Providence Game Discussion

paultzman

16981

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #180 on: March 02, 2013, 10:31:23 PM »

“@KieranDarcy: St. John's, sans D'Angelo Harrison, loses at Providence. No surprise. Likely loses out from here. NIT at best. Program at serious crossroad”

Logged

we are sju

5944

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #181 on: March 02, 2013, 10:31:59 PM »

Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:27:51 PM

Quote from: Chilleb on March 02, 2013, 10:23:35 PM
Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:09:21 PM
Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:06:50 PM
That's what happens when you don't run any kind of a set offense.

Absurd comment. It's what happens when you have nobody that can shoot on the court. Lavin's fault, he should have played Marco more. We had that game won. Just had our only shooter on the bench. Maddening.

Well he played Felix for his D on Cotton. Unfortunately Felix was constantly trailing him on picks and also lost him 2 othetr times. If you are going to play a guy for his D, fine but maybe the guy should be, you know a good defender. People pining for Marco just stop. Lavin, justified or not clearly does not trust him.
Funny you say that and I said it after last game guys calling for Marco to get yanked because of a defensive deficiency aren't being fair. I have seen Marco look like half the bad defender that people make him out to be , call it basketball profiling or whatever but coach has to wiser up.

Plenty of guys miss defensive assignments. If that wasn't so,the other team wouldn't score. We needed Marco for at least another 8 minutes down the stretch. Forgive my vulgarity, but we had coke dick out there. We had the effort, defense, and ran solid offense. Just nobody to shoot.

I was actually agreeing with you for once and then you disgreed with your own original point. Personally I would have played Marco. Lavin went with Felix instead for his D. Unfortunately he is not a great defender either which makes Lavin's choice even more questionable.

Logged

96 Schermerhorn Street

840

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #182 on: March 02, 2013, 10:32:17 PM »

Quote from: section3 on March 02, 2013, 10:14:29 PM

Quote from: Chilleb on March 02, 2013, 10:11:54 PM
Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:10:12 PM
Quote from: Chilleb on March 02, 2013, 10:07:53 PM
Selfish, by Jakarr at the end
he's our go-to player...are you nuts?

I would have suggested a timeout after the FT miss, but it probably wouldn't have mattered. We are terrible coming out of timeouts.
How many 3's has he hit this year are you nuts? He had Jamal wide open in the corner second game he has done that this season. He's our best player by far but that's no excuse for not swinging the rock to a wide open shooter in the corner,

I'm a big Branch fan but he wasn't lighting it up tonight...we needed the ball in Branch's hands with Borgault in the game

+1

Logged

kred

12

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #183 on: March 02, 2013, 10:32:39 PM »

It was Sampsons shot to take but not getting a good setup Coach should've called a timeout. Although as someone said we are terrible at running set plays.

Logged

MCNPA

5975

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #184 on: March 02, 2013, 10:33:21 PM »

Quote from: room112 on March 02, 2013, 10:28:42 PM

Quote from: paultzman on March 02, 2013, 10:12:51 PM
36% FG
9% 3 PT %
57% FT

Read it and weep. we are one of the most offensively challenged teams I have ever seen. Looking forward to hearing Phil's other things he did well. Wheels off!

Exactly. Sure, Lavin isn't the best in game coach, but this game should have been ours. With Branch back, is there any reason for Phil Greene to still be playing? He's seriously hurting the team right now.

I don't think Lavin has been nearly as bad of a game coach as he has been criticized for. Today thought is a different story. The sad part of it is that for the most part, the coaching was quite good today. Mixed up 1-3-1, 2-3 and man defense. We ran solid offense. Lavin's singular coaching failure today was playing Greene too much and Marco too little. Simple mistake like that IMO cost us the game.

Logged

section3

809

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #185 on: March 02, 2013, 10:34:05 PM »

Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:27:14 PM

Quote from: section3 on March 02, 2013, 10:20:24 PM
Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:09:21 PM
Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:06:50 PM
That's what happens when you don't run any kind of a set offense.

Absurd comment. It's what happens when you have nobody that can shoot on the court. Lavin's fault, he should have played Marco more. We had that game won. Just had our only shooter on the bench. Maddening.

