« previous next »
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6   Go Down

@ DePaul 1/18

  • 116 replies
  • 16637 views
*

DoodyNY33

  • ***
  • 487
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #100 on: January 20, 2015, 10:09:04 AM »
Quote from: TONYD3 on January 19, 2015, 05:50:45 PM
Play call was fine. Jordan shoukd have shot it. This team was so fun to watch less then a month ago . Worked yesterday and watched it after. Wish I would have stayed at work.

Exactly, it wasn't a bad play call at all.  Jordan had the hot hand and should've put it up.

Garrett played great defense and Jordan panicked.
Logged
*

derk

  • *****
  • 1360
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #101 on: January 20, 2015, 10:45:23 AM »
Quote from: DoodyNY33 on January 20, 2015, 10:09:04 AM
Quote from: TONYD3 on January 19, 2015, 05:50:45 PM
Play call was fine. Jordan shoukd have shot it. This team was so fun to watch less then a month ago . Worked yesterday and watched it after. Wish I would have stayed at work.

Agree. Shows Sheed is not quite ready to assume the leadership mantle for this team. Augurs well for a return next year. Next year this team is his if he is big enough to accept that role. A lucrative pro contract could follow.

Exactly, it wasn't a bad play call at all.  Jordan had the hot hand and should've put it up.

Garrett played great defense and Jordan panicked.
Logged
*

carmineabbatiello

  • *****
  • 4775
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #102 on: January 20, 2015, 05:24:35 PM »
We can't catch a break.  Blue Demon starters shot 23 for 23 from the line in this one.  That's not right.
Logged
*

stjohnnie75

  • *****
  • 1844
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #103 on: January 20, 2015, 07:06:06 PM »
Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 20, 2015, 05:24:35 PM
We can't catch a break.  Blue Demon starters shot 23 for 23 from the line in this one.  That's not right.

Our FT defense must get better.
Logged
*

Celtics11

  • *****
  • 5789
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #104 on: January 21, 2015, 12:40:34 PM »
If CO knew his offensive limitations and played within them he had time to kick it out to the perimeter. That being said Sheed had his shoulder slightly ahead of Garrett and if used his body to shield defender could have gotten to the basket for layup attempt.
Logged
*

simplyred

  • *****
  • 3410
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #105 on: January 21, 2015, 04:31:12 PM »
If CO passed up an 8 footer and Greene missed the 3, he'd get knocked for that.  Also, with so few seconds left when Jordan made his move, I'm sure CO was worried about time running out.  Unfortunately, I didn't DVR the game, so I can't go back and check but I didn't notice Green open in the corner.  I'm sure he must yave been since several posters have said he was, but it is possible that CO didn't see him either.
Logged
*

redstorm212

  • *****
  • 3274
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #106 on: January 21, 2015, 05:11:30 PM »
Quote from: Foad on January 19, 2015, 08:01:21 AM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: boo3 on January 18, 2015, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 05:14:52 PM
Selfish play by Obekpa. Unless he didn't think there was time for a pass.

It was a bad play-call and a stupid pass by Jordan. Obekpa probably wasn't expecting that and when he caught it his first instinct was to put it up

 Jordan driving to the hoop worked the last few times they needed a basket. Did you say bad play call then?  Come on..  Don't let your hatred for Lavin cloud your analysis..

Jordan taking it to the hole was the only call..  He got stopped ( credit to Garrett) and then made a poor decision..  Play was fine.

Lav has been calling that play in every big possession over the last couple years and it works less than half the time. I don't care how bad a night Harrison had, he is a top 10 player in school history and a Senior. He has to at least get a touch there

Harrison was a decoy, could hardly even jump. The play worked. Our best corner shooter was wide open for a three but instead our worst offensive starter takes an off balance hook shot with the defense all over him.

A play designed to produce a good shot by a skilled offensive player leading to a victory instead produces a poor shot by our worst player and a loss. This you describe as the play working. By that criteria the Titanic worked and so did the Hindenburg and Napoleon's invasion of Russia was a resounding success.

