Baylor game thread

Talk about YOUR Creighton Bluejays!

Return to Men's Hoops

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby vivid_dude » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:52 pm

Going into this year, I was hoping for "serviceable big man play." My expectations or dreams weren't much more than that. Just don't be the reason Creighton can't win games, and I would have been content.

But, dare I say, Martin Krampelj may be a net positive for the team this year. And while Manny's lateral quickness reminds me of Mark Eaton, without all that 7'4" baggage, I think he's going to be what we need off the bench. It was interesting seeing Martin and Manny playing at the same time last night. Mac never does that.

Ronnie dinosaur-arming all those six footers was not fun to watch, but I still have faith in him. People are raving about the freshmen (rightfully so), but I think at the end of the year, we will look at Ronnie as being the third most important player on this team.

With some time to digest the game, I still think Creighton fans should look at last night with optimism about the rest of the season. The last time the Jays played Baylor and shot poorly, CU lost by 30. Because without lights-out shooting, CU wasn't able to compete in games like this. Last night, it was one of the worst shooting performances I've ever seen, and Creighton controlled the game for 34 minutes. The shooting was an anomaly - I don't think the new defensive intensity/effectiveness was.

I hate to sunshine pump a loss, but I'm sunshine pumping a loss.
User avatar
vivid_dude
 
Posts: 1804
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:53 pm

 

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby go_jays » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:56 pm

Gentlemen...

Baylor was big, long and athletic at the 5,4 AND 3... maybe the biggest and most athletic group in D1. You're not gonna get many easy touches at the rim against those guys... and you could see it every time we tried to get to the rim. We were constantly having to adjust our shots there. Someone mentioned that Harrell was tentative in this game. Well, there's a reason for that.

This game was gonna have to be won at the 3 point line.... which of course, is our strength. But for whatever reason, fatigue, panic, whatever... we couldn't get 'em to go down. It happens... and I'd bet my left nut that if we played them another 10 times, we'd win 7 or 8.

The thing that won't be lost on our guys is they will have taken an upper level course on what a REALLY zone defense looks like. Baylor was built for that and they were really good at it. Sometimes you learn more in defeat than you do in a victory.

Go Jays!
go_jays
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:22 pm

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby go_jays » Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:59 pm

vivid_dude wrote: It was interesting seeing Martin and Manny playing at the same time last night. Mac never does that.


I think that was Mac's attempt to counter the size and length inside that Baylor had that I spoke about in the post I have just above this one. I think Ballock at the 4 in that zone would have been even worse. So in order to give Harrell a blow or two... he had to play those two at the same time.

Hegner may have really been a factor in this game had we had him available. I think he would have been more effective at the high post than Harrell was... for sure more effective than having to play Martin and Manny at the same time. In addition, I would trade 4 or 5 of those 3 point attempts for 4 or 5 15 footers by Toby. Harrell just doesn't seem to want to pull the trigger on those.
go_jays
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:22 pm

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby Polyfro » Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:48 pm

Here's the Morning After recapping the loss to Baylor:

http://whiteandbluereview.com/morning-a ... to-baylor/

And here's Highlight Reels for both UCLA and Baylor. The UCLA reel has some extra spice: audio of John Bishop and Nick Bahe from Bluejay Radio is spliced in over some key plays, because the sound of Nick cheering on-air during Mitch Ballock's 7-0 run at the end of the first half is WAY better than ESPN. No offense to Fran Fraschilla.

http://whiteandbluereview.com/highlight ... nsas-city/
#GoJays
User avatar
Polyfro
Moderator
 
Posts: 2637
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 2:02 am
Location: Miramar

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby drbluejay » Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:48 pm

I'm as disappointed as anyone after blowing the game vs Baylor but being 4-1 right now is better than most people figured. Winning 2 out of 3 games over ranked teams is a great start. I was at the game and I think the Jays did a very good job vs the the zone. Harrell made numerous passes to open players from the high post and Harrell even had many very nice close looks but sometimes shots just don't go in. Not once during the first 36 minutes or so did I think we were being outplayed. The best team on the floor last night lost because of poor shooting from open spots. I love this team.
drbluejay
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby mredle » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:30 pm

vivid_dude wrote:Going into this year, I was hoping for "serviceable big man play." My expectations or dreams weren't much more than that. Just don't be the reason Creighton can't win games, and I would have been content.

But, dare I say, Martin Krampelj may be a net positive for the team this year. And while Manny's lateral quickness reminds me of Mark Eaton, without all that 7'4" baggage, I think he's going to be what we need off the bench. It was interesting seeing Martin and Manny playing at the same time last night. Mac never does that.

Ronnie dinosaur-arming all those six footers was not fun to watch, but I still have faith in him. People are raving about the freshmen (rightfully so), but I think at the end of the year, we will look at Ronnie as being the third most important player on this team.

With some time to digest the game, I still think Creighton fans should look at last night with optimism about the rest of the season. The last time the Jays played Baylor and shot poorly, CU lost by 30. Because without lights-out shooting, CU wasn't able to compete in games like this. Last night, it was one of the worst shooting performances I've ever seen, and Creighton controlled the game for 34 minutes. The shooting was an anomaly - I don't think the new defensive intensity/effectiveness was.

