GWRising wrote:

Sorry guys, but until we start shooting threes at a higher clip than 13%, our guard play gets stronger and more consistent even from half to half, and we shoot FT's better, expect similar outcomes (close games and inability to finish off games). While some of you may point to offensive structure or timeouts (lack thereof), we just have a talent deficit at guard overall (I've been harping on this for more than a month) and last time I checked, it is still a guard's game. Asking CC to overcome this on the sideline is asking a lot.

Rising, this would have a lot more credence if GW simply was uncompetitive and lucky to get within 10-15 points of most opponents.  Obviously, this isn't the case.  So as flawed as the guards may be and as faulty or inconsistent as the shooting may be, the fact is that we've been in virtually every A10 game until the very end and then are finding ways not to win them more often than not.  Your remedies would likely have GW at or near the top of the standings.  Right now, the late-game breakdowns, and I can easily point to both players and coaches about this, are resembling the movie Groundhog Day.
 

New episode of GW Basketball Insiders. We discussed the Mason game and some of the team's shortcomings along with a bit of a look ahead to the offseason https://www.youtube.com/live/FV49hhSTvUA?si=qxQhrcocSFfAuLji

Rising, nobody is suggesting that end of game miscues represent the only problem.  Nor is anyone denying that shooting woes aren't a problem.  Here's my take on all three:

1) Free throw shooting...At this level, problems are almost always mental.  This team had been great from the FT line earlier in the season.  So it's not like the team isn't capable of improving here.

2) Three point shooting..Despite moments here and there (Drumgoole in the second half at Richmond, the entire team against Dayton), this team simply is not a good three point shooting team.  Being able to make one isn't nearly enough.  You have to be able to make them with some level of consistency.  This was identified as a key weakness earlier in the season.  Earlier, I had posed the question of whether the team would be better off running an offense that's specifically designed to produce open three point looks vs. one that did not emphasize three point shooting.  We continue to run what we run for reasons that may include "it's the offense the team knows" to "the team is more capable of making 3's than it's shown" to "I want recruits to see what we run, particularly great outside shooters who can see how they could thrive at GW."  While there's validity to all of this, the fact is that this offense does put this team at a disadvantage since it is below average at capitalizing on the three point shot.

3) End of game miscues..Since the players have to get over their mental blocs with respect to foul shooting, and it does not appear as if the team will be installing a new offense anytime soon, this leaves end of game situations as one area where some finger pointing can be made at the coaching staff.  It would be one thing if the players were executing late game plays at a very high level but simply weren't making easy baskets when they are needed.  And of course, there will be situations like when Christian has the matchup he wants against Haynes, only to dribble the ball right into the hands of another defender.   But by and large, the team has lost and has sometimes panicked in clutch situations.  Timeouts to settle things down and draw up a play have often gone unused.  Rushed, contested, and ill-advised three pointers with plenty of time on the shot clock have been taken.  This has taken the form of a self-fulfilling prophecy..GW gets real close, fails to believe it will win, and then proceeds to lose.  

It certainly isn't out of the question that the team may be overachieving at times.  Just not when it matters the most.

Gwmayhem wrote:

2) Three point shooting..Despite moments here and there (Drumgoole in the second half at Richmond, the entire team against Dayton), this team simply is not a good three point shooting team.  Being able to make one isn't nearly enough.  You have to be able to make them with some level of consistency.  This was identified as a key weakness earlier in the season.  Earlier, I had posed the question of whether the team would be better off running an offense that's specifically designed to produce open three point looks vs. one that did not emphasize three point shooting.  We continue to run what we run for reasons that may include "it's the offense the team knows" to "the team is more capable of making 3's than it's shown" to "I want recruits to see what we run, particularly great outside shooters who can see how they could thrive at GW."  While there's validity to all of this, the fact is that this offense does put this team at a disadvantage since it is below average at capitalizing on the three point shot.

I want to focus on this comment for a minute. A good scout on GW says generally let them take all the contested threes they want and instead jam up the driving lanes and cut off any transition. So maybe our offense is more a product of what the defense is yielding to us rather than what we would prefer. The coaches at this level are all good and if you have a weakness they are going to do everything they can to exploit it. I don't think it is that much of a secret how to beat GW. So it is up to our guys to make them pay from outside.  The few times we have done that ... Dayton comes to mind ... you can see the huge difference it makes.