PDA

View Full Version : GU-MSUB Analysis



BobZag
11-15-2008, 06:22 PM
If you heard Tommy Lloyd after the game, he summed up the game succinctly. The defense played "average", most of the 3-point shots were good, open looks. Just didn't fall. The team had a serious lapse the final three minutes of the first half and basically went on Snooze Control while letting a Stephen Curry wannabe put 14 staight, unanswered points on them.

That's unacceptible and the Zags know it.

The second half was better in every way, especially holding #22 to five points.

There is work to do. Lots of practice time, fixing things, and a game vs a D1 team before the Zags fly off to Orando to take on Oke State.

I'm eager to see improvements Tuesday evening.

What say y'all?

NorthWestZag
11-15-2008, 06:33 PM
Without one of either Pargo or Heytvelt on the floor, I get a little nervous. Especially with both of them off.

I expect when we play in Old Spice, Pargo has over 35 minutes every game. Heytvelt needs to step up with minutes too if Sacre is not back.

BobZag
11-15-2008, 06:45 PM
There were good things, don't get me wrong. Josh is back and Austin will polish his game fast after that long summer layoff but he's still doing good. Like Lloyd said, he has some habits that need breaking but nothing that can't be fixed. Pargo played very smartly, imo.

Kelly Olynyk sure is skinny...and tall. Brett Kingma was there, as was Guy-Marc Michel and another NIC kid.

Oh, one last comment: I think a TO by Few would've been a good thing when MSUB went on that first half run. Ben Howland would've called a TO after the first two shots were given up. Just an observation.

pbriz
11-15-2008, 07:08 PM
Offense: C-
The 3 pointers just weren't falling and yet were still being chucked up. Sorenson was the bright spot.

Defense: B
Pretty solid, especially in the interior. Some lapses tho.

Coaching: B-
Should have used a timeout during the first half stretch. Also, should have put a stop to the 3 point shots. Good plays out of timeouts tho.

4EVERaZAG
11-15-2008, 07:11 PM
BZ, Totally agree that a timeout should have been called during that MSUB run at the end of the first half. Basketball as we all know is a game of runs and when a team is hot the coach needs come in disrupt their momentum by calling a timeout...However we did come out in the 2nd half looking entirely different and with much more fire. So I'm sure he let them know he wasn't pleased at the half.

Radbooks
11-15-2008, 07:32 PM
This is from Jim Meehan's story (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/sportslink/archive/?postID=8708#more) on the Spokesman site:


Steven Gray was expecting to hear an earful in the locker room.

“No, it actually wasn’t nearly as much as I was expecting,” Gray said. “We had done a really solid job up until (the last 3 minutes), so we just said, ‘Stick to the game plan, that’s what got us the lead.’ We sort of deviated from that at the end of the half.”

In fact, head coach Mark Few chewed himself out a little bit.

“I thought we got off to a very good start,” he said. “The last five minutes, partly because I wanted to play everybody in the first half, we kind of had a bad zone lineup in there that ordinarily doesn’t play together. That’s my fault.

“But to (the Yellowjackets’) credit, they stepped up. The Hall kid really hit some big-time shots.”

Goshzagit
11-15-2008, 07:33 PM
Coaching: B-
Should have used a timeout during the first half stretch. Also, should have put a stop to the 3 point shots. Good plays out of timeouts tho.

Your grade for Coaching was extremely generous. We shouldn't let them entirely off the hook in this one. I understand its early and our Coaches are attempting to get everyone equal playing time while experimenting with different lineups, yet the Coaching decisions in the first half made no sense whatsoever. Any coach, player, and/or fan would tell you the same. There was absolutely no consistency and even the players appeared to be confused. Its one thing to experiment with your personnel in games like this, yet its another to have absolutely no direction in your gameplan; both on offense and defense. I'm expecting a major improvement in Few's in-game coaching. Overall, Few was out-coached by a DII coach and won't get away with the constant shuffling in the future. I'm hoping these decisions were due to our inferior opponent and not wanting to show his hand to future opponents. If so, then disregard what I'm saying. If not, then we're in trouble folks. :(

