Deserved To Lose

[MuggsyB]

There's really nothing else to say.  Give them credit and try to learn from the costly mistakes. 

[Johnny B]

yep

[Newsdreams]

There's really nothing else to say.  Give them credit and try to learn from the costly mistakes.

Late on Shaka to adjust D. Didn't have to be down double digits 1st half.

[MuggsyB]

Once the game was right there for us I feel strongly the execution wasn't there.  We were discombobulated.  I also think under 5 mins we needed to go defense/offense.  Additionally, Kam was terrific but we needed one more guy male a shot in crunch time.  Never happened. 

[PointWarrior]

Highly disappointing coaching effort against a mediocre badger team.

[MuggsyB]

Highly disappointing coaching effort against a mediocre badger team.

I can't disagree with this point.  Inordinately disappointed right now. 

[Daniel]

I don’t understand waiting for “halftime adjustments”. Make them real-time.  First half killed us.  Too many open threes and we were doomed.   Fought back which is great.  Credit there.   But adjustments and the last 3.4 seconds were unreal.   

[connie]

Disappointed in OT Kolek.  Just a series of really poor decisions. The second inbounds to triple coverage is just inexplicable.

[Daniel]

Disappointed in OT Kolek.  Just a series of really poor decisions. The second inbounds to triple coverage is just inexplicable.

Don’t k ow why he was inbounding the ball twice with a much taller guy blocking his vision….. that was his assignment and he did what he could in 5 seconds.   

[Dickthedribbler]

The game was lost in the last 5 minutes of the first half and the first 5 minutes off the second half. The fact that Tyler Kolek couldn't pull a rabbit out of his hat with 3.5 seconds left in overtime was of little consequence.

[Markusquette]

The game was lost in the last 5 minutes of the first half and the first 5 minutes off the second half. The fact that Tyler Kolek couldn't pull a rabbit out of his hat with 3.5 seconds left in overtime was of little consequence.

The game was lost in overtime

[bilsu]

Disappointed in OT Kolek.  Just a series of really poor decisions. The second inbounds to triple coverage is just inexplicable.

You should be disappointed in Shaka. He was the one who decided to go with long passes. 3.5 seconds is enough time to get the ball down court and get a shot off. Especially, since UW would not want to foul. The decision to try long passes took away any chance we had to win.

[MuggsyB]

You should be disappointed in Shaka. He was the one who decided to go with long passes. 3.5 seconds is enough time to get the ball down court and get a shot off. Especially, since UW would not want to foul. The decision to try long passes took away any chance we had to win.

I agree.  I also would have inserted Sean Jones if we couldn't find someone down the floor, have him dribble up to half'court and then call a time-out. 

[GoldenEagles03]

Marquette has never faced Wisconsin in the NCAA Tournament.

If that scenario ever arises, I always thought that I'd rather play them in March with a chip on our shoulder after losing to them rather than having to try to beat them a 2nd time in a season.  Maybe that's a weird way to look at it, and maybe they won't meet in March, but the chip has been stored away in a safe place in the event that it needs to be placed on the shoulder later.

Let's pummel NCCU and stay healthy for a road test against ND.

[Mu8891]

Muggs - I agree.  Terrible job by Shaka.

It makes NO sense to sit there, not use a single timeout and not make a single adjustment in 1st half as UW pummeled you.  His defensive “ plan “ made no sense and they were getting torched.


UW like many teams can get hot from 3 … one guy getting hot … well leads to other guys shooting well.  Terrible on Smart and his staff


As for the last 3.5 seconds it would be very poor execution for an 8th grade team.  You don’t have TK bring the ball in ( he’s too short ) … then you waste a player to set a “ screen “ on the inbound

… so you are going 3 on 4 ?? WTH ? 
It was a terrible plan, w / even worse execution

[NCMUFan]

Don’t k ow why he was inbounding the ball twice with a much taller guy blocking his vision….. that was his assignment and he did what he could in 5 seconds.   

Had an MU player near Kolek there to pick the Badger playing Kolek's inbound pass.  The passes were just horrendous and to the wrong player.  But Kolek is so talented in many other ways.  Just the wrong person for that situation.

