Bowling Green, Fri. Nov. 9, 6:30p, FS2 / 570 WMCA
- Thread starter rcatalano
- Start date
JohnnyFever
Active member
[quote="Ray Morgan" post=301435][quote="Mike Zaun" post=301430][quote="Ray Morgan" post=301426][quote="Mike Zaun" post=301424]Very big scare last night. Anyone who says Rutgers will not be an issue is dead wrong. They always are even in some of our best years recently. They scare me to death because they have size, a great coach, and they are a power team like us. If we win I can see it being a lot like this game where every point is huge. I hope this was just BG catching us off guard but I feel like we all say that way too much for a veteran team with this much talent in year 4 of Mullin. When we played Loyola, they still got some open looks but couldn't make them. BG got them and did make them. They were also bigger.
I made it a point to keep an eye on the coaches and their body language from behind the basket. Mullin looked very confused and stood about 8 ft from the huddle during a timeout while GSJ was in the center of it. Mitch just shook his head most of the game. I keep seeing more evidence this staff is in over their heads, but I keep trying to repress it because I want to believe this is a big year for us. We just play hero ball and no one's moving around without the ball on offense. We pass around, pass around, nothing is there and then we gave it to Heron who breaks down a defender and drives at the rim with 3 guys on him. Luckily he was able to finish well and make his jumpers. Simon looks lost unfortunately. He's such a great kid and I know he will get out of the rut, but he gets to the hoop and it's all iron and bounces right back out. Seemingly every time. Dixon missed a layup on a fastbreak. We left at least 20 pts on the board between missed FT's and missed bunnies.[/quote]
BG made their share of mistakes too. Plenty of missed FTs, blown layups, and mishandling the ball that would have been easy baskets. That's part of the game. As for the staff, one talented and experienced basketball mind to help with practice, recruiting and game prep should have been accomplished by now. I'm no Lavin fan, but at least he had enough sense to know his limitations and bring in Dunlap and then Whitesell. If the AD does one thing, I hope it's that.[/quote]
Cragg knows how important a winning basketball team is to our school beyond athletics. A great basketball program increases enrollment. It also increases attendance and fundraising. He's all business and does not seem swayed by emotion...he won't put up with this stuff for very long.[/quote]
A lot of hype this season yet CA looked empty in the first half. Did seem to fill up more later. How was the attendance and was it a noisy and engaged fan base?[/quote]
About 5,000...pretty good not great crowd. Filled in as night went on due to the really tough start time I'm sure. About 30-40 people at 1870. They had a raffle for a SJ water bottle and I saw they had a bunch of Mark Jackson bobbleheads. I asked if they were raffling those too and one of the admins said, "Nah...those are just there". When I looked confused he said, "Why do you want one?" and they were basically begging us to take them so me and my Mullins Maniacs friend each got one and we took an additional to giveaway on our twitter page. We got fans engaged on our side of the hoop opposite the band side since we were with the red suit guys and other diehards, however we couldn't get the other side pumped for whatever reason.
There was 1 girl making any kind of motion to distract the BG FT shooters on that end. We are working on getting some color-coded signs so we can all be on the same page with the chants in unison and make it more lively. Then we would hand out sheets indicating which color corresponds with which chant e.g. hold up blue and it represents the "We are...St. John's" chant. The Michigan State, Miami, etc. student sections told me this is routine for them. I'm no rocket scientist obviously but many obvious things that need to be done to enhance the experience have not been done which is why I'm trying to help with my friend. Working on that among many other things such as possible promotions.
The traffic was terrible btw...stopped in Farmingdale to get my friend and there were about 4 accidents along the LIE on the way. The rain didn't help. Essentially bumper to bumper the entire way into Queens. I also had the pleasure of meeting a fellow Redmen.com poster and his father, however he said he doesn't post much. My apologies, I forgot the handle you mentioned!
