IMO Notre Dame looked very beatable on Thursday | The Boneyard

IMO Notre Dame looked very beatable on Thursday

Status
Not open for further replies.
doggydaddy

doggydaddy

Grampysorus Rex
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,008
Reaction Score
8,970
BTW, I did not see the game live, but it just seemed that if BC could have hit a few more shots the Big MO might have turned. Their posts seemed slow to the ball and their help defense was .......ahhhhhh...you get my point.
 
The thing I noticed about ND was how they use Achonwa, not sitting in the post
but making quick cuts, give and go's and pick and rolls.
Gets her open for a lot of easy shots.
I'm sure the staff is aware.

Should be an attractive game (if it occurs).
 
I guess we and they will lose if we play, since we are both beatable. Should be a horrible game.
 
Obviously my initial intent was parody, but there is some reality to my thread title.

BC shot 51% overall last night. Not good defense by ND. Even worse when you see BC shot 3-16 on three pointers. That means BC shot 22-33 on two pointers.

ND only out rebounded BC 28-26.

ND only had 18 assists on 30 FGs. Low for them.

With Braker playing only 7 minutes, ND's regular rotations was really only 7.

Uninspired game according to McGraw.

All this against a terrible BC team. One they beat by 42 last time.
 
doggydaddy said:
Obviously my initial intent was parody, but there is some reality to my thread title.

BC shot 51% overall last night. Not good defense by ND. Even worse when you see BC shot 3-16 on three pointers. That means BC shot 22-33 on two pointers.

ND only out rebounded BC 28-26.

ND only had 18 assists on 30 FGs. Low for them.

With Braker playing only 7 minutes, ND's regular rotations was really only 7.

Uninspired game according to McGraw.

All this against a terrible BC team. One they beat by 42 last time.
Expand ...
I do think we get caught up in the minutia of individual games sometimes when analyzing teams during the year and it leads to the "_____ team looked very beatable" kind of threads. We forget that teams can have bad shooting nights or exceptional shooting nights, the ball can bounce strangely, etc. and a very good team can occasionally win in less than dominating fashion against a team it should beat very easily. Even very bad shooters can go 10-10 having previously home 2 for their last 100. Teams are seldom as good as they look on their best night nor are they truly as dreadful as they look on their worst night.
I think you can look at a team like Duke and see a troubling trend in their wins between the loss to Uconn and the loss to ND and suspect they are not as good as their record would suggest and that they will stumble again against a lesser team. And you can look at a team like ND or Uconn and see that while some of their wins are not as convincing as others it will take an exceptional game by a lesser team on an off night for them to actually lose.
No one would have looked at either Stanford or Uconn and actually expected the first half debacle that each team put up in that NC game - but they both played an exceptionally bad first half of basketball - luckily for both teams, the other team was trying to prove they could play worse.
 
.-.
Parody morphs to reality. I love it!

If ND has an Achilles heel it could be their defense but their offense is so good it may not matter in the end.
 
doggydaddy said:
BTW, I did not see the game live, but it just seemed that if BC could have hit a few more shots the Big MO might have turned. Their posts seemed slow to the ball and their help defense was ..ahhhhhh...you get my point.
Expand ...
Why should we count your comments about a game you saw when you were dead?
 
cohenzone said:
I guess we and they will lose if we play, since we are both beatable. Should be a horrible game.
Expand ...
One of the few analysis on the BoneYard that I can completely agree with. I'm not going.
 
UcMiami said:
Teams are seldom as good as they look on their best night nor are they truly as dreadful as they look on their worst night.
Expand ...

"Seldom" is the operative word. UConn is clearly better than they look on their best night. Ask Geno.
 
.-.
ND has a had more modest wins than has had UConn thus far. That's pretty much the best sign we have for that they might just be beatable.

Now put down your pomp pomps!!!
 
But dd, ND's bench gave the team 86 minutes and 24 points, though only 3 assists. But in any case, that has to be light years better than UConn's woefully weak and thin and no-meaningful-minutes bench, and that's where the big games are won, not with a stellar group of starters. Plus I'm sure the BC subs would have been able to rack up tons more assists if they had been able to pass a little better.

One other fact you avoided mentioning was that the Irish were probably a bit intimidated and overwhelmed by the 804 raucous attendees at BC Conte Forum. Must have been scary as hell.
 
Last edited:
.-.
doggydaddy said:
Obviously my initial intent was parody, but there is some reality to my thread title.

BC shot 51% overall last night. Not good defense by ND. Even worse when you see BC shot 3-16 on three pointers. That means BC shot 22-33 on two pointers.

