I miss Lickliter

[PhantomFlyer]

Looking at the last four full seasons isn't cherry picking stats. And again what's your standard for a "good" defense? Top 18? Top 10?

LOL. Of course, it's cherry picking. What the hell do you think cherry picking means? You've ignored the most important season, this season. Then you only go back 4 seasons. Why not 5 seasons? Because that was the worst statistical season under Fran's tenure. Do you really want to sell that as a coincidence and not intentional? Come on, dude, I'm no fool. We are talking about Fran's ability to coach defense, you look at ALL the seasons, not just the ones that make your case. Tell you what, let's throw out the highest and the lowest (will call them the statistical outliers), and their defense has avg around 40. Meh. That's not good or at least not good enough if you desire to compete for B1G titles. Again, is your goal to win the MAC or win the B1G?

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I can think of one good reason to look past Frans first couple years.

I can't think of a good one, especially after the first season. If you were talking offensively, I might by the argument, not defense. Unfortunately, sports reference doesn't giving defensive ratings for the years Lick was coach.

 

[33hawkfan]

LOL. Of course, it's cherry picking. What the hell do you think cherry picking means? You've ignored the most important season, this season. Then you only go back 4 seasons. Why not 5 seasons? Because that was the worst statistical season under Fran's tenure. Do you really want to sell that as a coincidence and not intentional? Come on, dude, I'm no fool. We are talking about Fran's ability to coach defense, you look at ALL the seasons, not just the ones that make your case. Tell you what, let's throw out the highest and the lowest (will call them the statistical outliers), and their defense has avg around 40. Meh. That's not good or at least not good enough if you desire to compete for B1G titles. Again, is your goal to win the MAC or win the B1G?

Lol I see you still can't answer my question.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

Lol I see you still can't answer my question.

LOL. You couldn't answer mine. So, why'd you skip this year and Fran's 2nd year. Nice cherry picking.

To answer yours I'd say top 10-20 avg. He's done it one year and even that year Iowa ranked FIFTH in the conference that year for defensive efficiency. Of course, you only want to look at the 3 hit games and ignore the hitless games, because you are head cherry picker. Admit it, you are aiming for the MAC title, not to win the B1G. You probably think the Chicago Bears have a good offense. Nobody is "meh" or bad in your world.

 

[33hawkfan]

LOL. You couldn't answer mine. So, why'd you skip this year and Fran's 2nd year. Nice cherry picking.

To answer yours I'd say top 10-20 avg. He's done it one year and even that year Iowa ranked FIFTH in the conference that year for defensive efficiency. Of course, you only want to look at the 3 hit games and ignore the hitless games, because you are head cherry picker. Admit it, you are aiming for the MAC title, not to win the B1G. You probably think the Chicago Bears have a good offense. Nobody is "meh" or bad in your world.

I've already explained that, go reread my previous posts. A six game sample size isn't large enough to compare to full seasons and I don't need more than four years to prove my point. Hell I could have just used last year and it would have proven you wrong.

And there are plenty of bad and men teams in my world. I would say a 100 or higher ranking is bad, 50-100 meh, top 50 good and top 15 or so elite. Seems much more reasonable than saying only 20 out of 351 teams play good defense.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

I've already explained that, go reread my previous posts. A six game sample size isn't large enough to compare to full seasons and I don't need more than four years to prove my point. Hell I could have just used last year and it would have proven you wrong.

And there are plenty of bad and men teams in my world. I would say a 100 or higher ranking is bad, 50-100 meh, top 50 good and top 15 or so elite. Seems much more reasonable than saying only 20 out of 351 teams play good defense.

Care to wager Iowa doesn't fall within the top 25 or even 35 in defensive efficiency this year? LOL. Yes, in this case, a 6 game sample size is plenty big enough to see this defense is bad. Think about what you are typing. You think a Power conference team has to be over 100 to be considered a bad defense, yet as of today Iowa ranks 80th, and I bet there's not a fan on this board (outside of possibly yourself) who wouldn't consider Iowa's defense terrible (this doesn't mean it won't get better; to like possibly just bad). Your points are silly. How many at large teams make the NCAA tournament (hint: it's not 50)?. If you don't have a defensive efficiency within that number then it is most certainly "meh", it's not good.

You are still in full spin mode. Come on, just be honest and come clean. You chose 4 because if you went back 5 it deep sixed your argument. Nice picking cherries. Spare me the 351 teams. Most of those are small schools, small conferences. We are talking about power conferences. You keep proving my point that you want Iowa to be a MAC team.

On the best day Fran would get a C for his overall defensive ranking during his tenure at Iowa. You are just being a homer, which you clearly are doing, by trying to say Fran is near elite (based on your criteria and the years you looked at). There's not a basketball analyst in America that would claim Fran's teams have bordered on "elite" defensively. Good grief, put down the Kool-Aid or whatever adult beverage you are drinking in excess tonight.

 

[33hawkfan]

I don't miss Lickliter for a second, but I'd shed not a single tear if Fran left tomorrow. Iowa isn't going to ever win anything with him as head coach. The guy still has yet to be able to land a good PG. Hell, I'd take it if Fran could just sign any guard who could beat his man off the dribble. Iowa's guards are slow, slow, slow. Plus, it's so frustrating watching a Fran coached team play defense. Wait, I'm sorry, I do a disservice to teams that actually play defense to call what Iowa does as defense. It's more like stand around and give up wide open shots when they don't have the ball.

See this is what you first said, not that you're frusted that Iowa has never had a elite defense under Fran but that they don't play defense at all. Myself and other posters quickly proved you wrong and showed three examples within just the last four years that Iowa has been significantly above average.

Now instead of just admitting that you are wrong, you're digging in on irrelevant sample size arguments in a failed effort to save face. I know your type, quick to post the hot take that isn't backed up by any kind of facts, quick to double down when they're wrong. Usually guys like that are not very productive in life and are frustrated by where they are at in life. I'm sure both those statements apply to you as well. I prefer to discuss this with rational people rather than those who constantly are moving the goal posts to fit their argument so I'm done with you.

And for the record, Iowa is currently ranked 116th in defensive efficiency, putting it squarely in the bad category.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

See this is what you first said, not that you're frusted that Iowa has never had a elite defense under Fran but that they don't play defense at all. Myself and other posters quickly proved you wrong and showed three examples within just the last four years that Iowa has been significantly above average.

Now instead of just admitting that you are wrong, you're digging in on irrelevant sample size arguments in a failed effort to save face. I know your type, quick to post the hot take that isn't backed up by any kind of facts, quick to double down when they're wrong. Usually guys like that are not very productive in life and are frustrated by where they are at in life. I'm sure both those statements apply to you as well. I prefer to discuss this with rational people rather than those who constantly are moving the goal posts to fit their argument so I'm done with you.

And for the record, Iowa is currently ranked 116th in defensive efficiency, putting it squarely in the bad category.

Oh, for heavens sake. It's clear in that quote I'm talking about THIS year. Nowhere in that quote do I use the word "never" (oh, and I don't consider 19th elite). You are a dishonest hack. You are the typical poster who breaks your knees with the all to common knee jerk reactions. How about looking at my comments prior to that post (including the first one)? I talk about Iowa's defense being atrocious THIS year. You are the typical fool who just wants to get upset over any comment that doesn't jive with your fairytale world of Hawkeye basketball. You spout off and then faced with facts, statistics that contradict your make believe world, you cherry pick stats, and then you lash out and throw little tantrums. Sad. I prefer to discuss issues with honest brokers, not hacks.

And for the record, Iowa was 80th+ before the last game in defensive efficiency and they were bad.