Author Topic: Ain't that a Shane; ISU ADV (Read 3234 times)

kso_FAN · « **on:** March 13, 2014, 01:45:15 PM »

Shane Southwell didn't lose this game, pretty terrible defense and defensive boarding were much bigger factors than one mistake. But this game was a "Shane game", stretches of really good play (19 points, 7 boards, 3 assists), lots of energy, but then some bad decisions including the crucial one at the end. Unfortunately most will remember that decision (even though we might not have won the game anyway).

The teams were equal in points scored from FTs and 3s, and ultimately it came down to ISU making more 2s; namely great plays by their plays and too many putbacks from offensive boards.

Nevertheless it was a fun game to watch. We'll see now where the Cats land in the NCAA tournament and if this offense can follow them, while finding some sort of defense to bring with it.

Dr Rick Daris · « **Reply #1 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:47:08 PM »

honest question-do you have a robot computer that you programmed with data code to automatically syntesize game information binary input to come up w/ the headlines?

Powercat Posse · « **Reply #2 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:51:43 PM »

Both teams were 17-23 from the FT line. Iowa St took 11 more shots. Because of our DR and TO issues (mainly a prob in the 1st half)

Nuff said

An undersized team just like us, just has better and smarter rebounders than us.

Gip and Shane just are not good enough defensively to guard guys like Ejim and Niang.

PIPE · « **Reply #3 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:53:45 PM »

I need more info, all I saw on ESPN gametracker was "Southwell turnover". I then see on various other boards that he either tried to go 1on3, 1on4, or 1on5??

Can someone tell me what really happened and WTF is a SR trying to do something so easy and basic to understand that if you don't have the numbers, you back the F out. If I recall, we had the ball down 2?

He is prolly smiling about it though in the locker room.....

kso_FAN · « **Reply #4 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:56:20 PM »

Quote from: PIPE on March 13, 2014, 01:53:45 PM

I need more info, all I saw on ESPN gametracker was "Southwell turnover". I then see on various other boards that he either tried to go 1on3, 1on4, or 1on5??

Can someone tell me what really happened and WTF is a SR trying to do something so easy and basic to understand that if you don't have the numbers, you back the F out. If I recall, we had the ball down 2?

He is prolly smiling about it though in the locker room.....

Hindsight says it was a bad decision, but Rusty is correct in saying he made a very similar play in traffic just a few minutes earlier. I thought it was a bad decision earlier and still think playing off of Foster is the better idea, but I'm not mad at Shane for trying to make a transition play.

The1BigWillie · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2014, 01:59:55 PM »

Marcus Foster getting about 10 minutes being as hot as he was is a huge KITN for us. Peggy Po for the day.. NIGEL!

The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:03:37 PM »

should have been up at least 5 at half the way we played. turned the ball over and let them grab an oreb on half of their misses. second half we played well enough to win, imo. just one bone headed play.

Powercat Posse · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:04:03 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 13, 2014, 01:56:20 PM

Quote from: PIPE on March 13, 2014, 01:53:45 PM
I need more info, all I saw on ESPN gametracker was "Southwell turnover". I then see on various other boards that he either tried to go 1on3, 1on4, or 1on5??

Can someone tell me what really happened and WTF is a SR trying to do something so easy and basic to understand that if you don't have the numbers, you back the F out. If I recall, we had the ball down 2?

He is prolly smiling about it though in the locker room.....

Hindsight says it was a bad decision, but Rusty is correct in saying he made a very similar play in traffic just a few minutes earlier. I thought it was a bad decision earlier and still think playing off of Foster is the better idea, but I'm not mad at Shane for trying to make a transition play.

Time and situation. Time and situation. I am fine if he wanted to try to push the ball. But you cant continue to push the ball when you don't have numbers. Its stupid. Its selfish. The earlier shot Shane took wasn't a great decision either and he got a little fortunate because banking in the shot is not easy (if he was trying to bank it)

kso_FAN · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:06:02 PM »

Quote from: The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep on March 13, 2014, 02:03:37 PM

should have been up at least 5 at half the way we played. turned the ball over and let them grab an oreb on half of their misses. second half we played well enough to win, imo. just one bone headed play.

Our 2nd half defense wasas bad as our 1st half defense. We "fixed" the rebounding and TOs for the most part, but ISU shot an incredible percentage.

'taterblast · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:16:11 PM »

never felt like a game we were going to win. still hurts tho. tomorrow would have been so much fun.

Powercat Posse · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:22:54 PM »

Iowa St only rebounds 28 percent of their misses. 8th out of 10 teams in Big 12 play. They are not an aggressive defense who forces a lot of TOs. Their Def TO% is just under the league average.

And we let the grab 52% of their misses. and We turned the ball over 9 times in 35 poss.

And that is why they got off 9 more shot and 3 more FTAs in the first half. 2nd half was much more balanced. They got off 2 more FGAs and we took 3 more FTAs.

Both teams shot extremely well all day..... but the first half problems that we seem to have every game were the biggest deciding factor.

ksufan44 · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:23:47 PM »

If we play this way, I would definitely take my chances against any 8/9 seed in the tournament we could face.

catzacker · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:26:01 PM »

do we really think we'll fix our Def Reb (or rebounding in general) problem next year with our additions? It doesn't seem like we lose/give up rebounds because we are "small".

