2 for 1

[Colonel HR]

Have to go with the 2 for 1 scenario in that situation. Even though Ron's 3 was halfway down.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

why? Please break down the exact timing we would need to execute a proper 2 for 1 where we get a good shot on both possessions.

how long should each possesion take assuming no matter what northwestern is going to take 29 seconds off before they take a shot?

Simple, at 54 seconds you take the timeout rather than 48 seconds. You then have Geo run his typical 8-10 second iso "play" which we did. After the rebound lets say NW possession starts with 40 seconds left and it's a tie game. Do you really think NW isn't going to shoot until there's ZERO left on the shot clock? Probably not, odds are they shoot with between 5-10 left on the shot clock. Now if they make it with 5 left on the shot clock we have 15 seconds left, plenty of time. If they miss after the rebound we have 12-13 seconds, left. Again, plenty of time.

Now even with 48 seconds left, why not inbound that and go right for the iso and get the shot off with lets say 38 seconds. Could we not get that ron harper look at any point in the shot clock? Because I think we can. What was the benefit of letting 10 seconds tick off before Geo moved? It was a concerted effort to literally just simply not even attempt for a 2 for 1. It was egregious. There's no excuse.

What would you rather have. 1 possession where a 28% shooter takes a shot? Or 2 possessions where 28% shooters take shots?

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

Not the first 9 seconds of a play...no it’s not.

Our style is to run a weave and iso Baker towards the latter end of the shot clock.

Kyk even said our average possession is 17.5 seconds. We run so many fast transition plays that I would even say our average half court possession is a lot longer than 17.5 seconds.

dude our iso play with geo is a 8-10 second play. There's literally no weave run to set it up lol. It's Geo holds the ball until there's 8-10 left on the shot clock and slowly dribbles in between his legs and steps back and shoots a 3. Pike ****** up last night, people think it doesn't matter because we won but in no way shape or form was it the right move.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

Didn’t get off a good shot? Now you’re making things up. Harper had an open stand still 3

would it be better to get harper 2 shots like that or 1 shot like that because we can get that look at any time.

 

[RAC’emUp]

Not the first 9 seconds of a play...no it’s not.

Our style is to run a weave and iso Baker towards the latter end of the shot clock.

Kyk even said our average possession is 17.5 seconds. We run so many fast transition plays that I would even say our average half court possession is a lot longer than 17.5 seconds.

You’re missing my point. It only takes us 9 seconds or less to run our “go to” play at the game or half end. This can be done as easily at the beginning of the shot clock as at the end. We never, ever, run the weave in late game situations. It’s Geo holds the ball, runs down the clock and then makes his one on one play. In my opinion we could have and should have run that play right out of the time out. No reason to wait , or advantage in doing so.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

You’re missing my point. It only takes us 9 seconds or less to run our “go to” play at the game or half end. This can be done as easily at the beginning of the shot clock as at the end. We never, ever, run the weave in late game situations. It’s Geo holds the ball, runs down the clock and then makes his one on one play. In my opinion we could have and should have run that play right out of the time out. No reason to wait , or advantage in doing so.

If anything it's a disadvantage doing it at the end of the shot clock as the opposition knows if the shot clock gets closer to zero, overplay him because the step back is coming. You cant overplay early in the shot clock because Geo could blow past him. Again, idk why people are afraid to just say that pike made the wrong move last night. We won so people think it's okay though.

 

[S_Janowski]

You’re missing my point. It only takes us 9 seconds or less to run our “go to” play at the game or half end. This can be done as easily at the beginning of the shot clock as at the end. We never, ever, run the weave in late game situations. It’s Geo holds the ball, runs down the clock and then makes his one on one play. In my opinion we could have and should have run that play right out of the time out. No reason to wait , or advantage in doing so.

I’m not missing your point. When we run the Geo iso he usually shoots towards the latter of the shot clock not the first 9 seconds.

You might not think there’s a difference but there is.

 

[S_Janowski]

dude our iso play with geo is a 8-10 second play. There's literally no weave run to set it up lol. It's Geo holds the ball until there's 8-10 left on the shot clock and slowly dribbles in between his legs and steps back and shoots a 3. Pike ****ed up last night, people think it doesn't matter because we won but in no way shape or form was it the right move.

