eepstein0 {l Wrote}:Once BC gets down 5 or so the game is basically over since we have no ability to stop anyone
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:Once BC gets down 5 or so the game is basically over since we have no ability to stop anyone
You called it!
SJeagle09 {l Wrote}:real victories > moral victories hubba hubba
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:i think we should all be thanking the conte morgue for breaking its shot clock and allowing for the second inbounds play AND tripping CJ Harris on the second to last desperation play.
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:I believe that was a 10-0 run to end the game or close to it.
SJeagle09 {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:i think we should all be thanking the conte morgue for breaking its shot clock and allowing for the second inbounds play AND tripping CJ Harris on the second to last desperation play.
the conte ghost took a leak in that spot during the break (can I get a photoshop?)
claver2010 {l Wrote}:FYI:
@TedescoHeights
Lonnie Jackson broke a small team rule and that's why he didn't start.
@TedescoHeights
He was late for film essentially, Donahue says of the rule break.
That was some ugly basketball but not in the position to complain about a W
eepstein0 {l Wrote}:claver2010 {l Wrote}:FYI:
@TedescoHeights
Lonnie Jackson broke a small team rule and that's why he didn't start.
@TedescoHeights
He was late for film essentially, Donahue says of the rule break.
That was some ugly basketball but not in the position to complain about a W
I'd like to thank the quickest 5 count ever and Wake's coaching staff for that gift.
footer20 {l Wrote}:eepstein0 {l Wrote}:claver2010 {l Wrote}:FYI:
@TedescoHeights
Lonnie Jackson broke a small team rule and that's why he didn't start.
@TedescoHeights
He was late for film essentially, Donahue says of the rule break.
That was some ugly basketball but not in the position to complain about a W
I'd like to thank the quickest 5 count ever and Wake's coaching staff for that gift.
They showed the replay multiple times. The 5 count was clear, and the ref started late if anything. He finished his fifth stroke, hesitated, and then blew the whistle as Wake called time. The whole occurrence lasted 6 and a half seconds or so. It was a good call. The lucky breaks were the goaltending, and the clock malfunction.
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:SJeagle09 {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:i think we should all be thanking the conte morgue for breaking its shot clock and allowing for the second inbounds play AND tripping CJ Harris on the second to last desperation play.
the conte ghost took a leak in that spot during the break (can I get a photoshop?)
that would be outstanding, as would be a GIF of Odio's videogame-esque rejection of Thomas where he trapped the ball.
bluefishskip {l Wrote}:Way to show some poise and come back from being down 7 late in the game and win. Not their best game for sure, but they found a way, which to me is a bigger measure for this game then the fact that they did not play as well as they could.
Not sure why/how BC was supposed to throttle Wake Forest. Both teams had similar Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses in conference play. Game had some similarities to when these teams matched up the first time, with a game of runs (particularly in the first half) and Wake Forest giving up a lead late (BC came back from double digits down in the 2nd half at Wake to cut it to 1 late). BC "should" win this game at home, but they have not throttled anyone in conference (besides the first 30 minutes vs. Clemson). Would this have been a "bad" loss? In terms of what? Because they should "throttle" Wake Forest? Part of Wake Forest's problem is poise on the road. It's easy to lose your poise when you are on the road, the home team puts a mini run together, and the crowd starts to go crazy. There was no crowd for this game. Wake has been throttled by good teams on the road. BC (and it's Conte Ghosts) are not there yet. This was just as easily a neutral site game.
I thought this would be a horrible loss based on first) our top guys, Hanlan and Anderson in particular, having bad games against a team I hardly consider to be world beaters talent wise who like us play a lot of underclassman who may be but are not yet really there, but mostly because I think we played pretty poorly, second) bzdelik, third) the away game thing, which is not just crazy fans but also travel, unfamiliarity and i'm sure phsycological[if it wasn't before it will be now]
As for the game....thought Hanlan was forcing a lot of things in the first half, and early in the 2nd when he was driving to the hoop. Passing was sloppy at times, and the ability to make an off-hand layup (Rubin and Jackson both missing bunnies on left handed layups), those things can improve. Defensively, the team needs to buy in and get tough for 40 minutes on the defensive end. They got tough in the final 2 minutes.
hated the passing breakdowns. I liked things about Heckman's being involved in the offense again, but not when he goes back to his Munich style And1 mixed tape BS, and Rahon had some uncharacteristically sloppy passes in what was otherwise a solid game. Danny Rubin infuriates me in all ways.