Incorrect. A better analogy is if a QB's first option is well covered, but his second option is streaking wide open down the field but the QB chooses not to throw the ball/does not look his way. The play worked (receiver getting open), just lousy execution by the player with the ball.
Logged
*

Gee Whiz

  • **
  • 70
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #107 on: January 21, 2015, 11:56:49 PM »
Rewatched the end of the game. If lavin would've had a time out left, he could have used it when obekpa caught the pass and the play broke down. There was still 5-6 seconds left.  Don't know why he needed to burn two in a row a little earlier. What a waste.
Logged
*

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #108 on: January 23, 2015, 07:03:44 AM »
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 21, 2015, 05:11:30 PM
Quote from: Foad on January 19, 2015, 08:01:21 AM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: boo3 on January 18, 2015, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 05:14:52 PM
Selfish play by Obekpa. Unless he didn't think there was time for a pass.

It was a bad play-call and a stupid pass by Jordan. Obekpa probably wasn't expecting that and when he caught it his first instinct was to put it up

 Jordan driving to the hoop worked the last few times they needed a basket. Did you say bad play call then?  Come on..  Don't let your hatred for Lavin cloud your analysis..

Jordan taking it to the hole was the only call..  He got stopped ( credit to Garrett) and then made a poor decision..  Play was fine.

Lav has been calling that play in every big possession over the last couple years and it works less than half the time. I don't care how bad a night Harrison had, he is a top 10 player in school history and a Senior. He has to at least get a touch there

Harrison was a decoy, could hardly even jump. The play worked. Our best corner shooter was wide open for a three but instead our worst offensive starter takes an off balance hook shot with the defense all over him.

A play designed to produce a good shot by a skilled offensive player leading to a victory instead produces a poor shot by our worst player and a loss. This you describe as the play working. By that criteria the Titanic worked and so did the Hindenburg and Napoleon's invasion of Russia was a resounding success.

Incorrect. A better analogy is if a QB's first option is well covered, but his second option is streaking wide open down the field but the QB chooses not to throw the ball/does not look his way. The play worked (receiver getting open), just lousy execution by the player with the ball.

I see. So if in that scenario the QB throws an interception which is returned for a touchdown and his team loses, the play "worked" because there was a single receiver open somewhere on the field.

That's quite stupid.
Logged
*

Celtics11

  • *****
  • 5789
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #109 on: January 23, 2015, 09:58:25 PM »
Quote from: Gee Whiz on January 21, 2015, 11:56:49 PM
Rewatched the end of the game. If lavin would've had a time out left, he could have used it when obekpa caught the pass and the play broke down. There was still 5-6 seconds left.  Don't know why he needed to burn two in a row a little earlier. What a waste.
Had to call the second time out to tell the team to disregard everything he told them during the first time out.  :)
Logged
*

SJUFAN

  • *****
  • 2280
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #110 on: January 24, 2015, 10:46:15 AM »
Quote from: Foad on January 23, 2015, 07:03:44 AM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 21, 2015, 05:11:30 PM
Quote from: Foad on January 19, 2015, 08:01:21 AM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: boo3 on January 18, 2015, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 05:14:52 PM
Selfish play by Obekpa. Unless he didn't think there was time for a pass.

It was a bad play-call and a stupid pass by Jordan. Obekpa probably wasn't expecting that and when he caught it his first instinct was to put it up

 Jordan driving to the hoop worked the last few times they needed a basket. Did you say bad play call then?  Come on..  Don't let your hatred for Lavin cloud your analysis..

Jordan taking it to the hole was the only call..  He got stopped ( credit to Garrett) and then made a poor decision..  Play was fine.

Lav has been calling that play in every big possession over the last couple years and it works less than half the time. I don't care how bad a night Harrison had, he is a top 10 player in school history and a Senior. He has to at least get a touch there

Harrison was a decoy, could hardly even jump. The play worked. Our best corner shooter was wide open for a three but instead our worst offensive starter takes an off balance hook shot with the defense all over him.

A play designed to produce a good shot by a skilled offensive player leading to a victory instead produces a poor shot by our worst player and a loss. This you describe as the play working. By that criteria the Titanic worked and so did the Hindenburg and Napoleon's invasion of Russia was a resounding success.

Incorrect. A better analogy is if a QB's first option is well covered, but his second option is streaking wide open down the field but the QB chooses not to throw the ball/does not look his way. The play worked (receiver getting open), just lousy execution by the player with the ball.

I see. So if in that scenario the QB throws an interception which is returned for a touchdown and his team loses, the play "worked" because there was a single receiver open somewhere on the field.

That's quite stupid.