I made it a point to keep an eye on the coaches and their body language from behind the basket. Mullin looked very confused and stood about 8 ft from the huddle during a timeout while GSJ was in the center of it. Mitch just shook his head most of the game. I keep seeing more evidence this staff is in over their heads, but I keep trying to repress it because I want to believe this is a big year for us. We just play hero ball and no one's moving around without the ball on offense. We pass around, pass around, nothing is there and then we gave it to Heron who breaks down a defender and drives at the rim with 3 guys on him. Luckily he was able to finish well and make his jumpers. Simon looks lost unfortunately. He's such a great kid and I know he will get out of the rut, but he gets to the hoop and it's all iron and bounces right back out. Seemingly every time. Dixon missed a layup on a fastbreak. We left at least 20 pts on the board between missed FT's and missed bunnies.[/quote]
BG made their share of mistakes too. Plenty of missed FTs, blown layups, and mishandling the ball that would have been easy baskets. That's part of the game. As for the staff, one talented and experienced basketball mind to help with practice, recruiting and game prep should have been accomplished by now. I'm no Lavin fan, but at least he had enough sense to know his limitations and bring in Dunlap and then Whitesell. If the AD does one thing, I hope it's that.[/quote]
Cragg knows how important a winning basketball team is to our school beyond athletics. A great basketball program increases enrollment. It also increases attendance and fundraising. He's all business and does not seem swayed by emotion...he won't put up with this stuff for very long.[/quote]
A lot of hype this season yet CA looked empty in the first half. Did seem to fill up more later. How was the attendance and was it a noisy and engaged fan base?[/quote]
About 5,000...pretty good not great crowd. Filled in as night went on due to the really tough start time I'm sure. About 30-40 people at 1870. They had a raffle for a SJ water bottle and I saw they had a bunch of Mark Jackson bobbleheads. I asked if they were raffling those too and one of the admins said, "Nah...those are just there". When I looked confused he said, "Why do you want one?" and they were basically begging us to take them so me and my Mullins Maniacs friend each got one and we took an additional to giveaway on our twitter page. We got fans engaged on our side of the hoop opposite the band side since we were with the red suit guys and other diehards, however we couldn't get the other side pumped for whatever reason.
There was 1 girl making any kind of motion to distract the BG FT shooters on that end. We are working on getting some color-coded signs so we can all be on the same page with the chants in unison and make it more lively. Then we would hand out sheets indicating which color corresponds with which chant e.g. hold up blue and it represents the "We are...St. John's" chant. The Michigan State, Miami, etc. student sections told me this is routine for them. I'm no rocket scientist obviously but many obvious things that need to be done to enhance the experience have not been done which is why I'm trying to help with my friend. Working on that among many other things such as possible promotions.
The traffic was terrible btw...stopped in Farmingdale to get my friend and there were about 4 accidents along the LIE on the way. The rain didn't help. Essentially bumper to bumper the entire way into Queens. I also had the pleasure of meeting a fellow Redmen.com poster and his father, however he said he doesn't post much. My apologies, I forgot the handle you mentioned!
Last edited:
[quote="Paul Massell" post=301469]Thank you good analysis maybe a little too factual and intelligent for the crowd that is satisfied with claims that Mullin is/isn't this or that... ![/quote]
Couple of interesting points:
Sure they were bigger and out rebounded us, but when it came to points in the paint, we outscored them 28-18 and when it came to second chance points it was even at 4 each. so all this about them dominating us inside doesn't stand up to the numbers. Where we won this game is in points off turnovers 26-11.
Couple of interesting points:
Sure they were bigger and out rebounded us, but when it came to points in the paint, we outscored them 28-18 and when it came to second chance points it was even at 4 each. so all this about them dominating us inside doesn't stand up to the numbers. Where we won this game is in points off turnovers 26-11.
After reading entire thread and watching entire game. a few questions:[ul]
[li]Can Simon become a Sir Dom as a senior type forward?[/li]
[li] Chris Mullin could shoot for high percentage from outside in a catch and shoot, step in as a trailer, or come off a pick circumstance.
The article about Klay Thompson outlined Mullin's critical role in teaching how to use your legs to explode in to your shot. Is it now possible to figure out which of our mix and match 6'5" to 6'7" players are good at which kind of shooting from distance and can we structure an offense around making those skills a refined scoring threat?
[li]Can Simon become a Sir Dom as a senior type forward?[/li]
[li] Chris Mullin could shoot for high percentage from outside in a catch and shoot, step in as a trailer, or come off a pick circumstance.
The article about Klay Thompson outlined Mullin's critical role in teaching how to use your legs to explode in to your shot. Is it now possible to figure out which of our mix and match 6'5" to 6'7" players are good at which kind of shooting from distance and can we structure an offense around making those skills a refined scoring threat?
Knight wrote: I feel like I watched a different game than some posters. I was not impressed with Trimble. He was walking about on offense and basically running around waving his arms of defense. I think any success he had was due to poor BG performance. Please less Trimble time and more Dixon.
