|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 18, 2017 11:27:16 GMT -5
I thought for large stretches of this game, we played really, really well. I didn't read through all the comments (just logging on now for the first time since the game).
In terms of the specific game, obviously our handling of their pressure was a big factor. I think, more than anything, we fell victim to a common problem against pressure -- we got tentative. Early on, we broke it easily and got some hoops. Inevitably, we had some turnovers also. That's going to happen. But what can't happen is that you let those turnovers get into your head, such that when you break the pressure, and you end up with potential 3-2s or even 3-1s, you hold the ball and set up in the half-court. We did that a ton with less than five to play.
I liked the attempt at a 2-3 given Cuse's problems from outside, but I guess I would have preferred that we had spent some more time on it in some of our warmup games if we knew we were going to use it here. It's hard for a zone to key on one or two hot perimeter guys because they can be moved around to different spots. Cuse can do it well, of course, because they practice the heck out of it. Still, the reality is that a lot of those shots were well contested and just went in. It happens. Could we have moved quicker to a man? Yes, I guess so. But I didn't think that was the difference.
Our zone offense was horrific at the start but then improved greatly. We had a number of different approaches against it, with most involving motion of some sort. We tried to pick the top of it, but often we actually set the pick in the wrong direction, which was kind of odd (maybe it was intentional, but if so, it wasn't working). Anyway, I thought we did very nicely overall.
The true bottom line? When you shoot what we shot from three-point land, you're almost never going to beat a zone-based team, particularly one as well-schooled at it as Cuse. If we shoot merely abysmally from three, as opposed to unbelievably horrifically, we win the game going away. That may be an issue throughout the year, we'll see.
|
|
hoyasaxa2003
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,815
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 18, 2017 11:33:53 GMT -5
A lot has been discussed about why we lost, and rebounding. While I think one could credibly argue that offensive rebounding or turnovers cost us the game in regulation, in overtime it was poor defense and bad shooting. We only had 1 turnover in OT and it was when we were already losing by 7, and we actually had 4 offensive rebounds to their 1.
However, in overtime, we shot 4-12 from the field. Of the 8 misses, 6 were threes. I would have to go back to the video, but I seem to recall a lot of these threes were quick shots that were well guarded. I do think our guys got a little quick on the draw, especially once Syracuse got out to the lead fairly quickly. While I think you could place some blame on poor defense, you aren't going to win overtime games in most circumstances when you go 4-12.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Dec 18, 2017 11:35:25 GMT -5
Yeah I Know the team was out rebounded by 10 in the 2nd half and overtime but I still contend it wasn't as big of a deal as the numbers would lead you to believe. I'm going to play your numbers game with you hoyasaxa2003 to show you why the rebounding disparity in the 2nd half not only wasn't the reason but had very little impact on the Hoyas lost on Saturday. After Mosely made a pair of free throws to give the squad it's biggest lead of the game of 53-40 with 10:58 remaining, from that point on and through overtime the Hoyas were only out rebounded 16-12. The Hoyas were out rebounded by Cuse 10-4 in the opening 9 minutes of the 2nd half while increasing their lead +9 to a game high 13 points. This is another reason why you can't say numbers dictate outcomes of games. Did Syracuse get some timely rebounds that hurt, absolutely but I don't think a 4 rebound difference with a 13 point lead cost the Hoyas the game. Do you? The game was lost on the anomaly of them having a significantly good night (especially for them) from behind the arc while the Hoyas had a significantly poor game from 3 point range. That alongside some poor execution in handling the press and shot selection was what lead to blowing a 13 point lead. The lead could have been 16 or 18 instead of 13 if Gtown had done a better job on the boards during this stretch, if the lead got to 16 instead of 13, Gtown wins in regulation.. As Syracuse made their run, they started making shots which means less OB's for them to get plus Gtown was turning the ball over so that's less DB's to be had also so it doesn't surprise me that Gtown was close to them board wise towards the end of the game.. The rebound factor was very big in this game imo.. Come on Etomic! If you have a 13 point lead, being out rebounded by 4 over a 15 minute stretch isn't the reason the team was outscored by 20 overall and lost. Shot selection, turnovers, defense and bad luck with Derrickson's 2 bad foul calls is what hurt the team way more than rebounds. While Syracuse was do most of it's damage on the glass the Hoyas were building it's lead up. With a double digit lead Syracuse shot selection was 3 layups from Howard against the zone which bolstered Cuse is confidence while the Hoyas took quick 3's by Pickett and Derrickson and had a turnover by Dickerson in the next 4 Hoyas possessions.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,858
