A lesser team folds at the Carrier Dome. Great effort in the 2nd Half. Tribute to Buzz and the team. I feel better about the team now than I did going into the game.
Fact is we still got down big
Every year its the same thing. Get up big and blow it for a loss
Get down big, make a great comeback but missed chances bring us barely short.
Which probably means you have a team more playing hard than it is talented. And that's what MU is.
Playing hard with seven guys is tough.
Cuse bench had 31 points, MU bench had 4.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 07, 2012, 05:21:00 PM
Fact is we still got down big
Every year its the same thing. Get up big and blow it for a loss
Get down big, make a great comeback but missed chances bring us barely short.
Rather than see the rain cloud, I will look for the sun.
Yeah, they got down big. At the Carrier Dome. To the Number 1 Team in the Nation right now. To one of the last undefeated teams. Yet, MU didn't fold. Most teams would have.
So, you expected a win before the game, then?
After our run to open the half, I told the girlfriend "we need 2 more runs and we can win this game". We had got to the 8-11 range, needed to get first to the 4-7 range, then make one last run to win. We got the first run, couldn't close on the second.
Yeah, we had a crap first half, but I can't see any way anyone can complain about that second half. We outscored the #1 team in the country on their court by 11. Great half, just one run short of winning the game. Losing Wilson really hurt, and we really need more depth down low to compete with teams like this. On the plus side, we have a truckload of winnable games in the next month. I could honestly see us going from 1-2 to 11-2 in the Big East. I still think if we get Otule back to 100% by March we can compete for a Final Four, but this game showed that we don't have the depth to finish a team like Syracuse.
Quote from: nyg on January 07, 2012, 05:27:42 PM
Playing hard with seven guys is tough.
Cuse bench had 31 points, MU bench had 4.
The cheap shot elbow to Wilson really hurt MU. Shortened an already short bench.
Quote from: MUMac on January 07, 2012, 05:27:49 PM
Rather than see the rain cloud, I will look for the sun.
Yeah, they got down big. At the Carrier Dome. To the Number 1 Team in the Nation right now. To one of the last undefeated teams. Yet, MU didn't fold. Most teams would have.
So, you expected a win before the game, then?
No I didnt expect a win but thats like people saying last game during gtowns comeback "if you told me before the game wed be up 5 now id be happy". You don't get rewarded for exceeding expectations. We never finish these "shocker" games.
Example. ND pulls off big road win vs UL. We just dont do that kind off stuff, i guess expect Uconn last year but they were our record in conference.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 07, 2012, 05:32:23 PM
No I didnt expect a win but thats like people saying last game during gtowns comeback "if you told me before the game wed be up 5 now id be happy". You don't get rewarded for exceeding expectations. We never finish these "shocker" games.
Example. ND pulls off big road win vs UL. We just dont do that kind off stuff, i guess expect Uconn last year but they were our record in conference.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I won't let you p!ss all over my day, though, with your negativity.
Quote from: HaywardsHeroes32 on January 07, 2012, 05:32:23 PM
No I didnt expect a win but thats like people saying last game during gtowns comeback "if you told me before the game wed be up 5 now id be happy". You don't get rewarded for exceeding expectations. We never finish these "shocker" games.
Example. ND pulls off big road win vs UL. We just dont do that kind off stuff, i guess expect Uconn last year but they were our record in conference.
Agreed. I have learned we are pretty much the same team we have always been. A undersized, under talented, scrappy team that can make any game close but rarely closes. Any arguments?
Quote from: MUMac on January 07, 2012, 05:33:54 PM
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I won't let you p!ss all over my day, though, with your negativity.
So that Id rather see us win a big game rather than take "moral" victories that mean nothing, literally nothing on the grand scale.
The occaisional moral victory is fine but 2 in 1 week where we did the exact opposite each game yet found a way to lose both?
We only learned this: if we play hard and together we can be good.
Quote from: MUMac on January 07, 2012, 05:31:01 PM
The cheap shot elbow to Wilson really hurt MU. Shortened an already short bench.
Anyone know the difference between a flagrant 1 and flagrant 2? Does the elbow have to draw blood or something because that sure looked intentional.
This is precisely what I was talking about after the Georgetown game. Everyone was really down bc we blew a lead. Now we are "okay" or "happy with our heart" even though we had an awful first half.
Psychology at its finest.
Finishing on a high note usually will do that. We do need to put together a whole game though.
Where are 2 moral victories this week? I don't see Wednesday's loss as a moral victory. What I see as a positive today, though, is MU came back from consecutive awful halves of basketball and did not quit. At halftime, I was fearful it could be Vandy Part 2, but this time on the road. Could have seen the game stay between 12-20 all game. Is that a moral victory? Maybe. But I think it is something they can build upon going forward.
And no, they didn't close either. Both on the road. Does that mean they cannot or will not close? As my title to this thread stated, learned a lot about this team today. I think they learned a great deal the past two games. As Buzz says, each game is a test. If they make the same mistakes, they have not learned. I, though, feel more confident about the games ahead now than I did after Georgetown and most certainly than I did at halftime.
