Villanova game thread

We beat Cinci.

Look at Lav's track record at UCLA.

Loses games he's not suppose to, then wins games he's not suppose to --- often on the road.

Choz - we disagree on something once in a while but I rarely question your "basketball thoughs" but because they are usually VERY good.

Cincy is going to smoke us

While it seems to flow better when Jamal is in the game the plus minus from yesterday tells a different story.  1 game however especially with crazy FT's at the end can skew things however.

http://statsheet.com/mcb/games/2013/01/02/st-johns-86-villanova-98/plus_minus

Branch is a offensive threat on a team that does not have many. After one and a half games he doesn't look like a true point, but compared to Phil Greene he might as well be Chris Paul. If you had two rebounders up front I would love the three guard lineup as long as Greene is never allowed to play the point again. At least not at the end of the shot clock. I think Dom /Amir has to be on the court as they are two of our best rebounders.

Lol Tony D. Sad but true

- someone mentioned Branch's T being a big moment - just not true, esepcially since we had a 3pt lead with under ywo minutes to play.

Than the Himalayans aren't a big mountain range either.

We were in the midst of an 8 point run.  Nova hadn't scored a point in 2+ minutes and D'lo just hit a not your garden variety three that would have had us pressing with purpose.  8 straight easy points for them ensued and our half-time lead turns into a demoralizing half-time lead for them.  One of the dumbest T's I've seen.

Two straight losses in which the end of the 1st half went badly.

P.S.  Amir didn't really foul the 3 point shooter on that critical foul late. Yes, he commited the cardinal sin of leaving your feet and flying out at the shooter but showed excellent body control to avoid him.  Ref anticipated contact that wasn't there.

Greene is a solid player, he's just out of position.  Once Branch is up to speed, it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep a three guard lineup out there with him, Harrison, and Greene.

I feel bad for Phil because everybody is jumping on him.  The fact is he's playing his heart out, he just doesn't have the handle to be a starting PG at this level.  Needs to play the SG/SF spot and spell Harrison when he needs rest.

Greene is a solid player, he's just out of position.  Once Branch is up to speed, it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep a three guard lineup out there with him, Harrison, and Greene.

I feel bad for Phil because everybody is jumping on him.  The fact is he's playing his heart out, he just doesn't have the handle to be a starting PG at this level.  Needs to play the SG/SF spot and spell Harrison when he needs rest.

Everyone is jumping on Phil?  I see more people defending Phil and jumping on Branch because he's flashy, turnover prone and he barely touch Archopodumus who did his best Emmy award winning performance.

Stevie Wonder can see when Phil is in the game is taking the air out of the ball for 28 seconds.

It is not Phil's handle, other than it being sloppy at times. He just has no idea what to do at the point. You can actually see him thinking what to do. He has that "I don't know whether to shit or go blind" look out there. You know the same look Lavin had diagraming that play for Phil to dribble around and then go backwards while Harrison stood in the corner play.

-33 in an overtime game + the ridiculous T is a disastrous effort.  Ever hear the one about the backup quarterback on a losing team?

And you guys are wondering why Hollywood didn't play him more???

Quote from: DoodyNY33 on January 03, 2013, 09:31:16 AM

Greene is a solid player, he's just out of position.  Once Branch is up to speed, it wouldn't be a bad idea to keep a three guard lineup out there with him, Harrison, and Greene.

I feel bad for Phil because everybody is jumping on him.  The fact is he's playing his heart out, he just doesn't have the handle to be a starting PG at this level.  Needs to play the SG/SF spot and spell Harrison when he needs rest.

Everyone is jumping on Phil?  I see more people defending Phil and jumping on Branch because he's flashy, turnover prone and he barely touch Archopodumus who did his best Emmy award winning performance.

Stevie Wonder can see when Phil is in the game is taking the air out of the ball for 28 seconds.

The people who are defending Phil as a point guard do not understand basketball. He is a terrible point guard. Not below average, but terrible. Geno was better. Much better.

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 03, 2013, 09:32:18 AM

-33 in an overtime game + the ridiculous T is a disastrous effort.  Ever hear the one about the backup quarterback on a losing team?

And you guys are wondering why Hollywood didn't play him more???

Well for starters lets take away the whole -12 in OT.  That was a wash for everyone.  Nobody could have had any confidence in us winning that game in OT with the whole team having 4 fouls it seemed.

-21 then still seems like a lot.  Of course the next biggest chunk was -10 to end the 1st half.  I dont think anyone here has bad eyesight but its clear the offense moves better with Branch in the game.  Which is why these numbers are all the more head scratching.

The people who are defending Phil as a point guard do not understand basketball. He is a terrible point guard. Not below average, but terrible. Geno was better. Much better.


UH oh Choz. Someone else played the Geno is a better point card.

