Iowa

[skyblade]

Turned out to still be a loss, but it was nice to see them fight back and really bring the energy. For a while it seemed like we were just going to go away quietly when we were down 15.

The good was we were able to force Iowa into a lot of TO's and convert points off of them. We also cut down on our own TO's (we were +17 in TO's), but our half-court offense did not look very good and Iowa absolutely dominated us on the boards (they were +17).

We needed to make better use of Vogt inside in the second half. Vogt finished with 11 points, but only had 2 second half points. Garza beat him up on the boards, but Vogt was able to score on Garza in the 1st half. We needed to make more of an effort then we did in the 2nd to get Vogt the ball. Vogt actually was relatively good on defense.

We were just 6-24 from three, some of that was Jarron forcing up bad threes. Some of it was Williams, McNeal and Scott missing wide open threes.

I know I like to hate on McNeal, but he and Diarra were largely responsible for our run that brought us back. They both brought high energy and intensity on defense and forced Iowa into a spurt of TO's. It's unfortunate that they are two of our best defensive players and also two of our worst offensive players. Still they do enough that they should get some minutes to give us the intense defense.

[cincyguy13]

Positives-
MAW was great again. 10 points, 0 turnovers
Jarron has 18 and didn’t play well. (Imagine if he ever does start playing well
Vogt was again solid.
McNeal found his role. (Don’t need 12 shots from him)
Diarra gave them energy

Negatives,
Keith
Tre
Jaevin
Jarron down the stretch
Shooting, can’t wait to get shooters in here, it helps

[Alum2013]

Originally Posted by skyblade

Turned out to still be a loss, but it was nice to see them fight back and really bring the energy. For a while it seemed like we were just going to go away quietly when we were down 15.

The good was we were able to force Iowa into a lot of TO's and convert points off of them. We also cut down on our own TO's (we were +17 in TO's), but our half-court offense did not look very good and Iowa absolutely dominated us on the boards (they were +17).

We needed to make better use of Vogt inside in the second half. Vogt finished with 11 points, but only had 2 second half points. Garza beat him up on the boards, but Vogt was able to score on Garza in the 1st half. We needed to make more of an effort then we did in the 2nd to get Vogt the ball. Vogt actually was relatively good on defense.

We were just 6-24 from three, some of that was Jarron forcing up bad threes. Some of it was Williams, McNeal and Scott missing wide open threes.

I know I like to hate on McNeal, but he and Diarra were largely responsible for our run that brought us back. They both brought high energy and intensity on defense and forced Iowa into a spurt of TO's. It's unfortunate that they are two of our best defensive players and also two of our worst offensive players. Still they do enough that they should get some minutes to give us the intense defense.

For once I actually agree with pretty much everything you posted.

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by skyblade

I know I like to hate on McNeal, but he and Diarra were largely responsible for our run that brought us back. They both brought high energy and intensity on defense and forced Iowa into a spurt of TO's. It's unfortunate that they are two of our best defensive players and also two of our worst offensive players. Still they do enough that they should get some minutes to give us the intense defense.

Diarra was on the court but he didn't really do anything to help that comeback. 1-3 and a turnover.


But I could be ok with him playing more in place of Scott. Scott is just a waste most of the time. His good game last game was cause he hit shots he should never take. Then he thinks he should shoot them more. Scott's 3 in the middle of our comeback off the turnovers was like a turnover itself. He should never shoot unless its a layup or dunk.

[Queens_NYC]

Originally Posted by Alum2013

What were the shooting stats?

We were below average in all facets.

Iowa had their second best 3 pt shooting game of the year hitting just under 46% of outside shots. I think they hit 8 of 16 in the 2nd half.

[Bearcats92]

Originally Posted by cincrulz11

Diarra was on the court but he didn't really do anything to help that comeback. 1-3 and a turnover.


But I could be ok with him playing more in place of Scott. Scott is just a waste most of the time. His good game last game was cause he hit shots he should never take. Then he thinks he should shoot them more. Scott's 3 in the middle of our comeback off the turnovers was like a turnover itself. He should never shoot unless its a layup or dunk.

Diarra helped that comeback because he forced two turnovers and brought some energy. He was lost on offense

[skyblade]

Originally Posted by Alum2013

What were the shooting stats?

We actually made more FG's then them and we shot way more (we were 25-72, they were 23-50), the biggest difference was from 3 (we were 6-24, they were 11-24) and the FT line (us 14-18, them 20-30).

Our defense was very good at forcing TO's, but not very good if they actually got the shot off. Iowa was able to get a lot of kick outs for 3 (partially because we were so focused on stopping Garza and partially because we just collapsed too far and they made good passes). The biggest issue we had with their size was them dominating us on the boards.

Scott had only 7, Vogt had 7, Williams had only 3. It's a problem we've had on and off all year that we need our guards to rebound better. Williams had been doing much better lately, but not tonight. Jarron also needs to do much better on the boards, he only had 1 rebound. MAW was our 3rd best rebounder with 5.

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by Bearcats92

Diarra helped that comeback because he forced two turnovers and brought some energy. He was lost on offense

i honestly dont recall him forcing 2. We aren't counting stuff like when they just throw it out of bounds with no pressure are we?

[skyblade]

Originally Posted by cincrulz11

Diarra was on the court but he didn't really do anything to help that comeback. 1-3 and a turnover.


But I could be ok with him playing more in place of Scott. Scott is just a waste most of the time. His good game last game was cause he hit shots he should never take. Then he thinks he should shoot them more. Scott's 3 in the middle of our comeback off the turnovers was like a turnover itself. He should never shoot unless its a layup or dunk.

Did you watch the game or just looking at the stat-line? Diarra had a block that he kept in play (essentially a forced TO), plus was a large part of 3 other TO's. He also brought sparked the whole teams energy and defensive intensity. He didn't get credit for any steals, but he still caused the TO's.

He's not good on offense. But he's our best defender and shows it every time he gets on the court.

[Amberlycolonel]

How did we not offer Fredrick a scholarship?