EagleOutsider.com

Ahzeem {l Wrote}:I was at the game last night and here is my take.

I was at the game tonight and the same thing happens at the end of every game. Guards get selfish, they just refuse to pass. Hanlon had Anderson on the block with a smaller guard on him and decided to take his man off the dribble and he also rarely makes a pass to a cutter or roll guy going to his left.
I'm not blaming them for being freshman, I'm saying that's just bad basketball and th1e issue needs to get fixed. You can't really blame coaching, they have a good scheme, with multiple options; late in the rota tion the guards opt to call there own number instead of giving up the ball. Check the tapes, at the end of each game who ever brought the ball across halfcourt also took the shot. I am convinced Hanlon does not look left. If anyone can show me 10x... heck I'll even go 5x Hanlon has made the pass to the left on that pick and roll I'll buy you a beer at the Wake gam ednesday night.

This is precisely my point. Whoever gets the ball... pounds it into the ground at the 3-point line waiting for the shot clock to dip below 9 seconds. Then, that same player tries to take his guy one-on-one. Only if he is unable to beat him (or if help comes) does he pass the ball. And, that pass... is never in the paint... it is always a kickout (regardless of the player is open or not).

The reason why I blame this on coaching is that it isn't one game. It isn't one season. This is what I recall from Don back when Reggie was here. In Reggie's case, I think you can make a strong argument that this is exactly how you SHOULD play it (given he was such a fantastic 1-on-1 player). Maybe, in 2 years, you can say the same about Hanlan.... but, not now.

They need to find a way to get the ball into Anderson's hands in those situations. They need to get into their offense immediately. BFD if it means giving Duke 5 seconds to try a heave at the buzzer. You are down... you need to score first and foremost. You can't be playing offense and defense at the same time. I want the ball to touch Anderson because (a) he is usually smart with the ball, (b) he is the most experienced, (c) he is very adept at getting his shot off, (d) if they are ever going to call a foul, it is near the basket and (e) getting the ball low causes the D to collapse and opens things up on the perimeter. So, if you like having Hanlon take the last shot, you increase his effectiveness by first getting it to Anderson.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

Iggle {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:

Shaddix {l Wrote}:

HJS {l Wrote}:Holy crap... I'm being complimentary and you guys blast me? It ain't any sort of secret that Don has a shot-ton more close losses than close wins. This year, we've also converted a lot of late leads into losses. I think it all goes to the same coaching problem... at the end of the game, the team spends too much time worrying about the clock instead of scoring.

Btw, I'm really fucking sick and tired of the same two lame excuses that are trotted out every loss (a) the refs sucked and (b) freshmen mistakes. They are both pathetic and usually wrong.

I think the Don has done a pretty good job with in game coaching this year. Not his fault his players can't seem to make shots. Hanlan should have made that shot, he got himself free and open. He also should have hit that free throw to tie Miami.

First, I prefer to have the ball in Anderson's hands than the frosh. Second, when we have the lead at the end d the game, our offense is radically different. It's a lot of standing around, burning the shot clock. Those offensive sets don't resemble anything like what we do up until that point. And, let's remember that the Miami game was because he missed the 3rd FT, we are talking a complete collapse in the final minutes... the symptom of which I am bringing up.

eh, I wanted to respond to this but it doesn't sound like you actually watched this one

I watched it, he's right. They sat on a lead again, this time 5 points with 2:15 to go.

Do you agree that you'd rather have the ball in Anderson's hands at that point?

Usually, but last night was Hanlan's game. Anderson played well, but I liked letting Hanlan take the last shot. Bardo was right though, he waited too long, and that's the last thing the coach should have told him on the way out of the huddle.

Agree on the last part including that it is bad coaching not to make sure he shoots earlier. The rest of the 5 minute sequence I didn't see the lead sitting but I don't really think its productive to argue about that as its hard to recreate. The Rahon shot wasn't a bad look, it was just a horrible, horrible shot.

Assuming you can get the ball to Anderson in a range where we are comfortable with his scoring chance, if you're coach K what do you have Mason Plumlee do in that circumstance? I see an incredibly hard foul or sequence of should be fouls that might or might not get called. Then FTs maybe. Even with only a 1 pt deficit, I hate the chances on a 1 and 1 and don't love the chances if its a shooting foul. It's pretty much my biggest issue with Anderson, I cringe when he gets to the line (he was actually decent yesterday I think though).