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 18, 2017 12:17:02 GMT -5
The lead could have been 16 or 18 instead of 13 if Gtown had done a better job on the boards during this stretch, if the lead got to 16 instead of 13, Gtown wins in regulation.. As Syracuse made their run, they started making shots which means less OB's for them to get plus Gtown was turning the ball over so that's less DB's to be had also so it doesn't surprise me that Gtown was close to them board wise towards the end of the game.. The rebound factor was very big in this game imo.. Come on Etomic! If you have a 13 point lead, being out rebounded by 4 over a 15 minute stretch isn't the reason the team was outscored by 20 overall and lost. Shot selection, turnovers, defense and bad luck with Derrickson's 2 bad foul calls is what hurt the team way more than rebounds. While Syracuse was do most of it's damage on the glass the Hoyas were building it's lead up. With a double digit lead Syracuse shot selection was 3 layups from Howard against the zone which bolstered Cuse is confidence while the Hoyas took quick 3's by Pickett and Derrickson and had a turnover by Dickerson in the next 4 Hoyas possessions. I didn't say rebounding was the sole reason Gtown lost the lead but it was a big factor in the game overall imo.. PE said the same in his post game press conference, he cited giving up 15 ob's in the 2nd half as "hard to overcome"..
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Dec 18, 2017 12:21:16 GMT -5
Yeah I Know the team was out rebounded by 10 in the 2nd half and overtime but I still contend it wasn't as big of a deal as the numbers would lead you to believe. I'm going to play your numbers game with you hoyasaxa2003 to show you why the rebounding disparity in the 2nd half not only wasn't the reason but had very little impact on the Hoyas lost on Saturday. After Mosely made a pair of free throws to give the squad it's biggest lead of the game of 53-40 with 10:58 remaining, from that point on and through overtime the Hoyas were only out rebounded 16-12. The Hoyas were out rebounded by Cuse 10-4 in the opening 9 minutes of the 2nd half while increasing their lead +9 to a game high 13 points. This is another reason why you can't say numbers dictate outcomes of games. Did Syracuse get some timely rebounds that hurt, absolutely but I don't think a 4 rebound difference with a 13 point lead cost the Hoyas the game. Do you? The game was lost on the anomaly of them having a significantly good night (especially for them) from behind the arc while the Hoyas had a significantly poor game from 3 point range. That alongside some poor execution in handling the press and shot selection was what lead to blowing a 13 point lead. Was rebounding the reason we lost? That's impossible to stay for sure, of course, but giving your opponents more shots (via the offensive rebounds) in a close game never helps - regardless of when those rebounds happen. Given that we went to overtime, arguably a lot of things could have been the difference. But, if we weren't outrebounded 10-4 in the opening 9 minutes of the second half, we would have almost certainly gotten more shots off in that period (and Syracuse would have had fewer shot attempts), so if Syracuse scores one less basket or we get one of our own, we arguably win in regulation. In an overtime game, you can always point to anything that could have changed the game - turnovers, missed layups, missed defensive assignments, threes that almost go in but don't (I seem to recall one from either Kaleb or Derrickson that almost went in, but rimmed out). So could we have won without rebounding better? Absolutely. Less turnovers and we probably win, too. On the positive side, the only Big East team even close to as good at offensive rebounds as Syracuse is Seton Hall. Xavier is pretty good too, and DePaul, actually, too. But otherwise, the rest of the Big East doesn't excel at rebounding on the offensive end, at least. And if Jagan Mosely had waffles for breakfast that morning instead of pancakes the team probably wins the game....come on man. The game is played in segments, not as a whole. Strategies and variables change throughout the game. Syracuse didn't play the same way down by 13 with 10 minutes left as they did the first 30 minutes. They completely changed their style of play dictated by the score and time in the game. Both teams implemented different strategies and counter strategies. Since you like your numbers here are some. The Hoyas had a 13 point lead with 10 minutes left in the game and was out rebounded 16-12 in regulation and overtime. Was it The rebounding difference which only lead the Hoyas to being outscored by only 2 in second chance points (7-5) or was it the fact the team was outscored 18-0 on made 3 pointers during that same period? Which stat do you think had a bigger impact on the final 10 minutes and overtime?
