that doesn't make it "bad defense".
coming here after we hold their two "NBA guards to 33% shooting and tell us that it was bad defense is trolling, pure and simple.
Head scratcher
- Thread starter cypher
- Start date
that doesn't make it "bad defense".
coming here after we hold their two "NBA guards to 33% shooting and tell us that it was bad defense is trolling, pure and simple.
I hate to agree with a guy that would pay to lick Self's ***-crack, but the defense against Oakland, and even in the exhibition was not very good. I want to believe personnel additions will solve that, but there are empirical reasons as to why almost every analysis brings up defense when talking about our chances at a national title, as does Fred.
So is it trolling when Hoiberg says they need to play better defense? Good grief, if ISU was as defensive as this message board they'd go undefeated. There's nothing wrong with realizing what a team can do to get better. It doesn't mean they are a bad team.
So when people lose it is because their offense was bad, not because the other team's defense was good. Got it.
I'm guessing McKay is a huge impact player on defense and everything changes when he is available. Also no idea what Nader can do on defense. Also, not sure of the impact of losing Doc. Just gonna let the Mayor figure it out, he's a lot smarter than me.
Are you serious, Clark? If I say you suck at life is that the same thing as saying you need to get better at life?
No, it would be trolling for Bill Self to say it. And I listened to all of Hoiberg's post game interviews, he didn't say we played "bad defense" yesterday (as you did).
Here's Hoiberg's quote:
"We took a step forward, especially on the defensive end... I really thought our defense is heading in the right direction"
Pointing out where we need to improve is fine. Saying we played "bad defense" when that isn't case is not.
