03-19-2012, 10:59 PM
Man, that was exhausting. Aaron Bright and Chasson Randle carry Stanford to victory and the third round of the NIT.
F MBB Stanford 92 Illinois State 88
Man, that was exhausting. Aaron Bright and Chasson Randle carry Stanford to victory and the third round of the NIT.
03-19-2012, 11:05 PM
TWO WINNERS TONIGHT! (sorry for yelling). ISU weathered a lot of tough calls and stayed in the game. We almost gave it away at the free throw line. Dwight Powell hit two big ones near the end, but this really felt like one for the ages. A great, great game to watch, especially as a Card fan. Seemed like Aaron Bright came of age tonight. Hearty congratulations to both teams.
TWO WINNERS TONIGHT! (sorry for yelling). ISU weathered a lot of tough calls and stayed in the game. We almost gave it away at the free throw line. Dwight Powell hit two big ones near the end, but this really felt like one for the ages. A great, great game to watch, especially as a Card fan. Seemed like Aaron Bright came of age tonight. Hearty congratulations to both teams.
03-19-2012, 11:20 PM
It looked like a really fun atmosphere at Maples. As fans, we can get down about program trajectory compared to 10 years ago and the team having a disappointing showing in a poor conference, but tonight was a reminder of the passion, intensity and joy the kids in the uniforms have for what they do.
It looked like a really fun atmosphere at Maples. As fans, we can get down about program trajectory compared to 10 years ago and the team having a disappointing showing in a poor conference, but tonight was a reminder of the passion, intensity and joy the kids in the uniforms have for what they do.
03-19-2012, 11:27 PM
Loved the heart and tenacity shown by the team. I hope these NIT games pay dividends next year. I'm still not thrilled with the final shot plays Dawkins draws up but the team is playing better. It can't be said that Stanford didn't win this one when ISU was shooting lights out for most of the game. I'm just happy both hoops teams are still playing.
Cheers,
Pete F.
Cheers,
Pete F.
Loved the heart and tenacity shown by the team. I hope these NIT games pay dividends next year. I'm still not thrilled with the final shot plays Dawkins draws up but the team is playing better. It can't be said that Stanford didn't win this one when ISU was shooting lights out for most of the game. I'm just happy both hoops teams are still playing.
Cheers,
Pete F.
Cheers,
Pete F.
03-19-2012, 11:32 PM
Wow, that was fun! This was the first Stanford men's game I've gone to, after a few years of supporting the women's team. Courtside seats behind the basket were going for $30, so I decided to splurge and get one. Great experience at a super exciting game. I didn't realize that you get Courtside Room privileges and free food along with the ticket until I got down there and a kind usher told me so. Not really the best angle to see things from, but you sure are close to the action.
Wow, that was fun! This was the first Stanford men's game I've gone to, after a few years of supporting the women's team. Courtside seats behind the basket were going for $30, so I decided to splurge and get one. Great experience at a super exciting game. I didn't realize that you get Courtside Room privileges and free food along with the ticket until I got down there and a kind usher told me so. Not really the best angle to see things from, but you sure are close to the action.
dpbrewster
Unregistered
Unregistered
03-19-2012, 11:59 PM
Was at the game too. First time seeing the boys live in about 10 years (the last live game may have been the Stanford vs. Duke at the Pete Newell challenge). Had a blast (how can you not when your team comes from behind to beat a team they're well matched against?) The defense was definitely spotty and the offense got into a bad rut for the first 10 minutes of the second half, but I love that we came from down 11 to win it. The guys showed a lot of heart staying in it.
Aaron Bright was a revelation tonight with obviously lights out shooting, but also some nice dishes in the first half. He makes a pretty good backcourt duo with Randle.
I still can't believe we don't have a true big man. It's so strange to watch a Stanford team playing without a 6'10"+ guy with broad shoulders.
And yes, the crowd was small, but the atmosphere was still fun and there was energy in the crowd.
Oh, and who should I bump into as I entered but the illustrious Brevin Knight decked out in a white Stanford shirt. Perhaps his presence inspired Bright's play. Anyone know what BK's up to these days?
Now I need to figure out how to get off work early on Wednesday...
Aaron Bright was a revelation tonight with obviously lights out shooting, but also some nice dishes in the first half. He makes a pretty good backcourt duo with Randle.
I still can't believe we don't have a true big man. It's so strange to watch a Stanford team playing without a 6'10"+ guy with broad shoulders.