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Dec 18, 2017 12:41:59 GMT -5
Come on Etomic! If you have a 13 point lead, being out rebounded by 4 over a 15 minute stretch isn't the reason the team was outscored by 20 overall and lost. Shot selection, turnovers, defense and bad luck with Derrickson's 2 bad foul calls is what hurt the team way more than rebounds. While Syracuse was do most of it's damage on the glass the Hoyas were building it's lead up. With a double digit lead Syracuse shot selection was 3 layups from Howard against the zone which bolstered Cuse is confidence while the Hoyas took quick 3's by Pickett and Derrickson and had a turnover by Dickerson in the next 4 Hoyas possessions. I didn't say rebounding was the sole reason Gtown lost the lead but it was a big factor in the game overall imo.. PE said the same in his post game press conference, he cited giving up 15 ob's in the 2nd half as "hard to overcome".. Coaches are emotional after games and are making statements based on looking at a stat sheet. While we know Coach Ewing and the staff won't be happy about the offensive rebounds after rewatching the game, I doubt he points to that as the main reason the team lost especially after watching the last 10 minutes of the game where team lost it's lead. You all can keeping pushing the rebounding caused the Hoyas to loose the game narrative but the film and stats say otherwise. When Syracuse was doing it's most damage on the glass, the Hoyas were overcoming that and building it's lead out. The game was lost at the 3 point line. The Hoyas were outscored 18-0 in the last 10 minutes and overtime from beyond the arc while being outscored by 20 points overall.
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,399
|
Post by iowa80 on Dec 18, 2017 13:44:47 GMT -5
I didn't say rebounding was the sole reason Gtown lost the lead but it was a big factor in the game overall imo.. PE said the same in his post game press conference, he cited giving up 15 ob's in the 2nd half as "hard to overcome".. Coaches are emotional after games and are making statements based on looking at a stat sheet. While we know Coach Ewing and the staff won't be happy about the offensive rebounds after rewatching the game, I doubt he points to that as the main reason the team lost especially after watching the last 10 minutes of the game where team lost it's lead. You all can keeping pushing the rebounding caused the Hoyas to loose the game narrative but the film and stats say otherwise. When Syracuse was doing it's most damage on the glass, the Hoyas were overcoming that and building it's lead out. The game was lost at the 3 point line. The Hoyas were outscored 18-0 in the last 10 minutes and overtime from beyond the arc while being outscored by 20 points overall. OK, so let's discount what the coach of the team said because it doesn't suit your narrative. Do you have a number for second chance points? We were outrebounded on the offensive boards by 19-9. And, honestly, segmenting the game into preferred portions is unconvincing, as is the use of overtime when one realizes that there would have been no overtime had we rebounded adequately.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,858
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 18, 2017 13:49:03 GMT -5
I didn't say rebounding was the sole reason Gtown lost the lead but it was a big factor in the game overall imo.. PE said the same in his post game press conference, he cited giving up 15 ob's in the 2nd half as "hard to overcome".. Coaches are emotional after games and are making statements based on looking at a stat sheet. While we know Coach Ewing and the staff won't be happy about the offensive rebounds after rewatching the game, I doubt he points to that as the main reason the team lost especially after watching the last 10 minutes of the game where team lost it's lead. You all can keeping pushing the rebounding caused the Hoyas to loose the game narrative but the film and stats say otherwise. When Syracuse was doing it's most damage on the glass, the Hoyas were overcoming that and building it's lead out. The game was lost at the 3 point line. The Hoyas were outscored 18-0 in the last 10 minutes and overtime from beyond the arc while being outscored by 20 points overall. Rebounding wasn’t the single cause for the loss but it played a big factor, saying that doesn’t diminish the 3pt factor in the game or turnovers or shot selection etc.. imo rebounding didn’t have very little to do with the loss as you stated earlier in the thread.. I remember one sequence early in the 2nd half when Gtown was up around 8, where Brisette got an offensive rebound, missed the put back and then tipped in his miss.. Gtown scored on their next possession to go back up 8 but if they don’t give up two OB’s previously they could have been up 10.. There are probably similar sequences if we went back thru the play by play.. It can easily be argued that their rebounding kept them within shouting distance until the 3’s began to fall..
|
|
|
Post by homeonthehilltop on Dec 18, 2017 14:17:12 GMT -5
Come on Etomic! If you have a 13 point lead, being out rebounded by 4 over a 15 minute stretch isn't the reason the team was outscored by 20 overall and lost. Shot selection, turnovers, defense and bad luck with Derrickson's 2 bad foul calls is what hurt the team way more than rebounds. While Syracuse was do most of it's damage on the glass the Hoyas were building it's lead up. With a double digit lead Syracuse shot selection was 3 layups from Howard against the zone which bolstered Cuse is confidence while the Hoyas took quick 3's by Pickett and Derrickson and had a turnover by Dickerson in the next 4 Hoyas possessions. I didn't say rebounding was the sole reason Gtown lost the lead but it was a big factor in the game overall imo.. PE said the same in his post game press conference, he cited giving up 15 ob's in the 2nd half as "hard to overcome".. Yeah, but if no one sees or hears the press conference, did it even happen? Deep thoughts...
