Little over half way in to the season

[Brian]

Ok....thought I'd start a thread to see what everyone's perspective is on how the first half of the season has gone so far. On a 0 - 10 scale with ten being great and 0 being gawd awful how do you feel the shockers have performed so far?

I'm going to set my perspective bar at 8.5

Lets face it, our Shox could very well be undefeated right now or we could just as easily have 4 losses. As it is, 2 losses really isn't bad considering Utah is tearing it up. Plus if someone had told me we would have 2 losses at this point when we startethe year I would have taken it in a heartbeat. Are there things we can improve on???? Absolutely.....But all in all its shaping up to be another exciting year. With everyone healthy......Ron, Fred, Tekele, Darius, and Evan doing the things we have beencustom to seeing as well as Shaq M starting to play with more confidence and turning back a few shots on defense I personally feel like the pump is primed for a great second half of the year.

Curious to get others perspective.

GO SHOX.

[Dave Stalwart]

Ok....thought I'd start a thread to see what everyone's perspective is on how the first half of the season has gone so far. On a 0 - 10 scale with ten being great and 0 being gawd awful how do you feel the shockers have performed so far?

I'm going to set my perspective bar at 8.5

Lets face it, our Shox could very well be undefeated right now or we could just as easily have 4 losses. As it is, 2 losses really isn't bad considering Utah is tearing it up. Plus if someone had told me we would have 2 losses at this point when we startethe year I would have taken it in a heartbeat. Are there things we can improve on???? Absolutely.....But all in all its shaping up to be another exciting year. With everyone healthy......Ron, Fred, Tekele, Darius, and Evan doing the things we have beencustom to seeing as well as Shaq M starting to play with more confidence and turning back a few shots on defense I personally feel like the pump is primed for a great second half of the year.

Curious to get others perspective.

GO SHOX.

I'd rank it really high, myself. We only dropped 2 games against top 50 teams in close matches while developing more freshman than we've ever had to in recent years. We've maintained a high ranking, and we are starting to see the team turn a corner. We were always going to finish this season strong, and we managed to take a minimal number of lumps up to this point. Honestly, you can't actually ask for better than our record, ranking, RPI, outlook, etc. without just being undefeated all over again.

The Shocks have met expectations in my opinion. I don't know how they could have done any better within any amount of reason. Winning yesterday was a big deal to cap it off. We just grabbed one of the games that could have very well been another loss.

[Bluzrover]

9.5

I mean, the pre-season All Americans are playing like it ( come on, Fred's game yesterday was spectacular), DC is stronger, we're 8-2 during a really tough non-con season, 4-0 to start the Valley and 3G is slowly working in 8 new players, including one who has been motivationally challenged far too much for our liking.

I think we're right about where I thought we'd be.

[shockerfanmas]

Definitely a big fat 0. This team should be undefeated right now, no excuses.

No seriously, I'll go with an 8. You're right Brian, the Shox haven't played their best basketball at some points, but they have faced quite a few teams that potentially could be playing in March. Hawaii, GW, Utah, Seton Hall, just to name a few. And considering it looks like the Valley is going to be a grind this season, I'm expecting at least a couple slip ups at some point. UNI still looks like the second best team in the conference, with the Shox being first of course! I'm still not as sold on the freshmen as some are, but I'm very encouraged by Shaq the last couple games. FVV and Baker had about a 3 or 4 game stretch where they both struggled, but the team seems to be figuring it out, and I think their best basketball is yet to come.

Agree, go Shox

[Rlh04d]

I would say this was the second best nonconference performance in Marshall's career.

The only problem I have with this team is that I think our variance in the NCAA tournament is going to be a lot higher. Last year, our size gave us a lot of wiggle room. This year, playing this four-guard lineup, we're vulnerable to bigger teams, and we could perform amazingly if we're hot at the right time, but we can also lose quickly if we're cold. We don't have the wiggle room we had last year.

If we can keep Shaq performing at this level and add some rebounding edge to his game, I've got very high expectations for this team. As we are now, I think we've got a good chance at the Sweet 16.

[shockerfanmas]

I would say this was the second best nonconference performance in Marshall's career.

The only problem I have with this team is that I think our variance in the NCAA tournament is going to be a lot higher. Last year, our size gave us a lot of wiggle room. This year, playing this four-guard lineup, we're vulnerable to bigger teams, and we could perform amazingly if we're hot at the right time, but we can also lose quickly if we're cold. We don't have the wiggle room we had last year.

If we can keep Shaq performing at this level and add some rebounding edge to his game, I've got very high expectations for this team. As we are now, I think we've got a good chance at the Sweet 16.

I'd say you're right, as far as the competition we played. I can definitely see at the very least, Utah, Hawaii, and GW extending their season through March. Even Seton Hall.

Sweet 16 is a good goal to have, truthfully it all depends on match-ups. I don't think it's any secret the tournament committee tends to have a bias against mid-major teams by either pitting them against each other in the first round, or like last year, putting WSU in the same bracket with Kentucky. So if that happens this year (WSU-VCU again), it would be a shame. But it really does all depend on our opponents.