The offense has improved from last year to this year by 8 points per game in conference play. BC is averaging 65 PPG this year, which is good for 5th in the conference. 4th place is 6 points ahead of BC, and the top 4 all have winning records in conference. I think the 65 PPG will improve with additional depth and confidence from playing with one another next year. Defensively, though, they are getting worse. 68.2 PPG allowed last year, 70.1 this year. Need to get Clifford healthy and be able to play 30 MPG next year, and get one of the handful of guards to become a defensive stopper on the top opponent.
the arc looks just fine to me.
Overall, nice to see a win tonight. Saturday at Florida State....a lot of similarities to BC on the statistical end. Team has trouble scoring at times, but if the game is close, look out for Michael Snaer, who has 3 buzzer-beating game winners this year already.
MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:And people wonder why we can't recruit...Jesus christ...most high schools have a better atmosphere.
HJS {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:SJeagle09 {l Wrote}:eagle9903 {l Wrote}:i think we should all be thanking the conte morgue for breaking its shot clock and allowing for the second inbounds play AND tripping CJ Harris on the second to last desperation play.
the conte ghost took a leak in that spot during the break (can I get a photoshop?)
that would be outstanding, as would be a GIF of Odio's videogame-esque rejection of Thomas where he trapped the ball.
Once this paraded out as a prime reason to fire Skins? There was all this talk about lack of fan support and "buzz" surrounding the program. How an active coach... how kids diving for balls... how we took names off the jerseys... how having a coach and players the students can "relate" to... would all bring back the fans. Seems like nothing is a substitute for winning. Which is something D needs to start doing. This W is as good a building block as any.
I generally like Don. Outside of demeanor, he reminds me a bit of Skinner. He has a system and is a good teacher of it. For better or worse, he shows the same dedication/stubborness to it. He is good at identifying talent. However, like Skins, he sucks at landing those kids he evaluates when other majors come in.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:And people wonder why we can't recruit...Jesus christ...most high schools have a better atmosphere.
Most high schools have better teams.
Mike_S {l Wrote}:I know you guys always talk about BC needing another big for next season, and I agree -- but IMO they just don't need a star, just need someone who can really contribute on defense and rebounding. Uka Agbai comes to mind...
bluefishskip {l Wrote}:Way to show some poise and come back from being down 7 late in the game and win. Not their best game for sure, but they found a way, which to me is a bigger measure for this game then the fact that they did not play as well as they could.
Not sure why/how BC was supposed to throttle Wake Forest. Both teams had similar Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses in conference play. Game had some similarities to when these teams matched up the first time, with a game of runs (particularly in the first half) and Wake Forest giving up a lead late (BC came back from double digits down in the 2nd half at Wake to cut it to 1 late). BC "should" win this game at home, but they have not throttled anyone in conference (besides the first 30 minutes vs. Clemson). Would this have been a "bad" loss? In terms of what? Because they should "throttle" Wake Forest? Part of Wake Forest's problem is poise on the road. It's easy to lose your poise when you are on the road, the home team puts a mini run together, and the crowd starts to go crazy. There was no crowd for this game. Wake has been throttled by good teams on the road. BC (and it's Conte Ghosts) are not there yet. This was just as easily a neutral site game.
As for the game....thought Hanlan was forcing a lot of things in the first half, and early in the 2nd when he was driving to the hoop. Passing was sloppy at times, and the ability to make an off-hand layup (Rubin and Jackson both missing bunnies on left handed layups), those things can improve. Defensively, the team needs to buy in and get tough for 40 minutes on the defensive end. They got tough in the final 2 minutes.
The offense has improved from last year to this year by 8 points per game in conference play. BC is averaging 65 PPG this year, which is good for 5th in the conference. 4th place is 6 points ahead of BC, and the top 4 all have winning records in conference. I think the 65 PPG will improve with additional depth and confidence from playing with one another next year. Defensively, though, they are getting worse. 68.2 PPG allowed last year, 70.1 this year. Need to get Clifford healthy and be able to play 30 MPG next year, and get one of the handful of guards to become a defensive stopper on the top opponent.
Overall, nice to see a win tonight. Saturday at Florida State....a lot of similarities to BC on the statistical end. Team has trouble scoring at times, but if the game is close, look out for Michael Snaer, who has 3 buzzer-beating game winners this year already.
twballgame9 {l Wrote}:bluefishskip {l Wrote}:Way to show some poise and come back from being down 7 late in the game and win. Not their best game for sure, but they found a way, which to me is a bigger measure for this game then the fact that they did not play as well as they could.