Cire · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:26:21 PM »

I didn't see the end, what was the sitch?

The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:29:02 PM »

Quote from: Powercat Posse on March 13, 2014, 02:22:54 PM

Iowa St only rebounds 28 percent of their misses. 8th out of 10 teams in Big 12 play. They are not an aggressive defense who forces a lot of TOs. Their Def TO% is just under the league average.

And we let the grab 52% of their misses. and We turned the ball over 9 times in 35 poss.

And that is why they got off 9 more shot and 3 more FTAs in the first half. 2nd half was much more balanced. They got off 2 more FGAs and we took 3 more FTAs.

Both teams shot extremely well all day..... but the first half problems that we seem to have every game were the biggest deciding factor.

yup. we lost the game in the 1st half. we take away a few TOs and grab a few rebounds and were in control. played behind pretty much the entire game and it never felt like we were going to win.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:30:25 PM »

Quote from: catzacker on March 13, 2014, 02:26:01 PM

do we really think we'll fix our Def Reb (or rebounding in general) problem next year with our additions? It doesn't seem like we lose/give up rebounds because we are "small".

This game was a problem, but rebounding wasn't an huge problem for this team. We finished even on oboards in the league and I think we can win that way.

The number one problem IMO was TOs by a long way. And yes, I think we'll get better at both forcing TOs and having fewer next year.

WillieWatanabe · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:31:58 PM »

If i see "family" in quotes one more time on twitter...

MakeItRain · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:34:27 PM »

Quote from: catzacker on March 13, 2014, 02:26:01 PM

do we really think we'll fix our Def Reb (or rebounding in general) problem next year with our additions? It doesn't seem like we lose/give up rebounds because we are "small".

Size wasn't an issue with ISU for sure, they're small too. I think our rebounding issues today we're born out of how we have to guard ISU, scrambling around the 3 point line. ISU also has very good rebounding guards and I'm guessing the reason is the same. They're shooting jumpers and following while the defense is flying past.

catzacker · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2014, 02:44:46 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 13, 2014, 02:30:25 PM

Quote from: catzacker on March 13, 2014, 02:26:01 PM
do we really think we'll fix our Def Reb (or rebounding in general) problem next year with our additions? It doesn't seem like we lose/give up rebounds because we are "small".

This game was a problem, but rebounding wasn't an huge problem for this team. We finished even on oboards in the league and I think we can win that way.

The number one problem IMO was TOs by a long way. And yes, I think we'll get better at both forcing TOs and having fewer next year.

I guess since oscar single-handedly made Angel better, we can only assume he'll do the same with Jevon and Nigel.

Powercat Posse · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2014, 03:11:20 PM »

Isu does have good reb. guards, but 12 of the 14 individual ORs today for Isu (Isu had 1 team OR) were by Ejim Niang and Hogue.

I think part of the reason they aren't a great OR team is they shoot a ton of 3s and its harder to rebound 3pt shot than it is 2pt shots. But Isu did grab 4 ORs on their 8 misses from 3pt in the 1st half

We had some issues with getting back in transistion D or switching when we probably shouldn't have..... so too many times we had a guard on one of their starting posts.

Our guards are not good rebounders. Will is average and Foster only has 16 rebounds total in his last 9 games. That doesn't help.

ksupamplemousse · « **Reply #20 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:26:49 PM »

Gipson only had one rebound at halftime, and his man basically scored at will all day. Iowa State is a terrible matchup for our bigs and it showed today.

sys · « **Reply #21 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:35:08 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 13, 2014, 02:30:25 PM

I think we'll get better at both forcing TOs and having fewer next year.

lose southie and spradling and they'll turn the ball over less? i guess i can see the freshmen improving enough to offset their loss. but then none of the freshmen were bad to start with. seems pretty coinflippy.

steve dave · « **Reply #22 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:37:09 PM »

Quote from: sys on March 13, 2014, 10:35:08 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 13, 2014, 02:30:25 PM
I think we'll get better at both forcing TOs and having fewer next year.

lose southie and spradling and they'll turn the ball over less? i guess i can see the freshmen improving enough to offset their loss. but then none of the freshmen were bad to start with. seems pretty coinflippy.

people love assuming all the returning players will improve in all aspects

ksupamplemousse · « **Reply #23 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:39:50 PM »

Quote from: steve dave on March 13, 2014, 10:37:09 PM

Quote from: sys on March 13, 2014, 10:35:08 PM
Quote from: ksu_FAN on March 13, 2014, 02:30:25 PM
I think we'll get better at both forcing TOs and having fewer next year.

lose southie and spradling and they'll turn the ball over less? i guess i can see the freshmen improving enough to offset their loss. but then none of the freshmen were bad to start with. seems pretty coinflippy.

people love assuming all the returning players will improve in all aspects

Also, we'll still most likely have three (maybe four) newcomers that play significant minutes. We could still turn the ball over a ton next year and it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #24 on:** March 13, 2014, 10:51:39 PM »

Good points. I think we may force more, hopefully enough to offset our own turnovers. But yeah, we probably won't turn it over less.