I know our pressure got us the lead, but correct me if I'm wrong...
If we are up 1 with 20 seconds left, shouldn't we back off somewhat and force them to do something instead of beating us down the court on a 2-1 and McNeal saving the day with a good foul??
For all of Buzz f-ing pathetic use of timeouts and leadership out there, that play stood out as #1 on the "pathetic" scale today. Just awful.
I said the same exact thing at the game. With 17 secs left, you're not going to get 'Cuse to waste THAT much time by pressing. Chances are, they still get 8-9 seconds to get into their offense.
I say play back, defend and make them force up a shot with a hand in their face. The press break was WAY too easy. Like you said, heck of a play by McNeal for keeping a clean shot from getting up.
It was terrible. TERRIBLE. Put a guy on the ball and just put a little ball pressure and that's all you need there. A full court press w/that much time left was just abominable.
I think the purpose was to keep the ball from Flynn. After watching it again Rel almost did not look like he was aware the ball was in play. If they were trying to deny Flynn the ball then They should have left the inbounder alone and had Jimmy play behind Flynn to prevent the breakout
That was horrendous. Almost looked like the old Loyola Marymount D where you force the other team up the court. We had multiple guys trailing the play--I don't understand what the theory was there.
Here is why Buzz called time out and pressed. Marquette had only committed five personal fouls at this point. Buzz called time out to implement a press, to take up time and then to foul as SU wouldn't be in the 1 and 1 bonus yet. We had a foul to give. Told the team to keep SU players in front of them.
So, Flynn breaks free and we are trying to hang on Flynn along the side line, but the zebras sit on their whistle as Flynn has an advantaged break out to Jackson...which was our 6th team and a shooting foul.
I am sure Buzz set up the offensive play at that TO under the various scenarios...up, down, tied. If tied, he obviously didn't want to call a TO to allow SU to set up on defense as we had the quick advantage on our match-ups. Do I agree necessarily? No, but I cannot say it was wildly out of line.
Net, good strategy...bad execution. Now, Boeheim using all his TO's way before the end...that was stupid.
Considering Buzz didn't call a TO down only 4 w/20 seconds vs. Louisville I find it hard to have that much faith that he thought that secenario through in that manner. Sorry, but I don't buy that.
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on March 08, 2009, 02:52:33 PM
Considering Buzz didn't call a TO down only 4 w/20 seconds vs. Louisville I find it hard to have that much faith that he thought that scenario through in that manner. Sorry, but I don't buy that.
He said this was the intent post game...so if you don't want to believe it...fine.
Think about this scenario, however. MU scores with 17 seconds left. MU calls time out. SU has to put ball in play and has to cover the full back court to win. Mu presses in the backcourt a team with no TO's left to stop the clock once it is running. SU gets it past half court in 7 seconds with pressure, leaving 10 on the clock. MU fouls as they have one to give before SU shoots the 1-1. Since not in the bonus, SU has to in-bound on the side at the hash mark. SU in-bounds ball to Flynn in the backcourt: 3 seconds further from the basket once he catches it in traffic. Now 7 seconds on the clock to get it past half court and get off a hurried shot off vs. what SU wants to do which is pound it inside which they did all game at will.
At my seat I was saying foul him during the TO. Frankly, if MU did not pressure and/or did not foul with one to give, it would have been a reason to complain. The fact that Flynn got free was a lack of execution. Again, Jimmy tried to foul him to no avail with the call.
On the lack of a MU TO on offense with 13 to go...do you remember the GU game at the BC last season? MU had the ball under their basket to end OT and TC called a TO. Thompson changes defense...bracketed DJ bringing the ball up the floor to take more time off the clock. DJ passes half court to get into the play TC and dribbles to the hash mark in a busted play. Game over.
