I can't be the only one who thought that. Hell, Bo Ryan even thought that, but without the "sweet" part.
in town for free camps
I can't be the only one who thought that. Hell, Bo Ryan even thought that, but without the "sweet" part.
really, why would you not force the other team into a 2 point shot and take away the 3 point line, that seems like a better strategy than taking away a player, especially at the college level.
I also disagree that it was a bad look, it was a good look. The shot was rushed, the form looked bad because he rushed the shot more than he should have, and the result was ugly, but the look at the basket was wide open.
I don't disagree with the strategy to foul at all though, I thought that was right on, but make Wisconsin take a 2 pointer and live with OT if you have to. Beilein has done a tremendous job with this team and is a great coach, but I disagree with the strategy at the end of the game. Call it a lucky shot all you want, but it was an open look to win the game.
First, the strategy "worked." Second, I still don't like it.
The plan worked, we got them down to 6 seconds and forced a bad look from a not so great shooter. As it was drawn up, the plan did exactly what it was supposed to do. But at the same time, I feel it's one of those situations where coaches get too cute. Players are better when they're just playing, not following some strategy that they employ maybe once every 15-20 games. Plus, fouling took away one huge advantage, the ability to take the last shot. Teams with 30 seconds left on the clock, down 2, don't often wait until the last second to take a shot. Even if Wisconsin had hit a 2 or a 3 on the possession, we would have had a chance to answer. The strategy took away that opportunity.
I'm with you on this one. Not that anyone cares, but I said it as they were fouling before the horror of the banked three happened. You've basically summed up how I feel. It's a reasonable strategy that did what it was supposed to do, but it isn't what I would have done if I was the coach. Three main reasons I wouldn't do it.
1. As you said, the last shot. Let them run it down and take a shot with 7-9 seconds left, like everyone does in that situation. Worse case scenario in this situation is they get a three pointer or three point play, BUT, you get the ball with a chance to answer. The argument against this is that Wisconsin was getting a ton of offensive rebounds, so maybe limiting them to one shot makes sense.
2. Fouls. If the game goes to overtime, you've suddenly got a bunch of players in foul trouble.
3. Fouls(b). If the game goes to overtime, you've put Wisconsin in the bonus. UM had 2 team fouls when Wisconsin rebounded the missed Morris free throw. If you go into OT with only two team fouls and you are already in the bonus, that is a huge advantage. Refs will probably tighten things up in OT and you have the ability to play more aggressive defense.
Like I said, it's a fine strategy, but there are downsides to it and it's a reasonable thing to debate. I don't think it's an open and shut case.
Beilein's inability to see into the future and know that that kid would bank in a desperation heave, as well as Beilein's failure to have the Crisler maintenance crew rig the backboard to fall over if it was hit that hard with a ball, shows an obvious lack of understanding of basketball.
Okay, sarcasm over: Beilein is a tremendous coach, and I love this team.
I think other folks are making good points about Taylor vs Gasser percentages et al. I'm still with Landon on not loving the strategy. However, it's hard for fans, myself included, to seperate how pissed you are to lose on a shot like and not to immediatley start looking for someone to blame.
Last year was kind of an abomination, and it's been a pleasure to watch THJ, Darius and Jordan Morgan grow as players. I think coach Beilein has done an excellent job this year even if I disagree with the strategy for reasons listed above.
Right up until we decided to double team the inbound reciever rather than guard the 3-point line like a checkpoint. You're up two and Wisconsin has 5.x seconds. I'm perfectly fine with risking giving up a 2 if it means we're sure, short of a half-court lob, they aren't getting the 3 to win. The strategy we used fouling was great because it forced Wisconsin to run a play with way less time. THe strategy after that is more appropriate when you're up 3.
Just like the tourney game last year, you need to make sure EVERYONE is covered that can throw up a 3 from any distance. If you give up 2, that sucks, but at least you've got overtime.
Hopefully we've learned that for next time, although I'd prefer we'd just make foul freethrows and not have to worry about it.
You forget something: Jordan Taylor was the guy with the ball, and if you single-cover him he's perfectly capable of creating his own three-point shot and having it go in out of skill rather than blind-ass luck.
When you know he wants to, and you're leaning to guarding against the 3. You can create that stuff when there's the threat of going either way. If he wants to make a 3 with a guy right in his face he's going to be a poorer shooter than when he has open looks mixed in. And the hapless freshman is a lot closer when he doesn't have to worry about his shot being contested. It's a lot closer.
But really, free throws lost this game, not defense.
Don't mind the fouls at all. But you're at home, make sure you at least get overtime. No open threes. 42% > 28%, sure, but that's taking into account a mix of covered/uncovered shots. Obviously someone who shoots 42% isn't doing that with only contested shots, and the 28% guy will do better if always undefended. DON'T lose the game, and if they hit a two, at worst you go to OT, you're more likely to have time left, and getting a call in traffic will be tougher.
But it wasn't an egregious error, like OSU last year.
Defense was fine. That kid makes his normal threes at a little over a 1/4 clip. This was a desperation heave. Give him that shot ten more times and I doubt he makes any, but he made it last night, and hats off to him.
Absolutely 0% of this loss lands on Beilein. He had a great game plan that they stuck to. Tough luck with the free throws. Need to have those in the future.