Well he played Felix for his D on Cotton. Unfortunately Felix was constantly trailing him on picks and also lost him 2 othetr times. If you are going to play a guy for his D, fine but maybe the guy should be, you know a good defender. People pining for Marco just stop. Lavin, justified or not clearly does not trust him.
I think Balamou played good defense...he was on Cotton but only so much he was gonna do with all the screens they were setting...certainly a better defender than Greene

If you watch the replays of some of Cotton's threes at the end on all the screens Balamou was trailing him by a couple steps going to the screen. If you are trailing by that much there is no way to defend it. Raymond Felton has that problem on the Knicks. Of course that is becuase every PG in NBA is 2 steps quicker than him. Felix also has a tendency to turn his head on D. Not good if you are guarding the other teams best player. Who are you looking to help? You are the guy that needs help.

Yep. Freshmen mistakes but I think he has high potential and I would rather see him guarding Cotton than Greene

Logged

guinness77

54

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #186 on: March 02, 2013, 10:34:26 PM »

Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:21:57 PM

Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:13:05 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:09:21 PM
You're not watching. We set screens all game long. We have nobody that can shoot off of them with D'Angelo suspended and Marco on the bench. We actually ran good offense. We played with energy. Only thing we were missing was shooting and we blow them out.....
we didn't set any screens the last couple times down the court. I think we're pretty much in agreement about the Bourgault thing, and that's all that really matters. Its really kind of ridiculous he didn't play at all down the stretch.

Logged

B-Squared

317

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #187 on: March 02, 2013, 10:34:44 PM »

Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:31:59 PM

Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:27:51 PM
Quote from: Chilleb on March 02, 2013, 10:23:35 PM
Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:09:21 PM
Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:06:50 PM
That's what happens when you don't run any kind of a set offense.

Absurd comment. It's what happens when you have nobody that can shoot on the court. Lavin's fault, he should have played Marco more. We had that game won. Just had our only shooter on the bench. Maddening.

Well he played Felix for his D on Cotton. Unfortunately Felix was constantly trailing him on picks and also lost him 2 othetr times. If you are going to play a guy for his D, fine but maybe the guy should be, you know a good defender. People pining for Marco just stop. Lavin, justified or not clearly does not trust him.
Funny you say that and I said it after last game guys calling for Marco to get yanked because of a defensive deficiency aren't being fair. I have seen Marco look like half the bad defender that people make him out to be , call it basketball profiling or whatever but coach has to wiser up.

Plenty of guys miss defensive assignments. If that wasn't so,the other team wouldn't score. We needed Marco for at least another 8 minutes down the stretch. Forgive my vulgarity, but we had coke dick out there. We had the effort, defense, and ran solid offense. Just nobody to shoot.

I was actually agreeing with you for once and then you disgreed with your own original point. Personally I would have played Marco. Lavin went with Felix instead for his D. Unfortunately he is not a great defender either which makes Lavin's choice even more questionable.

More Felix, more Marco, less Greene. Give it a try and see how it works. Phil isnt getting it done, his layup shooting percentage isnt even up to snuff. WHen Branch went down that was thrown out the window tonight but with a game up against ND Marco wont get killed with Athleticism when he's on D.

Logged

STJ11Redmen

1999

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #188 on: March 02, 2013, 10:34:58 PM »

On the positive side, Sir'Dom as usual stepped up big time down the stretch nailing a clutch 3 and providing a spark. Jakarr also made some clutch baskets and started excelling when he was going to the basket more as opposed to taking silly turnaround jumpers.

Logged

MCNPA

5975

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #189 on: March 02, 2013, 10:36:14 PM »

Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:31:59 PM

Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:27:51 PM
Quote from: Chilleb on March 02, 2013, 10:23:35 PM
Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:09:21 PM
Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:06:50 PM
That's what happens when you don't run any kind of a set offense.

Absurd comment. It's what happens when you have nobody that can shoot on the court. Lavin's fault, he should have played Marco more. We had that game won. Just had our only shooter on the bench. Maddening.

Well he played Felix for his D on Cotton. Unfortunately Felix was constantly trailing him on picks and also lost him 2 othetr times. If you are going to play a guy for his D, fine but maybe the guy should be, you know a good defender. People pining for Marco just stop. Lavin, justified or not clearly does not trust him.
Funny you say that and I said it after last game guys calling for Marco to get yanked because of a defensive deficiency aren't being fair. I have seen Marco look like half the bad defender that people make him out to be , call it basketball profiling or whatever but coach has to wiser up.

