Again, key point is that Meeks is back. Starting Porter gives shots to Meeks. Starting Crawford gives shots to Meeks.

 

AND, it is telling that when UAB had a player going off scoring wise, you would think the coach would put his BEST defender on him. Who was it? Porter.

 

Did he stop him? No. But in BG's eyes, Porter was his best option.

 

BG seems to be a defensive coach. And Crawford does not seem to be of the defensive mindset.

 

Unbelievable. Porter was on Vaden and he put up 33! 33 points! I would have held Vaden to less than 33 points.

 

Porter is our best defensive player? Have you seen all of the games this year LBBC? If so, I find it hard to believe that you'd agree. Porter, on multiple occassions has fouled the jumpshooter on a 3 point shot (at least twice). He's given up more 3/4 point plays this year than I've ever seen ANYONE give up in my time around basketball. As a coach, you know as well as anyone how frustrating that can be.

 

I can see where you're coming from, trying to get Porter more involved than Crawford; however, the problem is that Porter does not, and cannot, produce. Who's to say that, even with Crawford on the floor, that Meeks won't get good looks? If anything, he'd be better off because we have another talented player on the floor who is not only looking to score, but also capable!

 

And let's not kid ourselves about Jodie Meeks. I love Meeks' game and think he's going to be a star at Kentucky for a long time. But, this season, he's only shooting 34% from the field and 33% from behind the arc. Meeks' talent has skyrocketed in the eyes of many, simply because of his time away from the court.

 

It just doesn't make any sense to me not to put your best players out there. Crawford deserves an opportunity to play - he's produced and he plays hard. At times he can try to do too much, but that's only because there aren't any other scoring threats around him. Get Meeks back on the floor with Crawford, Bradley & Patterson, and you'll enter a new realm of opportunity for everyone - including Meeks.

Isn't this fun? A positive discussion of UK without any mentioning of those other things. Just don't tell GT or he will come in here and ruin it for all of us.

 

He is like a UK Scrooge, can't stand for any UK fan to be discussing UK basketball in a positive manner.:lol:

Unbelievable. Porter was on Vaden and he put up 37! 37 points! I would have held Vaden to less than 37 points.

 

Porter is our best defensive player? Have you seen all of the games this year LBBC? If so, I find it hard to believe that you'd agree. Porter, on multiple occassions has fouled the jumpshooter on a 3 point shot (at least twice). He's given up more 3/4 point plays this year than I've ever seen ANYONE give up in my time around basketball. As a coach, you know as well as anyone how frustrating that can be.

 

I can see where you're coming from, trying to get Porter more involved than Crawford; however, the problem is that Porter does not, and cannot, produce. Who's to say that, even with Crawford on the floor, that Meeks won't get good looks? If anything, he'd be better off because we have another talented player on the floor who is not only looking to score, but also capable!

 

And let's not kid ourselves about Jodie Meeks. I love Meeks' game and think he's going to be a star at Kentucky for a long time. But, this season, he's only shooting 34% from the field and 33% from behind the arc. Meeks' talent has skyrocketed in the eyes of many, simply because of his time away from the court.

 

It just doesn't make any sense to me not to put your best players out there. Crawford deserves an opportunity to play - he's produced and he plays hard. At times he can try to do too much, but that's only because there aren't any other scoring threats around him. Get Meeks back on the floor with Crawford, Bradley & Patterson, and you'll enter a new realm of opportunity for everyone - including Meeks.

 

Simply question, if BG thought Bradley, Harris, Crawford, etc, etc were better defensive players than Porter, would it not make sense that he would have put them on Vaden?

 

Also, remember Porter was the defender who held Vaden to 5 points in the 1st half.

 

On Meeks, don't you think it is fair to say that in evaluating him this year that you can throw out the GW game when he played hurt. And even though he did great in the Houston game, he still isn't back to full strength or conditioning?