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,858
|
Post by EtomicB on Dec 18, 2017 14:42:54 GMT -5
I didn't say rebounding was the sole reason Gtown lost the lead but it was a big factor in the game overall imo.. PE said the same in his post game press conference, he cited giving up 15 ob's in the 2nd half as "hard to overcome".. Yeah, but if no one sees or hears the press conference, did it even happen? Deep thoughts... Shout out to Ron over on HoyaReport who has taped & posted almost all of the pre & post press conferences for his members.. The new communications director attends every presser so I'm not sure why they aren't posted for fans to see..
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Dec 18, 2017 15:04:12 GMT -5
Coaches are emotional after games and are making statements based on looking at a stat sheet. While we know Coach Ewing and the staff won't be happy about the offensive rebounds after rewatching the game, I doubt he points to that as the main reason the team lost especially after watching the last 10 minutes of the game where team lost it's lead. You all can keeping pushing the rebounding caused the Hoyas to loose the game narrative but the film and stats say otherwise. When Syracuse was doing it's most damage on the glass, the Hoyas were overcoming that and building it's lead out. The game was lost at the 3 point line. The Hoyas were outscored 18-0 in the last 10 minutes and overtime from beyond the arc while being outscored by 20 points overall. OK, so let's discount what the coach of the team said because it doesn't suit your narrative. Do you have a number for second chance points? We were outrebounded on the offensive boards by 19-9. And, honestly, segmenting the game into preferred portions is unconvincing, as is the use of overtime when one realizes that there would have been no overtime had we rebounded adequately. If you read my previous post, I stated above that the Cuse only outscored the Hoyas on second chance points 7-5 including free throws on fouls after offensive rebounds over the last 10 minutes and overtime. 2 point difference in second chance points over the remainder of the game when the team was up 13. In no way was I discrediting the coach of the team but I as a former coach have looked at a stat sheet frustrated after a tough loss and point at specific disparities that stand out as the reason we lost only to rewatch the film and see that while my initial thoughts based on the stat sheets played a part, it was a complete different reason why my team lost that specific game. The film tells all truths! I would take Ewing's post game statements after he has rewatched the film to be a more thorough evaluation.
|
|
hoyasaxa2003
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,815
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 18, 2017 15:12:08 GMT -5
And if Jagan Mosely had waffles for breakfast that morning instead of pancakes the team probably wins the game....come on man. The game is played in segments, not as a whole. Strategies and variables change throughout the game. Syracuse didn't play the same way down by 13 with 10 minutes left as they did the first 30 minutes. They completely changed their style of play dictated by the score and time in the game. Both teams implemented different strategies and counter strategies. Since you like your numbers here are some. The Hoyas had a 13 point lead with 10 minutes left in the game and was out rebounded 16-12 in regulation and overtime. Was it The rebounding difference which only lead the Hoyas to being outscored by only 2 in second chance points (7-5) or was it the fact the team was outscored 18-0 on made 3 pointers during that same period? Which stat do you think had a bigger impact on the final 10 minutes and overtime? In an overtime game, you can point to a million factors to explain why we lost. After all, it was a tie game - one more basket (or one less Syracuse basket) and we would have won. So it could be: turnovers, missed defensive assignments, offensive rebounds, Syracuse's hot three point shooting, our poor shooting, fouls (i.e., giving the other team FTs), missed free throws, etc. All of that stuff adds up over the course of a game. I disagree with the "segment" analysis. If you are tied at the half, but gave up 5 offensive rebounds, or 10 turnovers, that's still a factor if you eventually lose (and if you win, you win despite those factors). Just because a score is tied at point X, doesn't mean that nothing that happened before that point matter. Free throws are a good example. Let's say in the first half you go 0-10 on FTs in the first half, but are tied anyway. Then the game goes to OT after the second half. Just because you were tied at the half doesn't mean the 0-10 doesn't factor into the loss. This is always true in every game we play. It's just more obvious in an OT game where every single mistake can arguably be the factor that causes a loss. I do agree with your point that the reason we lost the lead may not have been offensive rebounds, but they were still a factor in the overall score of the game, and something that greatly impacted the end result. That merits video analysis too - i.e., what did we do wrong in that period that caused us to lose the lead? The answer - for that specific part of the game - may not be offensive rebounding. But, it was still an overall factor weighing against us that played a role in our losing. Now, if you want to talk about overtime only, see my post above. I agree with you fully that rebounding was not the reason we lost the game in overtime. It was almost entirely our poor defense, Syracuse's hot shooting, and our cold shooting.