sanfranzagsguy20
11-15-2008, 07:35 PM
Hey Bob-
On this new TV package I have I get a lot of the FSN stations from around the country and one of them is FSN NW so I finally got to see an early season game. I'm looking forward to being able to watch the local FSN games throughout the year.
Anyway I agree with the timeout argument in the first half. That kid just kept pouring in bucket after bucket. I wonder if it was a pride thing with Coach Few? Like "We shouldn't need a recovery timeout against this team" type of thing? I'm not saying that is why he didn't call it but it's a thought. I think a timeout could have saved 5-6 pts from happening.
The thing I will take away from this game is the performance from Heytvelt. He had pretty solid numbers:15 points 8 rebounds and 3 blocks. But from a pure physical standpoint he looked a lot like he did in 2006-07. It was clear he was playing much more physically than he did in 2007-08 and he looked like he had his hops back.
I look for a full 20 minute first half from the Zags on Tuesday. I would say I would look for a full 40 minutes, but I anticipate the game being out of reach after about 30, especially if the Zags can step on the gas towards the end of the first half. I would like to see Bouldin take as many shots as Gray and Downs did. To me he is a rhythm shooter and the more shots he gets I think the better of he will do. Of course, we have seen him back off from open looks when his shot isn't falling early.
In the end though, I think there is no better barometer for our success than the way Bouldin plays. In the eight losses last season his point totals were 11, 0, 5, 21, 6, 11, 6, and 8. Additionally, his FG attempts in those games were 7, 9, 7, 16, 9, 9, 8, and 8. With the exception of one game, it was clear that in each loss he took under 10 shots and scored under 10 points in 5 of the 8 losses.
Tonight: 12 pts and 9 FG attempts. Keep in mind he sat for last 5 or so minutes in the blowout. He played 29 total. I'd like to see Matt take at least 10 shots on Tuesday and 11-13 during the Old Spice Classic. There might not be enough shots to go around for him to do that, but I'd be curious to see what he would do with them and what the results would be in the win/loss column.

Goshzagit
11-15-2008, 07:39 PM
Thanks for posting the Meehan article. We posted at the same time, so after reading the article and Few's post-game comments, I'm much more at ease with his coaching decisions during the game. He appears to be completely aware of his inexplicable lineups on offense and defense. Great news!

snebzag
11-15-2008, 07:47 PM
Very serious lapse at the end of the first half. That is why you schedule these early games. Not much time before the OSC. Work to be done.

I thought Josh and Jeremy looked ready for the competion to come. Micah needs to pump fake and get to the 8-10' range or closer. Matt was Matt. We'll see 15 a game. Steven is adjusting a bit, but will be ready. Austin's stats looked good, but his legs dont seem there yet. Came up short a few times and noticed he was late getting down early. Goodson showed the future, but made some freshman mistakes. Will didn't get enought minutes to comment on. Im leary of the redshirt decesions if Rob doesn't come back REAL healthy and ready. I think Andy could contribute in conference play. Could he redshirt his sophmore year, if he plays this season?

mendiant
11-15-2008, 08:22 PM
Shot % in the first half in the 40's...ouch.

Josh's one and only 3 point attempt was made...yipee...I hate it when he does that ;).

He was THE consistant player of the night, defensively and offensively...how many blocked shots???

Lots of PT for all. Enjoyed watching Goodson again. He is relentless and reminds many of us in my vacinity in the Mac of Q Hall.

Speaking of Hall...22 Hall from MSU was impressive and brought their team within 5 at the half.

Nice tribute to Emma Watson at the start of the evening. Jeremy laid some flowers in her chair and we had a moment of silence for the best Zag fan ever.

The bench had some serious style in the presence of Robert Sacre. He truly knows how to show up fine. NICE SUIT! Injured, but representing! The last time I saw that kind of style was the year end banquet Ronny's senior year.

Speaking of style...the mohawk thing is fun. I hope they keep it up throughout the year. But the real question is...can they get Matt Bouldin to go mohawk??? Josh, Micah and Jeremy seem commited to it...any other takers???:D

What happened to Stocktons' arm?

Looking forward to a great year.

love,
mendiant

MickMick
11-15-2008, 09:09 PM
Defense was good.

Turnovers....sheesh looks like last year again. You can't blame transition points on the defense when it is the offensive mistakes that are setting up the transition points.

Bright Spots?

Demetri Goodson, Josh Heytvelt.

But most of all, the Zags are pushing the ball. Running again.

Nevtelen
11-15-2008, 09:43 PM
Defense was good.

Turnovers....sheesh looks like last year again. You can't blame transition points on the defense when it is the offensive mistakes that are setting up the transition points.

