MU Fix

[Pardner]

If the Summer Times Blues have you down as you wait for MM...you can watch March Madness games on channelsurfing.  We all remember JM's great 2nd half against Stanford, but Wes was a stud in the first half.  Why we didn't press their guards is still beyond me...they were throwing it in to the Twins all day at will against our zone.  Lazar was so overmatched by playing out of position at the 4.  With Fulce and Trevor, I am anxious to see Lazar blossom at the 3 at times this season. 

http://www.channelsurfing.net/

[ecompt]

The more you watch the Stanford game the more you realize what an awful game tactician TC was. How do you not adjust to the same play being run 40-50 times?

[Nukem2]

The more you watch the Stanford game the more you realize what an awful game tactician TC was. How do you not adjust to the same play being run 40-50 times?

Its still amazing to me that a so-so point guard (which is what Mitch Johnson is) who averages 3 or so assists per gaem can get 16 ( WOW 16...!! )assists in an NCAA 2nd round game doing the same lob pass from the right sideline over and over again.  All TC had to do was put DJ or whoever tight up on Johnson who is not a real threat to go to the hoop.  If not a poor tactician, TC certainly can be pegged as very stubborn in his ways.  In the end, TC is a good game preparer and a below average in-game tactician.  Just the way it is.

[Daniel]

Agreed on the tactician part - if Buzz can game plan as well as TC, I think he will have a chance to be a better game coach.  Go Buzz!

[bilsu]

The problem with Crean was he always went so conservative in March. He would coach not to lose instead of coaching to win. He made his players play tight and that is why they got off to bad starts against Alabama and Michigan St. This team went into the Kohl Center in December and went after a large UW team and won. Come March he plays Stanford in a half court game and loses inspite of their coach being thrown out of the game and McNeal having a career game. He almost lost to a bad Kentucky team the game before that. Both Kentucky and Stanford were suppose to be turnover prone and he did not go after either team. It is hard to believe that a coach could win 90% of it s November games could be so bad in March, but he always coached differently in March.

[MR.HAYWARD]

well i think comparing march and november winning percentages is a little silly as the strength of opponents is a little different.  however, you are dead on 100% correct in big games you could see how up tight Crean was and he coached that way and his players played that way.  a team takes on the culture of the coach and Crean was nervous and tight in big games.  i think alot of that had to do with his insecurity issues and the fact that he never played the game.  in big tight game players do not need a coach that is freaking out and seizing up it causes them to play tight too.  Another perfect example of that was the ND game 2 years ago...MU is blowing ND out and Crean goes freako... after that Nd took momentum and Mu played like a deer in the headlights complete blowout the rest of the game

[MUDPT]

My roommate at the time of the Stanford game and I both commented, that we were happy there was only 1 day between Stanford and Kentucky.  That way, he couldn't up with some crazy gameplan that wouldn't work.  I agree though, we didn't play to our strengths.

[nola03]

Agreed on the tactician part - if Buzz can game plan as well as TC, I think he will have a chance to be a better game coach.  Go Buzz!

We have some idea of the tactician part because it's been noted that Coach Buzz was the scout for Kentucky. Coming in, amateurs noted Joe Crawford could kill you if he got hot. Kentucky ended up with 66 points and Crawford scored 35 of them. The Wildcats ran the same play nearly every time down in the second half. Luckily, they only had 6 healthy guys so they couldn't keep up.

TC wasn't great in-game but I don't get why people are so fixated on Stanford (moreso then it just being our last game). They lost on a turnaround, fadeaway, behind the basket jumper. Give Brook 99 more chances and no way he hits more then 4 of them. As close to a fluke shot as you can get.

Of course, even if MU beat Stanford I'm sure they'd be plenty to criticize in the Texas gameplan.

[Nukem2]

We have some idea of the tactician part because it's been noted that Coach Buzz was the scout for Kentucky. Coming in, amateurs noted Joe Crawford could kill you if he got hot. Kentucky ended up with 66 points and Crawford scored 35 of them. The Wildcats ran the same play nearly every time down in the second half. Luckily, they only had 6 healthy guys so they couldn't keep up.

TC wasn't great in-game but I don't get why people are so fixated on Stanford (moreso then it just being our last game). They lost on a turnaround, fadeaway, behind the basket jumper. Give Brook 99 more chances and no way he hits more then 4 of them. As close to a fluke shot as you can get.

Of course, even if MU beat Stanford I'm sure they'd be plenty to criticize in the Texas gameplan.

  The point is that TC did not veer from the gameplans for either KY or Stanford.  Sure Lopez got a great bounce; but, he should have never had that opportunity as MU should have closed out the game in regulation.  Letting Johnson get 16 assists standing on the side was ludicrous.

[Murffieus]

Funny-----I've been telling you all of the above about Crean for years now----and some of you guys ridiculed me, called me names, and in general despised me for it.

Now you're saying some of the same things I said -------go figure!

[ecompt]

No, Murff, the ridicule came (justifiably so) from your calling arguably the best all-around guard in MU history a dime-a-dozen player. And from your constant butt-kissing of Bo Ryan, who is as mediocre an in-game coach as TC is. And from your insights into MU late-season practices even though you had never attended one. Other than all those, your criticisms are duly noted. Congratulations.

