UK has simply been an AAU team the past few seasons.
Calipari played two top 10 picks, off the bench. And started future taco bell managers Justin Edwards & DJ Wagner
- Thread starter RunninRichie
- Start date
Well I will try to explain but you won’t hear it most likely.
Oakland came out extremely nervous and shot like 20% for the first 5 minutes. We managed a 4 point lead. With the Anemic offense our starters provided.
Hypothetically if Reed, Rob and reeves started together the entire last half of the season as they should have. They gain tremendous confidence. We start that game Hot AF and have a 12 point lead five minutes in. UGO should have been replaced with Z if only for kick out 3s. How many passes out of the post for UGO for an open 3? Zero all year. Remember Zs behind the backer for 3?
The entire starting lineup was based on draft picks , handlers and promises. That’s what people are upset about. No other coach in the country starts that lineup. Starters develop confidence and continuity together. Confidence leads to coming out and stomping on the neck of a team that came out cold and scared. The opponent gained confidence in that first five minutes and realized….. hey, We can play with these guys. That’s why minutes don’t matter near as much as a confident starting five. With the way Oakland came out scared, A confident offensive team builds at least a 12 point lead in those first 5 minutes. If our team shot 50% in that first 5 we have that lead. I believe Oakland started 2-15.
We were down by 2 with under 2 to play. We build the lead we should have in that first 5 minutes while they were choking it up. We win. They are playing from behind all game long. Desperation leads to bad decisions.
Last edited:
Spite is evil. He called Sheppard "you guys favorite player" then continued to not start him just to piss us off. Think about that.
So you're basis isn't rooted in any data, but purely hypotheticals. Somehow, guys who already played starter minutes were going to ve drastically better if they came in the game 3 minutes earlier, because obviously Oakland was just nervous thise first 4 minutes. Lulz 🤣
Your entire response is essentially fan-fiction.
- It's not exactly realistic for the 3 Rs to have played the entire game, so other lineups would have had to play at some point.
- Four points is really nothing significant. Oakland wasn't good, no matter the lineup we should have crushed them.
The box scored and play by plays don’t lie, Kentucky routinely got down by 6-10 points before the first tv timeout. And that was against teams like unc Wilmington. Can’t wait for cal to fail at Arkansas.
But the results of starting the 5 we did are fact. It was a losing team. You can never prove something that didn’t happen with stats or fact’s because it never happened lol. Of course everything I said was a guess at what we could have done to win. That’s all you can do is learn from failure. What we know is what was done DID NOT WORK. That’s all we will ever know with stats and facts. Lol
And never played the three best together much to develop chemistry either. Epic fail of coaching
Yeah he made it pretty clear how much he hated the fans. So many snarky comments. Always condescending.
Also, Wagner missed 4 games to injury and didnt play much in a couple others coming back. So his minutes are deflated because of that. Lets tell the whole story.
That's where Cal trashed the season. Not having those 3 on the floor together for majority of every game is why Cal lost the fans and his job.
He turned us into the University of Kalipari.
Anybody chime in on why Reeves did not get drafted first round?
I must be an idiot. At times I thought Reeves was our best player.......instead reed goes 3rd?
If you think about it, the draft shows that reed was the best USA pick while two fellas from overseas took the 2 top spots.
I must be an idiot. At times I thought Reeves was our best player.......instead reed goes 3rd?
If you think about it, the draft shows that reed was the best USA pick while two fellas from overseas took the 2 top spots.
Sure you can prove the likelihood of something happening in place of something else. Ever heard of statistics? 😉
We lost because Reed, Rob and others all shit the bed. Reed and Rob played 26 and 28 minutes, Edwards and Dj played 16 and 17. Who started had no bearing on the game considering when the starters went out the first time, we were leading.
Also, most of Gohlke's threes were made on Reed Sheppard, who scored 3 points all game, went 1-5 and had a couple of idiotic turnovers and several poor plays. There is nothing based on any logic than insinuates we would have magically had a different outcome had he played more. In fact, the opposite appears true. Also, he started 5 games this season and we lost 4 of them. One of those losses he started was to UNCw. And before we get the lame ass excuse about players being injured when he started, I'll remind you we were missing players almost every game this season. So that's not a valid excuse for going 1-4. Particularly when you consider it was Wagner who was the main player out injured when Reed started. It's kind of illogical to say Reed should start and play more and Dj should come off the bench and play less, but then say Dj not playing was the reason Reed went 1-4 as a starter.
In fairness it is the only coaching acumen that cal possessed.
This isn’t a one game conversation. Reed, dilly, and reeves should have been in the starting lineup from at least the midpoint of the season. Until you grasp that concept and what that means for overall team unity and cohesiveness you are adding nothing to the conversation.
I’m coaching 5/7yo.
I tried following this subbing pattern. We lost 32-2.
Thanks Cal.
I tried following this subbing pattern. We lost 32-2.
Thanks Cal.
And trashed him in every postgame where Shep excelled.
