brutal.
props to Gonzaga for clutching up, but the chink in their armor has been exposed. Can Baylor exploit it?
props to Gonzaga for clutching up, but the chink in their armor has been exposed. Can Baylor exploit it?
ucla
- Thread starter BleedCrimsonandGray
- Start date
Gonzaga didnt CLUTCH IT UP.
THEY MIRACLE BUTSHETLUCKED A LAST SECOND HALFCOURT THROW UP THE BALL AND PRAY SHOT IT UP.
THATS NOT CLUTCHING IT UP.
And there isn't any evidence that would convince you otherwise.
If they beat Baylor you will say they were lucky and if they lose to Baylor you will say "I told you so". UCLA played a great game and the Zags still found a way to win. UCLA didn't play anywhere near this well against Alabama and Michigan and won.
Correction: Gonzaga didnt FIND a way to win. THEY MIRACLE BUTSHETLUCKED A WIN.
FINDING A WAY TO win is what REMY, ASU did vs WSU. Finding a way to win is when you legitimately OUTPLAYED, FOUND a way to OUTPLAY, EKE out, score a layup, dunk, midrange, open 3 point shot, even scoring a CONTESTED, lay up, midrange, 3 point shot, WHICH IS WHAT GOOD TEAMS DO.
Finding a way to win by at the last second, at the BUZZER, BLINDLY throwing the ball up and PRAYING it goes in with the knowledge that 999 times out of a 1000 its NOT going in, and then having it hit HIGH BANK OFF THE BACK BOARD AND INTO THE BASKET, is NOT FINDING A WAY TO WIN.
ITS MIRACLE BUTSHETLUCKING, TECHNICALLY WINNING.
EVEN a FOOTBALL HAIL MARY has a better chance of working then what Gonzaga's HALFCOURT THROW UP.
Now if Gonzaga had made a lay up, midrange jumper, 3 pointer, etc, that would have been finding a way to win.
Getting EXTREMELY LUCKY is NOT finding a way to win, ITS INSTEAD JUST GETTING EXTREMELY LUCKY.
A
anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls
Guest
If he misses the 3 it goes to 2OT. What's your point? Suggs practices half court shorts in practice, it wasn't luck.
If they won, logic would dictate, “they found a way to win”
You were the one who said Remey threw up a prayer and it was lucky it went in.
Laetner, Hurley and now possibly the first undefeated champion since 1976 and they’re overrated. Where do you come up with this junk?
You were the one who said Remey threw up a prayer and it was lucky it went in.
Laetner, Hurley and now possibly the first undefeated champion since 1976 and they’re overrated. Where do you come up with this junk?
What a horrible, fluke ending to a well-played, classic game. That game deserved to go to double overtime, not to end on some lucky, banked-in, quarter-court shot by some “flex-on-every-play,” “everybody look at me” freshman. UCLA deserved better.
the point is they won lucky or not and are in the championship game. Luck and the right bounce of the ball are part of championships. Gonzaga also practice these long distance last second shots so this sounds good coaching to me.
The whining on this board about Gonzaga is pretty ridiculous. They are a very good maybe even great college bb team. Last night was the first s time anyone took them to the wire in a game.
I was a UCI student in the late 60's and early 70's and watched every UCLA game on late night TV with my friends. I loved those teams. There is no real way to compare those teams with today. There wasn't a 3 point line and the game was played differently. So what? Even if Coug fans want to be critical of the bb power to the North it seems like actual BB fans would appreciate how good the Zags are. Baylor is also very good and most experts thought they were the two best teams all year. After not having a tourney last year this is basketball heaven.
I was a UCI student in the late 60's and early 70's and watched every UCLA game on late night TV with my friends. I loved those teams. There is no real way to compare those teams with today. There wasn't a 3 point line and the game was played differently. So what? Even if Coug fans want to be critical of the bb power to the North it seems like actual BB fans would appreciate how good the Zags are. Baylor is also very good and most experts thought they were the two best teams all year. After not having a tourney last year this is basketball heaven.
It’s definitely impossible to compare eras. I think it’s possible to put the dislike in one bucket and objectively look at how they might stack up. Ali/Tyson if you will.
I look back at the talent that was in the college game in the 80’s and back and it was just all together a different world. Larry Bird plays 4 years in college for instance. That said, there is more depth today because of AAU. A “small town” kid hasn’t just been around players from say a 50 mile radius before getting to college when the adjustment would be much bigger. The impact of international players has also increased dramatically over the years. The pool is probably a lot bigger.