ND only out rebounded BC 28-26.

ND only had 18 assists on 30 FGs. Low for them.

With Braker playing only 7 minutes, ND's regular rotations was really only 7.

Uninspired game according to McGraw.

All this against a terrible BC team. One they beat by 42 last time.
Expand ...

Nice parody, DD!

It was an uninspiring game, as Notre Dame didn't have their usual energy (according to Muffet). That's understandable considering the ease with which the Irish dispatched the Eagles earlier this season at Notre Dame. The rebounding (which is affected greatly by effort) was poor and the defense was substandard. The defense wasn't actually terrible, though. BC leads the ACC with 8 3FG made per game, so Muffet stressed sticking to perimeter shooters. BC had trouble getting good shots, as they used up a lot of the shot clock but oftentimes hit buzzer beaters. Good for them.

The assist numbers were fine, even though they looked bad. Notre Dame had 17 assists with 15 minutes left in the game. Soon after, with a 28 point lead, Muffet was subbing liberally and BC starting scoring against a team with only 2 starters in the game. In the last 6.5 minutes, no starters played and BC outscored the Irish bench 16-7, reducing a 29-point lead down to a 20-point win. Not great, but the game was never close in the second half and the bench got 86 minutes of playing time (starters minutes: 31, 26, 26, 24, 7).
 
cohenzone said:
I guess we and they will lose if we play, since we are both [very] beatable. Should be a horrible game.
Expand ...

ahem.

What really got the OP (not DD, that other guy last week) in trouble and stimulated the subsequent bombardment of, um, "retaliatory" or "corrective" comments was his assertion that UConn was not only beatable, but very beatable.

Just plain "beatable" would have elicited a few yawns, maybe even a couple "ha-rumphs!," but that teentsy modifier, "very," drew a heavy barrage of unfriendly fire.

My take?

Props to DD for a masterful and satirical -- not to mention, Sarcastic! -- parody.

Achonwa is very good but undersized when matched against Stef or Kiah. (If I have noticed this, surely Geno has.)

Jewell is a diamond-in-the-rough.

Braker is persistently damned by faint praise (e.g., "Although she doesn't score much, she puts forth maximum effort."), which tells me she is the weak link. So go at her.

McBride is one helluva player. Limit her production and you win.​
 
Kibitzer said:
Braker is persistently damned by faint praise (e.g., "Although she doesn't score much, she puts forth maximum effort."), which tells me she is the weak link. So go at her.​
Expand ...
Might not much have time to go at Braker if it's all like last night with BC. She only played for a total of 7 minutes at the beginning of each half.
 
Kibitzer said:
ahem.

What really got the OP (not DD, that other guy last week) in trouble and stimulated the subsequent bombardment of, um, "retaliatory" or "corrective" comments was his assertion that UConn was not only beatable, but very beatable.

Just plain "beatable" would have elicited a few yawns, maybe even a couple "ha-rumphs!," but that teentsy modifier, "very," drew a heavy barrage of unfriendly fire.

My take?

Props to DD for a masterful and satirical -- not to mention, Sarcastic! -- parody.

Achonwa is very good but undersized when matched against Stef or Kiah. (If I have noticed this, surely Geno has.)

Jewell is a diamond-in-the-rough.

Braker is persistently damned by faint praise (e.g., "Although she doesn't score much, she puts forth maximum effort."), which tells me she is the weak link. So go at her.

McBride is one helluva player. Limit her production and you win.​
Expand ...

Yeah. I'm just horsing around today before I fly off to sunny warms climes for a few weeks tomorrow. Reality, any team is beatable, but if they never lose, it's hard to prove.:cool: McBride looks beatable, and I'd challenge her to a ping pong game anytime.
 
Didn't most folks think last year's Baylor team with Griner was un-beatable !
Anything can happen. Just like our title last year against ND, most everyone thought it would go down to the wire, but it didn't. Stewie came alive and we waxed 'em ! Anything can happen, but I think if anyone beats us we really have to play terrible, plus the other team must play their best game.
 
.-.
In last night's game ND allowed Ga Tech to grab 26 offensive rebounds. Ga Tech hoisted up 83 shots in the game; of course, the majority of those shots were bricks but it still managed to put up 72 points.

Last night was ND's senior night even though ND still has two remaining home games. McGraw wanted to avoid having senior night festivities before games against tougher opponents (Duke and UNC).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,529
Messages
4,580,589
Members
10,490
Latest member
7774Forever


Top Bottom