seas2k4
Junior
Posts: 274
Reg: 11-21-04
|
03-18-06 04:03 AM - Post#18254
What a phenomenal job by Coach Dunphy tonight. You could see how prepared the guys were and the poise they played with is a reflection of their Coach.
Great job, Coach.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-18-06 04:31 AM - Post#18255
In response to seas2k4
I agree. However, the timeout taken with the ball down 41-40 was I think a colossal strategic error. We had all the momentum, Texas was playing on its heels, the crowd was very very nervous (I was sitting in a sea of Texas fans right behind the Texas bench...and they hated me, but that's another story). Giving Texas the chance to regroup themselves I think cost us. Not that I'm complaining with Penn's overall effort, which was spectactular.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 04:45 AM - Post#18256
In response to
dunphy did nothing bad, don't get me wrong, but when a 2 plays a 15 and the 15 hangs around, it's merely a reflection on the 2 seed, not the 15 seed. Dunphy did a pretty lousy job this year in scheduling, developing his talent, and working through injuries and this was reflected in a 15 seed (which essentially reduces us to relying on miracles).
Now, the Penn kids were poised and showed a lot of heart, as they have time and time again this year. I choose to credit the players for this, seas chooses to credit the coach.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 04:57 AM - Post#18257
In response to Jeff2sf
I can understand where you are coming from Jeff, but it was clear that Dunphy did a great job coming up with a gameplan and getting the players to follow it. During the game I thought he made mostly good decisions as well. Hard to bash Fran after this effort. That said, I agree completely with Penn 94 that the TO he took with possession of the ball (and momentum) down only 1 point was a very bad idea. Not only did we lose that momentum, it actually gave Barnes a chance to get Gibson back in the game. His 2 or 3 drives to the hoop following that made up the difference in the game.
-Mike
|
Anonymous
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:00 AM - Post#18258
In response to Jeff2sf
I think Dunphy did a great job with matchups, substitution patterns, offensive gameplan, and defensive strategy. Barnes is a moron, but still, Dunphy had a terrific game (except for the timeout called as mentioned above).
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:17 AM - Post#18259
In response to
again, i remain unimpressed (not bashing, just not impressed). Every 15 seed has a good plan, they are only allowed to implement that plan through the grace/stupidity of the 2 seed.
And if anyone deserves the credit, it's the players who EXECUTE the plan. Where's the "Great Job Players" thread?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:22 AM - Post#18260
In response to Jeff2sf
Of course the players were terrific tonight too. That much was obvious just watching the game (especially from right on the flor) seeing how hard they were working for rebounds, on defense, to get open without the ball on offense, etc.
They should be very proud of themselves, but I hope they are not and that instead they are angry and hungry. If either Smith or McMahon get become a reliable 3pt shooter and Schreiber is as advertised, this will be a very dangerous Penn team next March.
|
penn92
Freshman
Posts: 19
Reg: 03-13-06
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:35 AM - Post#18261
In response to Jeff2sf
You're very right... I and others have missed big-time on commending the players for a great job. Thank you for pointing out the obvious (and I mean that sincerely, as we've missed it). Message boards are a funny thing... if I were somehow on the court at the end of the game, my first inclination would be to give a pat on the back to the players for a game well-played; I wouldn't be running up to Dunphy first to congratulate him on his gameplan... it sounds ridiculous and laughable now to think of it. Somehow here we want to talk about the coach first - must be something about the nature of a message board as opposed to the reality of a game that you've reminded us of.
But that being said, since this is indeed a message board, to get back to the coaching aspect, I disagree strongly with the assertion that a close 2-15 game must be a result of mis-coaching by the 2 seed coach without due credit given to the 15-seed coach, because "every 15 seed has a good plan". How is it to be assumed that every 15 seed has a good plan? So can a 15-seed coach not possibly garner any credit? (Don't get into discussion of how a better coach would not have been a 15 seed, that's outside the scope of this particular issue, though we can go there too in a separate thread).
|
Condor
PhD Student
Posts: 1888
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:56 AM - Post#18262
In response to Jeff2sf
Quote:
dunphy did nothing bad, don't get me wrong, but when a 2 plays a 15 and the 15 hangs around, it's merely a reflection on the 2 seed, not the 15 seed. Dunphy did a pretty lousy job this year in scheduling, developing his talent, and working through injuries and this was reflected in a 15 seed (which essentially reduces us to relying on miracles).
