tm3308
Well-Known Member
Why are we debating what lineup to use down 20?
We found ourselves down by 20 more than once in conference play last year. It's not inconceivable to think there might be a night or two we'd need to make a big comeback.
Why are we debating what lineup to use down 20?
I get what you are saying Tork, and I'm not down on Ogelsby like some. At the same time Jok brings a complete skill set to the table and Ogs doesn't. Jok has better handles, and can get his shot off anytime he wants. Ogs can't do that. He is a spot up shooter that plays better D. Jok is a much more dynamic player, and that is just easy to see with the eyeballs.
That's all I'm saying. You could give JO 5 years and he will never develop some of the skills that Peter already has. And that's not a dis on JO. They are completely different players and Peter is the kind of player that I want on my team every year.
We found ourselves down by 20 more than once in conference play last year. It's not inconceivable to think there might be a night or two we'd need to make a big comeback.
No we didn't. The Michigan game was the only game where we were down by 20.
What about at Columbus?
I remember being down huge and coming back to pull within 5 or so at the end.
Also remember White flipping the student section crap when the Hawks were getting pounded.
Hell, the Hawks were down 23 to Gardner Webb at home last year until Oglesby got fouled shooting a 3 with a few seconds left in the first half. He hit all three free throws and Iowa went into half down 20.
I was at the game last night and i was surprised to see that pete has a pretty beefy set of pipes. I had not picked up on that watching the games on tv. Good to see he has spent some time in the weight room.
I'm not denying Jok is a more dynamic offensive player. I just don't think that's what should be put at a premium when you're in a situation that calls for lights-out defense.
He said conference game, we were down to 20 to VaTech too. But you're right about OSU we were down 24, I forgot about that one. I thought the Indiana game would have been the only other one where we were possibly down 20 but the largest lead in that one was 18.
The general argument still applies in a game like that, though. Any game where we're down big, we obviously need some offense, but you can't play little to no defense for the sake of scoring. If you do that, all you're doing is trading baskets.
Obviously, any lineup we throw out here in this thread wouldn't play for the duration of a 15-20 point comeback. You're not coming back from a deficit like that with White on the bench the whole time. But to get that kind of a run started, you need to get multiple stops with baskets at the other end. I don't think a lineup with Jok, McCabe and Uthoff could do that. Those guys would all have a role to play during a comeback, but trying to start one with those guys on defense would be a dubious proposition, at best.
We did outscore Villanova by 14 over a 4:08 stretch in the first half with those guys on the floor together.
We did outscore Villanova by 14 over a 4:08 stretch in the first half with those guys on the floor together.
I'm not denying Jok is a more dynamic offensive player. I just don't think that's what should be put at a premium when you're in a situation that calls for lights-out defense.
That's all well and good, and I agree. But he doesn't get it right now, so I would absolutely go with JO over Jok if we were down by 20 and looking to get back in the game.
And lost the game because Og's wasn't on the court....right?
That lead was erased at the beginning of the second half, when our opening tip starters were on the floor.
Or passed it into the black hole.Probably because they didn't pass the ball enough.