Contrary to what many people seem to believe, teams do not perform at the same level every game. If you graded teams on a numbered scale, they wouldn't be one given one score. They would be given two. One would be the level that they can achieve when they are playing their absolute best, the other when they are playing their absolute worst. Most nights, they will be somewhere between those two numbers.
This Marquette team has had a game where they were pretty close to what I assume is their ceiling in Vanderbilt. They have also had a game where they were pretty close to what I hope is their floor in Michigan. Howard and Pitt were closer to the middle. The team that played against Vandy is not only a tournament team but a high seeded one. The one that showed up to the Michigan game wouldn't make the NIT, not even close. The team that played against Pitt was an NIT team and the team against Howard was a bubblicious team.
We've got a long season ahead of us. I think we are capable of playing closer to our ceiling most nights and making the tournament. It is not wise nor enjoyable to assume that this team will play close to its floor the rest of the season.
What you see is what you get. The rest is wishful thinking.
Quote from: 79Warrior on November 18, 2016, 11:33:45 PM
What you see is what you get. The rest is wishful thinking.
Ok. I saw a high seeded NCAA tournament team against Vanderbilt. I also saw a team that wouldn't sniff the NITs against Michigan. Which one am I getting?
Fans who predict national championships after 1 dominating win and fans who declare the season over after 1 bad loss don't understand how college basketball works.
Vandy is not a very good team, Howard will be lucky to finish in the 200's as far as RPI is concerned. So non conference cupcakes and DePaul are who we have to look forward to, that depresses me. Sky is falling
Good stuff here TAMU
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 18, 2016, 11:55:19 PM
Ok. I saw a high seeded NCAA tournament team against Vanderbilt. I also saw a team that wouldn't sniff the NITs against Michigan. Which one am I getting?
Fans who predict national championships after 1 dominating win and fans who declare the season over after 1 bad loss don't understand how college basketball works.
i saw MU beat a Vandy team that will be bottom of the SEC. Not sure how that translates into a high NCAA seed. If Vandy is our best non conference win that I think you can throw your high seed out the window.
I think he meant the way they played against Vandy not that beating them was going to get us a high seed.
People need to chill.....we are not going to be a high seed....hopefully we can fight into consideration for a berth and show progress from last season.
Michigan is obviously a very good team.....i would expect them to be ranked Monday. If we had pulled out a close win against Pitt instead of a close loss the mood would be completely different......our seniors didn't show up.....Pitts did.....we aren't going to beat many quality opponents with JJ and Luke playing poorly......not to mention Reinhardt....... ::)
Time to move on.....lot of season left.
Quote from: MuMark on November 19, 2016, 04:04:29 PM
I think he meant the way they played against Vandy not that beating them was going to get us a high seed.
People need to chill.....we are not going to be a high seed....hopefully we can fight into consideration for a berth and show progress from last season.
Michigan is obviously a very good team.....i would expect them to be ranked Monday. If we had pulled out a close win against Pitt instead of a close loss the mood would be completely different......our seniors didn't show up.....Pitts did.....we aren't going to beat many quality opponents with JJ and Luke playing poorly......not to mention Reinhardt....... ::)
Time to move on.....lot of season left.
i misunderstood his point. I stand corrected.
Quote from: MuMark on November 19, 2016, 04:04:29 PM
I think he meant the way they played against Vandy not that beating them was going to get us a high seed.
People need to chill.....we are not going to be a high seed....hopefully we can fight into consideration for a berth and show progress from last season.
Michigan is obviously a very good team.....i would expect them to be ranked Monday. If we had pulled out a close win against Pitt instead of a close loss the mood would be completely different......our seniors didn't show up.....Pitts did.....we aren't going to beat many quality opponents with JJ and Luke playing poorly......not to mention Reinhardt....... ::)
Time to move on.....lot of season left.
Totally agree. This board would be OMG WE ARE DOIN REAL GOOD! If we had score 4 more points on Friday. A lot of the season left. Should we have won on Friday? I feel yes. But it was close. Gotta bounce back that's all.
We were never going to be a high seed. Give us a 8-11 seed. Let's just be bubblicious once February rolls around.
I have seen a soft poorly coached team that plays horse crap defense for 2+ seasons now. Sure some games the degrees of softness, bad coaching n defensive weakness vary but they still are what they are.
79 warrior is right. those thinking that this team will be ncaa tourney worthy are living in a fantasy world. we don't have the horses or the size. love mu bb but am a realist.
ATWizJr. You are exactly correct. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Quote from: jonny09 on November 19, 2016, 07:06:12 PM
ATWizJr. You are exactly correct. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Ok now that we all know the end result can we enjoy the rest of the season before organizing the mass suicide?
