2 MSU flaws

[syrcuse]

1) They did not have a or use a penetrating guard to "work" the zone.
2) Their strategy of throw it up there and kill SU on the boards worked to a certain extent. However, it played into our need to shorten the game. Many rebounds of theirs turned into a reset and use of the shot clock. Use more clock = shorten game for us.

 

[Newhouser]

Izzo was brain dead and JB owned him. Don't tell us at halftime how you are going to be aggressive and push pace and then sit there and play slower. Great job by JB and company to basically say "prove it" and Izzo couldn't. I think he is a fraud and it was great to see him exposed.

 

[br801]

Izzo was brain dead and JB owned him. Don't tell us at halftime how you are going to be aggressive and push pace and then sit there and play slower. Great job by JB and company to basically say "prove it" and Izzo couldn't. I think he is a fraud and it was great to see him exposed.

He's not a fraud; he's a great coach who has been to the dance so many times that he inevitably has more than a few early exits, and who has "only" one title to show for his efforts to date.

 

[Janner]

If I were Izzo I would have shaded off of Bayer and doubled Battle and OB when ever they touched the ball. If I was going to lose I could live with it be at the hands of a walk-on who's played 11 min. all year. Izzo did nothing to take advantage of the fact we had an inexperienced walk-on in the game.

 

[newmexicuse]

We are forgetting that they were ahead for most of the game, so as bad as things were going for MSU, Izzo had reason to believe that he would win an ugly one. Yes, there were a lot of things he could have done differently, but his biggest mistake as somebody else pointed out (not trying to steal thunder here, but i do not re-call which poster said it first) was not pressing when frank fouled out. He did do that at the very end and did get some turnovers, but it was too late by then.

 

[TexanMark]

He's not a fraud; he's a great coach who has been to the dance so many times that he inevitably has more than a few early exits, and who has "only" one title to show for his efforts to date.

That could describe Boeheim to a "T" also

 

[CuseFaninVT]

If I were Izzo I would have shaded off of Bayer and doubled Battle and OB when ever they touched the ball. If I was going to lose I could live with it be at the hands of a walk-on who's played 11 min. all year. Izzo did nothing to take advantage of the fact we had an inexperienced walk-on in the game.

They actually did this to some extent. I thought for sure Bayer was going to get a chance to knock down a three, but Battle wasn't looking in his direction. OB or nothing.

 

[Brian Orange]

There was ZERO reason for MSU - home game, far superior roster, etc - to lose that game yesterday. It's almost like they were too confident and just waiting to turn it on ... but they never did. Our style of play is ugly for now, but the longer you keep us in it, they more dangerous we get. Let's remember that Friday night. If we're within in 7 or so under 8 minutes, we got a shot.

 

[General20]

1) They did not have a or use a penetrating guard to "work" the zone.
2) Their strategy of throw it up there and kill SU on the boards worked to a certain extent. However, it played into our need to shorten the game. Many rebounds of theirs turned into a reset and use of the shot clock. Use more clock = shorten game for us.

Am I the only person who thinks Michigan St's "jack up 3s and try to get the rebound" strategy was a miserable failure?

20+ second chance points sounds like a lot, but they went to that well SO often, and it actually only worked about 20% of the time. Imagine Syracuse purposely having Dolezaj shoot 45 three point shots in a game ... percentage wise that's how well Michigan St's offensive rebounding worked, how often they tried for it, and why it took a couple banked 3s and intentional fouls from Syracuse for them to break 50 points.

 

[Newhouser]

Am I the only person who thinks Michigan St's "jack up 3s and try to get the rebound" strategy was a miserable failure?

20+ second chance points sounds like a lot, but they went to that well SO often, and it actually only worked about 20% of the time. Imagine Syracuse purposely having Dolezaj shoot 45 three point shots in a game ... percentage wise that's how well Michigan St's offensive rebounding worked, how often they tried for it, and why it took a couple banked 3s and intentional fouls from Syracuse for them to break 50 points.

You are not - it was insane to continue the trend when we kept hanging around. What was the downside with a small lead to try to increase tempo and let your better athletes determine the outcome of the game? The entire second half should have been Bridges at the foul line and force dumps inside where there bigs were bouncing ours around like bowling pins. Why Izzo is getting a pass on this is crazy. If this was reversed JB would be getting BBQD by the national experts.

 

[Jasoncuse]

The fact that they did not double or trap Tyus every time he brought the ball up was asinine. They just let Bayer stand off to the side and had a defender guarding him...what, why? Everybody watching knew Tyus or Oshae were going to have to get the shots up for Syracuse, yet MSU did nothing to force other guys to do something and it was so dumb.

And then they had Bridges launching corner 3 after corner 3 instead of planting him around the FT line. They were a 40% 3 point shooting team coming in, yet refused to do anything to get better looks than Bridges in the corner. Any coach with a clue would've been working the FT area and then either dumping it inside or swinging it opposite for 3's with one of the good shooters. I just don't know what they were doing.

Izzo was clueless and played right into our hands. Thankfully.

 

[br801]

That could describe Boeheim to a "T" also