Duke Game

Forum rules
"The opinions expressed on this board are property of the poster and do not reflect the opinion of EagleOutsider, Boston College or Boston College Athletics"

Re: Duke Game

Postby BC923 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:09 pm

the problem with the last possession was Olivier not knowing what to do when the initial screen was perfectly defended. He panicked and waited too long.
BC923
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 3461
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 10:11 pm
Karma: 457

Re: Duke Game

Postby BCEagles25 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:24 pm

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
mjago410 {l Wrote}:Firstly, BC didn't sit on the ball at the end of the game. They were running the same type of plays that they had been running all game. They didn't pass around the perimeter and stay stagnant, but they used Hanlan off the drive like they had been doing the entire second half.

Yeah, a lot of times during this season we have sat on the ball. This was not one of those times. There was no discernable difference between the last three possessions and the prior times we scored.. except for the fact that we scored.

You can't just say we sat back and think you're making some astute observation.


They sat back. It's not an astute observation, its fucking obvious.


"Sitting back" and "Olivier Hanlan waited too long" are two separate things.
I like BC basketball.
User avatar
BCEagles25
Higgins Hall
 
Posts: 4543
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 12:42 pm
Karma: 121

Re: Duke Game

Postby Ahzeem on Mon Feb 11, 2013 9:36 pm

"Sitting back" and "Olivier Hanlan waited too long" are two separate things.[/quote]

There is nothing stagnant about this offense; it is designed to move the ball. Hanlon has to learn to feed the post. The report is out on him that when he drives he is going to shoot 90% of the time. When he doesn't shoot he kicks to the corner (the easy look) and he doesn't attempt the pass to the post. He is a baller; he wants to win it himself. Once in a while he has to find his big man on the roll... Anderson vs. a guard on the bIock I take that everytime! I can't believe I'm the only one that sees that? :angrychicken
User avatar
Ahzeem
Carney Hall
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:50 pm
Karma: 13

Re: Duke Game

Postby HJS on Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:16 pm

Ahzeem {l Wrote}:"Sitting back" and "Olivier Hanlan waited too long" are two separate things.


There is nothing stagnant about this offense; it is designed to move the ball. Hanlon has to learn to feed the post. The report is out on him that when he drives he is going to shoot 90% of the time. When he doesn't shoot he kicks to the corner (the easy look) and he doesn't attempt the pass to the post. He is a baller; he wants to win it himself. Once in a while he has to find his big man on the roll... Anderson vs. a guard on the bIock I take that everytime! I can't believe I'm the only one that sees that? :angrychicken[/quote]
You're not. It's just that there are some that see any form of criticism (even that which is painfully obvious) as an affront to their enjoyment of moral victories.
"The Michelangelo of stupidity is again on top of his scaffolding, lying on his back and painting a masterpiece of imbecility on the ceiling of a virtual Sistine Chapel." © 2023 A AngryDick Joint
User avatar
HJS
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 16614
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:08 pm
Karma: 605

Re: Duke Game

Postby MilitantEagle on Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:12 pm

HJS {l Wrote}:
Ahzeem {l Wrote}:"Sitting back" and "Olivier Hanlan waited too long" are two separate things.


There is nothing stagnant about this offense; it is designed to move the ball. Hanlon has to learn to feed the post. The report is out on him that when he drives he is going to shoot 90% of the time. When he doesn't shoot he kicks to the corner (the easy look) and he doesn't attempt the pass to the post. He is a baller; he wants to win it himself. Once in a while he has to find his big man on the roll... Anderson vs. a guard on the bIock I take that everytime! I can't believe I'm the only one that sees that? :angrychicken

You're not. It's just that there are some that see any form of criticism (even that which is painfully obvious) as an affront to their enjoyment of moral victories.[/quote]

Isn't this a criticism of Hanlan as opposed to Donahue? You've been criticizing the latter. And for the billionth time, they don't have enough talent this year, so there's no point in constantly criticizing this team. They'll be better next year.