And yes, the crowd was small, but the atmosphere was still fun and there was energy in the crowd.
Oh, and who should I bump into as I entered but the illustrious Brevin Knight decked out in a white Stanford shirt. Perhaps his presence inspired Bright's play. Anyone know what BK's up to these days?
Now I need to figure out how to get off work early on Wednesday...
Was at the game too. First time seeing the boys live in about 10 years (the last live game may have been the Stanford vs. Duke at the Pete Newell challenge). Had a blast (how can you not when your team comes from behind to beat a team they're well matched against?) The defense was definitely spotty and the offense got into a bad rut for the first 10 minutes of the second half, but I love that we came from down 11 to win it. The guys showed a lot of heart staying in it.
Aaron Bright was a revelation tonight with obviously lights out shooting, but also some nice dishes in the first half. He makes a pretty good backcourt duo with Randle.
I still can't believe we don't have a true big man. It's so strange to watch a Stanford team playing without a 6'10"+ guy with broad shoulders.
And yes, the crowd was small, but the atmosphere was still fun and there was energy in the crowd.
Oh, and who should I bump into as I entered but the illustrious Brevin Knight decked out in a white Stanford shirt. Perhaps his presence inspired Bright's play. Anyone know what BK's up to these days?
Now I need to figure out how to get off work early on Wednesday...
Aaron Bright was a revelation tonight with obviously lights out shooting, but also some nice dishes in the first half. He makes a pretty good backcourt duo with Randle.
I still can't believe we don't have a true big man. It's so strange to watch a Stanford team playing without a 6'10"+ guy with broad shoulders.
And yes, the crowd was small, but the atmosphere was still fun and there was energy in the crowd.
Oh, and who should I bump into as I entered but the illustrious Brevin Knight decked out in a white Stanford shirt. Perhaps his presence inspired Bright's play. Anyone know what BK's up to these days?
Now I need to figure out how to get off work early on Wednesday...
03-20-2012, 01:02 AM
It was a great game and even though the crowd was small that was the loudest I heard Maples for a men's game all year. That was bY far the best game Dwight Powell has played.
And Dawkins finally went with a solid crunch time rotation on randle, bright, Powell, owens and either Huestis or brown.
Hopefully we can get to new York and this momentum will carry into next year.
And Dawkins finally went with a solid crunch time rotation on randle, bright, Powell, owens and either Huestis or brown.
Hopefully we can get to new York and this momentum will carry into next year.
It was a great game and even though the crowd was small that was the loudest I heard Maples for a men's game all year. That was bY far the best game Dwight Powell has played.
And Dawkins finally went with a solid crunch time rotation on randle, bright, Powell, owens and either Huestis or brown.
Hopefully we can get to new York and this momentum will carry into next year.
And Dawkins finally went with a solid crunch time rotation on randle, bright, Powell, owens and either Huestis or brown.
Hopefully we can get to new York and this momentum will carry into next year.
03-20-2012, 03:49 AM
I'll fess up that this was the first men's game I've watched in person in many years. (I'm not used to 6'9" guards!) This caused me to reflect upon the similarities & differences in the games. I won't bother you with my impressions, but there were big differences. It seemed odd that with such great shooting, the total scoring was somewhat the same. I really liked the snappy passes, and the bounce passes that skipped more than bounced.
Some things felt too familiar. Stanford had the lead and then slowly let it slip away in the first part of the second half. I thought they had the officials' help in getting back into the game from 11 down. With 5:38 left in the game, Stanford got within one point at 73-74. Then the air went out of the game. Over the next nearly 4 minutes, ISU had two missed layups and three missed 3 pointers and 3 offensive fouls by the same player, but did manage two FT. During that same period, Stanford missed a layup, three jumpers, a three pointer, and two FT, and also had an offensive foul, but did manage two FT. It seemed neither team wanted to win the game. Stanford did finally hit a 3ptr, their only field goal in the last 5 and a half minutes. But ISU had no field goals during that time.
I thought Stanford's last shot in regulation was a little too late (and too desperate) to allow any kind of rebound chance, but maybe that's the way it has to be in MBB where the other team still has a timeout.
Hey, a win is still a win. If nothing else, it helps the players gain more experience for next year. Congrats to the team, and I hope they win all the way to the end.
