Sanity Check for Our Fans Who Forgot What Winning Feels like

Blue Man · Unread post by **Blue Man** » 9 years ago

Just to check the barometer on people, I think this fan base has forgot what it's like to win. So here's a question:

Would you rather your team shoot 100% from the FT line and lose...

Or shoot 40% from the line and win?

The answer should be B every. single. time. - but it feels like no one will be truly satisfied on this board unless we play "perfect."

Yes last night was ugly . We didn't deserve to win. Our best players played awful. We couldnt shoot from anywhere. But we found a way. If we had lost, obviously this would be a different tone - but if I had wheels, I'd be a wagon. We won. Be happy.

Of course there's plenty of shit to work on - but this idea of a "perfect game" that everyone has in their heads doesn't actually exist. I'm not sure what people expected going into this season, but there just isn't going to be a game where we shoot 40% from 3, 50% from the field, 80% from the line, out-rebound and out-everything the other team, while not turning the ball over.

We're a young team. A talented team, but young. It feels like a lot of posters expect Kentucky-senior (if they ever get there) type talent and leadership, from a traditional bottom half of the A10 team that has just been resurrected from the bowels of hell this year. College basketball, by nature, is an ugly game.

John Wooden isn't walking through that door - it's less on technique and more on skill and athleticism today. Inherently, what people are hoping for, that flawless type game, isn't going to happen...especially from us.

I didn't see any posters predict 29-0. I didn't see anyone put an asterisk next to their prediction and denote the quality of how we won a game. Right now we are going into February without a blemish on our schedule. Yes we missed some opportunities against good and great teams, but we're yet to lose to a team we can't lose to. No losses outside of the top 100 with 10 games to go. I don't remember a time that happened.

Our team is run by sophomores and freshman. Our coach is in his 5th year of college basketball. You're all on meth if you are expecting "perfect" basketball from this program or this team...or really any program or team. This "perfect game" does not exist, nor does it show up on any NCAA selection sheets.

My advise is that everyone woo-sah, take a look at the standings, feel great about where we are, and strap your nuts on for Saturday because we're back in the top of the conference, and that should be perfect enough for everyone.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 9 years ago

Co-sign. We are an emotionally scarred fan base but it's time to stop nit-picking and start enjoying the ride a little bit.

sf2010 · Unread post by **sf2010** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

I've seen it all in my 103 years of following this program.
You can feel the momentum building, as better players come
in and grow.
This is fun. So we win ugly. It's only for now.
Yes, the shooting and free throws are frustrating.
We have two nice offensive pieces coming in next year,
plus recruiting is far from over.
If we can play this kind of intense defense and add some firepower,
the future is right around the corner.
I'm very happy with the progress Dan and staff has made,
not always under the best conditions.
Onward and upward!

RhowdyRam02 · Unread post by **RhowdyRam02** » 9 years ago

Blue Man wrote:Just to check the barometer on people, I think this fan base has forgot what it's like to win. So here's a question:

Would you rather your team shoot 100% from the FT line and lose...

Or shoot 40% from the line and win?

The answer should be B every. single. time. - but it feels like no one will be truly satisfied on this board unless we play "perfect."

Yes last night was ugly . We didn't deserve to win. Our best players played awful. We couldnt shoot from anywhere. But we found a way. If we had lost, obviously this would be a different tone - but if I had wheels, I'd be a wagon. We won. Be happy.

Of course there's plenty of shit to work on - but this idea of a "perfect game" that everyone has in their heads doesn't actually exist. I'm not sure what people expected going into this season, but there just isn't going to be a game where we shoot 40% from 3, 50% from the field, 80% from the line, out-rebound and out-everything the other team, while not turning the ball over.

We're a young team. A talented team, but young. It feels like a lot of posters expect Kentucky-senior (if they ever get there) type talent and leadership, from a traditional bottom half of the A10 team that has just been resurrected from the bowels of hell this year. College basketball, by nature, is an ugly game.

John Wooden isn't walking through that door - it's less on technique and more on skill and athleticism today. Inherently, what people are hoping for, that flawless type game, isn't going to happen...especially from us.