I do not see how a lousy coach of a 15 seed would ever have a team hang with a 2 seed. More importantly, they would not make the tournament. Further, the close game was not due to an off game by Texas. If you think that Texas played poorly, that was because of Penn.
Re the scheduling, what would you have done differently. Remember, not many teams want to play Penn. Further, there are travel restrictions, etc. I think Dunphy always gives Penn a challenging schedule.
Re development of talent, you have no basis for making this comment. The assumption is that game time experience will always accelerate development. The fact is, it can have the opposite effect as well. If you are suggesting we might have won some of the games we lost with more depth, I would respond by noting that we would have probably lost some games we won trying to give some players who are not ready game time.
You are essentially coming to the conclusion that our team did relatively well against a top ten team in spite of our coach. That suggests that our players somehow rose above the handicap of a bad mentor. I just don't buy it.
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 11:03 AM - Post#18263
In response to Condor
I thought it was a pretty good job. We needed three things to happen. Texas played poorly and we valued the ball. That was the first two. The third - better shooting - wasn't quite there. 52 points were never going to be enough.
It was competitive. It would be nice to win one of these but at least it was fun to watch and we showed up.
Would have liked to see Danley attempt something down low. Yes - that guy can play defense, but I still think you have to challenge him a couple times even if you get a facial. Without that he was like a centerfielder hanging down there and swatting away flies anytime we attempted to penetrate.
|
Quakermaniac81
Junior
Posts: 207
Reg: 02-14-06
|
Failure to develop the bench was tragic....
03-18-06 12:06 PM - Post#18264
In response to Condor
The failure to develop the bench beyond Ebede and Grandieri was practically criminal negligence. If it weren't for the fact that Langel needs a few more seasons until he is ready, I would root for Coach to bolt to Thug U., as he is so obviously tempted to do. I do not want to see David Duke or Fran McCaffrey as head coach of Penn Basketball so I'd rather have a few more seasons of Dunph while Matt continues to learn.
Let's see, talented freshman Brendan Votel played like an absolute mensch vs. Villanova....and was rewarded with scarcely again playing for the rest of the season. Yeah, that was great coaching, right....
|
seas2k4
Junior
Posts: 274
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 12:45 PM - Post#18265
In response to Jeff2sf
The "great job players" thread is everywhere around you, Jeff... I've begun to think Coach can do nothing to impress you. This year, he won with only two seniors contributing (one of whom was injured for mmuch of the season), serious injuries throughout the year, and with a team that lost Ivy POY Tim Begley. To boot, we scrapped with Texas to the very end and put a true scare in to the #2 seed, in their home state, in a matchup that many (myself included) thought was as bad as possible for us. Sure, I was dissapointed that Brennan and some of the others didn't get more minutes early- but what would it have accomplished? Maybe we would have won a couple more games, gotten a 14 seed, and played UNC in the first round? Coach knows what he is doing, he sees what happens in practice, and he wants to win just as much, and probably more, than all of us combined on this board.
If you aren't going to give him credit now, then it'd be great if you refrained from posting or reading any threads I start in the future. It is one thing to be critical, another thing entirely to be stubborn.
Go Quakers!
- SEAS
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8254
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 01:32 PM - Post#18266
In response to Jeff2sf
Quote:
when a 2 plays a 15 and the 15 hangs around, it's merely a reflection on the 2 seed, not the 15 seed.
I think the folks from Belmont would trade places with us today.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Failure to develop the bench was tragic....
