Where does Shabazz get off?

[BlueMAB]

Napier is having some issues with plantar fasciitis. If you think that shouldn't slow him down, it's easy enough to get it yourself and then go try to run with it.

It's an overuse injury that's probably more common to distance runners than basketball players. I've been trying to get over it for about six weeks and it's a pain literally and figuratively.

Rewatching the shot, he did what he needed to do. If he goes up the court faster, he's erasing the distance between him and Cheek - by going at the speed he did, he forces Cheek to adapt to him. (Which Cheek ultimately fails to do.) If he takes two more steps, he's in Cheek's wingspan. If he tries to drive past Cheek, Cheek would have grabbed him, held him up, whatever and the end of game swallow-the-whistle rule would have result in double overtime. Passing to Boatright would have just been silly.

In a five-second possession, Napier got the ball into the front court and got himself a clean, open, albeit distant look. And not for nothing, the thing laser-beamed into the bottom of the net. Winner. Well done.

I had no idea it was plantar fasciitis. I know that injury can permanently alter (and even end) careers. I don't doubt that is slowing him down.

Re-watching it as well. He made an amazing play

 

[arnie3]

With two pages of comments on a great shot that went in, I wonder how many pages this would have taken up if it had not! He had the ball in his hands. He was confident. He made a 29 foot shot. Had he tried to make it a 26 foot shot, Cheeks might have blocked it. He saw the opening and he made just a remarkable play. How about giving him his due?
I don't know if I could have have walked up the court with that much of a pain issue, let alone go at half pace!

 

[UConnLen]

Napier is having some issues with plantar fasciitis. If you think that shouldn't slow him down, it's easy enough to get it yourself and then go try to run with it.

It's an overuse injury that's probably more common to distance runners than basketball players. I've been trying to get over it for about six weeks and it's a pain literally and figuratively.

Rewatching the shot, he did what he needed to do. If he goes up the court faster, he's erasing the distance between him and Cheek - by going at the speed he did, he forces Cheek to adapt to him. (Which Cheek ultimately fails to do.) If he takes two more steps, he's in Cheek's wingspan. If he tries to drive past Cheek, Cheek would have grabbed him, held him up, whatever and the end of game swallow-the-whistle rule would have result in double overtime. Passing to Boatright would have just been silly.

In a five-second possession, Napier got the ball into the front court and got himself a clean, open, albeit distant look. And not for nothing, the thing laser-beamed into the bottom of the net. Winner. Well done.

I agree. Some here saying it was a bad shot are crazy! Seems to me there was less than a second left when the ball went thru the hoop from 29 feet away. They expect SN to dribble faster than the shot ball for a layup-that would be contested at that?

 

[SJ]

A good shot is a shot that goes in.

 

[BlueMAB]

They expect SN to dribble faster than the shot ball for a layup-that would be contested at that?

Seriously? That's what you think I said? Wow.

I expected him to go full speed. Until I learned he had plantar fasciitis. I thought he was healthy, I didn't realize what he was suffering from.

A healthy Shabazz Napier can go from one end of the court to the other in 5.4 seconds. The Nova freshman did it in 5.5. A lot of division 1 point guards can do it. If he was healthy, he could have gotten down the court much faster than he did. And he'd be the first to agree with that.

 

[BlueMAB]

A good shot is a shot that goes in.

That's what fans say. Coaches know better.

 

[Kitaman]

The thing is was that it was actually a good shot. His momentum helped on the distance, and his mechanics were on point as if it was 15 feet closer. At his height he needed spacing and took what the D gave him, which was an easier open shot. It was better looking than Taliek's shot or Kemba's heave. Watch his follow-through, can't criticize it at all, it surely wasn't a throw, or luck. I think he could make that shot nearly 40-50% when he's playing well (i.e. end of game only ).

BTW: It was all net.

