Post Game Cardinal v. Shockers

[Ricardo del Rio]

1. After the Buffalo game, I remarked to Teresa about how few 1' jump shots the Shockers have missed in the last 10 games or so.

Last night was ugly. We missed at least 4-5 1' jump shots.

2. For every Shocker shot that rolled around the rim and rolled out, the Cardinal had one to roll around the rim and go in.

3. I realize that in the long run, the advantage of crazy bouncing rebounds will even out. Last night, I swear the Cardinal was on the lucky side of crazy bounces.

4. The Shockers could not hit 10'-15' jump shots to save their soul. And I am talking about wide open jump shots.

5. One of our best players went 2-12 and had 4 turnovers!

6. The Shockers did not defend the pick and roll well at all. It was awful. Too many easy buckets.

7. The combination of Shocker turnovers and fouls was only 21. Probably the best for the season.

8. The Cardinal, formerly the Indians before PC, were superior athletes on balance.

9. The Shockers had zero answer for #15, Lawrence Hill.

10. Given all of the above, the Shockers outscored the Cardinal by 6 points in the last 26:12 of the game.

Yes, I know the game is 40 minutes long.

The loss was disheartening, but I see sunshine ahead.

[Shocker85]

All valid points, many of which I thought about as the game played out.

Add a couple more to the list

- Every 50/50 ball or dive to the sidelines the Shocks have snagged in the last several games was just off their fingertips and resulted in a Stanford possession.

- The Shocks didn't match-up well physically position-by-position with Stanford. Their players were taller, more muscular, and/or quicker pretty much across the board.

The Shocks did not play outstanding basketball like we saw vs. Buffalo, Cleveland St., Creighton, IlSt., etc. and it cost them. It should be a good reality check, though. The players got 2 extra weeks of practice and a live demonstration of where they can improve in order to compete against the "big boys".

--'85.

[Awesome Sauce Malone]

I didnt think Stanford defended that well. They were however pretty athletic and very long. Seeing them on the court I thought of a team of Aaron Ellis's but just a bit better.

When we attacked the rim we were fouled. i realize the game is physical but we as a team were getting some very good calls and failed to capitalize. When our defense made a stop or we were finally able to corral a rebound, we promptly missed on the opportunity on the other end.

We should have one this game. Period. We had the chance to win this game. As our friend RDR stated we couldnt shoot to save our soul.

Ramon came very very close to ending the game with a highlight reel quality dunk. Oh so close.

This team picked anywhere under top 3 in the valley next year is a sham and a call for mutiny.

[calfan]

Count me as one who does not NOW see the shockers in the top 3. I think we will battle SIU and Bradley for the #4 slot.

WSU is inconsistant the last 10 games at SG, SF, and WSU lose it's starting PF. The two positions that were consistant the last 10 games were starting PG and C.

Considering what Northerm Iowa and Creighton bring back, they are 1-2. That only leaves the 3 spot open. Bradley and Illinois State finshed ahead of WSU.

WSU still hasn't proven that they can win on the road. There are a lot of Question marks for this team tp be picked 3.

[newshock1234]

I disagree, you cannot say just because we played bad last night that we have no shot at 3rd next year. I just love where this team is headed, we have part of the foundation set with Murry, stutz, kyles, durley, and other, and now he just got to put the building peices together, I think we have just as good of a shot to win the MVC as anybody.

[C0|dB|00ded]

Last night was a reality check for me...

I thought we would complete much better than we did. Turgeon's teams were always smaller than their BCS opposition but competed very well except for that MSU beating in 2006.

Something about last night made me think we weren't very prepared for what we were going to face. I didn't see us adjust to the situation. I saw desperation all night long. I don't think the talent or the size disparity was as great as the game play indicated. Indeed, they seemed taller and longer especially when Hannah was on the floor. He looked like an ant among elephants but still...

It would seem to me that a team coming in that knew very little about us AND our highly sophisticated "automatic" offensive system (ESPECIALLY against a team that doesn't play good defense), would allow for more easy baskets. Instead we looked overwhelmed, we lacked poise, and didn't seem to adjust the entire game. Why didn't we work harder to get our guards some open shots? Where was the Hawk 33 play? I know I am always suspect of GG's strategy, but at times it seemed to me like he took the night off. I know that isn't the case, but we never did anything to make the other team uncomfortable. Am I supposed to believe that the #9 Pac-10 team was so magnificent that they had no weak points to exploit? Why weren't we more aggressive during the first half? At one point the fouls were like 3-8 or something like that.

On another note: Man did they look taller than our team! Their starters go 6'1", 6'3", 6'7", 6'8", 6'8" and we go 5'11", 6'4", 6'4", 6'6", 6'7". That puts us at a 1.4" disadvantage between our starters on average. It seemed like much more than that. I was so distraught by this apparent oddity that I was trying to compare arm lengths.. even haircuts.. LOL. I'm wondering if we are doing some serious stretching of the truth when it comes to height.