[MuggsyB]

Muggs - I agree.  Terrible job by Shaka.

It makes NO sense to sit there, not use a single timeout and not make a single adjustment in 1st half as UW pummeled you.  His defensive “ plan “ made no sense and they were getting torched.


UW like many teams can get hot from 3 … one guy getting hot … well leads to other guys shooting well.  Terrible on Smart and his staff


As for the last 3.5 seconds it would be very poor execution for an 8th grade team.  You don’t have TK bring the ball in ( he’s too short ) … then you waste a player to set a “ screen “ on the inbound

… so you are going 3 on 4 ?? WTH ? 
It was a terrible plan, w / even worse execution

I didn't have a problem with the strategy to double the post to begin the game, but I thought it should be more instinctual and selective.  In other words double if Wahl has dribbled twice and is in the paint or Crowl got the ball with deep position.  Now, once Hepburn and others made 5 threes, and they got an uncontested lay-up, I think you have to make an adjustment.  I mean if Crowl beats us for 20 in the post I think we could have lived with that.  To be fair Wisky shot the ball much better than their percentages, especially Hepburn, but they were in rhythm the entire first half.

As for the last 3.5 secs and then 2.4?  I don't have an answer at all.  They clearly were not prepared for this scenario.  You have Oso in-bounding the ball with both Kolek, Sean, Omax, and Kam on the floor.  If you hit either Sean or OMax on the run they can get a shot off full-court, or dribble and call a time-out at half-court with plenty of time left. 

[tower912]

There are several ways to play the last 3.5 seconds.   All are predicated on someone making a good pass.  (angry buzzer noise)

Half court lob with Omax, Oso and Gold in the game to catch it and call a time out on the catch to set up the 2.5 second sideline out if bounds play.

A pick and a lob over the top to the fast little guy already with a head of steam.


The play they ran on the first one wasn't horrible in concept, it was just a terrible throw.   If the pass was accurate, Kam would have caught it in the area of the old sideline hashmark with 3.5 seconds.

[rocket surgeon]

Being at the game, when we took the lead, having the crowd exploding should have been enough to finish them off, BUT…gotta use the crowd to feed off better than that…duh

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Yep. Even moreso Wisconsin deserved to win. They shot the lights out; we didn’t.

[rocket surgeon]

it looked like he tried to run the same play twice>(head slap)

[tower912]

It looked like the opposite of that.   The first time, a screen was set and Kam ran a cut from the foul line extended, across the court to the area of the sideline hash on the opposite side.  The pass was up the sideline.

The second time, it was a lob to stationary players near the top of the key.

Just got done watching it again.

[brewcity77]

There's really nothing else to say.  Give them credit and try to learn from the costly mistakes.

Actually, there is. Did they make shots? Sure. Chucky Hepburn made multiple fade-away 35-foot threes. Meanwhile, O-Max missed a number of wide-open jumpers in spots where he normally makes it. But while Wisconsin got the win, we were the better team on the day. Shot Quality had that as an SQ Upset and based on the shots taken, Marquette would win that game 60% of the time.

So why did they get the result? Because in the first half, one of the worst 2PFG% teams in the country made 90% of their two-point field goals and shot 17 points above their season average from three. Then in the second half, both teams played their average game and we rallied to get to overtime. They got the better of us in the 5-minute frame, but that's hardly indicative of the overall game, which really just demonstrated that you can't defend luck, which is the only reason Wisconsin won. They were lucky in their shooting and won as a result.

Take the L and move on knowing that if you play that one 10 times, yesterday was the only one they would've gotten.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Actually, there is. Did they make shots? Sure. Chucky Hepburn made multiple fade-away 35-foot threes. Meanwhile, O-Max missed a number of wide-open jumpers in spots where he normally makes it. But while Wisconsin got the win, we were the better team on the day. Shot Quality had that as an SQ Upset and based on the shots taken, Marquette would win that game 60% of the time.