In this case, we have a SU team who only plays an entrenched 2-3 zone. So, with 13 seconds left, Mo dribbles up the court for 5 seconds to the hash mark to safely call TO. Now, 8 seconds on the clock. MU successfully inbounds against a now set 2-3 entrenched zone. Another 3 seconds off the clock--and SU knows the inbounds is going to #22 so they trap on the curl...and MU has 5 seconds to find/rush an open shot.
Or Jerel can take it on his own off the FT, hoping SU doesn't get set in time into the 2-3...maybe Jerel has a good 8 seconds once past half court to find some space and a shot. Is that so bad? Do you think MU staff is that inexperienced? It is fun to debate--and I certainly do it, but I would have a major problem with your scenario if it played out that way.
On UL game...not sure what you are referencing...as MU called a TO at :23 seconds. Refresh my memory?
Pardner, I gotta give you a +1 on the breakdown you did there. I had some questions certainly about the late-game strategy, but it makes some pretty good sense to me.
About the overall coaching strategy though, yes, I think Buzz certainly has some issues to work thru. But we need to keep in mind he's got a 15 year veteran assistant (Benford) and a former head coach who's been around for almost 30 years (Layer). So I think Buzz certainly has some good guys around to give him some advice and have seen just about everything.
Buzz certainly has done some unconventional strategies this year that have worked. But it's not possible for any coach to have every one of their strategies work 100% of the time. However, I think more often than not, Buzz has done a very good job this year. In the end, though, you can only cover the deficiencies of having a roster with a mid-major point guard, an offensively challegened center, and a dearth of talent on the bench for so long.
Pardner,
got to give you a +1 as well. I wanted the press and foul when SU had the ball for all the reasons you said.
I wanted the TO once we had the ball and the tie BUT I get your logic.
Would have like to see something other than a 3 from Jerel.
When anything wins the game I think a drive towards the basket increases your odds (closer shot, foul or dish)
Quote from: Pardner on March 08, 2009, 03:38:36 PM
He said this was the intent post game...so if you don't want to believe it...fine.
Think about this scenario, however. MU scores with 17 seconds left. MU calls time out. SU has to put ball in play and has to cover the full back court to win. Mu presses in the backcourt a team with no TO's left to stop the clock once it is running. SU gets it past half court in 7 seconds with pressure, leaving 10 on the clock. MU fouls as they have one to give before SU shoots the 1-1. Since not in the bonus, SU has to in-bound on the side at the hash mark. SU in-bounds ball to Flynn in the backcourt: 3 seconds further from the basket once he catches it in traffic. Now 7 seconds on the clock to get it past half court and get off a hurried shot off vs. what SU wants to do which is pound it inside which they did all game at will.
At my seat I was saying foul him during the TO. Frankly, if MU did not pressure and/or did not foul with one to give, it would have been a reason to complain. The fact that Flynn got free was a lack of execution. Again, Jimmy tried to foul him to no avail with the call.
On the lack of a MU TO on offense with 13 to go...do you remember the GU game at the BC last season? MU had the ball under their basket to end OT and TC called a TO. Thompson changes defense...bracketed DJ bringing the ball up the floor to take more time off the clock. DJ passes half court to get into the play TC and dribbles to the hash mark in a busted play. Game over.
In this case, we have a SU team who only plays an entrenched 2-3 zone. So, with 13 seconds left, Mo dribbles up the court for 5 seconds to the hash mark to safely call TO. Now, 8 seconds on the clock. MU successfully inbounds against a now set 2-3 entrenched zone. Another 3 seconds off the clock--and SU knows the inbounds is going to #22 so they trap on the curl...and MU has 5 seconds to find/rush an open shot.
Or Jerel can take it on his own off the FT, hoping SU doesn't get set in time into the 2-3...maybe Jerel has a good 8 seconds once past half court to find some space and a shot. Is that so bad? Do you think MU staff is that inexperienced? It is fun to debate--and I certainly do it, but I would have a major problem with your scenario if it played out that way.