Bright Spots?

Demetri Goodson, Josh Heytvelt.

But most of all, the Zags are pushing the ball. Running again.

I have to disagree about the TOs. There were too many in the first half, yes, but those were mainly not the guards (I'll have to watch again). Meech had 2 TOs, Bouldin had 1 and that was all. A third (4) were due to Daye shaking off the rust - hopefully that won't be an issue a couple games down the road. Overall, I thought that part of the game was great. Even against a D-II team, last year's squad would have most likely had 15 + TOs playing at that speed, esp early in the year. I was honestly impressed.

The transition was nice to see, I agree there. We might see some run outs like a couple of years ago when the team was really playing fast. Heytvelt really gets up and down. Whew.

Zag365
11-15-2008, 10:13 PM
This is why we play overmatched teams like MSUB. Everyone in our lineup got some minutes and the starters got a chance to work at game speed against a team playing aggressive "D." If we had shot a better percentage in the first half and not had some weak combinations at end of first half, this would have been a much bigger blowout. I don't see anything to worry about. Let's go hard at Idaho and then get this show on the road.

MickMick
11-15-2008, 10:37 PM
I have to disagree about the TOs. There were too many in the first half, yes, but those were mainly not the guards (I'll have to watch again). Meech had 2 TOs, Bouldin had 1 and that was all. A third (4) were due to Daye shaking off the rust - hopefully that won't be an issue a couple games down the road. Overall, I thought that part of the game was great. Even against a D-II team, last year's squad would have most likely had 15 + TOs playing at that speed, esp early in the year. I was honestly impressed.

The transition was nice to see, I agree there. We might see some run outs like a couple of years ago when the team was really playing fast. Heytvelt really gets up and down. Whew.

Don't want to knock your reasoning Nev but,

Zags had 10 turnovers in the first half. No coincidence that when the majority of those took place, Billings got back into the game.

Last year in every game the Zags lost, they had 16 or greater turnovers.

You can itemize each turnover today with a rationalization (rust, youth, etc.), but they are still a cumulative problem. A big problem.

If you recorded this, watch again. Watch the final 5 minutes of the first half. Count the turnovers during that 14-0 run by Billings. Those transition points got them directly back into the game.

JLGutrocks
11-15-2008, 10:41 PM
Shot % in the first half in the 40's...ouch.

Josh's one and only 3 point attempt was made...yipee...I hate it when he does that ;).

He was THE consistant player of the night, defensively and offensively...how many blocked shots???

Lots of PT for all. Enjoyed watching Goodson again. He is relentless and reminds many of us in my vacinity in the Mac of Q Hall.

Speaking of Hall...22 Hall from MSU was impressive and brought their team within 5 at the half.

Nice tribute to Emma Watson at the start of the evening. Jeremy laid some flowers in her chair and we had a moment of silence for the best Zag fan ever.

The bench had some serious style in the presence of Robert Sacre. He truly knows how to show up fine. NICE SUIT! Injured, but representing! The last time I saw that kind of style was the year end banquet Ronny's senior year.

Speaking of style...the mohawk thing is fun. I hope they keep it up throughout the year. But the real question is...can they get Matt Bouldin to go mohawk??? Josh, Micah and Jeremy seem commited to it...any other takers???:D

What happened to Stocktons' arm?

Looking forward to a great year.

love,
mendiant


It's a BroHawk and I think it's mostly Senoirs except (Uber) for GG who's sportin one as well.

MedZag
11-15-2008, 10:52 PM
Speaking of style...the mohawk thing is fun. I hope they keep it up throughout the year. But the real question is...can they get Matt Bouldin to go mohawk??? Josh, Micah and Jeremy seem commited to it...any other takers???:D

Seem to recall from a Meehan blog that Matty Boy "loves his hair too much." :D


Bright Spots?

Demetri Goodson, Josh Heytvelt.

But most of all, the Zags are pushing the ball. Running again.

Ditto. Loved the pace. MSUB had some speed on the team as well. Can't read too much into it, but it was good to see that sort of thoroughbred pace against a team that could at least run along in tandem.

asoc
11-15-2008, 11:02 PM
All Brohawks are mohawks, but not all mohawks are brohawks...

