Our first loss to Miami was a heart breaker. Tuesday's loss was never in doubt once Miami took an early lead. A little surge at the start of the second half narrowed the deficit, but Miami killed the momentum with some tough 3s. The Hurricanes are playing good basketball and will always cause problems for us with their size, but that doesn't excuse the poor play. We seemed real tentative on offense and over passed many times. Here are my other thoughts:
Likes
-- The first half Defense. We weren't down in the first 20 minutes simply because Miami overpowered us (see first dislike). Instead we played good defense and with intensity. And the guys guarding their big men moved well and didn't just hack away.
-- Anderson's ability to score close. He had some nice moves inside against Miami's giants. In fact his wide open mid-range shots on the pick and pop were the problem.
Dislikes
-- Hesitation and timidness on offense. Time and again our guys would pass decent looks. Too often that "extra" pass led to nothing. We wasted time and forced some bad shots towards the end of the shot clock.
-- Odio taking 3s. The other team's are forcing the issue by leaving him open, but I would prefer he play closer to the basket and grab more boards.
-- Rahon's night. This happens to freshmen. But Hanlon over came a cold shooting night by getting better shots close to the basket. Rahon stopped looking for his shot.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
dislikes: lack of size and zero plan to remedy it.
seriously, what is the coaching staff going to do? Clifford has an arthritic knee and basically a bum leg. whether he'll ever be able to play 20 minutes a night over the next 2 years is up in the air. tonight, he only played 5. who knows what is in store for him, but penciling him for any substantive contribution is a huge risk.
Van Nest is at least tall, but he's not really a traditional big. and he's gone after this year.
we have, as far as i can tell, no real interest in any size. all of the players we look at are either 6'6 or guards. tonight we were outrebounded by 12 and were just so inferior physically.
as of righ now, our team next year is the current one minus van nest plus a 6'6 ND transfer (who averaged 6.5 ppg as a sophomore) and a 6'5 shooting guard. i just don't understand how we can basically disregard having size, this is a contact sport and basketball -- you cant teach size!
Donahue also apparently can't teach FT shooting, we hit 5 of 10 from the line today and it continues to be a weakness, which is laughable considering this is a team full of "shooters".
haven't felt this bad about our basketball team in a while, but i just do not see the light at the end of the tunnel right now.
EL MIZ, you're not the only one who sees no light at the end of the tunnel. This team is an unmitigated disaster. They are soft, have no inside presence on either end of the floor, and have little to no interest in mixing it up with anyone. It all comes down to the type of kid Donahue likes to recruit. Small, suburban, preppy, 3-point shooters ... sounds like an Ivy league team, doesn't it? Interesting. As long as he is here, the identity of this team will not change.
I really don't get the whole Odio thing. If he beefed up he could maybe be a decent 3 backing his defender down and using that baby hook but there's zero excuse having him spot up for three--or be directly under the basket getting pushed around.
I'm not the biggest KC Caudill fan out there and don't know if he's injured or not, but after the bigs were shoving our guys around last night I didn't understand why he wouldn't get some PT. Clifford when healthy is surprisingly athletic but he would have gotten pushed around under the rim last night regardless of health. We needed some beef, some size to compete last night and just didn't have it.
This is grim - and so is the future with no big guys coming in.
What's going on in Donahue's mind?
Invest in his 401K wisely, because he's gone after next year?
I know we beat them this year, but I would gladly switch programs with Providence at this point. Ed Cooley is a superior recruiter, and the team plays with a more physical style that is probably better suited for a conference like the ACC. More importantly, their play has actually IMPROVED during conference play.
My point: we hired the wrong guy
I'm struggling with the Donahue decision. Back in Oct/Nov, I was thinking we should give him one more year to show that the program is going in the right direction, but upon reflection of the Spaz situation, I'm thinking perhaps one more year of hoping for a turnaround is one more year wasted.
And just like with the football program, how much of our lack of success is the coach and how much is the administration not sufficiently funding revenue sports like peer schools? (see Standford article in Forbes)?
Post a Comment