I have to respectfully disagree with negative comments on Trimble. I posted during the game that he was playing because he played good defense and doesn't turn the ball over. During the post game press conference both Figgy & Mullin went out of their way to give shout outs to Trimble for helping turn things around with defense, physicality and a couple of key rebounds. Trust his teammate and coach know value added when they see it.
I have to respectfully disagree with negative comments on Trimble. I posted during the game that he was playing because he played good defense and doesn't turn the ball over. During the post game press conference both Figgy & Mullin went out of their way to give shout outs to Trimble for helping turn things around with defense, physicality and a couple of key rebounds. Trust his teammate and coach know value added when they see it.
Last edited:
[quote="Logen" post=301466]So, my take FWIW. I went to the doubleheader at Annapolis last night so I watched our game this morning. I found it so intriguing I watched it twice and somewhat broke it down, reverting back to my coaching days. Also took a look at the stats in relation to what I saw. I apologize in advance because am sure I will be repeating observations already posted. Here goes -
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
Appreciate the in-depth analysis Logen, and I mean that sincerely. But the bottom line is that we were up by 9 with under a minute to go, at home against against a theoretically far inferior opponent who we were 19 point favorites over. There is no way in hell that they should have been within 1 point with a few seconds left in the game and a chance to win it. No way! Which brings me back to our conversation on the Mike Dixon thread. A team with a good point guard doesn’t allow that to happen. We don’t have a floor general. We have a bunch of kids who each want to take matters in to their own hands when they feel the time is right. Someone needs to be in charge on the court.
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
Appreciate the in-depth analysis Logen, and I mean that sincerely. But the bottom line is that we were up by 9 with under a minute to go, at home against against a theoretically far inferior opponent who we were 19 point favorites over. There is no way in hell that they should have been within 1 point with a few seconds left in the game and a chance to win it. No way! Which brings me back to our conversation on the Mike Dixon thread. A team with a good point guard doesn’t allow that to happen. We don’t have a floor general. We have a bunch of kids who each want to take matters in to their own hands when they feel the time is right. Someone needs to be in charge on the court.
Last edited:
[quote="Monte" post=301479][quote="Logen" post=301466]So, my take FWIW. I went to the doubleheader at Annapolis last night so I watched our game this morning. I found it so intriguing I watched it twice and somewhat broke it down, reverting back to my coaching days. Also took a look at the stats in relation to what I saw. I apologize in advance because am sure I will be repeating observations already posted. Here goes -
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
Appreciate the in-depth analysis Logen, and I mean that sincerely. But the bottom line is that we were up by 9 with under a minute to go, at home against against a theoretically far inferior opponent who we were 19 point favorites over. There is no way in hell that they should have been within 1 point with a few seconds left in the game and a chance to win it. No way! Which brings me back to our conversation on the Mike Dixon thread. A team with a good point guard doesn’t allow that to happen. We don’t have a floor general. We have a bunch of kids who each want to take matters in to their own hands when they feel the time is right. Someone needs to be in charge on the court.[/quote]
Understood, but with all due respect, I don’t care about point spreads nor absolutes like about what should or shouldn’t happen, what happens, happens. I analyze that, not what should have happened because IMO, to paraphrase Tom Hanks, there is no should have in sports. Mike Dixon or Walt Frazier for that matter wouldn’t have changed missed free throws or dumb fouls and turnovers. We just disagree.
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
Appreciate the in-depth analysis Logen, and I mean that sincerely. But the bottom line is that we were up by 9 with under a minute to go, at home against against a theoretically far inferior opponent who we were 19 point favorites over. There is no way in hell that they should have been within 1 point with a few seconds left in the game and a chance to win it. No way! Which brings me back to our conversation on the Mike Dixon thread. A team with a good point guard doesn’t allow that to happen. We don’t have a floor general. We have a bunch of kids who each want to take matters in to their own hands when they feel the time is right. Someone needs to be in charge on the court.[/quote]
Understood, but with all due respect, I don’t care about point spreads nor absolutes like about what should or shouldn’t happen, what happens, happens. I analyze that, not what should have happened because IMO, to paraphrase Tom Hanks, there is no should have in sports. Mike Dixon or Walt Frazier for that matter wouldn’t have changed missed free throws or dumb fouls and turnovers. We just disagree.