Some things felt too familiar. Stanford had the lead and then slowly let it slip away in the first part of the second half. I thought they had the officials' help in getting back into the game from 11 down. With 5:38 left in the game, Stanford got within one point at 73-74. Then the air went out of the game. Over the next nearly 4 minutes, ISU had two missed layups and three missed 3 pointers and 3 offensive fouls by the same player, but did manage two FT. During that same period, Stanford missed a layup, three jumpers, a three pointer, and two FT, and also had an offensive foul, but did manage two FT. It seemed neither team wanted to win the game. Stanford did finally hit a 3ptr, their only field goal in the last 5 and a half minutes. But ISU had no field goals during that time.
I thought Stanford's last shot in regulation was a little too late (and too desperate) to allow any kind of rebound chance, but maybe that's the way it has to be in MBB where the other team still has a timeout.
Hey, a win is still a win. If nothing else, it helps the players gain more experience for next year. Congrats to the team, and I hope they win all the way to the end.
I'll fess up that this was the first men's game I've watched in person in many years. (I'm not used to 6'9" guards!) This caused me to reflect upon the similarities & differences in the games. I won't bother you with my impressions, but there were big differences. It seemed odd that with such great shooting, the total scoring was somewhat the same. I really liked the snappy passes, and the bounce passes that skipped more than bounced.
Some things felt too familiar. Stanford had the lead and then slowly let it slip away in the first part of the second half. I thought they had the officials' help in getting back into the game from 11 down. With 5:38 left in the game, Stanford got within one point at 73-74. Then the air went out of the game. Over the next nearly 4 minutes, ISU had two missed layups and three missed 3 pointers and 3 offensive fouls by the same player, but did manage two FT. During that same period, Stanford missed a layup, three jumpers, a three pointer, and two FT, and also had an offensive foul, but did manage two FT. It seemed neither team wanted to win the game. Stanford did finally hit a 3ptr, their only field goal in the last 5 and a half minutes. But ISU had no field goals during that time.
I thought Stanford's last shot in regulation was a little too late (and too desperate) to allow any kind of rebound chance, but maybe that's the way it has to be in MBB where the other team still has a timeout.
Hey, a win is still a win. If nothing else, it helps the players gain more experience for next year. Congrats to the team, and I hope they win all the way to the end.
Some things felt too familiar. Stanford had the lead and then slowly let it slip away in the first part of the second half. I thought they had the officials' help in getting back into the game from 11 down. With 5:38 left in the game, Stanford got within one point at 73-74. Then the air went out of the game. Over the next nearly 4 minutes, ISU had two missed layups and three missed 3 pointers and 3 offensive fouls by the same player, but did manage two FT. During that same period, Stanford missed a layup, three jumpers, a three pointer, and two FT, and also had an offensive foul, but did manage two FT. It seemed neither team wanted to win the game. Stanford did finally hit a 3ptr, their only field goal in the last 5 and a half minutes. But ISU had no field goals during that time.
I thought Stanford's last shot in regulation was a little too late (and too desperate) to allow any kind of rebound chance, but maybe that's the way it has to be in MBB where the other team still has a timeout.
Hey, a win is still a win. If nothing else, it helps the players gain more experience for next year. Congrats to the team, and I hope they win all the way to the end.
03-20-2012, 08:53 AM
(03-20-2012, 01:02 AM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:It was a great game and even though the crowd was small that was the loudest I heard Maples for a men's game all year.Â
Exactly right, because the folks who show up on a late Monday night for a post-season NIT game against Ill. State are the ones who care. Moreover [despite the best efforts of the ticket office], we all [for the most part] manage to get concentrated down in the lower sections [i.e., by the court], so the enthusiasm and noise is intensified. I'd bet most of the same folks are there throughout the season, but are dispersed throughout the pavilion so that the vast wasteland of prime seats now covered by the "seat license" policy can remain sacrosanct [and empty]. Strange thing...an empty courtside seat just doesn't seem to generate as much noise and enthusiasm as one containing a fan. Perhaps Bowlsby can get someone in the Physics Dept to figure out why...
And, wonder of wonders, everyone on the old folks' [i.e., my] side actually responded to the Sixth Man "On Your Feet!" cheer at the end of the game by...standing up! :o for the last 35 seconds of regulation! That has got to be a record for a Stanford B'ball crowd over the past several years...
Go Card!