You’re right we don’t run the weave when we iso Geo.

But there’s still a big difference in having Geo take a shot within the first 9 seconds of a play as opposed to letting him get in his zone/dribble and giving him the freedom of putting up a shot or dishing it off when he’s comfortable. Harper got a clean look and if he hits that nobody is bitching about not going for the 2 for 1.

Pikiell needs to do a better job on the offensive side but to kill or critique him for not going for the 2 for 1 or encouraging our guys to go strong to the basket and getting FTs instead of chucking 3’s (which you did in another thread) is just piling on.

 

[RAC’emUp]

I’m not missing your point. When we run the Geo iso he usually shoots towards the latter of the shot clock not the first 9 seconds.

You might not think there’s a difference but there is.

You’re right. There is a difference. It’s harder to score when the shot clock is running down.

 

[Yeah Baby]

i knew that would be his answer but that is BS. And not how it played out at all !!! He had them stand around and go iso and got a low quality shot with no play run... there was plenty of time to do that earlier in the shot clock without being rushed at all. That was literally one of the worst basketball coaching calls I’ve ever wintessed

You’re dead wrong. Harper had a wide open 3 that was halfway down and came out. NW didn’t have enough time to get a good shot off. If we rush NW has more time and maybe wins the game. Having said that I probably don’t hold the ball there but we won so it worked.

 

[S_Janowski]

You’re right. There is a difference. It’s harder to score when the shot clock is running down.

Yea that’s just wrong lol.

You have a better chance of scoring if you let your team use 24 seconds of a shot clock vs. telling them they need to shoot within 9 seconds.

You don’t have to use the 24 seconds but that’s an extra 15 seconds to make something happen or find a cleaner shot.

 

[Yeah Baby]

He is a dog with a bone. He has proclaimed that Pike has reached his ceiling. So now it's going to be s*** like this all the time.

Or douche with a bag.

 

[phlop87]

Heres the thing youre missing. We inbound it with 54 seconds, so what do 99% of coaches in america do? They call timeout with 54 seconds left, not 48. Or they buzz it up to half in 2 seconds and call timeout with 52 seconds left and draw up a set for a 10 second shot. Its inexcusable, theres no excuse for it. You wont find a single basketball coach or analyst tell you other wise

Come on .. Your saying the only coach or analyst in the world who would play it the way Coach Pike did is Coach Pike ?

 

[S_Janowski]

If anything it's a disadvantage doing it at the end of the shot clock as the opposition knows if the shot clock gets closer to zero, overplay him because the step back is coming. You cant overplay early in the shot clock because Geo could blow past him. Again, idk why people are afraid to just say that pike made the wrong move last night. We won so people think it's okay though.

Saying there is a disadvantage in giving your team an extra 15 seconds (24 total) to find a clean shot vs. telling them they need to shoot within the first 9 seconds a bunch of bs. You’re better than that.

You have a lot better chance of getting a better shot in the span of 24 seconds vs. the span of 9 seconds and that’s the point a lot of people are trying to make.

 

[AshCatchEm]

Analytics don't back you up on the college game. Sorry kyk. It is very team and context dependant. In the nba it is a winning strategy

LMAO this is like saying analytics don't back up minor league baseball. Guess what? It's the same game. Of all the ridiculous comments..

 

[ScarletKid2008]

You’re dead wrong. Harper had a wide open 3 that was halfway down and came out. NW didn’t have enough time to get a good shot off. If we rush NW has more time and maybe wins the game. Having said that I probably don’t hold the ball there but we won so it worked.

Dead wrong? But in the same response said you wouldn't have held the ball either?

Rutgers called timeout with 48 seconds to go ..
You are in the huddle drawing up a play and tell the team, if option 1, 2, or 3 are available from this set, have the shot.
Plays don't take more than 8 seconds out of a timeout to run. 8 seconds is an eternity in basketball, its not rushed AT ALL. Especially when you have a set play!
You put up a shot with 40 seconds (or more) to go.
NW gains possession with 38 seconds to go.
That means they put up a shot with about 10-12 seconds left in the game.
RU either rebounds and has 10 seconds to get off a shot for the win or miss for the tie.
NW makes a shot and now you know exactly what you need to do, instead of if they make it .. you lose.