|
|
|
Post by hoyacane11 on Dec 18, 2017 15:20:23 GMT -5
There was a lot to like about our Hoyas in spite of the heartbreaking loss.
First, Govan is MUCH improved, and has shown surprising coordination. When he caught that pass in the secondary break and pulled up quickly to hit a jumper, he did NOT walk. That was big time. Ewing has already had a tremendous impact on this kid already. He's even turned into an excellent passing big man.Big ups to both of them.
The only thing I don't like is the way he allows guys to bring it right to his chest for uncontested layups, drives me nuts. Sometimes he doesn't even put his hands up. He had a couple of good blocks early in the game, them when it was crunch time, they were scoring on him like he was 6'2. They are giving him chances for more blocks and he needs to make them pay.
Ewing can indeed coach. I love his presence o the sidelines, the way he addresses players when needed ,and the way he gets on officials. I also don't think we'll have a problem with our guys coming out and playing flat like we have in the past. Ewing won't tolerate it, and it looks like he can motivate his kids.
More Moseley and less Mulmore please. I'm sorry, but Mulmore is just not very good at all, and he has the physical tools to be much better than he is. He has the size, speed, quickness and strength to be much better at finishing and at stopping his opponents, but he does neither well at all. He's a liability imo, and I would rather see more Moseley or Blair just like Ewing did in the 2nd half. Minus the late game ball handling, it would be awesome if Jagan can play at least that well every game.
I love the attacking style of offense and the way our guys play together. They move the ball very well and the bigs know each other's games and compliment each other on the offensive end. I just would like to see more from them defensively.
The reason we lost that game yesterday was we don't have a guard we can count on to take care of the ball under pressure. If we did we win that game by double figures.
All in all, I'm impressed by what I saw, we just don't have the horses we need yet. Love this system though.
|
|
iowa80
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,399
|
Post by iowa80 on Dec 18, 2017 15:28:27 GMT -5
OK, so let's discount what the coach of the team said because it doesn't suit your narrative. Do you have a number for second chance points? We were outrebounded on the offensive boards by 19-9. And, honestly, segmenting the game into preferred portions is unconvincing, as is the use of overtime when one realizes that there would have been no overtime had we rebounded adequately. If you read my previous post, I stated above that the Cuse only outscored the Hoyas on second chance points 7-5 including free throws on fouls after offensive rebounds over the last 10 minutes and overtime. 2 point difference in second chance points over the remainder of the game when the team was up 13. In no way was I discrediting the coach of the team but I as a former coach have looked at a stat sheet frustrated after a tough loss and point at specific disparities that stand out as the reason we lost only to rewatch the film and see that while my initial thoughts based on the stat sheets played a part, it was a complete different reason why my team lost that specific game. The film tells all truths! I would take Ewing's post game statements after he has rewatched the film to be a more thorough evaluation. Apologies for missing your earlier numbers (I hate it when that happens). My numbers are somewhat different. I have it 9-4, Cuse, which I think only tells part of the story. I have us with zero in the second half and 'Cuse with 14 offensive boards in the second half, which obviously results in more possession time and more chances to convert. I'll admit that, without initially checking, I was surprised that 'Cuse missed as many second opportunities as they did, but 9-0 in the second half (by my count--I could be wrong, but see ESPN play-by-play), combined with forcing us to work to defend on the misses, is pretty decisive. Note also that MD's fourth foul was committed following a 'Cuse offensive board.
