(01-06-2020 12:03 PM)Tribe4SF Wrote:  Scott is shooting .516 on threes for the year. He's got my green light!

Wow. I didn't realize his numbers were up that high. My only complaint shooting wise was shot selection, but at 50% fire away.

This is certainly a bit of nitpicking on my part but I am a bit surprised by our defensive strategy with 1.1 seconds left in the game. Someone earlier commented that it was a bit surprising that we did not have Andy guarding the baseline to make it harder for the Northeastern kid to get the ball inbounds, and I agree. But I just went back and checked the second half statistics and we only had 5 team fouls in the second half. I know that there is an element of risk here but I would have closely guarded every player on the floor and, with respect to the guy in the back court, I would have seriously considered impeding his ability to catch the in bounds pass the second that the ball left the hands of the player throwing it in. I know that 70 feet is a long way to shoot a basketball but that kid got a clean look at the basket before releasing the shot. I do realize the risk with the foul, since fouling him before the ball reaches his hands results in no time coming off of the clock and having a new in bounds pass from a sideline spot and fouling as he catches the ball runs the risk of his recognizing the contact and attempting to heave a shot off as the ball touches his fingers.

(01-06-2020 12:16 PM)WMTRIBE75 Wrote:  This is certainly a bit of nitpicking on my part but I am a bit surprised by our defensive strategy with 1.1 seconds left in the game. Someone earlier commented that it was a bit surprising that we did not have Andy guarding the baseline to make it harder for the Northeastern kid to get the ball inbounds, and I agree. But I just went back and checked the second half statistics and we only had 5 team fouls in the second half. I know that there is an element of risk here but I would have closely guarded every player on the floor and, with respect to the guy in the back court, I would have seriously considered impeding his ability to catch the in bounds pass the second that the ball left the hands of the player throwing it in. I know that 70 feet is a long way to shoot a basketball but that kid got a clean look at the basket before releasing the shot. I do realize the risk with the foul, since fouling him before the ball reaches his hands results in no time coming off of the clock and having a new in bounds pass from a sideline spot and fouling as he catches the ball runs the risk of his recognizing the contact and attempting to heave a shot off as the ball touches his fingers.

We had very similar thoughts, posted at about the same time. Here is some back-and-forth from the "bracketology" thread.

(01-06-2020 01:13 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 12:49 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 12:39 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 07:27 AM)ColonelEbirt Wrote:  It’s interesting ... Dane’s philosophy (which I love) is to focus on ensuring we get better each and every day. If that happens, results will take care of themselves, but a Win/Loss is not the be all end all. Like after NE, he told the team that even if that last second heave had fallen and we had lost, it doesn’t change anything about what they did well/poorly in the game.

While not disagreeing with the general line of thought of this philosophy, I do disagree with the specifics of that last play at Northeastern. If the last shot had gone in and the Tribe had lost then that would have 100% been on Fischer and the coaching staff. If we had lost that way after an excellent all-game-long outing AT Northeastern then it could have been a morale killer for the rest of the year. It would have killed the stellar 3-0 road start to the CAA year (which never happens) and losing a road win against a preseason top team would have definitely hurt.

So, not only is Fischer's statement not quite true but it would have disguised the fact that the fault would have been his. They could have contested the inbounds pass. They could have guarded the shooter closer. They could have fouled the shooter before shooting (although dangerous because a good acting job by the shooter could have convinced an official that he was fouled in the act of shooting and then there would have been three free throws which could have lost the game). So there were a whole lot of things Fischer could have done to have avoided even the possibility of losing. As another poster pointed out, hopefully Fischer learns from this going forward.

I dunno. I get the idea of maybe putting a guy on the ball, but making the inbounds pass tough isn't the goal. The goal is to not give an easy look. Fouling may move the ball in for a set play and a chance at a better look. A 70 foot heave, even uncontested, is exactly what you want to give up. If he hits it, sure it sucks. You tip your cap, say great shot, but it doesn't define the game.

