kghoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,046
|
Post by kghoya on Jan 6, 2010 23:56:35 GMT -5
Regardless of what BS people like you post about the moderators, we donate our time to this board and all three of us are alumni and strong supporters of the basketball program. None of us would do it if we didn't love the school and the basketball program. It's really offensive to have stuff completely made up about us. id like to point out that name calling isnt allowed on here
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Jan 6, 2010 23:58:35 GMT -5
Did not see the game but what struck me was Monroe only taking 6 shots. That's way too few for a player with his talent. I don't necessarily need to see the 20 shot attempts a la Butler but at least give me something approaching 10. We have no scoring from our bench, we need him to shoot more and be more aggressive in getting his shot.
Marquette is a good team by the way, you don't lose by the slimmest of margins to WVU and Villanova if you aren't at least "good". They'll probably win 11 BE games when this season is done. They can shoot and, yes, good shooting teams take a lot of 3s and make them. I do agree with FLHoya though that we can do a better job defending the 3.
|
|
kghoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,046
|
Post by kghoya on Jan 7, 2010 0:00:25 GMT -5
Did not see the game but what struck me was Monroe only taking 6 shots. That's way too few for a player with his talent. I don't necessarily need to see the 20 shot attempts a la Butler but at least give me something approaching 10. We have no scoring from our bench, we need him to shoot more and be more aggressive in getting his shot. Marquette is a good team by the way, you don't lose by the slimmest of margins to WVU and Villanova if you aren't at least "good". They'll probably win 11 BE games when this season is done. They can shoot and, yes, good shooting teams take a lot of 3s and make them. I do agree with FLHoya though that we can do a better job defending the 3. i was hoping that they would do some adjusting on the 3's but most of the made 3s in the 2nd half were contested. it was going to take a great effort to beat them tonight on their home court. gtown gave a good effort. not great
|
|
kghoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,046
|
Post by kghoya on Jan 7, 2010 0:17:38 GMT -5
looking at the box score, the assists to fg's made ratio in the gtown portion is incredibly high for a loss.
marquette's was just as impressive.
i guess it comes down to a stop or 2 or perhaps a 2 instead of a 3 for the warriors
|
|
MCIGuy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Anyone here? What am I supposed to update?
Posts: 9,520
|
Post by MCIGuy on Jan 7, 2010 0:19:15 GMT -5
Perhaps the biggest issue to overcome was the slow start. Well actually some dude going crazy from three-point range for Marquette was maybe the real killer. But other than that two key issues reared their ugly head again: 1)lack of depth (which equals lack of point production from the bench) and turnovers.
As for the lack of depth when Chris Wright doesn't really have it going on in terms of scoring as well as Monroe and Jason you need folks off the bench to provide that scoring spark and that energy. III has not developed the bench as well as he could have and IMO that may have cost us the game because certainly the Hoyas were within striking distance. Two points from Hollis alone isn't getting it done.
And I am now convinced its not the pace that kills Gtown's scoring output as much as it is the turnovers. Possessions are being wasted. Give the Hoyas just four more possessions in which they get a shot off and they win this game. But for a team that is taught how to play smart the fellas aren't always too smart with holding onto the ball. Too many strips. And the five-point swing that resulted from Jason getting stripped badly on a fastbreak and Marquette going down to hit a three on the other end was the worst example.
Certainly not a performance to hang one's head over. The Hoyas were competitive, they shot a good percentage, held the opponents once again under 40% shooting, stayed neck and neck with Marquette throughout most of the game, etc. The rebounding could have been better but still the team was in a position to win. But a bad start, not enough fresh bodies and stupid turnovers were too much to overcome. Especially with the lack of scoring punch from Chris (who did other things well), Jason and Greg.
