Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69

Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 (/thread-22922.html)

Pages: 1 2

Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-06-2022

(02-06-2022, 05:00 PM)martyup Wrote: I think this game shows us what a bad loss it was when we lost to UW in Seattle.

Six out of the last seven teams that played Washington also suffered “bad losses”. I guess, I’m old fashioned but an15 point plus win at home is a good win in the PAC 12. Let’s give some credit where credit is due . After all, we won with a coach who can’t coach and and players who have no talent . Of course it is possible that the refs won it for us.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 46 -- UW 33 at the 1/2 - TonyLima - 02-06-2022

(02-06-2022, 03:56 PM)Sam Leopold Wrote: Offense looks okay today.

+1 for sheer understatement.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-06-2022

(02-06-2022, 05:00 PM)martyup Wrote: I think this game shows us what a bad loss it was when we lost to UW in Seattle.

RE: Mudhead - M T - 02-06-2022

(02-06-2022, 05:26 PM)Mudhead Wrote:
(02-06-2022, 05:00 PM)martyup Wrote: I think this game shows us what a bad loss it was when we lost to UW in Seattle.

Six out of the last seven teams that played Washington also suffered “bad losses”. I guess, I’m old fashioned but an15 point plus win at home is a good win in the PAC 12. Let’s give some credit where credit is due . After all, we won with a coach who can’t coach and and players who have no talent . Of course it is possible that the refs won it for us.

You can say that again! Oh, you did.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - Bampa - 02-06-2022

(02-06-2022, 04:06 PM)martyup Wrote: We win 87-69. Might be the best basketball we've played all season.

"Who was that masked rider?"

Then, in the distance we hear:

HI-YO, CARDINAL. AWAY!

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - Goose - 02-06-2022

Any info on Taitz? While he is defensively limited we could really use his 3 pt ability at times. Today, we didn't need it, but when the 3 isn't falling he is a good asset to have around.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - Farm93 - 02-06-2022

I think Haase and crew won because Walton wasn't covering the game. It was the most enjoyable TV viewing experience this season.

Lots of players had good games, so that's great. Hopefully they can get some quality road wins over the next 10 days.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - PVTree - 02-07-2022

Did Daejon Davis get hurt? He only played 5 minutes without scoring.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - magnus - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 12:38 AM)PVTree Wrote: Did Daejon Davis get hurt? He only played 5 minutes without scoring.

Yes.

He ran into a Kisunas screen at near full speed and had to leave the game. Came back to the bench with his arm/shoulder in a brace.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - winflop - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 03:08 AM)magnus Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 12:38 AM)PVTree Wrote: Did Daejon Davis get hurt? He only played 5 minutes without scoring.
Yes.

He ran into a Kisunas screen at near full speed and had to leave the game. Came back to the bench with his arm/shoulder in a brace.

That sucks for Davis I hope he's not out too long.

Most complete game they've played all year, but a likely 2-2 record on this homestand isn't good enough. Gonna need to find at least 6 wins over the last 8 games of the regular season plus the conference tournament. That's a tall order, but it is do-able if they can play more often like Sunday and less often like Thursday.

Mudhead - Mudhead - 02-07-2022

(02-06-2022, 06:02 PM)M T Wrote:
(02-06-2022, 05:26 PM)Mudhead Wrote:
(02-06-2022, 05:00 PM)martyup Wrote: I think this game shows us what a bad loss it was when we lost to UW in Seattle.

Six out of the last seven teams that played Washington also suffered “bad losses”. I guess, I’m old fashioned but an15 point plus win at home is a good win in the PAC 12. Let’s give some credit where credit is due . After all, we won with a coach who can’t coach and and players who have no talent . Of course it is possible that the refs won it for us.

You can say that again! Oh, you did.

Posting on an IPAD appears to overwhelm my limited posting skill set. My comment is worth saying, at most, once . Still not sure why multiples occurred

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - TriangleTree - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 06:41 AM)winflop Wrote: Most complete game they've played all year, but a likely 2-2 record on this homestand isn't good enough. Gonna need to find at least 6 wins over the last 8 games of the regular season plus the conference tournament. That's a tall order, but it is do-able if they can play more often like Sunday and less often like Thursday.

I think 6-2 over the remaining schedule gives us a reasonable shot at the tournament.
I don't think 6-2 is a reasonable expectation though, but I'll believe it can happen until I don't.
This board is generally very negative, in my opinion unfairly so to this year's edition. If they collapse in the last 8 (like we've seen in recent years) then they should be fair game, but so far this team has played well relative to their potential and expectations.
It's a young team with good but not great talent that's playing well together. We've seen great improvement particularly from Jones, Keefe, and Angel and the team as a whole has improved over the course of the year.
If the team stays together for another year we should definitely expect a tournament team.
If this year's team makes it they would have exceeded expectations.
We still have a shot...

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - gailtate - 02-07-2022

I don't have the inclination or the research skills to compare Haase's ten-year record to all the other ten-year coaches out there. Still, I wonder what the numbers say about the likelihood of a ten-year guy getting to the Tournament again, when he's 1-9 in that achievement not to mention being in a seven year drought (if he misses again this time). I am not rooting against the guy; just wishing his teams were more watchable.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - winflop - 02-07-2022

(02-07-2022, 06:02 PM)gailtate Wrote: I don't have the inclination or the research skills to compare Haase's ten-year record to all the other ten-year coaches out there. Still, I wonder what the numbers say about the likelihood of a ten-year guy getting to the Tournament again, when he's 1-9 in that achievement not to mention being in a seven year drought (if he misses again this time). I am not rooting against the guy; just wishing his teams were more watchable.

I don't care what he accomplished coaching a mid-major, or anywhere else for that matter. He's 0-5 as our HC and likely to be 0-6.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - BostonCard - 02-08-2022

(02-07-2022, 06:02 PM)gailtate Wrote: I don't have the inclination or the research skills to compare Haase's ten-year record to all the other ten-year coaches out there. Still, I wonder what the numbers say about the likelihood of a ten-year guy getting to the Tournament again, when he's 1-9 in that achievement not to mention being in a seven year drought (if he misses again this time). I am not rooting against the guy; just wishing his teams were more watchable.

The problem is that guys with Haase’s 10-year record don’t tend to last 10 years.

BC

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - SamuelMcF - 02-08-2022

(02-08-2022, 03:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(02-07-2022, 06:02 PM)gailtate Wrote: I don't have the inclination or the research skills to compare Haase's ten-year record to all the other ten-year coaches out there. Still, I wonder what the numbers say about the likelihood of a ten-year guy getting to the Tournament again, when he's 1-9 in that achievement not to mention being in a seven year drought (if he misses again this time). I am not rooting against the guy; just wishing his teams were more watchable.

The problem is that guys with Haase’s 10-year record don’t tend to last 10 years.

BC

Right now it's 5.5 years, but the point stands.

I don't count the previous years doing pretty well at a lower-tier school, because that's a prerequisite to get hired at a P6.

RE: Men's BB: Stanford 87 -- UW 69 - BostonCard - 02-08-2022

I was taking some rhetorical liberties.

BC