I prefer the cherry flavored Kool aid. Maybe a poll?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 18, 2016, 11:31:29 PM
Contrary to what many people seem to believe, teams do not perform at the same level every game. If you graded teams on a numbered scale, they wouldn't be one given one score. They would be given two. One would be the level that they can achieve when they are playing their absolute best, the other when they are playing their absolute worst. Most nights, they will be somewhere between those two numbers.
This Marquette team has had a game where they were pretty close to what I assume is their ceiling in Vanderbilt. They have also had a game where they were pretty close to what I hope is their floor in Michigan. Howard and Pitt were closer to the middle. The team that played against Vandy is not only a tournament team but a high seeded one. The one that showed up to the Michigan game wouldn't make the NIT, not even close. The team that played against Pitt was an NIT team and the team against Howard was a bubblicious team.
We've got a long season ahead of us. I think we are capable of playing closer to our ceiling most nights and making the tournament. It is not wise nor enjoyable to assume that this team will play close to its floor the rest of the season.
To use your analogy, lets assume we have a few really good games ,a few embarrassments and the for the most part we play at a middle level. In that scenario, I am still at the place I was when we made the game by game predictions. That is we are going to have a hard time being escaping the bottom third of the Big East.
For us to play closer to our ceiling we are good to need all of our key players having good games at the same time. When I look at each player individually ,almost every one has demonstrated some good things so far this year. I think it is up to the coaching staff to blend our talent into a consistently performing team. I am simply not confident the coaching staff has ability to do that.
Lets see what can be done about building our team cohesion back in the coming 3 cupcake games. Then we have another test against Georgia on the road.
In the meantime I still we should find a 13th non conference game against a cupcake to build up our win total for optics sakes.
Quote from: ATWizJr on November 19, 2016, 06:31:46 PM
79 warrior is right. those thinking that this team will be ncaa tourney worthy are living in a fantasy world. we don't have the horses or the size. love mu bb but am a realist.
Disagree. We are four games in. If we play like we did against Vandy most nights, we are dancing easy. If we play like we did against Michigan most nights we will be nowhere near the NIT. I have no reason to believe that the vandy team will show up more than the Michigan team or vice versa. I am confident that most nights we will end up somewhere in the middle. Where in the middle is what remains to be seen.
Quote from: Marquette Fan In NY on November 19, 2016, 07:28:44 PM
To use your analogy, lets assume we have a few really good games ,a few embarrassments and the for the most part we play at a middle level. In that scenario, I am still at the place I was when we made the game by game predictions. That is we are going to have a hard time being escaping the bottom third of the Big East.
For us to play closer to our ceiling we are good to need all of our key players having good games at the same time. When I look at each player individually ,almost every one has demonstrated some good things so far this year. I think it is up to the coaching staff to blend our talent into a consistently performing team. I am simply not confident the coaching staff has ability to do that.
Lets see what can be done about building our team cohesion back in the coming 3 cupcake games. Then we have another test against Georgia on the road.
In the meantime I still we should find a 13th non conference game against a cupcake to build up our win total for optics sakes.
Totally fair. My opinion isn't that far off. I think our "middle" is currently an NIT bid. I'm hopeful well beat my prediction but need to see more consistency before my hopes become predictions
Norm is wright. Wojo's teams aren't worth a chit on defense, ai na?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 19, 2016, 07:37:07 PM
Disagree. We are four games in. If we play like we did against Vandy most nights, we are dancing easy. If we play like we did against Michigan most nights we will be nowhere near the NIT. I have no reason to believe that the vandy team will show up more than the Michigan team or vice versa. I am confident that most nights we will end up somewhere in the middle. Where in the middle is what remains to be seen.
Well is the glass half full or half empty? Are you optimistic or pessimistic does no really matter. The physical capabilities of this team will not change. The only question is can a largely unproven coach shape this team into an NCAA tournament team this year?
Everyone has an opinion on the answer but no one knows the answer with certainty. That is why we watch and they play the season. It is also why everyone has a right to their opinion. Clearly no one knows the outcome of the season with certainty.
What we do know is the outcome of the last 4 games. Better to ask ourselves, is this what we expected at the beginning of season three from Wojo? If it is then you should be satisfied, if not then, like me, you are disappointed. How we feel about this season so far is personal and factual. What we expect in the future, by all of us, is opinion based on our experience, our judgement and emotions.
Many on this board have considerable experience. Might be helpful for folks to discuss examples of previous teams success and failure rates similar to the current situation to help all of us assess the future for this team. I would find that more helpful and somewhat more objective.
Quote from: ATWizJr on November 19, 2016, 06:31:46 PM
79 warrior is right. those thinking that this team will be ncaa tourney worthy are living in a fantasy world. we don't have the horses or the size. love mu bb but am a realist.
I completely disagree on the horses. Yes they are a shorter but no more so than the Lazar and the midgets team. And this team has more depth and talent than that team. That team got to the NCAA's. Albeit, they barely got there.
