That's the kind of brain-dead play that justifies people questioning MU's bball IQ.
What could he possibly have been thinking? The clock was MU's friend and WV was in panic mode. The worst thing to do in that situatiion is give up points and stop the clock.
Butcks is not a real smart player. I think everybody gets that. Besides trying to find something to bitch about, what is the point of this post?
And why did he steal the ball the next trip instead of just letting them go to the hoop and dunk?
I understand your criticism, but I believe mu has blown leads when they try to be careful not to make mistakes. It was a good double team, he got a path for a steal and it was a close call that went against him because he did take the ball away with minimal contact. I'd rather stay aggressive with this team. Wvu still had plenty of time, and that steal could have sealed the game. The next steal did. And while you hate to stop the clock, it would have been worse to give everyone a cushion and have them drain a couple of quick treys.
Well, if he poked the ball away, Crowder had an easy layup, and the game would have been sealed. So I'd rather they play aggressively TO WIN, rather than sit back.
What a nit-pick.
Yeah it was a dumb play, but DB had a solid game last night. His minutes have been decreasing with the emergence of Junior, but he seems to still be a solid teammate and contributor.
It was a dumb play, but it was pretty evident when the whistle went that Buycks knew it was a dumb play. He looked like he had a decent shot at a steal from my angle, and would have had an uncontested dunk if he poked it away that certainly would have been the dagger. Instead, he got whistled for the foul, allowing them to put points on the board with the clock stopped. Foolish, as you should always just seal the guy down and wait for them to make a mistake at that point, but I understand the thinking.
Still, it was a play like that that cost us the Louisville game. It might be a good thing that we are playing Louisville today as a reminder to Buycks that he has to be more careful in late-game situations. We got the win and the "don't be dumb" reminder.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 10, 2011, 09:49:30 AM
It was a dumb play, but it was pretty evident when the whistle went that Buycks knew it was a dumb play. He looked like he had a decent shot at a steal from my angle, and would have had an uncontested dunk if he poked it away that certainly would have been the dagger. Instead, he got whistled for the foul, allowing them to put points on the board with the clock stopped. Foolish, as you should always just seal the guy down and wait for them to make a mistake at that point, but I understand the thinking.
Still, it was a play like that that cost us the Louisville game. It might be a good thing that we are playing Louisville today as a reminder to Buycks that he has to be more careful in late-game situations. We got the win and the "don't be dumb" reminder.
Buycks did poke the ball and had a potential for the steal. When he went for it, the WVU player regained leverage enough that it was a foul - probably more of by Crowder than Buycks, as he bumped him. If Crowder were called for the foul instead of Buycks would we see a similar post? Or is it just Buycks is more visible, as he took one for the team and played PG more?
Lastly, had Buycks made the steal, it would have been cited here as a key play. The difference between brilliant and bonehead is not as great as it appears ...
Quote from: lab_warrior on March 10, 2011, 09:43:55 AM
Well, if he poked the ball away, Crowder had an easy layup, and the game would have been sealed. So I'd rather they play aggressively TO WIN, rather than sit back.
Wasn't Junior in the same position to have an easy layup but turned back to run down the clock? Why was it not better to get the additional 2 points (making it a three possession game).
The refs had established a pretty aggressive tone throughout the game. Compared to some of the stuff they let slide just plays before (off of the top of my head, the play where Buycks was on the ground with the ball and the WVU player had him fully wrapped around the waste with no call), the Buycks foul could have been a no call. I commend him for trying to play the game the refs were calling.
Quote from: MUFC9295 on March 10, 2011, 10:03:40 AM
Wasn't Junior in the same position to have an easy layup but turned back to run down the clock? Why was it not better to get the additional 2 points (making it a three possession game).
I believe that was DJO. To paraphrase Al: "The other team isn't your opponent now, the clock is." You never give the other team the ball back, if you can run the clock down in that situation.
The reason is that the other team can always limit the time of your possessions by fouling, and if you don't make all of your free throws, then they have more time on their possession to setup a good shot.
Besides, when the pass got thrown, it looked like a breakaway. When they showed the wider reverse angle, he would have had to be dealing with a 1-on-2 situation.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 10, 2011, 10:55:05 AM
I believe that was DJO. To paraphrase Al: "The other team isn't your opponent now, the clock is." You never give the other team the ball back, if you can run the clock down in that situation.