Anyway, like my wondering about whether some of the GU greats that laid the foundation would get interest from GU today it's not knocking them so much as interesting to think on. It also wasn’t lost on me how the tables turned last night with GU the huge favorite and UCLA the "Cinderella".
Last edited:
A
anon_1nb5kgc7kwlls
Guest
Yea some of you guys sound like the jealous little kid that didn't get what he wanted so he's throwing a tantrum. A shame really.
The pool may be bigger because of AAU and International players. However, there are so many more D1 schools now, and many years ago, almost all great players congregated on the top one or two teams in a conference. There were players sitting on the bench that were better than the starters on most other teams in the conference.
So, I really have no idea what teams are better. The game has changed too much, and is called different.
A) Zags fans are the ducks fans of basketball - think they're blue blood despite their success being recent. And, they are fcking obnoxious as hell.
B) WAAAAAAY too many "Cougs" find it convenient to suddenly become Zag fans because we sucked at hoops for so long. Sorry, it doesn't work like that; either you're a Coug or your not. These are the bandwagon fans, and I've been told there was actually a pissing match over on the "die hard" facebook page about "you're not a real coug if you don't pull for the Zags." ARE YOU FCKING KIDDING ME? But you know what... go ahead and pull for the Zags, and when Smith gets this team rolling you all can GFY. I mean, come on... you pick another team bc they are regional???? Might as well get on the UW bandwagon when they're rolling then. Actually, they probably do...
I for one hate the Zags, the little weasel mark few, and am certainly rooting for Baylor. My only point has been to recognize how good this team has been this season. You certainly can’t compare eras, but to say this team is not even in the conversation for being one of the best teams ever is preposterous.. Let’s not let our hate for Gonzaga lead us to being unrealistic.. The bottom line is this is good for our rivalry, good for basketball, and a great conversation piece.
A good example of why comparing eras is impossible.. UNLV was my favorite team of all time and it makes my stomach hurt to say this, but A player like LJ wouldn’t have the same impact today. He was simply bigger, faster, and stronger then everyone he played against. He was a match up nightmare.. That would simply not be the case today.. Most Great basketball teams were great because they were ahead of their time. Either in style of play, coaching, talent/match-ups etc... The key is, “They were ahead of their time!”. The things that made them great then, no longer apply today.. Jesse Owens was once the greatest track and field star in the world. He wouldn’t even make the Olympics today. Wilt, 100 points today, yeah right.. BobbyHurley, running circles around today’s PG’s, is a fantasy. I hear us throwing out teams that were great when they played.. Their accomplishments are tremendous. It is fun to juxtapose but they need to stay right where they accomplished greatness.. In the past..
Evolution is real my friends..
That's all well and good except guys like Larry Johnson would also be the recipient of increased training and nutrition, too, It's not like they would stay still. It's all relative to the competition at the time. Grandmama was a beast then. He'd be a beastlier beast now. Bobby Hurley had basketball IQ and competitive fire off the charts. He'd just be stronger/faster now.
Crud, I played ball at 170 pounds dripping wet in the late 70's. Weight lifting messed up your shot (or was the thinking at the time). In 2021, I'd be bulked up to 195-200 lbs and spending as much time in the weight room as as the football players were just starting to do back then.
Larry Johnson would be now known as Zion Williamson.
I’m not talking about what they could have been with today’s training. My grandfather could be my grandmother today too.. I’m talking about what they were when they played..
You are making my point exactly, because he wasnt Zion. Neither was UNLV or Duke.. etc
You are making my point exactly, because he wasnt Zion. Neither was UNLV or Duke.. etc
My kids have way more access to information than I did. Doesn't mean they are smarter. In fact, they are, most of the times, idiots.
What' s your point other than hating history? There's nothing new under the sun. This 3-ball era is the same as the old Grinnell system. Been around for 25 years.
I'm not making your point exactly. And i'm definitely not conceding an inch to such foolishness. Ballers of yesteryear would be ballers today.
You may as well argue that Connor Halliday is better than Drew Bledsoe or Ryan Leaf based on single season passing yards.
Guy Williams would destroy any player on the current Coug squad including his son. Hell, he stay might.
I agree with this as well.
The biggest difference is that yesterdays bigs don't have a place in todays games because its all offense and 3 balls and the physicality has been all but removed. It makes me wonder how Shaq would fit into todays game, because he basically bulldozed everyone in the paint; part of that is 320lbs meeting 250 lbs, and part of that was the refs letting it happen, but I'm guessing that Shaq would have to rely on his baby hook a lot more now than he did back then.
Yet both Gonzaga and Baylor have classic back to the basket guys inside.....same as last year when things got cut short. Pendulum swings back and forth strategically.