This team absolutely has the horses to get to the NIT and should be in the NCAA conversation. If they don't end up there, in my mind it is coaching.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on November 20, 2016, 10:05:36 AM
I completely disagree on the horses. Yes they are a shorter but no more so than the Lazar and the midgets team. And this team has more depth and talent than that team. That team got to the NCAA's. Albeit, they barely got there.
This team absolutely has the horses to get to the NIT and should be in the NCAA conversation. If they don't end up there, in my mind it is coaching.
Ah so there's going to be at least 4 nba players and another international olympian on this team?
Quote from: MarquetteDano on November 20, 2016, 10:05:36 AM
I completely disagree on the horses. Yes they are a shorter but no more so than the Lazar and the midgets team. And this team has more depth and talent than that team. That team got to the NCAA's. Albeit, they barely got there.
They "barely got there"? They were a 6 seed.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 20, 2016, 10:37:03 AM
They "barely got there"? They were a 6 seed.
True. Remembering a lot of struggling that season at times but the Big East was so good then.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 20, 2016, 10:31:29 AM
Ah so there's going to be at least 4 nba players and another international olympian on this team?
This team has more depth than that team without question. Hayward was playing center and Butler was not yet a star. I would take most of this teams guards over Cubillan and Acker.
That team played great as a team however. Yet to be determined for this team.
Quote from: MarquetteDano on November 20, 2016, 12:43:12 PM
This team has more depth than that team without question. Hayward was playing center and Butler was not yet a star. I would take most of this teams guards over Cubillan and Acker.
That team played great as a team however. Yet to be determined for this team.
Butler averaged 1pt less that year than he did the following, averaged pretty much the same amount of steals, assists, blocks and rebounds. I think your memory of him is off. Point isn't depth, that team had none, point is we had real star talent on that team and four of those players ended up in the NBA.
Hayward, Butler, Buycks and DJO.......that team shot over 40% from 3. Acker was an excellent defender on the perimeter, shot about 50% from 3 and almost never turned it over as a senior. Cooby made open 3s at a high level and guarded at a high level.
The current team may be deeper but doesn't have near the talent at the top. Both teams were short but that team was much quicker and more athletic.
When they needed a basket in a close game they could go to Lazar or Jimmy......this team? JJ? HC?
Quote from: MuMark on November 20, 2016, 01:20:27 PM
Hayward, Butler, Buycks and DJO.......that team shot over 40% from 3. Acker was an excellent defender on the perimeter, shot about 50% from 3 and almost never turned it over as a senior. Cooby made open 3s at a high level and guarded at a high level.
The current team may be deeper but doesn't have near the talent at the top. Both teams were short but that team was much quicker and more athletic.
When they needed a basket in a close game they could go to Lazar or Jimmy......this team? JJ? HC?
Nearly every poster hated Buycks as a Junior. Acker wasnt as good as defender as you make it out. The amount of times he was posted up,.shot over, or tea bagged (remember that Dayton guard) in transition was quite a lot.
I will definitely give that this team has no Hayward but he played CENTER and got abused defensively all year long.
This team has plenty of individual horses to make the dance. Now whether it plays well enough as a team is another question.
That team was 56 th in the country in defensive efficiency according to Pomeroy.
They were 20th in offensive efficiency.
They were better then this years group......and more experienced. They were small but never turned it over. (7th best in the country).
And they shot the lights out from 3 which makes up for a lot of deficiencies .
They were the rare midget team that made it work.
Comparing a team with Hayward as a senior and Butler as junior leading the way vs Luke and JJ leading this squad is just silly.
Quote from: MuMark on November 20, 2016, 03:55:35 PM
That team was 56 th in the country in defensive efficiency according to Pomeroy.
They were 20th in offensive efficiency.
They were better then this years group......and more experienced. They were small but never turned it over. (7th best in the country).
And they shot the lights out from 3 which makes up for a lot of deficiencies .
They were the rare midget team that made it work.
Comparing a team with Hayward as a senior and Butler as junior leading the way vs Luke and JJ leading this squad is just silly.
So what I see above is a comparison of the TEAMS. Not the horses. If the Horses = Teams why do we need coaches other than recruiting?
As of right now, the midget team IS WAY better than this team. However my point was that team horses were not markedly better than this year's. We have enough talent on THIS team to make the dance or at least be on the bubble.
I loved the 2010 midgets team, but it's funny how people remember them. There were maybe 2 posters that thought Buycks had a remote NBA chance, and no one actually saw him as a sure bet. DJO was promising but erratic, he could put 20 on you in a half and vanish in the second. Butler blossomed that year but his lockdown defense didn't emerge until the next year. And both Acker and Cooby were nearly cut causalities in the offseason.
Hayward was great, but seen as a fringe NBA player, similar to how Luke is on some draft lists. Going into this season, most people rated Cheatham more highly than Butler that year. DJO, Buycks, Acker, and Cooby against Reinhardt, Rowsey, Duane, Howard, and Carter? Seems like at least a wash. And don't get me started comparing Mbao and Heldt.