 

[RAC’emUp]

Yea that’s just wrong lol.

You have a better chance of scoring if you let your team use 24 seconds of a shot clock vs. telling them they need to shoot within 9 seconds.

You don’t have to use the 24 seconds but that’s an extra 15 seconds to make something happen or find a cleaner shot.

But we don’t use the clock to try to score in those 24 seconds! We sit on the ball. (I’m done with this conversation.)

 

[S_Janowski]

But we don’t use the clock to try to score in those 24 seconds! We sit on the ball. (I’m done with this conversation.)

But we didn’t just sit on the ball.

We used 22 seconds to get Harper a wide open look that went in and out lol.

 

[ScarletKid2008]

But we don’t use the clock to try to score in those 24 seconds! We sit on the ball. (I’m done with this conversation.)

Exactly... thats the difference of this whole argument.

If RU ran a play to TRY to get a look for a 2 for 1, but they didn't get a clean look and held it for the iso as a secondary option ... THEN it all totally makes basketball sense.

But to not even CONSIDER trying to run something to give yourself an opportunity for a 2 for 1 is the insanity. We just sat out there and said .. okay NW, you get the last licks on our home court.

Yes, it worked out. But not because of how it was played. Because NW missed and played their side of it terribly. Imagine the backlash if NW makes a shot there. Literally could have ended our NCAA hopes.

 

[phlop87]

Another thing that Pike may have taken into account is we were killing them on the offensive boards. Hold like we did, get a good shot from Harper. Then crash the boards if he misses and come away with another offensive rebound. Neither piece worked today but I'd imagine was part of the overall thinking

 

[Big boy stan]

Apparently this does not matter to some. It’s a very valid point. We’re not the type of team who can score in under 10 seconds.

This is the way I see the problem with the argument. Coach says he doesn't want to run 2 for 1 because he doesn't want to to rush but then bleeds the clock to the point that they run a play in a few seconds anyway. If he really doesn't want to rush the offense, the smart thing to do is come out of the timeout and run your normal offense right away. If, within the flow of your normal offense, you score in the first 10 secs after the timeout, you get the benefit of the 2 for 1. If it takes 20 seconds or more to get a scoring chance, you are no worse off then what he chose to do (bleeding the clock). Not sure of the downside to this.

Those of you that are defending the decision, what is the upside to running the play at the end of the shot clock instead of right out of the timeout?

 

[RUsojo]

Look Pike has got this one wrong and you can tell because it is BS coach speak to assume you will get two bad shots in a 2 for 1 situation just as it’s BS you’ll get 1 good shot if you opt not to.

 

[Yeah Baby]

Dead wrong? But in the same response said you wouldn't have held the ball either?

Rutgers called timeout with 48 seconds to go ..
You are in the huddle drawing up a play and tell the team, if option 1, 2, or 3 are available from this set, have the shot.
Plays don't take more than 8 seconds out of a timeout to run. 8 seconds is an eternity in basketball, its not rushed AT ALL. Especially when you have a set play!
You put up a shot with 40 seconds (or more) to go.
NW gains possession with 38 seconds to go.
That means they put up a shot with about 10-12 seconds left in the game.
RU either rebounds and has 10 seconds to get off a shot for the win or miss for the tie.
NW makes a shot and now you know exactly what you need to do, instead of if they make it .. you lose.

You’re wrong that we didn’t get a good shot. He was wide open. If he shut earlier we still don’t have time for a 2 for 1. We get 2 bad shots instead of 1 wide open great look.

they would have had more time and gotten a good shot instead of that one handed 20 ft floater in traffic. I have to go back and read what you said earlier but when I read it I thought you were dead wrong.

I wouldn’t have held the ball up top either but the results were favorable. That’s why I’m not coaching lol

 

[Yeah Baby]

i knew that would be his answer but that is BS. And not how it played out at all !!! He had them stand around and go iso and got a low quality shot with no play run... there was plenty of time to do that earlier in the shot clock without being rushed at all. That was literally one of the worst basketball coaching calls I’ve ever wintessed

Just read it again and you’re dead wrong. Great shot there. Right call by Pike if we do the math.