 

[Catsailor]

It was a bad shot. It was the wrong decision. He was saved by the fact it went in. He got the ball, jogged up the court, and made a lucky shot. The smart move would have been to go as fast as possible from the inbounds to the basket. Force the defense to stop you, foul you, or make you miss a layup. The Nova guard got up the court in 5.5 seconds for a layup, Bazz could have too.

I said it in another thread, but i'll repeat it here. No matter the result, if he had went to the hoop hard, nobody would have argued he should have stopped for a 35 foot pull up jumper instead.

But, it went in. Thank God. Hopefully we make some more Saturday, we'll need them.

Under the circumstances, "end of game" pressure situation with a well reported "bad wheel",
saying it was a "bad" shot is beyond amusing. Of course You know better.

The shot went in period...woulda, coulda, shouda, blah, blah, blah.

No decision is bad when the desired outcome is achieved. Luck/schmuck... it's all much to do about nothing.

Besides that: Bazz shooting and making from deep (under pressure) is NOTunprecedented.

He has made some very deep 3s. So I think to suggest that it was a "lucky shot" (luckier than running the length of the floor in in 5.5 seconds euncontested with a taped ankle) is arguable at best and should be qualified.

Obviously it is not arguable that he wascapable of making the shot.
Whether You call it luck or skill or a combination of the two... since he did.

Was it without risk? No.

And neither was any other option.

You may argue his choice and sound foolish doing so.

Fortunately the choice was his, and he made it.

Please don't be sopresumptuous as to think YOU, with 20/20 hindsight and DVR, know the "right" way to play.

Enjoy the moment...the how'd he do that feeling
which makes sport so euphoric and gut wrenching.

Just give the kid some props...if not for his decision making and talent, then for his onions.

At least he was willing to take the risk goat/hero...he didn't quit.

And BTW since you feel the need to be the critic of a guy's decision making .... considering you choice of words (above)...I have a small question for you.

If you "had WENT" to UCONN would you have been an ENGLISH major?

Just sayin

 

[champs99and04]

The thing is was that it was actually a good shot. His momentum helped on the distance, and his mechanics were on point as if it was 15 feet closer. At his height he needed spacing and took what the D gave him, which was an easier open shot. It was better looking than Taliek's shot or Kemba's heave. Watch his follow-through, can't criticize it at all, it surely wasn't a throw, or luck. I think he could make that shot nearly 40-50% when he's playing well (i.e. end of game only ).

BTW: It was all net.

It's definitely a bit of a stretch to suggest that he could make that shot 40-50% of the time. If Shabazz's injury is as serious as certain posters are claiming, we certainly would have gotten the ball up the court faster by inbounding it to Boatright (who is faster than a healthy shabazz). However, he got a decent look. Probably a shot that he can hit about 20% of the time. If you're a good shooter like Shabazz is, you can at least give that thing a chance to get in, which obviously he did.

Admit it--When Shabazz put that 30 footer out there, you said to yourself, "We should have been able to get a better look than that in five seconds". No complaints from me though.

 

[Marty Jackson]

This thread is ridiculous... Kid takes a shot with 2.4s on the clock and drains it. I've watched the replay several times and the shot went in!...

Are people really debating this play?

Maybe we need to go back and critique Tate George as well.

 

[BarkingDog]

When he put that shot up I screamed at my TV "What are you doing?!?" And when it went in I yelled "Yes!!!"
It was a great shot and a great moment. And I'm sure one that will be remembered around here for a while.

 

[UConnLen]

Seriously? That's what you think I said? Wow.

I expected him to go full speed. Until I learned he had plantar fasciitis. I thought he was healthy, I didn't realize what he was suffering from.

A healthy Shabazz Napier can go from one end of the court to the other in 5.4 seconds. The Nova freshman did it in 5.5. A lot of division 1 point guards can do it. If he was healthy, he could have gotten down the court much faster than he did. And he'd be the first to agree with that.

You watched the play and said he should have kept driving to the basket. From where he was when he shot that would be impossible. You shoulda been smart enough to see that, regardless of whether someone else could do it or not, or his plantar fascitis! That is my point. IT WAS A GOOD SHOT-considering the circumstances, never mind the outcome.