I think my frustration just stems from the fact that this isn't the first time we make a run from a large deficit in the 2nd half and fall up just short. I just wish for once we end up pulling one off. Villanova, 2 years ago is another example of this type of game. It is what it is though and I'm proud of the team's effort.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 07, 2012, 05:40:21 PM
This is precisely what I was talking about after the Georgetown game. Everyone was really down bc we blew a lead. Now we are "okay" or "happy with our heart" even though we had an awful first half.
Psychology at its finest.
I wasn't down after the loss, nor am I ok or happy. I, though, am pleased that following two awful halves of basketball, this team showed the offense I had seen earlier this season. Is that psychology? I think it is more closely tied to basketball analysis, but whatever.
Why I am very impressed with how the team battled back in the first 15 minutes of the 2nd half, our offensive flow completely changed in the final 5.
After Cadougan's alley-oop to Blue at the 5:25 mark -- our next 8 shots were from beyond the arc.
We were down by 5 points with 5:25 left in the game. Prior to that mark, we were shooting 2-18 from 3 pt land.
How can the Buzz allow this team to shoot 8 consecutive 3 pointers, in a five point game, for a team that was ICE COLD beyond the arc?
It just frustrates me to watch the team fight so hard to get back into the game, by getting great looks in the paint. But once the game gets within reach - DJO and Crowder take it upon themselves to try and win it from beyond the arc.
This team has a real problem of finding offense during "critical possessions". They seem to get away with what got them back in the game - and just let DJO generate offense by simply pump-faking his way into a well-contested three pointer.
Quote from: VwArrior1 on January 07, 2012, 05:44:13 PM
I think my frustration just stems from the fact that this isn't the first time we make a run from a large deficit in the 2nd half and fall up just short. I just wish for once we end up pulling one off. Villanova, 2 years ago is another example of this type of game. It is what it is though and I'm proud of the team's effort.
You just cannot get down 23 in the first half. Staying on 12 for an eternity. Poor shooting, poor FT shooting, unforced BAD turnovers, no defense, no rebounding ... Against Nova, MU did not play bad basketball, they were cold. Warmed up in the 2nd half.
As bad as people felt about Georgetown and Vanderbilt, after 16-12, that was as bad of basketball that I have witnessed in quite a while. That is why I see some positives. It wasn't like they just got hot - they didn't. They did not, though, make the same mistakes or play with the poor effort that they did in the first half.
That, hopefully, is what they build upon.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on January 07, 2012, 05:40:21 PM
This is precisely what I was talking about after the Georgetown game. Everyone was really down bc we blew a lead. Now we are "okay" or "happy with our heart" even though we had an awful first half.
Psychology at its finest.
Exactly.
Quote from: amen426 on January 07, 2012, 05:50:04 PM
Why I am very impressed with how the team battled back in the first 15 minutes of the 2nd half, our offensive flow completely changed in the final 5.
After Cadougan's alley-oop to Blue at the 5:25 mark -- our next 8 shots were from beyond the arc.
We were down by 5 points with 5:25 left in the game. Prior to that mark, we were shooting 2-18 from 3 pt land.
How can the Buzz allow this team to shoot 8 consecutive 3 pointers, in a five point game, for a team that was ICE COLD beyond the arc?
It just frustrates me to watch the team fight so hard to get back into the game, by getting great looks in the paint. But once the game gets within reach - DJO and Crowder take it upon themselves to try and win it from beyond the arc.
This team has a real problem of finding offense during "critical possessions". They seem to get away with what got them back in the game - and just let DJO generate offense by simply pump-faking his way into a well-contested three pointer.
That's a good analysis. I wondered why so many 3's as well. Some were on breaks, while some others were early in the shot clock.
Just like the last two years ... slow start in BE play, with a strong finish. This team, when it fully realizes it is a team, will go places. In the meantime, they are giving this fan serious heart-burn!
Can't say the second half wasn't really good, but I doubt Cuse fans will shed a tear over "losing" the second half when the game was over at halftime. Easy to lose focus when the game is won (cause most teams don't blow that kind of lead), and easy to look good when there's no pressure on you. Hoping to see us play a game where it looks like we value every possession for 40 minutes, not 25 in one game and 15 in the next.
Quote from: chapman on January 07, 2012, 06:00:30 PM
Can't say the second half wasn't really good, but I doubt Cuse fans will shed a tear over "losing" the second half when the game was over at halftime. Easy to lose focus when the game is won (cause most teams don't blow that kind of lead), and easy to look good when there's no pressure on you. Hoping to see us play a game where it looks like we value every possession for 40 minutes, not 25 in one game and 15 in the next.
Are you describing MU against Georgetown or Syracuse? ;)
Quote from: MUMac on January 07, 2012, 05:56:54 PM
That's a good analysis. I wondered why so many 3's as well. Some were on breaks, while some others were early in the shot clock.