So why did they get the result? Because in the first half, one of the worst 2PFG% teams in the country made 90% of their two-point field goals and shot 17 points above their season average from three. Then in the second half, both teams played their average game and we rallied to get to overtime. They got the better of us in the 5-minute frame, but that's hardly indicative of the overall game, which really just demonstrated that you can't defend luck, which is the only reason Wisconsin won. They were lucky in their shooting and won as a result.

Take the L and move on knowing that if you play that one 10 times, yesterday was the only one they would've gotten.

Please. If Hepburn was healthy for the entire game we wouldn’t have gotten close in the 2nd half.

[GoldenEagles03]

Please. If Hepburn was healthy for the entire game we wouldn’t have gotten close in the 2nd half.

Correct.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Please. If Hepburn was healthy for the entire game we wouldn’t have gotten close in the 2nd half.

How do you know that? Are you suggesting MU's chances of winning that game were 0% at that point?

[ATL MU Warrior]

How do you know that? Are you suggesting MU's chances of winning that game were 0% at that point?

Of course I don’t know that. And I have no idea what our chances of winning were at that point.

I also can be honest and say that when he played he was the best player on the court (by a wide margin) and the fact that he missed 75% of the 2nd half and was clearly limited for the other 25% is largely why we were able to make a game out of it.

He wasn’t worse in the 2nd half because of some adjustment we made.  He was worse because he was hurt and I think it’s dishonest to suggest otherwise.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I think its dishonest to state "we wouldn't have gotten close" when in the VERY NEXT POST you say that you don't know if that actually is the case.

[ATL MU Warrior]

I think its dishonest to state "we wouldn't have gotten close" when in the VERY NEXT POST you say that you don't know if that actually is the case.

Fine.  We most likely wouldn’t have gotten close. Is that sufficient for you?

Do you think Hepburn played worse in the 2nd half because of adjustments we made? 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Yes.

And No...but our defense was better regardless.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Correct.

Please don’t agree with me. I don’t like it.

[Lennys Tap]

Actually, there is. Did they make shots? Sure. Chucky Hepburn made multiple fade-away 35-foot threes. Meanwhile, O-Max missed a number of wide-open jumpers in spots where he normally makes it. But while Wisconsin got the win, we were the better team on the day. Shot Quality had that as an SQ Upset and based on the shots taken, Marquette would win that game 60% of the time.

So why did they get the result? Because in the first half, one of the worst 2PFG% teams in the country made 90% of their two-point field goals and shot 17 points above their season average from three. Then in the second half, both teams played their average game and we rallied to get to overtime. They got the better of us in the 5-minute frame, but that's hardly indicative of the overall game, which really just demonstrated that you can't defend luck, which is the only reason Wisconsin won. They were lucky in their shooting and won as a result.

Take the L and move on knowing that if you play that one 10 times, yesterday was the only one they would've gotten.

Good analysis, Brew.

[Daniel]

Good analysis, Brew.

Yes great analysis, Brew,   And the fact is we were in the gane in each loss…. So, same thing with the other two losses…. A few things different and we are 9-0.   But…… things happen.   Next game!

[Newsdreams]

Please. If Hepburn was healthy for the entire game we wouldn’t have gotten close in the 2nd half.

If he was really hurt on 2nd half then their staff was really terrible. He looked fine moving around. Again D was changed, not doubling post hard.

[brewcity77]

Please. If Hepburn was healthy for the entire game we wouldn’t have gotten close in the 2nd half.

Maybe. Or maybe the guy who shot 100% on threes in the first half would've regressed to the 35.8% career shooter he is, he would've taken shots away from Essegian, and we would've come back sooner.

They got lucky by shooting out of their minds and you can't defend that. It happens. They got the result, but we've been the better team on the season and if we played again I'd be confident we would beat them on any court, including theirs.

[MuggsyB]

Maybe. Or maybe the guy who shot 100% on threes in the first half would've regressed to the 35.8% career shooter he is, he would've taken shots away from Essegian, and we would've come back sooner.

They got lucky by shooting out of their minds and you can't defend that. It happens. They got the result, but we've been the better team on the season and if we played again I'd be confident we would beat them on any court, including theirs.