I think with only 1.1 seconds left, making the inbounds pass tough IS the goal. The harder it is the less good the pass will be; the less good it is then the harder the catch and shoot will be. I would agree with you if there were 5 or more seconds left but with only 1.1 seconds left the ideal scenario is that they do not even get off a decent shot (the shot by NE definitely WAS a decent shot -- too decent a shot).

(01-06-2020 01:16 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 12:16 PM)WMTRIBE75 Wrote:  This is certainly a bit of nitpicking on my part but I am a bit surprised by our defensive strategy with 1.1 seconds left in the game. Someone earlier commented that it was a bit surprising that we did not have Andy guarding the baseline to make it harder for the Northeastern kid to get the ball inbounds, and I agree. But I just went back and checked the second half statistics and we only had 5 team fouls in the second half. I know that there is an element of risk here but I would have closely guarded every player on the floor and, with respect to the guy in the back court, I would have seriously considered impeding his ability to catch the in bounds pass the second that the ball left the hands of the player throwing it in. I know that 70 feet is a long way to shoot a basketball but that kid got a clean look at the basket before releasing the shot. I do realize the risk with the foul, since fouling him before the ball reaches his hands results in no time coming off of the clock and having a new in bounds pass from a sideline spot and fouling as he catches the ball runs the risk of his recognizing the contact and attempting to heave a shot off as the ball touches his fingers.

We had very similar thoughts, posted at about the same time. Here is some back-and-forth from the "bracketology" thread.

(01-06-2020 01:13 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 12:49 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 12:39 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(01-06-2020 07:27 AM)ColonelEbirt Wrote:  It’s interesting ... Dane’s philosophy (which I love) is to focus on ensuring we get better each and every day. If that happens, results will take care of themselves, but a Win/Loss is not the be all end all. Like after NE, he told the team that even if that last second heave had fallen and we had lost, it doesn’t change anything about what they did well/poorly in the game.

While not disagreeing with the general line of thought of this philosophy, I do disagree with the specifics of that last play at Northeastern. If the last shot had gone in and the Tribe had lost then that would have 100% been on Fischer and the coaching staff. If we had lost that way after an excellent all-game-long outing AT Northeastern then it could have been a morale killer for the rest of the year. It would have killed the stellar 3-0 road start to the CAA year (which never happens) and losing a road win against a preseason top team would have definitely hurt.

So, not only is Fischer's statement not quite true but it would have disguised the fact that the fault would have been his. They could have contested the inbounds pass. They could have guarded the shooter closer. They could have fouled the shooter before shooting (although dangerous because a good acting job by the shooter could have convinced an official that he was fouled in the act of shooting and then there would have been three free throws which could have lost the game). So there were a whole lot of things Fischer could have done to have avoided even the possibility of losing. As another poster pointed out, hopefully Fischer learns from this going forward.

I dunno. I get the idea of maybe putting a guy on the ball, but making the inbounds pass tough isn't the goal. The goal is to not give an easy look. Fouling may move the ball in for a set play and a chance at a better look. A 70 foot heave, even uncontested, is exactly what you want to give up. If he hits it, sure it sucks. You tip your cap, say great shot, but it doesn't define the game.

I think with only 1.1 seconds left, making the inbounds pass tough IS the goal. The harder it is the less good the pass will be; the less good it is then the harder the catch and shoot will be. I would agree with you if there were 5 or more seconds left but with only 1.1 seconds left the ideal scenario is that they do not even get off a decent shot (the shot by NE definitely WAS a decent shot -- too decent a shot).

I agree. Making the inbounds pass as tough as possible is the goal. I was in the Richmond Coliseum in 2007 when the kid from Georgia State broke our heart. I was also there in 2008 during the miracle run when the VCU kid caught a 3/4 court pass and actually got a shot off that missed. And, of course, there was the Oliver Tot shot against ODU. I never breathe when one of those shots are in flight.

