That was a shame

[Cusefan0307]

I think you saw the effect of Buddy/Hughes playing 40 with their inability to get back on defense on Clemson's game winning layup.

 

[storange]

I think you saw the effect of Buddy/Hughes playing 40 with their inability to get back on defense on Clemson's game winning layup.

They were back, Edwards watched the guy make a lay up. Probably afraid to foul.

 

[Orangello]

At the end of the day I feel like we are going to wish like hey that we had at least 2 of this one, and the first VT and ND games. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[GoSU96]

I think you saw the effect of Buddy/Hughes playing 40 with their inability to get back on defense on Clemson's game winning layup.

Hughes was flat on his back. What’s he supposed to do?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I know that the "guys need a breather, they have nothing late in the game" idea is one that a lot of people believe in... but I have to ask, what do folks really base this belief on?

Last night, from the 5:00 mark onward, Buddy was perfect from the field (1-1 on a nice pump-fake, pull-up 18 foot jumper) and Elijah was 1-2 from the field (made a nice turnaround, 15 ft fall-away jumper with 2:48 to play and just missed the last shot with 0:10 to play). Elijah also made both his free throws with 2:12 to play. And Joe made a driving layup, hit a 3-pter, had two huge defensive rebounds and a steal.
We scored on 4 consecutive possessions from 3:34 to 1:34 - until our freshest player committed a turnover with 0:56 to play.

I would have thought that after the W at Virginia - when the guys made multiple shots in OT against literally the #1 defense in the nation - that this narrative would have gone away... why do so many people believe that Buddy/Eli/Joe "have no legs" late in the game?

Buddy being physically unable to get back in time to defend, despite being in front of the ball handler when the break started.

 

[samspann1]

I know that the "guys need a breather, they have nothing late in the game" idea is one that a lot of people believe in... but I have to ask, what do folks really base this belief on?

Last night, from the 5:00 mark onward, Buddy was perfect from the field (1-1 on a nice pump-fake, pull-up 18 foot jumper) and Elijah was 1-2 from the field (made a nice turnaround, 15 ft fall-away jumper with 2:48 to play and just missed the last shot with 0:10 to play). Elijah also made both his free throws with 2:12 to play. And Joe made a driving layup, hit a 3-pter, had two huge defensive rebounds and a steal.
We scored on 4 consecutive possessions from 3:34 to 1:34 - until our freshest player committed a turnover with 0:56 to play.

I would have thought that after the W at Virginia - when the guys made multiple shots in OT against literally the #1 defense in the nation - that this narrative would have gone away... why do so many people believe that Buddy/Eli/Joe "have no legs" late in the game?

Offhand, I can't find boxscores which break down stats by halves, but I'd be really interested to see what Eli and Buddy's 1st and 2nd half splits are for points and shooting %.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Offhand, I can't find boxscores which break down stats by halves, but I'd be really interested to see what Eli and Buddy's 1st and 2nd half splits are for points and shooting %.

Feels like there is a theme building with these two. Eli goes off in the first and Buddy in the second. Is that just a feeling or real? Don't know, but I'd love to find a way to keep Eli going throughout, and help Buddy through some of the rough starts. I mean, I'd love JB to find that.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Win Saturday and all is forgiven. JB really should give Hughes and Buddy a breather. They are both jump shooters that rely on their legs. They had nothing late.

His only backcourt sub to sit JGIII for a few minutes in the 1st half. After that only foul trouble dictates who plays. Otherwise the shooters are playing 40. Just don't get it, especially when they have to go all Cooney just to try to receive a pass.

 

[blust2i3d4]

Good lesson in playing a physical team. Almost stole another road win

We are at the mercy of referees when playing physical teams. Inconsistency from the referees. It is almost they want us to lose badly.

 

[malpearl31]

Buddy being physically unable to get back in time to defend, despite being in front of the ball handler when the break started.

Buddy had inbounded the ball - he literally had farther to go than anyone else on the court. To my eyes, Buddy was behind the play when it started.

I thought Buddy scrambled back reasonably well, and Joe did a good job of stopping the ball at the foul line - but the problem was that Elijah didn't get back (because he had been undercut) and so his spot on the floor was completely unguarded, allowing the layup (see screenshot below).

Reasonable minds can differ, I guess - but I don't think that the fact that Elijah and Buddy each played 40 minutes had very much to do with the loss.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Buddy had inbounded the ball - he literally had farther to go than anyone else on the court. To my eyes, Buddy was behind the play when it started.

