Just a shame to see a gutsy effort fall short- again. It seems this year, and last w/ Stanford, the game management was poor with a lead in the final two minutes. Bad shots, rushed shots, fumbled rebounds, and turnovers against Stanford, Syracuse, and Villanova were a common theme.
The team was magnificent in its toughness and sheer willpower to come back against good competition. It almost seems that if they took a lead too early (not on the last shot) there was an, "oh crap, what do we do next?"
It is common to see mad comebacks fall short as the leading team only needs to make a play or two to retake a lead while a pursuing team needs everything to go perfect. So is it coaching? Maybe not, the same issue happened last year with Stanford under Crean. However, I did see the same pass to the left block on penetration result in a reverse layup (Villanova end game play) throughout the second half. The weak side help was very slow or non-existent in this last cluster of games.
Obviously a healthy DJ would have made a big difference. What a true Warrior.
I would have felt better giving Lazar a shot in the post sooner in the possession and perhaps get to the line. The game was lost with that air ball, not the end line play.
Meandering thoughts from someone who woke up thinking about the game and couldn't go back to sleep...
JMK '87
plus, didn't Jimmy put back the miss for a bucket?
who took the 3 on the shot-clock violation?
What about Utah State (won by one), at NC State (won on a three by DJ at the buzzer), Providence (down by 13 in the second half on the road and won by 9), ND (beat them on the road after coming from behind in the second half) and at G-Town (won by 6 on their home court).
Please analyze the poor game management of this contests.
The problem with your analysis, which makes the entire comment unless, is you fail to understand that their was another team on the court at the same time. The bad shots, rushed shots (I assume you mean Jimmy's 3 that was ruled an airball) was the results to things that Mizzou did right, not what we did wrong. Mizzou played good D on that series and while we tried to get the ball to Wes and/or Jarel, we were denied.
Again, their was another team on the court. You think the Mizzou boards are saying they won because MU did not execute good weak side help? Nope, they are saying Tiller's ball screen was executed to perfection.
We lost this game on two dates, September 1 when Mbakwe transferred and February 25 hen DJ was hurt. These were the downfalls to this season.
Sorry for the harsh language, but the "we do everything wrong the other team never does anything right" analysis of a game pisses me off. Try giving Stanford, 'Nova and Mizzou some credit. In case you forgot, they were all sweet sixteen teams. That means they were pretty good.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 23, 2009, 08:45:51 AM
What about Utah State (won by one), at NC State (won on a three by DJ at the buzzer), Providence (down by 13 in the second half on the road and won by 9), ND (beat them on the road after coming from behind in the second half) and at G-Town (won by 6 on their home court).
Please analyze the poor game management of this contests.
The problem with your analysis, which makes the entire comment unless, is you fail to understand that their was another team on the court at the same time. The bad shots, rushed shots (I assume you mean Jimmy's 3 that was ruled an airball) was the results to things that Mizzou did right, not what we did wrong. Mizzou played good D on that series and while we tried to get the ball to Wes and/or Jarel, we were denied.
Again, their was another team on the court. You think the Mizzou boards are saying they won because MU did not execute good weak side help? Nope, they are saying Tiller's ball screen was executed to perfection.
We lost this game on two dates, September 1 when Mbakwe transferred and February 25 hen DJ was hurt. These were the downfalls to this season.
Sorry for the harsh language, but the "we do everything wrong the other team never does anything right" analysis of a game pisses me off. Try giving Stanford, 'Nova and Mizzou some credit. In case you forgot, they were all sweet sixteen teams. That means they were pretty good.
they are afforded some credit, but if you can't get a shot off and the buzzer goes off, 99% of the time it is because you screwed yourself.
and the games you listed? we had better beat those teams... only one of them made the NCAA tournament.
Problems for MU this year did not come from having late leads, they came from falling behind early. They almost always were able to mount furious comebacks, but it is awfully tough to have to play that hard to come back from significant deficits (Mizzou, Syracuse, Villanova, Pitt), and still have enough left to finish the game. Those losses (especially the close ones) were lost much earlier than the final minutes. Everyone wants to focus on the last couple minutes, but if you play better for the first 38, the last 2 don't mean nearly as much.
