Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 16, 2020 8:35:46 GMT -5
Right before the last possession of regulation m, it looked like Pat was going to put Malcolm in to guard the inbounder. That would have left Q for additional rim protection.
When they took the floor it was Chudier, and somehow I knew SJU would score. It was not his fault but that kid’s plus/minus (eye test only) has to be awful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2020 9:16:26 GMT -5
Right before the last possession of regulation m, it looked like Pat was going to put Malcolm in to guard the inbounder. That would have left Q for additional rim protection. When they took the floor it was Chudier, and somehow I knew SJU would score. It was not his fault but that kid’s plus/minus (eye test only) has to be awful. I noticed that. Didn't give me any gut feeling, but it did make me think... aren't you supposed to have to stay in for some amount of time if you check in? Was that negated by the SJU timeout? Or is that just a pro thing? Or did the refs just not catch it?
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 16, 2020 9:36:35 GMT -5
I wanted Malcolm and Timmy positioned right by the basket for the last play. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 16, 2020 9:41:44 GMT -5
Right before the last possession of regulation m, it looked like Pat was going to put Malcolm in to guard the inbounder. That would have left Q for additional rim protection. When they took the floor it was Chudier, and somehow I knew SJU would score. It was not his fault but that kid’s plus/minus (eye test only) has to be awful. I noticed that. Didn't give me any gut feeling, but it did make me think... aren't you supposed to have to stay in for some amount of time if you check in? Was that negated by the SJU timeout? Or is that just a pro thing? Or did the refs just not catch it? Negated by the timeout.
|
|
paranoia2
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 847
|
Post by paranoia2 on Dec 16, 2020 9:49:26 GMT -5
Happy CHUDIERs is the politically correct thing to say in this instance.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 16, 2020 9:57:49 GMT -5
Ewing had Wilson and Q in before the timeout; I remember thinking it was odd that he had both on the floor at the same time (had to be the first). Pretty sure Ewing initially thought there were 0.2 seconds left after Blair went out of bounds, so he was going to defend a lob tip at the rim with multiple bigs. Unfortunately, the refs had put 0.9 back on the clock and he may have missed it.
Anderson probably did Ewing a favor by calling timeout to help us reset, but obviously that favor wasn't accepted.
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,817
|
Post by hoyazeke on Dec 16, 2020 10:28:55 GMT -5
Ewing had Wilson and Q in before the timeout; I remember thinking it was odd that he had both on the floor at the same time (had to be the first). Pretty sure Ewing initially thought there were 0.2 seconds left after Blair went out of bounds, so he was going to defend a lob tip at the rim with multiple bigs. Unfortunately, the refs had put 0.9 back on the clock and he may have missed it. Anderson probably did Ewing a favor by calling timeout to help us reset, but obviously that favor wasn't accepted. Yeah you are probably right about Ewing's thought pattern. I think he should have stayed with both bigs regardless...
|
|
dchoya72
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,488
|
Post by dchoya72 on Dec 16, 2020 10:39:14 GMT -5
I agree....That may have prevented to tying basket. It seemed like a good idea.
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by bostonfan on Dec 16, 2020 11:25:28 GMT -5
I thought Malcolm has been OK in the limited opportunities he has had this year, but I am not sure where he finds minutes the rest of the this season, unless the Hoyas have major foul trouble some game, or have an injury. I think he has upside because of his athleticism, quickness and anticipation blocking shots, but he just does not appear to have the physical strength to compete in the low post yet. 'That is only going to get harder as the season wears on and they get into conference games. Some of the physical bigs in the Big East would just be too much of a mismatch for him at this point on both ends of the floor. If he had the ability to spread the floor and shoot 3's that would change the dynamic, but that does not seem to be part of his game at this point.
|
|
RBHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,134
|
Post by RBHoya on Dec 16, 2020 11:34:50 GMT -5
Ewing had Wilson and Q in before the timeout; I remember thinking it was odd that he had both on the floor at the same time (had to be the first). Pretty sure Ewing initially thought there were 0.2 seconds left after Blair went out of bounds, so he was going to defend a lob tip at the rim with multiple bigs. Unfortunately, the refs had put 0.9 back on the clock and he may have missed it. Anderson probably did Ewing a favor by calling timeout to help us reset, but obviously that favor wasn't accepted. I don't think Ewing was mistaken on the clock. He had Malcolm in to harass the inbounder and Q in to protect the rim, which I thought made sense. Malcolm's length/quickness combo makes him the perfect guy for that job. You hope that you make it hard enough on the inbounder that he has no choice but to throw it long out towards half court and they don't have time for anything but a low percentage shot. If that doesn't work and they are able to get a pass to somebody cutting toward the basket, at least you have a rim protector there in Q to make it difficult on them. I liked the strategy, not sure why they went away from it after the timeout. In any event, I do hope Malcolm gets a little burn soon. I know Hoyatalk is famous for having "backup qb syndrome", and that sometimes the guys not getting regular playing time are on the bench for a reason. That said, I still wholeheartedly believe in Malcolm's potential, and think he's looked good in the minimal court time he's had in his career thus far (ie. last year in the Bahamas plus a few minutes earlier this year). Ighoefe has been OK at times, but I'd be interested to see how Malcolm would do in some of those minutes. It's a long season and I hope he gets a chance to prove himself.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 16, 2020 11:55:24 GMT -5
With 0.2 left on the clock, you don't even have to defend shooters, they won't be able to catch and shoot. The only thing that beats you is a lob near the rim. In this situation, having both Wilson and Q in makes a lot more sense.