At this time that year, we were blowing a 17-point second half lead to Florida State. It wasn't all seashells and balloons and while we earned a 6, most of us felt like we were still on the bubble but in on Selection Sunday.
If the Midgets taught us anything, it's that you can have a rocky start to both non-conference and regular season play and still make a run at it. It's early, let's not panic just yet.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 21, 2016, 06:20:48 AMIt wasn't all seashells and balloons and while we earned a 6, most of us felt like we were still on the bubble but in on Selection Sunday.
After winning three in a row on the road and trouncing Louisville at home for their 11th league win, pretty much everyone thought an at-large bid was secured.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 21, 2016, 06:20:48 AM
I loved the 2010 midgets team, but it's funny how people remember them. There were maybe 2 posters that thought Buycks had a remote NBA chance, and no one actually saw him as a sure bet. DJO was promising but erratic, he could put 20 on you in a half and vanish in the second. Butler blossomed that year but his lockdown defense didn't emerge until the next year. And both Acker and Cooby were nearly cut causalities in the offseason.
Hayward was great, but seen as a fringe NBA player, similar to how Luke is on some draft lists. Going into this season, most people rated Cheatham more highly than Butler that year. DJO, Buycks, Acker, and Cooby against Reinhardt, Rowsey, Duane, Howard, and Carter? Seems like at least a wash. And don't get me started comparing Mbao and Heldt.
At this time that year, we were blowing a 17-point second half lead to Florida State. It wasn't all seashells and balloons and while we earned a 6, most of us felt like we were still on the bubble but in on Selection Sunday.
If the Midgets taught us anything, it's that you can have a rocky start to both non-conference and regular season play and still make a run at it. It's early, let's not panic just yet.
We still have 30 games left and a couple cupcakes coming up lets worry about those and get the wins
Quote from: MUfan12 on November 21, 2016, 06:39:33 AM
After winning three in a row on the road and trouncing Louisville at home for their 11th league win, pretty much everyone thought an at-large bid was secured.
Here's a poll going into the Big East Tournament:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=19068.0
Most had MU as a 9-11 seed, which I'd say is on the bubble but in.
Quote from: MuMark on November 19, 2016, 07:17:29 PM
Ok now that we all know the end result can we enjoy the rest of the season before organizing the mass suicide?
I prefer the cherry flavored Kool aid. Maybe a poll?
doubt you're going to enjoy it, but the kool aid's on me!
Here's where my concern lies and why I think this team probably doesn't pan out the same way the 2010 team does.....coaching.
This team is more talented and more suited to the current style of basketball being played than the 2010 team was. I also think this team is just as hardnosed or tough as that team (super overused cliche IMO). However, we are seeing the same mistakes out of the coaching staff in year 3 that we saw in the first two years. I'm losing faith that the staff can learn to coach which is what will potentially sink the team.
Look at the 2nd half of the Pitt game for instance, here is a summary of the plays when MU had an 8 point lead and then let Michael Young become a one man wrecking crew:
-Fischer, Carter, JjJ, Duane, Hauser all on the floor at the 13:46 mark with MU up 56-47
-Hauser fouls Young and he hits both FTs (56-49)
-JjJ blocked on lay up - 13:34
-Pitt miss
-Hauser 3 (59-49) - 13:17
-Young jumper - 12:56
-Carter TO - 12:29
-Young jumper - 12:03 (59-53)
-Media TO
-JjJ blocked on lay up - 11:43
-Young jumper - 11:23 (59-55)
-Wilson blocked on lay up - 11:08
-Young lay up - 10:57 (59-57)
-Fischer miss - 10:36
-Young lay up - 10:31 (59-59)
-Marquette TO - 10:28
In that 4 minute segment when the lead slipped away essentially for good (would bounce between one possession leads in both directions the rest of the way), only one sub was made (Rowsey for Carter) they played man to man with Fischer guarding Young and Pitt played a two man game with their PG and Young generating everything off of pick and roll. In fact if you look at the game tape, Pitt ran the exact same play 3 times in a row!
In that 4 minute span the coaching staff responded in almost now way on either end but especially on the defensive end. Why not go to 2-3 for a possession or two to break their momentum (poor 3pt shooting from Pitt makes it even more attractive)? Or why not switch Hauser on to Young for a possession or two? Or why not have Fischer sag on the Pick and Roll and risk a Young 3 but guard the driving lane?
These are all coaching mistakes I expect out of a first year coach, but Wojo has 15 years at Coach K's knee and another 3 running his own program....these should not be happening still. I don't care how much talent, guts, karma, or shooting skill we have....if the coaching staff can't put the players in a position to succeed we won't.
