doggydee wrote: I know about tv timeouts and only 2 games a week and all that crap. But if they are going to be tired, the damage will already have been done by them playing 37-40 minutes a game for the past 2 months. You cannot regain fresh legs in a matter of a 2:00 timeout or even a few days. The guys probably don't even notice if their legs are tiring. But if you start seeing their shooting percentages go down in the next week or two, you'll know why. I HOPE I AM WRONG! But, this worries me about their chances in the Big Dance.

NONE of the Big Four have played 37-40 minutes, They have averaged 36, 36, 32 and 27.

Turner and Buford will be playing in the NBA. Both will be playing over 40 mins a game (if they are good) for 82 games plus playoffs over 3-4 games a week. If they can't handle playing 40 mins a game for 35-40 games then they might want to reconsider playing in the NBA. There are no freshmen in the starting 5, three juniors and a sophomore. There is no reason for them to be tired. Also the TV timeouts come tourney time are longer than the regular season add in the 5 timeouts from OSU, than 5 timeouts from the other team equals plenty of rest. But I agree to tank the conference tourney. There is no chance to get a 1 seed. We will have a 2-4 seed. If they win the next three games they should have a three seed locked up.

The thing I don't get is people saying that benches are all of a sudden overrated and players don't get tired. Then why has every coach in America over the past 100 years valued bench players and resting guys for a few minutes throughout the game? This isn't something groundbreaking that Matta just recently discovered.

And for the NBA comment, it's not comparable. In the NBA it's their job. They don't go to class. They have better trainers. They can spend a couple hours a day getting treatment to rest their bodies. They eat better. Etc...

Big Gain wrote:

doggydee wrote: I know about tv timeouts and only 2 games a week and all that crap. But if they are going to be tired, the damage will already have been done by them playing 37-40 minutes a game for the past 2 months. You cannot regain fresh legs in a matter of a 2:00 timeout or even a few days. The guys probably don't even notice if their legs are tiring. But if you start seeing their shooting percentages go down in the next week or two, you'll know why. I HOPE I AM WRONG! But, this worries me about their chances in the Big Dance.

NONE of the Big Four have played 37-40 minutes, They have averaged 36, 36, 32 and 27.

They average those numbers, but all of the big 4 have hit 37-40 minutes in many games this season. Buford has played 10 games of 37 minutes plus, Turner has played 13 games at 37 minutes plus, Diebler has played 18 games at 37 minutes plus, and Lighty has played 17 games at 37 minutes plus. I know that the averages probably mean more than these totals, but I think doggydee was using the example of what the 37-40 minute range in games can do to a player over the course of the season. Irregardless of the exact numbers, having 3 guys averaging 32+ minutes per game is pretty high considering the slop numbers that the bench picked up at the beginning of the season against lower competition. The minutes lately are really starting to stack up with the Bucks making a push for the Big Ten title. Are the minutes these guys are logging a good thing? Probably not. However, I do completely agree with you that is necessary for the Bucks to have success.

thedynasty1998 wrote: I don't get is people saying that benches are all of a sudden overrated and players don't get tired.

Not what they are saying. They are saying OUR bench does not give us as much as a tired starter gives us. Our bench, besides Madsen, isn't giving us anything unique or worthy of minutes. I can make a case for Hill, because of the energy factor, but we don't always need that either.

If Deibler is 0-7, I can see him trying Simmons. But when Deeb and Bufford are hitting, why?

The NBA comment is a joke.....No one is required to play defense in the NBA. Hell I could go out there every night for 82 games and just toss up shots every possession and have minimal responsibilities on the defensive side of the ball. It's a one dimensional game in the NBA whereas college basketball is much more demanding on both sides of the ball....Especially in the Big Ten where teams take great pride in the defense they play.

thedynasty1998 wrote: The thing I don't get is people saying that benches are all of a sudden overrated and players don't get tired. Then why has every coach in America over the past 100 years valued bench players and resting guys for a few minutes throughout the game? This isn't something groundbreaking that Matta just recently discovered.