With 0.9, you do have to account for everything. I could see using 2 bigs still here, but it's not as easy of a call considering SJU doesn't play with a traditional big. So I think Ewing had an OK lineup in, they just executed horribly (Q not cutting off the paint, Blair forgetting ball me my man).
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Dec 16, 2020 12:44:00 GMT -5
With 0.2 left on the clock, you don't even have to defend shooters, they won't be able to catch and shoot. The only thing that beats you is a lob near the rim. In this situation, having both Wilson and Q in makes a lot more sense. With 0.9, you do have to account for everything. I could see using 2 bigs still here, but it's not as easy of a call considering SJU doesn't play with a traditional big. So I think Ewing had an OK lineup in, they just executed horribly (Q not cutting off the paint, Blair forgetting ball me my man). Exactly. This board would have murdered Patrick if St.J got a 3 off to win the game. With .09 and up 2, you don't let a 3pt shot happen and live with a contested 2. Unfortunately as you mentioned the execution was horrible but at least we had OT to redeem.
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 16, 2020 12:59:19 GMT -5
That might be the conventional thinking. I would love to rewatch the scenario and see who SJU had on the floor. How many good shooters do they have? Can we acknowledge that YOU CANNOT DEFEND EVERY SHOT? So you have to concede that SJU likely will get some shot off, or some offensive players flying to the hoop who could conceivably get a foul called, etc?
So, IMHO, in that scenario you cannot allow: 1) a layup (what we allowed), 2) a tip-in, or 3) an open three for a good shooter. Other shots, including a three from a bad shooter, are fair game. There is some risk to everything.
So, what I would have liked to see would have been: Malcolm and Q or Timmy clogging up the middle/ guarding their two biggest guys close to the basket- if those guys float out to the perimeter, let them catch it there and contest; and our three remaining best defenders (NOT Blair) guarding their remaining two players, and likely doubling their best perimeter threat. I likely would not have guarded the inbounder.
And if a really bad shooter floats out beyond the arc? I would like to hear Patrick * SCREAMING * not to guard him and to let him shoot. Play a little mind game and challenge that guy. If he hits it, we lose. But we cannot allow a layup to tie the game with less than a second on the clock.
|
|
|
Post by HometownHoya on Dec 16, 2020 13:30:40 GMT -5
That might be the conventional thinking. I would love to rewatch the scenario and see who SJU had on the floor. How many good shooters do they have? Can we acknowledge that YOU CANNOT DEFEND EVERY SHOT? So you have to concede that SJU likely will get some shot off, or some offensive players flying to the hoop who could conceivably get a foul called, etc? So, IMHO, in that scenario you cannot allow: 1) a layup (what we allowed), 2) a tip-in, or 3) an open three for a good shooter. Other shots, including a three from a bad shooter, are fair game. There is some risk to everything. So, what I would have liked to see would have been: Malcolm and Q or Timmy clogging up the middle/ guarding their two biggest guys close to the basket- if those guys float out to the perimeter, let them catch it there and contest; and our three remaining best defenders (NOT Blair) guarding their remaining two players, and likely doubling their best perimeter threat. I likely would not have guarded the inbounder. And if a really bad shooter floats out beyond the arc? I would like to hear Patrick * SCREAMING * not to guard him and to let him shoot. Play a little mind game and challenge that guy. If he hits it, we lose. But we cannot allow a layup to tie the game with less than a second on the clock. I disagree entirely. Make the 2 point shot tough (which we didn't) but dont allow a 3. If Blair had been in position, Qudus turns and blocks that shot even though it should have never gotten so close. The ideal defense is protect the hoop (like on every inbound play), guard the 3 point line, and contest any jumper they got off. It's not the scheme's fault that Blair got pinned down low allowing his defender to receive that pass or that Qudus bit a ball fake and opened up the hoop a bit. Again, the key point is that in OT you still have a chance to win the game, if you let a "bad" shooter take a 3 then you lose the game to someone who shouldn't have even had the chance to beat us. It's definitely a preference thing but I think stopping the 3 in that situation is of the similar vein of fouling when up 3 (which we did the previous possession).