03-18-06 01:49 PM - Post#18267
In response to Quakermaniac81
I don't think you've accurately depicted what happened with Votel. Votel played more minutes after the Villanova game than before. And while the performance against 'Nova was fine with Steve out, I'm not sure it was the kind of thing that screams that somebody needs more playing time, regardless. Curious what you saw there.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 01:55 PM - Post#18268
In response to Streamers
First, the folks from Belmont might trade places with us, but we're both losers. Fact is, if we had lost to Texas by 20, I would not be any more or less impressed with Dunphy. It would not be his fault. A 2-15 game proves nothing one way or the other. Even if we had won, he'd not deserve much credit. Penn would have been monumentally lucky, that's all.
Second, re: scheduling. If a coach must play his friend at Lafayette (262), and he coaches in a tremendously weak conference, he certainly must not play Citadel AND Navy. That just killed our RPI. It's not THAT tough to schedule for Penn (he has the advantage that most people do not of having 5 automatic games scheduled with the Big 6 against some pretty good teams AND the Palestra) we normally have great schedules, so he failed there. No big deal, he's usually pretty good with scheds, but he failed this year.
Third, injuries happen. Get over it, and more importantly, use your nonconference season to develop your stud recruiting class so games like Princeton with 6 players till a foul out, never ever happen. If we had won a couple more games, seas, we obviously wouldn't have been a 15 seed, we wouldn't have played Texas, and we would have had a better chance to progress in the tourney. Instead Fran Dunphy just set a record for most consecutive losses by a coach in the tourney. Obviously his formula for winning a tournament game is no better (at best) than my formula given his formula seems to be the worst in history.
Yes, I know he's not been a favorite in all of these games but to me that points to two things: his inability to put his team in a position to not be an underdog (get me a 10 seed for cryin out loud) and his inability to do a masterful coaching job and steal a game.
Finally, again, if I had to give Dunphy a rating for just this game, it might very well be B+ or A-, but I'm taking a longer view of things. The kids played their hearts out and deserve credit first, before we pay our respect to the coach. In addition, I ask myself why this team, which only lost one starter, plays in a bad conference, and had a great recruiting class, actually regressed?
|
louisw
newbie
Posts: 8
Reg: 02-15-05
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 02:12 PM - Post#18269
In response to Jeff2sf
Scheduling-
Penn has to schedule some lower quality schools in order to get some wins. Playing the big guys close is nice but wins are necceesary
|
seas2k4
Junior
Posts: 274
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 02:35 PM - Post#18270
In response to Jeff2sf
Jeff,
First off (and I don't know the answer to this) I wonder how much influence Coach has on the schedule. I am sure he plays a major role, but so does the AD, boosters, alumni, etc. Also, keep in mind that it takes two to tango, and as we hear every single March from most midmajor schools, it is very difficult for them to schedule the high majors, who generally have little to gain and a lot to lose against those midmajors whom they could lose to. While I agree it would be nice to play a more challenging schedule every year, I do think they do a great job mixing in the challenges (Duke, at Hawaii, the Big Five) with some games that are sure W's and some that lie in between. Additionally, I'm sure the schedule, atleast in part, gets done 1-2 years in advance, and it is hard to say if the League will be down (see 2006) or very tough (see 2003) any given year. Personally I'd love to see more games against the Rutgers, Clemson types, lower schools from major conferences, where we have a true shot to win most years and also get great experience. Not sure they have too much interest in scheduling us, though.
Looking back on this year, we played relatively tough against Duke on the road, lost to Nova by 7 and were down by 4 with under 2 to play, went 12-2 in the League, losing once by a basket and once by a single point in overtime, and gave Texas all it could handle in the first round of the tournament. Pretty succesful, no?
And I doubt we will come to any agreement on this, but for me, your claim that Penn "would have been momunentally lucky, that's all" to get a win is just plain wrong. Execution isn't luck, preparation isn't luck, and hustle isn't luck. Would we need Texas to not bring their A game? Sure. Would it necessarily be enough? No. We would need to execute, prepare, and hustle like no other.
- SEAS
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Scheduling correction
03-18-06 02:46 PM - Post#18271
In response to seas2k4
First, I agree with none of the points made by you, seas, regarding scheduling. The scheduling is not done that far in advance with the exception of the Ivies and tournaments. There is a lot of flexibility to change dates and that's why our schedule always gets put out so late. The Citadel, Navy and Fordham games in particular were added late.