[quote="Logen" post=301485][quote="Monte" post=301479][quote="Logen" post=301466]So, my take FWIW. I went to the doubleheader at Annapolis last night so I watched our game this morning. I found it so intriguing I watched it twice and somewhat broke it down, reverting back to my coaching days. Also took a look at the stats in relation to what I saw. I apologize in advance because am sure I will be repeating observations already posted. Here goes -
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
Appreciate the in-depth analysis Logen, and I mean that sincerely. But the bottom line is that we were up by 9 with under a minute to go, at home against against a theoretically far inferior opponent who we were 19 point favorites over. There is no way in hell that they should have been within 1 point with a few seconds left in the game and a chance to win it. No way! Which brings me back to our conversation on the Mike Dixon thread. A team with a good point guard doesn’t allow that to happen. We don’t have a floor general. We have a bunch of kids who each want to take matters in to their own hands when they feel the time is right. Someone needs to be in charge on the court.[/quote]
Understood, but with all due respect, I don’t care about point spreads nor absolutes like about what should or shouldn’t happen, what happens, happens. I analyze that, not what should have happened because IMO, to paraphrase Tom Hanks, there is no should have in sports. Mike Dixon or Walt Frazier for that matter wouldn’t have changed missed free throws or dumb fouls and turnovers. We just disagree.[/quote]
My point is that if we’re fighting for our lives at home against teams like BG, and it we’re playing 20 minutes of good ball against teams like Loyola, then there’s still an awful lot of work to be done for us to be even considered a tourney team. Maybe it’s just a case of early season jitters. I sure hope that’s the case and that our game improves as the level of competition improves.
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
Appreciate the in-depth analysis Logen, and I mean that sincerely. But the bottom line is that we were up by 9 with under a minute to go, at home against against a theoretically far inferior opponent who we were 19 point favorites over. There is no way in hell that they should have been within 1 point with a few seconds left in the game and a chance to win it. No way! Which brings me back to our conversation on the Mike Dixon thread. A team with a good point guard doesn’t allow that to happen. We don’t have a floor general. We have a bunch of kids who each want to take matters in to their own hands when they feel the time is right. Someone needs to be in charge on the court.[/quote]
Understood, but with all due respect, I don’t care about point spreads nor absolutes like about what should or shouldn’t happen, what happens, happens. I analyze that, not what should have happened because IMO, to paraphrase Tom Hanks, there is no should have in sports. Mike Dixon or Walt Frazier for that matter wouldn’t have changed missed free throws or dumb fouls and turnovers. We just disagree.[/quote]
My point is that if we’re fighting for our lives at home against teams like BG, and it we’re playing 20 minutes of good ball against teams like Loyola, then there’s still an awful lot of work to be done for us to be even considered a tourney team. Maybe it’s just a case of early season jitters. I sure hope that’s the case and that our game improves as the level of competition improves.
Last edited:
[quote="Section9" post=301476][quote="Paul Massell" post=301469]Thank you good analysis maybe a little too factual and intelligent for the crowd that is satisfied with claims that Mullin is/isn't this or that... ![/quote]
Couple of interesting points:
Sure they were bigger and out rebounded us, but when it came to points in the paint, we outscored them 28-18 and when it came to second chance points it was even at 4 each. so all this about them dominating us inside doesn't stand up to the numbers. Where we won this game is in points off turnovers 26-11.[/quote]
One point to contest the points in the paint. We fouled their big men countless times down low, most of which led to free throws and some that didn't. So you have to factor that also. Wiggins alone had 14 free throws.
Couple of interesting points:
Sure they were bigger and out rebounded us, but when it came to points in the paint, we outscored them 28-18 and when it came to second chance points it was even at 4 each. so all this about them dominating us inside doesn't stand up to the numbers. Where we won this game is in points off turnovers 26-11.[/quote]
One point to contest the points in the paint. We fouled their big men countless times down low, most of which led to free throws and some that didn't. So you have to factor that also. Wiggins alone had 14 free throws.