|
|
bigskyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,094
|
Post by bigskyhoya on Dec 18, 2017 17:01:07 GMT -5
There was a lot to like about our Hoyas in spite of the heartbreaking loss. First, Govan is MUCH improved, and has shown surprising coordination. When he caught that pass in the secondary break and pulled up quickly to hit a jumper, he did NOT walk. That was big time. Ewing has already had a tremendous impact on this kid already. He's even turned into an excellent passing big man.Big ups to both of them. The only thing I don't like is the way he allows guys to bring it right to his chest for uncontested layups, drives me nuts. Sometimes he doesn't even put his hands up. He had a couple of good blocks early in the game, them when it was crunch time, they were scoring on him like he was 6'2. They are giving him chances for more blocks and he needs to make them pay. Ewing can indeed coach. I love his presence o the sidelines, the way he addresses players when needed ,and the way he gets on officials. I also don't think we'll have a problem with our guys coming out and playing flat like we have in the past. Ewing won't tolerate it, and it looks like he can motivate his kids. More Moseley and less Mulmore please. I'm sorry, but Mulmore is just not very good at all, and he has the physical tools to be much better than he is. He has the size, speed, quickness and strength to be much better at finishing and at stopping his opponents, but he does neither well at all. He's a liability imo, and I would rather see more Moseley or Blair just like Ewing did in the 2nd half. Minus the late game ball handling, it would be awesome if Jagan can play at least that well every game. I love the attacking style of offense and the way our guys play together. They move the ball very well and the bigs know each other's games and compliment each other on the offensive end. I just would like to see more from them defensively. The reason we lost that game yesterday was we don't have a guard we can count on to take care of the ball under pressure. If we did we win that game by double figures. All in all, I'm impressed by what I saw, we just don't have the horses we need yet. Love this system though. Recruits will like the system too.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by hoyarooter on Dec 18, 2017 21:23:59 GMT -5
This is my first time on the board since Friday, and I don't have time to read this entire thread. Chances are that nothing I have to say will be novel, but here goes, anyway.
There were lots of things to like about this game. For about the first five minutes, we looked completely clueless on how to play against the Syracuse zone - and then suddenly we weren't. I thought we did a terrific job thereafter against the zone, until Derrickson fouled out. That was a terrible call (even commented on by Clark Kellogg), and instead of being two free throws for MD, he had to sit. I think we would have won if MD had remained in the game. Then there was Syracuse catching fire from 3 when they were among the worst teams in the country at that coming in, and our total inability to make any. And of course, there was the rebounding, which I fear will be a major issue for us throughout conference play.
Props to Jagan. Hopefully he can keep playing that way. And Govan did good work again. Despite the very frustrating loss, I'm mildly encouraged that we won't be horrible in conference play.
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,420
|
Post by MCIGuy on Dec 19, 2017 1:48:52 GMT -5
There was a lot to like about our Hoyas in spite of the heartbreaking loss. First, Govan is MUCH improved, and has shown surprising coordination. When he caught that pass in the secondary break and pulled up quickly to hit a jumper, he did NOT walk. That was big time. Yeah, this ticked me off especially considering the sequence of plays it followed. After catching a pass from a teammate who broke the press, Govan dribbled towards the hoop and then rose for the slam. He then got back down to the other end of the court during the immediate following possession and blocked a floater from an opponent all the while keeping the ball in play. He then raced down the court once more on offense and, as you wrote, snared the pass during a secondary break and pulled up for a long jumper that hit nothing but net. But that last shot was erased by a ref whose mind I guess couldn't believe Govan was able to make that basket without travelling. That stole from Govan one of those rare and spectacular back-to-back-to-back sequences that typically only the best players tend to produce.
|
|
seaweed
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,657
Member is Online
|
Post by seaweed on Dec 19, 2017 10:33:02 GMT -5
There was a lot to like about our Hoyas in spite of the heartbreaking loss. First, Govan is MUCH improved, and has shown surprising coordination. When he caught that pass in the secondary break and pulled up quickly to hit a jumper, he did NOT walk. That was big time. Yeah, this ticked me off especially considering the sequence of plays it followed. After catching a pass from a teammate who broke the press, Govan dribbled towards the hoop and then rose for the slam. He then got back down to the other end of the court during the immediate following possession and blocked a floater from an opponent all the while keeping the ball in play. He then raced down the court once more on offense and, as you wrote, snared the pass during a secondary break and pulled up for a long jumper that hit nothing but net. But that last shot was erased by a ref whose mind I guess couldn't believe Govan was able to make that basket without travelling. That stole from Govan one of those rare and spectacular back-to-back-to-back sequences that typically only the best players tend to produce. The refs basically went all in for 'scuse at about the 7 minute mark, one bad call/non-call after another. Between the travel, MD's #4 and #5 and a bunch of non-calls on our work in their paint (fouling drivers, over-the-back rebounding, etc), it became obvious Laurie Fine had been working the refs at halftime.
|
|