[choida]

Its a great start but it's all about March

[pie n eye]

I'd say you're right, as far as the competition we played. I can definitely see at the very least, Utah, Hawaii, and GW extending their season through March. Even Seton Hall.

Sweet 16 is a good goal to have, truthfully it all depends on match-ups. I don't think it's any secret the tournament committee tends to have a bias against mid-major teams by either pitting them against each other in the first round, or like last year, putting WSU in the same bracket with Kentucky. So if that happens this year (WSU-VCU again), it would be a shame. But it really does all depend on our opponents.

I can't put my finger on why but I don't buy the idea that "it all depends on our opponents". So, hypothetically, if the shockers win the national championship we just got lucky and drew a bunch of bad opponents? It has nothing to do with all the time and effort the players and coaches invested?

[Rlh04d]

I can't put my finger on why but I don't buy the idea that "it all depends on our opponents". So, hypothetically, if the shockers win the national championship we just got lucky and drew a bunch of bad opponents? It has nothing to do with all the time and effort the players and coaches invested?

There aren't many "bad" teams in the NCAA tournament -- especially not after the first game. There are favorable and unfavorable matchups.

[jdshock]

I can't put my finger on why but I don't buy the idea that "it all depends on our opponents". So, hypothetically, if the shockers win the national championship we just got lucky and drew a bunch of bad opponents? It has nothing to do with all the time and effort the players and coaches invested?

I'm sure that's not what he's saying. Do you think we were really only the 32nd best team last year?

A huge part of it is match ups. We match up better against Loyola than Evansville even though Loyola is better than Evansville. It doesn't mean either team is better than us, but you have to be willing to admit that a big part of the tournament is match ups.

[shockerfanmas]

I can't put my finger on why but I don't buy the idea that "it all depends on our opponents". So, hypothetically, if the shockers win the national championship we just got lucky and drew a bunch of bad opponents? It has nothing to do with all the time and effort the players and coaches invested?

Not even close to what I'm saying. Quit being like ShockerFever and starting unnecessary drama.

And yes, it's a pretty well known fact that the best team doesn't win the NCAA Tournament, or World Series, or Super Bowl, or whatever, every single year. It does sometimes take some luck, and favorable match-ups, and who gets hot at the right time.

And from now on, if you have nothing positive to reply to my posts with, then just don't respond, please and thanks

[shockerfanmas]

I'm sure that's not what he's saying. Do you think we were really only the 32nd best team last year?

A huge part of it is match ups. We match up better against Loyola than Evansville even though Loyola is better than Evansville. It doesn't mean either team is better than us, but you have to be willing to admit that a big part of the tournament is match ups.

Bingo, you get it

[shockerfanmas]

There aren't many "bad" teams in the NCAA tournament -- especially not after the first game. There are favorable and unfavorable matchups.

I have to disagree with that statement. Hypothetically, let's say that a team loses all their conference games, but somehow gets hot in the conference tournament and wins it, going into the NCAA tournament with.. say.. 5 wins. To me, that's still a bad team that just got on a hot streak in their conference tournament. Highly unlikely I know, but just saying. Ok, let me rephrase the wording then. Instead of "bad" teams, how about I say teams that probably don't deserve to be there.

Yep, last year against Kentucky was an unfavorable match-up for us, favorable for them.

[Rlh04d]

I have to disagree with that statement. Hypothetically, let's say that a team loses all their conference games, but somehow gets hot in the conference tournament and wins it, going into the NCAA tournament with.. say.. 5 wins. To me, that's still a bad team that just got on a hot streak in their conference tournament. Highly unlikely I know, but just saying. Ok, let me rephrase the wording then. Instead of "bad" teams, how about I say teams that probably don't deserve to be there.

Yep, last year against Kentucky was an unfavorable match-up for us, favorable for them.

I did say "there aren't MANY", leaving the possibility that there are some ;)

Although I'm not sure the extreme example (lost all of their conference games, won the conference tournament) has ever happened. If it has, that's awesome.

Every now and then you'll see the hot shooting 16 seed knock off a Duke and then get creamed in their second game ... but they're definitely a rarity. With ~350 teams in the NCAA, my definition of a "bad" team is probably looser than most -- that would probably be teams 250+ for me.

[pie n eye]

I'm sure that's not what he's saying. Do you think we were really only the 32nd best team last year?

A huge part of it is match ups. We match up better against Loyola than Evansville even though Loyola is better than Evansville. It doesn't mean either team is better than us, but you have to be willing to admit that a big part of the tournament is match ups.

I don't buy it. I think that in order to be successful in the NCAA tournament and really in basketball in general you have to be able to play against a variety of different teams/styles of play. The same can be said for non-conference (not all non con teams are the same) and conference (again, different styles and personnel each game). You have to be able to find a way to win regardless of the matchup.

Defending, rebounding, taking care of the ball. Those are the kind of things you have control of regardless of the match up. If you do those three things more often than not you'll have an opportunity to win a game.