I thought Buddy scrambled back reasonably well, and Joe did a good job of stopping the ball at the foul line - but the problem was that Elijah didn't get back (because he had been undercut) and so his spot on the floor was completely unguarded, allowing the layup (see screenshot below).

Reasonable minds can differ, I guess - but I don't think that the fact that Elijah and Buddy each played 40 minutes had very much to do with the loss.

View attachment 176013

We basically scrambled back and settled in the usual zone positions, it seemed. There is a reason coaches don't use timeouts on runouts like that when the defense is scrambling because it leads to opportunities like last night.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

Buddy had inbounded the ball - he literally had farther to go than anyone else on the court. To my eyes, Buddy was behind the play when it started.

I thought Buddy scrambled back reasonably well, and Joe did a good job of stopping the ball at the foul line - but the problem was that Elijah didn't get back (because he had been undercut) and so his spot on the floor was completely unguarded, allowing the layup (see screenshot below).

Reasonable minds can differ, I guess - but I don't think that the fact that Elijah and Buddy each played 40 minutes had very much to do with the loss.

View attachment 176013

Just watched it again. Buddy had ample opportunity to get back, but he tried to set up a trap at half court that didn't materialize. Looked to me like Eli had enough time to get back in position as well, but stopped at the guard spot on defense, probably thinking they would try to shoot a three. Maybe because he saw Buddy not back. Don't know for sure. Also looked like Eli was trying to get back into the spot already taken by Q. Caused a bit of a delay for him navigating traffic to get back to that side. Not a great play all around.

 

[malpearl31]

We basically scrambled back and settled in the usual zone positions, it seemed. There is a reason coaches don't use timeouts on runouts like that when the defense is scrambling because it leads to opportunities like last night.

I disagree with your comment about getting back into their usual positions, because Elijah never appeared to make it back at all. But I agree 100% with your comment about not calling a timeout there (not sure if Clemson even had any left), the smart play there was no timeout and try to get a shot against a scrambling defense.

 

[malpearl31]

Just watched it again. Buddy had ample opportunity to get back, but he tried to set up a trap at half court that didn't materialize. Looked to me like Eli had enough time to get back in position as well, but stopped at the guard spot on defense, probably thinking they would try to shoot a three. Maybe because he saw Buddy not back. Don't know for sure. Also looked like Eli was trying to get back into the spot already taken by Q. Caused a bit of a delay for him navigating traffic to get back to that side. Not a great play all around.

I think your read is a good one.

I also don't think that if Buddy or Elijah had sat for a 3 minute stretch earlier in the game that the final play would have unfolded any differently.

 

[SU94]

Just watched it again. Buddy had ample opportunity to get back, but he tried to set up a trap at half court that didn't materialize. Looked to me like Eli had enough time to get back in position as well, but stopped at the guard spot on defense, probably thinking they would try to shoot a three. Maybe because he saw Buddy not back. Don't know for sure. Also looked like Eli was trying to get back into the spot already taken by Q. Caused a bit of a delay for him navigating traffic to get back to that side. Not a great play all around.

By going for the score with :01 on the shot clock (although we did get a primo shot attempt), we created an unsettled situation, which resulted in a fast break.

I haven't coached for 40+ years, but I think an argument can be made that by prioritizing offense over defense there, ... it cost us. Our settled defense in the half court, only having to defend for <10 seconds, is really really good.

When was the last time we lost a game on a last-second shot?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

I think your read is a good one.

I also don't think that if Buddy or Elijah had sat for a 3 minute stretch earlier in the game that the final play would have unfolded any differently.

I wish we could find out...

Honestly, there was no reason to keep Buddy in for the whole game, especially in the first half. He had 1 rebound the whole game. Other than scoring, Buddy did little else last night. I don't want to be that guy, because Buddy has really started developing nicely. But he's not an all game deserving player. Yet.

 

[orangecuse]

By going for the score with :01 on the shot clock (although we did get a primo shot attempt), we created an unsettled situation, which resulted in a fast break.

I haven't coached for 40+ years, but I think an argument can be made that by prioritizing offense over defense there, ... it cost us. Our settled defense in the half court, only having to defend for <10 seconds, it really really good.

When was the last time we lost a game on a last-second shot?

This is the hoops board not lax.

 

[malpearl31]

I wish we could find out...