 

[aceboon]

You watched the play and said he should have kept driving to the basket. From where he was when he shot that would be impossible. You shoulda been smart enough to see that, regardless of whether someone else could do it or not, or his plantar fascitis! That is my point. IT WAS A GOOD SHOT-considering the circumstances, never mind the outcome.

Yea I've watched the replay several times and I can't see where he's coming from. If he takes a couple more dribbles and shoots Cheek is there to contest, if he tries to drive to the basket he had nowhere near enough time. Passing it to Boat(the only other option as Lambo was covered) wouldn't have been smart because it would've been cross court and Boat would've had to gather himself and then shoot. I would've rather have Boat get the ball out of bounds because end to end he's much faster and Nova's D would've been unorganized, but out of the options with the ball in Bazz's hands in that situation the shot he took was the best shot.

 

[Fishy]

I had no idea it was plantar fasciitis. I know that injury can permanently alter (and even end) careers. I don't doubt that is slowing him down.

Re-watching it as well. He made an amazing play

I don't if it can end a career, but it's one of those things that doesn't get any better until you stay off of it until it heals. It's a tough piece of tendon to injure, but once you do, it can just linger getting better and worse for months.

He's probably okay jumping and on defense, when he's more on his forefoot, but forward motion is where he'll have an issue.

And look at it this way - Roscoe could have received the inbounds....

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I don't if it can end a career, but it's one of those things that doesn't get any better until you stay off of it until it heals. It's a tough piece of tendon to injure, but once you do, it can just linger getting better and worse for months.

He's probably okay jumping and on defense, when he's more on his forefoot, but forward motion is where he'll have an issue.

And look at it this way - Roscoe could have received the inbounds....

Yea I've watched the replay several times and I can't see where he's coming from. If he takes a couple more dribbles and shoots Cheek is there to contest, if he tries to drive to the basket he had nowhere near enough time. Passing it to Boat(the only other option as Lambo was covered) wouldn't have been smart because it would've been cross court and Boat would've had to gather himself and then shoot. I would've rather have Boat get the ball out of bounds because end to end he's much faster and Nova's D would've been unorganized, but out of the options with the ball in Bazz's hands in that situation the shot he took was the best shot.

Alex made the decision to pass the ball in to Bazz and not Boat who was right in front of him. Interesting decision by someone who some Boneyarders think is at odds with Shabazz. Once he had the ball, Bazz had to try to do something with it. There was another interesting split second decision when Boat passed over Bazz to get the ball into Lamb to get fouled (which seemed to be the right decision at the time). After the gamewinner, Boat was the first one to come and give Bazz a big hug, with Alex right behind. They seem to be getting along okay.

On an unrelated note, the lack of reaction by Bazz at the end reminded me of the intense focus of Ricky Moore in the '99 title game rather than somebody trying to look cool or unconcerned.

 

[mauconnfan]

Napier is having some issues with plantar fasciitis. If you think that shouldn't slow him down, it's easy enough to get it yourself and then go try to run with it.

It's an overuse injury that's probably more common to distance runners than basketball players. I've been trying to get over it for about six weeks and it's a pain literally and figuratively.

Rewatching the shot, he did what he needed to do. If he goes up the court faster, he's erasing the distance between him and Cheek - by going at the speed he did, he forces Cheek to adapt to him. (Which Cheek ultimately fails to do.) If he takes two more steps, he's in Cheek's wingspan. If he tries to drive past Cheek, Cheek would have grabbed him, held him up, whatever and the end of game swallow-the-whistle rule would have result in double overtime. Passing to Boatright would have just been silly.

In a five-second possession, Napier got the ball into the front court and got himself a clean, open, albeit distant look. And not for nothing, the thing laser-beamed into the bottom of the net. Winner. Well done.