However, looking at non-conf SOS's over the past five years, this was actually our 2nd best SOS at 53. No doubt that was due to Duke and Nova and an improved LaSalle team but whatever, it would appear that our SOS did not have a deleterious effect on our seeding. I would argue that not scheduling Citadel and Navy would have moved it into the top 40 and probably resulted in a 14 seed, which again is a difficult position but not as desperate as a 2-15.
No, it seems we were let down by a craptacular Ivy League, as per usual and Dunphy's failure to go 13-1 or 14-0 with his talent (and the Ivy League's lack-there-of) was inexcusable.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8254
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 03:19 PM - Post#18272
In response to Jeff2sf
Quote:
First, the folks from Belmont might trade places with us, but we're both losers. Fact is, if we had lost to Texas by 20, I would not be any more or less impressed with Dunphy. It would not be his fault. A 2-15 game proves nothing one way or the other. Even if we had won, he'd not deserve much credit. Penn would have been monumentally lucky, that's all.
Even if I concede that no 15 wins if the 2 plays well, a Penn win demands nearly perfect execution. We did that on defense (no surprise) not on offense, at least in the 2nd half. Yes, there was one in-game tactical error, but the game plan was solid and nearly worked.
As to scheduling... you are kidding, right? Duke this year, UNC next year. Come on. Sure, the academic schedule and the reluctance of the high majors forces us into a bind (see the Fordham game this year) at times, but do you really think a Temple schedule is a good idea for us?
Where I do agree with you is Fran's reluctance to go 8 or 9 deep. We could always speculate on how Haddan, Kach, or Pett might have changed that, but there will be no excuse next year, given the quality of the recruiting class, unless we lose more kids from the program for some reason.
|
Bruno
PhD Student
Posts: 1419
Loc: Brooklyn, NY
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 04:56 PM - Post#18273
In response to
Agreed. Dunphy with a nicely coached game, with the exception of that killer time out. (I remember thinking "bad time out?") Just a momentum killer. However, this team took great care of the ball, and got beat exactly where you'd expected them to get beat - inside and on the boards.
Well done Penn and Dunphy. Most of us thought this would be a 20+ point blowout, and Penn put a scare into what was probably THE most difficult matchup - Texas at Texas - in the first round of the tournament. The Ivies should feel pretty good about this showing.
| LET'S go BRU-no (duh. nuh. nuh-nuh-nuh) |
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 05:37 PM - Post#18274
In response to Jeff2sf
In regard to Belmont, I think the most important difference in what happened in the 1st round is what it potentially means for us next year. Losing by 30+ doesn't do a whole lot for your confidence the next time around. We return just about everybody, and this game can only help in terms of convincing everybody that they can play at this level if we can get back next year.
As for the comparison to last year, it seems to me that you were in the clear minority if you really thought that this team was going to be as good as or better than last year without Begley, Fikiel, and Pettinella. If anything, I think the last two years both rank among Dunphy's best as coach.
|
Bison137
Professor
Posts: 16147
Reg: 01-23-06
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 06:15 PM - Post#18275
In response to Mike Porter
Quote:
I can understand where you are coming from Jeff, but it was clear that Dunphy did a great job coming up with a gameplan and getting the players to follow it. During the game I thought he made mostly good decisions as well. Hard to bash Fran after this effort. That said, I agree completely with Penn 94 that the TO he took with possession of the ball (and momentum) down only 1 point was a very bad idea. Not only did we lose that momentum, it actually gave Barnes a chance to get Gibson back in the game. His 2 or 3 drives to the hoop following that made up the difference in the game.
-Mike
Agree on all counts.
|
UMassQuaker
newbie
Posts: 4
Reg: 03-18-06
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-18-06 06:25 PM - Post#18276
In response to Condor
Quote:
Re the scheduling, what would you have done differently. Remember, not many teams want to play Penn. Further, there are travel restrictions, etc. I think Dunphy always gives Penn a challenging schedule.
