PDA

View Full Version : Well, Wichita State lost. So I guess we choked.



kclubfounder
04-06-2013, 04:40 PM
:vomit-smiley-007:

BJZags
04-06-2013, 04:43 PM
Right or wrong, that's what anyone in a football conference would say.

willandi
04-06-2013, 05:00 PM
30% from 3. Did they miss open shots or were they contested? Didn't watch the game!

GorgeZag
04-06-2013, 05:25 PM
:vomit-smiley-007:


Yeah! Making the Elite Eight is soooo last century.

jazzdelmar
04-06-2013, 05:31 PM
Reverse schadenfreude

Oregonzagnut
04-06-2013, 05:38 PM
Louisville contested most shots and the pace was something Wichita St was prepared for in March. IMO, Gonzaga just got beat with the bad luck club and WSU got hot at the right time.

Statistically, WSU played better against Gonzaga than against Louisville. IMO anyway. I wish they would have shot 30% from three against us.

2wiceright
04-06-2013, 05:55 PM
Louisville contested most shots and the pace was something Wichita St was prepared for in March. IMO, Gonzaga just got beat with the bad luck club and WSU got hot at the right time.

Statistically, WSU played better against Gonzaga than against Louisville. IMO anyway. I wish they would have shot 30% from three against us.

Hi OZN, the way I saw it was WSU threw up a ton of wide open 3's - and unlike us they just clanked off the rim. There were a few contested, but from my point of view not a lot from 3. (Maybe since it wasn't our guys in there I wasn't paying as close of attention???). Anyway, just my 2 cents...

MJ777
04-06-2013, 06:03 PM
Hi OZN, the way I saw it was WSU threw up a ton of wide open 3's - and unlike us they just clanked off the rim. There were a few contested, but from my point of view not a lot from 3. (Maybe since it wasn't our guys in there I wasn't paying as close of attention???). Anyway, just my 2 cents...

It was the dome's fault for their poor shooting perhaps. UL made WSU work harder on offense overall than GU did so maybe they were more tired throughout the game.

Oregonzagnut
04-06-2013, 06:30 PM
Hi OZN, the way I saw it was WSU threw up a ton of wide open 3's - and unlike us they just clanked off the rim. There were a few contested, but from my point of view not a lot from 3. (Maybe since it wasn't our guys in there I wasn't paying as close of attention???). Anyway, just my 2 cents...

You are right, but IMO, there were a couple long periods where Louisville deliberately stopped guarding the perimeter. I thought Louisville "dared" them shoot threes but as an elite defensive team, I thought they had Wichita hurried offensively all game.

I thought Wichita was going to pull it out. Momentum swings were big factors. WSU up 8-0 to start and also up 12 with about 13 minutes left. The Cards snuffed momentum out with a quickness each time.

Louisville looked "playing not to lose" in the first half. But Wichita had nothing to lose and when Louisville got cornered, they played like we saw all year.

I felt most shots were contested if not hurried.

2wiceright
04-06-2013, 08:21 PM
"You are right, but IMO, there were a couple long periods where Louisville deliberately stopped guarding the perimeter. I thought Louisville "dared" them shoot threes but as an elite defensive team, I thought they had Wichita hurried offensively all game." OregonZagNut.


....Thanks OZN, I think that's why I got the impression Louisville wasn't getting out on the 3 ball shooters much. But like you said, they were hurrying Witchita on their offense though....(and some were definitely contested).

3zagda
04-06-2013, 08:35 PM
Having been at the games in SLC, I thought the loss of GBJ was the biggest factor. Without Bell's perimeter defense, WSU had too many open 3s down the stretch. It's all water under the bridge, but with Bell in the game, we could have beaten the Shockers. And They were very close to beating Louisville today. If their success is any indication, seems to me we had a good chance of playing in the national championship game.

ZagLawGrad
04-06-2013, 08:54 PM
Having been at the games in SLC, I thought the loss of GBJ was the biggest factor. Without Bell's perimeter defense, WSU had too many open 3s down the stretch. It's all water under the bridge, but with Bell in the game, we could have beaten the Shockers. And They were very close to beating Louisville today. If their success is any indication, seems to me we had a good chance of playing in the national championship game.