I think it has something to do with the fact that MU must play very aggressively to score. This has been particularly true after Dom was injured. Once these guys switch to a mode where they are trying to milk the clock they lose that aggressive edge and as a result they stop scoring. We don't have a low post guy who you can plan on throwing it into with 5 seconds left and he'll get a high percentage shot. We also don't have a dead eye shooter who you can run a play to get off a 3 even if its 3 feet behind the 3 point line. If you wait too long you just may not be able to beat your man exactly on que. Secondly with DJ effectively gone you only have to guard 3 guys. As you get deep in the clock you can concentrate more on staying between your guy and the ball. Burning time makes our 1 dimensional offense easier to guard.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on March 23, 2009, 09:49:51 AM
but if you can't get a shot off and the buzzer goes off, 99% of the time it is because you screwed yourself.
s
So when you were watch our guys hustling around and forcing a shot clock violation, your immediately thought is it had nothing to do with our defense but rather the other team screwed up.
Think real hard about what you wrote.
I couldn't agree more that those losses I mentioned were to good teams. However, when a team puts itself in a position of a bail out shot with the game on the line, they have not executed. The offense knows what play they want to run and being aggressive will result in a foul and a trip to the line more often than not.
So in yesterday's game, should Acker and Butler really be the last two guys to touch the ball? Was that all Mizzou D or poor execution? You decide.
As far as Utah State went, the bank 3 and 3 at the buzzer only highlight how important it is to execute to keep a close game at two possessions. MU was much more talented than Utah State despite the hole they dug with about 5 minutes left. MU's aggressiveness paid off as the fouls mounted up for USt.
As far as NCSt, ND, & Providence go- DJ was there and I acknowledged that he is a difference maker. As far as the ball screen went, that was good execution and coaching. Villanova sliced MU up with that, including the game winner. Mizzou saw that and went with it. We couldn't stop it or didn't recognize it- again you decide. Moot points if there is execution on the offensive end (as we had the lead).
MU's talent level was very close to the other teams I referenced. Obviously, putting oneself in the hole double digits early on is the true culprit. I did not "fail to understand that their (sic) was another team on the court", but all those games I referenced were there for the taking. There were bad, almost inexplicable shots put up at the end of those games- with leads- that didn't fall. If they did, no discussion.
So sure, we're all disappointed, but we're all fans of the same team. And as far as the others go, yes they were pretty good.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 23, 2009, 08:45:51 AM
We lost this game on two dates, September 1 when Mbakwe transferred and February 25 hen DJ was hurt. These were the downfalls to this season.
The thing is though, if we were good enough without Trevor and DJ to have a 4 point lead that late in the game, we should have been good enough to keep it.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 23, 2009, 10:54:48 AM
Problems for MU this year did not come from having late leads, they came from falling behind early. They almost always were able to mount furious comebacks, but it is awfully tough to have to play that hard to come back from significant deficits (Mizzou, Syracuse, Villanova, Pitt), and still have enough left to finish the game. Those losses (especially the close ones) were lost much earlier than the final minutes. Everyone wants to focus on the last couple minutes, but if you play better for the first 38, the last 2 don't mean nearly as much.
Good point and a lot of that had to do with a very short bench and lack of quality backups. Against Nova, we are even in that game until Acker picks up his second foul halfway through the first half. WIth no point guard, we get run out of the gym. Against Mizzou, Hayward picks up his second foul halfway through the first half and we lose a very valuable scorer. Now we go from three scorers to two and we don't get a field goal until the last possession of the half. Against Pitt we were just outmanned. Syracuse we lose because we don't have a legit point guard and had to rely on McNeal making something out of nothing.
The hope is that Buzz can recruit a lot of quality so injuries and foul trouble issues can have a smaller impact on the court due to our depth.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 23, 2009, 08:10:00 PM
The thing is though, if we were good enough without Trevor and DJ to have a 4 point lead that late in the game, we should have been good enough to keep it.
