Danny doesn't seem to win the second game of any tournament.

[WestCoastHusky]

We lost cause Nova got a bunch of really good 3 point shooters, and they make their shots. We missed some shots we normally make, and we missed some free throws at let moments as well.

This got nothing to do with Hurley. He coached fine this game. We just need a few more shooters that can knock down 3s. If Jackson can making 3s consistently, we would be very dangerous.

 

[DALTX]

Interesting observation, and now would be the time to make it, because that streak is about to end.

 

[8893]

Interesting observation, and now would be the time to make it, because that streak is about to end.

I believe that too.

 

[8893]

No advanced metrics have us in the top 16, no human poll has us in the top 16, and we’re not going to get a seed that is expected to make the sweet 16. So I would not say that is the consensus.

It obviously is on this board though.

Well Calhoun said it. That’s good enough for me.

 

[mauconnfan]

I repeat, when your star has a bad shooting night in a nail biter it has zero to do with coaching history. The plays were designed fine. The defense was overall fine. Gillespie was held really well. The OP observation is making coincidence some sort of meaningful thing. It isn’t. It’s a basketball game we lost to a pretty good team when our star had a tough stretch of missing a bunch of shots he can make.

I mean he’s getting better but it’s still a valid point. I mean we didn’t really hold Gillespie down he had some great reads passing out of the double team. At what point do you stop hedging and doubling him and instead of dropping dimes for lay ins, maybe make him make a couple jumpers? And if your best shooter is going to play 21 minutes he better get more than 4 looks.

I mean overall he coached a solid game and guys didn’t make enough plays. But he needs to keep improving as well.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I will agree that we game planned for exactly that result, i.e., a close loss.

If Sanogo doesn't s___ the bed, this could easily have been a 67-63 win. That has nothing to do with game plan.

 

[cohenzone]

I mean he’s getting better but it’s still a valid point. I mean we didn’t really hold Gillespie down he had some great reads passing out of the double team. At what point do you stop hedging and doubling him and instead of dropping dimes for lay ins, maybe make him make a couple jumpers? And if your best shooter is going to play 21 minutes he better get more than 4 looks.

I mean overall he coached a solid game and guys didn’t make enough plays. But he needs to keep improving as well.

Jackson remains a problem piece of the offensive puzzle. He belongs on the floor with the very good variety of things he can do. But his unreliable jump shooting allows teams to play a dishonest defense which impacts Sanogo maybe more than anyone.

Yesterday, with a savvy player like Gillespie who can shoot you kind of pick your poison. The defensive scheme actually worked. Nova is a very good team and Gillespie is their most versatile. It’s kinda easy to second guess strategy but a tweak here or there might not have changed the scoring much. We’ll never know.

 

[8893]

If Sanogo doesn't s___ the bed, this could easily have been a 67-63 win. That has nothing to do with game plan.

Jackson remains a problem piece of the offensive puzzle. He belongs on the floor with the very good variety of things he can do. But his unreliable jump shooting allows teams to play a dishonest defense which impacts Sanogo maybe more than anyone.

Yesterday, with a savvy player like Gillespie who can shoot you kind of pick your poison. The defensive scheme actually worked. Nova is a very good team and Gillespie is their most versatile. It’s kinda easy to second guess strategy but a tweak here or there might not have changed the scoring much. We’ll never know.

I’m with @August_West here, and it’s not second-guessing because we said the exact same thing when we beat Villanova a few weeks ago: you can’t stick with our starting lineup when you need points.

Notice the difference when Kimani finally put Polley in with 35 seconds left; after being scoreless for more than three minutes, we finally scored and held on to win with a couple good breaks. Hurley doesn’t make that change and we lose.

Last night we stuck with the starting lineup and didn’t score. We left our fate to a sophomore center who was double and triple teamed all night, had trouble scoring all night and has a bad habit of not passing back out. We needed points and Polley is a fifth year player whose first job is to score. How he got only four shots all night is kind of staggering imo. And none for Gaff?

Martin‘s scoring obviously helped, but he actually shot the same percentage as Sanogo And Jackson. And with a goose egg from Whaley that just isn’t going to get it done, especially on a night when RJ shoots only 30% and is hounded all night too.