One game that should be schedule every year is Penn vs Bucknell. They are close geographically and both consistently have good programs. Further, Bucknell has had a lot of problems getting games the past two years.
|
M.Bison
Freshman
Posts: 81
Reg: 02-11-06
|
Penn/Bucknell yearly game
03-20-06 04:53 AM - Post#18277
In response to UMassQuaker
Quote:
One game that should be schedule every year is Penn vs Bucknell. They are close geographically and both consistently have good programs. Further, Bucknell has had a lot of problems getting games the past two years.
I completely agree. I'd love to see Bucknell/Penn become a yearly game.
1) The games would likely be very good.
2) I believe 50% of RPI comes from opponents' records, and both schools have had strong W/L records in the past couple years.
3) Maybe this would be what finally gets me to the Palestra! I will get there someday...
Congrats on another Ivy championship and a strong showing in the tournament. Best of luck next year!
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Penn/Bucknell yearly game
03-20-06 11:01 AM - Post#18278
In response to M.Bison
Yes - now that Bucknell is not only a worthy opponent in terms of academic compatability, but more than a worthy opponent in basketball, it seems like they should be a regular on both Penn and Princeton's schedules.
Great job again Bucknell representing the responsible, enlightened viewpoint on how quality schools can aproach a major sport with excellence and without sacrificing its academic mission.
|
Buckeye Quake
PhD Student
Posts: 1601
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Penn/Bucknell yearly game
03-20-06 01:34 PM - Post#18279
In response to AsiaSunset
Let's not forget those scholarships Asia.
|
dpostm92
Senior
Posts: 326
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 05:30 PM - Post#18280
In response to
That timeout call confused me at the time, and proved rather confounding.
That said, the bottom line is that the Quakers would have won if they made 40% of their shots. Generally, that's not too tall an order. But ultimately, the team was done in by its Achilles heel this year: the inability to make baskets. I fully expect to see Penn back in the tournament again next year, and I would hope that with some help from McMahon & hopefully someone else, the team will be able to make baskets on a more regular basis.
The effort was there, especially on the defensive end.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23394
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 05:31 PM - Post#18281
In response to dpostm92
What do you think Fran was thinking with that timeout? The team did not need calming down.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 06:09 PM - Post#18282
In response to 10Q
Personally, I think Dunphy choked a little bit at that moment. In the whole course of the game, up to that moment, I had never said to myself that Penn has a shot at winning (even when they were up at half). But, when they had made their last comeback to get within 1 point, and they had the ball I thought that they did have a chance to win. Texas was obviously frustrated, confused and a bit scattered at that moment. Giving them a chance to regroup, get Gibson back in the game, etc., simply made no sense. Fact was, if Penn was going to win it had to play its game and get Texas out of its normal game. That was the moment to go for it. If Penn hadn't called the TO the clock would have been below 5:30 when TX would have gotten the ball back. I doubt TX would have called a TO, since the last media TO was pretty close. Another couple of bad possessions by TX and a couple of good possessions by Penn could have seen a 4 or 5 pt lead with 4:00 to go. Does that mean Penn would have won? Was probably going to win? No, but that was clearly the best chance Penn had to win the game. Dunphy simply blew it by trying to insert himself into the flow of the game when the momentum was all on Penn's side.
I've watched probably 8 or 10 games in this tournament and that was about the worst coaching decision I've seen. Everybody makes mistakes, including Dunphy, and he did have a very, very good coaching year. But, nobody should make believe that wasn't a stupid decision and clearly cost Penn whatever chance it had to win.
Some of the reaction to the game seems a bit overdone. The players gave about everthing they had and Dunphy did a good job up to that TO. But, the team lost again, lost again in a game where Penn stayed competitive through most of the game. This had been the story, time and again, with Dunphy's teams in the NCAA's. One way to look at it is that he finds a way to make his team competitive, almost always. Another way is that despite being competitive in most of these games Dunphy never seems to get this team over the top.
|
Ancient Quaker
Masters Student
Posts: 648
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 06:17 PM - Post#18283
In response to
I hope Fran takes the Temple job. If he does, I strongly suspect that he will prove to be a worthy, if not superior successor to John Chaney. And then we'll all be able to have someone new to criticize. I hear Littlepage is available.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 06:20 PM - Post#18284
In response to 10Q
Did he say that that was what he was trying to do?