Kids, now, actually practice that 3/4 court shot, regularly. Mostly because of You Tube type videos of LeBron, James Hardin and others, making them in practice and making it look easy.

I didn't realize that we only had 5 fouls. At the time I puzzled that VanVliet was not on the ball and that the closest potential receiver was uncovered. With only 5 fouls, guarding the inbound with a big and contesting the pass would have seemed logical, imho.

(01-06-2020 03:22 PM)LeadBolt Wrote:  I didn't realize that we only had 5 fouls. At the time I puzzled that VanVliet was not on the ball and that the closest potential receiver was uncovered. With only 5 fouls, guarding the inbound with a big and contesting the pass would have seemed logical, imho.

Absolutely, you must guard the in-bound pass. Everyone remembers Hill to Laettner all those years ago.

I think you just have to be real smart if your strategy is to foul - you run the risk of Northeastern starting their shooting motion and giving them 3 BS free throws.

What would be Nate's NBA draft stock at this point? Late 1st or early 2nd? I have not seen any speculation yet, but NBA scouts seem to follow him.

I found one.

I envision him being a fringe 2nd round pick in this year’s draft and I believe, in the right system, he can find a long term home in the NBA if he can work on his defensive fundamentals and become reliable from deep. It’ll take time, but Nathan Knight is certainly a prospect that can outplay his value.

At the time, I thought someone should have been on the passer, also, but looking at the replay, we wanted to prevent them from attempting to get the ball pass halfcourt to Roland. Dane gave very specific instructions to player roles on the bench prior. Rather than a defender on the passer, we chose to double team Roland. We had four players guarding three Northeastern players past halfcourt with Hamilton, Loewe and Scott playing a matchup zone on Roland, in case of a pick. Nate and Luke ended up one on one with Boursiquot and Walters, respectively. Bolden looked for the open 3/4 pass first, but we had it well defended past halfcourt. We baited/forced them into their other option of a 1/4 length pass to Walker and a rushed shot 10 feet beyond halfcourt. Barnes position prevented Walker from getting a deeper open pass near halfcourt. With only 1.1 seconds left, double teaming Roland, and taking our chances on a shot beyond halfcourt was smart, regardless of how close that shot came. I'll default to Dane on this one. If they had come out with, both, Bolden and Roland downcourt for that 3/4 pass option, then Dane may have called a timeout to rethink our defense, since Bolden would have been just as much of a threat as Roland, to catch and shoot.

Did NE have any time outs left?

(01-06-2020 05:43 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  Did NE have any time outs left?

No. They used their last timeout after Nate scored.
Dane obviously got the Northeastern set that he expected, since we had a timeout available. Bolden had no option, but to put the ball in play when Roland wasn't open.

Still not a fan of not putting AVV on the inbounds pass but our setup would have been an egregious error if NE had a timeout remaining.

I would not have tried to use the foul because it relies too much on our players executing it correctly AND the officials calling it correctly.

It’s a good debate with no absolutely positively correct answer. Personally I think NE had a 20+% chance of making that shot.

I noticed in the Tribe Travels video posted on Youtube they flew out from Boston. Does the team usually do that? I thought the basketball team normally bused to and from conference games.

Flew to NY for Hofstra, bussed to Boston, flew home. Glad to see the lengthy bus rides have been stopped. A big factor in performance.

They have traveled about 14000 miles son far for road games.

To be 11-5 with twelve road games is remarkable.

(01-07-2020 04:40 PM)bubbadog57 Wrote:  They have traveled about 14000 miles son far for road games.

To be 11-5 with twelve road games is remarkable.

It is, indeed, remarkable. Hopefully the high mileage will make the spring academic semester feel like a walk in the park.

(01-07-2020 04:40 PM)bubbadog57 Wrote:  They have traveled about 14000 miles son far for road games.

To be 11-5 with twelve road games is remarkable.

Preparing for the NCAA....