In any case, during the timeout before the last play, I turned to the people I was with and said I want Hanlan driving to the hoop for the last play. That's what they did, I thought it was a good call and he had a pretty good look. He just missed the shot. But I also knew with two minutes left they were going to find a way to blow the game. They'll learn to win soon enough. Patience.
User avatar
MilitantEagle
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:13 pm
Karma: 155

Re: Duke Game

Postby twballgame9 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:42 pm

If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34343
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Duke Game

Postby claver2010 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 11:43 pm

*edit my mistake confused homojs & betardo, tough to do i know mea culpa
Bush, George H W
Cosby, Bill
Disick, Scott
Flair, Ric
Griffin, Kathy
Khamenei, Ali
McCain, John
Pele
Soros, George
User avatar
claver2010
BC Guy
 
Posts: 20301
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 5:55 pm
Karma: 3380

Re: Duke Game

Postby MilitantEagle on Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:24 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.
User avatar
MilitantEagle
Merkert Hall
 
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 4:13 pm
Karma: 155

Re: Duke Game

Postby HJS on Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:05 am

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.
"The Michelangelo of stupidity is again on top of his scaffolding, lying on his back and painting a masterpiece of imbecility on the ceiling of a virtual Sistine Chapel." © 2023 A AngryDick Joint
User avatar
HJS
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 16614
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:08 pm
Karma: 605

Re: Duke Game

Postby twballgame9 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 9:43 am

HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.


BC lacks adequate bigs, yes, and a backup PG. Suppose someone probably should have planned for that headed into the year ....

Despite all of that, BC has the talent to be better than the current #1 team in the country for 38 minutes. Doesn't sound like I am overrating BC.

Oh, and by the way, NCSU and Maryland are at best mediocre teams in a pretty mediocre conference. And Miami will get absolutely exposed in the postseason. Those are the three teams whose talent I have "underestimated." That said, I never said Miami was bad, just that I thought they were stupid and that played into BC's hands. Larranaga proved me wrong.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34343
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Duke Game

Postby eagle9903 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:36 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.


BC lacks adequate bigs, yes, and a backup PG. Suppose someone probably should have planned for that headed into the year ....

Despite all of that, BC has the talent to be better than the current #1 team in the country for 38 minutes. Doesn't sound like I am overrating BC.

Oh, and by the way, NCSU and Maryland are at best mediocre teams in a pretty mediocre conference. And Miami will get absolutely exposed in the postseason. Those are the three teams whose talent I have "underestimated." That said, I never said Miami was bad, just that I thought they were stupid and that played into BC's hands. Larranaga proved me wrong.


Almost everyone and certainly you will agree that the 2012-2013 roster is short of depth. So why is it that when you analyze BC vs. ACC Opponent, you do so as if there is not a depth issue?

This is the source of the constant overrating of BC. While you identify the problem, sometimes, you then choose to remove it from analysis when determining whether BC should win games.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Duke Game

Postby twballgame9 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 10:49 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.


BC lacks adequate bigs, yes, and a backup PG. Suppose someone probably should have planned for that headed into the year ....

Despite all of that, BC has the talent to be better than the current #1 team in the country for 38 minutes. Doesn't sound like I am overrating BC.

Oh, and by the way, NCSU and Maryland are at best mediocre teams in a pretty mediocre conference. And Miami will get absolutely exposed in the postseason. Those are the three teams whose talent I have "underestimated." That said, I never said Miami was bad, just that I thought they were stupid and that played into BC's hands. Larranaga proved me wrong.


Almost everyone and certainly you will agree that the 2012-2013 roster is short of depth. So why is it that when you analyze BC vs. ACC Opponent, you do so as if there is not a depth issue?

This is the source of the constant overrating of BC. While you identify the problem, sometimes, you then choose to remove it from analysis when determining whether BC should win games.


