• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official Syracuse - Wake game thread (Foot of snow)

Plus the odds of getting a rebound off a missed FT are much lower than then the opposition missing a FT and thus having a chance to tie or win.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I think Cuse has a big advantage playing that zone, in that building and forcing teams to have to take a lot of 3's. It is hard for opposing teams to get used to shooting 3's in that place. I think if we got them at the Joel, we'd shoot the 3 much better and would beat them. You got to play where the game is though and that's no real excuse.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The most frustrating part for me was that doing a few things differently on offense would have likely made a lot of those 3s less forced.

Also worth pointing out that Syracuse has dropped a couple of (non-conference) games at home this year to lesser opponents. And it wasn't like they played their A-game last night.
 
And them not playing their A game had nothing to do with how we played...

Before the game, I explained why we'd have problems with their zone. It wasn't rocket science and came to pass.
 
RJKarl said:
And them not playing their A game had nothing to do with how we played...

Before the game, I explained why we'd have problems with their zone. It wasn't rocket science and came to pass.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it wasn't rocket science. And there were a few of us worried about the same thing. But doesn't make it any less disappointing.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
Right and as I stated, until last night I wouldn't have known who Lydon was if he bumped into me on the street. So, I was just speaking about last night. I agree, body of work, there is no question. My whole point is that it was frustrating to sit there and watch us against a team I think as a whole we're just better than and still lose. It's my own fault, the win at Raleigh got my hopes up too much, I set myself up for the frustration and disappointment.
Click to expand...

We had nobody who could cover him. Just like we had no one to cover White.
 
DeacsATS said:
Yeah, it wasn't rocket science. And there were a few of us worried about the same thing. But doesn't make it any less disappointing.
Click to expand...

Disappointing is one thing. Expecting a win with that glaring weakness (which also created a giant hole on D) is not that realistic.

We could have won and played well against a player who went off. And it was on the road.

I'm disappointed but not surprised at all. You can only play with the guys you've got.
 
We consistently have no answer for the athletic scorer. Our wing defenders are either too small or too slow. truly lacking that one athletic/big wing to guard the opposing 2/3 scorer. Wish either of the freshman wings could fit this role but apparently not.
 
DeacsATS said:
Yeah, it wasn't rocket science. And there were a few of us worried about the same thing. But doesn't make it any less disappointing.
Click to expand...

We have always had trouble with zone defenses. That said I have seen UNC rip a zone like that to shreds over the years by high lowing it to death or having a good big man shooter fake the pass to the wing then take the 10 footer. Most teams like us or Duke try to bust it shooting over the top with limited success.
 
The most important bad call of the games wasn't not giving Bryant the third FT. It was calling Wilbekin for legally boxing a guy out. Cuse made the first, missed the second, Moore didn't grab the miss and they got a bucket. If those three points were off the board, we would have gotten up 11. More importantly, they wouldn't have had those three points.

There were two other atrocious calls on our guards boxing out legally.
 
It was a 50/50 game (as predicted) and it came down to a few made shots and calls down the stretch. However, I also think last night is an example of why somewhat mediocre Syracuse teams (last year) get hot in the tourney. The zone slows everything down and forces teams to navigate through it to find shots. Teams that don't face it often get bogged down in it. I'd expect Wake to get better playing Syracuse as the staff continues to build up a book on how to face the zone.
 
RJKarl said:
The most important bad call of the games wasn't not giving Bryant the third FT. It was calling Wilbekin for legally boxing a guy out. Cuse made the first, missed the second, Moore didn't grab the miss and they got a bucket. If those three points were off the board, we would have gotten up 11. More importantly, they wouldn't have had those three points.

There were two other atrocious calls on our guards boxing out legally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was weird. I wanted to see the replay on that one. It put White at the line for 2 easy ones. Not sure what Wilbekin could have done there. Seemed like White was clearly behind him.
 
MichDeac25 said:
It was a 50/50 game (as predicted) and it came down to a few made shots and calls down the stretch. However, I also think last night is an example of why somewhat mediocre Syracuse teams (last year) get hot in the tourney. The zone slows everything down and forces teams to navigate through it to find shots. Teams that don't face it often get bogged down in it. I'd expect Wake to get better playing Syracuse as the staff continues to build up a book on how to face the zone.
Click to expand...

Syracuse's zone is similar to facing option teams in football. You just don't see it that much and it's tough to prepare for. See a great opportunity not taken advantage of last night.
 
There are no bad teams in the ACC. The idea of going to Syracuse and getting a W seems like a pipe dream that I haven't contemplated since the days of AFA, James Johnson and Teague. We definitely could have won. Learn and move on.
To the poster who thinks our players have more talent, I think every player on Syracuse's roster is top 75 coming out of high school. Tyus Battle (an athletic wing which is what we all know we need desperately) is a top 40 signee from last year. We have Mitch Wilbekin to their Andrew White. No disrespect to Wilbekin who I think is playing well but he's not a 6-6 athletic sharpshooter.
I'm glad we look like we belong on the court, that signals a lot of improvement and Manning doesn't get enough credit for turning our team into a competitive one.
We appear to get a little gassed in the last 5-10 min of the game and that's when the home team feeds off their crowd.
 