[quote="Logen" post=301466]So, my take FWIW. I went to the doubleheader at Annapolis last night so I watched our game this morning. I found it so intriguing I watched it twice and somewhat broke it down, reverting back to my coaching days. Also took a look at the stats in relation to what I saw. I apologize in advance because am sure I will be repeating observations already posted. Here goes -
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
great analysis and thanks for taking the time for breaking it down, but I disagree with the offensive board stat. We got some key offensive boards at the end of the game but during our lull our guys hoisted shot after shot without even a fight for a board. Seems every team we play always sends 2-3 guys to the board to attempt to grab an offensive rebound while we have an occasional player ( LJ, Heron, etc) follow. This is not to be too critical of the team but a deficiency that I believe we need to improve on to be successful. When LJ, Marv, Simon, or Heron at least attempt to grab an offensive board we seem to be playing more aggressive which usually results in something positive for us
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
great analysis and thanks for taking the time for breaking it down, but I disagree with the offensive board stat. We got some key offensive boards at the end of the game but during our lull our guys hoisted shot after shot without even a fight for a board. Seems every team we play always sends 2-3 guys to the board to attempt to grab an offensive rebound while we have an occasional player ( LJ, Heron, etc) follow. This is not to be too critical of the team but a deficiency that I believe we need to improve on to be successful. When LJ, Marv, Simon, or Heron at least attempt to grab an offensive board we seem to be playing more aggressive which usually results in something positive for us
I know given the 11 point comeback and high probability of losing in the closing seconds, people are just happy we won. I just re-watched the final seconds and BG rebounded the ball with 6 (!!!) seconds left and a 3 would've won it. That's scary. We were a steal away from flat out losing the game.
That said, with NET there's more to it this year than simply winning and losing. We can't act like yesterday was a 100% success in terms of results, because it wasn't. We didn't win by 10+ like we should have. Now, will that keep us out of the Tournament or even affect seeding? Of course not. But that absolutely will add up if the team doesn't play 40 minutes of ball EVERY night. I've already seen multiple games where smart coaches/teams have taken the 10 point margin into account on the final possessions. Those teams played like it was a tied game even when they were up by 10 on the final possession. Providence and UConn for starters. Two very well coached teams who are in our backyard.
Again, I'm not concerned about this one game in isolation. Had we lost it would've been disastrous for our resume, but we didn't. I just want to see the team focus on blowing teams out and winning by double digits, since this stuff adds up. Only way to do that is by staying focused the entire game. No more playing down to opponents when we get a lead.
Edit: here's the highlight with the final possession:
That said, with NET there's more to it this year than simply winning and losing. We can't act like yesterday was a 100% success in terms of results, because it wasn't. We didn't win by 10+ like we should have. Now, will that keep us out of the Tournament or even affect seeding? Of course not. But that absolutely will add up if the team doesn't play 40 minutes of ball EVERY night. I've already seen multiple games where smart coaches/teams have taken the 10 point margin into account on the final possessions. Those teams played like it was a tied game even when they were up by 10 on the final possession. Providence and UConn for starters. Two very well coached teams who are in our backyard.
Again, I'm not concerned about this one game in isolation. Had we lost it would've been disastrous for our resume, but we didn't. I just want to see the team focus on blowing teams out and winning by double digits, since this stuff adds up. Only way to do that is by staying focused the entire game. No more playing down to opponents when we get a lead.
Edit: here's the highlight with the final possession:
Last edited:
we are sju
Active member
[quote="Class of 72" post=301456][quote="Knight" post=301450]I feel like I watched a different game than some posters. I was not impressed with Trimble. He was walking about on offense and basically running around waving his arms of defense. I think any success he had was due to poor BG performance. Please less Trimble time and more Dixon.[/quote]
Mullin gave Dixon his Lavin teaching moment by benching him therefore Trimble got his minutes but Williams is faster than Trimble so his DNP is mystifying as are most Mullin bench decisions.[/quote]
Dixon went around screens like I did my senior year. That is not a compliment. I was like the 8th man on my HS team and my senior year my dad wanted me to quit because I had baseball scholarships and he didn't want me to get hurt. So I played " carefully" my senior year. That is what Dixon's D reminded me of last night. If you were watching the game that "teaching" moment was well deserved. He had just went around a pick like the guy setting the pick was booby trapped.
Mullin gave Dixon his Lavin teaching moment by benching him therefore Trimble got his minutes but Williams is faster than Trimble so his DNP is mystifying as are most Mullin bench decisions.[/quote]
Dixon went around screens like I did my senior year. That is not a compliment. I was like the 8th man on my HS team and my senior year my dad wanted me to quit because I had baseball scholarships and he didn't want me to get hurt. So I played " carefully" my senior year. That is what Dixon's D reminded me of last night. If you were watching the game that "teaching" moment was well deserved. He had just went around a pick like the guy setting the pick was booby trapped.