The "if you give up 2 -that's fine, at least you have OT" argument doesn't hold any water. Why not just let them score w/ 20 to play and ge the ball back w/ 10-15 on the other end?
we had the lead with 20 to play. that was advantagous, why give that away?
the other thing is, Wisc is the single most effecient team in teh half court in the nation. why let them play THEIR game for 20 seconds? If you polled all 330 D1 coaches, i'd bet 330 would say Beilein employed exactly the right straTegy, and it's not even a debate.
the guy hit a lucky shot... what can you do...
my issue is with the philosophy.
I like alot of people I'm sure with 30 ticks left... felt like we were going to foul down to the last shot..
okay... but with 13.6 left, I looked at my buddy and said we need to let them play this out now... don't foul again.
If they tie it up.. so be it.. maybe we'll have three seconds to put up a despiration shot...
I just disagree with the philosophy of letting your opponent decide your fate. put the ball in my hands to win the game.
on the flip side.. they very well could have held on to the ball for the final 13.6 seconds.. and still won it... but my guess is they would have shot with some time left in case of a miss.. so they'd still be able to foul and have time.
i can't believe this. fine, just give them an open lane to the basket with 20 left.
i don't understand why people think it's better to be tied with the ball than to be up 2 without the ball. it's fucking irrational.
give them an open lane.. that's your taking comments and twisting them. I'm saying force them to shoot earlier.... and don't put yourself in a position where you CANNOT DECIDE THE OUTCOME.
Michigan played the final 13 seconds hoping to win.. .instead of manning up taking the win.
We let the Wisconsin win the game instead of taking it and winning it ourselves...
No team down by 2 with 13 ticks left will hold on for last shot.. they'll put up something with 7 or 8.. and if they score we have a shot to WIN IT. if they don't score.. they foul us...(yes the 0-6 is disconcerning, but again... GIVE ME THE BALL TO WIN IT.)
There's no guarantee that they'll score when they shoot with 6 seconds left... just like there's no guarantee they'll score with .1 seconds left.
But with six seconds left.. it's more likely their score is a 2-pointer and IT GIVES US TIME TO FREAKING WIN THE GAME ON THE OTHER END... even if it is a three... with no time left, it's pretty much a guarantee it's a 3-point shot.. and if it goes in... we're screwed because we let the other team dictate the finish. it's playing like you're hoping to win instead of going out and getting that win.
To me.. letting someone else decide your fate.. letting someone else decide if you are to win or lose.... instead of having the ball with a chance to put it away yourself... is the wrong choice.
Guys like Jordan and Kobe and what not... you think they're happy to sit back and let someone take that last shot.. on their team or not.. NO.. those guys want the ball in their hands with 1 second left.
If Stu tips the pass out of the double team and the clock runs out, Michigan would have decided their fate by good D. Teams win games with late steals; "Havlichek stole the ball", "Bird steals it", blocked shots, forced turnovers etc etc. You can control your fate on the defensive end.
Michigan was winning. Your stratagey is bizzaro. It would be like Mariano Rivera giving up a 3 run homer in the top of the ninth with a two run lead, allowing his offense to control their own fate in the bottom of the ninth
with letting them have the ball with 13 seconds left, you've already shortened their play call to something like 5 or 6 seconds, because they don't want to take the last shot when they're losing. Bringing it down to 5 seconds means that the worst possible scenario (a buzzer beating shot) becomes more likely. With 12-15 seconds, that scenario is much less likely. I liked the strategy to a point but I think it would have been better to hedge our bets and leave a little more time. just in case. Now If we were up by three points or by two possesions then, by all means, use all the fouls you can.
They got the ball in the hand of Wisconsin's worst 3 point shooter and forced him to take an off-balance prayer of a shot. Shit just happens sometimes.
Michigan left Gasser open because of a defensive strategy that they used the whole game and that was working.
From what I saw, Michigan was not using strong-side defenders to help at all. When they wanted to double, they brought a defender who was guarding an offensive player on the weak side. When a Wisconsin guy ran away from the ball, his defender did not even follow him past the midline. The defender stayed in help position in the lane. That guy would double -- or rotate to help the helper.
Apparently, Michigan did not think that Wisconsin would reverse the ball effectively, or, if it did, that the open weakside shooters could knock down their shots. And Michigan was right. Wisconsin only scored a couple of times all game because guys were left open on the weakside.
Unitl the last possession, when Gasser got lucky.
I don't think this is an issue of strategy at all. Douglas did a good job of getting Taylor to give up his dribble; at that point, he's capable of rotating back to his man, or our defender in the corner rotating to cover Stu's man. Beilein in the postgame explicitly said the plan was not to offer any strongside help or double team. They obviously wanted the ball out of Taylor's hands but with his dribble stopped from where he was and Hardaway guarding him, we were in pretty good shape.
That all being said, it was still left in that scrub's hands and he missed so poorly that he banked it in straight on. That's just a typical Wisconsin win that they had no business getting against a team that's coming so excruciatingly close to being good but not quite there.
Also, who the heck do we trust making free throws end game right now???
Novak, 85% from the line this year
throws then Douglas getting his pants pulled down on the last play. Just stay in your man's face and prevent the wide open good look.
The defense seemed fine to me. They denied the #1 option (Jordan Taylor) and left the fate of the game in the hands of a freshman, whose desperation heave happened to go in. Sure, maybe I'm jaded because the ball went off the backboard before going in, but I'm not angry about the defense. The kid made the shot.