SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 33,715
- Like
- 64,917
- Then there’s the last 15:11.
- We missed 9 of 11 two point shots and 8 of ten three points shots, as well as all three free throws.
- They made only 5 of 14 two point shots, (even worse than the first 24:49) but they also made a ridiculous 9 of 10 three pointers. The last was a miss by a walk-on. Ty Jerome actually made one to make it 40-40 near the end of the 24:49, so they actually made 10 three pointers in a row. The thing is, these three pointers were not nearly as open as the ones in the first half. Now we were getting on them, sometimes two defenders at a time and often several feet behind the three point line. It didn’t matter. Everything they threw up went in. I think it was partially because we’d allowed them so many open shots early that they grew totally confident in their shots and their muscle memory took over. Post-game callers blamed it on the zone defense, saying we should have switched to man-for-man. But Virginia Tech uses man-for-man and Virginia hit 13 for 24 treys against them and won by 22. I had assumed. We were trying to stop their inside game and sacrificing coverage on the outside to do so but JB in his presser said they were actually trying to cover the three pointers and force them to try more two pointers. If so then we really did play a lousy defensive game, at least in the first half, and really paid for it in the second, when they couldn’t miss if they tried. It wasn’t the zone it was how badly we played the zone.
- When that happens, (see the DePaul game years ago and the St. John’s game two years ago), it impacts the quality of effort of a team, if not the quantity. They dot’ stop playing or even playing hard. But the belief that their efforts will produce positive results fades and the effort itself fades with it. We were out-rebounded 12-17 in those last 15:11 and the “hustle stats” were: 12r + 2s + 3b = 17 for us and 17r + 5s + 6b = 28 for them.
- Their defense, always strong, was really amped up in the second half. They challenged every shot and pass. We rarely penetrated their perimeter and when we did, the pass back out that is usually so effective, was covered better than I’ve ever seen it. Our fragile offense wilted under the physical pressure. We became tentative and when we had a shot, made a weak effort to get the ball into the basket. Virginia scored those three pointers throughout the game. We just managed t keep up with them for the first 24:19 by equaling or winning the other aspects of the game. When we stopped doing that, what appeared to be a classic became a rout.
- Most people think we are still “in” and they are probably right but now it becomes important to beat Clemson and maybe win a game in the AACT to erase the memory of a game that became a 26 point blow-out. We don’t want to go from 19-10, 10-6 to 19-13, 10-9 and hope the committee doesn’t notice.
- I didn’t want it to hurt and didn’t think it was going to but it was a sad ride back from the last home game of the season.
- We missed 9 of 11 two point shots and 8 of ten three points shots, as well as all three free throws.
- They made only 5 of 14 two point shots, (even worse than the first 24:49) but they also made a ridiculous 9 of 10 three pointers. The last was a miss by a walk-on. Ty Jerome actually made one to make it 40-40 near the end of the 24:49, so they actually made 10 three pointers in a row. The thing is, these three pointers were not nearly as open as the ones in the first half. Now we were getting on them, sometimes two defenders at a time and often several feet behind the three point line. It didn’t matter. Everything they threw up went in. I think it was partially because we’d allowed them so many open shots early that they grew totally confident in their shots and their muscle memory took over. Post-game callers blamed it on the zone defense, saying we should have switched to man-for-man. But Virginia Tech uses man-for-man and Virginia hit 13 for 24 treys against them and won by 22. I had assumed. We were trying to stop their inside game and sacrificing coverage on the outside to do so but JB in his presser said they were actually trying to cover the three pointers and force them to try more two pointers. If so then we really did play a lousy defensive game, at least in the first half, and really paid for it in the second, when they couldn’t miss if they tried. It wasn’t the zone it was how badly we played the zone.
- When that happens, (see the DePaul game years ago and the St. John’s game two years ago), it impacts the quality of effort of a team, if not the quantity. They dot’ stop playing or even playing hard. But the belief that their efforts will produce positive results fades and the effort itself fades with it. We were out-rebounded 12-17 in those last 15:11 and the “hustle stats” were: 12r + 2s + 3b = 17 for us and 17r + 5s + 6b = 28 for them.
- Their defense, always strong, was really amped up in the second half. They challenged every shot and pass. We rarely penetrated their perimeter and when we did, the pass back out that is usually so effective, was covered better than I’ve ever seen it. Our fragile offense wilted under the physical pressure. We became tentative and when we had a shot, made a weak effort to get the ball into the basket. Virginia scored those three pointers throughout the game. We just managed t keep up with them for the first 24:19 by equaling or winning the other aspects of the game. When we stopped doing that, what appeared to be a classic became a rout.
- Most people think we are still “in” and they are probably right but now it becomes important to beat Clemson and maybe win a game in the AACT to erase the memory of a game that became a 26 point blow-out. We don’t want to go from 19-10, 10-6 to 19-13, 10-9 and hope the committee doesn’t notice.
- I didn’t want it to hurt and didn’t think it was going to but it was a sad ride back from the last home game of the season.