 

It just doesn't make any sense to me not to put your best players out there. Crawford deserves an opportunity to play - he's produced and he plays hard. At times he can try to do too much, but that's only because there aren't any other scoring threats around him. Get Meeks back on the floor with Crawford, Bradley & Patterson, and you'll enter a new realm of opportunity for everyone - including Meeks.

 

Best and most talented players does not correlate into a good basketball team.

 

Exhibit A, the USA Olympic teams.

Which proves LBBC's and my point. Porter does ONE thing--shoot. I'd say 50% from behind the arc is pretty good. If you have Bradley and Meeks penetrating and kicking out to him or teams doubling down on Patterson, then he will be open for some threes. He fits the spot perfectly. If you have 4 scorers, you don't want or need all 4 of them on the floor at the same time. I like the "instant offense" off of the bench in Crawford.

 

Of Porter's 16 3's, I would venture a guess to say that about 12-13 were uncontested shots where he was left alone & wide open. 8/16 is solid, I agree. But, the fact that he cannot create for himself (nor for others) is what is holding him back.

 

I don't understand why you guys want to limit what we can do offensively? Crawford takes a lot of 3's, but as Meeks returns, those numbers will dwindle. Crawford is, by far, our most effective penetrator.

 

Michael Porter should play about 10-15 minutes per game. I have no problem with him getting a few looks at the basket every game. But, if we are going to rely on him to handle the ball or to score, or to lockup the star player on D, we're going to continue to lose to UAB, Houston, Gardner-Webb, etc.

If Porter is able to get the ball to the scoring threats without turning it over (something he has not yet proven he is able to do) I have no problem playing him over Crawford... You can put the fact that he is not a scoring threat on the backburner as long as he is making effective passes and getting the offense going.

 

Now that is not to say Crawford doesn't make stupid turnovers either... He gets called for carrying the ball like 3 times a game.

Of Porter's 16 3's, I would venture a guess to say that about 12-13 were uncontested shots where he was left alone & wide open. 8/16 is solid, I agree. But, the fact that he cannot create for himself (nor for others) is what is holding him back.

 

I don't understand why you guys want to limit what we can do offensively? Crawford takes a lot of 3's, but as Meeks returns, those numbers will dwindle. Crawford is, by far, our most effective penetrator.

 

Michael Porter should play about 10-15 minutes per game. I have no problem with him getting a few looks at the basket every game. But, if we are going to rely on him to handle the ball or to score, or to lockup the star player on D, we're going to continue to lose to UAB, Houston, Gardner-Webb, etc.

 

I agree with you. My point is he will get those wide open looks from kick out passes from others. I also agree on the 15 minutes per game--unless he is really hot. With Meeks, Bradley, and Crawford in the backcourt, he shouldn't have to handle the ball, penetrate, or score. But you're right, that's why they've lost is because they HAVE had to (sometimes because of the coach's decision but that's another thread...:sssh:).

Simply question, if BG thought Bradley, Harris, Crawford, etc, etc were better defensive players than Porter, would it not make sense that he would have put them on Vaden?

 

Also, remember Porter was the defender who held Vaden to 5 points in the 1st half.

 

On Meeks, don't you think it is fair to say that in evaluating him this year that you can throw out the GW game when he played hurt. And even though he did great in the Houston game, he still isn't back to full strength or conditioning?

 

He also gave up 28 points in the 2nd half. He's also the one who fouled Vaden on the 3 point shot to let Vaden go to the foul line and hit 3 free throws. Those shots are what got Vaden going.

 

In all reality, my problem wasn't with Michael Porter. He simply was not capable of guarding Vaden. Vaden, at 6'7'', could simply shoot over the 6'2'' Porter. But why even make him guard Vaden? You cannot give up that much height to a guy who is a shooter and expect to compete if he gets hot. And, I think we'll all agree, Vaden was hot.

Of Porter's 16 3's, I would venture a guess to say that about 12-13 were uncontested shots where he was left alone & wide open. 8/16 is solid, I agree. But, the fact that he cannot create for himself (nor for others) is what is holding him back.