Oh, and its time for Greg to get aggressive again. This standing above the three point line for much of the game is the same thing that frustrated us regarding Roy and Jeff. Lets get Greg back in the paint more.
|
|
kghoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,046
|
Post by kghoya on Jan 7, 2010 0:28:10 GMT -5
And I am now convinced its not the pace that kills Gtown's scoring output as much as it is the turnovers. Possessions are being wasted. Give the Hoyas just four more possessions in which they get a shot off and they win this game. But for a team that is taught how to play smart the fellas aren't always too smart with holding onto the ball. Too many strips. And the five-point swing that resulted from Jason getting stripped badly on a fastbreak and Marquette going down to hit a three on the other end was the worst example that was such a bad sequence. i understand what you are saying with regards to the pace but if the pace were faster, a few more turnovers could be overcome. when you play so slow/low scoring...you cant have turnovers really. you box yourself into playing nearly perfect
|
|
|
Post by LizziebethHoya on Jan 7, 2010 0:49:15 GMT -5
Did we play a perfect game? No. Did we play horribly? No. We clearly didn't play our best ball tonight and there are improvements to be made, but I don't think this loss is indicative of any "large" problem. The bottom line is: Marquette hit their shots. If we defended them or not, they hit them. They hit off-balance 3's with the shot clock winding down multiple times. You can't always stop that.
If we played Marquette 3 times, we would win twice. I think we are the better team. But, this is the Big East. On any night, any team could go out and stage a performance like this.
|
|
|
Post by muviking on Jan 7, 2010 0:59:40 GMT -5
Was at the game and it was a good one. Georgetown defended us better than any other team this season. The only difference in this one as opposed to some of our close losses were white hot three point shooting and making some FT's down the stretch. Overall, a good ball game by two good clubs. Good luck the rest of the way.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Post by Buckets on Jan 7, 2010 1:09:08 GMT -5
I can't find a video of the ODU game right now, but IIRC both of our losses have had a rebound yanked out of Greg's hands in the final minute that turned into two huge points. That ball has to be his.
For those of you convinced that Marquette will never shoot like that again, they went 7/12 from three versus Xavier and 10/16 against West Virginia. Their eFG of 50% is almost exactly their average against major-conference competition this year (seven games 49.5%).
They had been taking 31.3% of their shots from three, which would be about 17 3PA for a 54 FGA game. They took 26. Do you think this is for no reason? Or perhaps that this was part of their gameplan and that the vast majority of these shots were uncontested.
They went a mind-bogglingly terrible 9/28 from 2. Lazar Hayward went 4/16 and jacked up 7 threes. We did a good job of clogging the lane and a terrible job of defending the perimeter. It needs work.
|
|
|
Post by daytonahoya31 on Jan 7, 2010 1:47:44 GMT -5
some of you guys are killing me.
I said earlier in the day that this game was going to be extremely difficult to win.
We were playing against a desperate team that was going to play its best game of the season. And that's what they did.
We defended fine. We played fine. We had some senseless turnovers, but I didn't think we played badly. I'm certainly not as mad as I was with the Old Diminion game.
They were going to make shots regardless. When a crash dummy like Cubillian, who is awful, goes 6-6 from three, the last being a fadeaway to the left, it's their night.
And you know what? We should've won the game.
Here are a few things I take.
1) Austin and Chris are probably the best backcourt in this league. If one isn't on, the other is. I read a poster that said Chris was invisible. He wasn't invisible, Austin was just on.
2) I was really going back and forth on this, but objectively? Greg needs another year. He's not strong with the ball at all and he cost us six points just by playing like a punk and not finishing. I read a poster that said Greg needs more shots. Greg hurt us offensively tonight. The ball needs to go through him, but this is what it is: Chris and Austin are our two best offensive players. As such? They should take the most shots.
3) This is a mentally tough team. Marquette just played waayyyyyyyy above their heads. Even for a team like them that makes shots, they were ridiculous.
4) Hollis was fine. Not sure why people are trashing his game. In fact, his putback was one of the bigger plays of the game.
5) If coach works at developing Jerrelle half as hard as he worked to develop Henry, we'd have a hell of a player.
People, back away from the ledge. We lost to a desperate, desperate team tonight.
And ESPN just wants web hits. Anyone who thought this was an upset doesn't know basketball.
|
|
sleepy
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,079
|
Post by sleepy on Jan 7, 2010 2:37:39 GMT -5
I said Chris was invisible, but offensively and only in the second half. And he was. He still played an overall good game, and was still good on defense in the second half, but he wasn't looking to attack at all in the second half. He is still allowed to shoot and drive, even if Austins really on. He didn't do it, and while I don't want him forcing things, he should have atleast one shot attempt in the second half(besides that last three) after starting the game shooting pretty well. I think, though, that it might have had something to do with whatever happened to his wrist, which is why I brought it up at all.
|
|
|
Post by grokamok on Jan 7, 2010 4:28:03 GMT -5
Game-specific coaching.