I was in SLC as well. Don't think Bell was the key issue. Missed bunnies and FT's. That was the end of the season.

MickMick
04-06-2013, 11:49 PM
Having been at the games in SLC, I thought the loss of GBJ was the biggest factor. Without Bell's perimeter defense, WSU had too many open 3s down the stretch. It's all water under the bridge, but with Bell in the game, we could have beaten the Shockers. And They were very close to beating Louisville today. If their success is any indication, seems to me we had a good chance of playing in the national championship game.

I know Harris stands on hallowed ground here, but C'mon. Call it like it really is. We all saw what happened. He had to play his normal game for GU to win and he didn't. That big lead in the first half was too much to overcome.

We just remember the threes down the stretch because they were daggers.

demian
04-07-2013, 12:38 AM
I know Harris stands on hallowed ground here, but C'mon. Call it like it really is. We all saw what happened. He had to play his normal game for GU to win and he didn't. That big lead in the first half was too much to overcome.

We just remember the threes down the stretch because they were daggers.

thats a really good point mickmick. i did see "what happened" and I agree 100% with you

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 04:55 AM
Few had a pretty good seat at Salt Lake and he said we lost because we missed bunnies, freethrows and made bone head plays at the end...... and they hit the shots....

I don't think it is a mystery.

spike_jr
04-07-2013, 07:40 AM
Few had a pretty good seat at Salt Lake and he said we lost because we missed bunnies, freethrows and made bone head plays at the end...... and they hit the shots....

I don't think it is a mystery.

What's he going to say Bart? "I slowed the game down. We quit being aggressive. We quit doing what got us the lead. I didn't play the right people down the stretch. I decided to keep packing the paint and gambling that sooner or later their three point average was going to catch up to them and it didn't"

I'm sorry, but the GU team that I watched play in the 30+ games prior to salt lake was not the same team that played two games in salt lake. I don't want to say that WSU is not a good team because they are. But to think that we did not have a superior team is beyond comprehension.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 08:15 AM
Your welcome to your opinion..I'll take his word for it...

spike_jr
04-07-2013, 08:32 AM
Yeah, because coaches always give you a 100% honest critique after a loss. You can go with an illusion and I will stick to reality.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 08:40 AM
Well, I happen to know Mark, and I have fround him to be knowlegeable, honest and straight forward ... I also tend to believe my doctor, my lawyer, my dentist, ect...even though they don't know as much as my barber... it has worked out for me.

gamagin
04-07-2013, 08:41 AM
today's spokesman-review letter to the sports editor. It was the little guys. again.

Story
Comments
April 7, 2013 in Sports
GU substituted poorly
Print
Email

Gonzaga plays hard. That is evident. They appeared to still be showing nerves into the second game. The Wichita State loss, however, lies solely with the coaching staff. Here’s why:

With the score tied at 10 and 12:41 to go in the first half, Coach Few went to a smaller lineup and in less than 6 minutes, Wichita State ballooned to a 26-13 lead, hitting four 3-pointers along the way.

With 6:51 left in the first half, Coach Few switched to the taller lineup. Rotating Barnam, Hart and Draganis (all 6-feet-5 or better), the Zags began rolling. Using this lineup, the Zags were not only able to defend the 3-pointer, but they erased the 13-point deficit and were leading 49-44 when, with 10:37 left in the game, almost unbelievably he switched back to the lineup that had created the mess and played it the rest of the game!

It was like watching two separate games. With the smaller lineup, Wichita State outscored Gonzaga 48-24. With the taller lineup, Gonzaga outscored Wichita State 46-28.

The Zags played to the best of their abilities, hard at all times. Blame no player. They were simply outcoached.

Robert Vincent

Spokane

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 08:45 AM
Robert is also welcome to his opinion...

Zagcity
04-07-2013, 08:55 AM
today's spokesman-review letter to the sports editor. It was the little guys. again.