Brohawk is a mohawk on a black person.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=brohawk

Nevtelen
11-16-2008, 12:23 AM
Don't want to knock your reasoning Nev but,

Zags had 10 turnovers in the first half. No coincidence that when the majority of those took place, Billings got back into the game.

Last year in every game the Zags lost, they had 16 or greater turnovers.

You can itemize each turnover today with a rationalization (rust, youth, etc.), but they are still a cumulative problem. A big problem.

If you recorded this, watch again. Watch the final 5 minutes of the first half. Count the turnovers during that 14-0 run by Billings. Those transition points got them directly back into the game.

Yes. That's true. Frankly, the transition D got a little lazy at that stage, too. But the TOs were limited to a small section of the game and mostly to a couple of players. Pargo with 0 TOs? Bouldin with 1? Fantastic. The problem was quickly dealt with and the team came back out and did great. I would submit that last year's squad would have come back out and turned the ball over again a lot more. I just don't see it the way you do.

seasontixholder
11-16-2008, 02:31 AM
The underperformance behind the arc was due to bad technique again. The shooters are slightly rushing their shots, launching them while still having some lateral motion. It wasn't due to the lack of opportunity, or the necessity of hurrying them off against a great defender. Just bad technique. Rewind the video and compare to MSUB's #22 when he was stroking them. Night/day. If the shooter is landing too far from point of takeoff - especially sideways - the outcome drops off dramatically. Downs and Gray didn't look anything like Steve Kerr or Dan Dickau last night.

Disappointing again, considering the talent, and a repeat of the recent GU 3pt underperformance.

MickMick
11-16-2008, 02:48 AM
Yes. That's true. Frankly, the transition D got a little lazy at that stage, too. But the TOs were limited to a small section of the game and mostly to a couple of players. Pargo with 0 TOs? Bouldin with 1? Fantastic. The problem was quickly dealt with and the team came back out and did great. I would submit that last year's squad would have come back out and turned the ball over again a lot more. I just don't see it the way you do.


Sure the problem was confined to a small portion of the game, but against top teams they are a killer.

Want a good example?

Look at the Memphis game last year. Five minutes into the game, the Zags had a 10 point deficit. In the end, what did the Zags lose by?

Ten points.

In other words, the Zags played the team that came within a hair of winning the national championship dead even following a five minute lapse.

Those five minute lapses are unforgiving when you start talking about teams good enough to play in the final. That is what we are ultimately hoping for.

If you have this game recorded, watch the last five minutes of the first half again.


People are quick to blame the defense in that first half comeback. It is very difficult to play defense when you give the opponent transition opportunities. Watch the WSU Cougars. Besides getting back quickly on defense, they take very good care of the ball.

They know that if you work extremely hard on the defensive end, you defeat the purpose when you give the other team the ball that you worked so hard to regain. That is Bennet philosophy.

Goodson shined in a couple spots in that scenario. He got back quickly, stopped the transition and looked great doing it. But it is so much harder to play team defense when the opponent is sprinting the other way due to miscues by the Zag offense. Some of those miscues were bad shot selection as well. Quickly taking (and missing) a three point shot followed by allowing the opposing guards to gather long rebounds and hit the floor running. Although they are not technically called turnovers, bad shot selection is a turnover in my book.

Zags did play good defense. Check how many times Billings was rushed to make a shot or simply didn't get a shot off in time. It was the transition game where Billings made their comeback. Very few of their comeback points came from set plays of a half court offense. In that respect, the Zag defense was stifling.

NotoriousZ
11-16-2008, 06:15 AM
So we've got some things to work on. Thats fine, it's the first game of the season. We'll see some sloppy play against Idaho as well I'm sure. Anybody think we won't be ready by the Old Spice Classic?

I am 100 percent not worried. There were plenty of good things going on in that game. My favorite was the Meech-Pargo-Meech fast break. Teams are going to have a tough time matching up with all the different looks we can give them.

1 - 0. It begins...

ZaggyStardust
11-16-2008, 07:23 AM
For Gosh Sakes - it was the first game of the season!

I happen to think a game like that may give the guys some pause and force them to work on some corrections moreso than a 60 point blowout might! I'd much rather have weaknesses exposed in the first couple of games than in the OSC....

