I think Coach Muss has done a great job

and is the right man for the job. Given their distinct lack of height in a tall man’s game I think they’ve done remarkable this season. Leave it to the good ole SEC to expose and exploit any short-comings a Team might have!


Next season with the addition of some height(7’3" and 6’10") we will become a pretty tall team. Our guards are not small. Good size for guards. Problem is that this season to put our best players on the floor they are all guards.

Coach M is doing the best he can with his energy and game plan, but our two main players are not playing up to par for us these past 3 games and we lost two straight, not even close… really!
Surely the coaches can do SOMETHING at halftime and not wait til 4-5 minutes to go in the game to get a last ditch energy effort going.
Quit shooting quick 3s, especially when we have not yet gotten 2 players in the paint to try to get a missed shot rebound. 2-3 of our players seem to be getting down court more slowly than usual for some reason… Tired with only half the season over? Gosh!
Overall, I just don’t see the players playing together as they did the first 12 games. JMHO guys.

I agree with you on this, but it’s a part of the game now. If you’re a decent 3pt shooter and are open, you take the shot.

Shot clock has affected this. You don’t have a lot of time to get open, and against a good defense you may only get 1 open look. If that happens early in the possession, you gotta take it. I seldom see this team take a shot that isn’t wide open early in the shot clock.

The analytics will no doubt show that a good look 3 should be taken by a good shooter regardless of when taken. Taking good shots regardless of length is an advantage if taken early because you reduce your risk of a turnover and ultimately will get more shots. Muss pointes this out in one of his press conferences.

Additionally long 3 misses have long bounces so people in the paint isn’t necessarily an advantage.

BUT, if you are NOT making the shots and are off rhythm and clunking the rim and nowhere near going into the net, then you must let someone else try to ‘get open’ and pass the ball to that person. Then the second guy can see if HE is “on track”… After a guy misses 3 in a row as clunkers, then it is a must that you go to another shooter first and see if he is on fire for us… I know it ain’t easy but you gotta change it around a bit more than Jo and Jones are doing. Waiting til the end when we are way behind is not good. Hit the darn 3s earlier and put pressure on the OTHER team to force things a bit… JMHO

Probabilities don’t work that way. A wide open Joe or Jones should take it every time.

The hot hand theory (or cold hand) - while widely believed - has been proven wrong multiple times by those that study those things.

If there is something more fundamentally wrong - injury, sickness - then they should be shooting or getting a lot of minutes for that matter.

This is correct, other than the fact that hognc meant (I’m sure) to type “shouldn’t” instead of “should” in that last sentence; a simple typo. But otherwise, right on point.

Correct Wiz - and thanks for the catch :slight_smile: " they shouldn’t be shooting"

I agree with probability aspects of a shooter’s game. If a player is hitting 35-40 % of his 3 pointers then you trust his shooting “feelings” on any given night. BUT, when a guy is 0-5 or 1-6, or 2-10, the probabilities for THAT particular night should be considered as to either pulling him from the game and go inside more often until the next half or perhaps have the guy as a decoy and let the “other” good shooter have a go at it.

A season long probability chart for shots made, minutes played, FT %, rebounds made etc go down the drain sometimes , and a game plan MUST change. That is what I am trying to say. The coaches “feel” of how a player is doing is what I personally feel should direct a game’s plan of action, NOT probabilities on a sheet of paper. Again, just my opinion. To each his own. :slight_smile:

I think he’s doing a fantastic job, this team has a lot of problem areas, yet we are in every game we play. We play as hard as anybody in the country.

I’d agree ONLY if the guy was waaaay off - barely-drawing-iron-on-most-of-his-shots off.

I’m reminded of Joe’s game a week or two ago when he was something like 0 for 8 from 3 at halftime but then hit 4 or 5 from distance in the second half. What if he had been told not to shoot at halftime?

As you say, we’re each welcome to our own opinions/conclusions. But with a verified “shooter”, I’d not change his thought process about when or if to take shots unless he slumped for several games . . . and even then, I’d have to strongly consider what I might be giving up on.

As you say, there are exceptions and I can see your point “at times” but not all the time. LOL

Going 0-10 the first half and hoping to recoup to 5 of 8 3 pointers in the second half is taking a chance. How long do you let the guy go in the second half and not direct for others to take over? Yes, if the player starts off good in 2nd half, doing his normal very good shooting, then leave him alone. But what is the breaking point, 0 for 4 or 1 of 7 ? … don’t know.

That is why Coach M is the U of A coach and not me. I coached a few years in HS football and assisted in Basketball. Each coach in my conference had his own ideas and some were predictable. Luckily I was not so predictable and never had a losing season, although had 3-4 seasons at the level of 6-5 and 6-6 before ending the football year.

Thanks for all the comments that make me think a bit harder on just how I should think about changing my thinking processes on WholeHogSports. :slight_smile: I no longer coach, so the sports comment sections on my PC keep me going back in time!! Here’s hoping be DO win tomorrow afternoon at 3PM… Go Hogs.

You might be over thinking this!

A question has been bugging me. Like your honest answer.

Mike Anderson has been known (at least outside of Arkansas) to be a coach with a reputation of playing hard nosed defense. They talk about it every time his team is on TV. In one of the SEC games, the announcer had made comments that defensive numbers in some of the categories for this year’s team are similar to Anderson’s Arkansas teams.

I thought last year’s team played their butts off. But let’s ignore what I think. The clear implication from most of the comments on this board, radio are that Joe, Sills, Jones, Bailey and Chaney are playing harder than last year. If that is true, why do you think they didn’t play as hard last year?

Is it on the players not liking the system they were in or they didn’t like the coach or is it the inability of Anderson to coach them to play hard or is it because they were mostly first year players trying to adjust to big league ball? Or is it something else?

I just want to know what everyone thinks. Honest opinion. This is a debate. I am never upset with any opposing opinion.

I wish we could ask the five players I mentioned, but no media is going ask such a loaded question and they shouldn’t.

I think we are playing man to man without much trapping so it’s very to see if someone is guarding their man. You don’t see very many open shots against this team because of that. They are strictly in your face without worrying about double teaming very much unless the ball goes into the post.

There are 2 takeaways that are plain to see. This year, we seldom trap or double the man with the ball. This year, we play an aggressive man to man defense. It is easy to see breakdowns in our defense this year. Last year, the traps and doubles left one confused about which defender was supposed to be responsible for the ball handler and which defender’s man was left with an open 3 or a clear path to the basket if the trap did not work.

The other big difference is that this year we have not been blown out. It’s much harder to play with hair on fire intensity if you are down 20. Mike’s system was feast or famine. Muss coaches players based on analytics. Either style can be successful. Muss chooses to play one way. Mike, chose another way.

When Joe regains his shooting touch, we will win some games that we are now losing. Miss State was a 5 point favorite and with Perry, played like it. It’s not time to jump off the bridge.

Makes sense. I think you were responding to my post. Sometimes it is hard to tell with the new Board.

So, what you are saying is that it is not necessarily that we are playing harder, but the style employed by Mike gives a perception that the team may not be playing hard because there are more open shots?

I do sense we are playing harder b/c they know the scouting report of the team we are playing.Mike never was into showing scouting reports of the plays the other team ran by all accounts,When you know the sets they are running you can play much quicker…

1 Like