Virginia Tech 66, Boston College 65: Finney-Smith's Putback Sinks Eagles
by Brian Favat on Feb 13, 2012 8:40 AM EST
in Boston College Basketball
Email
PrintWith such a young team this season, there is less of an emphasis on wins and losses. That said, it doesn't make losing like this any easier.
Virginia Tech's Dorian Finney-Smith's tap in with 1.8 seconds left lifted the Hokies to a dramatic 66-65 win at Cassell Coliseum last night. On the ensuing possession, Lonnie Jackson attempted a desperation three from just inside the halfcourt line that clanked off the back rim and Virginia Tech escaped with a win.
Despite the set back, BC played one of its best games of the season. There was improvement in all facets of the Eagles game.
Ball movement was improved, leading to some easy dunks down low. The Eagles shot the ball well from the floor, shooting a season high 24-of-53 from the floor (55.8 percent), the highest field goal percentage the Hokies have allowed all season. BC also made a total of nine three pointers and shot over 40 percent from behind the arc.
The Eagles also did a good job of protecting the basketball, finishing with a season low 10 turnovers.
The defense was improved, as the Eagles held the Hokies to 27-60 shooting from the floor, and played good position defense. BC even hit each of their first eight shots from the charity stripe.
All good, except for one key stat on the scoresheet: rebounds.
The Eagles got crushed on the glass all afternoon, giving up a total of 16 offensive rebounds, managing just four of their own, and losing the rebounding margin 30-19. BC put together their best offensive performance of the season but were undone on the boards, culminating in Finney-Smith's offensive putback with 1.8 seconds left.
Tough to watch the Eagles squander a 10-point lead, but chalk this up as another learning experience for this young team. The good news is that this team has come a long way in a very short time. BC figures to be a tough out the rest of the way and no ACC program is gonna want to draw the Eagles in the first round of the ACC Tournament.
Player of the game: Ryan Anderson, who finished with a team-high 17 points, seven rebounds and shot 6-7 from the floor.
BC is back in action on Thursday night as they face the the 14-10 Maryland Terrapins in College Park. The Terps (4-6) are coming off a 73-55 loss to Duke on Saturday. If the Eagles play as well as they have over the past few games, BC could very well spring the upset and notch their first road win of the season down in College Park.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I know Brian already said this, but I would take Steve Donahue over Seth Greenberg 10 times out of 10. Last night was an exciting game, and I noticed on Twitter that not only were BC fans talking about it, but I saw a lot of national guys taking attention to it as well.
We probably should temper expectations, but I still think next year is going to be an exciting season for bball.
Writer at BC Interruption SBN's Boston College Eagles blog
Follow me on Twitter
Greenberg
You are dead on. Greenberg is a great recruiter but his teams always underperform. I can’t see VTech keeping him after this season.
Even though they lost, you have to be happy with a lot of things that happened last night. The ball movement was the best it’s been all year. Clifford bounced back from the past two games where he struggled. Anderson was great, establishing him in the post is something they need to do for the rest of the year. Humphrey took his normal 6 atrocious shots, but he gave 100% effort this game. He tends to dog it a bit if he doesn’t get a foul call or misses a shot. Not last night, great effort.
If they can keep this up for the rest of the year, it’s going to be fun to watch this year. I still think Donahue needs three more players (two atheltic guards who can get to the rim) and another PF/C. With that said anyone that’s watched this team all year has to feel good about the improvement they’ve made since the ACC schedule started. There’s still work to do, rebounding transition defense, etc. But they are moving in the right direction.
by tmcgoldrick80 on Feb 13, 2012 11:04 AM EST up reply actions
element of surprise
It definitely was a very nice performance to watch, on the road in the ACC. BC is really starting to look good, gel, play smart, and definitely has some talent. But…
if you’ve got a weakness, and you know it, then you need to figure out how to mask or compensate for that weakness. So, BC definitely has a rebounding weakness and Donahue knows it (it was his main point at his halftime interview). So if there’s 10 seconds remaining in a 1 pt game, you’d think THE NUMBER 1 THING YOU’D BE TALKING ABOUT IN THE HUDDLE is boxing out on the defensive boards. Yup, they’re going to get a shot off, and it may or may not go in, but if it doesn’t, FOR GOD’S SAKES, box out, get the board and don’t give them a 2nd chance. Not only did Va Tech get the tip in, but there were 3 Va Tech guys under the basket (it was literally surrounded by Hokies), 1 BC player, and NONE of the Va Tech guys were being boxed out. SERIOUSLY?
