I was surprised at how ineffective Jean was while in the game.  I thought he was a decent ball handler and was strong enough to deal with bigger guards pressure.  He looked in shell shock out there.  We really need a legit ball handling point guard.  Way too much pressure was put on Dinkins to handle the ball and to do the scoring.  He played an amazing game.  As someone posted earlier, really surprised that other teams don't press us more.  

The adjustments were personnel. Both Jones and Aranguren were yanked 2 minutes into the half. Aranguren only played 7 minutes. Dinkins didn't necessarily solve things, but he's probably the safest ballhandler of the three. There are timeouts every 4 minutes and I'm sure CC was using them to (attempt to) make adjustments. The timeout to "break momentum" is mostly a fallacy and data shows it really doesn't make a difference and is just as likely to work the other way. Great example is La Salle calling a "break momentum" timeout with 4:08 to go in the game, promptly leading to a 9-0 run for us to close the game.

Not saying there's no merit to calling one -- clearly we needed more adjustments than personnel and maybe CC wishes he did call one -- but it seems to me that "call a timeout" is often used as a crutch when things don't go well. I recall many times this year there being praise for our guys for keeping their composure after an opponent makes a run. CC also didn't call a timeout in those instances.

I think the timeout discussion is very case-specific. Against Delaware for example I'm not sure there's really anything CC could have drawn up that would have helped the team start making layups. If I remember correctly, GW had a timeout going into the final play of the Murray State game. While I wish the team was more organized on that defensive possession, I wasn't against CC not using it even though the result wasn't as hoped.

However, looking at the Dayton game a timeout would have been less so about breaking momentum as it was avoiding things like a 10 second violation. You let the guys play through it the first time, but if there's about to be a second 10 second violation you have to call a timeout even if it's just once. Would it have changed the result of the game? Maybe or maybe not. However, when the team was consistently struggling to get the ball up the court continuing to allow it to happen didn't make sense to me.

In certain situations, CC has also waited too long before calling a timeout. This year's game against Florida and last year's road contest against La Salle come to mind. I'm not saying that GW was going to beat the Gators by any means, but during that FL run to start the second half he waited until they went up 14 before finally calling one. At that point, the game was basically over. It took away the slim chance that GW had to pull the upset.

Last year at La Salle, the teams were basically even heading into the final media timeout. The Explorers then went on an 9-0 run before CC finally called timeout and he had all three timeouts to work with. Given the game was almost over, it was too little too late to expect GW to erase the deficit with just a minute left. If that Explorer run was earlier in the game, I would have understood the decision to hold off calling one immediately.

CC has done a good job overall, but there's definitely been several instances where he should have called a timeout or done so earlier. I think especially on the road where things are more likely to snowball/against better opponents sometimes the approach may need to be tweaked a bit at times - that's all. No coach will be perfect when it comes to this and even if we like when he calls one the result afterwards may not be positive. It happens.
 

Gwmayhem wrote:

DMVPiranha, we will agree to disagree on the Murray State decision and you'll just have to trust me when I say that my views on this were not formed after the fact.  GW took a 1 point lead with just over 6 seconds left.  It was obvious to everyone in the building that Javon Jackson, a player who took 20 shots in 23 minutes that game, was going to attempt the game winner.  Calling timeout would have allowed you to set up your defense in the halfcourt and eventually double team Jackson assuming that CC thought this was the right move.  Instead, by not calling timeout, we stick two guys in the backcourt who are completely out of the play as Jackson takes the inbounds pass and dribbles up court.  There is no guard left to defend him, only two bigs.  As proficient a defender as Slim is, if you're GW, you do not want a scorer driving to the hole with a head of steam, and essentially only Slim available to try to block his shot.  There's a reason guys who are great shot blockers swat 1-2 per game away and not 10-20.  The defense looked flat-footed and shell shocked.  I'd feel much better about your position had the defense looked like it knew what to do,

You do make a great point in the Dayton game about using the timeouts when we were having trouble bringing the ball up within 10 seconds.  This is no different than a guy getting tied-up with an opponent and calling timeout to save the possession.  If you're about to turn it over, call timeout.

On a lighter note, I'll contend that three ten second violations still does not equal two six man on the court violations, which happened not once but twice against Dayton, even if they were in separate games.   

I actually don't disagree with you at all Gwmayhem. My point was more to point out situations where calling a timeout is more up to the coach (Delaware when the shots were simply not falling, Murray State in a last second situation) versus moments when it's clear a timeout is needed (avoiding multiple 10 second violations, allowing the lead against a ranked team to balloon to 14 points right out of halftime, playing a game on the road and allowing the home team to go on a 9-0 run in the final minutes of the game when there's not enough time to recover from it).

The Murray State situation is an interesting one. I agree that Jackson was clearly going to be the player taking the final shot. The Racers I believe called timeout twice before the final play, so CC should have had enough time to decide how he was going to play that final possession out. There was certainly a case to be made for him to have called one after the two Murray State timeouts, but it's not like the team didn't have time to go over the plan. It's unclear whether the guys didn't execute or CC did not communicate the plan properly. It was definitely unfortunate that Woo got hurt and two of the better defenders in Jean/Bubu had both fouled out otherwise Garrett probably wouldn't have been out there. I would have personally put a bigger player on the inbound to make the initial pass a bit more difficult.

Perhaps I'm giving CC the benefit of the doubt here that he was okay with the way CJ and Tricky were set up in the backcourt. You do bring up an interesting point that CC only seems to call timeout to set up the defense in close game situations when GW is behind, not ahead.
 

Had a chance to reflect on the Dayton game for a few days as well as the season. I think this team can be summed up to this point as follows. We are very inconsistent even within games. There are moments even against teams like Florida where we look pretty damn good especially on offense. There are other times when we look like a bad team especially on defense or with respect to taking care of the ball.

I think the challenge for CC is to try to minimize the bad periods. No one expects a solid run for 40 minutes but basketball is a game of runs. Minimizing the bad runs needs to be the goal. This comes down to having a good feel for your team and personnel. It also involves using time outs perhaps earlier than you would like and examining your substitution patterns. 

There are certain games (like a Dayton on the road or Florida) where I think you have to have both a quick use of timeout and a quicker hook if someone is not playing well on either end. Your margin for error is far less against the quality teams and it is much harder to let your team try to play through it. Against other opponents, you might have more flexibility because they do not have the firepower to put you away with a big run in the second half and then sustain the lead.

I understand the goal of saving your timeouts until the end of the game. I think every coach would like to do that and hope  that their team can play through any earlier bumps. But I do think there are times when earlier timeouts are not only necessary but help to get you to an end of game situation with a chance to win. Failure to take those earlier timeouts often means that you will not need those timeouts later because you are out of the game or not in a position to use them.

CC knows this team better than anyone here. So we will have to defer to him on this issue on when/if GW should use a timeout. But I do think some self scouting would indicate more than a few instances where an earlier timeout would have possibly helped stem the tide that was turning against GW.

Separately, on breaking pressure. This has been a GW issue for many years. And I am surprised as well that most teams don't try to heat us up. I am not sure whether it is personnel or scheme or both that is giving us trouble but we need to fix this.

That all said, I don't think any of this comes as news to CC and staff. I know they have thought about and are working on all of the above. Hopefully, we will continue to improve and become more consistent for longer stretches. There is still a lot of basketball left to be played.