Thanks Fishy............It's a 30 footer and if you don' think every kid in America from AAU, HS basketball and on shoot that 50 times after practice you're wrong. You dream of making the halfcourt shot atthe buzzer but if you can almost make it with the same form as your 20 foot jumper then it's a good shot..........he did and he made it. The idea of driving to the hoop to get a "no-call" because they do swallow the whistle, is ridiculous. This WAS the best shot available and more teams should aspire to attempt that rather than fate at the end of the game like that. Well done Shabazz.................

 

[mauconnfan]

I don't if it can end a career, but it's one of those things that doesn't get any better until you stay off of it until it heals. It's a tough piece of tendon to injure, but once you do, it can just linger getting better and worse for months.

He's probably okay jumping and on defense, when he's more on his forefoot, but forward motion is where he'll have an issue.

And look at it this way - Roscoe could have received the inbounds....

It's awfully painful and can go away fast or take it's time.......but it can get to the point where you don't even want your foot to the ground or any weight on it. He's a trooper and has been all year............

 

[UChusky916]

 

[BlueMAB]

You watched the play and said he should have kept driving to the basket. From where he was when he shot that would be impossible. You shoulda been smart enough to see that, regardless of whether someone else could do it or not, or his plantar fascitis! That is my point. IT WAS A GOOD SHOT-considering the circumstances, never mind the outcome.

I didn't say that, you're confused.

I said he should have gone 100% from the moment he caught the ball. That would have put him further up the court than he was when he shot it. (But I didn't realize he was suffering from PF.)

If he were able to run full speed, he could make it up the court in 5.4 seconds. The Nova guard did it in 5.5, and there's this guy who did it in 4.8.

 

[BlueMAB]

I don't if it can end a career, but it's one of those things that doesn't get any better until you stay off of it until it heals. It's a tough piece of tendon to injure, but once you do, it can just linger getting better and worse for months.

He's probably okay jumping and on defense, when he's more on his forefoot, but forward motion is where he'll have an issue.

And look at it this way - Roscoe could have received the inbounds....

At his age it wouldn't, but at 30 or 35 it could for a professional athlete.

 

[BlueMAB]

Admit it--When Shabazz put that 30 footer out there, you said to yourself, "We should have been able to get a better look than that in five seconds". No complaints from me though.

Exactly. I don't know why people can't admit that.

 

[BlueMAB]

The idea of driving to the hoop to get a "no-call" because they do swallow the whistle, is ridiculous.

Bazz said the defense wasn't expecting it, right? There's a reason they weren't expecting it. Please don't ever coach basketball.

 

[BlueMAB]

Under the circumstances, "end of game" pressure situation with a well reported "bad wheel",
saying it was a "bad" shot is beyond amusing. Of course You know better.

The shot went in period...woulda, coulda, shouda, blah, blah, blah.

No decision is bad when the desired outcome is achieved. Luck/schmuck... it's all much to do about nothing.

Besides that: Bazz shooting and making from deep (under pressure) is NOTunprecedented.

He has made some very deep 3s. So I think to suggest that it was a "lucky shot" (luckier than running the length of the floor in in 5.5 seconds euncontested with a taped ankle) is arguable at best and should be qualified.

Obviously it is not arguable that he wascapable of making the shot.
Whether You call it luck or skill or a combination of the two... since he did.

Was it without risk? No.

And neither was any other option.

You may argue his choice and sound foolish doing so.

Fortunately the choice was his, and he made it.

Please don't be sopresumptuous as to think YOU, with 20/20 hindsight and DVR, know the "right" way to play.

Enjoy the moment...the how'd he do that feeling
which makes sport so euphoric and gut wrenching.

Just give the kid some props...if not for his decision making and talent, then for his onions.

At least he was willing to take the risk goat/hero...he didn't quit.

And BTW since you feel the need to be the critic of a guy's decision making .... considering you choice of words (above)...I have a small question for you.

If you "had WENT" to UCONN would you have been an ENGLISH major?

Just sayin

If you're going to criticize my grammar, start by checking yours. Learn how to use "..." properly, and buy a comma or two. If you're going to criticize my grammar, stop using cutoff sentences, and start using paragraphs.