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Dec 16, 2020 14:04:21 GMT -5
Malcolm needs some real game experience.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Dec 16, 2020 14:07:07 GMT -5
I think we can all agree that when in doubt avoid Chudier....
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 16, 2020 14:18:11 GMT -5
That might be the conventional thinking. I would love to rewatch the scenario and see who SJU had on the floor. How many good shooters do they have? Can we acknowledge that YOU CANNOT DEFEND EVERY SHOT? So you have to concede that SJU likely will get some shot off, or some offensive players flying to the hoop who could conceivably get a foul called, etc? So, IMHO, in that scenario you cannot allow: 1) a layup (what we allowed), 2) a tip-in, or 3) an open three for a good shooter. Other shots, including a three from a bad shooter, are fair game. There is some risk to everything. So, what I would have liked to see would have been: Malcolm and Q or Timmy clogging up the middle/ guarding their two biggest guys close to the basket- if those guys float out to the perimeter, let them catch it there and contest; and our three remaining best defenders (NOT Blair) guarding their remaining two players, and likely doubling their best perimeter threat. I likely would not have guarded the inbounder. And if a really bad shooter floats out beyond the arc? I would like to hear Patrick * SCREAMING * not to guard him and to let him shoot. Play a little mind game and challenge that guy. If he hits it, we lose. But we cannot allow a layup to tie the game with less than a second on the clock. I disagree entirely. Make the 2 point shot tough (which we didn't) but dont allow a 3. If Blair had been in position, Qudus turns and blocks that shot even though it should have never gotten so close. The ideal defense is protect the hoop (like on every inbound play), guard the 3 point line, and contest any jumper they got off. It's not the scheme's fault that Blair got pinned down low allowing his defender to receive that pass or that Qudus bit a ball fake and opened up the hoop a bit. Again, the key point is that in OT you still have a chance to win the game, if you let a "bad" shooter take a 3 then you lose the game to someone who shouldn't have even had the chance to beat us. It's definitely a preference thing but I think stopping the 3 in that situation is of the similar vein of fouling when up 3 (which we did the previous possession). Agree to disagree. I like playing to win, even when there is a risk of an immediate loss in regulation.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 742
|
Post by rhw485 on Dec 16, 2020 14:24:32 GMT -5
Malcolm needs some real game experience. I'm not sure whether I agree or not...but this was always going to be the problem with 3 centers in the same recruiting class. Others have argued you can play two of them together, Ewing doesnt seen to agree yet. Now there's worse ways to use a scholarship (and his off the court accomplishments are impressive as well), but any Malcolm minutes basically have to come from Tim...and Tim's minutes seem to be in jeopardy somewhat to more small ball lineups to begin with (I absolutely agree with that approach btw). So unless we get into extreme foul trouble (like UMBC) I don't see an easy answer here. And honestly if we're playing UMBC again I think Ewing would probably just go Pickett and Bile as he gets more comfortable going small.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,033
|
Post by jwp91 on Dec 16, 2020 15:01:06 GMT -5
I thought Malcolm has been OK in the limited opportunities he has had this year, but I am not sure where he finds minutes the rest of the this season, unless the Hoyas have major foul trouble some game, or have an injury. I think he has upside because of his athleticism, quickness and anticipation blocking shots, but he just does not appear to have the physical strength to compete in the low post yet. 'That is only going to get harder as the season wears on and they get into conference games. Some of the physical bigs in the Big East would just be too much of a mismatch for him at this point on both ends of the floor. If he had the ability to spread the floor and shoot 3's that would change the dynamic, but that does not seem to be part of his game at this point. He has only had 3 minutes, but those minutes were better than ‘ok’. He does lead the team in offensive rating and has a 54.4% offensive rebounding percentage on the small sample....if that is what you describe as ‘ok’.
|
|
rhw485
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 742
|
Post by rhw485 on Dec 16, 2020 15:28:38 GMT -5
I thought Malcolm has been OK in the limited opportunities he has had this year, but I am not sure where he finds minutes the rest of the this season, unless the Hoyas have major foul trouble some game, or have an injury. I think he has upside because of his athleticism, quickness and anticipation blocking shots, but he just does not appear to have the physical strength to compete in the low post yet. 'That is only going to get harder as the season wears on and they get into conference games. Some of the physical bigs in the Big East would just be too much of a mismatch for him at this point on both ends of the floor. If he had the ability to spread the floor and shoot 3's that would change the dynamic, but that does not seem to be part of his game at this point. He has only had 3 minutes, but those minutes were better than ‘ok’. He does lead the team in offensive rating and has a 54.4% offensive rebounding percentage on the small sample....if that is what you describe as ‘ok’. I'm all for advanced stats but come on. Taking a 3 min sample, where his offensive rating is based on 1 putback dunk, and using them to argue his skill level is so inherently flawed. It's using advanced stats in this context that gets people turned off by their value.
|
|