Addressed this in another thread. You are saying Wojo should have made major defensive adjustments to stop Young. When did you want this to happen? You can't significantly change the defense when the ball is live. From the 12 minute media timeout, it only took Young 1.5 minutes to score 10 points. At which point wojo took a timeout. Wojo couldn't have changed the defense, he had no opportunity. You can argue that he should have taken a timeout sooner, and I would agree. But given that he just had the media timeout, I can understand why he didn't.
After the wojo timeout, Luke changed how he was guarding young. He didn't score a single 2 pt FG the rest of the game. Wojo adjusted and it shut young down.
The problem wasn't wojo being unable to adjust. It was Luke playing poor defense and Young getting hot in an unbelievably short time period of fast possessions. Also, the fact that our players decided to stop running the offense and played hero ball, giving the ball right back to young.
That's not to say there weren't issues in Wojos end. Timeout management and the initial defensive strategy are on him. But young had a very erratic first half. There was no reason to change the defense until after that 1.5 minute run.
Short of call a timeout earlier, not sure what people wanted Wojo to do.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 21, 2016, 11:37:35 AM
Addressed this in another thread. You are saying Wojo should have made major defensive adjustments to stop Young. When did you want this to happen? You can't significantly change the defense when the ball is live. From the 12 minute media timeout, it only took Young 1.5 minutes to score 10 points. At which point wojo took a timeout. Wojo couldn't have changed the defense, he had no opportunity. You can argue that he should have taken a timeout sooner, and I would agree. But given that he just had the media timeout, I can understand why he didn't.
After the wojo timeout, Luke changed how he was guarding young. He didn't score a single 2 pt FG the rest of the game. Wojo adjusted and it shut young down.
The problem wasn't wojo being unable to adjust. It was Luke playing poor defense and Young getting hot in an unbelievably short time period of fast possessions. Also, the fact that our players decided to stop running the offense and played hero ball, giving the ball right back to young.
That's not to say there weren't issues in Wojos end. Timeout management and the initial defensive strategy are on him. But young had a very erratic first half. There was no reason to change the defense until after that 1.5 minute run.
Short of call a timeout earlier, not sure what people wanted Wojo to do.
TO management was a secondary issue. You can absolute change defense possession to possession. Change from man to zone, or change the man assignments. Are you saying that Wojo can't tell Luke and Sam to switch assignments somewhere in those 7 possessions?
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 21, 2016, 07:24:33 AM
Here's a poll going into the Big East Tournament:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=19068.0
Most had MU as a 9-11 seed, which I'd say is on the bubble but in.
81% in the poll had us a #10 or higher - I don't think you're on the bubble if 10-14 teams who will get in are behind you. Making the Big East tournament semi finals removed what little doubt there was.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 21, 2016, 11:45:02 AM
TO management was a secondary issue. You can absolute change defense possession to possession. Change from man to zone, or change the man assignments. Are you saying that Wojo can't tell Luke and Sam to switch assignments somewhere in those 7 possessions?
Exactly. If a team doesn't have the ability to switch defenses and/or defensive assignments on the fly, that team is unprepared.
To me, the issue wasn't Luke's poor man D, the lack of a timeout or the so-called "hero ball" on the offensive end. It was that the opposition was on a run and little seemed to be done on MU's end to change things up. Call a set play, go zone, alter the match-ups, etc. It doesn't matter that Young only made one FG the rest of the way, his one-man run prior to the timeout ended up being the difference.
TC has to step up and play like how he did last year. And wojo needs to give minutes to duane
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 21, 2016, 12:20:43 PM
81% in the poll had us a #10 or higher - I don't think you're on the bubble if 10-14 teams who will get in are behind you. Making the Big East tournament semi finals removed what little doubt there was.
Sure, and 55% had us a #10 or lower. I specifically said "on the bubble but in." I stand by that. We figured we were in, but didn't know where, and very few thought we'd be a 6-seed. Hell...the whole "Team Bubble Watch" thing started with THAT team. We were on the bubble all year long and didn't secure our bid until the last few games.
Bottom line, anyone saying they had complete confidence in that team because of all the obvious, blatant talent with 4 future NBA players and 1 international player is completely full of BS, especially at this time of that season. Buycks and DJO didn't look like future NBA players. Hayward looked like a fringe player (which he was) and Jimmy was just growing into his new role.
Who knows, maybe Howard, Fischer, and Cheatham are all future NBA draft picks and Rowsey will develop into a NBA level backup point after 2 years in France. Okay...there's no future foreign international, but that doesn't mean Duane, JJ, and Hauser aren't all better than Cooby was.
I loved that team, but there's a lot of revisionist history with that team. Before the season, most people seemed to have us in the 16-19 win range.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=15797.msg154526#msg154526
Dear God of all that is Mighty for the Marquette university faithful... please let it be Tuesday already. I can't take this discussion anymore.
(I knoooow I should just stop reading it, but I would miss y'all so much)
One thing I didn't add to my TL;DR post was the end of game situations. Off of a time out Wojo apparently drew up a play that involved the shortest player on the team trying to lay the ball up amongst the trees. I'm not going to get on Hauser about his shot, but the end of game situations continue to be baffling, at some point that has to get better or we will continue to lose the 50-50 games.
Coaching matters, even in 2016
Quote from: mu03eng on November 21, 2016, 01:04:52 PM
One thing I didn't add to my TL;DR post was the end of game situations. Off of a time out Wojo apparently drew up a play that involved the shortest player on the team trying to lay the ball up amongst the trees. I'm not going to get on Hauser about his shot, but the end of game situations continue to be baffling, at some point that has to get better or we will continue to lose the 50-50 games.
Coaching matters, even in 2016
I took that as Rowsey going rogue because it was so incomprehensible at the time. Where's Haanif or JJJ if we want to drive?
Quote from: mu03eng on November 21, 2016, 01:04:52 PM
One thing I didn't add to my TL;DR post was the end of game situations. Off of a time out Wojo apparently drew up a play that involved the shortest player on the team trying to lay the ball up amongst the trees. I'm not going to get on Hauser about his shot, but the end of game situations continue to be baffling, at some point that has to get better or we will continue to lose the 50-50 games.
Coaching matters, even in 2016
Rowsey has made a living at the line throughout his college career and continued to do so against Pitt. he had already shot 8 free throws to that point in the game and continually got his defender in the air. On top of that, he finished at least 2 drives with layups at the rim, and bounced a nice pass off to Heldt for an and 1 on a third drive. When you're down 1 and in the double bonus down the stretch, having a guy who gets to the line, has finished at he rim, and has created for a teammate at the rim going to the rim is absolutely the right play call, especially when that guy is a threat to hit a three so you have a defender aware of that as Rowsey uses the perimeter screen. There was nothing wrong with that play call. Props to Pitt for defending it well.
Quote from: Bocephys on November 21, 2016, 01:06:42 PM
I took that as Rowsey going rogue because it was so incomprehensible at the time. Where's Haanif or JJJ if we want to drive?
So Wojo drew up a play that went rogue in the first 12 seconds and required to Rowsey to attack the trees with 11 seconds left on the clock and down 1? I'm not sure if my thought or yours is more damning of Wojo.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 21, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
Rowsey has made a living at the line throughout his college career and continued to do so against Pitt. he had already shot 8 free throws to that point in the game and continually got his defender in the air. On top of that, he finished at least 2 drives with layups at the rim, and bounced a nice pass off to Heldt for an and 1 on a third drive. When you're down 1 and in the double bonus down the stretch, having a guy who gets to the line, has finished at he rim, and has created for a teammate at the rim going to the rim is absolutely the right play call, especially when that guy is a threat to hit a three so you have a defender aware of that as Rowsey uses the perimeter screen. There was nothing wrong with that play call. Props to Pitt for defending it well.
Unfortunately I don't have the video highlight or know where to grab it, but if you go back and re-watch that play none of what you are describing was possible. At best there was a drive and kick option.
Also, all of his FTs came on jump shot pump fakes, not going to the hoop. He had his head down going to the hoop the whole way so they "draw a foul" strategy wasn't there at all.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 21, 2016, 11:45:02 AM
TO management was a secondary issue. You can absolute change defense possession to possession. Change from man to zone, or change the man assignments. Are you saying that Wojo can't tell Luke and Sam to switch assignments somewhere in those 7 possessions?
No. They didn't have a chance to change the defense. You never change the defense when your opponent rebounds the ball and pushes it up the court. You change the defense either during a stoppage, or when you score and your opponent slowly brings the ball up. Pitt scored 8 points in a period of about 75 seconds, all of them off ill advised drives (and 1 ill advised Luke post up) by Marquette. These weren't slow methodical half court plays. They were quick hits where our defense barely had time to get back and set. To try and switch the defense in the middle of that would have been terrible coaching.
Hero ball and poor transition defense is what killed us during that run.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 21, 2016, 01:34:21 PM
Rowsey has made a living at the line throughout his college career and continued to do so against Pitt. he had already shot 8 free throws to that point in the game and continually got his defender in the air. On top of that, he finished at least 2 drives with layups at the rim, and bounced a nice pass off to Heldt for an and 1 on a third drive. When you're down 1 and in the double bonus down the stretch, having a guy who gets to the line, has finished at he rim, and has created for a teammate at the rim going to the rim is absolutely the right play call, especially when that guy is a threat to hit a three so you have a defender aware of that as Rowsey uses the perimeter screen. There was nothing wrong with that play call. Props to Pitt for defending it well.
Yes, he did have 2 lay-ups and an assist
in the first half. Late in the second half, he had a missed lay-up and a turnover while trying to drive (with a forced 3 attempt sandwiched in there as well). Rowsey had a nice game but he is not the guy to give the ball to with the game on the line.
