Guest EagleBackr Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 ...if everyone is through gnashing their teeth, may I point out that this game proves absolutely NOTHING? Look, we get three chances with these guys: one at their place, one at ours, and presumably one in the tournament at the UMAC. What did we really expect from this installment? Our chances of winning AT Valpo when they have a decent team have ALWAYS been pretty slim, even when we're at our best. They play in a rinky-dink venue with bleachers full of leather-lunged fans, giving the whole experience a high school "band box" atmosphere, while Homer Drew orchestrates the entire evening from 10 feet onto the court. That guy spends more time on the floor during play than Kelvin Sampson! And then Valpo decides to have one of their better outside shooting nights in their cozy confines, and once they finally accepted the fact Kone couldn't cover a corpse with a coat, they went zone, which they have ALWAYS played well under Drew. Throw in the fact we had three players not play due to injury (Tutt, Riouse, Meloy) on a team that is thin to begin with, AND the 48-hour turnaround from the Western Illinois game, AND the plane to Chicago followed by the bus to beautiful Valparaiso, AND that's our 5TH GAME IN 10 DAYS, four of which were ON THE ROAD. Would someone please remind me of whatever it was that made you think we had any advantage in this situation? Hey, time will tell if we can work out our myriad problems (turnovers, free throws, zone offense), but let's just see what happens to Valpo in late February/early March, on the road, against a healthier & rested Golden Eagles squad, especially if the Crusaders return to their typical form from the perimeter, Kone fouls out in the first half, and Homer's not allowed to direct traffic & make calls from mid-court... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmh8286 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 First of all, E-Rex, I haven't seen much tooth gnashing on here, and believe me, of all people, I'd know it if I saw it. Secondly, the game may prove nothing but it revealed a lot. As far as I was concerned, going into last night Valpo was an unproven entity. They tend to crow a lot about wins over teams like Longwood and IPFW, but games like those, even with large margins of victory, tell little about the substance of a team. Prior to last night the only truly significant game they've played, in terms of sizing up their team, was their win at Charlotte. All others were pretty much a wash, in my opinion. Last night, as humbling as it was, gave us a chance to see what they are truly capable of, and where their strengths lay. Their zone, their three point shooting, their inside-out game all ran like a Swiss watch. On the other hand, their inside defense, at least early in the game, was poor. Their thirst for revenge, I suspect, also fueled their ability to put together what rlh called their most complete game of the season. On the other side, it revealed, pretty glaringly, weaknesses in our own play. Perimeter shooting and defense, guard play, too much reliance on Caleb, too little confidence in general. There's no swagger with this team at this point. I continue to be mystified as to why Scott Sutton won't call a time out to stop an opponent's run. Injuries have stretched us. Only eight guys suited out last night. Ken has been a stable part of the team for three seasons now - not having him on the floor hurt us more than expected. Last night gave us clear guidelines of what we need to work on if we hope to compete for the Mid-Con championship. While I hate it that we lost - I'd rather be 4-0 than 3-1 - I think that there WERE positives to be taken from the game last night. Can we beat Valpo in a different venue? I think it's entirely possible. Who was the better team last night? Without a doubt, Valpo. Even so, we're still tied for first in league standings, which is a good place to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orumom Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 EagleBacker, Well stated...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EagleBackr Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 First of all, E-Rex, I haven't seen much tooth gnashing on here, and believe me, of all people, I'd know it if I saw it. Secondly, the game may prove nothing but it revealed a lot. As far as I was concerned, going into last night Valpo was an unproven entity. They tend to crow a lot about wins over teams like Longwood and IPFW, but games like those, even with large margins of victory, tell little about the substance of a team. Prior to last night the only truly significant game they've played, in terms of sizing up their team, was their win at Charlotte. All others were pretty much a wash, in my opinion. Last night, as humbling as it was, gave us a chance to see what they are truly capable of, and where their strengths lay. Their zone, their three point shooting, their inside-out game all ran like a Swiss watch. On the other hand, their inside defense, at least early in the game, was poor. Their thirst for revenge, I suspect, also fueled their ability to put together what rlh called their most complete game of the season. On the other side, it revealed, pretty glaringly, weaknesses in our own play. Perimeter shooting and defense, guard play, too much reliance on Caleb, too little confidence in general. There's no swagger with this team at this point. I continue to be mystified as to why Scott Sutton won't call a time out to stop an opponent's run. Injuries have stretched us. Only eight guys suited out last night. Ken has been a stable part of the team for three seasons now - not having him on the floor hurt us more than expected. Last night gave us clear guidelines of what we need to work on if we hope to compete for the Mid-Con championship. While I hate it that we lost - I'd rather be 4-0 than 3-1 - I think that there WERE positives to be taken from the game last night. Can we beat Valpo in a different venue? I think it's entirely possible. Who was the better team last night? Without a doubt, Valpo. Even so, we're still tied for first in league standings, which is a good place to be. ...hang in there, TVC-15 (that's not a typo, it's a David Bowie song). Valpo ALWAYS plays like that at home - let's just see if their guards can continue to shoot like that, and if their big men can maintain that same intensity. I'll bet within two weeks we're ahead of them in the standings.