I think Reggie is more like 5'9", Ramon is closer to 6'5", and Durley is closer to 6'6" -IF the Stanford player's heights are accurate. #15 sure looked a lot taller than 6'8". I would have bet the house that he was 6'9". Stutz looked to be a couple inches taller than Trotter #50 who is only listed at 6'9"!!!! Stanford must have some "purity in measuring vow" where they measure their players barefoot in freezing temperatures or something. Trotter looked much taller than 6'9"... I remember Paul Miller came in at 6'9.75" at the NBA camp in socks so his height was pretty accurate. He would have been at least 6'10.75" in basketball shoes.

I don't know, but I am very sore after last night's game. It was the epitome of BCS versus non-BCS stereotype coming to life and made me wonder how the hell did we ever beat Tennessee, Syracuse, LSU, Providence, etc. etc. etc. the way we did. Those Turgeon teams were either better coached or they were better players. I can't buy the "freshman" excuse anymore. Our players are now game tested. To me it appears like we have MUCH more "talent" on our club than we had during Turgeon's era, but I may just be attributing credit to the wrong aspects of what makes up a winning "non-BCS" team.

I do think we will be better in the MVC next year. How much better remains to be seen. If the BJ's can play Kentucky fairly close and we get absolutely dominated by #9 Stanford for 40mins, we have a lot to learn in this program from the coaching to the playing before we challenge for any MVC titles.


T


...8)

[ShockerFever]

Geez Cold.. I thought I was the negative bastard??

That was just downright depressing.. :cry:

[engrshock]

Make the 4 or 5 missed close shots and dunks and the score is much closer. Make a few more 3's and the score is much closer. do both and the Shox win the game. KU and K-state do not look very good either when they are missing shots.

That being said I will be very glad when we get to the point that the Shox can win without playing a good game and when the Shox play well they blow mid-MVC teams out. When the Shox get there (and it could be next year) we will be watching them play in the Thursday-Sunday tournament!

[C0|dB|00ded]

Geez Cold.. I thought I was the negative bastard??

That was just downright depressing.. :cry:

You want to know something depressing? Stanford felt so sorry for us that they intentionally threw the ball out of bounds with less than 35 left so we could have the ball on the final play. Instead of just dribbling it out, Hannah took an unguarded three and nailed it. That is depressing. It was so big brother, little brother I was sick to my stomach. THEN to top it off, we continued to guard hard (even trap a little) for the final 20 seconds... reminds me of the story of the "Little Engine that COULDN'T". So sad yet so much respect for a Stanford team that took their foot off the pedal with 10 minutes to play. They could have embarrassed us in front of our own fans MUCH worse than they did.

They felt pity for us...


T


...8)

[ShockTalk]

Cold - I disagree with your assessment of this team being game tested compared to MT last three teams. I believe the 04-05 team's starters were 3 seniors, 1 junior, 1 soph, along with two very nice frosh with none being JUCO transfers. The 05-06 team's first 7 were 1 senior, 3 juniors, and 3 sophs along with two very important seniors on the bench. In 06-07 it was 3 seniors and 4 juniors.

Overall, I think this team was not that far off from MTs last team and next year should be more like the 04-05 team.

[DPruett2333]

Stop freaking out, people! Apparently, you all have forgotten that this was most of our guy's first season of playing D1 ball!! We are a VERY YOUNG team, still... Stanford is in a big time conference and plays big time teams night in and night out and is let by SENIORS!!

The only two players to score in double digits for Stanford were both SENIORS. We had a junior and a sophomore score in double digits. I'm stoked about the future!!

Go Shockers!!!

[C0|dB|00ded]

Make the 4 or 5 missed close shots and dunks and the score is much closer. Make a few more 3's and the score is much closer. do both and the Shox win the game. KU and K-state do not look very good either when they are missing shots.

That being said I will be very glad when we get to the point that the Shox can win without playing a good game and when the Shox play well they blow mid-MVC teams out. When the Shox get there (and it could be next year) we will be watching them play in the Thursday-Sunday tournament!

Make the 4 or 5 missed close shots and dunks and the score is much closer.

LMAO!

Ours was the type of game where the score was not indicative of how unbalanced the teams really were. We should/could have lost by 30.


T


...8)

[C0|dB|00ded]

Cold - I disagree with your assessment of this team being game tested compared to MT last three teams. I believe the 04-05 team's starters were 3 seniors, 1 junior, 1 soph, along with two very nice frosh with none being JUCO transfers. The 05-06 team's first 7 were 1 senior, 3 juniors, and 3 sophs along with two very important seniors on the bench. In 06-07 it was 3 seniors and 4 juniors.

Overall, I think this team was not that far off from MTs last team and next year should be more like the 04-05 team.

That's cool. On to year THREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! :good:

However, if we get owned by a rookie NIU coach again, start building your excuses now because I won't hold back...

:good: :good: :good: :good:


T


...8)

[RoyalShock]

We should/could have lost by 30.

But we didn't. Why is that?

If you couldn't tell that Hannah's 3-pointer in the final posession was with a defender in his grill (check the vid on goshockers.com for verification), I'm not sure how many of your other observations can be trusted.

[ShockCounselor]

It was only one game folks. Continue to assess this year on the entire body of work for the year.