Its the design of the play that is in question. If there was no option for the QB then the play didn't work. If the players execute the play as designed it would have worked. You hear analyst say all the time, "right play call, poor execution". Coaches put the players in position, the players need to execute it. If the players don't execute, its not a bad play, its poor execution. This is off the assumption that the players are capable of executing the play of course.
 
Logged
*

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #111 on: January 24, 2015, 02:04:05 PM »
Quote from: SJUFAN on January 24, 2015, 10:46:15 AM
Quote from: Foad on January 23, 2015, 07:03:44 AM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 21, 2015, 05:11:30 PM
Quote from: Foad on January 19, 2015, 08:01:21 AM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: boo3 on January 18, 2015, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 05:14:52 PM
Selfish play by Obekpa. Unless he didn't think there was time for a pass.

It was a bad play-call and a stupid pass by Jordan. Obekpa probably wasn't expecting that and when he caught it his first instinct was to put it up

 Jordan driving to the hoop worked the last few times they needed a basket. Did you say bad play call then?  Come on..  Don't let your hatred for Lavin cloud your analysis..

Jordan taking it to the hole was the only call..  He got stopped ( credit to Garrett) and then made a poor decision..  Play was fine.

Lav has been calling that play in every big possession over the last couple years and it works less than half the time. I don't care how bad a night Harrison had, he is a top 10 player in school history and a Senior. He has to at least get a touch there

Harrison was a decoy, could hardly even jump. The play worked. Our best corner shooter was wide open for a three but instead our worst offensive starter takes an off balance hook shot with the defense all over him.

A play designed to produce a good shot by a skilled offensive player leading to a victory instead produces a poor shot by our worst player and a loss. This you describe as the play working. By that criteria the Titanic worked and so did the Hindenburg and Napoleon's invasion of Russia was a resounding success.

Incorrect. A better analogy is if a QB's first option is well covered, but his second option is streaking wide open down the field but the QB chooses not to throw the ball/does not look his way. The play worked (receiver getting open), just lousy execution by the player with the ball.

I see. So if in that scenario the QB throws an interception which is returned for a touchdown and his team loses, the play "worked" because there was a single receiver open somewhere on the field.

That's quite stupid.


Its the design of the play that is in question. If there was no option for the QB then the play didn't work. If the players execute the play as designed it would have worked. You hear analyst say all the time, "right play call, poor execution". Coaches put the players in position, the players need to execute it. If the players don't execute, its not a bad play, its poor execution. This is off the assumption that the players are capable of executing the play of course.

In the first place, I don't know what discussion you're having, but I'm discussing whether the play "worked." The evidence that it didn't "work" is that the ball did not go in the basket. The evidence that it did is several nimrods talking about football. And in the second, you have no idea what play was designed, assuming there even was a play designed, which is unlikely, because we don't run plays. It could very well be that Phil Greene was stuck out on the three point line as a decoy, or that he was stuck out there so that he would not go near the ball, because he's awful.
Logged
*

SJUFAN

  • *****
  • 2280
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #112 on: January 24, 2015, 02:41:33 PM »
Quote from: Foad on January 24, 2015, 02:04:05 PM
In the first place, I don't know what discussion you're having, but I'm discussing whether the play "worked." The evidence that it didn't "work" is that the ball did not go in the basket. The evidence that it did is several nimrods talking about football. And in the second, you have no idea what play was designed, assuming there even was a play designed, which is unlikely, because we don't run plays. It could very well be that Phil Greene was stuck out on the three point line as a decoy, or that he was stuck out there so that he would not go near the ball, because he's awful.

Often when having discussions with simpletons, like yourself, who only exposure to organized sports as a youth was dodging bullies in fear of having your lunch money taken from you, one has to use analogies. The play worked, the result of the play, not so much. It's clear you do not see the difference. I'll leave it at that and you to your opinion.     
« Last Edit: January 24, 2015, 07:31:58 PM by SJUFAN »
Logged
*

redstorm212

  • *****
  • 3274
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #113 on: January 24, 2015, 02:45:53 PM »
Quote from: Foad on January 23, 2015, 07:03:44 AM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 21, 2015, 05:11:30 PM
Quote from: Foad on January 19, 2015, 08:01:21 AM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 08:26:37 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 07:56:45 PM
Quote from: boo3 on January 18, 2015, 05:45:35 PM
Quote from: goredmen on January 18, 2015, 05:37:54 PM
Quote from: redstorm212 on January 18, 2015, 05:14:52 PM
Selfish play by Obekpa. Unless he didn't think there was time for a pass.