I either didn't get a good look or don't remember, was Cook's 3 just under 2 minutes defended OK or was it more or less an open look?

The Rahon shot was a horrible shot, and that's on the player. But it came with like 2 seconds left on the shot clock. When this team is aggressive on O and Hanlan is driving, they need to take shots when they present themselves, not when they have to. I thought that they did that most of the night and they got the shots they wanted. They didn't get any good shots the last three minutes, and they used a ton of clock.

Rahon left Cook to help out on the baseline drive......Odio jumped out to Cook, but was late getting there.

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I either didn't get a good look or don't remember, was Cook's 3 just under 2 minutes defended OK or was it more or less an open look?

There was a hand in his face, but after the shot was gone. My recollection is that it was good ball movement, and just late rotation. I thought the D was good last night though, even down the stretch. If Plumlee were ever called for a travel ... but then again, whoever said when you play Duke you have to expect that is correct. Mason Plumlee is an All American at Duke, just a stiff athletic rebounder at a school that has travelling called against them.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:The Rahon shot was a horrible shot, and that's on the player. But it came with like 2 seconds left on the shot clock. When this team is aggressive on O and Hanlan is driving, they need to take shots when they present themselves, not when they have to. I thought that they did that most of the night and they got the shots they wanted. They didn't get any good shots the last three minutes, and they used a ton of clock.

On an aside... when the other team is making a run and we are cold, I LOVE that they've been using all the shot clock. Even if it is a miss, it really slows the opponent down. They did that last night very effectively. It's just that, after mounting a furious run to comeback and grab the lead... they started employing the same burn-the-clock strategy which in turn slowed THEMSELVES down.

HJS {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:The Rahon shot was a horrible shot, and that's on the player. But it came with like 2 seconds left on the shot clock. When this team is aggressive on O and Hanlan is driving, they need to take shots when they present themselves, not when they have to. I thought that they did that most of the night and they got the shots they wanted. They didn't get any good shots the last three minutes, and they used a ton of clock.

On an aside... when the other team is making a run and we are cold, I LOVE that they've been using all the shot clock. Even if it is a miss, it really slows the opponent down. They did that last night very effectively. It's just that, after mounting a furious run to comeback and grab the lead... they started employing the same burn-the-clock strategy which in turn slowed THEMSELVES down.

I'm not sure I ever like taking the foot off the gas. Maybe when Hanlan becomes lights out off the dribble creating his own shot, ala Rice, Jackson, Bell etc., and you feel comfortable you still have a shot to score at the end of the clock. But I feel like BC has a much better chance to score when they look to shoot from the outset and wait for the best shot to present. If you have 20 seconds to find a shot, it is much better than 5 seconds. Like I said, maybe in a year or two when Hanlan becomes lights out, but for now I prefer them to stay aggressive.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:I either didn't get a good look or don't remember, was Cook's 3 just under 2 minutes defended OK or was it more or less an open look?

There was a hand in his face, but after the shot was gone. My recollection is that it was good ball movement, and just late rotation. I thought the D was good last night though, even down the stretch. If Plumlee were ever called for a travel ... but then again, whoever said when you play Duke you have to expect that is correct. Mason Plumlee is an All American at Duke, just a stiff athletic rebounder at a school that has travelling called against them.

Yeah, when you play Duke it is what it is and you get what you get and that is exactly what Plumlee is elsewhere, the traveling part of the travels don't even bother me as much as the shoulder down charge towards the basket.

On the same token though, I wonder whether some of the clock sitting late in the game was really just difficulty getting a look due to the hand check becoming a full on grab and clutch in the last 5 or so.

I will never use the label of "moral victory". It means nothing in the final results. This season, as a whole, is about improving as a group, maturing as a team. Your starting backcourt has played 23 games in high-level division 1 College Basketball. Not many teams that are as young as BC compete at a postseason playing level. Fab Five was one of the very few (if not only) exception. I'm not saying anyone is expecting a Michigan-like performance out of this team, but I think the thoughts on here are sometimes pretty much way off on how this team is progressing or how this team should be doing at this point. Some might say, well, Donahue said 50 games...blah blah blah. 50 games starting with the now sophomore class? They played with a completely set of players last year. The PGs last year were Moten and Daniels. The team STRUGGLED to score points often last year. This year's team has struggles offensively at times as well. One thing that this team needs to do more often is to play a 40 minute game emotionally as it relates to the defensive end. They did that pretty well last night. This is part of the maturing as a group. The Fab Five comment was to relate to how this team doesn't have a swagger, or overwhelming confidence over itself. They were recruits brought in from Canada, Calfornia......some coming off injuries and not as highly recruited.

