DoctorB Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Been out of the loop, overseas and pretty much off the grid since Christmas. Stunned to see that the team that looked so miserable against such heavyweights as UT Martin and so on could leap up and bite GW on the A$$. what a year... for those in attendance, I'm curious (and unwilling to read through about a hundred pages of comments): were we really that good? or is GW overinflated and just plain no so great?? or some combination thereof?? looking forward to seeing the VCU game with new wind, HNY to all .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Been out of the loop, overseas and pretty much off the grid since Christmas. Stunned to see that the team that looked so miserable against such heavyweights as UT Martin and so on could leap up and bite GW on the A$$. what a year... for those in attendance, I'm curious (and unwilling to read through about a hundred pages of comments): were we really that good? or is GW overinflated and just plain no so great?? or some combination thereof?? looking forward to seeing the VCU game with new wind, HNY to all .... Doc. We ended the first half down by 4 points: 30 to 26. The second half we came out sluggish and the lead increased to 8 points and then (I believe) got up to 13 points. Not that there was any one big dramatic event but we just continued to make the same mistakes we have made this year and last. First, we had 3 or 4 guys play decent (not great) defense only to have 1 or 2 guys play no defense at all and thereby giving up an easy basket/layup. Second, our team defensive scheme just seems to dare opposing teams to shoot open 3 pointers and our response if they make the shot seems like we are surprised as we tip our cap to them. Third, we seem to have large stretches whereby we convert on 1 of 3 possessions while making a turnover and a missed shot during the other 2 possession while our competition converts on every other possession and the other team's lead just seems to increase. IMO, GW became nervous and stopped converting -- and in particular -- stopped making their FTs. We made some shots and went on a few nice runs to reduce the lead to 5 or 6 points only to watch the same disappear with bad defensive play, with ill advised shot selections and with turnovers. When we needed a key stop, our bigs did exactly as they were coached -- stand with both arms up trying not to foul but don't dare jump or try to block the shot. Then, in the last 2 minutes of play when it appeared like we would not be able to make a stop and/or run out of time, Reggie shifted off his man to actually provide "help defense" and decided to jump (not just stand with his arms up) and block the GW guy's shot !! Wow!! One of our bigs actually contest a shot and not just make it tougher? Also, in the last minute of play, our guards actually forced a steal taking the ball away from the GW guy -- not just follow the GW guy around to make things tougher for him. We are watching a failure to coach -- not bad talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenbill Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 GW had 18 turnovers to our 10 and shot poorly from the FT line, 12-22, while entering the game as the 9th best FT shooting team in the country. We defended out on the perimeter more than usual which seemed to disrupt the flow of their offense. One other interesting stat was that we outrebounded them in the 2nd half, 18-16, after getting smoked on the boards, 22-8 in the first. Knock down some late threes, they don't, and we steal it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 GW was a five-man team with absolutely little bench support. The FT woes by the 9th best team at it in the country cannot be overemphasized. Cavanaugh and Garino had somewhat off nights in shooting. And Watanabe was non-existent. One fact seemingly overlooked was our decision to play four guards ---- Yacoubou, Roby, Crawford and Reynolds. All four have one thing in common, they all exhibit a certain scrappiness and have quick enough hands to create turnovers on quick swipes passing the ball when on the defensive. Lonergan seemed intent on walking the ball up the court, and running clock down to nearly the end before shooting. I don't know if he did this because of such a short bench or if he felt he could defend th e lead while milking the clock. This was by no means a run-n-gun game. I kept waiting for us to do that one thing that negated another good comeback like miss a three or brick some free throws. That joy fell on GW that night and not us. We did enough to win; GW did enough to lose. The roles are usually reversed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 One fact seemingly overlooked was our decision to play four guards ---- Yacoubou, Roby, Crawford and Reynolds. All four have one thing in common, they all exhibit a certain scrappiness and have quick enough hands to create turnovers on quick swipes passing the ball when on the defensive. I find this quote of "play four guards" an interesting side note. Not that it matters, but how many consider Crawford a SG versus a SF? The difference is well, none, but even though Crawford is listed as a Guard (is that because he is 6'4"?), I see him as a SF. He very seldom brings the ball up court, except on a steal or helping break a press. Hence I label him as a SF rather than a SG. I agree it sounds more radical to say we played four guards than we played three guards and two forwards. I like Mike. Just keep him on the floor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I don't really care how you choose to label them ---- four guards or four smaller guys --- but the intensity they brought just by being able to move and do other things played a key role. Jolly, Gillmann, Yarbrough and Neufeld don't bring that and might actually hinder the effort through no fault of their own (they need time to develop). Again, why play bigs, we don't rebound anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 While our bigs might not rebound they do take up space which makes rebounding by smaller guards like Ash easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 While our bigs might not rebound they do take up space which makes rebounding by smaller guards like Ash easier. Yes. Few pay attention to a 'big' blocking out his mark to allow for other players to get the board. There is no stat line for effective blockouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 I don't really care how you choose to label them ---- four guards or four smaller guys --- but the intensity they brought just by being able to move and do other things played a key role. Jolly, Gillmann, Yarbrough and Neufeld don't bring that and might actually hinder the effort through no fault of their own (they need time to develop). Again, why play bigs, we don't rebound anyway? Yarbrough is our leading rebounder, but he had a horrible game Wednesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Lonergan seemed intent on walking the ball up the court, and running clock down to nearly the end before shooting. I don't know if he did this because of such a short bench or if he felt he could defend th e lead while milking the clock. This was by no means a run-n-gun game. He started this with over 10 minutes left in the game and kept doing it. Seemed like kind of a jumpy, insecure move for a superior team with a big lead and a chance to put the game away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.