This is my variant of the "comment on each guy's performance, hang a clever tag on it, and call it a game review." Top comment in bold, well below, if you don't care to read the whole post and want to get right to the Super Fan award.
Off-thread comment. I didn't see one comment calling out IW. It needs to be said. Whaley got two quick fouls, fair or unfair, sat 15 minutes, started the second half, and almost immediately got foul number 3 on a completely unnecessary reach-in out past the 3 point line, iirc. Was it a foul? That's not the correct question. The correct question is: why would he even give the ref the chance to make that call? He's one of our most heady players - that was a terrible mistake, and it cost the team dearly - more than a shot here or a shot there, particularly when you consider he fouled out. Also, I love the heck out of him as a player.
On to the Hot Takes, all from threads since the game:
No. He deserves his part, and he'll take it, no doubt. But many things conspired to leave us a point shy. Does anybody really believe that lack of practice time, lack of games, lack of conditioning, and the consequent lack of chemistry didn't cost us at least . . . one point?
No. He literally can hit a wide open 3. Literally. He also dribbles quite well, and, if not at the Kemba level, certainly as well as CV, who did great with his handle.
No. Shame is not a word that we should apply to our team unless they quit, walk off the floor, attempt to injure a player, and so on. Cole put in 40. That's a lot of minutes after a long lay off. It was not shameful, it was disappointing, and I'm quite certain that our young men are more disappointed than are we.
No. Since 06 we've had 3 FF teams and 2 National Champions. Could have been 3 if we stayed injury free in 08. If we have a systemic offensive blight that trails back to 06, I'll keep it if I can have the same results in the next 14 years.
No. Vance Jackson is not particularly talented - 5 ppg on 36% shooting. Nor is his father particularly talented.
No. If it were true, he would have had 15 touches. He is definitely top 10, however.
No. You do. He'll play a very important role this year. Not the exaggerated, unrealistic role than many had carved out for him, but a very important role. Without him, we would be sorely understaffed at guard, and we'd suffer losses because of it. Just manage your expectations. He's not the second coming of Ryan Boatright.
No. Our former coach's teams would have folded the deck chairs well before the 3/4 mark of that game, and likely would not have been in the game a few minutes out of the half, when the big deficits usually started. This team, on very little practice, very little floor time, and very little in game conditioning, hung tough for 40 and and overtime. Poor play? Some. Bad decisions? Yes. But did they quit, which, other than CV, was the exact hallmark of the last disaster? No. They did not.
No. He is fine. He is working with many new parts and very little prep time, and he was working against a very good, senior team. He calls you diaper-wearer.
No. Jalen Gaffney shot poorly, to be sure, and that stood out, because poor shooting always stands out in games that come down to one basket, as every fanatic drills down to, "if ____ had just made one more shot." He had 7 boards, 3 assists, and 2 steals. The 7 boards were 2nd most on the team and he got them in 28 minutes. By comparison, Cole, Adams, Whaley, and Jackson combined for . . . 7 rebounds in 91 minutes. Further, his 3 assists were the most on the team and 1/3 of all of our assists.
No. Hurley needs to keep working on his coaching of this team. He's a proven winner. He'll win here.
No. See above answer for all on Hurley. Cole gave what Cole is going to give. 40 minutes of solid effort. He took their key player out of his game. If you look at Cole's schedule 2 years ago, Georgetown was the best team he played, and they finished at 70 or something. Most teams he played were over 100. He'll make adjustments and get better, but he's probably close to his ceiling. Expectations should be set accordingly.
No. Bouk doesn't need a "pass." If everybody is cold as the Antarctic, his contested shot is our best shot.
No. Just no.
No. He's adapting to a new level, and a new speed. If your personal expectations have not been met, please accept my apologies. He's heading in to the rotation, the only questions are: "how much and how soon?"
No. Not this game. There is a time and place for "let them work through their mistakes." Creighton would have seen his defensive weakness and gone right at it. Further, his inability to shoot from distance would have crowded up the offensive end. He will get his minutes when we play teams that will not be able to take advantage of his defensive lapses.
No. Stupid small lineups can work. Give it time, let the team settle in.
No. The math may be simple, but this is not math. 2+2 does not equal 4. Ball handlers and the 3 matter more. This isn't 1985.
No. Taking a quote like this from the Creighton board, replicating it here, and then agreeing with in should be grounds for a mid-season hanging.
No. We have a good, not great, point guard. Unrealistic expectations lead to unhappy realizations. He was a very good scorer at Howard against sub-100 competition. His assists/TO ratio has always been sub-par. It's unrealistic to believe that he's going to become a great distributor or completely shake the shoot first mentality that it takes to score in the 20s regularly.
No. Keep expectations realistic. We don't have the outside guns or polished interior players to make this happen without a small miracle. Top 25 is a reasonable goal, plus a tourni run, and with a lottery pick like Bouk, we're hoping for something between Curry and Melo, inclusive.
No. Not nonsense. Violations that resulted in institutional penalties.
No. See above. If he plays 15 minutes against Creighton, they eat him up on D. Adams is underappreciated in that role - he is a solid defender, and helped cause Creighton to have the bad shooting night that kept us in it. This is the Hurley way. His defenses keep his offenses in the game. I prefer that style rather than the 80s Nuggets or Loyola back in the day.
No. Alterique was a disaster, and was the clearest coaching mistake that was made last year. His benching coincided with our surge. I'm not sure how this is unclear to any fan who watched.
No. RJ has his limitations, which were clear and on display versus Creighton, but he is not a net negative. He corralled the other team's best scorer. That takes tremendous energy and focus. And it's one game. If he's shooting 10% in another 8 games and Hurley is riding him like the 2nd coming of Alterique, then we'll talk.
No. What's not "close" is that observation and reality. Are we talking about the same player? Little guy? Turnover machine? Terrible decision maker? Knack for momentum killing plays late in games?
No. Ridiculous. Best thing about your quote here is you won the SFC (Super Fan Comment) award for this edition of the Hot Take Compilation. Well done.
No. Shockingly, this did not come from the same poster as the previous pro-AG comment, which either means we've got a multiple-handle situation or we have two folks on the forum who definitely are marching to their own drum beat.
No. Unless you mean, "take them over and flush them right down the sh------r," in which case, yes. And, Boneyarders, that's a 3rd poster supporting the "AG would be our best point guard right now" argument. Lord.
No. See above. To play Andre extended minutes against Creighton and then lose because he's "working through his mistakes" would have been a terrible trade off - Hurley correctly went for the signature win.
No. He's sometimes too unselfish, and when he's shooting over 40 and 50 from the field, he should have a green light taped to his forehead. Bouk shoots lights out to get us to the win-line, and this guy's assessment of the game is that Bouk is selfish with the ball. Runner up for Super Fan Comment award.