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORUBlue Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 ...its only a road loss. I kinda think the winner of the MId-Con will have two to three losses. The loss at Valpo means nothing other than one of three games lost. I would ask everyone would you feel better with a one point loss? It is still a loss. This team has traveled over 10,000 miles in a month, they are tired, the best thing for them now is their own beds and routine. Remember Valpo lost on their own floor to UMKC! The sky was falling for them for awhile to.... This team will win, it is now time to regroup, rest, get healthy for the rest of the season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmh8286 Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 This team will win, it is now time to regroup, rest, get healthy for the rest of the season. Best post yet, Blue! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORUTerry Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Valpo Game Observations: (Sorry I am so late in posting these?. It has been a busy few days at work) In no particular order: 1. Valpo was the better team last night. They made their shots and out-hustled us up and down the court. 2. We miss Tutt more than I thought we would. Our players seemed to have trouble adjusting to the fact that he was not on the court. I guess that it should be expected as Ken has logged the most minutes per game this year (and last). It will take time for the squad to become used to him not being on the court. His absence (and the consequent lack of a perimeter threat) allowed Valpo to collapse the zone. At times they sagged off Bluitt ? who was tentative to shoot. As I said before, expect to see a lot of zone defense for the rest of the season. 3. Green shot poorly last night for a variety of reasons. Part of that was due to Valpo?s defensive pressure and an effort to be physical with Caleb. The other parts were relatively poor shot selection (too far away from the basket) and missing shots he normally makes. 4. Owens played okay and probably should have been more aggressive on the offensive side of the court when our guards were not productive. He was 4 for 8 from the field and 1 for 2 from behind the 3-point arc, while shooting 3 for 4 from the free throw line. 5. Bluitt continues to struggle in almost every facet of his game. He finished with only 2 assists versus 3 turnovers in 29 minutes. Jonathan shot just 1 for 8 from the field (only field goal was the off-balance shot at the end of the first half) and 0 for 5 from the 3-point arc. His size is a distinct liability as teams match-up taller players with him. He is unable to drive to the basket and dish off because of his diminutive stature. He is tentative and is not playing with confidence. 6. Michalec was aggressive on the boards (8 rebounds) but had 3 turnovers and only shot 1 for 6 from the field. He shot the ball too much from the perimeter; need better shot selection. 7. Yemi played decent defense in the 27 minutes he was in the game. I probably would have shortened his playing time to let Fowlkes, Ehambe or Vealy play more in order to provide additional offensive firepower on the court. 8. Fowlkes did not play enough. He was 2 for 3 from the field with 4 assists and 0 turnovers in only 11 minutes. We need his ability to slash to the basket, as well as his athleticism on the court. He is not the ball handler that Bluitt is, but he other talents that help the team. 9. Ehambe looked a bit frenetic on the court. His defense was shaky and his shooting was a bit off (2 for 7 from the field; 2 for 6 from the 3-point arc). He needs to use his athleticism and drive to the basket or shoot a mid-range jumper ? instead of trying to always take a 3-point shot. Moses played 15 minutes in the game. 10. Vealy looked okay in the 11 minutes he was on the court. He shot 2 for 4 with 1 assist and 2 rebounds. 11. I think the long road trip over the last month showed itself last night. We did not play with energy and got out-rebounded 34 to 39. Part of that is a result of Valpo making a lot of their shots, eliminating the chances for defensive rebounds, but we still did not attack the boards like we usually do. We also missed several free throws ? especially front end of one-and-one chances (which are really two misses in my book). This may have been a case of (mental) fatigue. It was not the same team that ripped WIU on Saturday afternoon. 12. The team will have to work hard to garner new chemistry without Tutt in the lineup. This will happen and we will find a lineup that will work. We just need a few days of practice and rest in our own beds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Marshall Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Sorry if any of this is redundant because I haven't taken the time to read all the words in EB or Terry's posts, but here are a few more bullets ... (1) Valpo has the most depth and athleticism I've ever seen them put on the court. They left their bigs in, even with four fouls, and let them play because they could afford to with the players they ran in off the bench. (2) Oppland gets more out of less than anyone I've seen in a long time. Slow, 3" vertical jump, ugliest shot in the history of the game, and yet he finds a way to be productive. (3) Valpo is a well-coached, unselfish, together group ... they play hard and smart. They ran