Defending the Last Shot - Douglass
Stu Douglass has gotten a decent share of grief for doubling up on Jordan Taylor last night and not sticking with his man. After watching the video again, this is wrong.
http://www.umhoops.com/2011/02/23/crushed-wisconsin-53-michigan-52/
As the play begins, Stu is matched up with Taylor. Hardaway is guarding the inbound (Gasser). Nankivil bodies into Novak, but no one actually sets a screen on Douglass as he follows his man (Taylor) to the ball. After the inbound is made, Hardaway makes no effort to follow the inbounder (Gasser) as he loops behind Taylor. Douglass seems to notice Gasser looping behind him and hesitates as to whether or not he should switch and give Taylor to Hardaway. He points to Hardaway as though there should be a switch. That hesistation is probably the killer in the whole sequence.
We don't know exactly what Beilein's plan was, but he did say in the post game that he didn't plan on giving help. If it was supposed to be a straight man coverage, Hardaway dropped the ball by completely abandoning his man (Gasser). If they were supposed to exchange, I don't see how Douglass (or anyone) could have pulled that off. If he tracks Gasser as he passes him by, Taylor is going to pull up for an in rhythm, open look before Hardaway closes on him. If he sticks completely to Taylor, they get a decent double team and maybe Taylor can't make that pass to Gasser, but if he can, he's WIDE open.
Anyway, point is, I don't think it's as clear that Douglass botched the defensive assignment on the play as people would make it out to be. He didn't leave his man to double Taylor. Taylor was his man.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^
I don't think there's any need to blame anbody. They got the ball out of the hands of Wisconsin's most dangerous player in that situation (i.e., their guy who's best at getting his own shot) and into the hands of a below average shooter who chucked up a godawful shot. It went in off the glass. It's just bad luck.
February 24th, 2011 at 2:47 PM ^
"Sometimes you eat the bear. Sometimes the bear eats you."
February 24th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^
This isn't Soviet Russia, Eric.
February 24th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
I really couldn't agree with this more. That was an awful shot. Had he missed you would have heard Bo Ryan complaining about how they would have liked to get a better shot having 20+ seconds with the ball down 2. The only blame that I feel is reasonable is on the players for missing their FTs down the stretch. Ultimately that is what cost us the game. Not the defense on the last possession
February 24th, 2011 at 3:03 PM ^
I agree that our own failure to add to our score cost us dearly, but free throws are getting a little too much attention here. We attempted one free throw in the last 10-12 minutes of the game. We failed to convert on five of our last six offensive possessions, only one of which actually involved a free throw.
February 24th, 2011 at 3:09 PM ^
That is a fair point. I just cringe when we miss the front end of a 1 and 1 though. Its the same as a turnover. It seems to happen when we really need the FT too.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
I saw nothing wrong with the fact that they forced Taylor to give it up. Gasser hit a miracle shot.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
I have been the first person to sing the praises of the coaching job the staff has done this season and the progress with this team. BUT this being said, in two really big games in less than one calander year we have failed to defend the person in bounding the ball. Last season we let Evan Turner kill us with a buzzer beater after we failed to stop the ball and then again last night.
I know there was defensive breakdowns in both situations, and I wonder if the coaches could do something to help our team fair well in these situations.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^
You realize you just set up a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation here.
- Against OSU, Beilein was heavily criticized for not applying a double team to the B10 player of the year to make him give it up.
- Against Wisconsin, you criticize doubling the B10 player of the year and making him give it up (to a 28% 3 pt shooter who just has time to chuck the ball in the vacinity of the backboard).
Personally, I agree with both decions. It's all about not letting the most dangerous shooter taking the last shot. I'd still let Turner shoot over Diebler or Buford. I'd also let Gasser shoot over Jordan Taylor or John Leuer.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
Especially when Jordan Taylor was draining triples with a hand in his face like the basket was a black hole all game.
February 24th, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^
wasn't that no one was guarding the in-bounder. The problem was that there was one guy guarding Evan Turner, and he got himself in a position where he was behind Turner chasing him as Turner was running up the court, so Turner had a completely free run to guage his shot, take off and release the ball, with no one in front of him.
And in the Wisco game again, the problem wasn't guarding the guy inbounding the ball. In fact, there wasn't a problem at all here, just a gumpy white guy getting lucky.
February 24th, 2011 at 3:20 PM ^
I would have doubled Diebler since he's a more dangerous 3 point threat than Turner.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:52 PM ^
Not even worth talking about. The kid pulled a shot out of his ass. He could try the exact shot 50 times in a row and he might hit it one time again. All the odds were in our favor. They got beyond lucky. Nothing wrong with the choices made by the coaches or Douglas. Pure bullshit and even Wisc would say that.
February 24th, 2011 at 12:56 PM ^
This. This wasn't a coaching breakdown. Sure, in retrospect Douglass would have been better served going and guarding the kid that threw up a prayer and had it answered before our eyes. In an alternate universe Douglass doesn't go to help, Taylor steps back, and drains a triple.
That situation is a thousand times more likely to result in a loss, so the way we guarded is fine with me.
February 24th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
dude has to at least be decent to be playing at the last second on a Top 10ish team. He also called for the shot. It's was either an awesomly designed play or an error on some Michigan player's part.
February 24th, 2011 at 2:51 PM ^
The kid misfired so badly that it banked in from an angle. How many times have you seen someone intentionally bank a 3-pointer from the wing during a game? I honestly have never seen someone do that intentionally in anything but a trick-shot competition. I guarantee he didn't do it intentionally.
Complaining about the defense on a shot that was misfired by several feet is counterproductive. The kid just got unbelievably, ridiculously lucky. S*** happens. The team that wins isn't always the team that deserves to win.
February 24th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
The fact is, Douglass still got back to contest that shot even with helping on Taylor. I think Douglass made the right move there. Let's face it, there is no way Taylor gives the ball up if Stu doesn't help, and as BlockM has already said, I like my chances with an off-balanced prayer from a freshmen than an open pull-up from likely the B10 player of the year.
February 24th, 2011 at 1:50 PM ^
If UM's players could hit a free throw this is a moot point. How many in a row missed?? 6-8?!?! That would have sealed the deal there. Michigan beat themselves last night in my opinion.
February 24th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
I couldn't agree more one made free throw and the brick that saved wiscy would lead to ot, two made and it's just a silly shot that went in and meant nothing.
February 24th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
99 times out of 100 Gasser horribly clanks that shot.
February 24th, 2011 at 2:09 PM ^
I blame the kid for missing his three pointer so badly it goes in. A clanger on the rim was in order there buddy. Don't choke the shot so bad it hits the backboard and goes in.
Le sigh.
February 24th, 2011 at 9:36 PM ^
That is all.
February 24th, 2011 at 10:22 PM ^
It is an interesting discussion. I know that the team would do some things differently in the future just because you don't want them shooting any 3. I believe Beilein even said that the goal was that if they scored, let it be a 2.
When you are talking a long heave like that, you could reasonably argue that they met that goal. Still feel horribly for the team because they did so much well.