Terrible Decision

Donate To GopherHole
josh087

josh087

Sharing Common Sense & Reality
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
3,554
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Gophers down 3 with a 6-second differential on the clocks, and Tubby doesn't foul. Stunningly stupid, especially against a team that just failed in that exact same scenario on Sunday.
 

Give it a rest. They made their free throws all night. I'm totally good with that decision... AND, it worked out. I'll take my chances with Tubby over you.
 

Turned out to be a good decision since IU made a bad decision. The execution on the other end left something to be desired.
 

I didn't like the decision either but it worked out pretty well. Indiana took a stupid shot about 8 seconds too early.
 

Hulls had it almost the enitire time and he is an 88% shooter, so I think it was the right call. I can't remember who he passed it to for a second, but that would have been the time to foul.
 


It would have been "stunningly stupid" to foul an 85% free throw shooter. Smith gave the Gophers a chance to win at the end by not calling for the foul.
 

Me and my roommate were debating this. He wanted to foul, I said no way. It's a 50-50 call (IMO) and in this case, Smith made the right one.

The inbound play, however, I hated. Not a fan of having Blake inbound. Would rather he come around the 3-pt line (going left too) and catch it off of like 3 screens and just put it up.
 

Even if you foul with 30 secs left, Hulls at least makes it a two possession game. Thus after we score the first time, we are right back to the same dilemma. We had the ball with 8 secs left with a chance to tie...I dont see how that was a terrible decision
 

scher215 said:
Me and my roommate were debating this. He wanted to foul, I said no way. It's a 50-50 call (IMO) and in this case, Smith made the right one.

The inbound play, however, I hated. Not a fan of having Blake inbound. Would rather he come around the 3-pt line (going left too) and catch it off of like 3 screens and just put it up.
Click to expand...

Me either. Didn't like it.
 



I would have had Ralph take the 3 at the end - evryone else was and will be guarded too closely!
 

Gopherocious said:
Even if you foul with 30 secs left, Hulls at least makes it a two possession game. Thus after we score the first time, we are right back to the same dilemma. We had the ball with 8 secs left with a chance to tie...I dont see how that was a terrible decision
Click to expand...

Indiana could and should have taken a shot with no time left on the clock. By the time the Gophers grabbed the rebound, assuming the shot was missed and they were in position for the rebound, there should have only been less than 5 seconds left in the game. Even if we immediately called a timeout (did we still have one - if not, an even more stupid decision) once they grabbed the rebound they still had to go the lenth of the floor in that time and get a three just to tie. Plus, given the amount of time left at that point, Indiana could have fouled us before the three point shot, further decreasing our chances to win.

We basically relied on a team to royally mess up on one end of the floor just to get the slim chance of a rushed three point attempt on the other end to tie. Against a team that hasn't won a lot of close games recently, extending the game by as many posessions as possible is the right move percentage-wise.

Just because "it worked out and we got a three point look anyway" doesn't mean it was a good decision. That's Les Miles talk.
 

josh087 said:
Indiana could and should have taken a shot with no time left on the clock. By the time the Gophers grabbed the rebound, assuming the shot was missed and they were in position for the rebound, there should have only been less than 5 seconds left in the game. Even if we immediately called a timeout (did we still have one - if not, an even more stupid decision) once they grabbed the rebound they still had to go the lenth of the floor in that time and get a three just to tie. Plus, given the amount of time left at that point, Indiana could have fouled us before the three point shot, further decreasing our chances to win.

We basically relied on a team to royally mess up on one end of the floor just to get the slim chance of a rushed three point attempt on the other end to tie. Against a team that hasn't won a lot of close games recently, extending the game by as many posessions as possible is the right move percentage-wise.

Just because "it worked out and we got a three point look anyway" doesn't mean it was a good decision. That's Les Miles talk.
Click to expand...

My reasoning for NOT fouling was because of 1) the good defense we'd been playing to close the game and 2) our inability to score in the half court and match Indiana shot for shot.

My thinking was, Indiana runs the clock down we sprint it to half court and call timeout with 2 or 3 seconds left. Immediately get it to Blake who sets and shoots and hope it is an okay look. Luckily, Indiana made it even better by screwing up, but MN just couldn't deliver and I didn't like the final play call (hate when you have the shooter inbound ...)
 

scher215 said:
Me and my roommate were debating this. He wanted to foul, I said no way. It's a 50-50 call (IMO) and in this case, Smith made the right one.

The inbound play, however, I hated. Not a fan of having Blake inbound. Would rather he come around the 3-pt line (going left too) and catch it off of like 3 screens and just put it up.
Click to expand...

I'm not necessarily a fan either, but Blake would have had a quality look if he had a good pass from Mav.
 



mattw1067 said:
I'm not necessarily a fan either, but Blake would have had a quality look if he had a good pass from Mav.
Click to expand...

He would have had a better look for sure. I am just not a fan of having the shooter inbound ever. Teams r rarley fooled by it these days. I'd rather run Blake off of 3 screens to catch and shoot. But just my opinion, I'm not the coach.
 

The bigger mistake was having Mav on the court on the last offensive possession. I understand he is probably the 2nd or 3rd best 3 point shooter, but in the heat of the moment I honestly would trust Sampson or Mbakwe taking a long jumper. Mav was out of his element and it showed.
 

