Here are some thoughts/considerations after tonight's loss.
1. Trying to keep a level head, but it's not easy after watching this trainwreck.
2. Machado was a no-show. Not to blame the loss entirely on him, but you gotta show up on a night like this, especially down the stretch after you make a run to make things interesting.
3. Refs were calling everything Loyola's way, but still that didn't make the difference between winning and losing.
4. Starting to believe that it's going to take Cluess a few more years before he's a "real deal" D1 coach. Put Welsh or Willard on the bench with this talent and we're a Top 25 team right now, NO QUESTION.
5. If tonight doesn't show Cluess that he needs to play Armand more then what will? We are literally sitting on one of the best shooters in D1 hoops, someone who can create his own shot, shoot with hands in his face, etc. yet he sits on his ass most games. WAKE UP AND PLAY ARMAND!!
6. Our lack of size in the paint is going to kill us in March. I know, Mr Obvious, but still.
7. Our most effective lineup is hands down Machado, Momo, Armand, Glover and Ridley. This group needs to play together at least 25-30 mins/game.
8. Give credit to Patsos. The man is a nutjob, but his intensity and passion have an amazingly positive impact on the Greyhounds players.
9. Terrible decision by Cluess NOT to foul with around a minute left and the deficit at 6 (I think?). At that point in the game the seconds are more important than the points. Again, TERRIBLE decision.
10. Glover is a stud and a warrior. It wasn't his best night, but at least you know that you never have to question this kid's passion or intensity for 40 MINUTES. Right now that's more than we can say about 80% of this team.
11. Momo is basically Dyree Wilson with a better jumpshot and more range. Not that that's a bad thing (Dyree was a good player). But not exactly what you'd expect from a Arizona transfer. Let's hope this kid emerges as a force next year when this becomes "his" team.
12. Right now I put the players on this team into three categories: (1) warriors who you know you can depend on for all 40 minutes, (2) players who are dependable only in the right situations, and (3) players whose intensity and dedication has to come into question. For me, Glover and Armand are the only ones that definitely fit into category 1, Momo and Scott are in category 2, and I'll leave those who fit into category 3 up to your imagination. But regardless, if we want to be a "special" team we need Momo and Scott in category 1.
13. We need to press more and use our depth to our advantage.
14. Lastly, I realize that these are all young kids on the floor, so don't mean to come down too hard on anyone. Just frustrating when you've been with this team year after year for decades and you finally get that chance to be "special" only to see the opportunity squandered.
Post by hawaii bill on Feb 10, 2012 21:53:22 GMT -5
This is one of those games where they were completely jacked up and we weren't. As simple as that. And they played great, seem to get every loose ball. The kid who stripped Randy and hit a layup over his back, c'mon. This was one of those games that we got hit early on and just couldn't come back. Throw it out. I still think we're better than they are. We know what we have to do, win 3 games on a neutral court in Springfield. Its all right there in front of us. Right now we need to beat Marist Sunday night. Its kind of hard having everybody jacked up to beat you every night, I don't care how good a team is.
We just need to win 3 games in Springfield. If this team is for real they will do that. Its Scott and Mike's last chance. Iona 05 I agreed with a lot of your points except believe me Welsh and especially Willard are not better coaches then Cluess.This team averages 84 points a game and if willard was the coach it would be 70. Also Armand is an amazing shooter but some nights he just doesn't seem to be there. One interesting fact every game Iona has lost Jenkins has barely played. Tonight he looked bad in brief minutes but he needs to play more.
This is one of those games where they were completely jacked up and we weren't. As simple as that. And they played great, seem to get every loose ball. The kid who stripped Randy and hit a layup over his back, c'mon. This was one of those games that we got hit early on and just couldn't come back. Throw it out. I still think we're better than they are. We know what we have to do, win 3 games on a neutral court in Springfield. Its all right there in front of us. Right now we need to beat Marist Sunday night. Its kind of hard having everybody jacked up to beat you every night, I don't care how good a team is.
Agreed to some extent that it's tough on any college team when there's a bullseye on your chest each game. However, I could let that slide for 3-4 games, but not for 6 losses and probably another 3-4 games where we won but played well below our potential and without intensity for 40 minutes (e.g. Vermont, Canisius, etc.).
Just ask Murray State, St. Mary's, Harvard, Witchita State, etc. They seem to be reacting pretty well to having a bullseye on their chest each game despite being a mid-major program.
Here are some thoughts/considerations after tonight's loss.
1. Trying to keep a level head, but it's not easy after watching this trainwreck.
2. Machado was a no-show. Not to blame the loss entirely on him, but you gotta show up on a night like this, especially down the stretch after you make a run to make things interesting.
3. Refs were calling everything Loyola's way, but still that didn't make the difference between winning and losing.
4. Starting to believe that it's going to take Cluess a few more years before he's a "real deal" D1 coach. Put Welsh or Willard on the bench with this talent and we're a Top 25 team right now, NO QUESTION.
5. If tonight doesn't show Cluess that he needs to play Armand more then what will? We are literally sitting on one of the best shooters in D1 hoops, someone who can create his own shot, shoot with hands in his face, etc. yet he sits on his ass most games. WAKE UP AND PLAY ARMAND!!
6. Our lack of size in the paint is going to kill us in March. I know, Mr Obvious, but still.
7. Our most effective lineup is hands down Machado, Momo, Armand, Glover and Ridley. This group needs to play together at least 25-30 mins/game.
8. Give credit to Patsos. The man is a nutjob, but his intensity and passion have an amazingly positive impact on the Greyhounds players.