 

[biazza38]

would it be better to get harper 2 shots like that or 1 shot like that because we can get that look at any time.

You can’t get two shots off like that in 2 rushed 10 second set. Not happening. I understand your point. I do. But if everything goes well, they get two rushed/low quality 10 second possessions. And that’s if everything goes right. Keep in mind NU probably would bring their guard up on the second possession to offer some sort of passive press to take time off. So you’re really looking at maybe 7 seconds for the second possession.

 

[Scangg]

The best part is we are assuming everything goes right for us. which is not realistic.

For instance, lets say we get same out outcome a ron miss just 10 seconds earlier. Boui instead of taking a terrible shot, Northwestern gets a good shot and actually scores leaving us with 8 seconds to rush. Or maybe bouie doesnt make a shot but NW gets the rebound and they get two possessions to close out the game with 8 seconds left instead of only one. We are also assuming Ron would have gotten the same shot, open standing still 3, if we do start earlier... who knows. Pikiell has been consistent all year. Control what you can control. Defend and rebound.

After sleeping on it, with the time left there was maybe time to start 2, 3 or 4 seconds earlier in the play. but that doesn't really make a difference.

The point is we won a game in which we were down 18. The guys battled back, got stops when we needed them, hit big shots, finally showed some life on offense down the stretch of games..but we are going to kill the coaching staff.

This is the exact opposite of what actually happens. The reason you go 2 for 1 is to give you a chance to win if everything DOESN'T go right for you. We won this game but if we just went to the Geo iso early we would have had a second shot to win in regulation. Instead we gave Northwestern a chance with the last shot to win. Just bc we won doesn't mean it was the right call. There is a reason the 2 for 1 is a thing.

Saying there is a disadvantage in giving your team an extra 15 seconds (24 total) to find a clean shot vs. telling them they need to shoot within the first 9 seconds a bunch of bs. You’re better than that.

You have a lot better chance of getting a better shot in the span of 24 seconds vs. the span of 9 seconds and that’s the point a lot of people are trying to make.

You keep going to this "more time for a shot" argument which goes right out the window when you use that time to just kill the clock and wait till the end of the shot clock to start the offense

But we didn’t just sit on the ball.

We used 22 seconds to get Harper a wide open look that went in and out lol.

We did just sit on the ball. Watch it again. Geo is in no rush just running the clock down

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Saying there is a disadvantage in giving your team an extra 15 seconds (24 total) to find a clean shot vs. telling them they need to shoot within the first 9 seconds a bunch of bs. You’re better than that.

You have a lot better chance of getting a better shot in the span of 24 seconds vs. the span of 9 seconds and that’s the point a lot of people are trying to make.

your arguement holds water if we are moving the ball, setting screens, etc..... We just had Geo stand (wasting time) before going with 9 seconds left.

 

[RUsojo]

This should be a short thread not 100 posts.

 

[Scangg]

Exactly... thats the difference of this whole argument.

If RU ran a play to TRY to get a look for a 2 for 1, but they didn't get a clean look and held it for the iso as a secondary option ... THEN it all totally makes basketball sense.

But to not even CONSIDER trying to run something to give yourself an opportunity for a 2 for 1 is the insanity. We just sat out there and said .. okay NW, you get the last licks on our home court.

Yes, it worked out. But not because of how it was played. Because NW missed and played their side of it terribly. Imagine the backlash if NW makes a shot there. Literally could have ended our NCAA hopes.

It's really simple. I'm kind of disappointed at the boards lack if bball knowledge on this one honestly. This shouldn't be controversial or much of a debate

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

You’re right we don’t run the weave when we iso Geo.

But there’s still a big difference in having Geo take a shot within the first 9 seconds of a play as opposed to letting him get in his zone/dribble and giving him the freedom of putting up a shot or dishing it off when he’s comfortable. Harper got a clean look and if he hits that nobody is bitching about not going for the 2 for 1.