He shot pretty much out of his ass.  Had he played the 2nd half we have no idea what would of happened but don't forget Klesmit and Essigan would have gotten fewer shots.  25 pts from Klesmit and Essigan wasn't exactly helpful. 

[ATL MU Warrior]

Maybe. Or maybe the guy who shot 100% on threes in the first half would've regressed to the 35.8% career shooter he is, he would've taken shots away from Essegian, and we would've come back sooner.

They got lucky by shooting out of their minds and you can't defend that. It happens. They got the result, but we've been the better team on the season and if we played again I'd be confident we would beat them on any court, including theirs.

I just don’t think you can write it off as purely luck and I’m pretty sure if we played them in Madison we’d lose again.  The things we do that allow us to win are things they don’t seem so have a whole lot of trouble with.

[Dr. Blackheart]

All of MU's losses were to slow tempo teams.  Also a problem for Shaka in Texas (aka, Abilene Christian, Northern Iowa). It's a problem.

[GoldenEagles03]

Please don’t agree with me. I don’t like it.

Too bad. It's true.

[brewcity77]

I just don’t think you can write it off as purely luck and I’m pretty sure if we played them in Madison we’d lose again.  The things we do that allow us to win are things they don’t seem so have a whole lot of trouble with.

Disagree 100% with the last sentence. We should've done more of what we do to allow us to win, like pressuring the backcourt to take time off the clock. When a team is used to using 25+ seconds when they get into their offense, our Violence pressure is perfectly suited to milk that starting time down to 18.

Regardless, their lead and end-game survival was based on complete pulled-out-of-their-ass shooting that they haven't replicated in any other game this season. They're probably a team that ends up on the right side of the bubble. Based on this year's results, we are much better than that.

[withoutbias]

Disagree 100% with the last sentence. We should've done more of what we do to allow us to win, like pressuring the backcourt to take time off the clock. When a team is used to using 25+ seconds when they get into their offense, our Violence pressure is perfectly suited to milk that starting time down to 18.

Regardless, their lead and end-game survival was based on complete pulled-out-of-their-ass shooting that they haven't replicated in any other game this season. They're probably a team that ends up on the right side of the bubble. Based on this year's results, we are much better than that.

The problem with chalking it up to being “unlucky” or then shooting “out of their ass” is that their opponents weren’t doubling a guy who averages 9 points per game, leaving everyone else wide open. Marquette was. And then yes, Chucky hit some crazy shots to end the half and end the game. But we had let him get into a rhythm with our scheme early. That’s on the defensive game plan, not on luck.

[DoctorV]

Here are my few thoughts on Saturday, since I don’t really like to dwell on losses.

From my pov the game was very entertaining and a lot of fun. Both teams played very well, shot very well, and gave the fans a show fitting of the rivalry.

I as well don’t think Shaka had a great day, it’s already been discussed here why, but everyone has a bad day. The pressure of the moment gets to coaches sometimes more so than it does to the players.
The bigger concern here imo is that coach has a not so shiny track record in the biggest games of his career in the last handful of years, and he really needs that NCAA monkey off his back before he starts to doubt his own abilities.
Hopefully this season.

At halftime I had zero doubt that Marquette would get back into the game, and I actually thought MU would come back and win.
Not only because I’m a homer, but because I believe in Shaka and his team.
Wisconsin just played a dream first half, the type that MU had just played against Baylor, and I knew that it wasn’t sustainable.
Then they came out hot as a pistol to start the second half and I still wasn’t worried, and that’s a very good sign.
Under the previous regime, and even the one before, I would have definitely been more worried.

Lastly there seems to be a trend that’s forming, that we saw again on Saturday.
When TyKo and OMax have off days it costs Marquette a victory.
I’m not trying to put it all on those two, I don’t want people up in arms saying that it’s not fair.
Im simply saying that it’s become very obvious that if Tyler and Omax don’t play well MU has a greatly diminished shot at victory.

I said against Baylor that they were the Tyler and Omax that we need, the ones that we deserve. Against Wisconsin they were not.
Their success, or lack thereof, will be tied to the teams success all season long.

