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.

 

That's pretty much what we've been saying all along. Play the guy in a role that fits him. He has had to do other things, which is why he's looked so bad.

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.

 

Billy G would disagree with you since Porter is rooted in the starting lineup. Even versus Houston did not Crawford go to the bench and Porter stay in the lineup.

 

And that decision is made by a coach who sees both in practice every single day. He sees who is the good defender in practice and who is not. He sees who is willing to do what he wants done and who is not.

Wasn't this supposed to be about Jared Carter?

I hope you guys are right. I will cheer for him everytime he steps on the court because he wears blue, and hope he does well for himself and the Cats. I just don't see it happening very often. He's a Junior and there's not been much progress.

 

 

He's a junior - but didnt he take out a 5th year of elegibility? They were saying something about it on Deener's show on WVLK.

That's pretty much what we've been saying all along. Play the guy in a role that fits him. He has had to do other things, which is why he's looked so bad.

 

Exactly. My point is play him less and that won't be a problem.

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.

I think the tv commentators made an excellent point on Vaden. They set a tone of screens for him. You have to have a defender that is willing to work hard to get around 3-4 screens and make Vaden put the ball on the ground.

 

Crawford has shown nothing in 4 years that would indicate he would work hard through 3-4 picks to get to the shooter.

Wasn't this supposed to be about Jared Carter?

 

lbbc typoed in the title... It's supposed to be "Is Porter ready to contribute at UK?"

 

Only explanation I can think of...

Exactly. My point is play him less and that won't be a problem.

 

I think we're all pretty much in agreement. With Meeks back, hopefully his minutes will go from 24 per to about 15-20.

Billy G would disagree with you since Porter is rooted in the starting lineup. Even versus Houston did not Crawford go to the bench and Porter stay in the lineup.

 

And that decision is made by a coach who sees both in practice every single day. He sees who is the good defender in practice and who is not. He sees who is willing to do what he wants done and who is not.

 

Obviously Billy G does disagree with me.

 

I have seen Crawford and Porter play enough times to have an idea of what they can and cannot do. Sure, you can use the "coach knows better than you" trump card, but I'd rather find try to find a solution for how to fix our 4-5 ballclub than to rest on Billy G's laurels as a head coach. Obviously a large part of our problems can be attributed to injuries.

 

That doesn't explain losing a 14 point lead in the 2nd half.

 

 

BTW, when asked how he thought Porter played on Vaden, BCG replied "Good." :scared:

I think the tv commentators made an excellent point on Vaden. They set a tone of screens for him. You have to have a defender that is willing to work hard to get around 3-4 screens and make Vaden put the ball on the ground.

 

Crawford has shown nothing in 4 years that would indicate he would work hard through 3-4 picks to get to the shooter.

 

Then put Harris on him. At least put somebody on him who has a freakin' chance to stop him. Michael Porter was outmatched from the get-go. That's not his fault - that's coaching.

I think we're all pretty much in agreement. With Meeks back, hopefully his minutes will go from 24 per to about 15-20.

 

:thumb:

 

And when (if?) Jasper comes back, hopefully that 15-20 will go to about 10-15.

Obviously Billy G does disagree with me.

 

I have seen Crawford and Porter play enough times to have an idea of what they can and cannot do. Sure, you can use the "coach knows better than you" trump card, but I'd rather find try to find a solution for how to fix our 4-5 ballclub than to rest on Billy G's laurels as a head coach. Obviously a large part of our problems can be attributed to injuries.

 

That doesn't explain losing a 14 point lead in the 2nd half.

 

 

BTW, when asked how he thought Porter played on Vaden, BCG replied "Good." :scared:

 

Some of those 3's on Porter were unconscious 3's and nothing to do with Porter's D.

 

Rather than use it as a trump card, I use it as I said. Billy G is the one who sees who is working hard and defending people in practice. That is the reason why, I assume, Porter is picked as the better defender over Crawford, Harris and Bradley.

Then put Harris on him. At least put somebody on him who has a freakin' chance to stop him. Michael Porter was outmatched from the get-go. That's not his fault - that's coaching.

 

See post #57

 

Hey, I have been there as a coach when it is not working and you want to go to someone else and there is no one else to go to.

:thumb:

 

And when (if?) Jasper comes back, hopefully that 15-20 will go to about 10-15.

 

With a few good recruits we should have him down to 5 or less...:lol:

Some of those 3's on Porter were unconscious 3's and nothing to do with Porter's D.

 

Rather than use it as a trump card, I use it as I said. Billy G is the one who sees who is working hard and defending people in practice. That is the reason why, I assume, Porter is picked as the better defender over Crawford, Harris and Bradley.

 

Absolutely. Some of the shots Vaden hit were just great shots. I'm not taking anything away from Vaden. Anytime somebody shoots like that, you've got to give credit to the O. But, Porter is responsible for the majority of the barrage as far as I'm concerned. He fouled Vaden on the 3 to get him started. And, he's simply too small to guard Vaden.

 

Quite a few of the 3's that Vaden hit were with Porter challenging the shot. You're telling me that, at 6'4'', Joe Crawford couldn't have done a better job contesting those shots? Or, at 6'7''ish, Ramon Harris wouldn't have done a better job contesting those shots? I find that hard to believe, but you may be right. If that's the case, then we have a major problem because that makes a total of 3 guys in our starting lineup who are incapable of playing D. That presents a major problem, especially with our inability to find any rhythm on the offensive side.