I gave him props at least once for his onions, if not in this thread, then in the other one. I called the play amazing, I said I was glad it went in so we could discuss the decision.

I don't know how many times I have to say I didn't realize the extent of his injury. I did qualify my statement by saying (paraphrasing) "were he healthy, he should have went full court." If you're going to criticize my grammar, check your reading comprehension.

 

[tzznandrew]

I didn't say that, you're confused.

I said he should have gone 100% from the moment he caught the ball. That would have put him further up the court than he was when he shot it. (But I didn't realize he was suffering from PF.)

If he were able to run full speed, he could make it up the court in 5.4 seconds. The Nova guard did it in 5.5, and there's this guy who did it in 4.8.

Missouri's lack of D cost UConn their first National title.

 

[Catsailor]

If you're going to criticize my grammar, start by checking yours. Learn how to use "..." properly, and buy a comma or two. If you're going to criticize my grammar, stop using cutoff sentences, and start using paragraphs.

I gave him props at least once for his onions, if not in this thread, then in the other one. I called the play amazing, I said I was glad it went in so we could discuss the decision.

I don't know how many times I have to say I didn't realize the extent of his injury. I did qualify my statement by saying (paraphrasing) "were he healthy, he should have went full court." If you're going to criticize my grammar, check your reading comprehension.

Hey comprehend this: A guy that argues with success, is either a dumb guy or just likes to argue for the sake of argument.

The point was, and still is, that you are wrong. How can a shot that goes in be a bad shot? It's only bad when you miss, LOL.

There was not even a better solution, only a possible alternate solution which, if successful, would, at best, only be equal to, not better than, the choice Bazz made. While misspelled words, run on sentences, fragments are mandatory for most web posting I did buy some commas, on sale, so thanks for the advice hope you get the point now.

You are a bit touchy for a critic. I was just having fun pointing out that everyone has choices, whether of words or of play options. Your choice was to critique success, silly and sounding a bit self righteous. However you are entitled to your opinion.

BTW YOU should use GONE next time instead of WENT. It makes you sound smarter, an important consideration when your argument is ridiculous and hypothetical Not to mention when the player makes the shot, you didn't what him to take, to win the game

Perhaps you should include foot notes referencing your other contradicting opinions/disclaimers stated in other threads (which I did not read) where you say you said the opposite.

To say this was a bad shot/decision is a curious way to frame a discussion. Sounds confrontational to me like you know better than the player without sharing his perspective, on the court.

Every one makes mistakes. Every one makes ill thought, wrong-headed remarks... so lighten up. We all forgive you.

 

[BlueMAB]

Any coach worth a dam will teach his guard to go as fast as possible to the hoop and try and get a layup or foul. No coach teaches their players to pull up from 35 in that situation. But that's irrelevant since it went in I guess. It's not like a contested layup is a higher percentage shot than wide open 35 footer, right? Impossible.

So....my apologies to the board for assuming some people could have a reasonable discussion about whether a decision, while proven to be succesful, wasn't as sound as an alternative. I have been around this board long enough to know that isn't possible.

I'll refrain from discussing calculated risks, and playing the percentages in the future and stick to the typical "Gottlieb has us ranked at 30, so he hates UConn" and "Hubert Davis doesn't think we played will in an overtime win against a bad team, so he's a religious zealout, who also hates UConn". I guess that's a much more rational discussion to have around this place.

 

[sparky]

Sometimes you gotta call it like it is and most of the time you are going to piss a few folks off. He may be a good talent, but not coachable. If that's the case we are stuck and so is he. AD will be gone and perhaps he and boat need to be in a room together.

 

[Catsailor]

Any coach worth a dam will teach his guard to go as fast as possible to the hoop and try and get a layup or foul. No coach teaches their players to pull up from 35 in that situation. But that's irrelevant since it went in I guess. It's not like a contested layup is a higher percentage shot than wide open 35 footer, right? Impossible.