some great sets coming out of time outs too for easy buckets. Hate to say it, but I like their team (i.e., how they play the game) a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsSmith Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Some basketball experts out there tell me - do we run set plays? Maybe I don't see them because they aren't working. I noticed it in the men's and the women's game Monday night. Valpo certainly had them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORUBlue Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 (3) Valpo is a well-coached, unselfish, together group ... they play hard and smart. They ran some great sets coming out of time outs too for easy buckets. Hate to say it, but I like their team (i.e., how they play the game) a lot. ........curious is your opinion based on this one game? Or are you a Valpo follower as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EagleBackr Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 ........curious is your opinion based on this one game? Or are you a Valpo follower as well? Remember, Rob is from Indiana - and if I've learned anything from banging heads on the Valpo message board, it's a cult thing... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmh8286 Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 Some basketball experts out there tell me - do we run set plays? Maybe I don't see them because they aren't working. I noticed it in the men's and the women's game Monday night. Valpo certainly had them. It's a dead issue at this point, but we haven't run the screen plays for Ken this season like we have in the past. That's for sure. Beyond that, I'm not as good at recognizing them as some. One that I'm sure we have is, get the ball to Mickey at the high post, and pass inside to Caleb. Unfortunately that hasn't worked so well lately . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob Marshall Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 ........curious is your opinion based on this one game? Or are you a Valpo follower as well? Blue, no, I'm certainly not a "follower" of VU, however I do have an appreciation for teams that play unselfishly and with great effort, both of which I saw in VU on Monday night. They have more athleticism than I can recall a Valpo team ever possessing, which says to me they are trying to keep up with the ORU's and IUPUI's of the Mid Con from that standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl VU Fan Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 They have more athleticism than I can recall a Valpo team ever possessing, which says to me they are trying to keep up with the ORU's and IUPUI's of the Mid Con from that standpoint. I've noticed that too. For the first time in several years, we are not only talking the "up-tempo" game, but we are living it on the court as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stl VU Fan Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Blue, no, I'm certainly not a "follower" of VU, however I do have an appreciation for teams that play unselfishly and with great effort, both of which I saw in VU on Monday night. I appreciate your appreciation, Rob. The icing on the cake is the way it tweaks EagleBackr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EagleBackr Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 I appreciate your appreciation, Rob. The icing on the cake is the way it tweaks EagleBackr ...and I appreciate your appreciation of Rob's appreciating. 2-4-6-8...who do we appreciate? Beats me - I'm too confused right now! Jay Cronley asks the following question in his "Tulsa World Picker" column today: "Would it be uncouth to ask nice-guy ORU Coach Scott Sutton to win at least one NCAA tournament game a decade?" It's a valid question.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest EagleBackr Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 Our chances of winning AT Valpo when they have a decent team have ALWAYS been pretty slim...while Homer Drew orchestrates the entire evening from 10 feet onto the court. That guy spends more time on the floor during play than Kelvin Sampson! Want proof? Check this out from Thursday's Northwest-Indiana-and-That-Little-Part-of-Illinois-Southeast-of-Chicago Times: Drew's mistake harmless BY JOHN O'MALLEY jomalley@nwitimes.com 219.462.5151 Ext. 355 VALPARAISO | Homer Drew isn't exactly known as a coach who intimidates officials, but during Wednesday night's game with IPFW, it sure seemed like the Valparaiso head coach did exactly that. With 5:19 left in the first half, Drew jumped up off the bench and screamed at official Todd Williams for a timeout as IPFW was getting into its offense. Apparently without thinking, Williams promptly blew his whistle and then turned toward Drew and said, "Why did you do that to me?" Drew, realizing what had just happened, replied, "I'm sorry." Drew then went over and talked to IPFW head coach Dane Fife about the incident and then IPFW set up to inbound the ball when it shouldn't have had to. There was no timeout charged because Valpo couldn't officially call one in the first place without possession or stoppage of play. "That was bad on my part,'' Drew said. "I was so disappointed in our defense at that moment...I just, I just, in all my 37 years of coaching, I had never (called) one that way. It was really funny, because Todd (Williams) was so jolted by my "TIMEOUT" that he thought it had to be. "I was just disappointed in our defensive stance and the effort and that, that my frustration just yelled that timeout. I know it was my fault.'' I'll bet you money he was standing 5-10 feet out on the floor when he did it, too. That's not harmless, folks - THAT'S A TECHNICAL!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rlh Posted January 12, 2006 Share Posted January 12, 2006 He was sitting on the bench....I have the tape to prove it....Nice try.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.