Look at the pre-game discussion. We all knew Marquette would be coming out of the gates with a lot of energy because of their somewhat-desperate season situation. We all knew that they were smaller, relying on outside shots, offensive rebounds and a quickness-based help-D that turns over their opponents. We did not start, or finish, this game with these in mind.
This was a winnable game, and, despite the situation (Marquette's playing at home with desperation), we should have won it. Instead, our bigs did not keep the ball high when they got it with their backs to the basket, our unnecessary (given our height advantage) following/doubling on switches and on their offensive drives provided exactly the imbalance that Marquette needed to find open 3-point shooters, and we played the first six or so minutes as though we (including JTIII, from the cut-aways) were surprised at their energy level, putting ourselves in a hole far larger than Marquette's effective margin of victory.
I'm not sure what was up with Greg, but, as others have pointed out, he needed to play with a lot more energy and determination than he showed; somebody has to give him an earfull when he plays like that against shorter/inferior competition. It is difficult to watch our opponents get an offensive rebound and the points that follow when we're down in the last minute of the game, and this has happened in both of our losses.
Buzz got about as much out of the game as he could (outside of the technical, though that may have resulted in a better psychological set for his players -- it looked, at the time, like Georgetown was finally getting it all in hand and that Marquette was losing faith; they got it back together just afterwards). One move was particularly astute. When Thompson called a timeout with about 9 minutes to go to set up a play, it was clear that GU would try to go down low. In came Mbao, who blocked Vaughn on a play that would otherwise have been a near-guaranteed 2 for the Hoyas. While we didn't come out of the timeout with a passing turnover, thank God, somebody on our squad should have noticed the change and altered the play accordingly.
Yes, if Cubillian only hits 50% of his open 3s, we win; however, Marquette only made one 3 better than their average (by percentage) as a team, and it is not surprising that they did slightly better due to their season situation and home-court advantage. I'm more than a bit unhappy that we did not seem to enter this game with a plan that was better suited to this specific opponent in this specific situation.
Of course, I know that JTIII coaches a system, expecting that, in the trade-off analysis for coaching attention and practice time, dedication to proper execution of this system, both on offense and on D, outweighs that which would be opponent/situation-specific. I also know that he is not incapable of making adjustments. I wish the balance would tilt a bit more towards each game at hand, however; we don't play 3- or 5-game series in college hoops, and tournaments are one-and-done. I hope that our strategy is more attuned to the Huskies for Saturday's game, and that our players are itching for redemption just enough to play in fierce control of their games.
For those of you who will inevitably take this critique as one-sided, failing to note the Hoya positives for the game, I'll agree. It is intentionally so: we lost.
|
|
Eurostar
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,095
|
Post by Eurostar on Jan 7, 2010 5:32:04 GMT -5
Did not see the game but what struck me was Monroe only taking 6 shots. That's way too few for a player with his talent. I don't necessarily need to see the 20 shot attempts a la Butler but at least give me something approaching 10. We have no scoring from our bench, we need him to shoot more and be more aggressive in getting his shot. Marquette is a good team by the way, you don't lose by the slimmest of margins to WVU and Villanova if you aren't at least "good". They'll probably win 11 BE games when this season is done. They can shoot and, yes, good shooting teams take a lot of 3s and make them. I do agree with FLHoya though that we can do a better job defending the 3. True.. i would have thought the same thing if i hadnt watched the game, but i actually didnt want Monroe taking any more shots. To me, he had his worst game of the season. He was getting stripped every time he had the ball in the post and kept trying to take the more athletic Hayward off the dribble only to turn it over or take a bad shot. Our best plays were the high screen and roll with Vaughn or Freeman creating off the dribble. This was a game I thought we'd lose since Marquette is good and they were due. During the 2nd half I actually thought we were going to pull away but they kept hitting 3s. I thought our last play would have worked better if we had taken a timeout and drawn up a screen and roll as 1st option and then had freeman drive as 2nd option.
|
|
HoyaFanNY
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Never throw to the venus on a spider 3 Y banana!
