[Hieronymus]

The exchange 3’s strategy in theory made sense but:
- the quality of GT’s was much higher than ours. We had many that were contested and deep into the shot clock, while they were almost always wide open.. If the plan is to exchange threes, you need yours to be at least of comparable quality. Not that fiasco.
- you can spin the GT outside shooting as you want. On one hand as BC points out it was only about 2 makes above average. But you can also say they shot 20-25% above their average.
- Regardless the defense didn’t work. GT had a bunch of open threes, hit more than normal and again as BC noted we still didn’t defend against 2’s very well. So a full fail. Maybe more zone? Not sure.
- the bigger failure obviously was offense - 52 points won’t win many games. Hoisting bad threes isn’t an offense, and weak rebounding in this game couldn’t cover that up. They have needed big advantages on the offensive glass to win against decent teams this year, and it didn’t happen today.

[Hieronymus]

The exchange 3’s strategy in theory made sense but:
- the quality of GT’s was much higher than ours. We had many that were contested and deep into the shot clock, while they were almost always wide open.. If the plan is to exchange threes, you need yours to be at least of comparable quality. Not that fiasco.
- you can spin the GT outside shooting as you want. On one hand as BC points out it was only about 2 makes above average. But you can also say they shot 20-25% above their average.
- Regardless the defense didn’t work. GT had a bunch of open threes, hit more than normal and again as BC noted we still didn’t defend against 2’s very well. So a full fail. Maybe more zone? Not sure.
- the bigger failure obviously was offense - 52 points won’t win many games. Hoisting bad threes isn’t an offense, and weak rebounding in this game couldn’t cover that up. They have needed big advantages on the offensive glass to win against decent teams this year, and it didn’t happen today.