MU coming off a 40 pt. laugher vs. Cinnci and feeling pretty good about itself. Then the worst possible thing happens. Within the first 5 minutes of the Rutgers game it is obvious to Buzz his team could easily win again by 40+ points. Rutgers is just no match for MU (at least for tonight).
Now, what are his choices? Keep on the gas again and have a bunch of big head players who think they are much better than they are to deal with in practice and next game, or make it an ugly game and start coaching to lose.
It was pretty obvious to me that Buzz chose what was best longterm for his team. The strange lineups started midway through the 1st half for goodness sake! He let the team blow a 20 point lead and didn't get his starters back in until it was down to 7 points. In the pre-game show Buzz predicted it would be a close game going down to the wire. That's what he wanted and that's what he created.
I mean really, was there one player on Rutgers team that scared you tonight? Was there any point where you thought MU was actually going to lose? Seriously. The drama at the end was there for teaching purposes only.
Interesting theory. I think it was a combination of Buzz playing Hazel and Cubillan a bit more than he would have liked because they are from the area which alowed Rutgers to go on a 10-0 run I believe, the starters being a little tired and therefore not playing as good a d as they normally would and perhaps Buzz waiting a bit too long in some of his timeout taking. I just don't think you want to purposely allow your team to lose a huge lead on the road in the BE ( where every victory is worth gold) and put the other team in a position to win for teaching purposes.
That said, no doubt Buzz will have learned something from his lineups presumably ( it is dangerous to play Acker,Cubillan and Hazel together at the same time) and I assume some of the lapses on d by the team will be addressed.
I stopped watching when we were up 20+ points - our guys were scoring at will and had the game in hand. I was shocked to see the game was so close.
Rosario - glad we missed on this kid.
MU plays 3 conference games in seven days (Cinncy Sun, RU Wed and WV on Sat). I'm sure Buzz was trying to limit the big 4's minutes as best as possible so they'd still have their legs for Saturday's game.
I'm sure this is why he started subbing to keep players fresh, not to make this a close game.
Quote from: mviale on January 08, 2009, 01:28:59 AM
Rosario - glad we missed on this kid.
Huh? Do you really think that he would have played like that if he went MU? The guy is a huge competitor and extremely talented.
(he was being sarcastic.)
Quote from: Ruby on January 08, 2009, 12:28:52 AM
Was there any point where you thought MU was actually going to lose?
Yes, when the starters were back in and the lead shrank to like 4. I was more than a little worried. Because all it takes is a defensive stop and a jump shot and it is a one possession game, the road team is suddenly doubting themselves and pressing to do too much, all while the home crowd (albeit a small one) is getting jacked up at the thought of running onto the court.
On another note, is a 2-13 night just what the team needed, in order to understand they can't live by the 3 ball? I think it was because it seemed the big three got back to attacking the rim, even with the formidable shot blockers in the game. Wes's little tear drops over their centers made me think I was watching Cordell, as he seemed to love that shot.
i wouldn;t get too caught up in the 3 pt. shooting. they had a bad night. and the good news is they only took 13 shots from three. they knew it was a cold night and they didn;t force it. this is still a good three point shooting team.
You are dreaming if you think that Buzz purposely blew a 21 point lead and let a conference team catch up to send his team a message.
Buzz took the blame for blowing the 21 point lead in the postgame. He said they're still not at the point where he can sit 2 starters at a time. He tried to sit starters a bit longer in the second half than he normally does.
PArt of the collapse is due to BUzz i think and he admitted to putting in too many bench players too early. at one point we had 3 subs in and Buzz has commented many times that he wants to get to the point where two subs can play with 3 starters yet we had 3 subs in.
However, the biggest part of the problem was the players took there foot off the gas. As Al used to reffer to it " we let our sweat dry" we stood around and let off they did not. Now momentum has turned. Buzz and the team learned a valuable lesson that will help us going forward. When you have ateam down 20 especially on the road you work to make it 30, at 30 you work to make it 40. you do not every let off the gas or "let your sweat dry" that is how 20 point leads turn into 2.