I am currently reading Sun Tzu’s, “Art of War,” and one of the primary maxim’s therein is the element of surprise (deception, etc.). I seriously thought it would have been a great idea to come out of the 10.8 second timeout in a different defense, a new lokk, a surprise. That could have been a zone defense – which we might have played 10% of the game (if that), and which is supposed to set you up for better defensive rebounding, or a box and one
technical difficulties
don’t want to leave the wrong impression – my last paragraph got cut-off in posting.
the box and one would have likely taken away the player their play was designed for AND ensured better rebounding position. The mere fact you’re in an unanticipated defense may result in a botched play and desperation shot. And, why didn’t we put another big body in there? Why not insert KC Caudill? He’s 6’10", a wide body, our most “physically mature” big man. No, we have skin and bones 6’5", 6’7" forwards in the game, while all fo Va Tech’s front line is taller and bigger.
All of that said, I AM on-board with Donahue, his coaching, our ever improving play, etc. and definitely think the future is bright. But that last 10 seconds was inexcusable and is definitely subject to some critical analysis and criticism.
Someone suggested yesterday possibly fouling the Hokies with 10.8 seconds left and sending them to the line. Not sure if I agree with that, given Tech’s strength down low and their penchant for converting the bucket and the foul 1-2 times in the second half.
But it would have been an interesting strategy.
The Hokies last possession was a bit of an offensive breakdown on VT’s part though. Daniels played good D on the VT player driving the lane, and the 3-point attempt wasn’t a very good one. It was a fluky put back in my mind.
You can obviously pin the loss on the last 10 seconds, or Daniels missing the front end of the 1:1, but those two plays weren’t really indicative of how BC played in either of those two facets of the entire game. E.g. leading up to Daniels missing the front end of the 1:1, BC was 8-8 from the line … and BC struggled to box out all game and was getting killed on the boards all day, but was able to force a long three attempt. Ball just didn’t bounce BC’s way in the end.
Editor, BC Interruption
Jackson was still playing the ball. He probably couldn’t get a square box out on Finney-Smith, but he still could have gotten a body on him and made the play more difficult. He and Humphrey play the ball too much instead of locating a man to box out. Cliford just needs to get stronger, he has trouble establishing position and gets pushed around a lot. If he puts on muscle he will be a much better rebouder
But you are right, there were 15 other instances were they could have stopped second chance points. If they get defensive rebounds, they win this game. It’s really the only reason VTech stayed in the game.
by tmcgoldrick80 on Feb 13, 2012 11:08 AM EST up reply actions
A zone is not supposed to set up your defense for better defensive rebounding. Completely opposite in fact.
ahh, wrong
a zone defense is definitely better for defensive rebounding because, in theory, you already have the basket surrounded with defensive players. In man to man, you don’t necessarily have that buitl in advantage, it’s dependent where you and your man are when a shot goes up. In both instances though, you have to to first identify the offensive players near the basket and put a body on them. Some coaches don’t like the zone because the defender has responsibility for an area and there is less emphasis on “your man” and players have a tendency to turn towards the basket for the ball rather than identify an offensive player and box out. In a man, you know who you have resposibility for and the defender is less apt to lose focus on that man.
But if played correctly, the zone is supposed to give the defensive team a rebounding advantage.
Zone may help rebounding by your theory but as you said it leads to poor boxing out
And the fact that we didnt box out and keep the guy away from the basket for the put back was what lost us the game
Just not true. What if there are 2 men in a player’s area? Which person does he box out? Another one will be left free.
Man, it’s straight forward and much easier for the team to box out every single opposing player. Playing zone and simply having players around the basket doesn’t mean you are going to be a better defensive rebounding team.
many, many positives...
but in the end, you box out, you win. THAT, Brian, should have been the first, last and central point made in that huddle at 10.8 secs. Also, insert your best defensive rebounders, and play a defense which maximizes your chance to rebound. Sure, there are other things to go over, but knowing Va Tech WILL get a shot off, keeping them off the boardsis THE THING at that point in time.
No one’s suggesting we dump Donahue Brian, by why can’t you bring yourself to state the obvious?
Watch the play again
There weren’t three Hokies under the basket. Finney-Smith is the only VT player that can get to that ball. Clifford ends up out of position boxing out … well, no one … and you have 6-3 Lonnie Jackson on 6-7 Finney-Smith. Anderson had Davila boxed out and out of the play. Humphrey kept Hudson away from the glass.
All I’m suggesting is you can pin the loss on the final 26.2 seconds (miss the front end of the 1:1) or the last 10.2 (the tip-in), but that hardly tells the entire story. The final play was WAY more fluky than you are letting on.
BC gave up 15 other offensive rebounds on the night and was perfect from the line up until Daniels misses the team’s final FT attempt. If you want to point to a play that lost the game, many of those other 15 second-chance opportunities for VT contributed just as much to the loss as the final play.
BC got killed on the glass all night. The final play was hardly the most egregious example of this.
Editor, BC Interruption
by Brian Favat on Feb 13, 2012 10:15 AM EST up reply actions
Just tough breaks during the final minute.
- Jordan losing control of the ball out of bounds so we don’t even get a shot when we’re up 4.