[quote="Room112" post=301492][quote="Section9" post=301476][quote="Paul Massell" post=301469]Thank you good analysis maybe a little too factual and intelligent for the crowd that is satisfied with claims that Mullin is/isn't this or that... ![/quote]
Couple of interesting points:
Sure they were bigger and out rebounded us, but when it came to points in the paint, we outscored them 28-18 and when it came to second chance points it was even at 4 each. so all this about them dominating us inside doesn't stand up to the numbers. Where we won this game is in points off turnovers 26-11.[/quote]
One point to contest the points in the paint. We fouled their big men countless times down low, most of which led to free throws and some that didn't. So you have to factor that also. Wiggins alone had 14 free throws.[/quote]
So how come they had 28 ft attempts and we had 24? They were doing a lot of fouling as well. I'm sure the majority of the fouls on both ends were inside. We still outscored them in the paint and had an equal # of 2nd chance points.
Couple of interesting points:
Sure they were bigger and out rebounded us, but when it came to points in the paint, we outscored them 28-18 and when it came to second chance points it was even at 4 each. so all this about them dominating us inside doesn't stand up to the numbers. Where we won this game is in points off turnovers 26-11.[/quote]
One point to contest the points in the paint. We fouled their big men countless times down low, most of which led to free throws and some that didn't. So you have to factor that also. Wiggins alone had 14 free throws.[/quote]
So how come they had 28 ft attempts and we had 24? They were doing a lot of fouling as well. I'm sure the majority of the fouls on both ends were inside. We still outscored them in the paint and had an equal # of 2nd chance points.
[quote="Ray Morgan" post=301435][quote="Mike Zaun" post=301430][quote="Ray Morgan" post=301426][quote="Mike Zaun" post=301424]Very big scare last night. Anyone who says Rutgers will not be an issue is dead wrong. They always are even in some of our best years recently. They scare me to death because they have size, a great coach, and they are a power team like us. If we win I can see it being a lot like this game where every point is huge. I hope this was just BG catching us off guard but I feel like we all say that way too much for a veteran team with this much talent in year 4 of Mullin. When we played Loyola, they still got some open looks but couldn't make them. BG got them and did make them. They were also bigger.
I made it a point to keep an eye on the coaches and their body language from behind the basket. Mullin looked very confused and stood about 8 ft from the huddle during a timeout while GSJ was in the center of it. Mitch just shook his head most of the game. I keep seeing more evidence this staff is in over their heads, but I keep trying to repress it because I want to believe this is a big year for us. We just play hero ball and no one's moving around without the ball on offense. We pass around, pass around, nothing is there and then we gave it to Heron who breaks down a defender and drives at the rim with 3 guys on him. Luckily he was able to finish well and make his jumpers. Simon looks lost unfortunately. He's such a great kid and I know he will get out of the rut, but he gets to the hoop and it's all iron and bounces right back out. Seemingly every time. Dixon missed a layup on a fastbreak. We left at least 20 pts on the board between missed FT's and missed bunnies.[/quote]
BG made their share of mistakes too. Plenty of missed FTs, blown layups, and mishandling the ball that would have been easy baskets. That's part of the game. As for the staff, one talented and experienced basketball mind to help with practice, recruiting and game prep should have been accomplished by now. I'm no Lavin fan, but at least he had enough sense to know his limitations and bring in Dunlap and then Whitesell. If the AD does one thing, I hope it's that.[/quote]
Cragg knows how important a winning basketball team is to our school beyond athletics. A great basketball program increases enrollment. It also increases attendance and fundraising. He's all business and does not seem swayed by emotion...he won't put up with this stuff for very long.[/quote]
A lot of hype this season yet CA looked empty in the first half. Did seem to fill up more later. How was the attendance and was it a noisy and engaged fan base.[/quote]
I think the 630 starting time is a negative, there was a lot of traffic last night. Took me 2 hours to travel 13 miles from Brooklyn. So late arriving crowd.
Eventually 4K+ but I thought crowd was very engaged. The energy in both games thus far matches the expectations for this season.