In fairness if you told Phil to slowly dribble around for 30 seconds than heave up a three he could do that w/o looking so confused.

We will be a much better team with Branch once he gets up to speed.  I have no doubt.  Kid will be quite good with more time at this level

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 03, 2013, 09:36:27 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 03, 2013, 09:32:18 AM

-33 in an overtime game + the ridiculous T is a disastrous effort.  Ever hear the one about the backup quarterback on a losing team?

And you guys are wondering why Hollywood didn't play him more???

Well for starters lets take away the whole -12 in OT.  That was a wash for everyone.  Nobody could have had any confidence in us winning that game in OT with the whole team having 4 fouls it seemed.

-21 then still seems like a lot.  Of course the next biggest chunk was -10 to end the 1st half.  I dont think anyone here has bad eyesight but its clear the offense moves better with Branch in the game.  Which is why these numbers are all the more head scratching.

He had the worst +/- on the team by far.  Spin it anyway you'ld like.

Quote from: Moose on January 03, 2013, 09:39:48 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 03, 2013, 09:36:27 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 03, 2013, 09:32:18 AM

-33 in an overtime game + the ridiculous T is a disastrous effort.  Ever hear the one about the backup quarterback on a losing team?

And you guys are wondering why Hollywood didn't play him more???

Well for starters lets take away the whole -12 in OT.  That was a wash for everyone.  Nobody could have had any confidence in us winning that game in OT with the whole team having 4 fouls it seemed.

-21 then still seems like a lot.  Of course the next biggest chunk was -10 to end the 1st half.  I dont think anyone here has bad eyesight but its clear the offense moves better with Branch in the game.  Which is why these numbers are all the more head scratching.

He had the worst +/- on the team by far.  Spin it anyway you'ld like.

Not spinning it.  Just putting the game in perspective.  Its personal opinion and personally I'd rather have Branch in the game with the ball in his hands than Phil.  He played less minutes.  Shot the ball better and pretty much had identical A to TO.

Greene is a good basketball player. Unfortunately his best position is also our best players position. Just becuase someone has an ok handle does not make him a point guard. This has been proven time and again. It is really not Phil's fault and really wasn't Lavin's fault until recently becuase he had no one else. Starting now it will be Lavin's fault as I would rather Harrison play the point than Phil if Branch is not in the game.

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 03, 2013, 09:41:40 AM

Quote from: Moose on January 03, 2013, 09:39:48 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 03, 2013, 09:36:27 AM

Quote from: carmineabbatiello on January 03, 2013, 09:32:18 AM

-33 in an overtime game + the ridiculous T is a disastrous effort.  Ever hear the one about the backup quarterback on a losing team?

And you guys are wondering why Hollywood didn't play him more???

Well for starters lets take away the whole -12 in OT.  That was a wash for everyone.  Nobody could have had any confidence in us winning that game in OT with the whole team having 4 fouls it seemed.

-21 then still seems like a lot.  Of course the next biggest chunk was -10 to end the 1st half.  I dont think anyone here has bad eyesight but its clear the offense moves better with Branch in the game.  Which is why these numbers are all the more head scratching.

He had the worst +/- on the team by far.  Spin it anyway you'ld like.

Not spinning it.  Just putting the game in perspective.  Its personal opinion and personally I'd rather have Branch in the game with the ball in his hands than Phil.  He played less minutes.  Shot the ball better and pretty much had identical A to TO.

Branch gets to the rim, can shoot a bit but mainly he moves the ball better with better vision.  He needs time and seasoning at this level, but he's a much better Pg than Phil and Phil looks a ton better when he's playing off guard. 

Another thing I'll add.  How does a guy like Arcidiacono shoot almost 20 free throws and never actually drive to the basket to draw them?  Kid didn't drive to the basket at all.  We had to back off him because the refs called it like it was their son out there.

Another thing I'll add.  How does a guy like Arcidiacono shoot almost 20 free throws and never actually drive to the basket to draw them?  Kid didn't drive to the basket at all.  We had to back off him because the refs called it like it was their son out there.

Yeah people were posting before the game about his PG skills.  Kid didn't look like a PG at all to me.

Quote from: MCNPA on January 03, 2013, 10:33:35 AM

Another thing I'll add.  How does a guy like Arcidiacono shoot almost 20 free throws and never actually drive to the basket to draw them?  Kid didn't drive to the basket at all.  We had to back off him because the refs called it like it was their son out there.

Yeah people were posting before the game about his PG skills.  Kid didn't look like a PG at all to me.

I didn't see great pg skills from him either.  But, in the end, does it even matter?   
Yet another lead guard burnt us for a big game.   That's becoming a really annoying trend.
I'm not happy that Pinkston had a big game, but I can understand it - we had mismatches down low.
But this trend of giving up huge games to opposing point guards has got to stop.