(03-20-2012, 01:02 AM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:It was a great game and even though the crowd was small that was the loudest I heard Maples for a men's game all year.Â
Exactly right, because the folks who show up on a late Monday night for a post-season NIT game against Ill. State are the ones who care. Moreover [despite the best efforts of the ticket office], we all [for the most part] manage to get concentrated down in the lower sections [i.e., by the court], so the enthusiasm and noise is intensified. I'd bet most of the same folks are there throughout the season, but are dispersed throughout the pavilion so that the vast wasteland of prime seats now covered by the "seat license" policy can remain sacrosanct [and empty]. Strange thing...an empty courtside seat just doesn't seem to generate as much noise and enthusiasm as one containing a fan. Perhaps Bowlsby can get someone in the Physics Dept to figure out why...
And, wonder of wonders, everyone on the old folks' [i.e., my] side actually responded to the Sixth Man "On Your Feet!" cheer at the end of the game by...standing up! :o for the last 35 seconds of regulation! That has got to be a record for a Stanford B'ball crowd over the past several years...
Go Card!
03-20-2012, 08:58 AM
(03-19-2012, 11:20 PM)needle link Wrote:It looked like a really fun atmosphere at Maples. As fans, we can get down about program trajectory compared to 10 years ago and the team having a disappointing showing in a poor conference, but tonight was a reminder of the passion, intensity and joy the kids in the uniforms have for what they do.
I attend a lot of games, and this was clearly one of the most entertaining in years... in large part due to the fan participation. With nary a fan sitting above the lower bowl, Maples was howling for most of the game (despite the disproportionate representation of those with grey hair... so much for stereotypes!?!). I don't know what the attendance number was, but assuming we had 4,000-5,000 empty seats, if we could fill them with people who cheer 1/2 as hard as those who showed up last night (who were admittedly inspired by fantastic performances from Aaron and Dwight), we'd easily triple the volume of most games I attended this year.
For all of us who frequently criticize the coaches and/or players, this game was proof that our fan base needs to step it back up with consistent, vocal support (i.e., not just when our team is 30-1). Whatever it takes to do that, it's gotta feed on itself in terms of team performance too.
Just wish I could make it back tomorrow night - Go Cardinal!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
(03-19-2012, 11:20 PM)needle link Wrote:It looked like a really fun atmosphere at Maples. As fans, we can get down about program trajectory compared to 10 years ago and the team having a disappointing showing in a poor conference, but tonight was a reminder of the passion, intensity and joy the kids in the uniforms have for what they do.
I attend a lot of games, and this was clearly one of the most entertaining in years... in large part due to the fan participation. With nary a fan sitting above the lower bowl, Maples was howling for most of the game (despite the disproportionate representation of those with grey hair... so much for stereotypes!?!). I don't know what the attendance number was, but assuming we had 4,000-5,000 empty seats, if we could fill them with people who cheer 1/2 as hard as those who showed up last night (who were admittedly inspired by fantastic performances from Aaron and Dwight), we'd easily triple the volume of most games I attended this year.
For all of us who frequently criticize the coaches and/or players, this game was proof that our fan base needs to step it back up with consistent, vocal support (i.e., not just when our team is 30-1). Whatever it takes to do that, it's gotta feed on itself in terms of team performance too.
Just wish I could make it back tomorrow night - Go Cardinal!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
03-20-2012, 09:08 AM
Agree completely with general sentiments: great game to watch. Similar to Glenn, I was continually blurting out 'no way' @ ISU's 3 pt shooting, only to be hissing a yesss as Bright or others countered with similarly improbable buckets.
On TV the crowd looked substantial and clearly engaged. Happily, the cameras caught that well populated lower bowl and panned over it plenty. Thanks to all who showed support in person. Really a nice, late season win.
On TV the crowd looked substantial and clearly engaged. Happily, the cameras caught that well populated lower bowl and panned over it plenty. Thanks to all who showed support in person. Really a nice, late season win.
Agree completely with general sentiments: great game to watch. Similar to Glenn, I was continually blurting out 'no way' @ ISU's 3 pt shooting, only to be hissing a yesss as Bright or others countered with similarly improbable buckets.
On TV the crowd looked substantial and clearly engaged. Happily, the cameras caught that well populated lower bowl and panned over it plenty. Thanks to all who showed support in person. Really a nice, late season win.
On TV the crowd looked substantial and clearly engaged. Happily, the cameras caught that well populated lower bowl and panned over it plenty. Thanks to all who showed support in person. Really a nice, late season win.