Last I checked, "depth" and "talent" are two different words. If he had said that BC's depth is overrated, you'd have nailed it.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34343
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Duke Game

Postby eagle9903 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:03 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.


BC lacks adequate bigs, yes, and a backup PG. Suppose someone probably should have planned for that headed into the year ....

Despite all of that, BC has the talent to be better than the current #1 team in the country for 38 minutes. Doesn't sound like I am overrating BC.

Oh, and by the way, NCSU and Maryland are at best mediocre teams in a pretty mediocre conference. And Miami will get absolutely exposed in the postseason. Those are the three teams whose talent I have "underestimated." That said, I never said Miami was bad, just that I thought they were stupid and that played into BC's hands. Larranaga proved me wrong.


Almost everyone and certainly you will agree that the 2012-2013 roster is short of depth. So why is it that when you analyze BC vs. ACC Opponent, you do so as if there is not a depth issue?

This is the source of the constant overrating of BC. While you identify the problem, sometimes, you then choose to remove it from analysis when determining whether BC should win games.


Last I checked, "depth" and "talent" are two different words. If he had said that BC's depth is overrated, you'd have nailed it.


But your predictions and analysis are results based, no moral victories etc., therefore they need to take into account depth and talent.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Duke Game

Postby twballgame9 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:05 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.


BC lacks adequate bigs, yes, and a backup PG. Suppose someone probably should have planned for that headed into the year ....

Despite all of that, BC has the talent to be better than the current #1 team in the country for 38 minutes. Doesn't sound like I am overrating BC.

Oh, and by the way, NCSU and Maryland are at best mediocre teams in a pretty mediocre conference. And Miami will get absolutely exposed in the postseason. Those are the three teams whose talent I have "underestimated." That said, I never said Miami was bad, just that I thought they were stupid and that played into BC's hands. Larranaga proved me wrong.


Almost everyone and certainly you will agree that the 2012-2013 roster is short of depth. So why is it that when you analyze BC vs. ACC Opponent, you do so as if there is not a depth issue?

This is the source of the constant overrating of BC. While you identify the problem, sometimes, you then choose to remove it from analysis when determining whether BC should win games.


Last I checked, "depth" and "talent" are two different words. If he had said that BC's depth is overrated, you'd have nailed it.


But your predictions and analysis are results based, no moral victories etc., therefore they need to take into account depth and talent.


I take into account depth. They didn't lose the other night because of depth or talent. I usually pick against BC when I pick tight games because of depth (and horrible decision-making).

This conversation is expressly in response to the comment that I overrate the talent of BC and underrate that of the opponent, and nothing more.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34343
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Duke Game

Postby eagle9903 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:17 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.


BC lacks adequate bigs, yes, and a backup PG. Suppose someone probably should have planned for that headed into the year ....

Despite all of that, BC has the talent to be better than the current #1 team in the country for 38 minutes. Doesn't sound like I am overrating BC.

Oh, and by the way, NCSU and Maryland are at best mediocre teams in a pretty mediocre conference. And Miami will get absolutely exposed in the postseason. Those are the three teams whose talent I have "underestimated." That said, I never said Miami was bad, just that I thought they were stupid and that played into BC's hands. Larranaga proved me wrong.


Almost everyone and certainly you will agree that the 2012-2013 roster is short of depth. So why is it that when you analyze BC vs. ACC Opponent, you do so as if there is not a depth issue?

This is the source of the constant overrating of BC. While you identify the problem, sometimes, you then choose to remove it from analysis when determining whether BC should win games.


Last I checked, "depth" and "talent" are two different words. If he had said that BC's depth is overrated, you'd have nailed it.


But your predictions and analysis are results based, no moral victories etc., therefore they need to take into account depth and talent.


I take into account depth. They didn't lose the other night because of depth or talent. I usually pick against BC when I pick tight games because of depth (and horrible decision-making).