I get the gamble Hurley has made in constructing this team—and especially his starting lineup—and his preference for defense at the expense of offense. And as I said, for the most part it has worked and we have won the games we were supposed to win (remember we were actually favored vs. Nova at the XL) and have no bad losses. Last night was not a bad loss by any stretch. But as I’ve said from the start of the season, the lack of reliable offense among AJax, Whaley and Martin makes it hard imo to justify keeping them all on the floor together for so much of the game—especially if we need points at the end of a game.

 

[ClifSpliffy]

I mean he’s getting better but it’s still a valid point. I mean we didn’t really hold Gillespie down he had some great reads passing out of the double team. At what point do you stop hedging and doubling him and instead of dropping dimes for lay ins, maybe make him make a couple jumpers? And if your best shooter is going to play 21 minutes he better get more than 4 looks.

I mean overall he coached a solid game and guys didn’t make enough plays. But he needs to keep improving as well.

'And if your best shooter is going to play 21 minutes he better get more than 4 looks.'

best shooter? based upon what, ur feelings? tyrese is factually our best 3 ball shooter, cuz, ya know, that's what the record proves, along with aj and akok, too.
kinda surprised u put this baloney out there without adding the now decades old screed, that 'we have to run more plays, and more screens for him!' obviously, he can't get his own shot. or a board. or a dime. or a block. or a steal. or a ft other than an end game intentional foul.
i sure hope that magic game from him happens soon. it would help.
get well soon hawk.

 

[mauconnfan]

'And if your best shooter is going to play 21 minutes he better get more than 4 looks.'

best shooter? based upon what, ur feelings? tyrese is factually our best 3 ball shooter, cuz, ya know, that's what the record proves, along with aj and akok, too.
kinda surprised u put this baloney out there without adding the now decades old screed, that 'we have to run more plays, and more screens for him!' obviously, he can't get his own shot. or a board. or a dime. or a block. or a steal. or a ft other than an end game intentional foul.
i sure hope that magic game from him happens soon. it would help.
get well soon hawk.

Well working through your mumbo jumbo let’s make it simple, he’s a shooter and 21 minutes and just 4 shots is unacceptable. And please spare me the “we run plays for him” crap. There’s hardly ever any thing other than a soft pick on the perimeter he can run around never any hard double picks to make sure he gets a look off a focused set. Admittedly he can’t get his shot off on his own, so you need to find a way then.

And yeah Martin is our best percentage shooter you’re right that was an inaccurate statement on my part.

 

[Chief00]

Did you notice that Nova is a pretty good team? Did you notice that Danny didn’t miss three or four lay ups and two out of two foul shots in a row in the critical stretch when Nova opened up a little day light? Did you notice Danny isn’t the one who missed 3 wide open 3s in the last couple of minutes? The players have something to do with who wins or loses. Nova scored 63 points. Danny didn’t lose. UConn didn’t make makeable shots. Danny didn’t “lose” the game. I know Pal isn’t a Hurley hater, but the take in the OP is kinda silly.

ETA. Sanogo is a very good player but we justifiably make him the centerpiece of our offense and if he’s off we have trouble. Our last two losses were down to the wire games where his shooting % was not very good. None of that has a thing to do with the coach’s history.

Yeah, but 35 minutes of a 6-9 240 guy running around the 3 point line on high hedges and then back to the paint leaves him exhausted late in games. Never mind the banging he should be doing in the paint. Shooting starts from the legs.

 

[Tenspro2002]

I get the gamble Hurley has made in constructing this team—and especially his starting lineup—and his preference for defense at the expense of offense. And as I said, for the most part it has worked and we have won the games we were supposed to win (remember we were actually favored vs. Nova at the XL) and have no bad losses. Last night was not a bad loss by any stretch. But as I’ve said from the start of the season, the lack of reliable offense among AJax, Whaley and Martin makes it hard imo to justify keeping them all on the floor together for so much of the game—especially if we need points at the end of a game.

Whaley and Jackson are a problem together, especially alongside Sanogo. Just not enough offense, shooting in particular.

But including Martin in this category is just bizarre. He's been a bucket-getter at 2 if not all 3 levels.

 

[cohenzone]

I’m with @August_West here, and it’s not second-guessing because we said the exact same thing when we beat Villanova a few weeks ago: you can’t stick with our starting lineup when you need points.

Notice the difference when Kimani finally put Polley in with 35 seconds left; after being scoreless for more than three minutes, we finally scored and held on to win with a couple good breaks. Hurley doesn’t make that change and we lose.