[tower912]

Omax was the second best player for MU on Saturday.   Pretty good off day.

[brewcity77]

The problem with chalking it up to being “unlucky” or then shooting “out of their ass” is that their opponents weren’t doubling a guy who averages 9 points per game, leaving everyone else wide open. Marquette was. And then yes, Chucky hit some crazy shots to end the half and end the game. But we had let him get into a rhythm with our scheme early. That’s on the defensive game plan, not on luck.

Chucky's shots weren't wide open, most were well contested, hand-in-the-face shots, or turnaround fadeaways, even inside the arc. What Wisconsin did in the first half is something they couldn't replicate in an empty gym, much less the average game atmosphere. And sure, they doubled the bigs (Crowl in particular) but both he and Wahl had season highs in turnovers, so it seems there was some logic to it.

[MU82]

I said against Baylor that they were the Tyler and Omax that we need, the ones that we deserve.

Deserve?

[ATL MU Warrior]

Chucky's shots weren't wide open, most were well contested, hand-in-the-face shots, or turnaround fadeaways, even inside the arc. What Wisconsin did in the first half is something they couldn't replicate in an empty gym, much less the average game atmosphere. And sure, they doubled the bigs (Crowl in particular) but both he and Wahl had season highs in turnovers, so it seems there was some logic to it.

I just watched 1st half highlights including every Hepburn make and this just isn’t even remotely true. He didn’t even take a turn around fadeaway shot. His first four shots were completely in flow and while 3/4 were challenged, the defender wasn’t particularly close. The 4th was wide open due to a defensive breakdown. The last two were long (especially the last) and more difficult attempts.

This is where the whole “they were just lucky” argument falls flat.  Plus you are just making crap up to fit that narrative. 

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Plus you are just making crap up to fit that narrative. 

Irony.

[Shooter McGavin]

Dr V,

It’s not just Tyler and Omax but I agree they are extremely important for the teams success.

Tyler, Omax, Kam and Oso are the horses we’ve hitched our wagon to this year.  It’s on their collective backs.  3 out of four need to be good for us to win on a nightly basis. 4 out of 4 to reach our highest ceiling. 

The rest of the players are good roll players for now and need to be stars in their rolls for us to have a higher floor.   

The great part is that all four main players have shown that they can play at a very high level but they just have not developed the consistency yet. Hopefully they will and we are dancing in March.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Saturday was by far MU's worst defensive game of the season.  T-Rank lists the adj-D rating at 117.1,  while the 2nd worst was 94.3 at Purdue.

That confirms how bad the defensive gameplan was.   Our offense was really good, third best of the year behind the Baylor and GA Tech games. Which makes it feel like even more of a missed opportunity.

The more I think about this game, the more frustrating the result. Hopefully MU routes ND on Sunday to wash the bitter taste from my mouth.

[ATL MU Warrior]

Irony.

Possibly.  Look at the highlights yourself to judge the accuracy of Brew's claims about Hepburn's shots.

[Viper]

Actually, there is. Did they make shots? Sure. Chucky Hepburn made multiple fade-away 35-foot threes. Meanwhile, O-Max missed a number of wide-open jumpers in spots where he normally makes it. But while Wisconsin got the win, we were the better team on the day. Shot Quality had that as an SQ Upset and based on the shots taken, Marquette would win that game 60% of the time.

So why did they get the result? Because in the first half, one of the worst 2PFG% teams in the country made 90% of their two-point field goals and shot 17 points above their season average from three. Then in the second half, both teams played their average game and we rallied to get to overtime. They got the better of us in the 5-minute frame, but that's hardly indicative of the overall game, which really just demonstrated that you can't defend luck, which is the only reason Wisconsin won. They were lucky in their shooting and won as a result.

Take the L and move on knowing that if you play that one 10 times, yesterday was the only one they would've gotten.

try your explanation with a Badger fan.

[wadesworld]

Saturday was by far MU's worst defensive game of the season.  T-Rank lists the adj-D rating at 117.1,  while the 2nd worst was 94.3 at Purdue.