This conversation is expressly in response to the comment that I overrate the talent of BC and underrate that of the opponent, and nothing more.


They didn't lose Sunday night solely because of depth but having to trot out a lineup of something along the lines of Rubin, Rahon, Heckmann, Van Nest and Odio such as they had to in the first half means that you have to essentially concede minutes of the game and hope that when you can get a real lineup back out there your lead hasn't completely evaporated or you don't fall too far behind.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Duke Game

Postby HJS on Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:22 am

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.


BC lacks adequate bigs, yes, and a backup PG. Suppose someone probably should have planned for that headed into the year ....

Despite all of that, BC has the talent to be better than the current #1 team in the country for 38 minutes. Doesn't sound like I am overrating BC.

Oh, and by the way, NCSU and Maryland are at best mediocre teams in a pretty mediocre conference. And Miami will get absolutely exposed in the postseason. Those are the three teams whose talent I have "underestimated." That said, I never said Miami was bad, just that I thought they were stupid and that played into BC's hands. Larranaga proved me wrong.


Almost everyone and certainly you will agree that the 2012-2013 roster is short of depth. So why is it that when you analyze BC vs. ACC Opponent, you do so as if there is not a depth issue?

This is the source of the constant overrating of BC. While you identify the problem, sometimes, you then choose to remove it from analysis when determining whether BC should win games.


Last I checked, "depth" and "talent" are two different words. If he had said that BC's depth is overrated, you'd have nailed it.


But your predictions and analysis are results based, no moral victories etc., therefore they need to take into account depth and talent.


I take into account depth. They didn't lose the other night because of depth or talent. I usually pick against BC when I pick tight games because of depth (and horrible decision-making).

This conversation is expressly in response to the comment that I overrate the talent of BC and underrate that of the opponent, and nothing more.


They didn't lose Sunday night solely because of depth but having to trot out a lineup of something along the lines of Rubin, Rahon, Heckmann, Van Nest and Odio such as they had to in the first half means that you have to essentially concede minutes of the game and hope that when you can get a real lineup back out there your lead hasn't completely evaporated or you don't fall too far behind.

Isn't Sunday's game just a horrible example for you? Anderson was out like 9 minutes in the first half and the bench maintained the lead (possibly increased it). The commenators even marvelled at it.
"The Michelangelo of stupidity is again on top of his scaffolding, lying on his back and painting a masterpiece of imbecility on the ceiling of a virtual Sistine Chapel." © 2023 A AngryDick Joint
User avatar
HJS
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 16614
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:08 pm
Karma: 605

Re: Duke Game

Postby eagle9903 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:23 am

HJS {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:If they don't have enough talent this year, what makes you think Owens will be the difference?

It has nothing to do with talent. They lack a big man, but otherwise are plenty talented enough. That much is obvious by recent results. The close losses have little to do with talent.


It's not just Owens. It's the ND guy, hopefully another recruit, a healthy Clifford, and another year of maturity for the rest of them.

tw, you always, always, overrate BC talent and underrate opposing talent.

Minus all those perceived saviors, BC's talent was good enough to knock-off the top team in college basketball just the other night. There are too many who act as defenders of millionaire coaches by throwing future alums under the bus for supposedly not being good enough. Besides, if the talent sucks, whose fucking fault is that??? Isn't that the prime responsibility of any head coach (other than student development)?

From a talent perspective, BC lacks adequate bigs, but that is because we haven't recruited one since Jones left. Either the staff doesn't feel they need it or the they aren't good enough to land one. Either way, it's on them.


BC lacks adequate bigs, yes, and a backup PG. Suppose someone probably should have planned for that headed into the year ....

Despite all of that, BC has the talent to be better than the current #1 team in the country for 38 minutes. Doesn't sound like I am overrating BC.

