1) This is first year without his players. It's not just about results at this point. It's only seven games.
Well, ok, but we can't say it has been good either if its only been 7 games. If I can't say its bad for that reason, then it would stand to reason that people of the opposite opinion can't say its better than the past 6 years worth of results either.
2) Yes, Pearl's teams forced more turnovers, but also gave up more easy baskets than Martin's teams. It's not just about turnovers.
Agree, but we cannot only turnover our opponent 10 times a game, allow them to shoot in the mid 40's, and give up 18 offensive rebounds, and expect to beat the type of teams we will play. We have to improve in some phase defensively.
3) We've had one bad defensive game against Oakland. I think we have been an above average defensive team.
Agree to disagree. IMO, our defensive has been pedestrian at best and will cost the majority of our losses. Of our four losses, which games would you say our offense has been the culprit? Answer...Duke. Pitt, bad interior defense, bad perimeter defense, bad defensive rebounding, and we only turned them over six times. Memphis, they scored 99 points. How can you possibly call that acceptable defense? Look at TOs and FG% from that game as well. We beat them on the boards, specifically on the offensive end to stay in that game. Oakland, you already conceded as a bad defensive performance.
4) Again, seven games. Three against top 25 teams. Four against last year NCAA Tourney teams.
See comments from point 1.
Now, back to Stokes.