Honestly, there was no reason to keep Buddy in for the whole game, especially in the first half. He had 1 rebound the whole game. Other than scoring, Buddy did little else last night. I don't want to be that guy, because Buddy has really started developing nicely. But he's not an all game deserving player. Yet.

It’s funny, as the first half was winding down my thought was “get Buddy out of there, he’s done nothing”... and then he promptly drained back-to-back 3s. If JB had pulled him for HoWash or Brycen, my guess is that we would not have gotten 6 points on our final 2 possessions of the half. But who knows?

 

[CuseFaninVT]

It’s funny, as the first half was winding down my thought was “get Buddy out of there, he’s done nothing”... and then he promptly drained back-to-back 3s. If JB had pulled him for HoWash or Brycen, my guess is that we would not have gotten 6 points on our final 2 possessions of the half. But who knows?

I have no problem with Buddy being in for the final moments of both halves. Like Joe, I think they should be in there, just for the opportunities you're talking about. But between the under 12 and under 8, or maybe under 8 to under 4 timeouts, get him a bit of rest. Even if you take him out for stoppage a minute or so before those auto TOs.

 

[NineOneSeven]

It’s funny, as the first half was winding down my thought was “get Buddy out of there, he’s done nothing”... and then he promptly drained back-to-back 3s. If JB had pulled him for HoWash or Brycen, my guess is that we would not have gotten 6 points on our final 2 possessions of the half. But who knows?

A typical substitution pattern (NOT universal obviously) in the NBA is for the star player to play the first 12, sit the first 6 or so of the second, play the third (or come out around 2 mins), and then play the last 6-8 or so of the game. Obviously opponent, score, fouls play a role but that ends up being around 36 mpg. The times to substitute wouldn't be to close either half, typically want best players in for those moments. Again, pending foul trouble. Keeping Sidibe in the game with a couple minutes left in the first turned out to be a poor idea. I know this point has been argued tremendously... what does it matter whether they pick up the third foul to close the first half vs opening the second half (or something similar to that point). To me, it's really a mental difference. Going into half time with 2 vs 3 is big.

 

[malpearl31]

I have no problem with Buddy being in for the final moments of both halves. Like Joe, I think they should be in there, just for the opportunities you're talking about. But between the under 12 and under 8, or maybe under 8 to under 4 timeouts, get him a bit of rest. Even if you take him out for stoppage a minute or so before those auto TOs.

That's definitely what I would do if I was coaching... I would get everybody at least a couple of minutes in the 1st half. But then again, I have zero D-1 wins to my name...

 

[oTTo113445]

There was a glitch in the matrix. Clemson ended up with 7 1 leaving us at 70. Since the irish 5 and 3, and now the blue devil is safe at third place, and cannot be moved to 4th because of bad judgements of men. 2-0 is not possible for the big orange. but 2-1 is likely. Not trying to make to much sense of this, but 6-4 does not feel to good, and I have 44 likes at the moment.

 

[721Comstock]

A typical substitution pattern (NOT universal obviously) in the NBA is for the star player to play the first 12, sit the first 6 or so of the second, play the third (or come out around 2 mins), and then play the last 6-8 or so of the game. Obviously opponent, score, fouls play a role but that ends up being around 36 mpg. The times to substitute wouldn't be to close either half, typically want best players in for those moments. Again, pending foul trouble. Keeping Sidibe in the game with a couple minutes left in the first turned out to be a poor idea. I know this point has been argued tremendously... what does it matter whether they pick up the third foul to close the first half vs opening the second half (or something similar to that point). To me, it's really a mental difference. Going into half time with 2 vs 3 is big.

Agreed that it's likely more mental than anything else, but also agreed - the time to get Edwards a few minutes was late 1st when CDB picked up his 2nd and went back in late.
It was still a close game - Cuse was leading from 2:46 left after Eli's FT's, and even if you lose CDB's block at the 2:30 mark (assuming Jesse went in that early - highly unlikely), it's still worth trading those 2 points for CDB's foul at the :23 second mark.

So we go in tied (or maybe a basket down) at the half, rather than up 2?
Better to have Edwards soak up that foul, or even another one, rather than CDB getting tagged w/ his 3rd.

I generally trust Marek to play smart-ish when he's in foul trouble, but Sid hasn't shown much in that regard in a good way to date.

Plus, maybe 1-2 minutes late in the 1st half, helps Edwards not be such a deer in the headlights in the 2nd half, assuming he still needed to go in - which may not have even been the case!