Last night we stuck with the starting lineup and didn’t score. We left our fate to a sophomore center who was double and triple teamed all night, had trouble scoring all night and has a bad habit of not passing back out. We needed points and Polley is a fifth year player whose first job is to score. How he got only four shots all night is kind of staggering imo. And none for Gaff?

Martin‘s scoring obviously helped, but he actually shot the same percentage as Sanogo And Jackson. And with a goose egg from Whaley that just isn’t going to get it done, especially on a night when RJ shoots only 30% and is hounded all night too.

I get the gamble Hurley has made in constructing this team—and especially his starting lineup—and his preference for defense at the expense of offense. And as I said, for the most part it has worked and we have won the games we were supposed to win (remember we were actually favored vs. Nova at the XL) and have no bad losses. Last night was not a bad loss by any stretch. But as I’ve said from the start of the season, the lack of reliable offense among AJax, Whaley and Martin makes it hard imo to justify keeping them all on the floor together for so much of the game—especially if we need points at the end of a game.

It kinda is second guessing even if it’s the same second guess as before. But whatever. So if streaky Polley plays more instead of Whaley , goes 0-3 and gives up 8 points the second guess could be maybe he should have stuck with Whaley. We have a pretty unbalanced team as far as coaching choices go. We have shooters who can’t defend and defenders who can’t shoot reliably. Makes second guessing a sport all by itself. We are not an easy out but we are also easy to second guess and we are competitive as hell. Beats watching the news.

 

[8893]

Whaley and Jackson are a problem together, especially alongside Sanogo. Just not enough offense, shooting in particular.

But including Martin in this category is just bizarre. He's been a bucket-getter at 2 if not all 3 levels.

I’ve said repeatedly that Martin’s ceiling is higher than I appreciated and I am impressed by his improvement, especially as a shooter. And I agree that he has established himself as the third-best offensive option.

I still don’t think he’s the answer on offense night-in, night-out; and as I noted, last night he, Sanogo and Jackson all shot essentially the same percentage. Martin was more efficient because of his threes.

 

[8893]

It kinda is second guessing even if it’s the same second guess as before.

I don’t think we have the same understanding of the term “second guessing.”

I have always understood it to mean criticizing a decision in hindsight.

I’ve been on record about that decision since the start of the season, made the observation in real time at the last Nova game, and credited Kimani for realizing he needed to change the lineup. He did. We won.

Hurley didn’t. We lost. If he does the same next time and we lose is it second guessing again, even though it’s being said well in advance—again?

 

[UConnSwag11]

Whaley and Jackson are a problem together, especially alongside Sanogo. Just not enough offense, shooting in particular.

But including Martin in this category is just bizarre. He's been a bucket-getter at 2 if not all 3 levels.

I wonder if Jackson turns into a PG and we get a true 3/4 in the position. He has the speed, handles, and vision to get the ball to shooters

 

[Rico444]

We lost because we shot 30% in the 2nd half. Despite that fact, we almost pulled it out, but Nova made more plays down the stretch. Gillespie made some great passes for easy buckets and that block on Martin was a backbreaker.

 

[cohenzone]

I don’t think we have the same understanding of the term “second guessing.”

I have always understood it to mean criticizing a decision in hindsight.

I’ve been on record about that decision since the start of the season, made the observation in real time at the last Nova game, and credited Kimani for realizing he needed to change the lineup. He did. We won.

Hurley didn’t. We lost. If he does the same next time and we lose is it second guessing again, even though it’s being said well in advance—again?

You‘re using hindsight to support a conclusion that winds up being unsupportable if Polley misses as he does more often than Whaley is beaten on D. Would Polley being in the last 5 minutes yesterday have given us a better chance to win? We will never know and that’s one constant about life choices. You never will know the results of some other choice. Call it whatever you’d like - preferring a different strategy, understanding your choices better than the guy being paid a few million, second guessing - it all amounts to the same thing. He is making less than the best move in your opinion. That’s sports. i think he gets a lot out of this pretty unbalanced team. Maybe it’s a recruiting issue.

