Courtside Report

[Near Nyack]

From The Courant: "The Pirates kept right on punching and left the defending national champions searching for their identity. They out-rebounded the Huskies, out-hustled and outshot them in a big way."

Seton Hall did NOT out hustle the Huskies. We hustled the entire game. We were outplayed, out coached by a wide margin, and made mistakes, but we hustled. Seton Hall was George Mason, except they are better. Pope walked, pushed, and NEVER got called. But we stunk, especially Napier, who has to dribble, force, and think he is the only guy that can run the team.

Not so.

 

[Kitaman]

It appeared from my television that we were out-hustled and lacked energy. It also appeared as if SHU wanted the victory more, and we couldn't answer their attacks.

 

[Near Nyack]

It appeared from my television that we were out-hustled and lacked energy. It also appeared as if SHU wanted the victory more, and we couldn't answer their attacks.

No, that's not the case. Especially that SH "wanted the game more". Complete nonsense. The Huskies took the lead early. But we lost the game because we were unable to play against a ZONE, Press, AND M to M rotation. We were "outsubstituted". We have not developed a baseline scoring rotation. Napier and Lamb tried to dribble through a zone, and nothing went in when forced to take 3s off of cross court passes. Boatright is hesitant to shoot. Napier wants to run everything. THIS IS ABOUT COACHING. NOT ATTACKING A ZONE CORRECTLY, NOT DEVELOPING INSIDE SCORING ALL SEASON.

WE LOST BECAUSE WE WERE OUT COACHED AND THE BALL DIDN'T GO IN. SETON HALL'S DID. WE DID NOT SLACK ON D. DON'T BLAME THE TEAM FOR NOT HUSTLING AND NOT PLAYING HARD.

 

[Prezidint]

I always use this as my litmus test:

When all the bounces seem to be going one way, it's almost never because all the bounces are going one way and almost always because one team is hustling more than the other.

They got 13 offensive rebounds to our 9, and they shot 50% from 3.

We are bigger, faster, and stronger than them, and we have a deeper bench.

I don't buy that "the bounces went their way." They were keyed in and moving to every loose ball.
Or that "the refs called in their favor." We had 17 free throws. They had 12.
Or that "they shot the lights out." Their shots were not all contested. There is a huge difference between being on a guy as he receives a pass and making a run at a guy who is already into his shot. We lacked defensive passion. Do you think there is any chance that the Seton Hall Pirates shoot 50% from 3 against the UConn Huskies of March of 2010? No damn way.

They played harder, they played with more energy, they had a greater desire to win, and, because of those three things, the bounces went their way, the calls went their way, and their shots went down.

It's really that simple.

 

[Prezidint]

THIS IS ABOUT COACHING. NOT ATTACKING A ZONE CORRECTLY, NOT DEVELOPING INSIDE SCORING ALL SEASON. WE LOST BECAUSE WE WERE OUT COACHED AND THE BALL DIDN'T GO IN. SETON HALL'S DID. WE DID NOT SLACK ON D. DON'T BLAME THE TEAM FOR NOT HUSTLING AND NOT PLAYING HARD.

Looks like another screamer boys.

Screamer dude. If we "DON'T BLAME THE TEAM FOR" the 50% three shooting by the Hall, who should be blame? The refs?

 

[Revrat]

No, that's not the case. Especially that SH "wanted the game more". Complete nonsense. The Huskies took the lead early. But we lost the game because we were unable to play against a ZONE, Press, AND M to M rotation. We were "outsubstituted". We have not developed a baseline scoring rotation. Napier and Lamb tried to dribble through a zone, and nothing went in when forced to take 3s off of cross court passes. Boatright is hesitant to shoot. Napier wants to run everything. THIS IS ABOUT COACHING. NOT ATTACKING A ZONE CORRECTLY, NOT DEVELOPING INSIDE SCORING ALL SEASON.

WE LOST BECAUSE WE WERE OUT COACHED AND THE BALL DIDN'T GO IN. SETON HALL'S DID. WE DID NOT SLACK ON D. DON'T BLAME THE TEAM FOR NOT HUSTLING AND NOT PLAYING HARD.