Pikiell needs to do a better job on the offensive side but to kill or critique him for not going for the 2 for 1 or encouraging our guys to go strong to the basket and getting FTs instead of chucking 3’s (which you did in another thread) is just piling on.

wouldn't it be more advantageous to do this with 30 or 24 on the shot clock as opposed to 9? Wouldn't he have more time to comfortably dish it earlier in the shot clock? Look it was the wrong move, it's hard to argue otherwise.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

This should be a short thread not 100 posts.

haha exactly. We're not arguing rocket science. It's literally 1+1= 2. as opposed to 1+0=1

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

But we didn’t just sit on the ball.

We used 22 seconds to get Harper a wide open look that went in and out lol.

I suggest you rewatch the play as I just did. Ron and Myles came up. Geo wanted to go iso, when he saw the help side defender cheating he dished it to ron. It wasn't a good play design, I mean it simply wasn't a play at all, it was simply dishing to an open guy who was standing still for 5 seconds.

 

[S_Janowski]

your arguement holds water if we are moving the ball, setting screens, etc..... We just had Geo stand (wasting time) before going with 9 seconds left.

Yea but we still would of had 15 seconds to get a clean shot if Harper isnt open when he gets the ball from Geo.

I’m sure everyone (including NW ) thought Geo was taking that shot. You have a lot better chance of getting a clean shot in 24 seconds vs. 9 seconds. That’s the point im trying to make.

I’m not opposed to going 2 for 1 there but also don’t think it was a must and think it’s ridiculous people are crucifying Pikiell for how he called it.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

It's really simple. I'm kind of disappointed at the boards lack if bball knowledge on this one honestly. This shouldn't be controversial or much of a debate

I feel like I'm in the twilight zone. I now know what it must feel like to be a PSU fan condeming Joe Pa while the looneys are saying he did nothing wrong.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

Yea but we still had 15 seconds to get a clean shot if Harper is open when he gets the ball from Geo.

I’m sure everyone (including NW ) thought Geo was taking that shot. You have a lot better chance of getting a clean shot in 24 seconds vs. 9 seconds. That’s the point im trying to make.

I’m not opposed to going 2 for 1 there but also don’t think it was a must and think it’s ridiculous people are crucifying Pikiell for how he called it.

but here's the thing, we did nothing to even utilize the 24 seconds to help us LOL. Watch the replay. Geo dribbles without moving from the Block R at center court from 48.3 seconds to 34 seconds, whats the reasoning for that? Does it help us? I'm going to give you the answer here, it's no. This thread should've ended after like 5 posts where we all agreed it was dumb how pike handled that.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

Exactly... thats the difference of this whole argument.

If RU ran a play to TRY to get a look for a 2 for 1, but they didn't get a clean look and held it for the iso as a secondary option ... THEN it all totally makes basketball sense.

But to not even CONSIDER trying to run something to give yourself an opportunity for a 2 for 1 is the insanity. We just sat out there and said .. okay NW, you get the last licks on our home court.

Yes, it worked out. But not because of how it was played. Because NW missed and played their side of it terribly. Imagine the backlash if NW makes a shot there. Literally could have ended our NCAA hopes.

this basically nails it every which way. Great post

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

1. No one is crucifing Pikiell
2. Normally I would agree with your case...forcing 2 for 1s have a tendency to go bad

 

[RUsince52]

Just use the sheet that football coach's have when deciding on a 2 point conversation. Of course, might not want to use ours to play it safe.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

It's really simple. I'm kind of disappointed at the boards lack if bball knowledge on this one honestly. This shouldn't be controversial or much of a debate

I disagree here...I think it is debatable. I just happen to agree with you.

If you really want to get analytical.....
1. If we do score it gives NW less time to do the score and foul thing
2. We OREB 1/2 of our misses. Who is to say we don't collect the miss?

But again while it was happening I was surprised it wasn't a 2 for 1.

I like debates.

 

[Scangg]

Yea but we still would of had 15 seconds to get a clean shot if Harper isnt open when he gets the ball from Geo.

I’m sure everyone (including NW ) thought Geo was taking that shot. You have a lot better chance of getting a clean shot in 24 seconds vs. 9 seconds. That’s the point im trying to make.

I’m not opposed to going 2 for 1 there but also don’t think it was a must and think it’s ridiculous people are crucifying Pikiell for how he called it.

25 seconds vs 9 seconds... now stand and dribble near half court until there is 9 seconds. Ends up being the same. I'm starting to wonder if you watched the game or not.