Agree. Especially the bolded part. Basketball is a game of swings. You're not going to play your best for 40 mpg because then it logically wouldn't be your best.
I think people are struggling a bit with all the analytic metrics saying this team is a national title contender when anyone can see with their eyes that we're actually a very rickety and vulnerable team, in a way that's tough to rationally pinpoint, so it just becomes a matter of any moment of struggle "oh look, it's the bad thing again"
The difference in the halves was in the first one we missed a lot of shots. In the 2nd one we didn’t.
I think there's definitely a lot to this but I am very much going to disagree with the bolded. 6 of our 8 losses were by 4 points or less. The '01 team lost 5 of 7 games by 3 points or less and that team was #4 in the country in defensive efficiency.
What team isn't vulnerable? Every time has that "bad thing again." We're a 3 seed that was ranked about #15 preseason. We're not going to look unbeatable the vast majority of the time.
My view all week has been that this pairing was a match-up made in heaven for the Illini. Illinois, an offensively minded team, was paired with a Fran McCafferty team whose coaching pedigree has been that defense is sometimes secondary.
What an idiotic takeFor the record, I would like to add that I never said Illinois played poorly. Not once. In fact, I was very specific in that we did NOT play poorly.
I don't know how much more clear I can be. My commentary was never that we played poorly or bad or whatever, but that in the literal sense we played better second half than first half, and thus, could have scored more points if we played both halves the same. Which was what my comment was in reference to originally.
I wouldn't call us rickety or vulnerable as much as that we have some clear bad matchups. Teams with physical quick guards and bigs who can neutralize us on the boards are going to be our worst matchup. There aren't that many teams that can do that but those that can will be troublesome for us. Teams that have neither of those we destroy. Teams with one of the two we usually beat. Teams with both though are tough as we can no longer rely on missed shot offense or on the opponent being 1 and done on our side of the floor.
131 posts after this win that set a few records vs how many after recent losses? He’s not wrong.
I mean, the 8 teams that are the top 8 of the AP Poll and got the 1 and 2 seeds. Everyone can lose but they aren't vulnerable in the same way we are.
You are correct. Missouri game was absolutely a complete gem.
When we hit 3's Brad can coach. Second half we hit shots that weren't going 1st half. He absolutely is not a tier 1 coach. When VCU guards expose our players and his weak coaching shows up, make comments about him being a Hall of Fame coach. Maybe we'll get lucky and he'll retire and Tyler Underwood will be named HC!
I definitely disagree that there are 8 in a tier above us. I don't think sportsbooks are blinded by analytics, and they give us T-6th best odds to win it all. There's only 3 in the top tier. FL is more vulnerable than those, and we're not far behind Houston.
Really?
Purdue lost to Indiana and got the doors blown off of them by Iowa State.
I think it is pretty obvious to the naked eye that Keaton never sleepwalks.
As a follow-up, I reacted most to your claim that there are 8 teams in a tier above us (because that sounds like unwarranted negativism). If you had just said there are 3 in that top tier with one or two more in between us and them, I would have responded:
What brand of defense is that?
Yeah that's part of it too.
Joey says Moo point