As for last night's game.......
1) They did not "sit" on the ball in the last 3 minutes. Go back to the play by play script of the game......after Cook made his 3 w/ 1:58 left.
---Hanlan was blocked by Plumlee with 25 seconds left on the shot clock (1:42 left)
---Anderson missed a shot was 1:27 left (with 10 on shot clock)
---Plumlee made 2 FT's with :46.6 left after Cook missed a bad shot but Duke got the out of bounds off BC
---Rahon missed a 3 with :30 left (18 on the shot clock)

2) BC did well in controlling tempo for most of the night. When Duke took it's biggest lead in the 2nd half, it was when the pace of play was increased by Duke.
3) The last shot........maybe Hanlan was a little late to go, but it was the right play, the right shot. He had a good look, just didn't make it. On a last shot, or on most dribble penetration, you will get the defense to suck to the ball.......and if Hanlan goes a little sooner, then you have a shot at an offensive rebound and putback. Almost happened last night. For those expecting Anderson to get a foul call on the rebound....that was never going to be called, especially on a lower body chip like Cook did. Only way they get a call on a rebound is if someone takes 2 hands and wraps someone up and takes them to the ground.
4) The lack of a consistent third scorer.....I've said this multiple times this year that BC will be a better team if they could get a 3rd consistent scorer. It was the difference last night with Duke winning (Plumlee 19, Curry 18, Cook 9), as the 2 that have shown of doing such a thing for BC did not (Jackson 2, Rahon 6). Only other way to win these tight games is if Hanlan or Anderson go off and put up a monster game (25+).

is "moral victories" going to be a measure going forward or does it only apply to the first 3 years of donahue's coaching career?

THIS IS IMPORTANT as i need to know whether a "wins/losses/moral victories" column header should be permanently installed

bluefishskip {l Wrote}:I will never use the label of "moral victory". It means nothing in the final results. This season, as a whole, is about improving as a group, maturing as a team. Your starting backcourt has played 23 games in high-level division 1 College Basketball. Not many teams that are as young as BC compete at a postseason playing level. Fab Five was one of the very few (if not only) exception. I'm not saying anyone is expecting a Michigan-like performance out of this team, but I think the thoughts on here are sometimes pretty much way off on how this team is progressing or how this team should be doing at this point. Some might say, well, Donahue said 50 games...blah blah blah. 50 games starting with the now sophomore class? They played with a completely set of players last year. The PGs last year were Moten and Daniels. The team STRUGGLED to score points often last year. This year's team has struggles offensively at times as well. One thing that this team needs to do more often is to play a 40 minute game emotionally as it relates to the defensive end. They did that pretty well last night. This is part of the maturing as a group. The Fab Five comment was to relate to how this team doesn't have a swagger, or overwhelming confidence over itself. They were recruits brought in from Canada, Calfornia......some coming off injuries and not as highly recruited.

As for last night's game.......
1) They did not "sit" on the ball in the last 3 minutes. Go back to the play by play script of the game......after Cook made his 3 w/ 1:58 left.
---Hanlan was blocked by Plumlee with 25 seconds left on the shot clock (1:42 left)
---Anderson missed a shot was 1:27 left (with 10 on shot clock)
---Plumlee made 2 FT's with :46.6 left after Cook missed a bad shot but Duke got the out of bounds off BC
---Rahon missed a 3 with :30 left (18 on the shot clock)

2) BC did well in controlling tempo for most of the night. When Duke took it's biggest lead in the 2nd half, it was when the pace of play was increased by Duke.
3) The last shot........maybe Hanlan was a little late to go, but it was the right play, the right shot. He had a good look, just didn't make it. On a last shot, or on most dribble penetration, you will get the defense to suck to the ball.......and if Hanlan goes a little sooner, then you have a shot at an offensive rebound and putback. Almost happened last night. For those expecting Anderson to get a foul call on the rebound....that was never going to be called, especially on a lower body chip like Cook did. Only way they get a call on a rebound is if someone takes 2 hands and wraps someone up and takes them to the ground.
4) The lack of a consistent third scorer.....I've said this multiple times this year that BC will be a better team if they could get a 3rd consistent scorer. It was the difference last night with Duke winning (Plumlee 19, Curry 18, Cook 9), as the 2 that have shown of doing such a thing for BC did not (Jackson 2, Rahon 6). Only other way to win these tight games is if Hanlan or Anderson go off and put up a monster game (25+).