I didn't see any posters predict 29-0. I didn't see anyone put an asterisk next to their prediction and denote the quality of how we won a game. Right now we are going into February without a blemish on our schedule. Yes we missed some opportunities against good and great teams, but we're yet to lose to a team we can't lose to. No losses outside of the top 100 with 10 games to go. I don't remember a time that happened.

Our team is run by sophomores and freshman. Our coach is in his 5th year of college basketball. You're all on meth if you are expecting "perfect" basketball from this program or this team...or really any program or team. This "perfect game" does not exist, nor does it show up on any NCAA selection sheets.

My advise is that everyone woo-sah, take a look at the standings, feel great about where we are, and strap your nuts on for Saturday because we're back in the top of the conference, and that should be perfect enough for everyone.

adam914 · Unread post by **adam914** » 9 years ago

So true Blue Man, it hasn't been pretty, but sometimes seems like alot of people just want to focus on the negative. Not that there is anything wrong with pointing out weaknesses at times, but I generally get the sense that some want to continue to point out bad things in wins so if the team eventually falls apart (the scarred nature of our fan base has come to expect this) that they can say they knew it all along and saw it coming. Not necessarily in an "I told you so" kind of way, but almost as some kind of defense mechanism.

ramster · Unread post by **ramster** » 9 years ago

Good Job Blueman,

I agree on the Free Throw concerns, hundreds of posts about our FT shooting, but there is a lot more to the game - most importantly did you win or lose.

Perfect example straight from A10 Statistics:
URI is ranked 12th out of 14 teams in FT Shooting at 60.4%
Guess who is ranked 11th? VCU at 61.5%

I know I did not predict 29-0 but I did predict 23-6 and still believe that is possible.
-URI is now 14-5. Only need to go 9-1 over the next 10 games. Possible? Absolutely!!!
- 5 of the remaining 10 games are at the friendly Ryam Center - Big one is this Saturday.
- The other 4 Home Games are all very, very winable including Davidson
- I'll go with TP's belief that Davidson is not as good as people think
- LaSalle, St Joe's and GMU are all very winable on the Road.
- Tough Road Games are Dayton and Richmond - just take one of these and 9-1 is not so difficult to dream.

Jan 31 vs GW 4:00 PM ET
Feb 8 @ RICH 2:30 PM ET
Feb 11@ ST JOES 7:00 PM ET
Feb 14 vs SLU 2:00 PM ET
Feb 18 vs UMASS 7:00 PM ET
Feb 21 @ GMU 4:00 PM ET
Feb 25 vs DAV 7:00 PM ET
Feb 28 @ LAS 12:30 PM ET
Mar 3 @ DAY 7:00 PM ET
Mar 7 vs ST JOES 2:00 PM ET

GO RHODY!!

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 9 years ago

I've personally been eyeing that 14-5 record and the rest of the games we have left.

Lots of potential for us to land high in the standings. THEN BROOKLYN. I might go.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 9 years ago

NO SLEEP TILL BROOKLYN

SmartyBarrett · Unread post by **SmartyBarrett** » 9 years ago

sf2010 wrote:

HOOCHIE MAMA!!!!

The Dude · Unread post by **The Dude** » 9 years ago

Rhody is winning? OMG!

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Great post Blue. There are few guarantees in life, death, taxes and that the next 10 games + 2 years of Rhody hoops are going to be a great ride. All the pieces are there, its set up perfectly. 4 young stars plus a Top 30 kid who is hopefully humbled and plays with a chip on his shoulder. Now all we have to do is show up and make a lot of noise. There is finally a reason to be excited again!

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

Not all the pieces are there. I don't know about anyone else,
but I don't want to go into next season with only Watson and
Martin as viable front court players, unless Iffy miraculously improves.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 9 years ago

You aren't kidding, Rod. Way too thin in the frontcourt. Need at least another big, if not a 5 then a big 4.

Tom98 · Unread post by **Tom98** » 9 years ago

I recovered from last night...I'll take the w and am very excited for this weekend and beyond!