Loved Meech and Josh last night as well. It's going to be a fun year!

crazycanadian04
11-16-2008, 08:09 AM
Here is what I see: the Zags still only defend in spurts - they don't sustain defensive intensity over 40 minutes like the Cougs do. Second thing - the point about Few not taking timeouts to stop runs/correct lazy play is exactly correct. One segment like that is the difference in the games you have to win in March. For a big part of the game, Montana-Billings was able to run their offense, and if you look at their personnel vs the Zags' personnel, it should have been 40 minutes of complete chaos for them.

crazycanadian04
11-16-2008, 08:22 AM
Enough said!

gamagin
11-16-2008, 08:47 AM
The MSUB game is not a fair indicator of what we did right or wrong, imo, but there were glaring "issues" I think portend a crisis or opportunity for us this season.

And the first is management, from the coaches, of this wealth of talent. Whether its p.t. or mixing and matching, the way it is done, imo, will determine the way we wind up this season.

Our history has been to have 1-2 potential superstars. Now it is a matter of keeping the multiple stars and potential stars in synch and at attention so that we fill 40 minutes of basketball with 40 minutes of hell for the other guys.

Secondly, I don't think we have even begun to address the matter of the missing bangers underneath.

Without establishing the game (much like the pitcher having to throw more strikes is a given in a bb game, if we are to set the tone and pace for the rest of the contest) we need to establish our short game, or a short game, in order to give the outside shooters confidence to let loose.

The coalition of the willing, like AD & Micah and Ira either lack weight or height to become immovable objects underneath against any first rate challenge. JH so far, imo, is not going to play king of that hill. Or hasn't yet.

I don't think MSUB had two players taller than any 3-4 four of ours on the floor Sat. But even at that, they did a really good job of keeping our bigs, whoever they were at any given time, out of the middle at our end. consistently.

So I worry what happens when we get mugged by the nation's middle linebackers posing as basketball players ? feel free to venture a guess. Or suggest who is going to be our enforcer ?

Absent a dominant presence underneath, our tack should or could likely turn to run and gun, stingy, pressing defense and an emphasis on speed, wits and athleticism.

But one way or the other, we need, imo, to form some sort of game and lineup that can adjust to our apparent weakness on occasion if our strength, like getting and taking the open shot (and making a winning percentage of
them) doesn't pan out at times.

Which means, to me, if I'm playing GU in the WCC or beyond, I'm going to try and grind it out, establish my game underneath, denying them easy putbacks, and hope they blow cold from the outside.

And for us, we need to have enough of a game underneath to relax our outside shooters and let them fire away.

Against MSUB, the most disturbing for me to watch, over and over, was a Micah, or a Grey or any of our shooters, launch a three and back up instead of following their shots.

For after many of these shots that missed, there was absolutely not one GU player underneath to tap it back in or back to the shooter for a second attempt.

One and done is what you see at the end of a game, when the lead is big and there's a sort of celebratory effect of casting off. But I don't think it should ever be a bread and butter play.

Yet there it was against a game but weak opponent. Too often.

Reborn
11-16-2008, 09:04 AM
I finally got to see the '08-'09 Zags, and saw some really good things. The most important being that the Zags are much better than last year. MUCH. And that is what I was looking for. Josh is much better. He looks healthy once again. Meech is AWESOME!!!. I thought for his first game he was outstanding. He shut their very good shooter down in the 2nd half, and held him to 5 pts. And he showed quickness, speed and toughness. I love the way he pushes the ball up court ALL the time. And he's a pretty good passer, yet needs to continue to adjust to the speed of Div I speed. He also had some very good drives to the hoop as he scored 6 pts which I feel is excellent for a Freshman pt guard coming off the bench. I thought Austin Played outstanding. I see so much more maturity in him, and he is so tall, and just plays so smoothly. I love to watch him play. His shooting was off, and I suspect it will be for awhile. Be patient folks. He had like 12 Boards, and that is one stat I was looking for. And he showed his willingness to do that (Oh and by the way I think Josh had 8).

I am surprised that no one has said anything about Ira Brown. I thought he played great. He has every bit of the hustle and desire that Pendo showed, and a lot more athleticism. He too boarded with power and intensity. And he is a team player, which this team needs a little more of. Gray was really off but he played outstanding defense most of the time. He has a bad habit of running and over running shooters. Must break that habit.

I think our biggest problem with our poor shooting was a lack of patience. There was too much shooting after only one pass, and some taken without any passes. The key to doing better against a sagging zone is to move the ball and make the zone move. The shots were all open shots, but taken too early. I also think some of problem must be given to the 3 pt shot being moved back. That is going to be an adjustment for awhile. Its going to take some time to get used to it.