There are a lot of good observations in here completely hidden by the fact that BC absolutely sat on the ball and the fact that youth excuse is well past its sell-by date.

Better Question: What should BC's record be at this point of the season? Not based on comparing the games that they've lost and the opinion of that they should have won certain games, but based on the talent and the assembled roster, how should this team be doing?

This is Donahue's 3rd year. Year 1 he had a team of Skinner's players, implemented a completely different system for those players to play in, and they went to the NIT.
Year 2: Donahue basically started the team over. Found some quality players, some not so much. Result of having leftover empty scholarships.
Year 3: Today. Donahue got his starting backcourt for the next 4 years.

This is almost an identical path that Al Skinner took in his first 3 years. Year 4 they won the Big East and went to the NCAA Tournament.
Year 3 Skinner, BC at St.John's (SJU went to the Round of 32 that year). Troy Bell with a chance to win the game at Carnasecca Arena.......rimmed out a similar shot that Hanlan took to lose 59-58. 13 years ago on February 5th. BC went on to go 11-19 that season, losing 10 games by single digits, including 8 in a row in conference play.

Am I saying the roads will be identical? No, because of course we have no certainty of what the rest of this season or next season will even hold. But there's a difference between logical reactions and incite to what some people on here are expecting in Year 3 of Donahue.

If youth is past the "sell-by date", tell me where BC should reasonably be right now. What team that starts all freshmen and sophomores are NCAA caliber teams, that have a coach in his 3rd year, coming off a previous regime that only made the NCAA Tournament once in his last 3 years, meaning the current coach could not build on the successes of the program when he walked in.

bluefishskip {l Wrote}:Better Question: What should BC's record be at this point of the season? Not based on comparing the games that they've lost and the opinion of that they should have won certain games, but based on the talent and the assembled roster, how should this team be doing?

This is Donahue's 3rd year. Year 1 he had a team of Skinner's players, implemented a completely different system for those players to play in, and they went to the NIT.
Year 2: Donahue basically started the team over. Found some quality players, some not so much. Result of having leftover empty scholarships.
Year 3: Today. Donahue got his starting backcourt for the next 4 years.

This is almost an identical path that Al Skinner took in his first 3 years. Year 4 they won the Big East and went to the NCAA Tournament.
Year 3 Skinner, BC at St.John's (SJU went to the Round of 32 that year). Troy Bell with a chance to win the game at Carnasecca Arena.......rimmed out a similar shot that Hanlan took to lose 59-58. 13 years ago on February 5th. BC went on to go 11-19 that season, losing 10 games by single digits, including 8 in a row in conference play.

Am I saying the roads will be identical? No, because of course we have no certainty of what the rest of this season or next season will even hold. But there's a difference between logical reactions and incite to what some people on here are expecting in Year 3 of Donahue.

This one is easy. This team should have 2-3 more OOC wins and about 3 more conference wins. Which would have put them right where I thought, about 15-8 (5-5) and looking at a potential NIT bid. The failure to achieve that given the fact that the team gave Miami their best game and should have beaten soon to be #1 Duke is not irrational.

The comparison to the Bell teams doesn't work. This team has more talent overall, but not the one guy that can take over as Bell did almost from the outset. And this offense isn't designed to have one big scorer. Troy Bell would hide a lot of ills on this squad.

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:is "moral victories" going to be a measure going forward or does it only apply to the first 3 years of donahue's coaching career?

THIS IS IMPORTANT as i need to know whether a "wins/losses/moral victories" column header should be permanently installed

Moral victories are only a valuable measure for message board posters to say how much they don't accept moral victories and therefore are the toughest and coolest of all fans. It is similar to comparing weiners, so I am unsurprised at your participation.

They shouldn't be sitting at 2-8 in a meh ACC

Edit: this was in response to bluefish

bluefishskip {l Wrote}:If youth is past the "sell-by date", tell me where BC should reasonably be right now. What team that starts all freshmen and sophomores are NCAA caliber teams, that have a coach in his 3rd year, coming off a previous regime that only made the NCAA Tournament once in his last 3 years, meaning the current coach could not build on the successes of the program when he walked in.

Excuse. Instead, look at the team and tell me where they should be right now. Teams that should have beaten two soon to be top 5 teams should not be losing to Bryant and 2-8 in the conference. Period.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

bluefishskip {l Wrote}:If youth is past the "sell-by date", tell me where BC should reasonably be right now. What team that starts all freshmen and sophomores are NCAA caliber teams, that have a coach in his 3rd year, coming off a previous regime that only made the NCAA Tournament once in his last 3 years, meaning the current coach could not build on the successes of the program when he walked in.

Excuse. Instead, look at the team and tell me where they should be right now. Teams that should have beaten two soon to be top 5 teams should not be losing to Bryant and 2-8 in the conference. Period.

I know it is an excuse but do you remember how Ryan Anderson couldn't do things like jump or run when we lost to Bryant?

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

bluefishskip {l Wrote}:Better Question: What should BC's record be at this point of the season? Not based on comparing the games that they've lost and the opinion of that they should have won certain games, but based on the talent and the assembled roster, how should this team be doing?

This is Donahue's 3rd year. Year 1 he had a team of Skinner's players, implemented a completely different system for those players to play in, and they went to the NIT.
Year 2: Donahue basically started the team over. Found some quality players, some not so much. Result of having leftover empty scholarships.
Year 3: Today. Donahue got his starting backcourt for the next 4 years.

This is almost an identical path that Al Skinner took in his first 3 years. Year 4 they won the Big East and went to the NCAA Tournament.
Year 3 Skinner, BC at St.John's (SJU went to the Round of 32 that year). Troy Bell with a chance to win the game at Carnasecca Arena.......rimmed out a similar shot that Hanlan took to lose 59-58. 13 years ago on February 5th. BC went on to go 11-19 that season, losing 10 games by single digits, including 8 in a row in conference play.

Am I saying the roads will be identical? No, because of course we have no certainty of what the rest of this season or next season will even hold. But there's a difference between logical reactions and incite to what some people on here are expecting in Year 3 of Donahue.

This one is easy. This team should have 2-3 more OOC wins and about 3 more conference wins. Which would have put them right where I thought, about 15-8 (5-5) and looking at a potential NIT bid. The failure to achieve that given the fact that the team gave Miami their best game and should have beaten soon to be #1 Duke is not irrational.

The comparison to the Bell teams doesn't work. This team has more talent overall, but not the one guy that can take over as Bell did almost from the outset. And this offense isn't designed to have one big scorer. Troy Bell would hide a lot of ills on this squad.

I was arguing with someone about the Bell team comparison recently I pointed out that while Bell - as the best BC basketball player in a generation - was better than Hanlan will be, using the current day Hanlan vs. sophomore and later Bell was not correct. The poster responded that Bell did not improve between his freshman and sophomore year (based solely on ppg), whereby we knew in 1999 that Bell was going to be Bell and therefore know Hanlan will never be more than he is right now. I didn't ask at this point because I didn't think to, but if Bell didn't improve what the fuck was the difference between an 11-19 3 Big East win team and a 27 win second round tourney team? Was Ryan Sidney an 18 win difference?

While there is no Bell on this team, I think Hanlan could come back much improved in year two, like Bell. I think the aggregate of Hanlan, Anderson, Clifford, Rahon and help could end up on the level of Bell, Sydney, Agbai and help. Therefore, I think the trajectories remain comparable.

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.

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.

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.

How is taking shots with :27 on the shot clock and :18 on the shot clock sitting back?

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.

You're aware that "sitting back" and "not scoring" are two different things right?

Ugh. Yup, all is well.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Ugh. Yup, all is well.

HOMOJSPOST!!

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Ugh. Yup, all is well.

HOMOJSPOST!!

Nah, the people that argue with him actually make some sense.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Ugh. Yup, all is well.

HOMOJSPOST!!

Nah, the people that argue with him actually make some sense.

9903POST

TobaccoRoadEagle {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

eagle9903 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:Ugh. Yup, all is well.

HOMOJSPOST!!

Nah, the people that argue with him actually make some sense.

9903POST

Now, I will not sell you any golf clubs. Hansen's butt is probably relieved.

your loss. good luck getting to the #1 salesman of your region without me