03-20-2012, 10:16 AM
(03-20-2012, 01:02 AM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:That was bY far the best game Dwight Powell has played.
Absolutely--and it was because he wasn't forced to carry the team. His potential is as a very good complementary part--he handles the ball decently, can pass well, is mobile...And that's enough to contribute. In a game like this, when Bright and Randle were hot and could handle the offense, Powell didn't feel the need to do too much.
(03-20-2012, 01:02 AM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:That was bY far the best game Dwight Powell has played.
Absolutely--and it was because he wasn't forced to carry the team. His potential is as a very good complementary part--he handles the ball decently, can pass well, is mobile...And that's enough to contribute. In a game like this, when Bright and Randle were hot and could handle the offense, Powell didn't feel the need to do too much.
03-20-2012, 10:17 AM
(03-20-2012, 10:11 AM)garvin link Wrote:Surely some people opted to purchase the cheaper seats in the area above the concourse, but it looked totally empty. Did they just let people migrate down into the lower area regardless of what tickets they actually had?
It wasn't totally empty above the rail, although it may have looked that way on TV since they turn off the lights up there during play. The ticket price for the lower section was $15, while the upper section was $10, so the price differential wasn't all that great. I imagine fans who normally can't get lower bowl seats [or don't want to pay the exorbitant season ticket prices for them] probably jumped at the chance to sit there for these games. And there probably was some migration, but not a whole lot [since, as MT indicated, the security folks take their jobs somewhat seriously...for better or worse]
(03-20-2012, 10:11 AM)garvin link Wrote:Surely some people opted to purchase the cheaper seats in the area above the concourse, but it looked totally empty. Did they just let people migrate down into the lower area regardless of what tickets they actually had?
It wasn't totally empty above the rail, although it may have looked that way on TV since they turn off the lights up there during play. The ticket price for the lower section was $15, while the upper section was $10, so the price differential wasn't all that great. I imagine fans who normally can't get lower bowl seats [or don't want to pay the exorbitant season ticket prices for them] probably jumped at the chance to sit there for these games. And there probably was some migration, but not a whole lot [since, as MT indicated, the security folks take their jobs somewhat seriously...for better or worse]
03-20-2012, 10:25 AM
For WBB, we've been complaining about crossing time zones and playing at 10AM. I thought I'd point out that last night's game was over at 11PM PDT, or 1AM in Illinois on a week night.
03-20-2012, 10:42 AM
Dare I say that we actually looked like a well-coached team last night? There were certainly things to complain about (the 3-point attempt by Mann, 60% FT shooting, all the shots 6 inches inside the 3-point line). But overall, this was a well-played game on offense and defense.
What I want to know is where was this sort of play during the Pac-12 season???
What I want to know is where was this sort of play during the Pac-12 season???
Dare I say that we actually looked like a well-coached team last night? There were certainly things to complain about (the 3-point attempt by Mann, 60% FT shooting, all the shots 6 inches inside the 3-point line). But overall, this was a well-played game on offense and defense.
What I want to know is where was this sort of play during the Pac-12 season???
What I want to know is where was this sort of play during the Pac-12 season???
03-20-2012, 10:56 AM
Burger--
I think part of it might have been what I wrote about in the post about the first game, when people were asking about the commentators' remarks that Stanford did well when Aaron Bright did well. We seem to do well when the other team is not big on the perimeter, which denies sight lines and good looks at the rim to Bright and Randle. Bright in particular seems to blossom when he's playing against another 5'9" or 5'10" guard, rather than a 6'2" or 6'3" defender. And Illinois State's guards, for all of their shooting prowess, were not really that big. The way I put it was, we do well when we're playing teams against which Bright can have success. Not to take anything away from his play last night, which was brilliant (and the fake no-look pass was one of the few real highlight-worthy plays I've seen by a Stanford men's team in a while).
Defensively, I was surprised it took us so long to switch to a straight denial and ball pressure defense against their shooters (late in the second half). The helter-skelter switching defense Stanford normally employs breaks down in the face of teams that pass well and hit open shots; every time Bright or Randle left their player on the perimeter to dig down and help inside, I cringed, knowing what was coming. But at that point, not sure if the defensive switch or simple fatigue explains the collapse of Ill State's offensive efficiency.
