No PT for Cougs?

[ICHAWK]

You're talking about dealing with multiple contingencies instead of one: Make the two (we failed at step one), pray you get fouled, foul them with enough time left to get back down court and try another shot, avoid having the foul be deemed intentional, hope they miss one or both shots, and come down court again probably still needing a three to tie. The probability of hitting one three in the possession we had is higher.

And no, Gatens does not create threes. He either takes them from Coralville, comes off of a screen, or we manage to find him standing open. He does occasionally create a medium range jumper off of a drive, but it's usually not a great shot. Having a guy in his face doesn't mean he created anything. It means he took the shot even though he was covered. Thankfully he's pretty good at that. I just wish we'd have tried that option instead.

I agree with what you say Freddy.

Is it just me or does Iowa really seem to struggle when they have to speed up the game. There have been times this year where Iowa just does not seem to have that sense of urgency. If you want to do the quick 2, then try to steal the inbounds pass or immediately foul you better have your PG/G get the ball up the floor in a hurry and get to the hole. They farted around and let Michigan set up. In this case Michigan will be guarding the 3 and not guarding the basket as well. Take the ball to he hoop immediately.

 

[GhostofBTT]

Freddy is doing all of his talking with the firm backing of hindsight. To go for the easy 2 or try for the 3 is debatable. It is not as cut and dry as you lay it out to be. The way you are talking about it, it is almost like we would have a 100% chance to make the 3 if we had tried it.

Lick played the percentages and lost. Gatens went for the high percentage shot instead of the low percentage shot, and he crapped out. It wasn't a bad decision, but poor execution.

I promise you, PROMISE YOU, that if we would have went for the three and bricked it, Freddy would be in here today barking about how we should have gone for the lay up.

 

[burky247]

I promise you, PROMISE YOU, that if we would have went for the three and bricked it, Freddy would be in here today barking about how we should have gone for the lay up.

This is the only part of your post I really disagree with. I don't believe Freddy or anyone who has watched Iowa ball all year long was wanting or expecting us to go for two in that situation. There wasn't enough time for that. Even if we scored the two and fouled immediately, we would have had roughly 6 seconds left or so. That's not our strong point to rebound or inbound a ball and go the length of the court for a score in that amount of time. Heck, we can't get the ball past half court in less than 9 seconds most of the time.

This is why going for the 3 was the right call at that point. Now, if there was 15 seconds left or so then it would be a different story. Definitely go for the most open shot in that situation. As it was, we made the wrong choice.

 

[FreddyBrown]

Freddy is doing all of his talking with the firm backing of hindsight. To go for the easy 2 or try for the 3 is debatable. It is not as cut and dry as you lay it out to be. The way you are talking about it, it is almost like we would have a 100% chance to make the 3 if we had tried it.

Lick played the percentages and lost. Gatens went for the high percentage shot instead of the low percentage shot, and he crapped out. It wasn't a bad decision, but poor execution.

I promise you, PROMISE YOU, that if we would have went for the three and bricked it, Freddy would be in here today barking about how we should have gone for the lay up.

Casper, you're starting to lose your usually crisp form there. I'm not a guy who looks for something to bit$h about. I had exactly the same complaints as I watched the end of that game unfold as I've expressed here today.

I've said nothing to indicate that there was a high probability we'd have hit the three at the end of ot. I just think it was a better percentage play than going for two and hoping that a lot of other things went our way thereafter. I do think the "spread" between the probability of winning had we fouled them instead of allowing the three at the end of regulation was heavily in favor of taking the foul. By the way, we could easily have lost the game outright on that play because Fuller fouled the shooter and he still made the shot.

So no, I wouldn't be here looking for something else to complain about had we done it the right way and still lost. I wouldn't have been happy about the loss--who is?--but sometimes things just don't go your way. Unfortunately, Lick played the wrong percentages and a lot of the blame for the loss lies right there.

I hope you don't throw the word "promise" around so cavalierly in the future, because it could tend to diminish your otherwise considerable credibility here. ;-)

 

[hawkeye12345]

Freddy is doing all of his talking with the firm backing of hindsight. To go for the easy 2 or try for the 3 is debatable. It is not as cut and dry as you lay it out to be. The way you are talking about it, it is almost like we would have a 100% chance to make the 3 if we had tried it.

Lick played the percentages and lost. Gatens went for the high percentage shot instead of the low percentage shot, and he crapped out. It wasn't a bad decision, but poor execution.

I promise you, PROMISE YOU, that if we would have went for the three and bricked it, Freddy would be in here today barking about how we should have gone for the lay up.

I disagree as well, not necessarily for Freddy because I don't know him from Adam but I personally wouldn't be bitc4ing about going for the three. I'm not sure what odds you're referring to either because 15 seconds isn't exactly a long time. You are also assuming we make the 2, which we didn't so why stretch it?