Doggus said:
There are no bad teams in the ACC. The idea of going to Syracuse and getting a W seems like a pipe dream that I haven't contemplated since the days of AFA, James Johnson and Teague. We definitely could have won. Learn and move on.
To the poster who thinks our players have more talent, I think every player on Syracuse's roster is top 75 coming out of high school. Tyus Battle (an athletic wing which is what we all know we need desperately) is a top 40 signee from last year. We have Mitch Wilbekin to their Andrew White. No disrespect to Wilbekin who I think is playing well but he's not a 6-6 athletic sharpshooter.
I'm glad we look like we belong on the court, that signals a lot of improvement and Manning doesn't get enough credit for turning our team into a competitive one.
We appear to get a little gassed in the last 5-10 min of the game and that's when the home team feeds off their crowd.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that point and the way it was made. Again, just watching the game last night, I at no point thought to myself Syracuse had any overall edge on us talent wise. Some may disagree and that's fine. I think it also says a lot of Manning's ability to develop players since based on recruiting rankings, Syracuse should have more talent, but at least it didn't appear that way to me. To me, Danny has 2 of the 3 traits you need in a really good head coach; recruiting and developing talent. I think where he is lacking is in-game coaching and hopefully he will improve there.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
Syracuse's zone is similar to facing option teams in football. You just don't see it that much and it's tough to prepare for. See a great opportunity not taken advantage of last night.
Click to expand...

A point not made on this thread yet is that we had about a day and a half to rest and prepare for this game. Sat afternoon game at NCSt followed by a Tues night game at Syracuse. Team left for Syracuse on Monday.
 
RJ ...

RJKarl said:
I'm going top put a directly as I can. if you don't get why Van Horn was put in the game, you shouldn't be posting about basketball. It's that simple.

Anyone with a junior high school understanding of the game would have seen he was put in, not to play D, not for offense, he was put in for one reason and one reason only, to commit a foul. That's it. We had multiple guys with three or four fouls, had to foul and didn't want to lose a player or have a player get a fourth foul in case we went into OT.

It's unfathomable that so many who allege they know something about basketball don't get this most basic move.
Click to expand...

:tinfoilhat:We all wish we were as brilliant at you, RJ. Or at least that Danny Manning was as brilliant as you.

I'm confused by the idea that our coach thinks TVH should ever be in the game at the end over players that we recruited and gave scholarships to. What scared me almost as much was that we were out of timeouts and it looked like the foul occurred before any time had run off the clock. (This of course was 2nd time they put him in during the Childress/Crawford fouls.) I didn't think that TVH would be able to come out of the game if no time went off the clock, when we needed our best players out there. Poor substitution patterns, yet again.
 
MrBojangles said:
:tinfoilhat:We all wish we were as brilliant at you, RJ. Or at least that Danny Manning was as brilliant as you.

I'm confused by the idea that our coach thinks TVH should ever be in the game at the end over players that we recruited and gave scholarships to. What scared me almost as much was that we were out of timeouts and it looked like the foul occurred before any time had run off the clock. (This of course was 2nd time they put him in during the Childress/Crawford fouls.) I didn't think that TVH would be able to come out of the game if no time went off the clock, when we needed our best players out there. Poor substitution patterns, yet again.
Click to expand...

Ph said to tell you to not speak for him.
 
MrBojangles said:
:tinfoilhat:We all wish we were as brilliant at you, RJ. Or at least that Danny Manning was as brilliant as you.

I'm confused by the idea that our coach thinks TVH should ever be in the game at the end over players that we recruited and gave scholarships to. What scared me almost as much was that we were out of timeouts and it looked like the foul occurred before any time had run off the clock. (This of course was 2nd time they put him in during the Childress/Crawford fouls.) I didn't think that TVH would be able to come out of the game if no time went off the clock, when we needed our best players out there. Poor substitution patterns, yet again.
Click to expand...

The ONLY way no time would come off the clock is if TVH fouled before the ball was thrown in and he wasn't going to do that.

You are flat out, unbelievably wrong about this substitution. This substitution was an A+. It's what good coaches do.

As to the use of TOs. you bitch about him not calling a TO during a run or set things up. You can't have it both ways. My bad, you think you can.
 
I feel like with a free throw for us (potential ORB chance) and a must foul or jump a passing lane scenario McClinton gives you more than TVH.
 
bmoneydeac said:
I feel like with a free throw for us (potential ORB chance) and a must foul or jump a passing lane scenario McClinton gives you more than TVH.
Click to expand...

McClinton is clueless on D. He probably wouldn't even commit the foul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top