 

[8893]

You‘re using hindsight to support a conclusion that winds up being unsupportable if Polley misses as he does more often than Whaley is beaten on D. Would Polley being in the last 5 minutes yesterday have given us a better chance to win? We will never know and that’s one constant about life choices. You never will know the results of some other choice. Call it whatever you’d like - preferring a different strategy, understanding your choices better than the guy being paid a few million, second guessing - it all amounts to the same thing. He is making less than the best move in your opinion. That’s sports. i think he gets a lot out of this pretty unbalanced team. Maybe it’s a recruiting issue.

His game plan is designed for a close win or a close loss. He has said as much all season. I agree that he has gotten a lot out of this unbalanced team with that game plan and I have said so all along.

When we are leading a close game in the closing moments the starting lineup makes sense because it is a great lockdown lineup.

When we are losing a close game in the closing moments and we need to score, the starting lineup makes much less sense because it has struggled to score all season.

That is the gamble he has to make with this roster.

I pointed to a very specific, recent example against the same exact team in the same exact situation, where a different choice by a different coach led to a different result.

If losses don’t cause you to reexamine your choices, than you and Hurley approach things very differently than I do.

 

[cohenzone]

His game plan is designed for a close win or a close loss. He has said as much all season. I agree that he has gotten a lot out of this unbalanced team with that game plan and I have said so all along.

When we are leading a close game in the closing moments the starting lineup makes sense because it is a great lockdown lineup.

When we are losing a close game in the closing moments and we need to score, the starting lineup makes much less sense because it has struggled to score all season.

That is the gamble he has to make with this roster.

I pointed to a very specific, recent example against the same exact team in the same exact situation, where a different choice by a different coach led to a different result.

If losses don’t cause you to reexamine your choices, than you and Hurley approach things very differently than I do.

And if Polley misses as he does twice as often as not, I hope you still think it’s the right choice. The choice worked out that time. I happen to think that the guy who makes these choices more difficult is Jackson. He and Whaley do different positive things but the scoring option is much reduced with both on the floor Jackson plays a position that is typically a jump shooter‘s position. Could be more the reason why Hurley has a close game mindset. Hawkins was theoretically this year‘s freshman scoring stud but he, aside from injury, has taken time to become comfortable. Interesting that we rely a lot on two transfers and two Ollie holdovers.

 

[Kathy]

And if Polley misses as he does twice as often as not, I hope you still think it’s the right choice. The choice worked out that time. I happen to think that the guy who makes these choices more difficult is Jackson. He and Whaley do different positive things but the scoring option is much reduced with both on the floor Jackson plays a position that is typically a jump shooter‘s position. Could be more the reason why Hurley has a close game mindset. Hawkins was theoretically this year‘s freshman scoring stud but he, aside from injury, has taken time to become comfortable. Interesting that we rely a lot on two transfers and two Ollie holdovers.

That is interesting considering it is year 4

 

[Ts5034]

I think the answer is pretty simple. Danny just hasn't had great teams here thus far. Of course, they're getting increasingly better and we've seen the results of that, but it takes great teams to go deep in these tournaments. We're simply not good enough to beat Villanova consistently yet. I think we'll be there soon.

So many times over the last few seasons, It seems like we are just one player away from making the jump from good to great. We need other people to step up. Only 5 players scored in last night’s game. Would Hawkin’s have made a difference? We will never know, but that just adds to the frustration of this season where we played so many games without a full roster due to injury/covid.

 

[Kolumbo]

Suits vs. Sweats. I always thought Wright used to be a sharp dresser. You think a coach should wear a suit, sweatshirt, doesn't matter. It seems many are opting for the casual look these days.

 

[8893]

And if Polley misses as he does twice as often as not, I hope you still think it’s the right choice. The choice worked out that time. I happen to think that the guy who makes these choices more difficult is Jackson. He and Whaley do different positive things but the scoring option is much reduced with both on the floor Jackson plays a position that is typically a jump shooter‘s position. Could be more the reason why Hurley has a close game mindset. Hawkins was theoretically this year‘s freshman scoring stud but he, aside from injury, has taken time to become comfortable. Interesting that we rely a lot on two transfers and two Ollie holdovers.

Two Ollie holdovers. Lol.

SMH. Some people still blaming Ollie.

 

[cohenzone]

Two Ollie holdovers. Lol.

SMH. Some people still blaming Ollie.

What? Who’s blaming Ollie? Just pointing out how reliant we’ve been on players not starting their careers with Hurley as their coach as freshmen. An observation but if you want a pissing contest you’re on your own. I think you know better.