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:Not all the pieces are there. I don't know about anyone else,
but I don't want to go into next season with only Watson and
Martin as viable front court players, unless Iffy miraculously improves.

In the same vein to blueman's point about never playing a perfect game, we likely won't ever have a perfect roster, either. But clearly the pieces are lining up in a way that is already allowing us to compete and is going to give us the chance to be really good. If we can find the exact right piece (a ready-to-play JUCO or grad transfer big) that is great, but we are going to have a lot of talent and I'd be OK rolling with what we have on board next year if we have to.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

If you want to play with the big boys, you need size inside.
Watch the games, and every top team has power forwards and centers,
and backups to those.
Yes we have nice talent in what we have and what we have coming in.
Finish the puzzle.

rambone 78 · Unread post by **rambone 78** » 9 years ago

TP, we will be good even without that big man recruit, but good enough to go where we want to go?

We might be good enough to make the tourney, but I want us to be good enough to WIN games in the tourney.

I'm talking Sweet 16 or beyond. Without that one missing piece, I don't think that happens.

Rod, you beat me to it.

P.S. Without that frontcourt help, we all see what happens when Hassan gets in foul trouble. Changes the game completely. Got to have more than Watson to back him up.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

The TOP SEVEN teams in the rankings all have either a 7' or 611, or 6'10" center.
Coincidence? Every one of them has a power forward at least 6'8".
If you want to win and be the national program Hurley talked about today,
you need more than Martin and Watson up front, with Iffy backing them.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:The TOP SEVEN teams in the rankings all have either a 7' or 611, or 6'10" center.
Coincidence? Every one of them has a power forward at least 6'8".

But I think most on here would settle for simply being a Top 25 team first, and then worrying about acquiring an even better roster to push into the Top 10.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

THINK BIG! I DO!

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Dan wants to compete at the highest level. I have every confidence that he will put the pieces in place to do so, thus far he is doing exactly what he said he would do. He has assembled a young cast of talent we have not seen in over 15 years. i have no reason to believe he will let up on the pedal, that doesnt seem like his way.

Running Ram · Unread post by **Running Ram** » 9 years ago

Don't want a perfect complement of players, but a guy like Ndoye would look good in Keaney Blue, I realize they don't grow on trees but if the Bonnies could get him we should be able to find and get in on a more than serviceable center, this comment doesn't indicate that I am dissatisfied with the program, frankly I don't care if we ever get a player over 6'7" if we win without, it's just that as others have pointed out, it is hard to compete with the Dukies of the world without talented height. As far as winning ugly this year, I don't care about that either, as long as we win, not to mention I'm not that convinced its been that ugly (aside from the general FT collapses) I've been impressed with our progress more often than not. There have been a trove of excellent plays that would look great on a 14/15' highlight reel and far fewer break downs.

Unread post by **SGreenwell** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:THINK BIG! I DO!

Sure! To be clear, I don't disagree with this. However, I think it's easier to do something like this:

2015: NIT team
2016: NCAA team / fringe of Top 25
2017: Top 25 whole year
2018: Top 10 whole year

... As opposed to trying to cut out some of those middle steps.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:The TOP SEVEN teams in the rankings all have either a 7' or 611, or 6'10" center.
Coincidence? Every one of them has a power forward at least 6'8".
If you want to win and be the national program Hurley talked about today,
you need more than Martin and Watson up front, with Iffy backing them.

I don't disagree with that, and I'm not saying we would or should turn down an impact seven footer in the spring. I'm just saying, it is possible that we won't be able to add one. So what then? Just be angry and not enjoy a season where we should have a very good chance to be an at-large team and be a top-25 type of team? Be mad because we won't jump from complete shit to the NIT to the Final Four in a four year span?