Overall things I really liked: Our hustle and much better defense. Pushing the ball up court more than we have in a couple years. Pushing the ball to me is Zag basketball. Its good to see it coming back. We went inside a lot and that is great. Josh stayed in the low blocks most of the time and that too was excellent (finally doing it). I just loved Josh's composed, confident look/presence. This is def the best Josh I've seen. Great rebounding. Sometimes great passing. When we play as a team we always do better than when we play as individuals. I thought Austin looked great. He scored 15 on a freezing shooting night. He also really plays as a team player and I love that about him. Josh too, made numerous good passes last night, which I don't think I've EVER seen him do.

One problem I saw with the shooting was balance. The shooters were floating too much to the side, and NOT going straight up. That needs to be corrected before bad habits develop. Go straight up guys. Get your feet set, and use your legs.

23dpg
11-16-2008, 09:11 AM
I think we're being way too hard on the coaches. If this was Memphis or UConn, they would have called a timeout.

I think the coaches were letting the players play through it...ala Phil Jackson.

Reborn
11-16-2008, 09:42 AM
I have to agree with 23 on this one. Back off the coaches a little bit hound dogs. :D Save it for later. Ha ha.

Some disagreement with my friend gamagin. I saw a pretty good inside presence. Austin 12 boards and 4 blocks. Josh 8 boards and 3 blocks (I thought he too had 4). Ira one block and 4 boards. I thought Ira looked great and has all the energy Pendo had, and is faster, quicker, more athletic and leaps higher. He has much better hands then Kuso ever dreamed of. And he's a better passer than Kuso. The inside passing was 100 times better than last year, imo. I also felt that Josh's presence down low was really killing our opponent. Thats one reason the outside shots were soooo open. They were double and tripple teaming Josh. Josh, overall, handled it well, and made some very good passes.

A little disagreement with Mick Mick on the passing. Passing was sloppy at times, especially at the end of the 1st half, as he pointed out. At one point we had 4 to's in a row. But overall, the WHOLE game I thought it was much better as some have pointed out, and especially with Pargo and Matt. I felt Josh and Austin passed very well too. The Zags are going to push the ball up the court more this year so there will be some turnovers there just because of the tempo. But last night our easy baskets that came from pushing the ball up court paid higher dividends then the errors (turnovers) that were made. You gotto love Josh's ability to run the floor.

kitzbuel
11-16-2008, 10:02 AM
The bulk of the inside presence that the Zags do have, Josh and Austin, went 9 for 9 from the line. Even if they don't dominate with strength and size, positioning and penetration is going to get them to the line where the damage is worse for the opponent; the give up points for PFs.

Frazzle
11-16-2008, 10:28 AM
I think we're being way too hard on the coaches. If this was Memphis or UConn, they would have called a timeout.

I think the coaches were letting the players play through it...ala Phil Jackson.

That is exactly what I thought. Allowing players to play through it (and learn from their mistakes) can pay dividends down the road against better competition.

Nevtelen
11-16-2008, 11:11 AM
Sure the problem was confined to a small portion of the game, but against top teams they are a killer.

Want a good example?

Look at the Memphis game last year. Five minutes into the game, the Zags had a 10 point deficit. In the end, what did the Zags lose by?

Ten points.

In other words, the Zags played the team that came within a hair of winning the national championship dead even following a five minute lapse.

Those five minute lapses are unforgiving when you start talking about teams good enough to play in the final. That is what we are ultimately hoping for.

If you have this game recorded, watch the last five minutes of the first half again.


People are quick to blame the defense in that first half comeback. It is very difficult to play defense when you give the opponent transition opportunities. Watch the WSU Cougars. Besides getting back quickly on defense, they take very good care of the ball.

They know that if you work extremely hard on the defensive end, you defeat the purpose when you give the other team the ball that you worked so hard to regain. That is Bennet philosophy.

Goodson shined in a couple spots in that scenario. He got back quickly, stopped the transition and looked great doing it. But it is so much harder to play team defense when the opponent is sprinting the other way due to miscues by the Zag offense. Some of those miscues were bad shot selection as well. Quickly taking (and missing) a three point shot followed by allowing the opposing guards to gather long rebounds and hit the floor running. Although they are not technically called turnovers, bad shot selection is a turnover in my book.