I hate to sunshine pump a loss, but I'm sunshine pumping a loss.


+1
mredle
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby mredle » Wed Nov 22, 2017 9:38 pm

go_jays wrote:
vivid_dude wrote: It was interesting seeing Martin and Manny playing at the same time last night. Mac never does that.


I think that was Mac's attempt to counter the size and length inside that Baylor had that I spoke about in the post I have just above this one. I think Ballock at the 4 in that zone would have been even worse. So in order to give Harrell a blow or two... he had to play those two at the same time.

Hegner may have really been a factor in this game had we had him available. I think he would have been more effective at the high post than Harrell was... for sure more effective than having to play Martin and Manny at the same time. In addition, I would trade 4 or 5 of those 3 point attempts for 4 or 5 15 footers by Toby. Harrell just doesn't seem to want to pull the trigger on those.

We could have used Toby as a 5 last night but not at the middle of Baylor's zone. That has to be a passer (but if the defense gives you the shot you have to bee ready to take the shot. Ronnie wasn't. Lesson learned (hopefully by Ronnie and Mitch).
mredle
 
Posts: 1298
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:06 pm

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby CU Final Four » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:45 am

Agree with vivid.

Really.
I love Creighton basketball. Yes, I do. I love Creighton. How about you?

“ignorance is bliss; truly bliss.” Creighton professor Ron Volkmer.
User avatar
CU Final Four
 
Posts: 1256
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:28 am
Location: Convent Place, a subdivision as surveyed, platted and recorded in Douglas County, Nebraska.

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby SDJay » Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:19 pm

vivid_dude wrote:Going into this year, I was hoping for "serviceable big man play." My expectations or dreams weren't much more than that. Just don't be the reason Creighton can't win games, and I would have been content.

But, dare I say, Martin Krampelj may be a net positive for the team this year. And while Manny's lateral quickness reminds me of Mark Eaton, without all that 7'4" baggage, I think he's going to be what we need off the bench. It was interesting seeing Martin and Manny playing at the same time last night. Mac never does that.

Ronnie dinosaur-arming all those six footers was not fun to watch, but I still have faith in him. People are raving about the freshmen (rightfully so), but I think at the end of the year, we will look at Ronnie as being the third most important player on this team.

With some time to digest the game, I still think Creighton fans should look at last night with optimism about the rest of the season. The last time the Jays played Baylor and shot poorly, CU lost by 30. Because without lights-out shooting, CU wasn't able to compete in games like this. Last night, it was one of the worst shooting performances I've ever seen, and Creighton controlled the game for 34 minutes. The shooting was an anomaly - I don't think the new defensive intensity/effectiveness was.

I hate to sunshine pump a loss, but I'm sunshine pumping a loss.

+1. ESPN Wednesday am showed footage/analyzed some nifty attacks CU used in the paint VS. 1-3-1 (first half, of course), and they thankfully didn’t compare clips from the dumpster fire that “low lighted” the second half. I’ve seen lots of Jays clips when the 3’s are raining, but ever recall props for about attacking the paint. FWIW.
" That rug really tied the room together, did it not?"
SDJay
 
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:41 am
Location: Near Lake Wobegon

Re: Baylor game thread

Postby go_jays » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:05 pm

mredle wrote:
go_jays wrote:
vivid_dude wrote: It was interesting seeing Martin and Manny playing at the same time last night. Mac never does that.


I think that was Mac's attempt to counter the size and length inside that Baylor had that I spoke about in the post I have just above this one. I think Ballock at the 4 in that zone would have been even worse. So in order to give Harrell a blow or two... he had to play those two at the same time.

Hegner may have really been a factor in this game had we had him available. I think he would have been more effective at the high post than Harrell was... for sure more effective than having to play Martin and Manny at the same time. In addition, I would trade 4 or 5 of those 3 point attempts for 4 or 5 15 footers by Toby. Harrell just doesn't seem to want to pull the trigger on those.

We could have used Toby as a 5 last night but not at the middle of Baylor's zone. That has to be a passer (but if the defense gives you the shot you have to bee ready to take the shot. Ronnie wasn't. Lesson learned (hopefully by Ronnie and Mitch).


Hegner has already been used there and did quite well. He is a very good passer from the high post. He's actually the best option we have there against a big team. Ballock CAN play there but isn't as effective because of his lack of size against bigger teams. Hegner can play there against anybody.

And I would disagree with you about him at the 5 against Baylor. He's not athletic enough to play low against size (especially against someone like Baylor.) He doesn't have the vertical, is average at blocking out (has gotten better over the years) and certainly isn't very quick getting to the rim. Against "ok" teams he is adequate at the 5 ... he can use that sky hook he has developed. Against really good teams with size and athleticism, he's better off using his mid-range and 3 point game.
go_jays
 
Posts: 1109
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 2:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Men's Hoops

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kolder Fan, mredle, Waylon Van Smack and 7 guests