9. Terrible decision by Cluess NOT to foul with around a minute left and the deficit at 6 (I think?). At that point in the game the seconds are more important than the points. Again, TERRIBLE decision.
10. Glover is a stud and a warrior. It wasn't his best night, but at least you know that you never have to question this kid's passion or intensity for 40 MINUTES. Right now that's more than we can say about 80% of this team.
11. Momo is basically Dyree Wilson with a better jumpshot and more range. Not that that's a bad thing (Dyree was a good player). But not exactly what you'd expect from a Arizona transfer. Let's hope this kid emerges as a force next year when this becomes "his" team.
12. Right now I put the players on this team into three categories: (1) warriors who you know you can depend on for all 40 minutes, (2) players who are dependable only in the right situations, and (3) players whose intensity and dedication has to come into question. For me, Glover and Armand are the only ones that definitely fit into category 1, Momo and Scott are in category 2, and I'll leave those who fit into category 3 up to your imagination. But regardless, if we want to be a "special" team we need Momo and Scott in category 1.
13. We need to press more and use our depth to our advantage.
14. Lastly, I realize that these are all young kids on the floor, so don't mean to come down too hard on anyone. Just frustrating when you've been with this team year after year for decades and you finally get that chance to be "special" only to see the opportunity squandered.
#6 on your list was it tonight. You can't beat good teams with only one big man playing well. Ridley and Randy were yelled at and pulled (and should have been) because they were awful. We got beaten badly on the boards and only Glover showed up to defend. That is not the fault of the coach. We may or may not be on the NIT bubble now.
We just need to win 3 games in Springfield. If this team is for real they will do that. Its Scott and Mike's last chance. Iona 05 I agreed with a lot of your points except believe me Welsh and especially Willard are not better coaches then Cluess.This team averages 84 points a game and if willard was the coach it would be 70. Also Armand is an amazing shooter but some nights he just doesn't seem to be there. One interesting fact every game Iona has lost Jenkins has barely played. Tonight he looked bad in brief minutes but he needs to play more.
Re: Armand, he can be streaky at times, agreed. But he's the kind of guy that you have to ride both in good times and in bad. Can't be choosy with guys like him. Over the long run he will pay you back over and over again if you show him faith night in and night out. Just my take on it, at least.
Re: Cluess I disagree. The one thing I will say in his defense is that TC has been faced with a problem that would present a challenge to any D1 coach -- that is, lack of size and zero depth in the front court. But I still question a lot of his clock management and ability to make in-game adjustments when needed. Also, he's clearly having communication issues as he's not getting through to the players to motivate them each game. I like TC and believe that he will be a very good coach in the end. But right now I think we're suffering a bit from his lack of D1 experience.
Post by ghostofwillard on Feb 10, 2012 22:14:41 GMT -5
My concerns about tonight are the following:
Is Smyth hurt? Iona is getting nothing out of him and he is needed for his defense as much as his offense.
Ridley needs to toughen up, he was a non factor in this game and they need another productive big.
This team complains way to much about calls; forget debating with the refs and get back to work; your calls will come.
Their mental conditioning, you can't sleep walk for 28 mins of the game and then decide it's time to play. their body language in the first half may have been the biggest disappointment of the night.
Post by hawaii bill on Feb 10, 2012 22:24:13 GMT -5
I had this pencilled as a loss all year long. The alarming losses were Manhattan and Siena. Siena is an all-time head scratcher, although the officiating down the stretch of that one was all too familiar for up there. I'm not worried. There are no guarantees, but IMO this team still has the best chance to cut down the nets in Springfield.
TC should have gone to the zone much earlier in the game (say the first half), when it became very clear that Loyola was completely outplaying Iona. Our man to man defense in the first half was just horrible. Armand is a great shooter, but is clueless on D. When he is playing man D he always seems lost.
This is a very talented team, but is very, very flawed. Loyola shot the lights out, out hustled Iona, and the refs didn't help either. But what lost the game was Iona's lack of intensity on defense and on the boards. We got ot coached also. Tough night.
This is one of those games where they were completely jacked up and we weren't. As simple as that. And they played great, seem to get every loose ball. The kid who stripped Randy and hit a layup over his back, c'mon. This was one of those games that we got hit early on and just couldn't come back. Throw it out. I still think we're better than they are. We know what we have to do, win 3 games on a neutral court in Springfield. Its all right there in front of us. Right now we need to beat Marist Sunday night. Its kind of hard having everybody jacked up to beat you every night, I don't care how good a team is.
Agreed to some extent that it's tough on any college team when there's a bullseye on your chest each game. However, I could let that slide for 3-4 games, but not for 6 losses and probably another 3-4 games where we won but played well below our potential and without intensity for 40 minutes (e.g. Vermont, Canisius, etc.).
Just ask Murray State, St. Mary's, Harvard, Witchita State, etc. They seem to be reacting pretty well to having a bullseye on their chest each game despite being a mid-major program.
Murray State and Harvard are head and shoulders better than everyone in their league, we are not. Loyola is just about as good as we are. Manhattan and Fairfield are extremely dangerous. We shouldn't lose to anyone else, though.
Wichita State and St. Mary's have been through this and know how to deal with it. Its all new to us. Its very tough to win conference games on the road in College BB. Very tough.
Post by hawaii bill on Feb 10, 2012 22:40:12 GMT -5
BTW, let Loyola wear the bullseye for the next three weeks; they're welcomed to it. And also BTW, wouldn't be shocked if they lose to FF on Sunday. That's the MAAC.