Shaq would be a monster because the refs would protect him instead of getting hacked all over. How many Flagrant 1s did that guy take over the years? They do love making some going-the-other-way charge calls but it would even out, I"m sure.
Couldn't shoot free throws to save his life so the strategy would remain roughly the same. Beat on him and cross fingers he missed them both.
Gonzaga won, congratulations, what this game does prove IMO, is that if the Zags played in a power 5 conference, they would not go undefeated, the 4th or 5th best team in the Pac 12 just took them to overtime, the Zags hadn't been tested all year until now. The road in the pac 12 is much tougher than most realize.
Part of the futility and what makes this interesting IMO is to prove your point you invariably need to bring up the past. You also brought up Jesse Owens and Track & Field seems about as cut-and-dry as you can get as a sport. Time or distance. However, the first thing I thought of was shoes and the tracks. Owens ran on cinders which today's world-class runners probably would opt out of running on all together. I'll have to do a bit more looking on this but I found an article that compares Owens to Bolt. David Epstein did a Ted Talk on the subject. He concluded they would be pretty close.
"Consider that Usain Bolt started by propelling himself out of blocks down a specially fabricated carpet designed to allow him to travel as fast as humanly possible. Jesse Owens, on the other hand, ran on cinders, the ash from burnt wood, and that soft surface stole far more energy from his legs as he ran."
His conclusion:
"Biomechanical analysis of the speed of Owens' joints shows that had been running on the same surface as Bolt, he wouldn't have been 14 feet behind, he would have been within one stride," said Epstein.
I have no idea of Epstein's sources, credentials, etc. but something to consider anyway.
Usain Bolt vs. Jesse Owens: Who wins today? | kgw.com
The great ones for the most part are like clay. They would adjust to whatever the current conditions demanded.
Because one pac-12 team played a one close game against them they hadn't been tested? They also destroyed USC by 20 with little effort. They have also similarly beaten sveral other top-20 caliber teams by 10+. So what if they might have lost a few games in the pac 12 this year. I am not a zag fan but this year's team specifically is incredible and is plenty capable of winning a major conference in addition to possibly being ncaa champs.
I actually think last year's team was as good.
Tillie and Petrusev were beasts. Woolridge could ball. Gilder was solid as well. They'd have been a #1 seed playing the first two rounds in Spokane.
It would have been a helluva matchup.
I understand how hard it is to let go.. I struggle myself at times, but as YOU stated... Larry Johnson would be Zion with weights and training that simply were not available. We could all say “if he had”, but they didn’t.. I love all time teams, but I have coached some of the best players in the country when they were in high school and I have seen freshman that good now.. it’s simple evolution...
There will always be that top 5% that would be successful in any decade.. Its players 3 -10 that are substantially better.... Honestly, I’m not sure how this is even an argument. Ask anyone who has been involved in basketball at high levels and they will immediately tell you that it’s not even close... No one could truly know, obviously, but my experience having played professionally during that era and seeing the athletes I am working with today, it is not even close..
BS, You didnt Play PROFESSIONAL PRO BALL. OR SERIOUSLY DOUBT IT.
A PRO player probably wouldnt be posting here.
Gonzaga has a great team, and had a great year, I am not going to take that away from them, hell they probably would have won the Pac -12 this year, but they wouldn't have been undefeated doing it. Sure they beat some top quality teams, but that was early in the year, the Cougs beat UCLA and Oregon St and Oregon, all tournament teams, but the Cougs aren't a tournament team yet, it's how well you perform in March that matters. I think if Gonzaga played in a tougher league, they would do better in the tournament as they would be more battle tested. I will say I hadn't seen Baylor play since early in the year and then saw their game against Arkansas, they played far better last night against a much better team than I had seen them play in previous games, their defense was incredible. Another great run by Gonzaga, but once again they fall short, there is nothing they can do about the league they play in, and they do play tough teams early in the year, I just think their lack of being battle tested in league play hurts them in the tournament. They can sleep walk through half the league games and still win. Their shots didn't drop last night like they have, and Baylor didn't allow many easy points in the paint, which is something the Zags excel at. I was hoping for a better game last night, and I was surprised to see Baylor impose their will on Gonzaga, I didn't think that was possible.
Scott Drew's dad Homer was on Bob Greenwood death ship with Dale Brown and he was pooping his pants (presumably) watching games in Bohler
Also counting the two NFL championships won by WSC baseball recruit Sammy Baugh.
(Buck Bailey yanked his scholly after he got hurt sliding in a summer baseball game. Baugh always mentioned it in interviews)
Similar threads
