You have no definition? Can you describe some distinguishing characteristics perhaps or do you just know them when you see them? Maybe you have a natural "dawg" detector sense?

Gimme a player and I'll let you know. Have you ever played basketball? Guys who play know.

Yes I have . The game does not translate that well from level to level and also there are many intangibles. Evaluating talent and likelihood of success is not that easy. There is also maturity in their game , growth potential both in basketball and physical growth. and fit with the team to consider.

Do we need talent upgrades.. yes we do and I think the specific needs are not that hard to see. I will admit transfers that are already experienced and have film at the college level are much easier to project than high schoolers.

Buzz shot his wad and should be replaced. He is living in 1940.
Miami just showed the world how it gets done.

Absolutely agree we need one or two long armed bigs that can jump , and guys that can fill the basket up from anywhere . No argument there.

He referenced Nebo as a "dawg". Nebo was an imposing and intimidating presence. There is no doubt . He would have made a positive difference on this years team. I get that .

I guess what I'd ask Method to do to get us on board is make a list of who has played here that he considered "dawgs" . Maybe we can infer the meaning from there.

Another specific question about "dawgs". The pg from Kst, Noel. Does he fit the description? Not physically imposing, quick as a flash, always seems to know what to do and how to get it done, and not afraid to shoot from anywhere, and knows where his teammates are. Just a very intuitive player that get's it done. Is that a "dawg"?

Our players were plenty tough. The rebounding and FT attempt numbers speak to that…

Unfortunately we lacked shooting and consistent shot creation. Take a guy who hustled like Washington and Garcia down the stretch and add in the ability to shoot >33% from deep and THAT'S when you've got a serious contending squad.

I don't think Method means tough the same way that other people are interpreting it.

Yes. He's a dawg.

He has sort of, he's mentioned Sloan, Joe Jones, Jalen Jones, Nebo, Q...

All players that have an element of physicality to their games. Obviously also skilled, you can't just be running around out there being physical with no skills, but when you think of them you think "powerful" or "athletic" first more than "great touch" or "quick first step."

I think Nowell is a good example of a player that isn't a "dawg" but plays well with those kind of players. That's what I think Taylor is also. He doesn't have to have physicality to his game because the players around him do.

Like a great example is Marble. Marble is highly skilled, but he needs some more physicality. For a guy of his size and athleticism he shoots too many fadeaways and hook shots from bad angles. He's easily taken out of the game at times by more physical bigs.

dammit, just when I thought I had it. I guess he has more physicality to his game than Taylor, but I think he's a high skill guy.

I prefer my dawgs with an extra G. We don't need dawgs, we need DAWGGS!

This is a very interesting conversation to me, I don't contribute much at all to this board but I do read it. I agree that Kstate's point guard was a dawg for sure. To me, it's mostly attitude, but the true game changer types have the physical talent to do what their heart/grit is driving them to do. A dawg is absolutely fiesty and tenacious but can also impose his will in situations or carry/drag his team when needed. Isaiah Thomas (the recent one) was like that. I saw an alternate angle to that alley oops play and Nowell literally mouthed "watch this" to Isaiah Thomas right before the Tang "argument" and alley oop.

I think of Pop's "I want some nasty" quote during that time out. A dawg is someone who can bring the nasty any time they want but they're also above average physically.

So at the end of the day "dawgs" are really just very talented players that know how to play, never quit, know how to raise their own and their teammates play to the next level, and ain't skeered.

If that's it then I agree , we need more "dawgs". Can't have too many.

But see, I think Taylor does have this. There were definitely games this year when he went into "**** it, get on my back" mode and just took over.

I think Taylor's a dawg and if he's not officially a dawg he's the dawggiest we have and I'm good with it either way.

I think Taylor is mostly a dawg, but he's working towards it. His performances in Bama and PSU gams were alarmingly bad and due to his style of play he couldn't score at all really.

They don't have to be very skilled tbh. Sometimes it's a guy like Sloan who can only dribble right but won't be stopped when he's determined.

Method Man said:

---

I think Taylor is mostly a dawg, but he's working towards it. His performances in Bama and PSU gams were alarmingly bad and due to his style of play he couldn't score at all really.

---

He's a DIT (dawg in training).

Yeah his shot wasn't falling, but it normally does at a decent clip. He was our best three point shooter (of people that shot at least 20 times) despite shooting 80 more threes than the next highest on the team.

We need more reliable shooters around him. He can still create when he goes cold, but not when everyone else can't shoot for **** either.

I think we could increase the dawg-ness of all three players by at least 20% if him and Solo and Marble spend some time this offseason working on their pick-and-roll lob game. Solo is so athletic we should be able to throw lobs to him almost as a safety valve in the offense on possessions late in the shot clock.

But having some lob options when he's driving to the basket would either lead to a lot of easy baskets and assists for Taylor or more space for him to score himself.

Okay Method, you've got summer homework.

Let's call this system the Determination, Aggression, Will and Grit rating, or, of course, DAWG system.

Where is each player on the roster currently at, and what is their potential? Can players add to their DAWG potential somehow?

We got some dawgs coming in?

Method Man said:

---

We got some dawgs coming in?

---

I thought you volunteered to tell us!

It was rhetorical!

Usage of the word 'Dawg' in the United States pic.twitter.com/RLiaNyivCA

— Terrible Maps (@TerribleMaps) August 9, 2024

Method Man said:

---

You can make a run with really skilled players or you can make a run with dawgs. We lack both. I think Buzz maximized what we have overall. He just hasn't recruited enough very skilled players or very tough players. Like Martellus said "we need more guys who eat with their hands".

---

This is what I meant.

Does being heavy into analytics get you guys who shoot 40% for the season but don't shoot well in big moments or do the analytics go deeper than that?

Sometimes the ball just doesn't go in. That's basketball.

Method Man said:

---

Does being heavy into analytics get you guys who shoot 40% for the season but don't shoot well in big moments or do the analytics go deeper than that?

---

Basketball is streaky, but playing weaker teams builds up evidence that doesn't hold against better teams…

TheDecadeSapling said:

---

Sometimes the ball just doesn't go in. That's basketball.

---

Of course. And sometimes the ball goes in a lot more against bad teams and a lot less against good teams. I'm just asking if the analytics go that deep.

mikesyracuse1 said:

---

Looking through thus thread and Not on topic, but where is Pumpkinhead. He is a long time regular on this board, and I haven't seen him on here in a long time

Mikesyracuse1

---

I haven't seen him here either. Good poster.