Zags did play good defense. Check how many times Billings was rushed to make a shot or simply didn't get a shot off in time. It was the transition game where Billings made their comeback. Very few of their comeback points came from set plays of a half court offense. In that respect, the Zag defense was stifling.

It's not like I'm saying that TOs are good or something. Of course they'll kill you against good competition. Nobody is arguing that. I'm just saying that I saw a big improvement from last year's squad and I don't think (granted, based on this one game) that the team is going to have the same kind or amount of TO problems that we saw last season. They're still bad, yes. And they do lead to easy transition buckets, no question. And we agree about the shot selection at times - as bad as a TO.

MDABE80
11-16-2008, 11:18 AM
Pargo = 7 pts, 10 assists and ZERO turns in 28 mins.
Meech=6 pts, 3 assists, 2 turns in 18 mins.

The PG's did a good job. The turns came elsewhere.....mostly in sloppy periods where ball control was just plain not there because of the out of control tempo. No doubt, Few should have just stopped it with a time out.

I thought the PG's did very well.....on the brighter side of things.

zaguarxj
11-17-2008, 09:31 AM
All Brohawks are mohawks, but not all mohawks are brohawks...


Micah and Josh have fauxhawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauxhawk).

ZagNative
11-17-2008, 10:13 AM
On the slightly off-topic of Josh's hair stylings, I think this image from the MSU-B game should be preserved for guboards posterity:


http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff232/ZagNative/Zags/Heytvelt/2008-11-15JoshHeytveltMSU-B2KREM.jpg

MickMick
11-17-2008, 11:13 AM
UCLA didn't dominate Miami (Ohio). Duke had a tough time with Rhode island. VMI offensively throttled Kentucky. Washington lost to Portland. These are among several examples of high profile teams getting tested.

The Zags are living up to my expectations. They are doing fine and if I seem critical, it is in the context of how they might fare against an elite team.

It is still a little early yet.

I was hoping that the experience on the team might show up a little better and in places it really did. Notably in the form of Jeremy Pargo.

I doubt they will be jacking up quick 3's against a team like Oklahoma State.

cjm720
11-17-2008, 11:26 AM
Great start to the season, Zags! I loved the enthusiasm and overall play. I'd like to see a change to the starting lineup, but not sure if it'll make that much of a difference when all is said and done.

GO ZAGS!!!

Once and Future Zag
11-17-2008, 11:36 AM
Micah and Josh have fauxhawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauxhawk).

Josh, at least, is shaved on the sides - real (but short) mohawk IMO.

LongIslandZagFan
11-17-2008, 11:48 AM
Micah and Josh have fauxhawks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauxhawk).

I beg to differ... Josh most assuredly is sporting a mohawk. No faux about it.

KSTATEZAG
11-17-2008, 11:59 AM
2 points:
1) Josh has a real mohawk (Micah looks like Kirilenko; kind of fauxhawky)
2) We were playing against a very tight zone--you can't...I repeat...can't get inside if the zone is executed correctly. So, it's not the end of the world. You beat a zone by making them pay in the corners. SG, MD, and Austin were off. Otherwise, we may have won by 50+ because there was no way they were coming out of the zone.
---Oh I learned a thing or two about basketball when I was at LCSC for a year. Pfeifer tought a class called "Fundamentals of Coaching Basketball". He talked alot about Few and the Flex...but my how he loved the 2-3. Not a real friendly guy but certainly had alot of knowledge.

former1dog
11-17-2008, 12:51 PM
No analysis on this one, I'll just give the team a letter grade of C-

UberZagFan
11-17-2008, 03:51 PM
As for the TO issue, there was only a 4 minute stretch where it "could have" made a difference -- the last 4 minutes of the second half where MSUB cut a 31-13 deficit to 33-28 at the half. In that time, Uber thinks there was one TO in that stretch that was "bad"--Uber is lookng at ESPN's play-by-play sheet that doesn't show TOs. AD had a charging foul--which is listed as a TO but Uber considers that a "good" TO unless the player is completely out of control which Daye wasn't.

In all, during that stretch there were 2 (maybe 3) bad possessions (i.e., quick and bad shots, TOs, etc.). The fact is that Hall got hot, extremely hot, and his teammates kept finding him to the tune of 3 threes and fouled on another & converted 3 FTs. If he just hits 50% of those shots, no one has this discussion.