Good news is we learned a valuable lesson and still won, we could have learned that lesson and lost but we won. Next time we are in that situation ...hopefully at Providence we can look back and use this as a valuable tool to make sure it does not happen again.
i think it does help us get more focuesd for WVU also.
But no way in heck do i think Buzz "created " that, a coach simply does not think that way. as was proved a 20 point lead can take 30 minutes to build and 5 to lose. He got possibly a little careless and the players took their foot off the peddle is all
During the post game last night Buzz did indeed say he was to blame for the game becoming uncomfortably close down the stretch. He told the radio crew he utilized some of his bench players too early. As it turns out, those are valuable minutes that will most assuredly become important as the season progresses. You can't simulate real game learning experiences in practice. That being said, there is absolutely no way coach Williams contrived a plan that would lead his team perilously close to defeat for the purposes of teaching a lesson. He can can choose a much more appropriate setting for that. The team caught a fortuitous break and is very fortunate to have escaped with victory. A 21 point lead with over 12 minutes to play on the road is not as secure as it would seem. Rutgers put a 10-0 spurt together in the blink of an eye and the advantage was quickly down to 11 with 9 mintues to go. Nice win, but zero chance Buzz frivolously decided it was time for a learning session on the road in the Big East. That would have been an extreme display of overconfidence with potentially demoralizing effects.
Yep, you sure want to blow a 21 point lead and let the home team close within three in the last minute. that is a great move.
Like some pseudo basketball intellectual says, we had too many stumblebums in at once, right? (sarcasm)
We also did not take good care of the ball during the lapse and shot selection and decision making were wanting.
ahhhh, no kidding inexperienced undertalented bench players usually do not take care of the ball well and make poor shot selections that is why they are not starters and RU put a run on them. That is why young inexperienced undertalented teams like Cincy , St Johns , depaul , s fla, etc get rolled on the road. Thanks for the obvious.
we have neither the talent nor the experience to have 2 let alone 3 subs in at once. Buzz got careless.
what I especially liked about this game is that despite Rutgers coming screaming back the team did not, for the first time in YEARS, panic.
I believe this is why they pulled out the game.
aside from Jerel's forced 3 with 20 seconds left on the game clock in the last minute or so, they were playing their game and not making a ton of stupid turnovers (more than normal)
it was hard to watch RU come back like that, but we showed that we can finish out a game and put an opponent away... though I wasn't thrilled with the missed free throws... but I probably never will be.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2009, 11:34:57 AM
what I especially liked about this game is that despite Rutgers coming screaming back the team did not, for the first time in YEARS, panic.
I believe this is why they pulled out the game.
You're 100% right. One of the hardest things for a team do do in sports is "flip the switch" back to the on position after building a big lead and letting it slip away. It's even tougher to do on the road, which is what was so surprising about the outcome of the game.
Often times once the big lead is built, the intensity and focus goes by the wayside. It's natural to relax a little once the game is seemingly put away. The key I saw last night is the guys got their focus back and were not seemingly rattled by the circumstances. That's what having 3 senior guards on the team does for you. Toughness goes a long way, and it will be relied upon immensly this season.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2009, 11:34:57 AM
what I especially liked about this game is that despite Rutgers coming screaming back the team did not, for the first time in YEARS, panic.
We held on because Rutgers made some crucial mistakes. While we didn't panic, we did do some weird things like walk the ball up court in an apparent attempt to milk clock but then rush a poor shot with plenty of time left on the shot clock. There were many times in the second half that we just didn't guard the basket, allowing uncontested layups.
I wouldn't have minded a little more urgency on the defensive end, that's for sure. Basically, we made most of our FTs down the stretch. If that constitutes not panicking, then we didn't panic. We didn't play real smart, thats for sure.
Agree to disagree. Rutgers was shooting the lights out during their big run, and a lot of the shots seemed somewhat contested to me... though there were a few wide open looks at 3's... which you let go. If a team starts knocking down three after three, you tip your hat and don't let them have the easy 2.
when i say there wasnt a lot of panic on their faces I mean that they didnt just start jacking up 3s or turning the ball over, or committing stupid fouls.