Normally, I'd agree you have to foul. But IU hadn't missed a FT all night, and your only chance in that case is to make multiple 3's in a 30 second span. Given they were going smother Blake to death, there was little chance we were knocking down 2 or 3 three's in 30 seconds, and Tubby's strategy gave us our best shot.
 

Rosemountian said:
The bigger mistake was having Mav on the court on the last offensive possession. I understand he is probably the 2nd or 3rd best 3 point shooter, but in the heat of the moment I honestly would trust Sampson or Mbakwe taking a long jumper. Mav was out of his element and it showed.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not sure how you can have Mav making the most essential pass of the night. By the time Blake gathered it in, he had no chance to get off a good shot.
 

howeda7 said:
Normally, I'd agree you have to foul. But IU hadn't missed a FT all night, and your only chance in that case is to make multiple 3's in a 30 second span. Given they were going smother Blake to death, there was little chance we were knocking down 2 or 3 three's in 30 seconds, and Tubby's strategy gave us our best shot.
Click to expand...

I see what people are saying about the FT shooting, but whether or not you think a team will make their FTs is basically irrelevant in this situation. If Indiana was smart coming out of the timeout they should have taken a shot with 6 seconds left in the game, resulting in at best a defensive rebound with about 4 seconds left and the ball 94 feet away from the basket. And that's the best case scenario - Indiana still could have made the shot or gotten an offensive rebound or we could have committed a foul (close to a 50% chance of any of those happening). And even if we got the ball back with 4 seconds left Indiana could have fouled us before a three pointer even occurred.

Given the fact that Indiana totally botched this scenario only and actually gave us a chance furthers my point about extending the game. Give this team that has had trouble closing out games more chances to mess up. They were already on their heels having blown most of a 16-point lead. Heck, Jeremiah Rivers just blew a game with a couple FT misses last weekend. Put some pressure on the small PG Jordan Hulls - maybe you get a turnover.

I'm not saying that fouling would have resulted in a Gopher win. But I really believe it was the highest percentage-play in this situation.
 

scher215 said:
I'd rather run Blake off of 3 screens to catch and shoot. But just my opinion, I'm not the coach.
Click to expand...

Just like we did at the end of the Ohio St. game? All teams are going to switch the screens and we know how that ended for us... The play was fine (as Blake would've had a good look if the exchange from Mav was better), it was just the execution that hurt us.
 

There is absolutely no question that fouling them immediately is the higher percentage play. Hoping to make up 1 point (or even 2, if you're lucky) per possession over 30 seconds is a lot safer bet than pinning your entire hopes on making a 3 that wouldn't have even won the game - even more so when every person in the arena and watching on TV knows who is going to be taking the shot.
 

Screens for one guy do not work if they're dead set on guarding that one guy. They just don't work.

Not a chance they work. Just not gonna work.

/Don't work.
 

josh087 said:
I see what people are saying about the FT shooting, but whether or not you think a team will make their FTs is basically irrelevant in this situation. If Indiana was smart coming out of the timeout they should have taken a shot with 6 seconds left in the game, resulting in at best a defensive rebound with about 4 seconds left and the ball 94 feet away from the basket. And that's the best case scenario - Indiana still could have made the shot or gotten an offensive rebound or we could have committed a foul (close to a 50% chance of any of those happening). And even if we got the ball back with 4 seconds left Indiana could have fouled us before a three pointer even occurred.

Given the fact that Indiana totally botched this scenario only and actually gave us a chance furthers my point about extending the game. Give this team that has had trouble closing out games more chances to mess up. They were already on their heels having blown most of a 16-point lead. Heck, Jeremiah Rivers just blew a game with a couple FT misses last weekend. Put some pressure on the small PG Jordan Hulls - maybe you get a turnover.

I'm not saying that fouling would have resulted in a Gopher win. But I really believe it was the highest percentage-play in this situation.
Click to expand...

Normally, yes. You foul. Even if they make both you're down 5, hopefully hit a 3. Now you're down 2. You foul again. Maybe they miss 1. Now you're down 3 with the ball and maybe 15 seconds left. You have to hit another 3 just to tie. Given the lack of three point shooters on the team right now, I can certainly see Tubby deciding he'll take his chances on hitting one shot, even if there's only 5 seconds to do it, then trying to hit two threes in a 30 second span with the current roster.
 

Gopherholefan said:
Just like we did at the end of the Ohio St. game? All teams are going to switch the screens and we know how that ended for us... The play was fine (as Blake would've had a good look if the exchange from Mav was better), it was just the execution that hurt us.
Click to expand...

Once again, Blake was the in bounder. on that play.

I like having Blake basically, run toward the in bounder (at least against Indiana) and he can turn and shoot a 3 going to his left. Much like teams (and the Gophers have before with Blake) do when they have the ball down low on one side or the other, have your guard run to the in bounder catch and shoot.
 

FWIW, we had tired of the pseudo BTN announcers and switched to the radio. Grimm thought we should have fouled. Spencer was 100% in agreement w/not fouling.
There isn't a pure formula. Given who were are right now and how they were shooting, it made total sense. The strategy worked, our execution failed.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom