Joel Joseph wrote:

Rising, a few individuals did complain after we won the only post season National Championship in school history. Fortunately, 1 out of those 2 individuals is still with us. 

Not a good start but hopefully JC will figure this thing out (or he will be looking for a job).

When ML was at Vermont, he used to say he needed "A-10" level talent to be good. When he was at GW, he said we needed "BCS" level talent to be good. Let's not accept mediocrity - we still need BCS level talent to be with the Daytons of the league.

Well, we have BCS level talent - quite literally.  If Lee was healthy, our starting 5 would be guys who played at Arizona, Maryland, LsU, uconn, and Virginia Tech.   Those are impressive programs - not a northwestern or Clemson in the bunch.

Could not disagree with you more about Bishop, Rising.   Again  good players, for whatever reason, have off nights.  And the more you miss, the tighter you get and the smaller the rim seems to get,   At some point, you just have to say that it isn’t your night and let  someone else take the shots.  Maybe even sit for a few minutes and start a fresh I cannot imagine you disagree with that.  Apparently you believe that 2-13 was not that point, but I believe otherwise.  When 3 other players are shooting well, to keep shooting when virtually nothing is falling seems a bit selfish, no?

Mutts Gone Nuts.

Shooters have to keep shooting. If they’d been crazy forced shots, I’d have been concerned. Bishop generally had decent looks but didn’t get the result. I can live with that.

LSF, have you even watched the game?   Bishop was not out of control and most of his shots were just barely off.   But he also didn’t force things - he didn’t even take a shot in the final 4 minutes when we missed 4 consecutive layups (none were Bishop) so perhaps he did stop shooting when maybe what we needed was for him to shoot?  I mean, look at our last possession - he could have risen up for a baseline floater, but instead he dished to Harris, who missed a layup. 

Also want to add, I still don’t understand how a flagrant wasn’t called on the final foul.  Flagg literally tackled Lindo - diving and grabbing his legs to keep him from grabbing the ball and running out the clock.  It was not only a CLEAR flagrant, but it was dirty and dangerous.  I was shocked that the refs didn’t even go to the monitor to check, though I shouldn’t have been because they stunk.  I rewatched the final play and it was just as bad on TV - just a flat out tackle to stop the clock.

Free Quebec wrote:

LSF, have you even watched the game? Bishop was not out of control and most of his shots were just barely off. But he also didn’t force things - he didn’t even take a shot in the final 4 minutes when we missed 4 consecutive layups (none were Bishop) so perhaps he did stop shooting when maybe what we needed was for him to shoot? I mean, look at our last possession - he could have risen up for a baseline floater, but instead he dished to Harris, who missed a layup.

Also want to add, I still don’t understand how a flagrant wasn’t called on the final foul. Flagg literally tackled Lindo - diving and grabbing his legs to keep him from grabbing the ball and running out the clock. It was not only a CLEAR flagrant, but it was dirty and dangerous. I was shocked that the refs didn’t even go to the monitor to check, though I shouldn’t have been because they stunk. I reached the final play and it was just as bad on TV - just a flat out tackle to stop the clock.

Watched the game on ESPN+ after the fact.   How about we agree that James Bishop is a very good player who had a bad game that could have been worse?.   Of all my takeaways from the game, Bishop shooting too many shots was not one of the biggest ones for me.   For me, the biggest takeaway was a toss up between our ability to hold on to a win in a game that we probably would have lost last season, as well as our inability to put away what appeared to be an opponant with inferior talent after taking an early 15 point lead and being damn lucky to have held on.

Last edited by Long Suffering Fan (11/11/2021 12:15 pm)

Here's what I don't get.  Are we really a better team playing less aggressively because three bigs are in foul trouble, or are we better served playing Samuels and Nixon a bit under these circumstances?  JC has talked up Samuels quite a bit.  I realize he doesn't want to throw Nixon into the fire right away.  But just having their presence in the game with fouls to give would have had to result in better defense than what we were showing with Ricky, Noel and Hunter each in foul trouble.

This team is thin in the frontcourt with Samuels and Nixon.  It is severely undermanned without them (or in this case, having only one of them play a handful of minutes).  It also stands to reason that SFU would not have had their way with these guys.  It's not like we're talking about Maryland's bigs.