WSU vs Creighton GAME THREAD

[pinstripers]

Creighton is very good.

[wufan]

No complaints about the D on Doug. Ben Smith was faster and stronger than Doug! We let Greg E, Gibbs, and Young beat us. Creighton is indeed very good.

[ABC]

Low assists also happen when lots of shots are missed.

[SubGod22]

Low assists also happen when lots of shots are missed.

They also happen when the team is selfish and jacks up dumb shots instead of working for a good one.

[proshox]

To those who feel WSU needs to recruit smarter players:

CU had a lot to do with the shot selection. They were holding the post players in check and leaving guys like TM unguarded at the three point line. This makes it really hard to drive and difficult to feed the post to players in position to score.

Go back and watch the game film - as good as Carl Hall was Saturday he would not make an effective move when he didn't catch the ball on the low block. I counted at least three post feeds which went his way in the second half - on each, he couldn't make a basketball move (like Durley or Blair could have made last year). Each time the ball was kicked out to a covered player who had to rotate the ball weak-side with a diminished shot clock. All three ended up with "dumb" three point shots because there really wasn't time to do anything else. Had the shots fallen everyone would have said look how well the shockers worked the ball inside out making the CU team play defense which resulted in a good three point shot. Results often produce a bias against or for the effort put in that may not reflect reality.

CU made very few mistakes in the second half and it definitely limited the number of drives and post feeds that everyone on Shockernet wants to see. Unfortunately, one of the consequences of missing three point shots is that the other team stops defending every pump fake and it gets more difficult to drive or feed the post. It isn't all about players being dumb. Make one or two threes and the game opens up and we aren't all overreacting about coach or the players.

[ShockTalk]

You're in trouble? LOL where do you get that? I meant lets move on as a fanbase and stop beating this loss up. But if you want to to take the micro approach and feel it was about you, ok. I guess since I'm the administrator I can't have a conversation and give a general "lets move on" without people thinking I'm somehow manipulating the conversation. This is now noted.

Sorry @_kai_:, I get frustrated looking over all the emoticons trying to find the one I want to use. Poor attempt of sarcasm, I was just pulling your chain.

Nevertheless, feel free to respond to the rest of my post. Note: I'm still PO'd over the Shocks general play that game. Several times prior to the game, different people commented on "which Shocker team was going to show up". It was obvious early, but saw that transformation and was hoping it would continue the second half. We know the rest of the story. I have no problem with cold shooting games as long as quality shots are taken at the appropriate times. I know my view of this and our coaching staff's (and they're the ones rightfully getting paid the big bucks) is different as it was stated they had no problem with most all the shots the players took, and to me, that showed in this game as it has in others. I also don't like riding a horse to death, but feel that obvious attempts should be made to make changes when something isn't working. I'll assume I'm probably just not able to tell.

[_kai_]

Sorry @_kai_, I get frustrated looking over all the emoticons trying to find the one I want to use. Poor attempt of sarcasm, I was just pulling your chain.

Nevertheless, feel free to respond to the rest of my post. Note: I'm still PO'd over the Shocks general play that game. Several times prior to the game, different people commented on "which Shocker team was going to show up". It was obvious early, but saw that transformation and was hoping it would continue the second half. We know the rest of the story. I have no problem with cold shooting games as long as quality shots are taken at the appropriate times. I know my view of this and our coaching staff's (and they're the ones rightfully getting paid the big bucks) is different as it was stated they had no problem with most all the shots the players took, and to me, that showed in this game as it has in others. I also don't like riding a horse to death, but feel that obvious attempts should be made to make changes when something isn't working. I'll assume I'm probably just not able to tell.

I actually agree with nearly every point you talked about in this post, and the previous one. I guess I was being a bit micro in my response as well.

This is posed to you, and anyone else can respond to the question.

Is the poor play from our starting center, one of the biggest if not the biggest problem with the Creighton game?

I ask this because watching the game, I felt as if Stutz wasn't even on the same planet. Not skill-wise, but just in a general sense. Was he sick? He seemed aloof at times, and always a step behind (more so than he already is). Echinique seemed to just dominate the hell out Stutz. And from everything I've read about Echinique is that he has made strides from last year, but nothing extraordinary. But then again I guess you could compare Echinique to JaMychal Green at Alabama. A long, lean, athletic post player. It seems when Stutz is put toe to toe with highly athletic post players he just can't hang with their quickness. But back to the actual analysis of the question, lets say Stutz plays lights out, I think we win. The inability to score low, forced our guards to shoot 3's, and no one could get hot. So then it just seemed like collapsed as a team. Almost like we gave up on the gameplan so we had players just chucking up 3's. If Stutz came to play, I think we win.

[pinstripers]

I was more disappointed with Murry, myself.

[SubGod22]

I was more disappointed with Murry, myself.

Very much so

[another shocker]

Sorry @_kai_:, I get frustrated looking over all the emoticons trying to find the one I want to use. Poor attempt of sarcasm, I was just pulling your chain.

Nevertheless, feel free to respond to the rest of my post. Note: I'm still PO'd over the Shocks general play that game. Several times prior to the game, different people commented on "which Shocker team was going to show up". It was obvious early, but saw that transformation and was hoping it would continue the second half. We know the rest of the story. I have no problem with cold shooting games as long as quality shots are taken at the appropriate times. I know my view of this and our coaching staff's (and they're the ones rightfully getting paid the big bucks) is different as it was stated they had no problem with most all the shots the players took, and to me, that showed in this game as it has in others. I also don't like riding a horse to death, but feel that obvious attempts should be made to make changes when something isn't working. I'll assume I'm probably just not able to tell.

Yes. There's a difference between being cold from the field and a team tripping over itself. Shox tripped up bad, looked bad, on national TV, I think it was. Who knows, though, maybe Creighton will be the annual team that dry humps a prostrate WSU to a sweet-16 or whatever.

[wufan]

Who knows, though, maybe Creighton will be the annual team that dry humps a prostrate WSU to a sweet-16 or whatever.

No idea what that means, but I like it!

[another shocker]

No idea what that means, but I like it!

'Glad you liked it!

[KSUUWSU]

Watching CU play Drake. Just making me get all p#$$ed off again! I really look forward to the rematch. Hopefully our guys will show up for an all out brawl next time!

[ShockerFever]

I was more disappointed with Murry, myself.

Yep but yet some of the really hoopity Murry fans don't even bother calling him out and are trying to use Stutz as the scapegoat. Granted, Stutz was definitely bad, horrible even, but a lot of that, as been discussed by many on here, has to do with more physical matchups for Garrett.

Murry, once again, led the team in turnovers. His number of bad shots could also be counted as turnovers but aren't. I'm willing to give TM credit when his credit is due, but all of the people who are always quick to chastise me and others when Murry has a good game suddenly disappear or completely ignore his play when he has a brutally bad game. That kinda gets annoying honestly.

And let me reiterate. Murry was not the only player that sucked. It wasn't his fault we lost. There were numerous things by lots of players that were bad.

I guess what I'd like to see are the kai's, Kung Wu's, and TMH's of the world's opinions of Toure Murry in the Creighton game since they haven't bothered mentioning an iota about him.

[another shocker]

Ragland had a game-changing type turnover too. He came down mid second half and threw it to the water boy for Creighton. WSU completely lost their patience against an active defense.