EagleOutsider.com

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.

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.

"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?

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? [/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.

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?

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.

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.

*edit my mistake confused homojs & betardo, tough to do i know mea culpa

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Glad to see that you can laugh at yourself for being wrong , kudos

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?

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. 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.

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?

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. 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.

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

I'll let you know if it happens.