[Nukem2]

Yes, I don't think many posters on the various boards ever posted about Crean being a talented in-game coach.  Most of us complimented him on his game preparation.  Thats a lot different, Murff, than what you are suggesting.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The problem with Crean was he always went so conservative in March. He would coach not to lose instead of coaching to win. He made his players play tight and that is why they got off to bad starts against Alabama and Michigan St. This team went into the Kohl Center in December and went after a large UW team and won. Come March he plays Stanford in a half court game and loses inspite of their coach being thrown out of the game and McNeal having a career game. He almost lost to a bad Kentucky team the game before that. Both Kentucky and Stanford were suppose to be turnover prone and he did not go after either team. It is hard to believe that a coach could win 90% of it s November games could be so bad in March, but he always coached differently in March.

And Buzz was the scout coach for that Kentucky game don't forget.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm curious...is Ben Howland a great coach?  Why did two of the three games UCLA played against Stanford this year (two in Los Angeles) go down to the last possession?   Could it be that Stanford was a good team?  Stanford did manage to beat some guy named Tony Bennett and his club 3 games to 0 this past year as well.

What I find sometimes interesting is the last time I checked MU was an underdog in that game, were playing a top 10 team (MU was 24th I believe), playing in California with a pro Stanford crowd (I was there, UCLA fans were pulling heavily for Stanford) and with a HUGE disadvantage at the 4 and 5 spots with two top 15 NBA picks (as proven just last week) were playing against us....yet reading how bad our players and coaching staff was....wow...how did we even hang in there?   

And yet someone, despite having apparently bad recruiting classes (according to many posters here) and bad coaching (according to many posters here) we somehow went to OT and lost on a very lucky shot with less than one second in the game.

Let's recap...#24 vs #10...Stanford edge
3 seed vs 6 seed...Standord edge (per the NCAA for seeding them there)
playing in Los Angeles...Stanford edge
Two top 15 NBA picks vs 0...Stanford edge

I guess it's a miracle we didn't lose by 50.  Or 40.  Or 20.  Or even..oh, say 5.  No, somehow we managed to play the top 10 team in the country to a standstill and lost on a lucky shot.  Oh well....lots of things we can talk about like what if we did X, or did Y, or why 15 of 17 fouls after their coach was kicked out went against us, or why our forward missed a dunk, or whatever. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Funny-----I've been telling you all of the above about Crean for years now----and some of you guys ridiculed me, called me names, and in general despised me for it.

Now you're saying some of the same things I said -------go figure!

Yet he somehow went 3-4 against Bo Ryan...what does that say about Coach Ryan to be so close to Crean head to head?

[bilsu]

My complaint is that we played to Stanford's strength and not our strength. Also after we made the technicals free throws we were up at least 7 points and had monmentum on our side. We should have won that game, but Crean got out coached by their assistant coach. The next game against Texas they got blown out. Now Texas had a better front line than us, but they also pressed Stanford and Stanford could not handle it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

My complaint is that we played to Stanford's strength and not our strength. Also after we made the technicals free throws we were up at least 7 points and had monmentum on our side. We should have won that game, but Crean got out coached by their assistant coach. The next game against Texas they got blown out. Now Texas had a better front line than us, but they also pressed Stanford and Stanford could not handle it.

I thought both teams played to their strengths which is why it was a great game.  We dominated the guard / middle range game, they dominated the inside.  Could have gone either way.  We got called for 24 fouls to Stanford's 14....if we play a pressing style, it might have worked but it might also have put us in even more foul trouble then we were already in.  My only complaint was how we used DJ who had no fouls in the game and should have been hounding Johnson more, especially in the second half when he could use up some fouls.

I just find it interesting with the crappy / average recruiting classes we have (I hear it here all the time), the terrible coaching that we didn't lose by 50 to a top 10 team, playing in their home state in front of their crowd with two players that were picked in the top 15 players in the NBA draft only 2 months later.  Somehow, despite our terrible coaching and average players we went down to the wire.

Al Michaels was probably ready to say "Do you believe in miracles" if we won that game. 

Or maybe, just maybe...the players we have aren't as bad as some make it out to be or the coaching isn't as bad as some make it out to be. 

[MUBasketball]

He almost lost to a bad Kentucky team the game before that.

C'mon bilsu, that's a ridiculous comment. Kentucky had a pretty disastrous start to the season, but they rebounded nicely. Going off the top of my head, I believe they were 12-4 in SEC play. They split with Tennessee and Florida...coming very close to sweeping both teams.

They were very hot coming into the NCAA Tournament...I was very relieved to leave the arena that day with a win. Appears Chico and Nola are both saying Buzz had a poor gameplan for that game, is that accurate? Figures, if so.

Also, I'm typically not a huge fan of the press...but I like to see it occassionally to stir things up. I agree that I would have liked to have seen it against Stanford.

Concerning Stanford...they were a darn good basketball team. They had some holes, but the Lopez boys made up for that. However, Crean definitely should have changed his defensive schemes in the 2nd half. I can't remember how many consecutive times down the floor they ran the exact same play (aka lob to Lopez on the low block), and he'd score. They were hitting their 3's early...but you have to change the D and clog the lane. It got beyond ridiculous how nothing was changed.

[jce]

Also, I'm typically not a huge fan of the press...but I like to see it occassionally to stir things up. I agree that I would have liked to have seen it against Stanford.

Occasionally yes.  Oftentimes all the press does is make your mismatches underneath all that more pronounced.  (If you break it, you end up with a mismatch and no help.)

I actually never saw the game because I was in Florida at the time driving to pick up some family members from the airport, but I would have run a man-to-man, with the guards picking up their guards almost immediately after half-court trying to get them to make long entry passes.  That also leaves you susceptible to mismatches, but IMO, it is better than a zone or something passive like that.