As the old saying goes, Cockburn and Edey can pitch a tent and sit down for a picnic in the lane without a ref blowing their whistle.
Rebrotcha-watch...
- Thread starter Fryowa
- Start date
As the old saying goes, Cockburn and Edey can pitch a tent and sit down for a picnic in the lane without a ref blowing their whistle.
dahlhawk
Well-Known Member
Rebracca has a great skill set he put aside to help this team. If he comes back he will play power forward and showcase his skills. Big O just needs to chisel that body and lose the weight. He already has good hops, think if he gets into shape, he could be a major force for this team. Mulvey is what, 18? If he hits the weight room his potential is high. They need a summer to change their bodies. Kris will be back, Keegan would be a fool to not grab the dollars.
He may come on as long as the lbs keep coming off!
Do not believe Kris has a body of work to impress the NBA. Overseas: I don't know their criteria. It is a minority view, but I have been thinking that the twins have been together for a long time. So, Keegan comes back for one more year with Kris and then they both declare for the draft in 2023. Although in this thread one can get the impression that Kenyon is stumping for both to declare this year. Is he their agent?
teachercoach
Well-Known Member
I predict Rebracca comes back next year and has a solid top of the key 3pt shot.
Changes everything for him.
Changes everything for him.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
This is why I don't see either of them being that effective in the NBA. I think their game is limited. I question their mid range or outside shots and movement. I think they are one dimensional in the NBA.
Oh they will be effective enough especially Cockburn who I think is more athletic. If Reggie Evans can play mulitple years as basically a not so great jump shooting type player these guys can. The NBA has been a shoot from the arc and slash from the arc to the basket league for a long time. But big players like Cockburn and Edey can be great screen and roll type players, alley oop lob type players to get very high percentage shots. And I would take 90% dunk and layup shooting than 40% 3-point shooting anytime.
And then there is their rebounding and shot blocking and altering capabilities. I havent watched much nba in the last 10-20 years but at times, especially in the playoffs, the teams get out of the run and gun and more into the half court game with a big man down low or at the elbows of the lane.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
We will see. Ok, nobody shoots 90% in the NBA.
Official NBA Stats | Stats | NBA.com
Home of the Official NBA Advanced Statistics and Analytics.
We will see. Ok, nobody shoots 90% in the NBA.
Official NBA Stats | Stats | NBA.com
Home of the Official NBA Advanced Statistics and Analytics.www.nba.com
Well you can shoot close to 90% when you dunk or have wide open layups based on your offense, which is the point I was trying to make. If you have ever watched the Princeton teams run their offense to perfection they are getting layup after layup, very high percentage of those go in.
A couple reasons. You have 3ish seconds in the lane. Player leaving the lane without getting the ball and I count to 3, ehhhh I let it go. He goes and sets a screen to get another player open in the lane, Im calling it. Every time a player shoots the ball regardless if the ball hits the rim, it is an attempt and the 3 second count starts over
Refereeing is hard. Its a persons opinion and not everything is seen. I suggest you try and referee before slamming officials. I can think I can weld, but until I actually tried it I realized how hard it was. So I keep my opinions to myself.
Dadman
Well-Known Member
If a player hits another player in the face, its a foul. Maybe a technical foul. If a ref can’t spot that, than they need to investigate another vocation.
I was an umpire, in little league, so no pressure…..until the parents start screaming. I never made a badcall. Well, there was this one player, he was a special needs, and by God, on the last game of the season, he was getting on base, even if i had to call everything a ball, which idid. One parent actually called me out on it. I told him to piss up a rope, for whatever that’s worth
I was an umpire, in little league, so no pressure…..until the parents start screaming. I never made a badcall. Well, there was this one player, he was a special needs, and by God, on the last game of the season, he was getting on base, even if i had to call everything a ball, which idid. One parent actually called me out on it. I told him to piss up a rope, for whatever that’s worth
Thats fine if a referee is held to a standard of using exact terminology. But when people make fun of other fans for saying "Over the back" all they are doing is trying to sound smarter than the other person. Everyone who knows anything about basketball knows its not a foul if you don't touch someone. Therefore, when someone yells "over the back", 100 out of 100 times they think there was contact into the back of the rebounder. When you call someone out, all you're doing is using semantics to try to show someone up.
RyDogg
Well-Known Member
This has been one of my pet peeves lately.
"Actually, over the back isn't a call" - no sh$t but I think we all know what they are meaning.
Every time I see someone comment over the back, I count to three and wait for Mr. Actual Factual to bring it with the rule book grammar.
Thanks for that.
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
While I get what your saying, you are asking someone (referee) to "know what you" mean when people yell "over the back". While refereeing I figured out quickly that terminology is everything. When I explain to a coach why a foul was called I cant use the terms "over the back" or he/she "reached" in. Because if I do I sound like I dont know what Im talking about. I cant expect him/her to "know what I mean"
You can jump from behind someone to get a rebound and cause contact as long as the rebounder isnt gaining an advantage with said contact. A player can reach in a steal the ball as long as they arent holding or causing so much contact to gain an advantage. When coaches and fans yell these generic terms ALL THE TIME, it means they clearly dont know and understand the rules.
Love this
I think it's pretty easy to know what someone means. It means they thought there was a foul. When someone yells he's reaching in, he means he thinks there is contact when he reaches in.
I guess maybe I'm ignorant on the origins of the sayings. I'm just assuming a long time ago they were used for when fouls occurred during the play, and then somewhere down the line someone thought they were clever and started saying "over the back isn't a foul unless he fouls him and reaching in isn't a foul unless he fouls him, so technically people who say that don't know what they're talking about". Then a bunch of people wanted to sound clever too so they repeated it until the saying start to sound wrong. Similar to what they do with words like waitress and stewardess.
I guess it's entirely possible that I'm wrong on the origins tho and over the back started out as a phrase used to describe a clean rebound from behind and a reach in was used when someone picks someone's pocket clean. If that's the case and people started stealing those terms and using them for when they thought a foul was committed, I can see how it would be annoying.
Thats my rule during sex. I need to last 3 seconds.
I don't think we can have Rebracca and Big Josh on the court together a lot... Neither can shoot outside the lane and in todays college hoops that'll really make it tough for us. That's not even considering that without JBo our guards aren't exactly sharp shooters either. Sandfort and Kris Murray are pretty much our main returning outside shooters and all 4 of them won't be on the court together.
In todays hoops most teams have 4 guys on the floor that can shoot 3s. Some all 5. We might only have a 2 or so next yr just depedning how it shakes out.
