One key factor when you have a late lead - take the uncontested layups.

[gman86]

I have no problem with SG slowing the offense with a big lead and cramps adding to the attrition from injuries. The strategy was sound and should have resulted in a win. Yes, we missed 7 FTs down the stretch - which is 9 points off the board since 2 were front-end 1-1s. I feel bad for Green, Hudson and Brown... nobody will take this loss harder than those guys. And I am confident that they will learn to close games very very soon.

One key factor I have not seen discussed... we had at least two chances in the final two minutes to take an uncontested layup (or at least go to the rack strong and get fouled). One was when EG got a steal on an FSU possession following his first missed 1-1. He had a clear path to the basket on a fast break... his bread & butter this season is finishing these. But he pulled up at the free throw line and dribbled a few more seconds and got fouled (and then missed the next front-end 1-1, sigh).

The second play was a sideline inbounds pass from the backcourt to Eddie, who broke to the basket from halfcourt and beat the defense. He caught the long inbounds pass in a position with another clear path to the basket and pulled back... only to be fouled like 1 second later. (I think he made one of two FTs in the double bonus).

My point here is... I understand the concept of running clock in the halfcourt offense with the lead. But I don't get the logic of passing up an easy layup on a fastbreak - especially when your opponent is in fouling mode. The worst that can happen if you take it to the rack is a missed layup and a shooting foul (2 shots, not 1-1). You could get a 3 point play... or a flagrant foul also. It's just a little thing... learning to close games. It's not just about making your foul shots... it's also about knowing when to finish your opponent. A dunk by EG or JE in either situation likely would finish the game.

This is a tough loss. I hope we are starting to see this team turn a corner. I hope we get our injured players healthy and finish the season strong, regardless of whether we play postseason or not.

GO HOKIES!

[TomTurkey]

Make the FT's and we don't have this discussion. If the attrition, fatigue, cramps and lack of big man were key, then the strategy was fine. Don't make FT's and it looks dumb. Were we so tired that the time off the clock was more crucial than the points, especially with a fairly decent but vulnerable lead?

[hoosnowahokie]

Make the FT's and we don't have this discussion. If the attrition, fatigue, cramps and lack of big man were key, then the strategy was fine. Don't make FT's and it looks dumb. Were we so tired that the time off the clock was more crucial than the points, especially with a fairly decent but vulnerable lead?

The point being made is that taking the 2pts vs getting fouled will be around 1 second of difference upwards to about a max of 5, maybe. Then you only can get a max of 2 pts rather than 3. It's a better strategy, IMO than getting fouled, unless you have a team full of stone cold killers.

[InsaneHokie]

Make the FT's and we don't have this discussion. If the attrition, fatigue, cramps and lack of big man were key, then the strategy was fine. Don't make FT's and it looks dumb. Were we so tired that the time off the clock was more crucial than the points, especially with a fairly decent but vulnerable lead?

So you think you should pass up the easy two in order to shoot two shots under pressure to save a couple of seconds. Wow. You probably also think it was smart of Seth to have Davila in the other game when you know the other team is going to foul you. Or you think it's smart to draw up a play in Minnesota where a freshman gets the ball right at half court with less than 8 seconds less. A lot of good can come from that drawn up play. Bravo Seth and Tom. Brilliant end of game strategies.

[amptech]

So you think you should pass up the easy two in order to shoot two shots under pressure to save a couple of seconds. Wow. You probably also think it was smart of Seth to have Davila in the other game when you know the other team is going to foul you. Or you think it's smart to draw up a play in Minnesota where a freshman gets the ball right at half court with less than 8 seconds less. A lot of good can come from that drawn up play. Bravo Seth and Tom. Brilliant end of game strategies.

You assume that it would have been an "easy" two points. It may not have been that at all.

You also assume that we had perfect execution on all the above plays and that what you saw was exactly what SG set up. Reality is the players on the field or court have to adjust to the play at hand. Just like the BC win when EG dished the ball outside. Why did Seth call that? It was stupid to call that.

But wait, Oh yeah, he didn't. EG drove and the defense cut him off so he had to go to plan B on the fly.

Can't you tell the difference? It it looks like a stupid coach call it was the players plan b. Why is that so hard for you?