Not sure why/how BC was supposed to throttle Wake Forest. Both teams had similar Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses in conference play. Game had some similarities to when these teams matched up the first time, with a game of runs (particularly in the first half) and Wake Forest giving up a lead late (BC came back from double digits down in the 2nd half at Wake to cut it to 1 late). BC "should" win this game at home, but they have not throttled anyone in conference (besides the first 30 minutes vs. Clemson). Would this have been a "bad" loss? In terms of what? Because they should "throttle" Wake Forest? Part of Wake Forest's problem is poise on the road. It's easy to lose your poise when you are on the road, the home team puts a mini run together, and the crowd starts to go crazy. There was no crowd for this game. Wake has been throttled by good teams on the road. BC (and it's Conte Ghosts) are not there yet. This was just as easily a neutral site game.
As for the game....thought Hanlan was forcing a lot of things in the first half, and early in the 2nd when he was driving to the hoop. Passing was sloppy at times, and the ability to make an off-hand layup (Rubin and Jackson both missing bunnies on left handed layups), those things can improve. Defensively, the team needs to buy in and get tough for 40 minutes on the defensive end. They got tough in the final 2 minutes.
The offense has improved from last year to this year by 8 points per game in conference play. BC is averaging 65 PPG this year, which is good for 5th in the conference. 4th place is 6 points ahead of BC, and the top 4 all have winning records in conference. I think the 65 PPG will improve with additional depth and confidence from playing with one another next year. Defensively, though, they are getting worse. 68.2 PPG allowed last year, 70.1 this year. Need to get Clifford healthy and be able to play 30 MPG next year, and get one of the handful of guards to become a defensive stopper on the top opponent.
Overall, nice to see a win tonight. Saturday at Florida State....a lot of similarities to BC on the statistical end. Team has trouble scoring at times, but if the game is close, look out for Michael Snaer, who has 3 buzzer-beating game winners this year already.
A win is a win, and I will take it, but this team still stinks.
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:MilitantEagle {l Wrote}:And people wonder why we can't recruit...Jesus christ...most high schools have a better atmosphere.
Most high schools have better teams.
I'd just like to point out that this is neither good snark nor good analysis. Please aim for at least one if not both in future posts.
eagle9903 {l Wrote}:twballgame9 {l Wrote}:bluefishskip {l Wrote}:Way to show some poise and come back from being down 7 late in the game and win. Not their best game for sure, but they found a way, which to me is a bigger measure for this game then the fact that they did not play as well as they could.
Not sure why/how BC was supposed to throttle Wake Forest. Both teams had similar Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses in conference play. Game had some similarities to when these teams matched up the first time, with a game of runs (particularly in the first half) and Wake Forest giving up a lead late (BC came back from double digits down in the 2nd half at Wake to cut it to 1 late). BC "should" win this game at home, but they have not throttled anyone in conference (besides the first 30 minutes vs. Clemson). Would this have been a "bad" loss? In terms of what? Because they should "throttle" Wake Forest? Part of Wake Forest's problem is poise on the road. It's easy to lose your poise when you are on the road, the home team puts a mini run together, and the crowd starts to go crazy. There was no crowd for this game. Wake has been throttled by good teams on the road. BC (and it's Conte Ghosts) are not there yet. This was just as easily a neutral site game.
As for the game....thought Hanlan was forcing a lot of things in the first half, and early in the 2nd when he was driving to the hoop. Passing was sloppy at times, and the ability to make an off-hand layup (Rubin and Jackson both missing bunnies on left handed layups), those things can improve. Defensively, the team needs to buy in and get tough for 40 minutes on the defensive end. They got tough in the final 2 minutes.
The offense has improved from last year to this year by 8 points per game in conference play. BC is averaging 65 PPG this year, which is good for 5th in the conference. 4th place is 6 points ahead of BC, and the top 4 all have winning records in conference. I think the 65 PPG will improve with additional depth and confidence from playing with one another next year. Defensively, though, they are getting worse. 68.2 PPG allowed last year, 70.1 this year. Need to get Clifford healthy and be able to play 30 MPG next year, and get one of the handful of guards to become a defensive stopper on the top opponent.
Overall, nice to see a win tonight. Saturday at Florida State....a lot of similarities to BC on the statistical end. Team has trouble scoring at times, but if the game is close, look out for Michael Snaer, who has 3 buzzer-beating game winners this year already.
A win is a win, and I will take it, but this team still stinks.
No, they don't.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 138 guests