 

 

You are making my point.

 

With Patterson drawing double teams.

With Meeks having a guy on him because of his scoring/shooting ability

It opens up uncontested shots that you need a person to be able to knock down. Think John Paxson off the Bulls.

 

In addition, his mindset is not hoist 15 shots per game but give the others their shots.

Also, it's not "he's taking time from Crawford". Crawford is averaging 31 minutes per game and has come off of the bench in most of those. It's a rotation of 8 or more players--Porter will get his 15-20 minutes, Crawford his 30-32 minutes--it's not just who starts. Again, I like the offense off of the bench with Crawford.

I agree with you. My point is he will get those wide open looks from kick out passes from others. I also agree on the 15 minutes per game--unless he is really hot. With Meeks, Bradley, and Crawford in the backcourt, he shouldn't have to handle the ball, penetrate, or score. But you're right, that's why they've lost is because they HAVE had to (sometimes because of the coach's decision but that's another thread...:sssh:).

 

If Porter isn't going to need to handle the ball, penetrate or score, then what is he going to do?

He also gave up 28 points in the 2nd half. He's also the one who fouled Vaden on the 3 point shot to let Vaden go to the foul line and hit 3 free throws. Those shots are what got Vaden going.

 

In all reality, my problem wasn't with Michael Porter. He simply was not capable of guarding Vaden. Vaden, at 6'7'', could simply shoot over the 6'2'' Porter. But why even make him guard Vaden? You cannot give up that much height to a guy who is a shooter and expect to compete if he gets hot. And, I think we'll all agree, Vaden was hot.

 

You didn't answer the question.

 

If Billy G felt that Crawford, Harris, Bradley were better defenders than Porter, do you think he would have put them on Vaden? And the bolded even more makes that point as 2 of the 3 above are significantly taller than Porter and a better option to guard Vaden IF they are better or equal defenders to Porter in Billy G's eyes.

If Porter isn't going to need to handle the ball, penetrate or score, then what is he going to do?

 

What I said earlier...Catch...Shoot...If you're not open...Pass.

You are making my point.

 

With Patterson drawing double teams.

With Meeks having a guy on him because of his scoring/shooting ability

It opens up uncontested shots that you need a person to be able to knock down. Think John Paxson off the Bulls.

 

In addition, his mindset is not hoist 15 shots per game but give the others their shots.

 

Porter has made 1 shot that is not a 3 point shot all season long. You simply cannot have a guy like that in there, unless you've got 4 other guys by the name of Joakim Noah, Al Horford, Corey Brewer & Taurean Green.

 

If you want to turn Porter into a 3 point specialist, then that's fine. I would agree with that; however, at this point, he's much more of a liability than he is an effective player. He would fit in well with a 3 point specialist role - but, as of right now, he's being exploited on both ends of the court.

You didn't answer the question.

 

If Billy G felt that Crawford, Harris, Bradley were better defenders than Porter, do you think he would have put them on Vaden? And the bolded even more makes that point as 2 of the 3 above are significantly taller than Porter and a better option to guard Vaden IF they are better or equal defenders to Porter in Billy G's eyes.

 

I have no idea what BCG was doing or what he was thinking. I would have put Joe Crawford on Vaden. Or Ramon Harris. To answer your question specifically, I would hope that he would have put them on Vaden. But, in all honesty, I'm not sure. I don't think BCG gives Crawford much credit. Granted, he's going to carry us to victory, but Crawford has played hard and well - at times a bit too hard, I think. He needs to let the game come to him, and with Meeks back, I think that'll happen.

 

Jordan Crawford scored on Joe quite frequently in the IU game, but Vaden & Jordan Crawford have very different styles. It was pretty clear that Joe couldn't guard his brother; however, who's to say that he couldn't guard Vaden?

 

Ramon Harris is a whole 'nother story. You think I'm down on Michael Porter? Don't get me started on Harris.