Yes, if we want to be a legitimate elite team (which we all do) we will need more size to legitimately compete against other elite teams. We agree on that. That is the goal. But I think to be dissatisfied with what has already been assembled is to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Running Ram wrote:Don't want a perfect complement of players, but a guy like Ndoye would look good in Keaney Blue, I realize they don't grow on trees but if the Bonnies could get him we should be able to find and get in on a more than serviceable center, this comment doesn't indicate that I am dissatisfied with the program, frankly I don't care if we ever get a player over 6'7" if we win without, it's just that as others have pointed out, it is hard to compete with the Dukies of the world without talented height. As far as winning ugly this year, I don't care about that either, as long as we win, not to mention I'm not that convinced its been that ugly (aside from the general FT collapses) I've been impressed with our progress more often than not. There have been a trove of excellent plays that would look great on a 14/15' highlight reel and far fewer break downs.

so we want a 7'1 guy who got dominated by our 6'7 guy?

Running Ram · Unread post by **Running Ram** » 9 years ago

haha BAR, okay our 6'7" guy is elite and he also just had a poor game, which happens. No. I want a 6'10"-7'1" guy that is slightly more than just serviceable, which I (and I'm sure you) would definitely consider Ndoye being.

And of course please just continue to highlight the one comment I made that doesn't shower the program with joy and love, which addresses the need for another piece of the puzzle that simply cannot be denied, even though I've stated ad nauseam how happy I am with the ascent of the program.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

RR, I guess pointing out the obvious means
we hate the program.
Nobody said it had to be a 7 footer. I'd settle for a 6'9"
guy who could walk and chew gum at the same time.
It's a need. Just ask Dan.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Running Ram wrote:haha BAR, okay our 6'7" guy is elite and he also just had a poor game, which happens. No. I want a 6'10"-7'1" guy that is slightly more than just serviceable, which I (and I'm sure you) would definitely consider Ndoye being.

And of course please just continue to highlight the one comment I made that doesn't shower the program with joy and love, which addresses the need for another piece of the puzzle that simply cannot be denied, even though I've stated ad nauseam how happy I am with the ascent of the program.

C'mon RR, since when can you not take a joke? I was just messing. Ndoye is a big boy for sure we could use.
But one thing about a big, he is going to have to be mobile and play defense. If folks notice, and as a few announcers of our games have pointed out, we BLITZ ball screens. Meaning our bigs hedge hard against the screen, and a less mobile big will have a hard time with that. Gil has made huge strides in how he plays ball screens, last year he picked up countless fouls reaching in or being out of position on screens. This year Gil has played great perimeter defense.

Seawrightspostgame · Unread post by **Seawrightspostgame** » 9 years ago

Ndoye is just the latest guy we saw on a perceived lesser program that we all think "hey why can't we get height?"

I think we would all settle for a 6'9+ guy that can move. Really only looking for him to defend and rebound. So we aren't exposed right?

Rhodymob05 · Unread post by **Rhodymob05** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:If you want to play with the big boys, you need size inside.
Watch the games, and every top team has power forwards and centers,
and backups to those.
Yes we have nice talent in what we have and what we have coming in.
Finish the puzzle.

this is 100% true. Why did we lose to PC? Height. Its completely obvious.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

Wrong...we lost to PC b/c Kris Dunn picked us apart and we were inconsistent attacking their zone and had too many TOs. Had zero to do with height. Dunn was their high rebounder with 9 on the night.

Rhodymob05 · Unread post by **Rhodymob05** » 9 years ago

bigappleram wrote:Wrong...we lost to PC b/c Kris Dunn picked us apart and we were inconsistent attacking their zone and had too many TOs. Had zero to do with height. Dunn was their high rebounder with 9 on the night.

Im sorry I disagree, their starting center always has a good game vs us and doesn't allow many inside shots, Hass and Gil had plenty of trouble down low and then their 7 foot center FRESHMAN came in and we literally couldn't touch him. They lobbed alley oops like it was a 8 foot rim.

Running Ram · Unread post by **Running Ram** » 9 years ago

BAR I wasn't upset and took your comment to be slightly tongue in cheek, as I implied, I know you would take Ndoye in a heartbeat because I know you are not stupid and of course that doesn't mean he would be a great defender in this system but we're both sure he'd be a factor for a team with our current constitution, so knowing these things I'd have to take your comment to be light hearted, hope I wasn't too sneering in my response.