Oh, and by the way, NCSU and Maryland are at best mediocre teams in a pretty mediocre conference. And Miami will get absolutely exposed in the postseason. Those are the three teams whose talent I have "underestimated." That said, I never said Miami was bad, just that I thought they were stupid and that played into BC's hands. Larranaga proved me wrong.


Almost everyone and certainly you will agree that the 2012-2013 roster is short of depth. So why is it that when you analyze BC vs. ACC Opponent, you do so as if there is not a depth issue?

This is the source of the constant overrating of BC. While you identify the problem, sometimes, you then choose to remove it from analysis when determining whether BC should win games.


Last I checked, "depth" and "talent" are two different words. If he had said that BC's depth is overrated, you'd have nailed it.


But your predictions and analysis are results based, no moral victories etc., therefore they need to take into account depth and talent.


I take into account depth. They didn't lose the other night because of depth or talent. I usually pick against BC when I pick tight games because of depth (and horrible decision-making).

This conversation is expressly in response to the comment that I overrate the talent of BC and underrate that of the opponent, and nothing more.


They didn't lose Sunday night solely because of depth but having to trot out a lineup of something along the lines of Rubin, Rahon, Heckmann, Van Nest and Odio such as they had to in the first half means that you have to essentially concede minutes of the game and hope that when you can get a real lineup back out there your lead hasn't completely evaporated or you don't fall too far behind.

Isn't Sunday's game just a horrible example for you? Anderson was out like 9 minutes in the first half and the bench maintained the lead (possibly increased it). The commenators even marvelled at it.


No.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Duke Game

Postby twballgame9 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:26 am

He'll say Hanlan and Rahon were tired after playing 38 mins. Regardless, has nothing to do with whether BC has the talent to beat Duke, they do. They also have the talent to beat Miami. The problem is depth (which I addressed in this thread already by saying they needed a big and a guard, but that's not why they lost the Duke game) and poor late game decision-making on and off the floor.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34343
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Duke Game

Postby eagle9903 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:34 am

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:He'll say Hanlan and Rahon were tired after playing 38 mins. Regardless, has nothing to do with whether BC has the talent to beat Duke, they do. They also have the talent to beat Miami. The problem is depth (which I addressed in this thread already by saying they needed a big and a guard, but that's not why they lost the Duke game) and poor late game decision-making on and off the floor.


I think that bluefish guy pretty solidly refuted your end of game sitting on lead analysis so I'll leave that alone.

I disagree that depth has not been among the reasons for the loss in any close loss this year. Just because they are almost able to overcome the depth issue through the quality of the talent of the core doesn't mean the depth issue is not causative of the loss.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Duke Game

Postby HJS on Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:08 pm

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:He'll say Hanlan and Rahon were tired after playing 38 mins. Regardless, has nothing to do with whether BC has the talent to beat Duke, they do. They also have the talent to beat Miami. The problem is depth (which I addressed in this thread already by saying they needed a big and a guard, but that's not why they lost the Duke game) and poor late game decision-making on and off the floor.


I think that bluefish guy pretty solidly refuted your end of game sitting on lead analysis so I'll leave that alone.

I disagree that depth has not been among the reasons for the loss in any close loss this year. Just because they are almost able to overcome the depth issue through the quality of the talent of the core doesn't mean the depth issue is not causative of the loss.

First, if Hanlon and Rahon were tired, then maybe they shouldn't have been chucking up the last two shots (see, my previous comments regarding end of game coaching).
Second, 9903 has no credibility to label something "pretty solidly refuted"... considering he still believes Daz2 isn't using a football scholarship.
"The Michelangelo of stupidity is again on top of his scaffolding, lying on his back and painting a masterpiece of imbecility on the ceiling of a virtual Sistine Chapel." © 2023 A AngryDick Joint
User avatar
HJS
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 16614
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:08 pm
Karma: 605

Re: Duke Game

Postby eagle9903 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:16 pm

HJS {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:He'll say Hanlan and Rahon were tired after playing 38 mins. Regardless, has nothing to do with whether BC has the talent to beat Duke, they do. They also have the talent to beat Miami. The problem is depth (which I addressed in this thread already by saying they needed a big and a guard, but that's not why they lost the Duke game) and poor late game decision-making on and off the floor.