Story
Comments
April 7, 2013 in Sports
GU substituted poorly
Print
Email

Gonzaga plays hard. That is evident. They appeared to still be showing nerves into the second game. The Wichita State loss, however, lies solely with the coaching staff. Here’s why:

With the score tied at 10 and 12:41 to go in the first half, Coach Few went to a smaller lineup and in less than 6 minutes, Wichita State ballooned to a 26-13 lead, hitting four 3-pointers along the way.

With 6:51 left in the first half, Coach Few switched to the taller lineup. Rotating Barnam, Hart and Draganis (all 6-feet-5 or better), the Zags began rolling. Using this lineup, the Zags were not only able to defend the 3-pointer, but they erased the 13-point deficit and were leading 49-44 when, with 10:37 left in the game, almost unbelievably he switched back to the lineup that had created the mess and played it the rest of the game!

It was like watching two separate games. With the smaller lineup, Wichita State outscored Gonzaga 48-24. With the taller lineup, Gonzaga outscored Wichita State 46-28.

The Zags played to the best of their abilities, hard at all times. Blame no player. They were simply outcoached.

Robert Vincent

Spokane

Oh yeah, it was as simple as that.....Word

Zagcity
04-07-2013, 08:57 AM
I know Harris stands on hallowed ground here, but C'mon. Call it like it really is. We all saw what happened. He had to play his normal game for GU to win and he didn't. That big lead in the first half was too much to overcome.

We just remember the threes down the stretch because they were daggers.

Harris did'nt have his usual springs in SLC, not sure if the stress and pressure finally wore him down.

gamagin
04-07-2013, 09:05 AM
Robert is also welcome to his opinion...

i didn't realize until you pointed it out.

Birddog
04-07-2013, 09:09 AM
Yeah, because coaches always give you a 100% honest critique after a loss. You can go with an illusion and I will stick to reality.
Just to be clear, that would be your own personal reality.

spike_jr
04-07-2013, 09:11 AM
Whatever helps you sleep at night birddog.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 09:11 AM
i didn't realize until you pointed it out.

It is always important to remember that correlation is not causation..

gamagin
04-07-2013, 09:20 AM
It is always important to remember that correlation is not causation..

Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in.

kitzbuel
04-07-2013, 09:22 AM
My opinion of course, but I truly believe the coaching staff got a case of the yips. Missed bunnies or not, the offensive momentum belonged to GU from the tail end of the 1st half through half of the 2nd half. At that point, the game strategy seemed to be to just hope the clock went really fast. It didn't.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 09:27 AM
Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in. That is good enough for me...

bballbeachbum
04-07-2013, 09:49 AM
I know Harris stands on hallowed ground here, but C'mon. Call it like it really is. We all saw what happened. He had to play his normal game for GU to win and he didn't. That big lead in the first half was too much to overcome.

We just remember the threes down the stretch because they were daggers.

hallowed ground? hardly

all he did was produce big over 4 years while many on this board struggled to see it. I don't get how that's hallowed ground, more like revisionist quicksand

anyway, E was not his best, but he's the reason for the loss to WSU? let's review

WSU is an excellent defensive team, and there #1 priority was to stop him first...not sure you understand that part. That means others got lots of shots, many of them open shots too. And KO shot 8-22 and 0-3 from deep, KP 6-17 including 4-12 from deep. Add no Bell down the stretch (any arguments about his clutch abilities all year?) as a negative impact I consider self evident, and there's the loss

but no, it's E for you, not WSU's 14-28 from 3 vs. 8-23 for the Zags? Seriously? the others who shot the ball because they were open but missed = what in your evalution of the loss?

as for the lead being too much to overcome, I disagree completely. The lead was overcome.

cheers Mick

Birddog
04-07-2013, 10:22 AM
hallowed ground? hardly

all he did was produce big over 4 years while many on this board struggled to see it. I don't get how that's hallowed ground, more like revisionist quicksand

anyway, E was not his best, but he's the reason for the loss to WSU? let's review

WSU is an excellent defensive team, and there #1 priority was to stop him first...not sure you understand that part. That means others got lots of shots, many of them open shots too. And KO shot 8-22 and 0-3 from deep, KP 6-17 including 4-12 from deep. Add no Bell down the stretch (any arguments about his clutch abilities all year?) as a negative impact I consider self evident, and there's the loss

but no, it's E for you, not WSU's 14-28 from 3 vs. 8-23 for the Zags? Seriously? the others who shot the ball because they were open but missed = what in your evalution of the loss?

as for the lead being too much to overcome, I disagree completely. The lead was overcome.

cheers Mick
Nailed it!

