Chief’s Briefs - St John’s Edition | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Chief’s Briefs - St John’s Edition

I closely witness the bizarre incident as the ref was leaving at half time. However, I was not as close to what happened behind the basket on the UConn end when the same ref during a timeout lost his cool and tried to go after a fan. Did anyone here see what happened up close?
 
Captbluefin said:
What happens when AJ gets 2 fouls in the first 5 mins?

Like seems to happen in the last two games
Expand ...
Exactly. Yet another reason why it would be a major roll of the dice defensively. AJ's on-ball defense isn't (nearly) good enough to deal with quick guards and he ends up committing those Freshman fouls by trying to strip them from behind or going for highlight reel blocks after they blow by him.
 
connVA said:
Offensively, having DC at the 5, removing Newton, and putting AJ at the point is at least intriguing. We'd be substituting an offensive liability (Newton) with arguably our second or third-best offensive weapon at this point. But on defense, Sanogo has to defend 4's with multi-level offensive games, AJ and Hawkins have to defend (presumably) the two fastest guards, and Karaban has to defend a wing or guard (in three-guard offenses). I'm not sure that defense would be stopping anything out of Clingon's reach.
Expand ...
Clingan, Sanogo, Jackson, Karaban and Hawkins could be a nasty 2-3 zone. All sorts of length and pretty quick. A nice offensive combo as well.
 
hookshot said:
because he has no confidence that his shot will go in, and who is to say that he is wrong
Expand ...
I feel for him but, if he wants to be our point forward or whatever, he needs to get comfortable shooting that with a defender sagging 5 feet off of him vs passing it to Alleyne for a desperation airball or Karaban being so tightly covered that he can't even get a shot off.
 
Winning is easy. UCONN was up 16-8 because Hawkins had 14 points in 6 minutes 24 seconds. Guys gotta step up and make shots and then play solid smart defense. They get out of their game too easily and then sheet the bed.

Hawkins 3, 3, 2, 1-1-1, 3
 
.-.
hookshot said:
because he has no confidence that his shot will go in, and who is to say that he is wrong
Expand ...
This goes back to last year. When he plays he would rather do everything else in basketball than shoot.
 
You can draw a straight line from the 21 turnovers to today’s result. None of the rest would matter much if we weren’t giving them so many extra scoring opportunities and depriving ourselves of a chance to score both in the same play.
 
GotNets? said:
How did every one of these things disintegrate? It’s a legitimate question.

Can anyone provide any redeeming perspective? Is there some silver lining I’m missing like the team will get better in March? They look absolutely abysmal.
Expand ...
Honestly put, some players have clearly quit playing and they need to sit or be released. Play Clingan and AS together or sit AS and let him come off the bench.
 
dtrumpet said:
Clingan, Sanogo, Jackson, Karaban and Hawkins could be a nasty 2-3 zone. All sorts of length and pretty quick. A nice offensive combo as well.
Expand ...
Requires Hurley to get out his head and deal with reality. I’ve yet to see try anything but fiddling with combos in the same O and D.
 
Thank god we didn't make #1 in AP, because we might have been the first team to ever go from unranked to #1 to unranked again in the span of a month and a half.
 
.-.
When someone slaps/grabs you across the upper body the natural instinct is to shut your eyes to protect them. However, doing that definitely impacts the fundamental of focusing your eyes on the front of the rim and the ability to finish.
0DC8B4C4-2FB0-4140-9B29-5BB10D95C6C8.jpeg
 
Chief00 said:
That Clingan double technical was rediculous.
Expand ...

I will agree it was ridiculous only because there were clear differences in the fouls. Clingan made a basketball move, and only Clingan will know if it was intentional, but it appeared to me it was not intentional done to injure Jones, just Clingan is so big compared to the defender that unfortunately Jones' head was at the height of Clingan's turning elbow. By letter of the law it is a flagrant 1 though.

With that said, Jones' elbow was not a basketball move and the only intent was to hurt Clingan. They should have been assessed differently by the refs.
 
giddyup said:
Requires Hurley to get out his head and deal with reality. I’ve yet to see try anything but fiddling with combos in the same O and D.
Expand ...

Will Chief finally get his wish with Danny starting the best 5 players: Clingan, Sanogo, Jackson, Hawkins and Karaban?
Closer to reality than some may think?
 
2PointGuards said:
With St. Johns missing there 3's and taking everything into the paint, why weren't we switching to a zone?
Expand ...

Because it was our D that was responsible for St. John’s missing all those 3’s. Switching to a zone would have given them more open looks and likely better results.
 