That confirms how bad the defensive gameplan was.   Our offense was really good, third best of the year behind the Baylor and GA Tech games. Which makes it feel like even more of a missed opportunity.

The more I think about this game, the more frustrating the result. Hopefully MU routes ND on Sunday to wash the bitter taste from my mouth.

Agreed.  I'm generally in the camp of "until the Badgers actually do suck, I'll just give them the benefit of the doubt and realize they'll probably be a Tourney team with room to spare."  But I don't think this version of the Badgers is very good.  Hepburn and Wahl are solid, but neither are close to the Jordan Taylors or Ethan Happs of the world.  I think Marquette is a better team than the Badgers, but I also struggle to go along with the "they shot out of their minds" by pointing to shooting percentages while ignoring the attempts those guys were getting.  We played the Mike Budenholzer defense of, "We'll give their average to bad shooters as many open looks as they want, and if they make them they'll win" defense.  And then when their 30% three point shooters are making warmup jumpers everyone cries out about their luck and shooting over their heads.  Well, we didn't defend them.  Obviously Hepburn hit some insane shots, but their first half shooting wasn't just a bunch of prayers.  They were shots Ners made in high school all day!

[Elonsmusk]

Agreed.  I'm generally in the camp of "until the Badgers actually do suck, I'll just give them the benefit of the doubt and realize they'll probably be a Tourney team with room to spare."  But I don't think this version of the Badgers is very good.  Hepburn and Wahl are solid, but neither are close to the Jordan Taylors or Ethan Happs of the world.  I think Marquette is a better team than the Badgers, but I also struggle to go along with the "they shot out of their minds" by pointing to shooting percentages while ignoring the attempts those guys were getting.  We played the Mike Budenholzer defense of, "We'll give their average to bad shooters as many open looks as they want, and if they make them they'll win" defense.  And then when their 30% three point shooters are making warmup jumpers everyone cries out about their luck and shooting over their heads.  Well, we didn't defend them.  Obviously Hepburn hit some insane shots, but their first half shooting wasn't just a bunch of prayers.  They were shots Ners made in high school all day!

We didn't play very well Saturday, defensively. The doubling the post strategy wasn't the right decision, though it did yield some turnovers from Crowl and Wahl (8 total.)

End of the day Hepburn played out of his ass.  He looked like Markus Howard.  If just one of the 30+ foot contested step backs doesn't go in, we probably win the game.

Last two plays were terrible.  Shaka had his worst game as coach at MU, and despite that and UW playing a ceiling type game, we had a good chance to win.

Lastly, I feel so trolled by the last sentence in your post. 

[UWW2MU]

I would hardly say this team "deserved to lose" Saturday.   I'm not sure, despite mistakes being made, that this is a good way of summing up the game. 

The biggest thing I noticed is that when they doubled up that did force a bunch of turnovers, especially earlier when the rotation of the defense was sharp.  It was only when the quickness of the defense rotating faltered a little bit that the opponents guys started opening up a bit.  I don't' think it was bad coaching or a lack of effort, just an awareness and practice thing that the team will continue to get better at.  I didn't notice if the personnel changed out between the good rotations vs bad, except I noticed Stevie was a step off his game that day. 

I found it all very promising and reminded me a lot of what we saw during the best parts of the Purdue game.  I think this type of defense, the scheme, the effort, the awareness all never would have happened previous to Shaka and will only get better as the year goes on. 

[wadesworld]

We didn't play very well Saturday, defensively. The doubling the post strategy wasn't the right decision, though it did yield some turnovers from Crowl and Wahl (8 total.)

End of the day Hepburn played out of his ass.  He looked like Markus Howard.  If just one of the 30+ foot contested step backs doesn't go in, we probably win the game.

Last two plays were terrible.  Shaka had his worst game as coach at MU, and despite that and UW playing a ceiling type game, we had a good chance to win.

Lastly, I feel so trolled by the last sentence in your post.

Come on, admit it.  You could've made a number of the threes that guys like McGee and Davis got in that first half.