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23394
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 07:00 PM - Post#18285
In response to SomeGuy
I didn't hear that, but was just suggesting a possible reason.
Also, a worse coaching decision was Arizona's coach's timeout just before his player hit the tying basket in the last 2 minutes. He took 2 points off the board in a very, very tight game.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 07:03 PM - Post#18286
In response to 10Q
That basket would have brought Arizona to within 2, not a tie. And Hassan Adams was fouled and hit both FTs on the ensuing possession after the timeout so there was no harm done.
|
13otto
Masters Student
Posts: 779
Loc: Philadelphia, PA
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 10:02 PM - Post#18287
In response to 10Q
Quote:
What do you think Fran was thinking with that timeout? The team did not need calming down.
I thought Fran called that timeout to get Mark Zoller back into the game.
|
Pennsylvania69
Junior
Posts: 206
Loc: Chester County, PA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 10:15 PM - Post#18288
In response to 13otto
There would be zero discussion about that timeout if Oz sinks the 3.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-20-06 10:34 PM - Post#18289
In response to Pennsylvania69
For what it is worth, there was discussion about that being a bad/odd time out as soon as it happened in the chat room between those of us watching and chatting. I imagine if Os did sink the three there would be no discussion now, but it still would have been an odd time for a TO regardless.
-Mike
|
AsiaSunset
Postdoc
Posts: 4361
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-21-06 12:33 AM - Post#18290
In response to Mike Porter
For what it's worth I remember thinking "what a great TO" when Fran called it (definitely seems to be a minority opinion). If I recall we had already wasted 15-20 seconds of clock and this was a critical possession. We were going nowhere fast. I didn't think we had momentum. I thought we were in the process of losing it. We needed a bucket badly.
The problem was that we didn't run anything special after the TO. Our offense always brings someone toward the guy with the ball to set a screen. This puts a lot of pressure on the guy trying to make the play since the screen always gets jumped. In this case Oz fought the double off, kept the ball and took it all the way to the other side of the circle. He created a shot opportunity but he wasn't really square to the hoop and it didn't go in.
If we had run some kind of clear out for a guard we might have had more success. We don't seem to do that though. We always bring a guy to the man with the ball. This is an area we need to improve in in my opinion.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-21-06 03:33 AM - Post#18291
In response to AsiaSunset
Asia, I think you're memory may be a bit blurred on the TO. It was called a couple of seconds after the ball crossed half court. No sets had been started...
|
13otto
Masters Student
Posts: 779
Loc: Philadelphia, PA
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-21-06 04:27 AM - Post#18292
In response to
The timeout did occur within the first 10 seconds of the possession, and the purpose apparently was to get Zoller back into the game, in place of Freeway, to help the offense on a key possession. Fran thought it was time to get Mark back into the game. You are entitled to disagree with that logic.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-21-06 05:06 AM - Post#18293
In response to 13otto
Now look at the can of worms you've opened. Instead of WORST COACHING DECISION OF THE ENTIRE TOURNAMENT we're going to have to debate WHY WASN'T ZOLLER IN THE GAME???????
|
13otto
Masters Student
Posts: 779
Loc: Philadelphia, PA
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-21-06 06:05 AM - Post#18294
In response to Chip Bayers
Zoller had come out of the game a minute or two earlier, after picking up his third personal foul.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23394
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-21-06 10:18 AM - Post#18295
In response to 13otto
What else is there to talk about? The dadgum season is over and there's no off topic board.
|
Quaker Fan
maximus
Posts: 282
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-21-06 04:22 PM - Post#18296
In response to Jeff2sf
Quote:
Even if we had won, he'd not deserve much credit. Penn would have been monumentally lucky, that's all.
Second, re: scheduling. If a coach must play his friend at Lafayette (262), and he coaches in a tremendously weak conference, he certainly must not play Citadel AND Navy. That just killed our RPI. It's not THAT tough to schedule for Penn (he has the advantage that most people do not of having 5 automatic games scheduled with the Big 6 against some pretty good teams AND the Palestra) we normally have great schedules, so he failed there. No big deal, he's usually pretty good with scheds, but he failed this year.
