MarkInAustin

Shedrick shot pretty well from both the arc and the perimeter. He could be the stretch 4 on offense if Toppin is in with him. But as I think you suggest, Toppin should be seen as 15 min at Center, with other minutes on occasion. Toppin should eliminate the need to play Onyema for any substantial time.

Those vertical numbers would have been ordinary in 1961. Not bad, but about 2" low for expectations on a 6-9 PF who wasn't a Wide Body. I thought current training had evolved.

Going back more years, Odessa Permian, Midland Lee, Amarillo Tascosa... at some point, west Texas lost its MOJO.

Disappointed.

Do we even think Codie will have recovered in time to play before January? Also, has the Rutgers Center who was a shot blocking machine in the B1G made his new home yet?

Clifford Omoruyi? He had an astonishing number of blocked shots in B1G games.

Gerry, you list Onyema as a "PF". I have never seen him play facing the bucket or outside the paint. He is the reason Texas needs another BIG. Shedrick cannot play 40 min/p/g and Onyema provides nothing against a decent team but fouls given. I am not usually one to take a harsh tone, but I just haven't seen anything from Onyema. Get Cam Williams to play after January if the design is to have someone pound away and foul opponents inside.

In baseball there was a coaching fix for us as 11 year olds judging fly balls: Always take three steps BACK on any ball in the air, then judge it. If one did not have Willie Mays' instincts it still protected against misjudging a long ball. I did not play football. Is there some analogous coaching fix for DBs that doesn't rely on the DB's speed, change of direction, and instincts? Or is constant practice the only real way to develop proper response? What would a different set of DB coaches do? Asking, because I simply don't know.

Bobby, is it possible that is a limit to PWOs? The Service Academies are technically all walk-on, correct?

Self got 2 real good 'uns in the portal but they were a different team when McCullar went down. But then he took Arterio, as well...

I think Mitchell improved quite a bit from his freshman season. On offense, he increased his FT % significantly and was aggressive on the boards. That he did not develop the 12-15' shot he needed to become a threat was certainly not on the coaching staff, and he may never become much of a shooter. On defense, he was called to guard all shapes and sizes of opponents and did so well, without committing the many fouls he was charged with as a freshman. There was a lot of development there, but I think many of you are mistaking failure to become a shooter as failure to develop.

Tre. right. Brain fart.

Chris Johnson is no longer with the team. I worried this would happen when he was not played enough in the pre-conference season to get his feet wet. Chris was actually a tall PG, not a wing, and we were without the benefit of a tall PG late in the season when the two smurfs were sometimes overwhelmed by big guards. I would compare Kent with Timmy Allen for his ability to move without the ball and his moves near the basket, but he does not appear to be as sturdy. He can shoot an open trey. I agree that Larry is a PG, but we need a second distributor who can also run the ball club and I have not seen Mark come near being that, in fact, in the only two games I saw him play, he was turnover prone like Hunter. Pope, or a near facsimile of Pope, would be suitable. Garrison is a good take, I think, with this crew of shooters, and I also think a healthy Shedrick can play the stretch 4-5, if a rim protecting rebounder is in the post. If you saw several Indiana State games do you think if Texas secures Garrison as an inside banger and rim protector that Kent provides enough rebounding and interior defense to be played as a stretch 4? Mitchell, were he to return, could provide the interior defense, but he would remove credible shooting from the position.

Assuming Hunter and Mitchell do not return and Tre stays with Texas, then: the team is now one PG and one BIG away from a potentially decent eight man rotation. Gerry has pointed out that if it is the Okie Lite Big he is a back-to-the-basket guy who must be surrounded by shooters, and these three fit that description. Better, as Gerry has also pointed out, would be adding two BIGs, one of whom is a stretch 4. Question for Gerry: Can Kent suffice as a stretch 4? [I tend to think not, but a versatile long wing is still a good mix on the floor]. If Hunter returns I think he becomes a situational sub and not even the 7th man. He does not solve for the lack of a good PG, as he is a shooting guard in a small package, wildly inconsistent on offense and a poor decision maker. His defense is generally very good and he hits his foul shots. Good energy, but no Weaver. Pure sub on a balanced team. If Mitchell returns I think he may become a situational sub as well, but with more possibilities to play than will remain for Hunter. He is an excellent defender and a fine rebounder, but a limited shooter, as we all know, not a true stretch 4. If everyone else on the floor with him can make space he becomes dangerous on offense because he moves very well without the ball and can take advantage of spacing. There might be a mix and match combination among the new three, Tre, and Shedrick that would showcase Mitchell's offensive talent. Weaver will probably get starter minutes next season even if he is the anointed gem of a sixth man. He will make his own upside. If Weaver's range on his shot improves, and there is some reason to believe it will because he shot better as a freshman, he would become a star. If it does not, spacing provided by the others will still spin gold for Weaver on offense. Summary: these three additions should seal Hunter's decision to leave. The right 2 [or 3] additional in - portals will determine the ceiling for next season. I think a decent floor has been set.

Another lawyer and I watched the trial and second guessed it all the way through. We did this long distance. He was in San Jose and I was in Austin. Our first joint realization was how different criminal trial procedure was then in CA from Texas. California did not enforce a cumulative evidence rule in state criminal proceedings. This meant that the defense in CA could carry on virtually forever, with multiple experts, where in Texas each party would have been most likely limited to one expert for each technical proffer. The prosecution started well and made a solid case. But then the case spun out of control from a Texas perspective, and even my San Jose buddy thought that the trial judge was allowing a circus by California's easier standards. After closing arguments, we thought a hung jury would result, the prosecution's clear prima facie case then having become merely a distant memory. Compared to that prosecution that somewhat lost control of its own messaging we later saw a different result in the civil case, in which the very experienced lawyers for the victim's family rode herd on the trial and won easily, and with no doubts whatsoever. This is just a random historical comment from an old retired lawyer who thought the trial came to a predictable outcome because of how it was tried and not because OJ wasn't actually guilty, and not even because the jury was "unfair." I don't know what CA criminal trial procedure is like today, but at that time what would have taken five days of testimony in Austin would have required five weeks in L.A. -- really.