It was a bad play-call and a stupid pass by Jordan. Obekpa probably wasn't expecting that and when he caught it his first instinct was to put it up

 Jordan driving to the hoop worked the last few times they needed a basket. Did you say bad play call then?  Come on..  Don't let your hatred for Lavin cloud your analysis..

Jordan taking it to the hole was the only call..  He got stopped ( credit to Garrett) and then made a poor decision..  Play was fine.

Lav has been calling that play in every big possession over the last couple years and it works less than half the time. I don't care how bad a night Harrison had, he is a top 10 player in school history and a Senior. He has to at least get a touch there

Harrison was a decoy, could hardly even jump. The play worked. Our best corner shooter was wide open for a three but instead our worst offensive starter takes an off balance hook shot with the defense all over him.

A play designed to produce a good shot by a skilled offensive player leading to a victory instead produces a poor shot by our worst player and a loss. This you describe as the play working. By that criteria the Titanic worked and so did the Hindenburg and Napoleon's invasion of Russia was a resounding success.

Incorrect. A better analogy is if a QB's first option is well covered, but his second option is streaking wide open down the field but the QB chooses not to throw the ball/does not look his way. The play worked (receiver getting open), just lousy execution by the player with the ball.

I see. So if in that scenario the QB throws an interception which is returned for a touchdown and his team loses, the play "worked" because there was a single receiver open somewhere on the field.

That's quite stupid.


I think we are arguing over semantics. I consider an NFL team running a designed play in which a receiver gets wide open as the play "working." Execution is another story. For example, if Coach Lavin were to design a play for Harrison to come off a screen and shoot a wide open 3 and it works to perfection (getting the high % shot you want) but doesn't fall, the play worked, but obviously the result was not what you wanted. Play designs can work to perfection and still fail. In the case we are discussing, our best spot up shooter was wide open for a game winning shot (whether designed or not is debatable) and the obvious pass as not made. A play can "work" but still ultimately fail, in my opinion.
Logged
*

Foad

  • *****
  • 6065
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #114 on: January 25, 2015, 08:36:05 AM »
Quote from: SJUFAN on January 24, 2015, 02:41:33 PM
Quote from: Foad on January 24, 2015, 02:04:05 PM
In the first place, I don't know what discussion you're having, but I'm discussing whether the play "worked." The evidence that it didn't "work" is that the ball did not go in the basket. The evidence that it did is several nimrods talking about football. And in the second, you have no idea what play was designed, assuming there even was a play designed, which is unlikely, because we don't run plays. It could very well be that Phil Greene was stuck out on the three point line as a decoy, or that he was stuck out there so that he would not go near the ball, because he's awful.

Often when having discussions with simpletons, like yourself, who only exposure to organized sports as a youth was dodging bullies in fear of having your lunch money taken from you, one has to use analogies. The play worked, the result of the play, not so much. It's clear you do not see the difference. I'll leave it at that and you to your opinion.     

Mmmm, yes, I see. Because I am a simpleton who only exposure [sic] to sport did not include the exposure to sport afforded you in your illustrious playground sports career you were forced to use an analogy to make sports understandable to one such as I who does not understand sports, and the analogy you chose to use to explain sports was: sports. Doh! As is often the case when one of you dopes attempts condescension, you end up tripping over yourself. It never gets old.
Logged
*

TONYD3

  • *****
  • 5578
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #115 on: January 25, 2015, 11:19:03 AM »
He may have been bullied as a child, but now he is an Internet super villain THE FOAD! Don't mess with him don't you see who is in the picture next to his name.
Logged
*

bball purist

  • *****
  • 2842
    • Follow me on twitter @TerpsJohnnies
Re: @ DePaul 1/18
« Reply #116 on: January 25, 2015, 12:21:08 PM »
Quote from: TONYD3 on January 25, 2015, 11:19:03 AM
He may have been bullied as a child, but now he is an Internet super villain THE FOAD! Don't mess with him don't you see who is in the picture next to his name.
I don't know who is in the picture - I am too young.  But if I had to make an educated guess, sans sports analogy, by the look of all those guns pointed at a 20-something holding a flower, I'd guess it's a Kent State photo or Liam Gallagher trying to woo English police officers in Northern Ireland [written in best Foad imitation - a compliment btw]
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6   Go Up
« previous next »