Third, injuries happen. Get over it, and more importantly, use your nonconference season to develop your stud recruiting class so games like Princeton with 6 players till a foul out, never ever happen. If we had won a couple more games, seas, we obviously wouldn't have been a 15 seed, we wouldn't have played Texas, and we would have had a better chance to progress in the tourney. Instead Fran Dunphy just set a record for most consecutive losses by a coach in the tourney.
I ask myself why this team, which only lost one starter, plays in a bad conference, and had a great recruiting class, actually regressed?
My view of the game was that if Penn had won, it would not have been "luck." It sure looked to me and the TV guys that there was a plan and it was being executed. A shot here or there and the whole result changes. The timeout that got Gibson back in was possibly an error - but a break was coming soon no matter - the key issue there I think would have been to go at him and try to get him to foul out. Gibson was the differnce at the end - Zoller did great but Penn had noone really arise at the end. For Penn to beat a Texas or 'Nova you need super clutch at the end - instead a Ray and a Gibson changed the results. But look at our team size v Texas and how the game progressed and how we did.
OK - scheduling - Citidal and Navy sure - how about a Duke on the other end. We played some top teams - more is better for sure. But a total failure? Not so much. I winder will Duke come to the Palestra next year and face Ibby and Co. again with some more size in Schrieber, more Tommy, and maybe a Votel or Cam comming up for a little more size. I can only imagine watching Ibby these 3 years that next year he is only gonna be better - like National Attention better.
Injuries happen and they hurt - the guy and the team. We got a lot of them - I was very happy that Free was moving again and able to play - how much he was hindered I don't know. Playing deeper in the lineup...when he moves too many in and out we also are critical too. Hard place to be when 4 key guys are hurt including the effective end of your bench - Tommy.
Well yeah we have lost a bunch in a row. Some really good teams lost too. But in one and done the smallest thing can kill you. MJ gets two fouls in 10 secs - U scores 30, but Schiff dissapears - McDysses peaks and we miss a couple of foul shots - on and on.
Seeding - well you lose your best guy (Begs), you lose some winnable games, and you lose to a team that sometimes has trouble breaking 20 - you get a 15 seed. This group performed very well - has a star in Ibby - guys coming up. We win all the games we need to win, we have an upset or two, some of our fellow Ivy teams step up, the seed next year could be very nice - but nothing is free.
One thought - did Littlepage help us or hurt us? Well as coach he killed us - somehow I think he was a negative in that room. Now he is out and maybe we fare better next year. But again - you have to win the games you are supposed to win. You want an 11 seed - you need 14-0 in the Ivy and 3(4)-1 in the Big 5(6). You want a 10 seed - you beat a 'Nova and do not lose to a St. Joes or a Princeton.
REgression? Not so much - we actually lost two key guys (Begs and a cavilier dude named Ryan). This group won 20 games - won the league - could have won as a 15. The game v. BC last year was not nearly as close. I see improvement not regression.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: No, bad job Texas coach
03-21-06 04:35 PM - Post#18297
In response to Quaker Fan
"REgression? Not so much - we actually lost two key guys (Begs and a cavilier dude named Ryan). This group won 20 games - won the league - could have won as a 15. The game v. BC last year was not nearly as close. I see improvement not regression."
Don't forget Fikiel. We went from having a solid 4 man rotation with a lot of versatility up front to having 2 guys backed up by smaller guys playing out of position. That's not to knock Ebede or anybody else who played up there -- they did a tremendous job. Hopefully, somewhere in Schreiber, Reilly, Votel, and Lewis, we can find that versatility again for next year. Though if McMahon bulks up he could be a very interesting 4 for us, as well.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Great job, Coach
03-21-06 05:41 PM - Post#18298
In response to AsiaSunset
Quote:
The problem was that we didn't run anything special after the TO.
The story of Dunph's in-game coaching career...
|
|
|
Report Post
Quote Post
Quick Reply
|
|
Print Topic
Email Topic
1002 Views
|
|
|
|
|
