I don’t disagree going for the 2 for 1 at the end of the half and understand Ricky’s turnover.  My point was that we had a timeout to burn with 49 seconds and it might have been worthwhile to settle down and discuss what we hoped to execute.  Instead we got frenzied mistakes that were costly. Hindsight is 20-20, but that’s an area where a coach can play some role in controlling a game and looked like a lost opportunity to me.

You can point to various missed opportunities, poor plays and even bad refing, but in the end, we were beat because we are simply short handed.  We only have 8 scholarship players, one of whom (Samuels) contributes virtually nothing and the other (Harris) virtually nothing on offense.   A third player (Brown) gives us very little in terms of offense and 2 others  having physical issues during the game (Hunter back and Adams ankle).  And another (Edwards) is a very talented freshman, but is still a freshman and will have growing pains.  These are very tough handicaps to overcome when playing a good team on the road.   I sitll stand by my representations that we have one of the best, if not the best, starting 5s in the A-10. as we have now led all 8 of our games at the half, but sadly, our lack of depth is something we cannot fix until next season, and by then, at least 2, if not 3 of our best players will be gone.   Will be a very interesting off season in terms of recruiting.  

Last edited by Long Suffering Fan (1/29/2023 9:36 am)

This loss was a bit of a perfect storm in a way.  First, we've seen Fordham teams in the past have tremendous OOC records in the past only to wilt badly in A10 play.  However, having a gaudy OOC record against a crap schedule does not necessarily make one a bad team (see, GWU, 2005-06).  In fact, this Fordham team is a pretty good one having won 3 straight on the road before Saturday.  (Yes, the 3 weren't Murderers Row but three in a row on the road is an accomplishment, period.)

More to the point is the manner in which Fordham plays.  They pride themselves in defending you within pretty much every square foot in the frontcourt.  What helps is when one of your bench players (Rose) played more minutes than our entire bench.  In total, 59-25 was the Fordham advantage in bench minutes.  GW was clearly taken out of its offense in the second half as evidenced by 18 turnovers (14 of tghem courtesy of Ram steals) for the game (many in the second half).  Hard to execute when you are exhausted from having to fend off defenders virtually non-stop.

I'll echo the sentiments that I love having a coach who knows what a 2 for 1 is at the end of the first half.  However, any condition of a 2 for 1 has to be a good shot selection.  Taking a quick 23 foot shot does not qualify.  And CC, there is literally no reason not to use a timeout in this situation when the reality is you'll be losing it by halftime anyway.  This did give Fordham momentum though I am more than convinced that we were losing this game in the manner that we did with our without the late first half Fordham run.

The loss does make the next two at least fairly essential if GW has aspirations of either a double bye or even say a double digit conference win season.  La Salle is La Salle but this game is on the road (just can't take any A10 school for granted let alone away from home) and they are now coached by Fran Dunphy.  This is followed by a home game against Duquesne who in case anyone needed any reminding, took three overtimes before GW extinguished the Dukes a season ago.  A loss to either would carry far more significance than a justifiable one to Fordham.

Long Suffering Fan wrote:

I agree with everything that transpired at the end of the second half, except of course the results. Bishop did have an opened look and was right to take the shot.  Even if he was to miss, which he did, we would get the ball back before the end of the half.  Further, as there was under 40 seconds left in the half, I can understand why he would wish to bank the timeout (assuming it was not a use it or lose it) for the second half, as an  opportunity to rest his beleaguered team down the stretch.   Hindsight is always 20-20.   If Bishop makes the shot, we get the ball back at the end of the half and score again, then the move is brilliant.

LSF, nothing about my analysis was said in hindsight.  It would have been the same analysis regardless of the outcome.

First, the unbanked timeout was use it or lose it.  So there was absolutely no reason not to gather the team and set up a play.  Second, as I said, I am in favor of utilizing a 2 for 1 when it makes sense.  If you feel James took a good shot, then we'll have to agree to disagree on how we define a good shot.  What I called a 23 foot shot may have actually been closer to 25 feet.  Of course it was a clean look because what defense wouldn't want a 29% high volume three point shooter taking that shot?  Plays right into Fordham's hands.  Next JB's miss was rebounded with 37 seconds left so if Fordham opts to hold it for one (they didn't but certainly did have that option), GW's 2 for 1 means getting the ball back with maybe 2 seconds left.  And on top of everything else, GW is up 9 when JB misses that shot.  Absolutely no reason not to look for a good shot on that possession, even if it means squandering the 2 for 1 opportunity. 

 

Ralphie wrote:

We are thin, fatigued, and a bit nicked up, but what we really had no answer for was the Rams intensity and sense of urgency.   Maybe after decades of losing, the Rams and their new coach have bought into the "we will no longer be doormats" mentality.   The Fordham fans seem to have picked up on it as well.  I do believe our own JBIV needs to play with increasing intensity.   I'd like for CC to let him know that he will be called upon to take over the game on occasion - no matter how tired he may be (I've never quite fully bought into how a well-conditioned 21 year old athlete could get overly fatigued playing only two games a week).   As the best player on the floor, it is, and will be on him to carry that load - not BA, Ricky, Max, or Dean.    I believe he may respond well to being called out to take that kind of augmented, unambiguous leadership role when required.   He may be getting a little too satisfied with tossing off assists and being a "team player"    That's all well and good on most nights, but let's let him know we sometimes will need him to be the star of the show...........

Sorry Ralphie but it's very hard to buy into this take.  These aren't "Strat-O-Matic" cards where you can try to arrange to have your leading scorer shoot as many times per game as possible.  These are real human beings, who are being opposed by other real human beings.  Then there is this fatigue thing which is very real.  Not from the standpoint of whether someone is too tired to play or not but rather on the cumulative effects on performance.  Legs get heavier, shots often fall too short, or if overcompensated, are too strong.  Play in a closely contested contest and psychological stress gets added to this mix.   Then, there are the environmental factors which help explain why a team is far more likely to wilt playing on the road as opposed to the comforts of home.

JBIV may be the best player on the court but that does not automatically make him the hero nor does it give his team the victory.  This team has been dealt a very unfortunate hand.  Had EJ Clarke remained healthy and been able to give this team 20 minutes per game, and if Bradley, Nixon, or even Jabari West stayed healthy and had been able to offer 10-15 minutes in total among them, this would have made a second half like the one we played at Fordham the exception rather than the rule.  Instead, our team is vulnerable to teams that know how to pressure the ball and otherwise make GW work harder than it has to.  

Let's also remember this about JBIV...he does not have a body that could easily absorb a great deal of physicality.  He is willing to drive to the hoop and has been quite successful doing this.  Yet this often includes the risk of being fouled hard, crashing to the ground, etc.  His play this season has been remarkable; please read the Feinstein column if you haven't already.  In my mind, there was no way that one could conclude that if James had just shot a bit more, GW would have left Rose Hill with a win.  This really did not have anything  to do with intensity.  It had everything to do with being vulnerable towards another team's strengths.

And please don't underestimate Brandon Adams as an end of game option.  Although JBIV may have an overall edge over Brandon (and I do mean edge), Brandon is 2 inches taller, 20 pounds heavier,, shoots for a higher overall percentage and is a significantly better3 point shooter and is a better free throw shooter.  In fact, JBIV's scoring average is only 4 ppg better but he has taken nearly 90 shots more than Brandon over 21 games.  JBIV may be quicker,  more creative and a better ball distributor and in all fairness draws more attention by the defense. but Brandon certainly deserves to have the ball at the end of the game.

Last edited by Long Suffering Fan (1/31/2023 10:53 am)

Very apt and thoughtful comments all.    The crux of my point was simply that CC should be prepared SELECTIVELY and ON OCCASION to ask JBIV to "take over" when needed at a crucial point in maybe a handful (max) of games a year.   I agree completely with the Feinstein article.   Nothing was uglier than JBIV trying to be a one man team 2 years ago, but when we need that offensive spark today for a scoring spurt, I believe JBIV should be the clear choice to strap up and carry the load.   Again, I believe he would welcome the responsibility that comes with such recognition of his leadership and talent.   Naturally, if he's totally gassed, double/triple teamed, or getting hacked mercilessly, give the ball up to one of our other capable guys - but he must always be option 1.