We did shoot a lot of threes, but I don't know what else we were supposed to do in our half court offense. Have Crowder or Gardner post up against someone 3 inches taller? Have Vander or DJO drive so that at best they draw a foul and probably make 1 out of 2? Syracuse does a great job of making you beat them with contested long jumpers. They will lose with that strategy occasionally, but rarely.
Quote from: amen426 on January 07, 2012, 05:50:04 PM
Why I am very impressed with how the team battled back in the first 15 minutes of the 2nd half, our offensive flow completely changed in the final 5.
After Cadougan's alley-oop to Blue at the 5:25 mark -- our next 8 shots were from beyond the arc.
We were down by 5 points with 5:25 left in the game. Prior to that mark, we were shooting 2-18 from 3 pt land.
How can the Buzz allow this team to shoot 8 consecutive 3 pointers, in a five point game, for a team that was ICE COLD beyond the arc?
It just frustrates me to watch the team fight so hard to get back into the game, by getting great looks in the paint. But once the game gets within reach - DJO and Crowder take it upon themselves to try and win it from beyond the arc.
This team has a real problem of finding offense during "critical possessions". They seem to get away with what got them back in the game - and just let DJO generate offense by simply pump-faking his way into a well-contested three pointer.
Excellent points.
Quote from: Jacks DC on January 07, 2012, 06:08:13 PM
We did shoot a lot of threes, but I don't know what else we were supposed to do in our half court offense. Have Crowder or Gardner post up against someone 3 inches taller? Have Vander or DJO drive so that at best they draw a foul and probably make 1 out of 2? Syracuse does a great job of making you beat them with contested long jumpers. They will lose with that strategy occasionally, but rarely.
MU made most of their points on non 3's. Their runs in the 2nd half were due to points in the paint, not 3's. The 3's they took in the 2nd half killed their momentum. Crowder 2 or 3 times, DJO once Mayo twice. All either on breaks or early in the shot clock.
Quote from: Jacks DC on January 07, 2012, 06:08:13 PM
We did shoot a lot of threes, but I don't know what else we were supposed to do in our half court offense. Have Crowder or Gardner post up against someone 3 inches taller? Have Vander or DJO drive so that at best they draw a foul and probably make 1 out of 2? Syracuse does a great job of making you beat them with contested long jumpers. They will lose with that strategy occasionally, but rarely.
You don't seem to understand the point. Marquette cut an 18 point lead to a 5 point lead, by getting layups and free throws (and one three pointer by Junior Cadougan).
One-on-One matchups (as you suggested) do not break down a 2-3 zone. Ball movement does.
I thought Vander did a nice job of roaming the baseline and getting a few easy layups during our run. But that was only made possible by having several passes throughout the possession.
When we stop moving the ball - you stop getting quality looks in the paint.
Are we capable of playing a competitive whole game against a good opponent? I do have to admit I was amazed that we got back into it like we did! Crowder shooting threes when hes way off is frustrating, we need to work the clock. Also the TOs have to stop,lazy passes, forcing passes,corner threes with run outs. I'm at a loss and we had another loss. Maybe the comraderie
isn't good in the locker room!
Quote from: UticaBusBarn on January 07, 2012, 05:59:15 PM
Just like the last two years ... slow start in BE play, with a strong finish. This team, when it fully realizes it is a team, will go places. In the meantime, they are giving this fan serious heart-burn!
Couldn't agree more.
Piss on the moral victory bs. We learned, in spades, what makes us a very good team . Ball movement, paint touches, and going to the ft line. Had we done that consistently, wow.
Put it this way...Jae was 4-4 from 2 point distance...DJO was 3-7. They settle for threes way too much. Junior and Vander sparked the comeback by attacking the zone. Now, I am not saying that they should never shoot threes, but it should be within the flow of the offense. Too many of them were after they held the ball for awhile, or early in the shot clock. They need to let the game come to them more.
The biggest positive that can come out of this game and make this the biggest moment of the season is if the underclassman realize that they need to take control of this team and not depend on DJO and Jae. We play much better when DJO and Jae dont try to force shots. Why Buzz lets this happen as it did in the last five minutes I don't know. But hopefully this a game where some players look at what happened in the comeback, how the comeback took place and begin to take control of this team and take it away from DJO and Jae. We need those two guys but we don't need them pressing when obviously they are not dependable.
Another way to look at this... Last year Jae shot a 3 for every 8.7 minutes he played. This year, he is shooting one for every 6.0 minutes of game play. This despite the fact that MU is missing its main mid-range scorer from last year in JFB. He has to be more of an interior presense.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on January 07, 2012, 06:39:42 PM
Put it this way...Jae was 4-4 from 2 point distance...DJO was 3-7. They settle for threes way too much. Junior and Vander sparked the comeback by attacking the zone. Now, I am not saying that they should never shoot threes, but it should be within the flow of the offense. Too many of them were after they held the ball for awhile, or early in the shot clock. They need to let the game come to them more.
Agreed!