[rgoode57]

Truth is, UW has a nice team and a good coach. They will do well in the BIG this year. But, the game should have never gone to OT. Just hit a couple of free throws and make a missed layup, and we win a close one.  Or, call a timeout and make a defensive adjustment in the first half. But, in OT, at least have a workable plan to get a shot at the end. I hate to say it, but I don't think that game was one of Shaka's better performances.

[Newsdreams]

Possibly.  Look at the highlights yourself to judge the accuracy of Brew's claims about Hepburn's shots.

Close outs seemed late, if you get there the shooter already starts motion and your arms are up late, not a good contested shot against a 3 pt shooter.

[MU82]

We didn't play very well Saturday, defensively. The doubling the post strategy wasn't the right decision, though it did yield some turnovers from Crowl and Wahl (8 total.)

End of the day Hepburn played out of his ass.  He looked like Markus Howard.  If just one of the 30+ foot contested step backs doesn't go in, we probably win the game.

Last two plays were terrible.  Shaka had his worst game as coach at MU, and despite that and UW playing a ceiling type game, we had a good chance to win.

Glad to see that you believe one Scooper has the right to criticize Shaka, anyway.

BTW, we are in agreement on just about everything you said here.

[nycwarrior]

In retrospect, doubling the post was a bad idea.

But two truths about this team are that they are very exciting and they have very little margin for error.

Much of the excitement comes from seeing growth. Tyko's passing being complemented by the occasional bucket, Kam's newly found aggressive attacking (along with the J), Omax's increasing control on his drives and Oso's uncommon mix of size, speed and skill. And the push we get from the guys off the bench.

But we also have a lot of holes that Shaka has to consider. If/when Oso gets into foul trouble our ability to defend inside is significantly compromised. I have to think that played into his decision to double the post against a Wisco squad that often schools its players in drawing fouls.

Also, the pressure that we have to put on the ball works to both take the opponent out of what they wanna do and prevent the passes they wanna make. If it's a step slow, it's not nearly as effective. Satruday, in the first half it felt a step slow.

Also, we don't have an automatic ice-in-his veins bucket-getter. Kam stepped into that role last night. But those moments when we need one are still dicey. Felt that way in overtime.

Fun team. Little margin for error.

[MU82]

Who is "Cam"?

[tower912]

Cousin of O'tule and Duane.

[nycwarrior]

Who is "Cam"?

Fair. My mistake.

Any thoughts on how Shaka might feel the need to protect Oso?

I don’t think it’ll be the last time we see doubles as a way to keep him on the court

[wadesworld]

Cousin of O'tule and Duane.

I thought Jamil was Duane's cousin.

[DoctorV]

In retrospect, doubling the post was a bad idea.

But two truths about this team are that they are very exciting and they have very little margin for error.

Much of the excitement comes from seeing growth. Tyko's passing being complemented by the occasional bucket, Kam's newly found aggressive attacking (along with the J), Omax's increasing control on his drives and Oso's uncommon mix of size, speed and skill. And the push we get from the guys off the bench.

But we also have a lot of holes that Shaka has to consider. If/when Oso gets into foul trouble our ability to defend inside is significantly compromised. I have to think that played into his decision to double the post against a Wisco squad that often schools its players in drawing fouls.

Also, the pressure that we have to put on the ball works to both take the opponent out of what they wanna do and prevent the passes they wanna make. If it's a step slow, it's not nearly as effective. Satruday, in the first half it felt a step slow.

Also, we don't have an automatic ice-in-his veins bucket-getter. Kam stepped into that role last night. But those moments when we need one are still dicey. Felt that way in overtime.

Fun team. Little margin for error.

Good post, solid points.

It’s easy to say the double didn’t work, especially when the opposition can’t miss.
That doesn’t take into account that Marquette is thin down low and can’t afford Oso foul trouble.

I bet Shaka wants to install a year long system where, knowing the limitations in bulk with regards to defending the post, MU uses its speed and athleticism in double downs in the post.
As the year goes on the defensive approach should improve.
If the opposing team can’t miss from 3 it’ll lead to some trouble.

They just might want to consider bringing the double from different spots and or going away from it sooner, mixing up the defenses and confusing the opposition