MJ777
04-07-2013, 11:19 AM
hallowed ground? hardly

all he did was produce big over 4 years while many on this board struggled to see it. I don't get how that's hallowed ground, more like revisionist quicksand

anyway, E was not his best, but he's the reason for the loss to WSU? let's review

WSU is an excellent defensive team, and there #1 priority was to stop him first...not sure you understand that part. That means others got lots of shots, many of them open shots too. And KO shot 8-22 and 0-3 from deep, KP 6-17 including 4-12 from deep. Add no Bell down the stretch (any arguments about his clutch abilities all year?) as a negative impact I consider self evident, and there's the loss

but no, it's E for you, not WSU's 14-28 from 3 vs. 8-23 for the Zags? Seriously? the others who shot the ball because they were open but missed = what in your evalution of the loss?

as for the lead being too much to overcome, I disagree completely. The lead was overcome.

cheers Mick

It was a team loss weighted toward the coaches IMHO. Speaking of EH, does anyone know if he was invited to play in the Reese's All Star game? And why is Singler from Oregon and Davies from BYU on the East team? I think I saw Davies anyway.

DixieZag
04-07-2013, 11:22 AM
People are acting like many of these are mutually exclusive and yet they are ALL true:

- Wichita shot 50% from 3 - unheard of for them and hit everything down the end.

- Whichita is a much better team than advertised, not many teams could play Louisville like that down to the end.

- Regular Elias didn't show up to SLC, perhaps he would have scored 40 a game in SS and EE, just didn't happen in SLC and wasn't a big scoring or RBing factor

-Regular ZAG team didn't show up to SLC, has anyone actually watched the Southern game twice, look at their faces throughout that game

-Few pulled the air out of the ball and stopped being aggressive, DIRECT relationship to WSU beginning their come back and never looking back

-End of WSU game would have been different if Bell had been in throughout second half - best defensive player and very clutch offensive player

-Kelly got fouled at critical point and no call, led to 3 pt shot = 5 pt swing


A whole lot of things that are all true combined and man it hurts b/c I DO think we had a better team than WSU and I DO think that had the regular/aggressive Zags shown up we would have been battling Louisville.

MJ777
04-07-2013, 11:32 AM
People are acting like many of these are mutually exclusive and yet they are ALL true:

- Wichita shot 50% from 3 - unheard of for them and hit everything down the end.

- Whichita is a much better team than advertised, not many teams could play Louisville like that down to the end.

- Regular Elias didn't show up to SLC, perhaps he would have scored 40 a game in SS and EE, just didn't happen in SLC and wasn't a big scoring or RBing factor

-Regular ZAG team didn't show up to SLC, has anyone actually watched the Southern game twice, look at their faces throughout that game

-Few pulled the air out of the ball and stopped being aggressive, DIRECT relationship to WSU beginning their come back and never looking back

-End of WSU game would have been different if Bell had been in throughout second half - best defensive player and very clutch offensive player

-Kelly got fouled at critical point and no call, led to 3 pt shot = 5 pt swing


A whole lot of things that are all true combined and man it hurts b/c I DO think we had a better team than WSU and I DO think that had the regular/aggressive Zags shown up we would have been battling Louisville.

Good post. To quote a movie, "it would be a perfect storm."

gamagin
04-07-2013, 11:55 AM
hallowed ground? hardly

all he did was produce big over 4 years while many on this board struggled to see it. I don't get how that's hallowed ground, more like revisionist quicksand

anyway, E was not his best, but he's the reason for the loss to WSU? let's review

WSU is an excellent defensive team, and there #1 priority was to stop him first...not sure you understand that part. That means others got lots of shots, many of them open shots too. And KO shot 8-22 and 0-3 from deep, KP 6-17 including 4-12 from deep. Add no Bell down the stretch (any arguments about his clutch abilities all year?) as a negative impact I consider self evident, and there's the loss

but no, it's E for you, not WSU's 14-28 from 3 vs. 8-23 for the Zags? Seriously? the others who shot the ball because they were open but missed = what in your evalution of the loss?

as for the lead being too much to overcome, I disagree completely. The lead was overcome.

cheers Mick

and secondly. spot on.