Posts: 4,995
|
Post by HoyaFanNY on Jan 7, 2010 6:51:41 GMT -5
typical hoya loss. too many stupid turnovers, lapses on defense, and allowing a team full of dwarfs to beat us on the boards. memo to coach thompson...PLEASE NEVER PLAY ZONE AGAIN! as soon as we went to a zone, they started getting offensive rebounds.
also, monroe has to start doing something at the end of games. allowing hayward to get that rebound over him was inexcusable. if you are as good as everyone says you are, put this team on your back and take over at the end of close games.
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 7, 2010 7:17:22 GMT -5
Just throwing it out there...Marquette was picked 12th in the Big East in both the preseason media poll and the silly re-poll the Syracuse paper conducted just before the conference season kicked off.
I like the whole "everything is a data point" thing. Well, this game is another data point that is suggesting to me the gap between Big East teams isn't that large this year. #12 has now defeated us and played last possession games with #2 and #3 (Nova/WVU). For that matter, St. John's led us in the last quarter of our game. Seton Hall played close with WVU and Cuse but couldn't finish it off. The team that's looked the best so far this BE season is Pitt--they were #10 according to writers at the end of December!
It's much more even than we even though in the BE this year.
A lot of people are buying into the notion that this is a down year for CBB, and that there are few truly elite teams. Heck, one of those teams got all they could handle from Cornell last night!
|
|
sweetness
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 860
|
Post by sweetness on Jan 7, 2010 7:46:03 GMT -5
I believe that if Monroe grabs that rebound over Hayward we go on to win the game.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Jan 7, 2010 8:22:01 GMT -5
We played fairly well and another positive was Vaughn's ankle seemed OK after he rolled it. They hit a few extremely contested threes and that was the difference. Bring on UCONN.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Jan 7, 2010 8:24:01 GMT -5
Just throwing it out there...Marquette was picked 12th in the Big East in both the preseason media poll and the silly re-poll the Syracuse paper conducted just before the conference season kicked off. I like the whole "everything is a data point" thing. Well, this game is another data point that is suggesting to me the gap between Big East teams isn't that large this year. #12 has now defeated us and played last possession games with #2 and #3 (Nova/WVU). For that matter, St. John's led us in the last quarter of our game. Seton Hall played close with WVU and Cuse but couldn't finish it off. The team that's looked the best so far this BE season is Pitt--they were #10 according to writers at the end of December! It's much more even than we even though in the BE this year. A lot of people are buying into the notion that this is a down year for CBB, and that there are few truly elite teams. Heck, one of those teams got all they could handle from Cornell last night! I think you can throw that prediction out the window.
|
|
|
Post by hoyaheaven on Jan 7, 2010 8:26:54 GMT -5
The best news...Monroe (if he does not want to watch NBA games from the end of the bench) needs at least 2 more years.
We're headed to 4-5-or-6 in the Big East...and a win or two in the NCAAs. Hopefully a loss to UC doesn't start a tailspin.
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Jan 7, 2010 8:28:30 GMT -5
I can't find a video of the ODU game right now, but IIRC both of our losses have had a rebound yanked out of Greg's hands in the final minute that turned into two huge points. That ball has to be his. For those of you convinced that Marquette will never shoot like that again, they went 7/12 from three versus Xavier and 10/16 against West Virginia. Their eFG of 50% is almost exactly their average against major-conference competition this year (seven games 49.5%). They had been taking 31.3% of their shots from three, which would be about 17 3PA for a 54 FGA game. They took 26. Do you think this is for no reason? Or perhaps that this was part of their gameplan and that the vast majority of these shots were uncontested. They went a mind-bogglingly terrible 9/28 from 2. Lazar Hayward went 4/16 and jacked up 7 threes. We did a good job of clogging the lane and a terrible job of defending the perimeter. It needs work. What you're missing is that it wasn't Johnson-Odom and Butler who were burying the 3s--i.e. the guys who were carrying their percentage in that department all season. It was Cubillan and Cubillan alone who was the difference. He's a 40% 3-point shooter and he shot 100% percent in 6 tries. In a 3 point game, that's an enormous difference. I thought we contested Hayward and J-O well (Buycks to a lesser extent) from the outside, and that left Cubillan open. He hit every single one. One miss and we win (given that MU's final two points were a gift from us as a result of the need to foul.)
|
|