Offensively, I was frustrated by our inability to get the ball inside, especially late in the game and in the overtime, when both inside defenders were playing with four fouls. On the final play in regulation, I was hoping Bright would jump-stop, because he was about to get plowed over by the defender trailing him.
Just my $.02,
VG
I think part of it might have been what I wrote about in the post about the first game, when people were asking about the commentators' remarks that Stanford did well when Aaron Bright did well. We seem to do well when the other team is not big on the perimeter, which denies sight lines and good looks at the rim to Bright and Randle. Bright in particular seems to blossom when he's playing against another 5'9" or 5'10" guard, rather than a 6'2" or 6'3" defender. And Illinois State's guards, for all of their shooting prowess, were not really that big. The way I put it was, we do well when we're playing teams against which Bright can have success. Not to take anything away from his play last night, which was brilliant (and the fake no-look pass was one of the few real highlight-worthy plays I've seen by a Stanford men's team in a while).
Defensively, I was surprised it took us so long to switch to a straight denial and ball pressure defense against their shooters (late in the second half). The helter-skelter switching defense Stanford normally employs breaks down in the face of teams that pass well and hit open shots; every time Bright or Randle left their player on the perimeter to dig down and help inside, I cringed, knowing what was coming. But at that point, not sure if the defensive switch or simple fatigue explains the collapse of Ill State's offensive efficiency.
Offensively, I was frustrated by our inability to get the ball inside, especially late in the game and in the overtime, when both inside defenders were playing with four fouls. On the final play in regulation, I was hoping Bright would jump-stop, because he was about to get plowed over by the defender trailing him.
Just my $.02,
VG
Burger--
I think part of it might have been what I wrote about in the post about the first game, when people were asking about the commentators' remarks that Stanford did well when Aaron Bright did well. We seem to do well when the other team is not big on the perimeter, which denies sight lines and good looks at the rim to Bright and Randle. Bright in particular seems to blossom when he's playing against another 5'9" or 5'10" guard, rather than a 6'2" or 6'3" defender. And Illinois State's guards, for all of their shooting prowess, were not really that big. The way I put it was, we do well when we're playing teams against which Bright can have success. Not to take anything away from his play last night, which was brilliant (and the fake no-look pass was one of the few real highlight-worthy plays I've seen by a Stanford men's team in a while).
Defensively, I was surprised it took us so long to switch to a straight denial and ball pressure defense against their shooters (late in the second half). The helter-skelter switching defense Stanford normally employs breaks down in the face of teams that pass well and hit open shots; every time Bright or Randle left their player on the perimeter to dig down and help inside, I cringed, knowing what was coming. But at that point, not sure if the defensive switch or simple fatigue explains the collapse of Ill State's offensive efficiency.
Offensively, I was frustrated by our inability to get the ball inside, especially late in the game and in the overtime, when both inside defenders were playing with four fouls. On the final play in regulation, I was hoping Bright would jump-stop, because he was about to get plowed over by the defender trailing him.
Just my $.02,
VG
I think part of it might have been what I wrote about in the post about the first game, when people were asking about the commentators' remarks that Stanford did well when Aaron Bright did well. We seem to do well when the other team is not big on the perimeter, which denies sight lines and good looks at the rim to Bright and Randle. Bright in particular seems to blossom when he's playing against another 5'9" or 5'10" guard, rather than a 6'2" or 6'3" defender. And Illinois State's guards, for all of their shooting prowess, were not really that big. The way I put it was, we do well when we're playing teams against which Bright can have success. Not to take anything away from his play last night, which was brilliant (and the fake no-look pass was one of the few real highlight-worthy plays I've seen by a Stanford men's team in a while).
Defensively, I was surprised it took us so long to switch to a straight denial and ball pressure defense against their shooters (late in the second half). The helter-skelter switching defense Stanford normally employs breaks down in the face of teams that pass well and hit open shots; every time Bright or Randle left their player on the perimeter to dig down and help inside, I cringed, knowing what was coming. But at that point, not sure if the defensive switch or simple fatigue explains the collapse of Ill State's offensive efficiency.
Offensively, I was frustrated by our inability to get the ball inside, especially late in the game and in the overtime, when both inside defenders were playing with four fouls. On the final play in regulation, I was hoping Bright would jump-stop, because he was about to get plowed over by the defender trailing him.
