Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

#551      
The thing about UCLA is that all “blown leads” are not created equal.

Yes we were up 33-10, but there was still 30 minutes left in that game. That’s different from say, having that lead at halftime.

For example, against Penn State we blew a 7pt lead in 35 seconds — that’s a lot more repulsive because there’s only 35 seconds LEFT IN THE GAME. (different from a full 30 minutes)

Not saying we should’ve lost, but it’s just a caveat. IMO, don’t give up a layup on that final play and we’re good.

Agreed. The Wisconsin losses felt like infinitely bigger groin kicks than UCLA to me
 
#552      
The thing about UCLA is that all “blown leads” are not created equal.

Yes we were up 33-10, but there was still 30 minutes left in that game. That’s different from say, having that lead at halftime.

For example, against Penn State we blew a 7pt lead in 35 seconds — that’s a lot more repulsive because there’s only 35 seconds LEFT IN THE GAME. (different from a full 30 minutes)

Not saying we should’ve lost, but it’s just a caveat. IMO, don’t give up a layup on that final play and we’re good.
I thought our resiliency to fight back was very good. The offensive rebounding was something to behold.

The final play can't happen though. It's the one moment in the season where I would point to the coaching. Definitely not saying Brad should be fired, but coming out of a timeout, it just can't happen unfold that way.
It had to be UCLA right?

Were up 33-10 and then let them claw back and take it to OT.

Then didn't even try to deny Dent the ball or make it difficult to get him the ball while on the run and just let him go coast to coast for a layup to win.

Insanely bad way to lose a basketball game and all together to reminiscent of the Jordan Gainey buzzer beater the year before.

Also, it was the 3rd OT loss in 5 games after being on the verge of being a potential one seed before that stretch.
The dumbest take I personally saw on here wasn’t Nebraska or UCLA or any of the losses.

It was in halftime of the PENN game:

IMG_1247.jpeg
 
Last edited:
#553      
Was the UCLA game the one were Kylan said in postgame something like "I was supposed to stop the ball and didn't, its on me" (paraphrasing)? Am I completely misremembering that? Thought he got stuck behind one of our bigs and Dent blew by the both of them. Now I have to go rewatch it, unfortunately.

EDIT: Just rewatched and I was maybe thinking of the Tenn game the year before. UCLA was Keaton getting screened and Andrej stepped up instead of to the side to deter and Dent went right around him. So we had a guy picking him up (Keaton) and another guy (Andrej) spying to step in if he got around. Defense was as it was drawn up, Keaton got screened out of the play and Andrej got smoked.
 
Last edited:
#554      
I thought our resiliency to fight back was very good. The offensive rebounding was something to behold.

The final play can't happen though. It's the one moment in the season where I would point to the coaching. Definitely not saying Brad should be fired, but coming out of a timeout, it just can't happen unfold that way.

The dumbest take I personally saw on here wasn’t Nebraska or UCLA or any of the losses.

It was in halftime of the PENN game:

View attachment 50989

This absurd foul called on Z the possession before on the clean block played a huge part in that calamity too.

He was terrified to pick up a foul on another shot contest
 
#555      
I thought our resiliency to fight back was very good. The offensive rebounding was something to behold.

The final play can't happen though. It's the one moment in the season where I would point to the coaching. Definitely not saying Brad should be fired, but coming out of a timeout, it just can't happen unfold that way.

The dumbest take I personally saw on here wasn’t Nebraska or UCLA or any of the losses.

It was in halftime of the PENN game:

View attachment 50989
3rd best OREB% in the country;

IMG_1248.jpeg
 
#557      
Was the UCLA game the one were Kylan said in postgame something like "I was supposed to stop the ball and didn't, its on me" (paraphrasing)? Am I completely misremembering that? Thought he got stuck behind one of our bigs and Dent blew by the both of them. Now I have to go rewatch it, unfortunately.

EDIT: Just rewatched and I was maybe thinking of the Tenn game the year before. UCLA was Keaton getting screened and Andrej stepped up instead of to the side to deter and Dent went right around him. So we had a guy picking him up (Keaton) and another guy (Andrej) spying to step in if he got around. Defense was as it was drawn up, Keaton got screened out of the play and Andrej got smoked.
We needed to put someone on the ball. The play was danger the moment Dent caught it.

That pass is WAY to casual and easy.
I mean 39.3 is pretty good... but 43.2 & 44.6? That's insane.
True. This is how the top 5 looked the year prior:

IMG_1249.jpeg

I thought our resiliency to fight back was very good. The offensive rebounding was something to behold.

The final play can't happen though. It's the one moment in the season where I would point to the coaching. Definitely not saying Brad should be fired, but coming out of a timeout, it just can't happen unfold that way.

The dumbest take I personally saw on here wasn’t Nebraska or UCLA or any of the losses.

It was in halftime of the PENN game:

View attachment 50989
Maybe, but this was the unhinged post from the Nebraska thread:

IMG_1250.jpeg
 
Last edited:
#558      
We needed to put someone on the ball. The play was danger the moment Dent caught it.

That pass is WAY to casual and easy.

Keaton was on the ball. He got screened out of the play and Andrej takes a bad route/angle to be able to deter. LOL why wouldn't there be someone on the ball?

 
#560      
Too late to edit my post above, but maybe the question was why we didn't have someone guarding the inbounder? Easy answer is it gives you a 5-on-4 advantage, defensively.

But, I think it was probably a given that Dent was going to be quick enough to actually get the ball regardless. So, if you have a guy guarding the inbounder and another that's going to get screened out of the play immediately on the inbound, it leaves you with basically 3 guys who can feasibly defend at the other end where the important stuff is going to happen.

What I would've liked to see is just have two guys on Dent from the get go and make someone else run it up the court instead.

EDIT: See the post above... my guess was correct. Putting someone on the inbounder is just one less guy to defend downcourt. There was no way Dent wasn't getting the ball (unless we just put two guys on him from the get go, then the ball probably goes to Perry instead).
 
Last edited:
#561      
Too late to edit my post above, but maybe the question was why we didn't have someone guarding the inbounder? Easy answer is it gives you a 5-on-4 advantage, defensively.

But, I think it was probably a given that Dent was going to be quick enough to actually get the ball regardless. So, if you have a guy guarding the inbounder and another that's going to get screened out of the play immediately on the inbound, it leaves you with basically 3 guys who can feasibly defend at the other end where the important stuff is going to happen.

What I would've liked to see is just have two guys on Dent from the get go and make someone else run it up the court instead.

EDIT: See the post above... my guess was correct. Putting someone on the inbounder is just one less guy to defend downcourt. There was no way Dent wasn't getting the ball (unless we just put two guys on him from the get go, then the ball probably goes to Perry instead).
This was Ant Wright’s breakdown of the play:

 
Back