We All Love Ed.....but

I think when we had Ed the rest of the team relied on Ed/Tre/JP to do almost everything. Ed going down forces everyone else to step up and contribute. Q has done some good things and definitely played better than I expected but one of the best ever freshman at X? Come on man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

Who would you sit if Ed was healthy so that Q starts? Bernard? I could get behind that, I guess.

---

JP... I have been clamoring for JP the 6th man all year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew

I think as a fanbase we have a tendency to anoint "superstars" far too often. The fact is, Sumner is more potential than anything at this point. He is too light, he doesn't have a great shot and his basketball IQ isn't that great. Now he may make a great NBA player because he can improve his weaknesses and he has god-given athleticis, but he isn't a "superstar" at the CBB level.

Goodin on the other hand has to be one of the best freshman we have ever seen. But because Sumner is the "superstar" some of us refuse to acknowledge it.

Give me Goodin over Sumner straight up. Sumner might be the better NBA player someday, but he has tons of flaws currently.

---

There's like 6 bad points in here

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by markchal

There are much better ways to communicate this point. I do think we've seen more effort out of some guys because they know they need to step up more (for example, the Gates rebounding). And I've been very pleased with Q and with the grit this team has shown in the last few wins (even if they haven't been pretty). But I think the matchups in these games and the corresponding lift in effort from guys trying to pick up the slack are the biggest reasons for the Ws, and not that our offense simply is better without Ed.

---

Fair enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GOX

If any one is saying that if Ed returned tomorrow in good health you would put him back at the point and sit Q, I would be surprised.

---

I would put Ed at point and sit Q.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xavier;578106[B

]I think when we had Ed the rest of the team relied on Ed/Tre/JP to do almost everything. Ed going down forces everyone else to step up and contribute.[/B] Q has done some good things and definitely played better than I expected but one of the best ever freshman at X? Come on man.

---

Agreed, but my point would go further in that the coaching staff was content to let those three attempt to carry it. I don't see it as a coincidence that our bigs are showing promise (I know TJ's effort is outrageous, but we at least committed to getting him the ball) and that our guys are hitting more shots. I think the offense looks different now (some people don't), I attribute that fact to Ed's absence (some people don't), but I'm saying the offense was purposefully oriented differently with Ed in the line-up and it wasn't as effective as I thought it would be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SemajParlor

I would put Ed at point and sit Q.

---

I'd leave q at point and put ed at the 2. That's our best lineup in my opinion, or you can switch the two of you really want. I think both on the floor gives the team the best look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SemajParlor

There's like 6 bad points in here

---

What are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirabilelectu

Agreed, but my point would go further in that the coaching staff was content to let those three attempt to carry it. I don't see it as a coincidence that our bigs are showing promise (I know TJ's effort is outrageous, but we at least committed to getting him the ball) and that our guys are hitting more shots. I think the offense looks different now (some people don't), I attribute that fact to Ed's absence (some people don't), but I'm saying the offense was purposefully oriented differently with Ed in the line-up and it wasn't as effective as I thought it would be.

---

This is one of the bigger things I noticed against Creighton. Tyrique was playing great and getting good position, but more importantly the wings were actually passing the ball in. I know the bigs haven't always played great, but I cannot remember another season where I've seen a team struggle so bad at entering the ball into the post. Also funny that they start doing that, and when we actually convert.. the shots from the outside start to get a little more open and the percentages go up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mirabilelectu

Points are all well taken. I guess we just personally disagree with the frequency of open looks; I remember so many shots taken at the end of the shot-clock because we seemed to be passing aimlessly. Also, the Creighton match-up was terrible for our offense at home (67 points with Ed!), so it might be a little dismissive to say that we just match up well with them. In all, it is too early to say that Q's presence has the effect of a better offense, and I agree that I think we will struggle more as teams game-plan for it. But we aren't running different plays, we are just committed to getting the ball in the middle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoMuskies

We shot 20% from three against them at Cintas and 45.5% from three in Omaha.

---

Go answered for me the big difference between the two games, besides what I already said about Tyrique having a ridiculously good game. They shot the three well below their season average in the first game and well above their season average in the second game. That's a big point differential from that alone before even accounting for how a team making threes makes other looks easier as the defense spreads out more.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk