Have you ever seen anything like this?

#151
#151
bleedingTNorange said:
Do you not own a smartphone? Lmao

Poor guy
Click to expand...

Naw can't afford one. I'm a poor.

FTR, that play was intended to go to Barton initially. Richardson looks twice to Barton, first off Maymon's screen he looks to let it go and it's not there so he pulls it back and then again as Barton curls underneath right in front of him he almost lets it go. In between he looks to McRae who breaks free as Caruso cheated off of him but he's going away from the basket too much and J Rich realizes better, about that time it opens underneath.

There's absolutely no way that was the first option. You can defend CCM all you want but too many variables happened and had to happen for that "design" to work just the way he drew it up.

Richardson did what he's taught to do look for the first option, 1..2, if it's not there you move on. He and Stokes both made great, instinctive plays. It's like a WR and QB that keep working to get open after going through the progressions and nothing being there. The play that resulted is not an indictment on CCM's coaching ability, because plenty of inbounds do not work as drawn up. It is an indictment if that was the "plan" as he says, cause no coach worth two nickels expects to draw that up and it actually work.
 
#152
#152
bowlinggreenvol said:
Naw can't afford one. I'm a poor.

FTR, that play was intended to go to Barton initially. Richardson looks twice to Barton, first off Maymon's screen he looks to let it go and it's not there so he pulls it back and then again as Barton curls underneath right in front of him he almost lets it go. In between he looks to McRae who breaks free as Caruso cheated off of him but he's going away from the basket too much and J Rich realizes better, about that time it opens underneath.

There's absolutely no way that was the first option. You can defend CCM all you want but too many variables happened and had to happen for that "design" to work just the way he drew it up.

Richardson did what he's taught to do look for the first option, 1..2, if it's not there you move on. He and Stokes both made great, instinctive plays. It's like a WR and QB that keep working to get open after going through the progressions and nothing being there. The play that resulted is not an indictment on CCM's coaching ability, because plenty of inbounds do not work as drawn up. It is an indictment if that was the "plan" as he says, cause no coach worth two nickels expects to draw that up and it actually work.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Barton goes from corner to corner, no coach would send his 1st option to the corner with 2.4 left. He's more of a decoy it looks like. I think Jordy Mac is suppose to come down and then get another screen back up and then perhaps they are looking for the defenders to switch the screen which would allow Stokes to seal the smaller defender on the post.
However it was ran sloppy, plus Stokes set a weak screen.Stokes' defender fell asleep and Stokes then posted him up and got a bucket.
I think Stokes was the first option and McRae was the 2nd. However, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a 2nd option knowing CCM.
 
#153
#153
colvol said:
I disagree. Barton goes from corner to corner, no coach would send his 1st option to the corner with 2.4 left. He's more of a decoy it looks like. I think Jordy Mac is suppose to come down and then get another screen back up and then perhaps they are looking for the defenders to switch the screen which would allow Stokes to seal the smaller defender on the post.
However it was ran sloppy, plus Stokes set a weak screen.Stokes' defender fell asleep and Stokes then posted him up and got a bucket.
I think Stokes was the first option and McRae was the 2nd. However, it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't a 2nd option knowing CCM.
Click to expand...

He went from the wing to the corner and going to the corner was a result of continuing his "route" as things did not open up at the top. He curls off the screen and the expectation is, that will be open and he's able to catch and shoot in rythm. Maymon's man does a great job of switching and too bad it was Maymon setting the screen because he was wide open over the top for a split second as Caruso tried to fight through the screen before recovering. You literally know nothing about basketball if you continue to think the result was planned. No coach counts on a 30 ft bounce pass into the lane being there. Their on ball defender played the angle horribly. He was positioned to keep the ball from the perimeter which he did but instead he allowed it to open up down-low. If he's towards the baseline 2 ft more, Cuonzo's play never works. It seems too coincidental that he drew up a play that was dependant on the defense having to have lapses in order for it to work.
 
Last edited:
#154
#154
bowlinggreenvol said:
He went from the wing to the corner and going to the corner was a result of continuing his "route" as things did not open up at the top. He curls off the screen and the expectation is, that will be open and he's able to catch and shoot in rythm. Maymon's man does a great job of switching and too bad it was Maymon setting the screen because he was wide open over the top for a split second as Caruso tried to fight through the screen before recovering. You literally know nothing about basketball if you continue to think the result was planned. No coach counts on a 30 ft bounce pass into the lane being there. Their on ball defender played the angle horribly. He was positioned to keep the ball from the perimeter which he did but instead he allowed it to open up down-low. If he's towards the baseline 2 ft more, Cuonzo's play never works. It seems to coincidental that he drew up a play that was dependant on the defense having to have lapses in order for it to work.
Click to expand...

We're talking about CCM though. The worst inbound plays I've ever seen have come from this man's head. Also with Stokes saying that they run it all the time in practice. Seems like the stars aligned on this play.
 
#155
#155
Spartacavolus said:
go back and read his quote. He says nothing about him drawing up the play to Stokes there. As a matter of fact, he doesn't even finish completing a sentence when mentioning Stokes one on one. He knows Stokes made the play and jrich made a great pass. That's why he pointed it out.
Click to expand...

He talked about it on the radio as well, said it was what they discussed in the timeout and it was option 1.

I'm just repeating what he said, if you guys wanna say he's lying that's fine, just stating my opinion.
 