I think that bluefish guy pretty solidly refuted your end of game sitting on lead analysis so I'll leave that alone.

I disagree that depth has not been among the reasons for the loss in any close loss this year. Just because they are almost able to overcome the depth issue through the quality of the talent of the core doesn't mean the depth issue is not causative of the loss.

First, if Hanlon and Rahon were tired, then maybe they shouldn't have been chucking up the last two shots (see, my previous comments regarding end of game coaching).
Second, 9903 has no credibility to label something "pretty solidly refuted"... considering he still believes Daz2 isn't using a football scholarship.


shut up. Also, I'm fairly certain it was determined you didn't even watch the end of the game.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Duke Game

Postby HJS on Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:22 pm

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:He'll say Hanlan and Rahon were tired after playing 38 mins. Regardless, has nothing to do with whether BC has the talent to beat Duke, they do. They also have the talent to beat Miami. The problem is depth (which I addressed in this thread already by saying they needed a big and a guard, but that's not why they lost the Duke game) and poor late game decision-making on and off the floor.


I think that bluefish guy pretty solidly refuted your end of game sitting on lead analysis so I'll leave that alone.

I disagree that depth has not been among the reasons for the loss in any close loss this year. Just because they are almost able to overcome the depth issue through the quality of the talent of the core doesn't mean the depth issue is not causative of the loss.

First, if Hanlon and Rahon were tired, then maybe they shouldn't have been chucking up the last two shots (see, my previous comments regarding end of game coaching).
Second, 9903 has no credibility to label something "pretty solidly refuted"... considering he still believes Daz2 isn't using a football scholarship.


shut up. Also, I'm fairly certain it was determined you didn't even watch the end of the game.

It does not surprise that you are fairly certain of such a determination.
"The Michelangelo of stupidity is again on top of his scaffolding, lying on his back and painting a masterpiece of imbecility on the ceiling of a virtual Sistine Chapel." © 2023 A AngryDick Joint
User avatar
HJS
Gasson Hall
 
Posts: 16614
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 12:08 pm
Karma: 605

Re: Duke Game

Postby TobaccoRoadEagle on Tue Feb 12, 2013 12:22 pm

Image
now in the street there is violence
and, and a lots of work to be done
no place to hang out our washing
and, and i can't blame all on the sun
good god we gonna rock down to electric avenue
and then we'll take it higher
User avatar
TobaccoRoadEagle
BC Guy
 
Posts: 24016
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:51 am
Location: tobaccoroad
Karma: 6074

Re: Duke Game

Postby twballgame9 on Tue Feb 12, 2013 1:37 pm

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:
I think that bluefish guy pretty solidly refuted your end of game sitting on lead analysis so I'll leave that alone.




You gave me my laugh of the day, kudos.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34343
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Re: Duke Game

Postby bluefishskip on Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:04 pm

Glad to see that you can laugh at yourself for being wrong , kudos
bluefishskip
Carney Hall
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 1:53 pm
Karma: 21

Re: Duke Game

Postby Ahzeem on Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:31 pm

MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
Ahzeem {l Wrote}:"Sitting back" and "Olivier Hanlan waited too long" are two separatartiste things.


There is nothing stagnant about this offense; it is designed to move the ball. Hanlon has to learn to feed the post. The report is out on him that when he drives he is going to shoot 90% of the time. When he doesn't shoot he kicks to the corner (the easy look) and he doesn't attempt the pass to the post. He is a baller; he wants to win it himself. Once in a while he has to find his big man on the roll... Anderson vs. a guard on the bIock I take that everytime! I can't believe I'm the only one that sees that? :angrychicken

You're not. It's just that there are some that see any form of criticism (even that which is painfully obvious) as an affront to their enjoyment of moral victories.