I made it a point to keep an eye on the coaches and their body language from behind the basket. Mullin looked very confused and stood about 8 ft from the huddle during a timeout while GSJ was in the center of it. Mitch just shook his head most of the game. I keep seeing more evidence this staff is in over their heads, but I keep trying to repress it because I want to believe this is a big year for us. We just play hero ball and no one's moving around without the ball on offense. We pass around, pass around, nothing is there and then we gave it to Heron who breaks down a defender and drives at the rim with 3 guys on him. Luckily he was able to finish well and make his jumpers. Simon looks lost unfortunately. He's such a great kid and I know he will get out of the rut, but he gets to the hoop and it's all iron and bounces right back out. Seemingly every time. Dixon missed a layup on a fastbreak. We left at least 20 pts on the board between missed FT's and missed bunnies.[/quote]
BG made their share of mistakes too. Plenty of missed FTs, blown layups, and mishandling the ball that would have been easy baskets. That's part of the game. As for the staff, one talented and experienced basketball mind to help with practice, recruiting and game prep should have been accomplished by now. I'm no Lavin fan, but at least he had enough sense to know his limitations and bring in Dunlap and then Whitesell. If the AD does one thing, I hope it's that.[/quote]
Cragg knows how important a winning basketball team is to our school beyond athletics. A great basketball program increases enrollment. It also increases attendance and fundraising. He's all business and does not seem swayed by emotion...he won't put up with this stuff for very long.[/quote]
A lot of hype this season yet CA looked empty in the first half. Did seem to fill up more later. How was the attendance and was it a noisy and engaged fan base.[/quote]
I think the 630 starting time is a negative, there was a lot of traffic last night. Took me 2 hours to travel 13 miles from Brooklyn. So late arriving crowd.
Eventually 4K+ but I thought crowd was very engaged. The energy in both games thus far matches the expectations for this season.
Last edited:
rawdognyc
Well-known member
It's game 2. We won. We would've won by 15 plus if they hit free throws and didn't make silly mistakes when we were up 9. That's with the other team hitting 44 percent from three and mid 50s from 2. On their best night, we still beat Bowling Green. Good teams overcome things that were happening last night. Being down by 11 in the second half. Not having our only big. Not playing our best defense. Other years we would've folded like a cheap suit and lost that game. As long as you walk away with a win on a night that the other team was hotter than shit, and we were off our game, then just be happy about it. Adjustments need to and will be made before Friday. One thing I wanted to see last night was Josh Roberts getting a few minutes. Even if just to put a body on their big a minute or 2 before a TV time out. IDK.. maybe I just look at the good instead of beating the same horse for 40 pages. This team will get better as the season goes forward. However there will still be the nail biters. There will be upsets both ways. That's just the way sports is. However for me, as long as we win, then it's fruitless to pick apart why we didn't win by more. Too many factors that happen on any given game night. I understand getting frustrated, I just don't get the same repetitive stuff for 40 pages. We get it. It would be great to have 2 or 3 bigs. Guys need to stop missing their assignment and not let them get off an open 3. Whatever.. Anyway, we won, we're 2-0 and looking forward to Friday's game at the RAC that me and my brother are going to. Haven't been to the RAC in about 15 years. Really fun environment to watch a game.
[quote="we are sju" post=301499][quote="Class of 72" post=301456][quote="Knight" post=301450]I feel like I watched a different game than some posters. I was not impressed with Trimble. He was walking about on offense and basically running around waving his arms of defense. I think any success he had was due to poor BG performance. Please less Trimble time and more Dixon.[/quote]
Mullin gave Dixon his Lavin teaching moment by benching him therefore Trimble got his minutes but Williams is faster than Trimble so his DNP is mystifying as are most Mullin bench decisions.[/quote]
Dixon went around screens like I did my senior year. That is not a compliment. I was like the 8th man on my HS team and my senior year my dad wanted me to quit because I had baseball scholarships and he didn't want me to get hurt. So I played " carefully" my senior year. That is what Dixon's D reminded me of last night. If you were watching the game that "teaching" moment was well deserved. He had just went around a pick like the guy setting the pick was booby trapped.[/quote]
Trimble was by far the best perimeter defender we had yesterday. He also has two huge boards. I don't expect anything out of Williams this year. Maybe some defensive minutes later in the year when he figures out college defense.
I'm very happy with the depth and versatility Trimble provides as the 7th/8th man. He'll be very key in what promises to be a short rotation.
Mullin gave Dixon his Lavin teaching moment by benching him therefore Trimble got his minutes but Williams is faster than Trimble so his DNP is mystifying as are most Mullin bench decisions.[/quote]
Dixon went around screens like I did my senior year. That is not a compliment. I was like the 8th man on my HS team and my senior year my dad wanted me to quit because I had baseball scholarships and he didn't want me to get hurt. So I played " carefully" my senior year. That is what Dixon's D reminded me of last night. If you were watching the game that "teaching" moment was well deserved. He had just went around a pick like the guy setting the pick was booby trapped.[/quote]
Trimble was by far the best perimeter defender we had yesterday. He also has two huge boards. I don't expect anything out of Williams this year. Maybe some defensive minutes later in the year when he figures out college defense.