#157
#157
bleedingTNorange said:
He talked about it on the radio as well, said it was what they discussed in the timeout and it was option 1.

I'm just repeating what he said, if you guys wanna say he's lying that's fine, just stating my opinion.
Click to expand...


if you would use common sense one time and ask yourself:

Why would option 1 be an unlikely pass under the basket with the ref almost to a 5 second count and no timeouts?
That means options 2-5 don't exist, and you are relying on 2 defensive breakdowns to hit your #1 option just prior to turning the ball over.
If his plan is to have only 1 option and that option is to hit stokes with the ref almost at a 5 count, but only if his man plays behind him and only if the on ball defender jumps out of the way, then it's even worse coaching.

I will say it would not be surprising for stupidity to work out, so who knows.
 
#159
#159
Spartacavolus said:
if you would use common sense one time and ask yourself:

Why would option 1 be an unlikely pass under the basket with the ref almost to a 5 second count and no timeouts?
That means options 2-5 don't exist, and you are relying on 2 defensive breakdowns to hit your #1 option just prior to turning the ball over.
If his plan is to have only 1 option and that option is to hit stokes with the ref almost at a 5 count, but only if his man plays behind him and only if the on ball defender jumps out of the way, then it's even worse coaching.

I will say it would not be surprising for stupidity to work out, so who knows.
Click to expand...

Like I said above, you're talking about Cuonzo Martin. You've continually ridiculed every decision he makes, and claim it as the wrong one, why would you all of a sudden give him credit for not be dumb enough to make that call?
 
#161
#161
Spartacavolus said:
if you would use common sense one time and ask yourself:

Why would option 1 be an unlikely pass under the basket with the ref almost to a 5 second count and no timeouts?
That means options 2-5 don't exist, and you are relying on 2 defensive breakdowns to hit your #1 option just prior to turning the ball over.
If his plan is to have only 1 option and that option is to hit stokes with the ref almost at a 5 count, but only if his man plays behind him and only if the on ball defender jumps out of the way, then it's even worse coaching.

I will say it would not be surprising for stupidity to work out, so who knows.
Click to expand...

"Remember, we're talking about Cuonzo Martin." That'll be his response. It's his way of trying to mask his gut feeling that it wasn't drawn up that way. He just can't bring himself to not give Cuonzo credit, so instead he alludes to it being a dumb play call but one that aligned perfectly and was concocted in Martin's backwards thinking mind.

Edit: he beat me to it and already said it
 
Last edited:
#162
#162
As I re-read Cuonzo's quote regarding the last play he clearly changes the topic and fails to finish his sentence.

On Jarnell's play to tie the game at the end of regulation...

"It's a play we run in practice. We go over our situations all the time. There's different options out of that particular play. But for us needing two points, going inside to Jarnell with one-on-one isolation. I thought Josh did a tremendous job of putting that ball through there and I thought Jarnell did a great job at catching that ball."

The sentence starting with "but for us..." is not a complete sentence. He gets to the part of Jarnell 1 on 1 and jumps into how good the pass was. I'm sure the call was get it inside if it's open not go inside come hell or high water.
 
Last edited:
#164
#164
bleedingTNorange said:
Doesn't that mean it was option 1?
Click to expand...

I think anyone's option #1 in that situation is to get a layup rather than relying on a jumper. But you don't draw up a 4 second play to get it. The play worked out regardless of the initial call. I will never believe that it was designed the way it worked out but I'll take the outcome. If it truly was designed and practiced that way then it leaves a lot to be desired from our coaching staff and players ton not look to option #2 after 2-3 seconds. I've always been taught and heard elsewhere you give it a 1..2 boom, if it's not there move on.
 
Last edited:
#165
#165
bowlinggreenvol said:
I think anyone's option #1 in that situation is to get a layup rather than relying on a jumper. But you don't draw up a 4 second play to get it. The play worked out regardless of the initial call. I will never believe that it was designed the way it worked out but I'll take the outcome. If it truly was designed and practiced that way then it leaves a lot to be desired from our coaching staff and players ton not look to option #2 after 2-3 seconds. I've always been taught and heard elsewhere you give it a 1..2 boom, if it's not there move on.
Click to expand...

Has this not been your opinion about our coaching staff for awhile?
 
#168
#168
bowlinggreenvol said:
"Remember, we're talking about Cuonzo Martin." That'll be his response. It's his way of trying to mask his gut feeling that it wasn't drawn up that way. He just can't bring himself to not give Cuonzo credit, so instead he alludes to it being a dumb play call but one that aligned perfectly and was concocted in Martin's backwards thinking mind.

Edit: he beat me to it and already said it
Click to expand...


he's siran wrap. Been seeing right through him for awhile.
 
#169
#169
Spartacavolus said:
if you would use common sense one time and ask yourself:

Why would option 1 be an unlikely pass under the basket with the ref almost to a 5 second count and no timeouts?
That means options 2-5 don't exist, and you are relying on 2 defensive breakdowns to hit your #1 option just prior to turning the ball over.
If his plan is to have only 1 option and that option is to hit stokes with the ref almost at a 5 count, but only if his man plays behind him and only if the on ball defender jumps out of the way, then it's even worse coaching.

I will say it would not be surprising for stupidity to work out, so who knows.
Click to expand...

This is so damn comical that it's bordering on pathetic that the average person with an inkling of basketball knowledge can't figure this out.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top