We can debate this forever and no one will win. You believe what you do from your perspective, I believe from mine. As I said, you can never prove what didn’t happen. Maybe if Cal started the lineup that destroyed Alabama by 30 from that point on it changes the season. Maybe it doesn’t . Let’s move on to the next Era and support coach Pope.
The fact that you're on here trying to concok some bizzaro defense of a coach not starting two top 5 NBA draft picks is utterly mind boggling. You may think your logic is sound, but you're simply just flat out wrong. If you want to like Cal, fine. But at some point you have to be a realist about him and how he performed at his job. John Calipari didn't start his best players because he put obligations to non-UK people over his job of winning games for UK. Period. There's nothing further to discuss about it.
...and I'll add, in my opinion and many others, he enjoyed sticking it to the slack jawed holler bennies in the process. He's petty like that.
I disagree. I think you can prove what didn't happen in many cases. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a lot of point in criminal defenses.
However, in this instance, there would be ample stats that would suggest the likelihood of different outcome if it truly existed. There just isn't anything that does.
The starting lineup against Bama still didn't have Reed or Rob starting. It had Thiero starting alongside Wagner, Edwards, Ugo, and Reeves. Which, statistically, is one of our worst scoring lineups. However, our best wins of the season against UNC, Bama, Auburn and TN came with the same starting lineup in the backcourt that many of you take issue with. Hypothetically, Maybe we lose those games with different starters and our seeding falls in the SEC and NCAA tournaments, and then we have a harder match-up in the first rd of each and still lose.
Who is defending Cal? Are you all really so ignorant that you think pointing out the lack of evidence and logic to support your diluted beliefs that the outcome of the season would be any different with a change of starting lineups equates to defending Cal?
He sucked his last several years. No one is disputing that. However, him sucking and our seasons outcome not being any different based on who started can both be true. Some of you all fail to realize this.
So, do you feel Pope didn't put BYU's best interests first when he didn't start Robinson (their best player) last year. Don't be afraid to answer!
My only hope is that he continues this "tradition" @ Arkansas
Then we can see what their fans think of him
But sure glad he is away from UK.
He destroyed the true "tradition" enough during his tenure
I can't remember ever watching a second of BYU basketball, so I have no clue.
I just don't understand why you are seemingly trying to convince fans that Cal has no responsibility for Oakland or other past failures. Sure, there's always more than one reason for losses like Oakland, St Pete etc. But there is a common denominator in those embarrassing losses. To the point you seem to want to deflect to, we simply don't know if a different starting lineup would've produced a different outcome. I don't know that. You don't know that. However, if two top 5 level guys were starting the majority of the season, it's entirely possible that the team has a different identity, different chemistry, different swag, and a different (or at least more palatable) end to the season. It's a simple issue is mishandling a roster. And the reason why is a gut punch.
What statistical data do you have that shows if Reed, Dilly, and Reeves had all started and played the lions share of minutes together that we would not have had a better seasonal and post seasonal outcome? As it is, and I could be mistaken on this but it seems they all 3 saw the court together at the same time for less than 20% of all minutes played.
Here is another gut punch thrown by the guy going out the door. Another record we sit on the wrong side of thanks to us being associated with that prick. How do some people keep justifying this a$$hole.
Yes - they probably should have started. But I don't think our results would have been any different. That's just a minor blip compared to all the things Cal was doing wrong or not bothering to do at all. Does it matter who starts when there's no offensive plan, no defensive plan, or game prep/scouting or any coaching whatsoever?
The only thing that ever mattered to the previous coach is last night and tonight! It’s a fact I mean the man said it in 2009 when he took the job! He should’ve left in 2019 when UCLA came calling because ever since then he did nothing but TANK…. Heck he even admitted recently he should’ve left in 2019…. I’m just so glad our program gets to start over fresh!
It's far easier to fool people than to convince people they've been fooled.
Oh yea for sure. The saying was meant for moments like this. It’s amazing to me how people can take this so far as to actually believe benching your two best players to begin games and start halves is not just okay but actually, kind of normal. It’s just absurd on every level and I’m glad I don’t fit into the camp of personality who can actually be convinced of that sht lol. Jeez
Man.
Wow replying to Skip Bayless on X you tell them Wayne!!!
I agree with not starting your best players is dumb as hell.
I dont understand why a portion of our fanbase has to talk crap about other former players to do it though.
I dont understand why a portion of our fanbase has to talk crap about other former players to do it though.
In what bizarro world would DJ have more total minutes than Top Ten NBA draft prospect Dillingham? And that's with DJ missing 3 more games than Dilly. Criminal. Also, while Reed got 28.8 min/game, you could make a case for him getting the same minutes as Antonio.
What if Reed and Dilly both got 1000 min/game, with a corresponding reduction in DJ/Edwards minutes? What if we played them together with Reeves? Our best lineup. I suspect we would have won at LEAST 2-3 more games and would have had a higher seed.
What if Reed and Dilly both got 1000 min/game, with a corresponding reduction in DJ/Edwards minutes? What if we played them together with Reeves? Our best lineup. I suspect we would have won at LEAST 2-3 more games and would have had a higher seed.