I don't think they really rushed many shots except for the McNeal 3 I talked about in my previous post. Furthermore, I would argue that we were about 50% on our FTs down the stretch.
come to think of it, did we even watch the same game?.. I completely disagree with you anytime you used the words plenty, many, or basically in your posting.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2009, 03:20:13 PM
Agree to disagree...Furthermore, I would argue that we were about 50% on our FTs down the stretch.
I can't settle all of the disagreements, but the number of free throws that we made "down the stretch" is a fact, not an opinion that you can argue. Although I guess that you could argue over what "down the stretch" means. Here's the facts:
5:44 WM 1-2
3:47 DJ 0-1
1:26 JM 2-2
1:03 WM 0-1
0:44 JM 1-2
0:34 LH 2-2
0:25 JM 2-2
0:10 JM 2-2
0:02 LH 2-2
Total 12-16
So, I think by any definition of down the stretch we did fairly well (75%), but if you look at the last 34 seconds, we nailed 100%.
Momentum is a beautiful thing when it is on your side. I think Rutgers out scored us by 10 points in a little over 2 minutes. After that Rosario got hot.
sorry but Rutgers did not shoot the lights out they freaking killed us on the boards. When you keep rebounding and shooting until it goes in that is not shooting the lights out. that is playing with momentum, passion and energy whiel we were playing like the game was over. The out efforted us , rebounding is all about effort. Rosario gets his own rebound for their last basket in the lane for a layup, Inman dunks a put back with no on near him, etc. etc. Yes Rosario hit two three to finish 2-10 not shooting the lights out. if we rebound the ball we win by 15
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 08, 2009, 03:20:13 PM
Agree to disagree. Rutgers was shooting the lights out during their big run, and a lot of the shots seemed somewhat contested to me... though there were a few wide open looks at 3's... which you let go. If a team starts knocking down three after three, you tip your hat and don't let them have the easy 2.
when i say there wasnt a lot of panic on their faces I mean that they didnt just start jacking up 3s or turning the ball over, or committing stupid fouls.
I don't think they really rushed many shots except for the McNeal 3 I talked about in my previous post. Furthermore, I would argue that we were about 50% on our FTs down the stretch.
come to think of it, did we even watch the same game?.. I completely disagree with you anytime you used the words plenty, many, or basically in your posting.
Adverbs
are "Usually" overrated :D
No way Buzz intentionally made it a close game. I don''t think that's in his blood, and if/when someone would do that, you might quickly find that you are out of control and you lose.
What is clear is that when we pop our bench players in the game more than one at a time, we sometimes have issues - defense falls off, offense (bench has not been scoring much) etc. If we need to rest the starters in these first few Big East games, we will need to rest them more when we are playing the most physical of the BE teams - all ahead of us. So, bottom line is, we need the bench to step it up.
When the game ended, Buzz said, "I'm glad it's over." It was a road game in the BE.
Anyone think that Taylor would have been a 5 star recruit if Rosario every passed the damn ball?
Quote from: StillAWarrior on January 08, 2009, 04:46:46 PM
I can't settle all of the disagreements, but the number of free throws that we made "down the stretch" is a fact, not an opinion that you can argue. Although I guess that you could argue over what "down the stretch" means. Here's the facts:
5:44 WM 1-2
3:47 DJ 0-1
1:26 JM 2-2
1:03 WM 0-1
0:44 JM 1-2
0:34 LH 2-2
0:25 JM 2-2
0:10 JM 2-2
0:02 LH 2-2
Total 12-16
So, I think by any definition of down the stretch we did fairly well (75%), but if you look at the last 34 seconds, we nailed 100%.
the last 34 seconds were fine, and thankfully we hit them... as they locked up the game for us...
but the 5 minute stretch from 5:44 to :44 was a little more than concerning... I should have been more clear.