It's inexcusable that with two chances to take the lead/win the game, only Rowsey and Hauser touched the ball.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 21, 2016, 01:54:32 PM
No. They didn't have a chance to change the defense. You never change the defense when your opponent rebounds the ball and pushes it up the court. You change the defense either during a stoppage, or when you score and your opponent slowly brings the ball up. Pitt scored 8 points in a period of about 75 seconds, all of them off ill advised drives (and 1 ill advised Luke post up) by Marquette. These weren't slow methodical half court plays. They were quick hits where our defense barely had time to get back and set. To try and switch the defense in the middle of that would have been terrible coaching.
Hero ball and poor transition defense is what killed us during that run.
It would be very easy to tell two players to switch guys defensively while they're coming back on offense and right in front of the MU bench.
Isn't part of the coach's job to prevent "hero ball" in those types of situations? Have them slow it down, run a set play, etc.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 21, 2016, 01:04:52 PM
One thing I didn't add to my TL;DR post was the end of game situations. Off of a time out Wojo apparently drew up a play that involved the shortest player on the team trying to lay the ball up amongst the trees. I'm not going to get on Hauser about his shot, but the end of game situations continue to be baffling, at some point that has to get better or we will continue to lose the 50-50 games.
Coaching matters, even in 2016
Definitely a fair argument. I don't get as bent out of shape about end of game play calling. Rowsey had the hot hand and had drawn three fouls already. Him driving was probably not what the other team would expect. If it works, he's a genius for doing the unexpected. If it fails he's an idiot. He missed the call on that one.
Everyone thinks Pete Carroll is an idiot for throwing instead of handing off to Lynch. But if Wilson had made the throw, he would have been praised for doing the unexpected. Brad Stevens got mad praise for drawing up a play for Alex Barlow, a former walk on (this was before he was good) that won the game against Indiana at the last second. If Barlow had missed, every would have skewered Stevens. History is determined by the victor.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 21, 2016, 01:54:32 PM
No. They didn't have a chance to change the defense. You never change the defense when your opponent rebounds the ball and pushes it up the court. You change the defense either during a stoppage, or when you score and your opponent slowly brings the ball up. Pitt scored 8 points in a period of about 75 seconds, all of them off ill advised drives (and 1 ill advised Luke post up) by Marquette. These weren't slow methodical half court plays. They were quick hits where our defense barely had time to get back and set. To try and switch the defense in the middle of that would have been terrible coaching.
Hero ball and poor transition defense is what killed us during that run.
Your forget that was a media timeout in the middle of that run.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 21, 2016, 01:57:35 PM
It would be very easy to tell two players to switch guys defensively while they're coming back on offense and right in front of the MU bench.
The average length of possession on that run was around 10 seconds. It would not have been easy to tell two guys to switch. And who exactly in that lineup was going to guard 6"9 240 lb Michael Young better than Luke?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 21, 2016, 01:57:35 PM
Isn't part of the coach's job to prevent "hero ball" in those types of situations? Have them slow it down, run a set play, etc.
Yes it is. And that's a valid argument. But the question was about Wojo's ability to make in game defensive adjustments. Also, for at least two of them (JJJ 1 on 3 drive and Luke's 10 second post up) they were set plays. The players executed poorly in both. I don't remember if Duane's 1 on 3 drive was a set play or not.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 21, 2016, 01:55:20 PM
Yes, he did have 2 lay-ups and an assist in the first half. Late in the second half, he had a missed lay-up and a turnover while trying to drive (with a forced 3 attempt sandwiched in there as well). Rowsey had a nice game but he is not the guy to give the ball to with the game on the line.
It's inexcusable that with two chances to take the lead/win the game, only Rowsey and Hauser touched the ball.
Agree to disagree. Rowsey was, by far, our best player against Pitt. I want the ball in our best player's hands at the end of the game with the game on the line.
I'm much more disappointed that Wojo waited too long to switch Hauser onto Young over Fischer than I am with the late game play call. Fischer made him shoot a couple tough shots that he made, but that was a mismatch.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 21, 2016, 01:41:34 PM
Unfortunately I don't have the video highlight or know where to grab it, but if you go back and re-watch that play none of what you are describing was possible. At best there was a drive and kick option.
Also, all of his FTs came on jump shot pump fakes, not going to the hoop. He had his head down going to the hoop the whole way so they "draw a foul" strategy wasn't there at all.
The "draw a foul" strategy was entirely there. He intentionally jumped into the big man's body. We see that called a few times every single game on Luke. Pitt defended it well. There's a lot to be upset about. The last play was the right play. Get your best player going to the hoop and see if you can get a whistle for your best free throw shooter or see if he can get a defender trying to avoid a foul and finish at the rim. Sometimes defenses make plays too.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 21, 2016, 02:01:42 PM
Definitely a fair argument. I don't get as bent out of shape about end of game play calling. Rowsey had the hot hand and had drawn three fouls already. Him driving was probably not what the other team would expect. If it works, he's a genius for doing the unexpected. If it fails he's an idiot. He missed the call on that one.