I'm feeling edgy about something I guess. Fans get to have opinions and state them here, some fans are less positive than others, then there are those that are just realists and often I find the realists coming under attack by those who would at first instinct strive for 'correctness' or strive to defend the program or whatever. Not putting you in one of these or any category, I've got great respect for you my Keaney Kin, but I guess I am tired of the realists getting bunched in with the pessimists and maybe took it out on you. cool cool cool

I'm in complete agreement about Gil's defensive improvements this year and about our loss to PC, Dunn did whatever he wanted to us all day, and extra did what he wanted in the second half, he killed us, I think the whole reason the height thing was a factor was because Dunn made it so.

bigappleram · Unread post by **bigappleram** » 9 years ago

I certainly am not trying to stifle opinions from realists, pessimists or haters....I dont have to agree but by no means am I trying to censor. When folks point all fingers at foul shooting and i say no its the Turnovers, its not me wanting to stifle their opinion, I just dont agree. Our lack of height is certainly an issue, but doesn't mean I have to agree with some of the proposed answers to that problem.

Rhodymob05 · Unread post by **Rhodymob05** » 9 years ago

I agree Dunn was huge for them, im not arguing at all, just stating my opinion. Man I would love to see a 6'10 250 guy in keaney blue.

seanmc94 · Unread post by **seanmc94** » 9 years ago

A rim protector would make Rhody's perimeter defense even stronger. Easy to play up on your guy if you have a shot blocker patrolling the paint.

adam914 · Unread post by **adam914** » 9 years ago

seanmc94 wrote:A rim protector would make Rhody's perimeter defense even stronger. Easy to play up on your guy if you have a shot blocker patrolling the paint.

Yeah if only we had a guy that was like 6th in the country in blocks per game...

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 9 years ago

When are we finally done with the 2 empty scholarships that are "haunting" our program? Do we have to bring a priest in to "exercise" with Dan?

ace · Unread post by **ace** » 9 years ago

ramfan85 wrote:When are we finally done with the 2 empty scholarships that are "haunting" our program? Do we have to bring a priest in to "exercise" with Dan?

I don't know what that means, but there's only 1 now.

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 9 years ago

Are priests known to be good at exercising?

adam914 · Unread post by **adam914** » 9 years ago

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 9 years ago

TruePoint wrote:Are priests known to be good at exercising?

A line from "All In The Family" when Archie was talking about bringing in an Exorcist. It was a joke. I guess I missed on it.

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

TP has no humor in his soul.
Don't worry about it '85.

theblueram · Unread post by **theblueram** » 9 years ago

My sanity left once I enrolled at URI

Unread post by **TruePoint** » 9 years ago

rodfromcranston wrote:TP has no humor in his soul.
Don't worry about it '85.

Half my posts are jokes

I just didn't get that joke because All in the Family went off the air 47 years before I was born.

ramfan85 · Unread post by **ramfan85** » 9 years ago

TruePoint wrote:
rodfromcranston wrote:TP has no humor in his soul.
Don't worry about it '85.
Half my posts are jokes

I just didn't get that joke because All in the Family went off the air 47 years before I was born.

I'll be appearing here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

Exeter ram · Unread post by **Exeter ram** » 9 years ago

I so agree about the missing link,it's length.Adding Iverson will help the overall length ,but a athletic 6ft 9in plus center is a must if you want to win a game in the tournament.Perfect example is our lose to Kansas once Hassan picked his 2nd foul in the first five minuets the game was over.Very excited about today's game. Thank you Dan

kal-65 · Unread post by **kal-65** » 9 years ago

look at the final 8 team,no really big man-------you win in the ncaa's with guard play.you neen guards who can hit the 3's which opens up the defense

rodfromcranston · Unread post by **rodfromcranston** » 9 years ago

People point to flukes like the GM Fianl Four team, but overall,
you don't win in the NCAAs without bigs.
UConn won with their guards, but they also had a 7 footer in the middle.
Anybody want to play Kentucky with a 6'7" center?
Please.