I thought it was one long outlet from Jae to Junior where no one stood between the ball and the hoop. I could go back to confirm the "who", but its of no consequence. The opportunity is the point and the opportunity to score was there. With our foul shooting being sometimes less reliable than we'd like, I'd have taken two easy ones. But I can understand how the clock is "your opponent" too.
Quote from: MUFC9295 on March 10, 2011, 10:59:53 AM
I thought it was one long outlet from Jae to Junior where no one stood between the ball and the hoop. I could go back to confirm the "who", but its of no consequence. The opportunity is the point and the opportunity to score was there. With our foul shooting being sometimes less reliable than we'd like, I'd have taken two easy ones. But I can understand how the clock is "your opponent" too.
Buycks was in a similar situation in Louisville, drove, was fouled (no call) and missed the shot. Gave Louisville an opportunity.
With under 2 to go yesterday, I believe it was DJO who took it to the hoop and missed in a similar situation to Buycks. The players were yelling for him to pull it back out. That likely played into Juniors decision making as well.
Quote from: LittleMurs on March 10, 2011, 10:55:05 AM
I believe that was DJO. To paraphrase Al: "The other team isn't your opponent now, the clock is." You never give the other team the ball back, if you can run the clock down in that situation.
The reason is that the other team can always limit the time of your possessions by fouling, and if you don't make all of your free throws, then they have more time on their possession to setup a good shot.
No it was Jr. he did the right thing. Bilas even commented when Crowder threw the pass "You don't need this, just control the ball" Pulling up was the smart thing--he had to leap to corral the ball, giving the D time to recover and make a block. Afterall, Jr. is about the smallest guy on the floor.
I agree not only that it was Junior, but with his decision to pull it out and slow things down.
Still, Al's quote about the clock being your opponent was said before the time of shot clocks and three point shots. He was referring to the game clock, and knowing that MU would never have to shoot because the opponent would forced to foul; so, you'd have a chance to run down the clock AND score also.
The choice with the shot clock and three pointer is different: score an easy bucket (usually two points) and give up the ball (with the opponent having a chance to hit a three pointer) or pull it back still need to shoot within 30 or so seconds, unless the opponent chooses to foul.
Bottom line is that the choice is not as clear cut as it was in Al's time, though I still believe that Junior made the right choice last night.
Why didn't Aaron Rodgers throw a TD on the last possession in SB XLV which would have put the game away? Did that play change the outcome?
Why make this thread? We know Buycks will never win a game due to his court awareness, that's why we have Cadougan now. Lay off him will you?
Quote from: willie wampum on March 10, 2011, 09:36:52 AM
That's the kind of brain-dead play that justifies people questioning MU's bball IQ.
What could he possibly have been thinking? The clock was MU's friend and WV was in panic mode. The worst thing to do in that situatiion is give up points and stop the clock.
This play and the ensuing inbound play where we threw it away....it's a miracle the tv survived. Fortunately we stole it right back 2 seconds later, but we have got to get smarter at end of games.
I liked the foul. They let time tick below the shot clock so it would turn off. Gambled on a steal. If he connects on the steal - game over. If he fouls they had to hit both free throws. It was just 1/1. Had they connected on a 3 it would have been a 2 point game. The foul limits them to 0, 1 or 2 points max. We have the ball up 7 (steal connects) 5 (miss front end of 1 and 1) 4 (hits 1 free throw) 3(hits both free throws).
Had they not fouled they would have either hit a 3 (2 point lead) hit a 2, and 1 foul, etc.
He also created the last steal of the game that sealed it. I would rather this team stay active, its what they are good at. They took some pretty quick shots late in the game as well, but they were all good shots.
Quote from: kmwtrucks on March 10, 2011, 12:16:43 PM
He also created the last steal of the game that sealed it. I would rather this team stay active, its what they are good at. They took some pretty quick shots late in the game as well, but they were all good shots.
Proof positive that Buzz is reading this board!
It was not a good time for a foul, but I actually liked Buycks aggressiveness at that point in the game. In fact, I thought he had a good chance of getting away with it.