To be honest, I don't believe the bench is as much about fatigue, as it is about having options. Foul trouble, you have an option on the bench. Or If a player isn't playing well, its nice to have a guy on the bench as another option. Of per say, if Matta has a decent PG on the bench, it might be nice to bring him in, and move Turner off the point on occasions. Maybe you have a shooter on the bench to bring in. There is A LOT of luxuries to having a bench besides the fatigue. Unfortunately, that luxury is not there this year.
Also, a lot of this fatigue "talk" has to do with the style of play. If you want to press and play an aggressive MM defense...then fatigue could obviously play a part. OSU does niether...they do not press except an occasional 1-2-2 zone press...and their MM is based on covering gaps and help defense. This along with mixing in a zone, which obviously doesn't exert as much energy.
Having a bench isn't always about the fatigue factor.

Well, yeah...it's not like Conley's on the bench.

I'm all for resting guys but not when the standard of play dips as far as it would bringing it who we have available, especially during conference play.

I really do get it, there is no reason for PJ Hill to play agaist Michigan State in a tight game. You play the best available, and with the level of play that th team is playing at this late in the season, there's no reason to change anything.

bulldog8 wrote: The NBA comment is a joke.....No one is required to play defense in the NBA. Hell I could go out there every night for 82 games and just toss up shots every possession and have minimal responsibilities on the defensive side of the ball. It's a one dimensional game in the NBA whereas college basketball is much more demanding on both sides of the ball....Especially in the Big Ten where teams take great pride in the defense they play.

That's a common opinion that I don't agree with. The NBA is setup for offense. With the shortened shot clock, the NBA wants high scoring games. However I think that there is solid defense in the NBA amonst the best teams in the NBA and that it looks like there is a lack of defense because of how highly skilled players are offensively.

thedynasty1998 wrote: I really do get it, there is no reason for PJ Hill to play agaist Michigan State in a tight game. You play the best available, and with the level of play that th team is playing at this late in the season, there's no reason to change anything.

I know you do. And I'll be the first to admit, I really thought Hill and Simmons would be in a rotation, and helping...going into this season.
I believe that Ouffit would be there as well. I was excited at the possibility Matta wouild have a bench...even big Z seeing the floor a little bit. Why not? I have no idea except to believe that those guys just haven't gotten better and progressed. Obviously, Matta has zero confidence in them at this point. Heading down the stretch and fighting for a big ten title...its obviously not the time to make any changes either.
Looking towards next year...this shouldn't be the case with the incoming class, along with how many return. Matta will have many options at hand. Which can be good...but not always(see Texas this year).

thedynasty1998 wrote:

bulldog8 wrote: The NBA comment is a joke.....No one is required to play defense in the NBA. Hell I could go out there every night for 82 games and just toss up shots every possession and have minimal responsibilities on the defensive side of the ball. It's a one dimensional game in the NBA whereas college basketball is much more demanding on both sides of the ball....Especially in the Big Ten where teams take great pride in the defense they play.

That's a common opinion that I don't agree with. The NBA is setup for offense. With the shortened shot clock, the NBA wants high scoring games. However I think that there is solid defense in the NBA amonst the best teams in the NBA and that it looks like there is a lack of defense because of how highly skilled players are offensively.

I just think the effort on the defensive side of the ball isn't there. I see a lot of laziness - just my opinion. However, I do understand that the offense is just top notch and often makes the defense look like it's standing in cement.

bulldog8 wrote:

thedynasty1998 wrote:

bulldog8 wrote: The NBA comment is a joke.....No one is required to play defense in the NBA. Hell I could go out there every night for 82 games and just toss up shots every possession and have minimal responsibilities on the defensive side of the ball. It's a one dimensional game in the NBA whereas college basketball is much more demanding on both sides of the ball....Especially in the Big Ten where teams take great pride in the defense they play.

That's a common opinion that I don't agree with. The NBA is setup for offense. With the shortened shot clock, the NBA wants high scoring games. However I think that there is solid defense in the NBA amonst the best teams in the NBA and that it looks like there is a lack of defense because of how highly skilled players are offensively.