ColchVEGAS said:
I will agree it was ridiculous only because there were clear differences in the fouls. Clingan made a basketball move, and only Clingan will know if it was intentional, but it appeared to me it was not intentional done to injure Jones, just Clingan is so big compared to the defender that unfortunately Jones' head was at the height of Clingan's turning elbow. By letter of the law it is a flagrant 1 though.

With that said, Jones' elbow was not a basketball move and the only intent was to hurt Clingan. They should have been assessed differently by the refs.
Expand ...
Clingan actually turned after the defender slapped is hand holding on to the ball
 
.-.
ColchVEGAS said:
I will agree it was ridiculous only because there were clear differences in the fouls. Clingan made a basketball move, and only Clingan will know if it was intentional, but it appeared to me it was not intentional done to injure Jones, just Clingan is so big compared to the defender that unfortunately Jones' head was at the height of Clingan's turning elbow. By letter of the law it is a flagrant 1 though.

With that said, Jones' elbow was not a basketball move and the only intent was to hurt Clingan. They should have been assessed differently by the refs.
Expand ...
Anderson was out of position and was not able to make the appropriate calls in real time. That was then followed by some of the most bizairre off court behavior I have ever seen in an official.
 
dtrumpet said:
Clingan, Sanogo, Jackson, Karaban and Hawkins could be a nasty 2-3 zone. All sorts of length and pretty quick. A nice offensive combo as well.
Expand ...

It seems like this as the starting lineup and a 2nd unit with either Clingan/Sanogo at center, Samson Johnson or Karaban at 4, Alleyne or Hawkins at 3, Newton/Calcaterra/Hawkins at 2, and Newton/Diarra at 1, would be a reasonable approach. Switch back to man for the 2nd unit.
 
ColchVEGAS said:
I will agree it was ridiculous only because there were clear differences in the fouls. Clingan made a basketball move, and only Clingan will know if it was intentional, but it appeared to me it was not intentional done to injure Jones, just Clingan is so big compared to the defender that unfortunately Jones' head was at the height of Clingan's turning elbow. By letter of the law it is a flagrant 1 though.

With that said, Jones' elbow was not a basketball move and the only intent was to hurt Clingan. They should have been assessed differently by the refs.
Expand ...

If the refs called it correctly, Clingan would've never gotten elbowed. Whether he meant to do it or not (I'm sure he didn't), elbowing a guy in the head should be a foul. So ultimately it worked out in our favor since the refs missed Clingan's elbow.
 
Rico444 said:
If the refs called it correctly, Clingan would've never gotten elbowed. Whether he meant to do it or not (I'm sure he didn't), elbowing a guy in the head should be a foul. So ultimately it worked out in our favor since the refs missed Clingan's elbow.
Expand ...

I agree, I am not saying it was not a foul on Clingan, as it clearly was a flagrant 1. I just do not understand how a basketball move that incidentally causes a foul can be assessed the same as a non basketball move which was deliberately done to attempt to injure another player.

To me they are different things, both are fouls, but should not be assessed the same. As far as I know there has never been a leniency rule for payback fouls.
 
ColchVEGAS said:
I agree, I am not saying it was not a foul on Clingan, as it clearly was a flagrant 1. I just do not understand how a basketball move that incidentally causes a foul can be assessed the same as a non basketball move which was deliberately done to attempt to injure another player.

To me they are different things, both are fouls, but should not be assessed the same. As far as I know there has never been a leniency rule for payback fouls.
Expand ...

If you ask me, not based off of the way the rules are written, but to what I think is fair, Clingan's should be a common foul and the other one should have been a Flagrant 1.

"A flagrant 1 foul is two shots and the ball and that means excessive in nature or unnecessary or avoidable, uncalled for or not required by the circumstances of the play.

A flagrant 2 foul is two shots and the ball and the player is ejected from the game. The rules committee added more words to describe this scenario, including brutal, harsh or cruel or dangerous or punishing."

The line about a flagrant 2 being "brutal, harsh or cruel or dangerous or punishing" doesn't really apply to the retaliation.
 
Agreed. Clingan's used to be a common foul up until a few years ago when they changed it so any elbows above the shoulder are considered Flagrant 1.
 
.-.
I mean if you want to go by the books if it was called right then Clingan's elbow never would've happened. He was getting reached in on and mauled which didn't get called so he pulled the ball up high and caused the elbow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,228
Messages
4,558,308
Members
10,443
Latest member
Billy Boy


Top Bottom