On UL game...not sure what you are referencing...as MU called a TO at :23 seconds. Refresh my memory?
No use in explaining Pardner. Apparently some of the geniuses around here think MU hired a moron for a coach and always think the worst when we lose.
so let me get this straight...we are defending an idea that centers on tying up one most explosive players in college basketball? you press when you need a turnover, I don't care how you spin it. ANY time a press is broken, the defense hasto scramble to get back to position. that is our best bet? transition d? what happens if flynn breaks the press, our one defender jumps to foul him, and he passes it to an open space (all over on broken presses) to a chargin syracuse player. I agree that, in theory, this could work, but the upside (4 or 5 seconds of clock) is not worth the downside (a streaking and untouched johnny flynn). we run that set 10 times flynn is gunna single handedly break us 6 times.
the UL reference was shining light on the fact that MU did not foul after wes missed his 3. he took the shot with 23 seconds left and down 4. UL got the rebound and dribbled out the clock.
and for the record, yes, I do have a problem with the idea of just getting mcneal the ball and letting him make a play with 8 seconds. a good coach puts his kids in the best environment to succeed. a hobo off the street could say nothing and let his players play. we forget, but mcneals dagger 3 was the same thing. no timeout, forced shot from 2 feet behind the line. before that shot went in, who was happy with our game hinging on that shot? in big moments buzz defers to his players, and when the players fail, we come onto the board in flocks to lambast their poor decision making. how about we let the guy making 7 figures have some impact on the game?
Quote from: mubball2009 on March 08, 2009, 05:20:42 PM
so let me get this straight...we are defending an idea that centers on tying up one most explosive players in college basketball? you press when you need a turnover, I don't care how you spin it. ANY time a press is broken, the defense hasto scramble to get back to position. that is our best bet? transition d? what happens if flynn breaks the press, our one defender jumps to foul him, and he passes it to an open space (all over on broken presses) to a chargin syracuse player. I agree that, in theory, this could work, but the upside (4 or 5 seconds of clock) is not worth the downside (a streaking and untouched johnny flynn). we run that set 10 times flynn is gunna single handedly break us 6 times.
It would have been a
mortal sin to leave a foul on the board in terms of time management. The BC was still playing music when the refs whistled the ball in play and Rel was caught off guard. You have to keep the player in front of you...which we didn't. Yet, Jimmy was trying to foul Flynn on the break out, but didn't get the call. If they get the foul call, SU has to inbound the ball twice and we have a chance to tip it or knock it loose. Again, more time management.
Or we could have rolled over like a French Poodle like we did vs. Stanford--sit back, collapse on D, and let them get a clear entry into the paint. SU only had 48 of those yesterday.
I am not defending the execution but trying to explain Buzz's strategy. You and others may not agree with it, but it isn't a rookie mistake.
Quote from: mubball2009 on March 08, 2009, 05:36:06 PM
the UL reference was shining light on the fact that MU did not foul after wes missed his 3. he took the shot with 23 seconds left and down 4. UL got the rebound and dribbled out the clock.
Niv talked about a TO, not a foul situation...so I am not sure that was what he was referring to...but I will take a crack at this one too.
First, Wes took the shot at 13 seconds, not 23. He was the only player at the top of the key...and wound up on his arse. Three players crashed to boards. Mo was in the corner. Samuels grabbed the rebound and quickly outletted it on a breakaway...leaving about 4-5 seconds. Mo ran back to foul and Buzz called him off on the break as MU needed two shots to win anyway (4pts. with the two FT's to be taken). Statistically, the game was over at that point...although that could be debated for sure if we could make a three and get a foul (See Wes's acting scene on previous attempt). Of course, UL would have to miss 2 FT's, MU would have to get the rebound, hand it to Wes for a court length three to swish, while also getting fouled in the act.