Everyone thinks Pete Carroll is an idiot for throwing instead of handing off to Lynch. But if Wilson had made the throw, he would have been praised for doing the unexpected. Brad Stevens got mad praise for drawing up a play for Alex Barlow, a former walk on (this was before he was good) that won the game against Indiana at the last second. If Barlow had missed, every would have skewered Stevens. History is determined by the victor.
You are talking about one offs, I agree with you on the one off judgement.....my argument is there is a pattern with Wojo now where he has shown an inability to either draw up or get the players to execute a game winning play. I'd have to go back and do a detailed review but I remember at least a half a dozen times the previous two times where they ran a failed end of game play.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 21, 2016, 02:04:02 PM
Your forget that was a media timeout in the middle of that run.
No. I'm talking about the possessions after the media timeout. I know Young had a bucket or two before the media timeout but one was an off balanced fade away jumper from about 18 feet that was lucky enough to go in and the other was an out of control drive where he got bailed out on free throws IIRC.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 21, 2016, 02:07:39 PM
Agree to disagree. Rowsey was, by far, our best player against Pitt. I want the ball in our best player's hands at the end of the game with the game on the line.
Rowsey had the best stretch and finished with the most points, but he's far from being the team's best player. Besides, by that time he had cooled off considerably. If he was even the best finisher or play-maker, I'd be fine with him having the ball but he's neither of those things. He's a role-playing, spot-up shooter off the bench. That's not meant as an insult. That's what he is. JJJ, Haanif or Duane would have all been better options at that point regardless of how they had played in the first 39:40 of the game.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 21, 2016, 02:25:30 PM
Rowsey had the best stretch and finished with the most points, but he's far from being the team's best player. Besides, by that time he had cooled off considerably. If he was even the best finisher or play-maker, I'd be fine with him having the ball but he's neither of those things. He's a role-playing, spot-up shooter off the bench. That's not meant as an insult. That's what he is. JJJ, Haanif or Duane would have all been better options at that point regardless of how they had played in the first 39:40 of the game.
Agree to disagree. If his defense is serviceable (big if) I think he'll be one of the top 3 in minutes and points per game. I think he's our second best offensive player behind Cheatham, and in the Pitt game he was a lot better than Cheatham was.
Quote from: mu03eng on November 21, 2016, 01:34:51 PM
So Wojo drew up a play that went rogue in the first 12 seconds and required to Rowsey to attack the trees with 11 seconds left on the clock and down 1? I'm not sure if my thought or yours is more damning of Wojo.
Agreed, but wasn't it under Wojo where he had a post game presser along the lines of "They didn't run what was called"? Could have been Buzz, now that I write it out it certainly sounds more like Buzz.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 21, 2016, 03:18:16 PM
Agree to disagree. If his defense is serviceable (big if) I think he'll be one of the top 3 in minutes and points per game. I think he's our second best offensive player behind Cheatham, and in the Pitt game he was a lot better than Cheatham was.
If Rowsey is the team's second-best offensive player, it's going to be a loooong season.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 21, 2016, 04:14:39 PM
If Rowsey is the team's second-best offensive player, it's going to be a loooong season.
Rowsey is a very, very good offensive player. Just because he's little doesn't mean he can't fill it up.
Quote from: wadesworld on November 21, 2016, 04:33:02 PM
Rowsey is a very, very good offensive player. Just because he's little doesn't mean he can't fill it up.
Agreed. Its his defense that concerns me.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on November 21, 2016, 05:03:26 PM
Agreed. Its his defense that concerns me.
And we need good defense badly now
These next 6 games are huge for the boys
IUPUI - 11-22
Houston Baptist - 11-26
Western Carolina - 11/30
Georgia - 12-4
Fresno State - 12-6
Badgers - 12-10
All these games are huge for MU and their confidence. All these games are winnable we just need to execute and take down these teams. Lets say we win all 6 that puts us at 8-2 with key wins over a solid Georgia team and a top 25 Badger team(probably). These games are huge.
I'll take da under, hey?
Quote from: GoldenEagles32 on November 21, 2016, 07:52:40 PM
These next 6 games are huge for the boys
IUPUI - 11-22
Houston Baptist - 11-26
Western Carolina - 11/30
Georgia - 10-4
Fresno State - 10-6
Badgers - 10-10
All these games are huge for MU and their confidence. All these games are winnable we just need to execute and take down these teams. Lets say we win all 6 that puts us at 8-2 with key wins over a solid Georgia team and a top 25 Badger team(probably). These games are huge.
Just an FYI, December is the 12th month.