Why? Its a 40 minute game. How late is late? 1 minute left? 2? 4? 6? I could easily say if Mizzou had a 16 point lead, they
should be good enough to keep it. Difference is, they were good enough to keep it.
Its a ridiculous comment. We weren't good enough to keep it, so why exactly
should we have been? Seems to me Siena had about a 4 point lead on UL in the second half,
should they have been good enough to keep it? USU had a late 6 point lead on MU,
should they have been good enough to keep it? Heck using that logic, USU
should be better than Mizzou.
I'll never understand why people want to take a 40 minute game and turn it into something other than a 40 minute game.
I guess it did boil down to what Buzz said earlier, that they had a slim margin for error early on with a full lineup and no margin for error when DJ went down. A huge effort to come back, just disappointed they couldn't hold on to the(se) game(s).
Quote from: eyemon on March 23, 2009, 02:39:21 PM
So in yesterday's game, should Acker and Butler really be the last two guys to touch the ball? Was that all Mizzou D or poor execution? You decide.
All I know is that if I were Missouri's coach in that last timeout I would have told my team "Under no circumstances let McNeal, Hayward or Matthews touch the ball. We'll take our chances yielding the ball to Acker and Butler and make them beat us."
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on March 23, 2009, 10:23:02 PM
Why? Its a 40 minute game. How late is late? 1 minute left? 2? 4? 6? I could easily say if Mizzou had a 16 point lead, they should be good enough to keep it. Difference is, they were good enough to keep it.
Its a ridiculous comment. We weren't good enough to keep it, so why exactly should we have been? Seems to me Siena had about a 4 point lead on UL in the second half, should they have been good enough to keep it? USU had a late 6 point lead on MU, should they have been good enough to keep it? Heck using that logic, USU should be better than Mizzou.
I'll never understand why people want to take a 40 minute game and turn it into something other than a 40 minute game.
Because we got away from what got us there and we played a poor first half. If we're good enough to have the lead in minute 39, we're good enough to have it in minute 40. Execution. We had a piss poor offensive play to end the game (actually two of them....the airball, the rushed shot by Jerel and the missed free throw by Jerel), and then we didn't rotate properly on the defensive play where Tiller got fouled. Execute, and we win. We didn't execute. Top that off with the first half where for some darn reason the staff thought running with Missouri made sense and we dug ourselves a big hole. It's one thing to be aggressive and attack the basket (our game), but quite another to run up and down the court with these guys which we shouldn't have been doing.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 24, 2009, 09:05:47 AM
Because we got away from what got us there and we played a poor first half. If we're good enough to have the lead in minute 39, we're good enough to have it in minute 40. Execution. We had a piss poor offensive play to end the game (actually two of them....the airball, the rushed shot by Jerel and the missed free throw by Jerel), and then we didn't rotate properly on the defensive play where Tiller got fouled. Execute, and we win. We didn't execute. Top that off with the first half where for some darn reason the staff thought running with Missouri made sense and we dug ourselves a big hole. It's one thing to be aggressive and attack the basket (our game), but quite another to run up and down the court with these guys which we shouldn't have been doing.
We, we we....We did this. We didn't do that. There are two teams on the court and the opponent gets a say in the matter too. Did Missouri play a perfect game? You can't just say,
if only MU had done this, and not give the other team the same opportunity.
Again, a completely ridiculous argument...To conclude that Marquette "should have" held the lead until the end of the game, is necessarily to conclude that Missouri should not have. Without invalidating your argument by needing to revise history and pointing only mistakes that Marquette should be able to correct, what evidence is there to support that? The lead Missouri had through the overwhelming majority of the game? Their 3 seed to our 6? Their conference tournament win? Their better record? Better RPI? Their higher ranking? After all, who executed and who didn't? What about MU's inability to execute, coupled with Mizzou's ability to execute suggests that Marquette
should have won the game?
Again using your logic, MU
should have won the Big East and been a number 1 seed. If only we had done this or done that, without affording our opponents the same opportunity to change some things, we would have been undefeated.