Quote from: Pardner on March 08, 2009, 11:48:43 AM
Here is why Buzz called time out and pressed. Marquette had only committed five personal fouls at this point. Buzz called time out to implement a press, to take up time and then to foul as SU wouldn't be in the 1 and 1 bonus yet. We had a foul to give. Told the team to keep SU players in front of them.
So, Flynn breaks free and we are trying to hang on Flynn along the side line, but the zebras sit on their whistle as Flynn has an advantaged break out to Jackson...which was our 6th team and a shooting foul.
Net, good strategy...bad execution. Now, Boeheim using all his TO's way before the end...that was stupid.
I could live with this as the strategy--if this was the plan then it was just awful execution. Execution was terrible down the stretch in many ways, including launching a 3 to end regulation in a tie. Just another lost opportunity. They certainly gave it their all, but it is just painful to watch right now. Would be real nice to have a decent showing in the conf tourney to get a little confidence back. A one and done in the conf tourney would be beyond frustrating at this point. These guys deserve to feel at least one more W at this point.
Quote from: Pardner on March 08, 2009, 03:38:36 PM
SU gets it past half court in 7 seconds with pressure, leaving 10 on the clock. MU fouls as they have one to give before SU shoots the 1-1.
No way it takes 7 seconds to get the ball across half court. I'll pretty much guarantee they get the ball across half court in less than 5 every time against the press, unless we get the steal. Couple that with the fact that if wea re pressing and the get the ball across midcourt quickly, you're likely chasing Flynn from behind where it hard to foul, it is dubious strategy at best. You could have pressured the ball with one guy for the same effect without risking the easy breakout.
Now, in the end, it worked out to our advantage. By that point in the game we were getting beat on the boards with some regularity, and if they get a shot up with 5 or more seconds to go there is a good chance they get the putback. We put a horrible FT shooter on the line who was extremely lucky to make one (he shot it way short but got the roll). And we still had plenty of time on the clock to get something for ourselves. Don't like the strategy, but the results were fine.
Quote from: CTWarrior on March 09, 2009, 08:09:17 AM
No way it takes 7 seconds to get the ball across half court. I'll pretty much guarantee they get the ball across half court in less than 5 every time against the press, unless we get the steal. Couple that with the fact that if wea re pressing and the get the ball across midcourt quickly, you're likely chasing Flynn from behind where it hard to foul, it is dubious strategy at best. You could have pressured the ball with one guy for the same effect without risking the easy breakout.
Now, in the end, it worked out to our advantage. By that point in the game we were getting beat on the boards with some regularity, and if they get a shot up with 5 or more seconds to go there is a good chance they get the putback. We put a horrible FT shooter on the line who was extremely lucky to make one (he shot it way short but got the roll). And we still had plenty of time on the clock to get something for ourselves. Don't like the strategy, but the results were fine.
Now you are getting into execution--which was horrible. It took SU 2 seconds to get across half court. I don't even know what press we were in as we never got set. I would have liked to see a UL 3/4's court trap....keeping Flynn in front...wasting the 7 seconds. Instead, he gets loose and runs wild. And, that was not the foul we wanted there. We needed a foul right at/after mid-court as we had one to spare...not a shooting foul on a breakaway (turned out half ok). We would have wanted them to have to in-bound again...wasting more time.
Again, I am just trying to explain the strategy there...not the execution. Execution wins games.
Pardner, I understand and appreciate your analysis on this.
I still feel, however, that with a player of Flynn's speed and caliber that you do not make that gamble there. It was a terrible chance to take. Your team must keep the SU guys in front of you.
Sure that may be execution, but it's the coaches responsibility to get his team in a position to succeed. Buzz didn't do that on that play IMHO.
And if people want to say how it still turned out in our favor that we got the ball w/time left to win it, consider how friggin' lucky we were not to have Jerel called for an intentional foul, which legitimately could have been called. He threw his arms around the guy and did everything but throw him down. We have a different crew, that could be two shots and the ball for Syracuse.