So....my apologies to the board for assuming some people could have a reasonable discussion about whether a decision, while proven to be succesful, wasn't as sound as an alternative. I have been around this board long enough to know that isn't possible.

I'll refrain from discussing calculated risks, and playing the percentages in the future and stick to the typical "Gottlieb has us ranked at 30, so he hates UConn" and "Hubert Davis doesn't think we played will in an overtime win against a bad team, so he's a religious zealout, who also hates UConn". I guess that's a much more rational discussion to have around this place.

You miss the point.

To phrase it as a question: Do you think that was the right shot selection? May foster the discussion you are looking for.
Stating opinion as you did... that it was a "bad shot" is something altogether different.

You stated your opinion. The reply was predicable. What else do you expect?
You get what you give. Is that discussion? Not really but you were never open to a differing opinion anyway.

Now you presume to know what all coaches would do. Man that's powerful stuff. I had no idea who I was dealing with. I wonder should I be wary of the person who speaks in absolutes.

Maybe YOU should take over for Blaney and crew or at least share your insight. May you are the answer to question of who should succeed JC you do seem to know a lot.

I know I'm not as knowledgeable as you are because I don't profess to know what "no coach would do" AND what "every coach worth a dam" would do.

However I do know that some players have made ridiculously difficult shots/plays over the 45+ years of UCONN and others that I have watched and their choices seemed to this observer dictated by circumstance and self confidence rather than drawn up on a chalk board.

I have also heard on more than one occasion JC state (in his own words) certain players had the green light to make shooting decision. So I guess, from your perspective, JC, for one, isn't worth a dam.

Please forgive my naivety to presume that one size does NOT fit all...that not all circumstances dictate the same game plan and that the best of plans sometimes, due to changing circumstance may requires improvisation and leap of faith, and very large "kahonies".

And again the solution that works is NOT wrong.

I may be wasting my time here and I did have some to kill but no longer.

I do realize it's only an internet message board so what does one expect.....it take a certain kind of man to admit error and move on and usually not the kind that professes to know all the answers. Sorry, I corrected your went/gone thing the rest not so much.

This was fun but let's not do it again or more.

 

[UConnLen]

Any coach worth a dam will teach his guard to go as fast as possible to the hoop and try and get a layup or foul. No coach teaches their players to pull up from 35 in that situation. But that's irrelevant since it went in I guess. It's not like a contested layup is a higher percentage shot than wide open 35 footer, right? Impossible.

So....my apologies to the board for assuming some people could have a reasonable discussion about whether a decision, while proven to be succesful, wasn't as sound as an alternative. I have been around this board long enough to know that isn't possible.

I'll refrain from discussing calculated risks, and playing the percentages in the future and stick to the typical "Gottlieb has us ranked at 30, so he hates UConn" and "Hubert Davis doesn't think we played will in an overtime win against a bad team, so he's a religious zealout, who also hates UConn". I guess that's a much more rational discussion to have around this place.

Don't be so sensitive-we're [mostly] all UConn fans! Just because some don't agree with you-we feel that was the right shot to take because he wouldn't have time for a layup or would have lost the ball or the shot would have been blocked or he woulda been fouled w/no call.

 

[BlueMAB]

Don't be so sensitive-we're [mostly] all UConn fans! Just because some don't agree with you-we feel that was the right shot to take because he wouldn't have time for a layup or would have lost the ball or the shot would have been blocked or he woulda been fouled w/no call.

I'm not upset. But people are confusing my argument that there was "a better decision" with the argument he made "the wrong decision". If I implied that, I didn't mean to. If I said it, I shouldn't have, but I don't think I did. I'm not saying he did the wrong thing, I'm saying there was a better decision to be made there. (BUT, that was before I realized what his injury is.) For example, duct tape will fix a lot of , it's not "wrong" to use it, but that doesn't mean there isn't a better way to fix something.

If the roles were reversed, and he was healthy enough to push it the length of the court; no matter how that turned out, nobody would have made the argument he should have pulled up where he did. Nobody.

Looking forward to Saracuse going down on Saturday. Wish I could be there.