Just my $.02,
VG
03-20-2012, 11:26 AM
Several great insights in your analysis (per usual), VG. The only point I'd add is that ISU looked terrible in their half-court offense early in the game. Lots of poor passing, IMHO, and they would have been down by a lot if they weren't hitting so many 3s. Unfortunately, they cleaned it up considerably (undoubtedly contributing to their 2nd half run, in which they went from down-seven to up-by-eleven). Perhaps that explains why we stuck with the switching defense as long as we did (too long, in hindsight)? Overall, I thought Dawkins did an excellent job last night... particularly after he (finally!) conceded that Mann and Zimmerman were not our best options.
P.S. I've gotta figure out how find ESPN's Top 10 plays from last night online... if Bright's fake no-look-pass layup didn't make the list, it's a travesty!
P.S. I've gotta figure out how find ESPN's Top 10 plays from last night online... if Bright's fake no-look-pass layup didn't make the list, it's a travesty!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
Several great insights in your analysis (per usual), VG. The only point I'd add is that ISU looked terrible in their half-court offense early in the game. Lots of poor passing, IMHO, and they would have been down by a lot if they weren't hitting so many 3s. Unfortunately, they cleaned it up considerably (undoubtedly contributing to their 2nd half run, in which they went from down-seven to up-by-eleven). Perhaps that explains why we stuck with the switching defense as long as we did (too long, in hindsight)? Overall, I thought Dawkins did an excellent job last night... particularly after he (finally!) conceded that Mann and Zimmerman were not our best options.
P.S. I've gotta figure out how find ESPN's Top 10 plays from last night online... if Bright's fake no-look-pass layup didn't make the list, it's a travesty!
P.S. I've gotta figure out how find ESPN's Top 10 plays from last night online... if Bright's fake no-look-pass layup didn't make the list, it's a travesty!
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. - John Stuart Mill
03-20-2012, 11:49 AM
Okay, the matchup against Nevada doesn't look as promising, unless there's a lot of height inflation going on:
http://www.nevadawolfpack.com/sports/m-b...l-mtt.html
Starters are all 6'+. Play a lot of 6'3"-6'7" types. They start 6'1", 6'5", 6'8", 6'7", 6'8" (Burton, Story, Evans, Czyz, Hunt). On the positive side, their best player (WAC player of the year Deonte Burton) is the shortest regular at 6'1". But his backcourt mate Malik Story is 6'5" at the shooting guard, shooting 42% on 3pt for the season.
On the whole, they look a lot like Stanford - lots of long perimeter players and a couple of power forwards, no true center, and shoot 66% from the FT line.
VG
http://www.nevadawolfpack.com/sports/m-b...l-mtt.html
Starters are all 6'+. Play a lot of 6'3"-6'7" types. They start 6'1", 6'5", 6'8", 6'7", 6'8" (Burton, Story, Evans, Czyz, Hunt). On the positive side, their best player (WAC player of the year Deonte Burton) is the shortest regular at 6'1". But his backcourt mate Malik Story is 6'5" at the shooting guard, shooting 42% on 3pt for the season.
On the whole, they look a lot like Stanford - lots of long perimeter players and a couple of power forwards, no true center, and shoot 66% from the FT line.
VG
Okay, the matchup against Nevada doesn't look as promising, unless there's a lot of height inflation going on:
http://www.nevadawolfpack.com/sports/m-b...l-mtt.html
Starters are all 6'+. Play a lot of 6'3"-6'7" types. They start 6'1", 6'5", 6'8", 6'7", 6'8" (Burton, Story, Evans, Czyz, Hunt). On the positive side, their best player (WAC player of the year Deonte Burton) is the shortest regular at 6'1". But his backcourt mate Malik Story is 6'5" at the shooting guard, shooting 42% on 3pt for the season.
On the whole, they look a lot like Stanford - lots of long perimeter players and a couple of power forwards, no true center, and shoot 66% from the FT line.
VG
http://www.nevadawolfpack.com/sports/m-b...l-mtt.html
Starters are all 6'+. Play a lot of 6'3"-6'7" types. They start 6'1", 6'5", 6'8", 6'7", 6'8" (Burton, Story, Evans, Czyz, Hunt). On the positive side, their best player (WAC player of the year Deonte Burton) is the shortest regular at 6'1". But his backcourt mate Malik Story is 6'5" at the shooting guard, shooting 42% on 3pt for the season.
On the whole, they look a lot like Stanford - lots of long perimeter players and a couple of power forwards, no true center, and shoot 66% from the FT line.
VG
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »