There’s no possible pass play to set up off a missed FT with 3 seconds left 94 feet from the basket that gives any kind of decent look. That’s entirely why the decision to safely inbound the ball to a wide open player makes 100% sense. Advance the ball to the complete opposite end of the court and doomsday scenario is ND taking a 60 foot shot. Give me those odds any damn day of the week.
End of game coaching
- Thread starter bdhman
- Start date
There’s no possible pass play to set up off a missed FT with 3 seconds left 94 feet from the basket that gives any kind of decent look. That’s entirely why the decision to safely inbound the ball to a wide open player makes 100% sense. Advance the ball to the complete opposite end of the court and doomsday scenario is ND taking a 60 foot shot. Give me those odds any damn day of the week.
LOL. Off a missed FT with no TO’s??? Will give you 100-1 odds this has happened in <1% of all basketball games played.
Not when the other team is intentionally trying to foul with 3 seconds left you moron. The most idiotic thing in the world would have been to put the ball on the floor in that situation. You have NO idea what you’re talking about right now. I do applaud your tolerance for pain.
Oh snap, an ad hominem wrapped inside a hasty generalization. Two fallacies for the price of one! I haven't seen a deal that good since I got three copies of Timecop for $4.99.
The only need in this situation is a player that can reliably catch the ball. Less than 4 seconds left in the game when the ball is inbound means there is zero need for passing or dribbling skills since either (especially dribbling) would be a mistake. Even more unnecessary since ND was looking to foul the player that gets the inbound pass. Smith is far from my preferred player to get the ball as far as FT shooting is concerned but he does have good hands. I'd be much more concerned if it was Brunk who has neither good hands no not good FT shooting.
In my view, because you need Smith on defense when ND gets the ball back, you have him in the game but he should be used strictly in that situation to set a solid screen for our good foul shooters, like Al or even Trace. It didn’t look to me like he was in there to do any screening. It was definitely a head scratcher, like when he used Jerome with basically no college experience making an inbound pass in a critical situation several games ago. Archie, by this time not taking our starters out after the first five minutes after getting off to a great start, has shown he can grow from his mistakes. I doubt we will see Justin in the same role in a similar situation.
Ideally, we get that ball to a good FT shooter who ices it. Agree that Smith is less than ideal in that situation, but the risk is low regardless with the clock so low
Wrong again. ESPN has a statistic that NBA players make half court or beyond shots (not just buzzer beaters) 1 out of 100 times. In your video game world or by just watching ESPN top 10 you may see more half court shots go in, but in real life they don’t. Merry Christmas.
Think the most important thing was to get the ball inbounds without a turnover so ND would not be able to get a front-court possession. That happened. Agree, wish someone else would have caught the ball. Glad Phinisee was inbounding and Smith was not.
Perfect answer to a lunatic poster. Solid reasoning totally eludes this doofus, but many of us appreciate your attempt.
Add another to the list who not only doesn’t understand basketball, but also illiterate.
Becoming quite a crowd.
While I see Smith has taken a big step forward from last year, my post is his care level in relation to his capability. He may be doing his job, but his body language is still terrible.
Come on, victimbear. You didn't even know an opposing team could call a time out prior to a free throw.
That's not victorbear, that's ordy. I suspect victorbear was a bsmitty sock puppet, but it's hard to say. Ordy's writing style and rhetoric is pretty easy to spot though. It reeks of legal training, which is why I think he's Gojko. I could easily be wrong, but I enjoy a good conspiracy theory.
The boogeyman paranoia here is as prevalent as the IU basketball ignorance. What’s interesting and thoroughly revealing is how badly a certain subset here needs to have some phantom evil doers on which to project all of their petty and small-minded insecurities. Says everything about them, but it’s always good for a (derisive) chuckle. As for legal training, I’m curious as to how you’d have any insight there.
Because I'm a graduate of IU Law--Bloomington and a practicing attorney for 15 years.
You're not new here, you're just posting under a different name. It's cowardly to change names and not say who you used to be. Very cowardly.
He's been banned so many times he couldn't possibly remember them all. Heh.
That’s incredibly rich. Calling one illiterate when posting an unrecognizable attempt at a sentence. Just to help you little buddy, I was a HS English teacher and basketball coach for 12 years before moving to corporate America. Tell us all what background allows you to know so much about writing and basketball. This ought to be good.
Yes, there's certainly no argument with the outcome. The thing that bothers me, is the personnel and roles. I went back and watched and last year at the end of the PU game after Haarms tap in and a timeout, RP inbounded again to JS with 3 seconds and he dribbled up the floor and made the pass to Morgan who missed the 3. I just don't agree with our PG inbounding to a poor FT shooter who doesn't have a great handle and who sometimes has questionable decision making. "Common" wisdom would be inbounding to RP, Durham or Green to advance the ball and all who are better FT shooters than JS. What I really question is RP inbounding the ball when imo we could use his ball handling, FT shooting and decision making more on the floor. Two different situations, and you can argue you'd rather have them have to go upcourt with 3 seconds and a live ball with a 2 pt lead, but I'll take a 3-4 pt lead any day of the week.
Arguing with Ordfan v 783 is like wrestling a pig, you ultimately win, but the pig enjoys it and you get dirty.
We all reacted the same way watching it live. I do think that priority one is getting he ball inbounds which RP inbounding to a big makes it a high liklelyhood. Smith became the first guy open so in it came (I am going to look back at the recording to validate that). He boke down hard and created a clear passing lane.
Another person who doesn’t understand situational basketball.
With 3 seconds left in the game, you don’t need who is ever catching the inbounds pass to have good decision making skills or dribbling skills because the second the ball is inbounded you’re being fouled immediately. There’s no advancing the ball with the lead in that situation. Putting the ball on the floor in that situation is the absolute one thing you don’t do; you’re inviting Notre Dame to strip the ball. Had Notre Dame done anything but fouled immediately after the ball, the game would have effectively ended in IU’s backcourt, there wasn’t enough time.
Comparing the end of the Purdue game last year to the ND game is apples to oranges. The situations were entirely different.
Last edited:
No wonder why our youth has lost their minds with morons like you in charge. You haven’t reproduced have you?
You still have grammatical errors in this post. Lol.
I do that online, from my couch. Since you don’t understand writing or basketball, are you now interested in selling tickets?
You and your 15 handles are the last thing I’d ever take life advice from. Dumber than the pavement you sleep on at night.
Getting the ball safely inbounds effectively won the game no matter what happened at the FT line. All agree that we’d prefer the person getting the ball was a better FT shooter, but if a better FT shooter doesn’t get open the ball needs to be passed to the open man, no matter who that person is. There wasn’t enough time left for ND to get better than a half court shot and that isn’t going in 99% of the time, even in the NBA. The odds are less in college. This debate was over days ago, yet the Negative Nancies and Trolls won’t give it up.
Look, if you'd like to trade insults, I'm more than capable of doing so. My point is, in both situations we have our best ball-handler, and one of our best FT shooters inbounding... that's the part that makes no sense to me. I'm not comparing the situations. And it does matter... you're telling me you don't care WHO catches the ball at the end of the Notre Dame game... good FT shooter or not? You wouldn't have felt better with RP, AD or DG going to the line instead of JS? You point out that it's unlikely they can go the length of the court after a missed FT, but you wouldn't feel better if that trip came with a 3pt vs a 2 pt lead... or inbounding with a 4 pt lead? It's somewhat moot because we won, but going back to PU, a game we lost, with the same inbounder and receiver, why do we not have our PG on the floor rather than inbouding?
I'm trying to show it's a trend and asking why, in 2 different EOG situations, we have our PG inbounding the ball, and then giving it to someone who is not a good FT shooter, decision maker or ball handler. If it was once, I'd just write it off that that was who was open, it didn't really matter because we had the lead with 3 seconds left, and that CAM wanted our best decision maker and hands guy inbounding. What I find concerning is that it DID happen previously, and will it continue. Would we have gotten a game winning bucket last year vs PU if RP had the ball? There's no way to know, but I am confident our chances would have been improved with him receiving that pass vs JS and it's hard for him to do that if he's inbounding and it's now a trend. See the relevancy? The fact that it's happened before, in a situation where we DID need our best passer, ball handler and decision maker, is exactly what makes it relevant and possibly a trend.
BECAUSE YOU DON’T NEED TO INBOUND THE BALL TO A BALL-HANDLER UP 2 WITH 3 SECONDS LEFT. IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND? THE BALL SHOULD NEVER TOUCH THE FLOOR IN A SITUATION WHERE THE OTHER TEAM IS INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO FOUL YOU. YOU WANT YOUR BEST PASSER (PHINISEE WHO IS ALSO THE PG) INBOUNDING THE BALL BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY IU LOSES THAT GAME IS IF THE BALL IS TURNED OVER ON THE INBOUNDS PLAY. WHY IN EFFING WORLD WOULD YOU NOT WANT YOUR BEST PASSER AND BEST DECISION MAKER MAKING THE MOST CRUCIAL PASS IN THE GAME? IT’S MIND-BLOWING THAT YOU MISS THIS ASPECT OF THE EQUATION. YOU DON’T NEED TO INBOUND THE BALL TO SOMEBODY WHO CAN DRIBBLE OR PASS IN THAT SITUATION, BECAUSE THE SECOND THE BALL IS INBOUNDED YOU’RE GETTING FOULED IMMEDIATELY.
I just went back and watched the Purdue game from last year and there’s not much to be mad about. With 3 seconds left you’re only getting 2 dribble + a shot. Doesn’t really matter if you get the ball to Phinisee or Smith there. Smith got the ball past half-court and Morgan got off a clean look from 35 feet. It’s not like Phinisee is going the length of the court in 3 seconds.
Does anyone not remember the end of OT in the Michigan State game last year? When IU turned the ball over under Michigan State’s basket up 2? Getting the ball inbounded safely is #1 priority in that situation. You hope your guy executes at the free throw line and worst case he doesn’t you still have to hope the other team makes a 60 footer to beat you. If Smith hits his FT’s, this is a non-issue. I understand being upset with the execution and subsequent outcome, but that strategy to safely inbound the ball first and foremost was correct.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza- Latest: Marvin the Martian
-
-
-