ZagFanInNC
04-07-2013, 12:21 PM
:vomit-smiley-007:

Well, the best team we have ever put on a basketball court lost in the second round as a 1 seed... yes we choked.

Pointless thread.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 12:37 PM
Lost in the third round to a team that advanced to the final four and nearly to the Championship Game...for a little more perspective..

kclubfounder
04-07-2013, 12:50 PM
Well, the best team we have ever put on a basketball court lost in the second round as a 1 seed... yes we choked.

Pointless thread.

The point of the post, for your edification, was to sarcastically suggest that whether or not our team choked or not is based on the ultimate success of the team that beat us.

As ridiculous as this position is, many hold it.

But thanks for taking the time to express your pointless opinion.

jim77
04-07-2013, 12:54 PM
First things first. WSU is a good basketball team. Did you happen to see them smother and get the better of Louisville's vaunted offense. Those supposed speedy guards couldn't do crap against them. It took bench warmers who could shoot 3's to pull the game out...along with a lot of no-call hacks near the end. I'm not convinced Louisville was the better team. WSU is a hard nosed team as good as any in college basketball.....they might be the most physical in the country..ask OSU or Louisville.

There was no shame losing to a VERY good WSU team....in fact, we took it to them on the boards. if it wasn't for their heroic and mostly unguarded 3's we would have prevailed. So what do I take from our loss? We got beat by a VERY good team and the Zags played a VERY good team pretty well...we just came up a bit short. This notion that we choked is BS......if anything we underestimated them. We are close....hope KO comes back because we are really close. I also wonder how the altitude affected us in such a physical game...could that be the reason Few slowed it down? Would it be a stretch to say that WSU was in the better physical condition? I'd say after seeing them play OSU and Louisville they we're.....Maaybe Few did do the right thing slowing down.Heck, I feel much better after knowng we took such a hardnose team to the wire....our guys showed well against them.

Postplayer57
04-07-2013, 12:58 PM
Let's at least be honest. Due to injury?, mindset?, or just lack of athleticism?, the Elias Harris we saw this season against really good opposition was a shadow of the kid that came in here as a freshman. I love him, but truthfully, he just disappeared at times when things got really physical.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 01:10 PM
To be honest, that is not what I saw....

kclubfounder
04-07-2013, 01:13 PM
First things first. WSU is a good basketball team. Did you happen to see them smother and get the better of Louisville's vaunted offense. Those supposed speedy guards couldn't do crap against them. It took bench warmers who could shoot 3's to pull the game out...along with a lot of no-call hacks near the end. I'm not convinced Louisville was the better team. WSU is a hard nosed team as good as any in college basketball.....they might be the most physical in the country..ask OSU or Louisville.

There was no shame losing to a VERY good WSU team....in fact, we took it to them on the boards. if it wasn't for their heroic and mostly unguarded 3's we would have prevailed. So what do I take from our loss? We got beat by a VERY good team and the Zags played a VERY good team pretty well...we just came up a bit short. This notion that we choked is BS...we got beat by a pretty darn good team...if anything we underestimated them. We are close....hope KO comes back because we are really close.

Agreed.

But even if WSU got ice cold and lost to La salle in the next round, would it really change things? How about if Ohio State had their best game of the year and beat WSU by 15?

The tournament is a crap shoot. We ran into a good team that got crazy hot.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 01:30 PM
Agreed.

But even if WSU got ice cold and lost to La salle in the next round, would it really change things? How about if Ohio State had their best game of the year and beat WSU by 15?

The tournament is a crap shoot. We ran into a good team that got crazy hot.

