A&M 63, Stanford 62 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: A&M 63, Stanford 62 (/thread-1390.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: A&M 63, Stanford 62 (/thread-1390.html)
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - CompSci87 - 04-05-2011
Ruef has been much improved and really valuable this year. But I wanted to see Kayla inbounding the ball, not standing on the sideline out of the play. Kayla is an excellent long passer.
That was going to be a low percentage play no matter what they ran or who did what on it, though.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - CompSci87 - 04-05-2011
Ruef has been much improved and really valuable this year. But I wanted to see Kayla inbounding the ball, not standing on the sideline out of the play. Kayla is an excellent long passer.
That was going to be a low percentage play no matter what they ran or who did what on it, though.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - Leftcoast - 04-05-2011
As VG and others have noted, well before Sunday afternoon, Stanford has problems executing end of half/end of game plays. Â We were all hoping this wouldn\'t bite us this year but iit clearly did.
Personally, I wish Stanford had ran more time before giving Nneka the ball for the final Stanford score. Â I suspect I wasn\'t the only one who shuddered at what might happen when I saw 9 seconds left on the clock and despaired when I realized we needed to score with 3.5 seconds remaining. Â This wasn\'t Stanford\'s shining moment.
Anyone have insight into why Stanford struggles with "low time" plays? Â Clearly Texas A&M\'s pressure defense had something to do with this - all evening they denied easy advancement - but this wasn\'t a one year problem. Â Even with great players that could create their own shots (Candace and Nicole) we\'ve struggled in these situations.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - Leftcoast - 04-05-2011
As VG and others have noted, well before Sunday afternoon, Stanford has problems executing end of half/end of game plays. Â We were all hoping this wouldn\'t bite us this year but iit clearly did.
Personally, I wish Stanford had ran more time before giving Nneka the ball for the final Stanford score. Â I suspect I wasn\'t the only one who shuddered at what might happen when I saw 9 seconds left on the clock and despaired when I realized we needed to score with 3.5 seconds remaining. Â This wasn\'t Stanford\'s shining moment.
Anyone have insight into why Stanford struggles with "low time" plays? Â Clearly Texas A&M\'s pressure defense had something to do with this - all evening they denied easy advancement - but this wasn\'t a one year problem. Â Even with great players that could create their own shots (Candace and Nicole) we\'ve struggled in these situations.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - fullmetal - 04-05-2011
i remember the last scoring play this year.
3.whatever seconds isn\'t long enough for a full-court layup though... :( Â maybe a mid-range pass and then a layup?
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - fullmetal - 04-05-2011
i remember the last scoring play this year.
3.whatever seconds isn\'t long enough for a full-court layup though... :( Â maybe a mid-range pass and then a layup?
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - Viking_Guy - 04-05-2011
Against Xavier, the play was out of a timeout, from the sideline almost to the midcourt stripe. Â Actually, our defense of the last scoring rush reminded me of the Muskies\' - people going for the steal and not getting in front of the ball-handler to force east-west movement.
More generally, my criticism of our end-of-period play revolves around holding the ball in the backcourt for until about 10-12 seconds are left, then trying to run a play; it almost never turned out well. Â The possession that reminded me more of that was whenever Mikaela was forced to bring up the ball (and I was yelling at the screen "Hello, seniors? Â One of you should come back to get this.") Â Especially the last one, when she was forced into an awkward three-point shot that led to the fifth Mel foul.
VG
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - Viking_Guy - 04-05-2011
Against Xavier, the play was out of a timeout, from the sideline almost to the midcourt stripe. Â Actually, our defense of the last scoring rush reminded me of the Muskies\' - people going for the steal and not getting in front of the ball-handler to force east-west movement.
More generally, my criticism of our end-of-period play revolves around holding the ball in the backcourt for until about 10-12 seconds are left, then trying to run a play; it almost never turned out well. Â The possession that reminded me more of that was whenever Mikaela was forced to bring up the ball (and I was yelling at the screen "Hello, seniors? Â One of you should come back to get this.") Â Especially the last one, when she was forced into an awkward three-point shot that led to the fifth Mel foul.
VG
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - CompSci87 - 04-05-2011
Quote:More generally, my criticism of our end-of-period play revolves around holding the ball in the backcourt for until about 10-12 seconds are left, then trying to run a play; it almost never turned out well.
Agreed. I was actually glad we were aggressive and tried to score right away off the inbound with 9 seconds left instead of trying to burn a few seconds before starting the play. The latter approach would likely have resulted in a worse shot and a 61-60 loss.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - CompSci87 - 04-05-2011
Quote:More generally, my criticism of our end-of-period play revolves around holding the ball in the backcourt for until about 10-12 seconds are left, then trying to run a play; it almost never turned out well.
Agreed. I was actually glad we were aggressive and tried to score right away off the inbound with 9 seconds left instead of trying to burn a few seconds before starting the play. The latter approach would likely have resulted in a worse shot and a 61-60 loss.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - treefan - 04-05-2011
Quote:Ruef has been much improved and really valuable this year. But I wanted to see Kayla inbounding the ball, not standing on the sideline out of the play. Kayla is an excellent long passer.
That was going to be a low percentage play no matter what they ran or who did what on it, though.
It\'s not a low percentage play if we throw to 1/4 court pass to sideline and back to FT area - all can be in 3 sec. A big long pass is low percentage.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - treefan - 04-05-2011
Quote:Ruef has been much improved and really valuable this year. But I wanted to see Kayla inbounding the ball, not standing on the sideline out of the play. Kayla is an excellent long passer.
That was going to be a low percentage play no matter what they ran or who did what on it, though.
It\'s not a low percentage play if we throw to 1/4 court pass to sideline and back to FT area - all can be in 3 sec. A big long pass is low percentage.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - treefan - 04-05-2011
Quote:Against Xavier, the play was out of a timeout, from the sideline almost to the midcourt stripe. Actually, our defense of the last scoring rush reminded me of the Muskies\' - people going for the steal and not getting in front of the ball-handler to force east-west movement.
More generally, my criticism of our end-of-period play revolves around holding the ball in the backcourt for until about 10-12 seconds are left, then trying to run a play; it almost never turned out well. The possession that reminded me more of that was whenever Mikaela was forced to bring up the ball (and I was yelling at the screen "Hello, seniors? One of you should come back to get this.") Especially the last one, when she was forced into an awkward three-point shot that led to the fifth Mel foul.
VG
completely agree VG. And IF Chiney had not fouled out, Ruef would not have been in there taking that ill advised 3. Whoulda, shoulda, coulda.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - treefan - 04-05-2011
Quote:Against Xavier, the play was out of a timeout, from the sideline almost to the midcourt stripe. Actually, our defense of the last scoring rush reminded me of the Muskies\' - people going for the steal and not getting in front of the ball-handler to force east-west movement.
More generally, my criticism of our end-of-period play revolves around holding the ball in the backcourt for until about 10-12 seconds are left, then trying to run a play; it almost never turned out well. The possession that reminded me more of that was whenever Mikaela was forced to bring up the ball (and I was yelling at the screen "Hello, seniors? One of you should come back to get this.") Especially the last one, when she was forced into an awkward three-point shot that led to the fifth Mel foul.
VG
completely agree VG. And IF Chiney had not fouled out, Ruef would not have been in there taking that ill advised 3. Whoulda, shoulda, coulda.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - Farm93 - 04-05-2011
Texas A&M won! Â I guess I am happy that the team that beat Stanford won it all.
Re: A&M 63, Stanford 62 - Farm93 - 04-05-2011
Texas A&M won! Â I guess I am happy that the team that beat Stanford won it all.