[qwerty49]

Maybe it will take time to develop some mid-range shooter for a hypothetically better offense, but how about the flip side of the game?  Why didn't we have better defense?

If we had shot 50% from 2 and 50% from 3, and had the same number of shots (even though we should have fewer shots because of fewer OR chances), we would have scored the same number of points as they did.  So even that level of offense wouldn't have been enough to win the game.

Are we thankful that Oregon shot "only" 51% from 2 since they shot 75% from 3?  No one fouled out,  so we shouldn't have been dropping off them.   I expected our defenders not to let their opponents get away from them, or to switch when necessary.  To me, the failure to come even close to the defensive performance we usually see is the most telling.   I really don't think this is a "short turnaround" issue (which I think is bogus -- Stanford has known that game was coming and I hope has been preparing for it at every practice all season long; if anything, Oregon had a shorter turnaround (AND wasn't at their home court).)

Good point re the D.  On O, we actually took 3 more shots than they did, and we also had more FT attempts.  It was a bad game, period, and unfortunately we seem to lay that kind of egg on national TV far too often.

Having said that, the reluctant reality may be that their starting 5 are simply better than ours.  They play better together, they were better prepared, and perhaps have better skills, especially when it comes to shooting.  Absent better offensive production from everyone, (and yes, even from the Hulls, who have been solid), I'm not confident we can beat them this year.  Certainly not in a half-court offense.

[qwerty49]

Maybe it will take time to develop some mid-range shooter for a hypothetically better offense, but how about the flip side of the game?  Why didn't we have better defense?

If we had shot 50% from 2 and 50% from 3, and had the same number of shots (even though we should have fewer shots because of fewer OR chances), we would have scored the same number of points as they did.  So even that level of offense wouldn't have been enough to win the game.

Are we thankful that Oregon shot "only" 51% from 2 since they shot 75% from 3?  No one fouled out,  so we shouldn't have been dropping off them.   I expected our defenders not to let their opponents get away from them, or to switch when necessary.  To me, the failure to come even close to the defensive performance we usually see is the most telling.   I really don't think this is a "short turnaround" issue (which I think is bogus -- Stanford has known that game was coming and I hope has been preparing for it at every practice all season long; if anything, Oregon had a shorter turnaround (AND wasn't at their home court).)

Good point re the D.  On O, we actually took 3 more shots than they did, and we also had more FT attempts.  It was a bad game, period, and unfortunately we seem to lay that kind of egg on national TV far too often.

Having said that, the reluctant reality may be that their starting 5 are simply better than ours.  They play better together, they were better prepared, and perhaps have better skills, especially when it comes to shooting.  Absent better offensive production from everyone, (and yes, even from the Hulls, who have been solid), I'm not confident we can beat them this year.  Certainly not in a half-court offense.