Did anybody catch the last :15 of the OSU / PU game tonight? I didn't but I see in their play-by-play that they got the ball back with :15 on the clock and Buford missed a two point try, Diebler rebounded and launched a 3 at the buzzer. Why did Buford shoot the two ball?

 

[woodyk1]

I disagree as well, not necessarily for Freddy because I don't know him from Adam but I personally wouldn't be bitc4ing about going for the three. I'm not sure what odds you're referring to either because 15 seconds isn't exactly a long time. You are also assuming we make the 2, which we didn't so why stretch it?

Did anybody catch the last :15 of the OSU / PU game tonight? I didn't but I see in their play-by-play that they got the ball back with :15 on the clock and Buford missed a two point try, Diebler rebounded and launched a 3 at the buzzer. Why did Buford shoot the two ball?

Buford was relatively close to the basket but Kramer made a great block. Dielber retrieved the ball and instead of giving the ball to Turner, Dielber tried to shoot a 3 and missed. It was kind of a frantic play to end the game. I only saw the highlights, so I don't know if OSU had a timeout to call.

 

[PodolakFan]

I sometimes wonder if these Lick lovers are realated to the man somehow.

Where in my comment did I say I was a Lick lover? I just don't see what all the hype is with Coug. He is way over weight and out of his element in the Big Ten right now. If he can work off the baby fat and get stronger, then maybe he'll be ready, but until then he can ride the pine. We have better players playing instead of him, he'll get his chance, it just isn't right now as a freshman.

 

[tubahawk]

Freddy is doing all of his talking with the firm backing of hindsight. To go for the easy 2 or try for the 3 is debatable. It is not as cut and dry as you lay it out to be. The way you are talking about it, it is almost like we would have a 100% chance to make the 3 if we had tried it.

Lick played the percentages and lost. Gatens went for the high percentage shot instead of the low percentage shot, and he crapped out. It wasn't a bad decision, but poor execution.

I promise you, PROMISE YOU, that if we would have went for the three and bricked it, Freddy would be in here today barking about how we should have gone for the lay up.

Here is why I would not be on the boards (in hindsight) complaining about taking the three point shot;

Iowa is a three point shooting team. It's what we are built to be. It's our bread and butter. Why in the world would you not shoot a three when that's what you need? All the sudden when the game (situation) plays to our strength we switch philosophies to an inside, drive the lane style. It doesn't make sense.

In fairness the color commentator on TV had no issue with going for the two point play. I disagreed with him when he said it.

 

[tubahawk]

Where in my comment did I say I was a Lick lover? I just don't see what all the hype is with Coug. He is way over weight and out of his element in the Big Ten right now. If he can work off the baby fat and get stronger, then maybe he'll be ready, but until then he can ride the pine. We have better players playing instead of him, he'll get his chance, it just isn't right now as a freshman.

At this point, you'd play Brommer over Cougill?

 

[AZmess]

The debate over whether or not to shoot a 3 vs a 2 is pretty simple. Down five it's already a 2 possession game. You know if you take a 3, and make it, the other team is going to inbound the ball, we're going to foul, and HOPE they only make 1 FT. If they make both its game over.

What you're trying to do is get points the easiest way possible in order to TRY and make it a 1 possession game. To me, lay up sure seems to be a higher percentage shot than a contested three. If you make the lay up, you've gotten points on the board which is all you're trying to do when down 5 with time running out.

There's no cut and dry answer here.
________
Find Headshop

 

[JHHawk]

The debate over whether or not to shoot a 3 vs a 2 is pretty simple. Down five it's already a 2 possession game. You know if you take a 3, and make it, the other team is going to inbound the ball, we're going to foul, and HOPE they only make 1 FT. If they make both its game over.

What you're trying to do is get points the easiest way possible in order to TRY and make it a 1 possession game. To me, lay up sure seems to be a higher percentage shot than a contested three. If you make the lay up, you've gotten points on the board which is all you're trying to do when down 5 with time running out.

There's no cut and dry answer here.

Except that Iowa was only down 3 in the situation being discussed when Gatens took the layup under 12 seconds instead of opting for a tying three pointer....Michigan went for the three in the same situation at the end of regulation and Sims knocked it down...Lick decided to go for two, then foul and hope they could get back down the court and tie or win at the buzzer...as was said, Iowa's whole system is based on three point shooting, seems like this was one time it would work to our advantage...needing a three desperately to tie...but that is lick..always the contra-thinker...

 

[AZmess]

Really? My bad...I thought we were down 5.

LOL...yeah down 3 you might want to shoot a 3.
________
Park Royal 3 Condominium

 

[PodolakFan]

At this point, you'd play Brommer over Cougill?

Right now, yes. From what I've been hearing, Cougill apparently doesn't like to put much extra effort into making his game better. If he wants to be lazy he can do it somewhere else.