Isn't this a criticism of Hanlan as opposed to Donahue? You've been criticizing the latter. And for the billionth time, they don't have enough talent this year, so there's no point in constantly criticizing this team. They'll be better next year.

In any case, during the timeout before the last play, I turned to the people I was with and said I want Hanlan driving to the hoop for the last play. That's what they did, I thought it was a good call and he had a pretty good look. He just missed the shot. But I also knew with two minutes left they were going to find a way to blow the game. They'll learn to win soon enough. Patience.[/quote]

The point I am trying to make is that a point guard, with one of the best big men in the ACC who ends up with zero (0) assist isnt doing his job. Depth wasn't the issue, talent wasn't either, its decision making. I like Hanlon he just has to learn that he can't win it alone. :slapfight He should be trying to make sure Anderson gets his touches instead of calling his own number all the time. Hanlon driving to the basket was a good, easy and predictable call ( probably why coach K decided to switch and double Hanlon) I'll take Anderson rolling to the basket down by one Everytime! He at least deserves a touch.
User avatar
Ahzeem
Carney Hall
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 6:50 pm
Karma: 13

Re: Duke Game

Postby eagle9903 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:55 am

Ahzeem {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
HJS {l Wrote}:
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:
Ahzeem {l Wrote}:"Sitting back" and "Olivier Hanlan waited too long" are two separatartiste things.


There is nothing stagnant about this offense; it is designed to move the ball. Hanlon has to learn to feed the post. The report is out on him that when he drives he is going to shoot 90% of the time. When he doesn't shoot he kicks to the corner (the easy look) and he doesn't attempt the pass to the post. He is a baller; he wants to win it himself. Once in a while he has to find his big man on the roll... Anderson vs. a guard on the bIock I take that everytime! I can't believe I'm the only one that sees that? :angrychicken

You're not. It's just that there are some that see any form of criticism (even that which is painfully obvious) as an affront to their enjoyment of moral victories.


Isn't this a criticism of Hanlan as opposed to Donahue? You've been criticizing the latter. And for the billionth time, they don't have enough talent this year, so there's no point in constantly criticizing this team. They'll be better next year.

In any case, during the timeout before the last play, I turned to the people I was with and said I want Hanlan driving to the hoop for the last play. That's what they did, I thought it was a good call and he had a pretty good look. He just missed the shot. But I also knew with two minutes left they were going to find a way to blow the game. They'll learn to win soon enough. Patience.



The point I am trying to make is that a point guard, with one of the best big men in the ACC who ends up with zero (0) assist isnt doing his job. Depth wasn't the issue, talent wasn't either, its decision making. I like Hanlon he just has to learn that he can't win it alone. :slapfight He should be trying to make sure Anderson gets his touches instead of calling his own number all the time. Hanlon driving to the basket was a good, easy and predictable call ( probably why coach K decided to switch and double Hanlon) I'll take Anderson rolling to the basket down by one Everytime! He at least deserves a touch.


When Anderson starts hitting fts consistently giving him the last shot makes sense, until then it does not. .609 + the vs. Duke foul definition = poor odds whether you get the call or not.
Last edited by eagle9903 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
domingoortiz
eepstein0
corporal funishment
innocentbystander
davidgordonswang
maybe hansen
User avatar
eagle9903
Fulton Hall
 
Posts: 14311
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 1:16 pm
Karma: 1728

Re: Duke Game

Postby twballgame9 on Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:17 pm

bluefishskip {l Wrote}:Glad to see that you can laugh at yourself for being wrong , kudos


I'll let you know if it happens.
"We remind everyone that Boston College fired a perfectly good coach because he went on a job interview, and deserves all of this." Spencer Hall
User avatar
twballgame9
BC Guy
 
Posts: 34343
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 8:49 am
Karma: 2489

Previous

Return to Conte Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

Untitled document