I'm very happy with the depth and versatility Trimble provides as the 7th/8th man. He'll be very key in what promises to be a short rotation.
Class of 72
Active member
[quote="Paul Massell" post=301469]Thank you good analysis maybe a little too factual and intelligent for the crowd that is satisfied with claims that Mullin is/isn't this or that... ![/quote]
I agree that Logan did a nice analysis of a nail biter where we were favored by 19 points. The facts also suggest that breaking down missed free throws and turnovers and fouls ....... all in the space of 60 seconds doesn't make intelligence or IQ a factor for the critics here but for the team on the floor and their focus and concentration which gets dictated on the bench. I don't blame Mullin for this happening in those 60 seconds but he needs to start showing more Mikey Dixon moments when they execute poorly.
I agree that Logan did a nice analysis of a nail biter where we were favored by 19 points. The facts also suggest that breaking down missed free throws and turnovers and fouls ....... all in the space of 60 seconds doesn't make intelligence or IQ a factor for the critics here but for the team on the floor and their focus and concentration which gets dictated on the bench. I don't blame Mullin for this happening in those 60 seconds but he needs to start showing more Mikey Dixon moments when they execute poorly.
Last edited:
[quote="Logen" post=301466]So, my take FWIW. I went to the doubleheader at Annapolis last night so I watched our game this morning. I found it so intriguing I watched it twice and somewhat broke it down, reverting back to my coaching days. Also took a look at the stats in relation to what I saw. I apologize in advance because am sure I will be repeating observations already posted. Here goes -
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful post. Very interesting read...
The game broke down to 4 distinctive sections; first, the first 4-5 minutes where we passed well, shot well, defended pretty well and went up on the scoreboard.
Second, the next 17-18 minutes where BG took over, we played very poorly on both ends, they played well, culminating in their 11 point lead a couple of minutes into the 2nd half.
At that point Mullin called time out, a time out that turned the game around and fostered in the third game within the game if you will. Our defense improved exponentially, more pressure on the ball for sure, not perfect, just an obvious increased sustained commitment on that end. And we started to just be a little more patient on offense, playing a little more team oriented ball while still taking advantage of our one on one breakdown ability. So from about the 18 minute mark to about the 2 minute mark we outscored BG by 20 points.
Which brings us to section 4 where on the surface it all went to crap. But breaking it down, did it really?
Play by play -
At just under 2 minutes Simon pushes and feeds Figueroa and he gets fouled, good play but 2 missed free throws begins the hurt.
We get the ball back and Ponds gets a good look but probably went too fast and the good look doesn’t drop; not a horrible play but more time off the clock was probably the way to go.
Next possession, we run clock, Clark gets a good look at a 3, misses, and Figueroa commits a horrible over the back, really bad play #1.
Horrible play #2, Simon pushes to nowhere and turns the ball over and that lack of discipline keeps BG in the game. As our foul shooting deserted us, that play sets the whole nail biting scenario up.
Because, BG then gets a good look and scores, Ponds goes 1 for 2, BG makes a nice runner, Heron missed 2 foul shots.
BG makes a layup, Heron misses 2 more fouls but steals the outlet and ices the game.
So we made, in my opinion, 2 really bad plays down the stretch that were magnified big time by missing a bushel full of foul shots down the stretch. Not good, but you either make fouls at the end or wind up on the shrinks couch.
Finally, two other observations -
Opponents, very little respect for them on this board. A team is as good as they play that night and BG has some talent for sure and played well. We ground out the win after being down and losing Keita. IMO that does more in building a team than blowout wins anytime. I will also mention that we used our fouls very intelligently down the stretch, not letting BG lay the ball in but rather earning it at the line and their misses is exactly why you do that.
Finally, rebounding. Stats mean nothing in a vacuum so let’s take a look at them. Yes, on the surface, that outrebounded us 38-28 which gives all kind of fodder to the anti-Mullin crowd. But, over simplifying to a degree, you get killed on the boards by giving up offensive rebound and there we actually had 7 to their 6, so offensive rebounds were not a big factor for either team. Defensive rebounds where BG statistically beat us 32-21 are a product of number of shots taken and missed by your opponent. BG shot better than us, so less defensive rebounds available to us but more important, we turned them over 20 times to our 8, again, less shots by them, less opportunities for rebounds by us. I would contend the rebounding was generally a non-factor in the game.[/quote]
Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful post. Very interesting read...