[InsaneHokie]

You assume that it would have been an "easy" two points. It may not have been that at all.

You also assume that we had perfect execution on all the above plays and that what you saw was exactly what SG set up. Reality is the players on the field or court have to adjust to the play at hand. Just like the BC win when EG dished the ball outside. Why did Seth call that? It was stupid to call that.

But wait, Oh yeah, he didn't. EG drove and the defense cut him off so he had to go to plan B on the fly.

Can't you tell the difference? It it looks like a stupid coach call it was the players plan b. Why is that so hard for you?

You obviously have never played the sport at any level. You have a plan A option but you also make a plan B option if plan A is covered. To say well "they only threw it to Davila because the other guy was covered". Why is Davila on the court at all? People are talking about the foul shots and that you should expect them to miss because they are tired. I'll say this, every practice I was involved with ends with shooting foul shots to mimic the feel of a hard game.

[amptech]

You obviously have never played the sport at any level. You have a plan A option but you also make a plan B option if plan A is covered. To say well "they only threw it to Davila because the other guy was covered". Why is Davila on the court at all? People are talking about the foul shots and that you should expect them to miss because they are tired. I'll say this, every practice I was involved with ends with shooting foul shots to mimic the feel of a hard game.

Yet you are one who generally ignores this, assumes what you saw was plan A and it was the coach and Plan A that was at fault, not the defense of the other team and not the read of the guy with the ball in his hands or the guy who ends up taking the shot.

As for Davila, the word is size and defense. It is not a slam dunk that he should not be there. Why ask when the point can be argued but it is not a slam dunk.

[Nova Hokie 95]

Yet you are one who generally ignores this, assumes what you saw was plan A and it was the coach and Plan A that was at fault, not the defense of the other team and not the read of the guy with the ball in his hands or the guy who ends up taking the shot.

As for Davila, the word is size and defense. It is not a slam dunk that he should not be there. Why ask when the point can be argued but it is not a slam dunk.

You're both assuming. He's assuming the coach installs a Plan A and a Plan B, while you're assuming the coach installs a Plan A and the player goes to a Plan B based upon his read of the specific situation.

In the Davila situation, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been Plan B from Greenberg. *Was* there a Plan B from Greenberg, or just "Erick, get open and let's get him the ball"? With that covered, then of course the inbounder has to look for whomever is open, and of course Clemson is going to leave Davila open. But the coaches still should have a Plan A and a Plan B set up before it even gets to the inbounder having to ask "who's open??"

Same with the last shot at the end. I'd wager that Brown was Greenberg's Plan B. It was too well set up to be just happenstance. No coach is going to have "Erick, go to the bucket" as the ONLY end-of-game play. There's always going to be a Plan B and even Plan C. It's up to the player to recognize when to move to the next step and find the open man, but that next step in such situations still should come from the coach. The coaches aren't just saying "Erick will drive -- if he's covered, someone will be open."

[amptech]

You're both assuming. He's assuming the coach installs a Plan A and a Plan B, while you're assuming the coach installs a Plan A and the player goes to a Plan B based upon his read of the specific situation.

In the Davila situation, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have been Plan B from Greenberg. *Was* there a Plan B from Greenberg, or just "Erick, get open and let's get him the ball"? With that covered, then of course the inbounder has to look for whomever is open, and of course Clemson is going to leave Davila open. But the coaches still should have a Plan A and a Plan B set up before it even gets to the inbounder having to ask "who's open??"

Same with the last shot at the end. I'd wager that Brown was Greenberg's Plan B. It was too well set up to be just happenstance. No coach is going to have "Erick, go to the bucket" as the ONLY end-of-game play. There's always going to be a Plan B and even Plan C. It's up to the player to recognize when to move to the next step and find the open man, but that next step in such situations still should come from the coach. The coaches aren't just saying "Erick will drive -- if he's covered, someone will be open."

And if Davilla has the best shot--------. But hey our 85% ft shooters went something like one for 6 with two of the 6 being the front ends of 1 and 1s

[TomTurkey]

You obviously have never played the sport at any level.

Gee, I guess neither has CSG. The bastage imposter.