I just think the effort on the defensive side of the ball isn't there. I see a lot of laziness - just my opinion. However, I do understand that the offense is just top notch and often makes the defense look like it's standing in cement.

Wow really? Our defense hasn't been allowing 80 point games? Didn't we outrebound MSU? When's the last time that happened?

I do worry about the depth on this team. Hill and Simmons obviously aren't that good, but I wouldn't mind seeing them get a few minutes when the situation allows.

But we have a good starting line up and we'll live and die with them. That's alright with me. But it still doesn't keep me from worrying about this team either wearing down at a critical time or getting into foul trouble and turning to a bench that has been rarely used. Any concious fan should be some what worried about the lack of depth on this team as tourney time rolls around.

bulldog8 wrote:

thedynasty1998 wrote:

bulldog8 wrote: The NBA comment is a joke.....No one is required to play defense in the NBA. Hell I could go out there every night for 82 games and just toss up shots every possession and have minimal responsibilities on the defensive side of the ball. It's a one dimensional game in the NBA whereas college basketball is much more demanding on both sides of the ball....Especially in the Big Ten where teams take great pride in the defense they play.

That's a common opinion that I don't agree with. The NBA is setup for offense. With the shortened shot clock, the NBA wants high scoring games. However I think that there is solid defense in the NBA amonst the best teams in the NBA and that it looks like there is a lack of defense because of how highly skilled players are offensively.

I just think the effort on the defensive side of the ball isn't there. I see a lot of laziness - just my opinion. However, I do understand that the offense is just top notch and often makes the defense look like it's standing in cement.

Couldn't agree more. During the course of an 82 game season, overall, there isn't much defense played unless its a big game.
A few years ago, after Gene Keady retired from college, and was an asst. in the NBA, i read an article and he had quoted how different the NBA was from college, I believe he was then asked how, and he said something in the manner that defense is played in college, not much of it in the NBA.
Now the playoffs are a different story. Thus, games are typically much lower scoring then regular season.

rydawg5 wrote:

bulldog8 wrote:

thedynasty1998 wrote:

bulldog8 wrote: The NBA comment is a joke.....No one is required to play defense in the NBA. Hell I could go out there every night for 82 games and just toss up shots every possession and have minimal responsibilities on the defensive side of the ball. It's a one dimensional game in the NBA whereas college basketball is much more demanding on both sides of the ball....Especially in the Big Ten where teams take great pride in the defense they play.

That's a common opinion that I don't agree with. The NBA is setup for offense. With the shortened shot clock, the NBA wants high scoring games. However I think that there is solid defense in the NBA amonst the best teams in the NBA and that it looks like there is a lack of defense because of how highly skilled players are offensively.

I just think the effort on the defensive side of the ball isn't there. I see a lot of laziness - just my opinion. However, I do understand that the offense is just top notch and often makes the defense look like it's standing in cement.

Wow really? Our defense hasn't been allowing 80 point games? Didn't we outrebound MSU? When's the last time that happened?

I believe his comment was directed at the NBA...not OSU.

rydawg5 wrote:

bulldog8 wrote:

thedynasty1998 wrote:

bulldog8 wrote: The NBA comment is a joke.....No one is required to play defense in the NBA. Hell I could go out there every night for 82 games and just toss up shots every possession and have minimal responsibilities on the defensive side of the ball. It's a one dimensional game in the NBA whereas college basketball is much more demanding on both sides of the ball....Especially in the Big Ten where teams take great pride in the defense they play.

That's a common opinion that I don't agree with. The NBA is setup for offense. With the shortened shot clock, the NBA wants high scoring games. However I think that there is solid defense in the NBA amonst the best teams in the NBA and that it looks like there is a lack of defense because of how highly skilled players are offensively.

I just think the effort on the defensive side of the ball isn't there. I see a lot of laziness - just my opinion. However, I do understand that the offense is just top notch and often makes the defense look like it's standing in cement.

Wow really? Our defense hasn't been allowing 80 point games? Didn't we outrebound MSU? When's the last time that happened?

Read above sir.....I was talking about defense in the NBA.....Not OSU.