We lost because of the WCC....I don't know what the hell Ohio State's excuse is...

jim77
04-07-2013, 01:36 PM
Let's at least be honest. Due to injury?, mindset?, or just lack of athleticism?, the Elias Harris we saw this season against really good opposition was a shadow of the kid that came in here as a freshman. I love him, but truthfully, he just disappeared at times when things got really physical.

I might be wrong but, didn't GU beat WSU on the boards? Did any other team that WSU played dominate them on the boards? WSU has some tough guys....and there was NO WAY "E" was gonna dominate those guys....our bigs we're fine on the boards....the WSU 3 shooting was the difference. Did you see that Hall kid play? How about Early? Hall looked like an incarnation of Dennis Rodman against some darn good competition....to think Mike Hart ripped off 13 rebounds against those guys...our guys are close. I think our guys are pretty tough...and their performance aginst WSU proves it.

kclubfounder
04-07-2013, 01:46 PM
We lost because of the WCC....I don't know what the hell Ohio State's excuse is...

:roll:

jim77
04-07-2013, 01:49 PM
We lost because of the WCC....I don't know what the hell Ohio State's excuse is...

...and Pitinio was so desperate he put in bench warmers and prayed for the 3 to fall. The Cards are darn fortunate to be playing for the championship.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 01:49 PM
It would have been fun (for me) that except for a couple sketchy calls.... to have heard Louisville (the best team in all the land) explain why they lost...

jim77
04-07-2013, 01:57 PM
Agreed.

But even if WSU got ice cold and lost to La salle in the next round, would it really change things? How about if Ohio State had their best game of the year and beat WSU by 15?

The tournament is a crap shoot. We ran into a good team that got crazy hot.

WSU didn't get lucky...they play HARD...and the coaches of Louisville and OSU said so.....Pitino said they were the best defense he's played in 3 years...he got so desperate he had to pull most of his starters when it became eviident the inside was off limits to his guards...who can't shoot 3's..and our ZAGS laid a 70 spot on them.....we are close...REAL close.

kclubfounder
04-07-2013, 02:23 PM
WSU didn't get lucky...they play HARD

The fact that they play and played hard is completely irrelevant when analyzing whether or not they got lucky.

I think only the most ignorant basketball fan would fail to realize they had a freakishly fortunate finish to the game in regard to making 3-point baskets.

I believe that involves luck.

If you don't, then good for you. But I think you are dead flipping wrong.

kclubfounder
04-07-2013, 02:26 PM
Jim, as I go back and read your posts I think we are basically on the same page.

Perhaps there are some semantic differences, but we both agree that WSU is good, and GU could have, should have, and (in my opinion) would have won if it weren't for WSU being luckier than normal in the game they played against us.

bartruff1
04-07-2013, 03:40 PM
WSU IMHO was by far the best team we played this year...but it was a winnable game...but for the missed bunnies, freethrows and bone head plays at the end...and the fact that WSU hit the threes...

Like Coach Few said......

spike_jr
04-07-2013, 03:51 PM
Well if that is what Few said, it must be 100% gospel.

jim77
04-07-2013, 05:43 PM
Jim, as I go back and read your posts I think we are basically on the same page.

Perhaps there are some semantic differences, but we both agree that WSU is good, and GU could have, should have, and (in my opinion) would have won if it weren't for WSU being luckier than normal in the game they played against us.

Its all good KC founder...the point we we're making is we have a pretty good team...and got beat by a very good team. Coulda gone either way. I think WSU's performance sorta cements that. I actually felt bad for WSU....they had Louisville in bad shape...and 3's did them in....kinda dejavu. The coach of WSU really knows how to get a team into the "NO FEAR" mode.

kitzbuel
04-07-2013, 05:58 PM
It would have been fun (for me) that except for a couple sketchy calls.... to have heard Louisville (the best team in all the land) explain why they lost...

Especially if they were explaining why they lost to GU.

ZagFanInNC
04-08-2013, 12:08 PM
The point of the post, for your edification, was to sarcastically suggest that whether or not our team choked or not is based on the ultimate success of the team that beat us.

As ridiculous as this position is, many hold it.

But thanks for taking the time to express your pointless opinion.

No problem guy, still a stupid thread...

MDABE80
04-08-2013, 12:20 PM
tough tying those concepts together.