything. Maybe you were banned. Idk?

Bottom line is that this team is better when TM is playing well, though he has consistently proven that he is not good in tight games. I prefer Murry to Williams, and unfortunately Smith has to plat a lot of PF. Maybe Cotton is the answer, but Murry has shown he can be a star and GM has a lot of confidence in him. We will probably all have to root for Murry and Stutz, like it or not, if this team is to be successful. We also have to realize that what we have in these two is not future NBAers, but two seniors that provide a bit of a mixed bag.

[Snapshot9]

No Murry did not have a good game, but I have to give him one thing. He will do something on Offense when all the rest of the guys are just standing around. Ragland could have gone to the basket more than he did. Cotton is good on defense, but I would like to see some more Offense out of him. I also see some of the same trait out of Wessel, that he will try to create something offensively.

Games we lose, it is generally because our Offense stalls.

[vancedave56]

I am pondering the thought that our lack of "going to the bench" may have hurt us in this game. Would it be possible for the players to become so acquainted with the subsitution pattern (more players playing) that when Coach "shortens the bench," they do not handle it well? Almost like too much time on the court either exposes us or allows us to loose focus?

Coach said the other night that at times there is too much difference in the level of play between some of the starters and some of the reserves, but I am now wondering if too much playing time for some allows them to lose focus.

[Aargh]

I used to think I was a Master of over-analysis. I can't hold a candle to the last 3 pages of this thread.

[vancedave56]

:witless:

[shocka khan]

I want to thank everyone for their posts here. I was in Cancun for New Year's so I missed the game. They had ESPN and ESPN2, but not ESPNU. I was as dissapointed as everyone else the Shocks got beat.

I would also like to say I am a Toure Murray fan, but it was real obvious (since Antoine Young went off on us) that we had very poor play from our guards, and that Toure played bad.

I'm thinking that Toure had a bad game. He picked a very poor time to do it, but I hope he got it out of his system and they don't lose another game until late in conference play.

Somehow I think we'll play better in Omaha. Creighton was in a must-win situation and it was time for us to have one of those 'mail it in games' and I think that we are much better than we showed.

We need to be, we now have to beat Creighton in Omaha.