Absoluteley no clue what game you watched. Alec watched how many rebounds bounce right next to him? How many times was a Seton Hall guy on the floor while a UConn guy was standing next to him bending over hoping the ball would somehow bounce to him on it's own? Hopw many times was a ball going out of bounds while a Seton Hall guy ran by a UConn guy to get it or tip it to a teamate. We had nothing on Seton Hall as far as effort last night. It was a stinker all around. The guys folded when they started to get pushed around and there were no calls. Thats what happens to Freshman and Sophmores with little Big East experiennce. Could'nt you read their lips? on every play they were muttering to themselves and not understanding what was happening. They let it get to their heads.

 

[jibsey]

Sorry but I did not see lack of hustle last night. I saw Napier and Boatright trying to drive the lane and getting stripped. I saw bad passes getting picked off. 13 turnovers in first half. If you must know we need to be tougher. We want to defend without fouling but Drummond committed no fouls and Oriachi just 2. That's not enough. It's the BE and we weren't tough and we did stupid things with the ball.

 

[gibhunter]

Agree. When Napier and Lamb were fouled, lost ball out of bounds the refs called it a turnover on us as if they lost the ball all by themselves. When it happened twice more, it got into their head and they stopped playing. They lost the game in the last 13 minutes of the first half. I'm not sure whether UConn had a turnover in the second half, but coupled with the turnovers resulting from uncalled fouls they had 12 or 13 in the first half alone. That's 10 extra possessions given to SHU (they only had 3 or 4 turnovers in the first half).

The fact that we got out-rebounded and every time there was a loose ball their guy was on the ground getting to it while our guys stood around tells me that there was an issue with effort. We also allowed them to take 20 and make 10 3 pointers. That's a pathetic perimeter defense. We have players that could extend but were afraid to leave Drummond 1 on 1 because he could pick up a foul. Well let him, he has 5 to give and finished with 2. Oriakhi had 2 points, 2 rebounds and no fouls in 19 minutes. Olander had 8 points, 5 rebounds and 2 steals in 17.

It was very much about effort, poorly timed T and inability to make in game adjustments. They should've played Drummond on Pope and Olander should've played 30 minutes at Oriakhi's expense. They should've used Daniels more and give rest to Napier who was obviously bothered by and unable to guard Theodore.

 

[willie99]

we were outplayed last night

turnovers in the 1st half put us in a big hole, we played even the 2nd half

and the Hall shot way better than average, especially from 3 where they looked like assassins in the 2nd half

it happens, they were stoked

and seniors have a way of schooling freshmen in January

 

[Danzz]

I always use this as my litmus test:

When all the bounces seem to be going one way, it's almost never because all the bounces are going one way and almost always because one team is hustling more than the other.

They got 13 offensive rebounds to our 9, and they shot 50% from 3.

We are bigger, faster, and stronger than them, and we have a deeper bench.

I don't buy that "the bounces went their way." They were keyed in and moving to every loose ball.
Or that "the refs called in their favor." We had 17 free throws. They had 12.
Or that "they shot the lights out." Their shots were not all contested. There is a huge difference between being on a guy as he receives a pass and making a run at a guy who is already into his shot. We lacked defensive passion. Do you think there is any chance that the Seton Hall Pirates shoot 50% from 3 against the UConn Huskies of March of 2010? No damn way.

They played harder, they played with more energy, they had a greater desire to win, and, because of those three things, the bounces went their way, the calls went their way, and their shots went down.

It's really that simple.

It really is that simple . SH beat us to the ball. However, it was the turnovers that really killed us and we can't blame Blaney for that.

 

[Gurleyman]

My biggest issues with Blaney were putting in three subs up 11-2 and going to the 1-3-1 in the second half. Both were disatrous. Would the game have turned out different? Probably not. But you have to ride a hot start as long as it takes you, and you can't panic and go to a defense you've never played before with 10 minutes to go and the game still within reach. That's what Butler did in the championship game, and that was their final nail. Seton Hall didn't have any individual match-up problems that were making it tough to play man, and they didn't have a lack of three-point shooting to exploit. There was no need to switch defenses at that point, and that was our final nail. And lest anyone think I am Monday morning quarterbacking, I said "what the hell are you doing?" the moment I saw it.

It's different if you regularly play multiple defenses, but we don't (and Butler didn't).