Plenty of guys miss defensive assignments. If that wasn't so,the other team wouldn't score. We needed Marco for at least another 8 minutes down the stretch. Forgive my vulgarity, but we had coke dick out there. We had the effort, defense, and ran solid offense. Just nobody to shoot.

I was actually agreeing with you for once and then you disgreed with your own original point. Personally I would have played Marco. Lavin went with Felix instead for his D. Unfortunately he is not a great defender either which makes Lavin's choice even more questionable.

Which part did I disagree with? Thought Balamou harassed Cotton a lot for the most part. Had some "missed assignments" too, but played hard and well overall. I would have liked a mix of Felix's D and Marco's O instead of just Greene and Balamou's anti-offense.

Logged

we are sju

5944

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #190 on: March 02, 2013, 10:36:25 PM »

Quote from: section3 on March 02, 2013, 10:34:05 PM

Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:27:14 PM
Quote from: section3 on March 02, 2013, 10:20:24 PM
Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:09:21 PM
Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:06:50 PM
That's what happens when you don't run any kind of a set offense.

Absurd comment. It's what happens when you have nobody that can shoot on the court. Lavin's fault, he should have played Marco more. We had that game won. Just had our only shooter on the bench. Maddening.

Well he played Felix for his D on Cotton. Unfortunately Felix was constantly trailing him on picks and also lost him 2 othetr times. If you are going to play a guy for his D, fine but maybe the guy should be, you know a good defender. People pining for Marco just stop. Lavin, justified or not clearly does not trust him.
I think Balamou played good defense...he was on Cotton but only so much he was gonna do with all the screens they were setting...certainly a better defender than Greene

If you watch the replays of some of Cotton's threes at the end on all the screens Balamou was trailing him by a couple steps going to the screen. If you are trailing by that much there is no way to defend it. Raymond Felton has that problem on the Knicks. Of course that is becuase every PG in NBA is 2 steps quicker than him. Felix also has a tendency to turn his head on D. Not good if you are guarding the other teams best player. Who are you looking to help? You are the guy that needs help.
Yep. Freshmen mistakes but I think he has high potential and I would rather see him guarding Cotton than Greene

You could have put Pointer on him. personally I think Pointer's D is overated but if you are going to play some one for one purpose, he has to do a better job at it. Felix probably has the athleticism to be a good defender but he make stupid mistakes.

Logged

paultzman

16981

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #191 on: March 02, 2013, 10:36:36 PM »

“@Kieran_Lynch: "Wasn't the knee, but he definitely had a bad cramp...I don't think it will be a long term issue." Lavin on Branch. #stjbb”

Logged

simplyred

3410

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #192 on: March 02, 2013, 10:37:27 PM »

Btw, there was a defender near Branch on that last shot. I have no problem with Sampson's shot.

Logged

we are sju

5944

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #193 on: March 02, 2013, 10:37:54 PM »

Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:36:14 PM

Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:31:59 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:27:51 PM
Quote from: Chilleb on March 02, 2013, 10:23:35 PM
Quote from: we are sju on March 02, 2013, 10:17:31 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:09:21 PM
Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:06:50 PM
That's what happens when you don't run any kind of a set offense.

Absurd comment. It's what happens when you have nobody that can shoot on the court. Lavin's fault, he should have played Marco more. We had that game won. Just had our only shooter on the bench. Maddening.

Well he played Felix for his D on Cotton. Unfortunately Felix was constantly trailing him on picks and also lost him 2 othetr times. If you are going to play a guy for his D, fine but maybe the guy should be, you know a good defender. People pining for Marco just stop. Lavin, justified or not clearly does not trust him.
Funny you say that and I said it after last game guys calling for Marco to get yanked because of a defensive deficiency aren't being fair. I have seen Marco look like half the bad defender that people make him out to be , call it basketball profiling or whatever but coach has to wiser up.

Plenty of guys miss defensive assignments. If that wasn't so,the other team wouldn't score. We needed Marco for at least another 8 minutes down the stretch. Forgive my vulgarity, but we had coke dick out there. We had the effort, defense, and ran solid offense. Just nobody to shoot.

