MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Glocced and Loaded on December 29, 2009, 09:35:31 PM

Title: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: Glocced and Loaded on December 29, 2009, 09:35:31 PM
Great game plan by Buzz for 39:57.7.  Our guys gave a hell of an effort.  That said, once the officials changed the clock to 2.3 after Butler's miracle, doesn't that merit a timeout and a different end game play?  Cubillan's launch to the front court makes sense for a team with 1.8 seconds.  Someone can catch and turnaround or tap to a flashing player.  But 2.3 seconds opens up an entirely different set of options.  You can inbound in the backcourt and hand off to a streaking player up either sideline or in the middle and get a shot off the dribble with momentum towards the basket.  I don't understand sticking with the same play despite being awarded an additional half second. 
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: Sir Lawrence on December 29, 2009, 09:37:31 PM
Blink.
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: Rollout-the-Barrel on December 29, 2009, 09:37:59 PM
How long did it take tyus edney to score?
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: 21Jumpstreet on December 29, 2009, 09:38:29 PM
Very difficult ending to watch.  If you saw the play at the end of the half during Presbyterian, you know that at least there is some creativity to be found.  Granted WVU is far more athletic and quick, but at least get it in with a chance to take a dribble and shoot.  Very frustrating ending.  Great effort for 38 minutes.
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: marquette09 on December 29, 2009, 09:39:01 PM
not that big a difference, still not many options with only 2.3 remaining
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2009, 09:44:08 PM
they did not change the clock until everyone was back on the floor.  To late to change at that point if it will work with 1.8 it would work with 2.3  trying to change at that point can only lead to confusion.
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: Golden Avalanche on December 29, 2009, 09:46:22 PM
Quote from: marquette09 on December 29, 2009, 09:39:01 PM
not that big a difference, still not many options with only 2.3 remaining


Agree there aren't many options but you'd still like to see your team actually get a shot -- no matter how remote. After all, we witnessed a ridiculous running 38-footer from Ebanks at the end of the first half and, of course, the ridiculous turn around step-back jumper from Butler to win it.
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: ecompt on December 29, 2009, 09:49:26 PM
The game came down to DJO missing the free throw and WVU driving down the court and scoring in less than four seconds. If we play ANY defense on that possession it's a different game. With seven Division I-caliber players we have to do everything right to win a game like that. We did more than everything right for more than 39 minutes.
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: ChicosBailBonds on December 29, 2009, 09:52:48 PM
Quote from: ecompt on December 29, 2009, 09:49:26 PM
The game came down to DJO missing the free throw and WVU driving down the court and scoring in less than four seconds. If we play ANY defense on that possession it's a different game. With seven Division I-caliber players we have to do everything right to win a game like that. We did more than everything right for more than 39 minutes.

Our defense the entire last minute left a lot to be desired, not just the last 4 seconds.  We are short handed, se are short, but we continue to have teams on the ropes for 39 minutes and choke games away that involve things that are not related to being short or short handed.  It's a shame, MU should have won tonight....just as they should have beaten NC State and FSU.  Ughh
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: nycwarrior on December 29, 2009, 10:37:20 PM
devastating to drop this one after FSU and NC State. We would be looking like a tourney team with an identity despite our lack of depth with those three wins.
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: ChicosBailBonds on December 29, 2009, 10:38:30 PM
Quote from: Rollout-the-Barrel on December 29, 2009, 09:37:59 PM
How long did it take tyus edney to score?

4.8 seconds
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: TJ on December 30, 2009, 09:00:26 AM
I don't understand why we elected to go with the football pass/jump ball route against a team whose smallest starter is taller than our 2nd biggest player (with our biggest player being on the bench).

I would have rather run out of time with the ball in our hands than throw it away in that situation.  But at the end of the day it's wouldn't have made the loss any more bearable so whatever...
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: WellsstreetWanderer on December 30, 2009, 09:36:38 AM
Lets give this squad some props. they scared the heck out of and took the #6 team to the wire on their court. I for one didn't expect it to be even close. I am proud of them and lazar was a stud
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: Skatastrophy on December 30, 2009, 09:53:01 AM
Quote from: elephantraker on December 30, 2009, 09:36:38 AM
Lets give this squad some props. they scared the heck out of and took the #6 team to the wire on their court. I for one didn't expect it to be even close. I am proud of them and lazar was a stud

That's the truth.
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: Rollout-the-Barrel on December 30, 2009, 10:07:12 AM
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 29, 2009, 10:38:30 PM
4.8 seconds
Thanks.  Not even close.
Title: Re: 2.3 vs 1.8
Post by: martyconlonontherun on December 30, 2009, 10:19:05 AM
Quote from: nycwarrior on December 29, 2009, 10:37:20 PM
devastating to drop this one after FSU and NC State. We would be looking like a tourney team with an identity despite our lack of depth with those three wins.

Not only tourney, but your talking rankings at this point. If we win this and one of the others we would be in the top 25 right now. We had some votes after the Michigan game, so this would've sealed it.
EhPortal 1.39.9 © 2025, WebDev