I was actually agreeing with you for once and then you disgreed with your own original point. Personally I would have played Marco. Lavin went with Felix instead for his D. Unfortunately he is not a great defender either which makes Lavin's choice even more questionable.

Which part did I disagree with? Thought Balamou harassed Cotton a lot for the most part. Had some "missed assignments" too, but played hard and well overall. I would have liked a mix of Felix's D and Marco's O instead of just Greene and Balamou's anti-offense.

If you were going to play Marco it would have been for Felix. Honestly if Lavin doesn't play Marco this game when would he?

Logged

section3

809

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #194 on: March 02, 2013, 10:39:50 PM »

Funny how these analysts (Ron Perry tonight) are supposed to deliver insight and knowledge as part of their commentary...he repeatedly extolled the virtues of Phil Greene's prowess as a point guard...not only has he not been a good point but he wasnt playing the position for most of the night...comical

Logged

we are sju

5944

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #195 on: March 02, 2013, 10:39:59 PM »

Quote from: simplyred on March 02, 2013, 10:37:27 PM

Btw, there was a defender near Branch on that last shot. I have no problem with Sampson's shot.

Branch is clearly not 100% yet. Again if you can't find Bourgault minutes this game with a less than 10% Branch, Greene shooting worse than normal(man is that saying a lot) and no Harrison, well don't see many minutes in his future.

Logged

room112

39

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #196 on: March 02, 2013, 10:40:25 PM »

Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:33:21 PM

Quote from: room112 on March 02, 2013, 10:28:42 PM
Quote from: paultzman on March 02, 2013, 10:12:51 PM
36% FG
9% 3 PT %
57% FT

Read it and weep. we are one of the most offensively challenged teams I have ever seen. Looking forward to hearing Phil's other things he did well. Wheels off!

Exactly. Sure, Lavin isn't the best in game coach, but this game should have been ours. With Branch back, is there any reason for Phil Greene to still be playing? He's seriously hurting the team right now.

I don't think Lavin has been nearly as bad of a game coach as he has been criticized for. Today thought is a different story. The sad part of it is that for the most part, the coaching was quite good today. Mixed up 1-3-1, 2-3 and man defense. We ran solid offense. Lavin's singular coaching failure today was playing Greene too much and Marco too little. Simple mistake like that IMO cost us the game.

Even the box and one he threw out there to counteract Cotton was a good move. Yes, it's disgusting how poorly Phil Greene has shot from the field this year and has still been allowed to take so many shots, but even with limited time, Bourgault is shooting 37% this year, 0-2 this game, and it's not like he's mr. reliable. Of course he's the better option, but it's no given he would have done any better.

Logged

Linda Mirabella

456

Re: Providence Game Discussion

« Reply #197 on: March 02, 2013, 10:40:34 PM »

Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:21:57 PM

Quote from: guinness77 on March 02, 2013, 10:13:05 PM
Quote from: MCNPA on March 02, 2013, 10:09:21 PM

Absurd comment. It's what happens when you have nobody that can shoot on the court. Lavin's fault, he should have played Marco more. We had that game won. Just had our only shooter on the bench. Maddening.
it would be absurd, but considering I said if was atrocious that Marco wasn't on the floor like 15 minutes ago, no, not really that absurd. We don't run screens. Period.

You're not watching. We set screens all game long. We have nobody that can shoot off of them with D'Angelo suspended and Marco on the bench. We actually ran good offense. We played with energy. Only thing we were missing was shooting and we blow them out. Instead we lose, because despite running our offense better than we have run it in a long time, we have nobody on the court that can make a shot outside of jakarr,

I have stayed off this site for some time cause I was accused by some idiots of only showing up after a loss. Well even though this was a loss, I had to come on to say that I have not enjoyed watching a game more then this one all season. These kids payed their butts off, played well offensively and were coached well also. Agree with MCNPA that the offense was fine, we got allot if open looks but just couldn't make shots. It took a 4 point shot by Cotton and unfortunately missed free throws by CO to lose this game.

Anyway, ths is the best this team has looked all year. I wonder who was missing?? Just think how good this team would be, guys like Balamou and Branch, if DLo was not in the picture at all. Whether you are a Harrison supporter or not, and you know the game of asketball, you have to acknowledge the teams better all aound TEAM play with his absence.

I am extremely proud of these kids who showed allot of heart and never quit.

Logged