- Clifford’s momentum carrying him into a foul (which was questionable) on the V-Tech and 1
- Jordan missing the front end of the 1-and-1
- A rebound that landed soft enough for an easy tip-in. Box out or no box out, if that shot clanks off the back iron Tech probably doesn’t get a good look at all.
In any other year I’d be fuming over a loss like that but since this is all about development, I was pleased with most of what I saw. A loss still hurts but this team is getting better during ACC-play, something we didn’t know if they were going to do back in early January.
His two feet looked awfully shaky. It was close.
I don’t fault the refs for not making that call, but it was a jump step and some hesitation created by Daniels D.
Editor, BC Interruption
yup
I agree Brian that there were many other plays in the game, and specifically in the last 90 secs, which also could have ensured victory. But my comment(s) is only on the last 10.8 secs. No need to debate just how bad we played those 10.8 secs – you think it was somewhat flukey; I think it could have and should have, been WAY better played.
All in all, it was another step forward for an improving team and we all agree the future is looking bright. But this team needs to get better at playing “the big points” (tennis analogy). No matter what the sport, at the highest levels of competion, it is how you play the big points that make the difference btw winning and losing. I know we all say that wins and losses don’t matter much this year, but at this point in the year, I don’t think there’s 1 player on that team that would agree – that game, and all of our games, matter to them, A LOT.
BOX OUT!!!
Before In the Middle and After
Practice shooting Free throws.
Bring in Dennis Rodman as an assistant coach teacher for a few weeks next fall without his wedding dress and teach the big kids how to box out and rebound…
KC Caudill definitely needs to loose some tonnage and get quicker.
BMD needs to just get stronger.
Just look how far these kids have come under a Coaches Coach so far?
I bet they put together some real solid efforts down the stretch and give Duke a real battle if BMD can stay in the game and KC can smack and bump Duke’s big men.
GO EAGLES!!
Before In the Middle and After practice that is!
Gotta get this team to 75-80% and over 80-85 in the next two years!
So many NCAA games including the tourney come down to free throws.
Those early games when NC State was a few possessions behind in the 1983 Tourney where Valvano fouled over and over and the other teams missed front ends on 1&1’s, led to them advancing with a few miracle wins and then…. BOOM…. DESTINY and HISTORY and a Title.
This team got hustle in their DNA. All we need is time and more talent!
design v. execution
Baldwin and Hoya – all I said is a zone is DESIGNED to give the defensive team better rebounding position. That IS the design, which Hoya gets wrong. We can discuss execution all you want, but in design, if executed properly, which still requires you to identify and box out offensive players, you should rebound better when playing a zone.
Hoya – you can postulate all you want about 2 guys in your zone – why not make it 4 guys or 5? – but this isn’t football where receivers might flood a zone. In a zone, by definition, the defense should have more players around the basket. Is that always the case? Maybe not, but by design, it will be the case more than it is when playing man to man.
It’s tedious to argue a basic tenet of basketball when you are just flat-out wrong as to which defense SHOULD result in better defensive rebounding. If you want to say man to man was the better defense in that situation, and if we had properly executed, i.e. boxed out, we would have won, that’s a different argument and you would be correct. But we all have already acknowledged that. I then suggested a zone might have been a better choice and you have incorrectly attacked the basis for that argument. Again, you’re wrong Hoya and this is tedious and moot. Out.
rcmbc81, more people around the basket doesn’t equal better defensive rebounding.
One of the weakness of the 2-3 zone is defensive rebounding…any person who knows a lick about basketball knows this. There are many advantages of zone defenses, but rebounding is simply not one of them.
Thanks for showing us all how little you know about the fundamentals of basketball.
for further evidence see syracuse’s famous 2-3 zone… and their huge rebounding issues despite how good a defensive team they are
yup, poor execution
Syracuse are all McDonalds AA so they never had to put a body on someone to get a defensive board. You guys are pointing out the flaws in execution, not design. In either defense, you have to box out. That said, it should be easier in a zone because you’re prepositioned to be in better rebounding position – close to the basket and inside the offensive player. Still have to box out.
Syracuse is a bad example b/c besides being undisciplined, as someone already pointed out about Donahue, Boeheim likes to run. He’ll have 2-3 guys release and expect 1-2 guys to pull down the rebound and hit the outlet pass. And he expects 1-2 guys to be able to get the rebound because he has true bigs and they’re in a zone. He isn’t going to change that because likes the zone for other defensive reasons and he is always going to want to run.
Just not going to agree on this one and that’s fine. But it is widely known that teams that run 2-3 zones struggle with defensive rebounding, even fantastic teams like Syracuse.
the finger nobody seems to be pointing
is at clifford (our 7 foot center) who had a total of 2 rebounds last night. Someone mentioned earlier how he improved over his last two games, but the entire reason for that was because he had good spacing and off ball movement on offense which allowed daniels to drive and give up two BEAUTIFUL passes to him for those big dunks. However, although he knows how to step into the open lane to get good position on offense, he wasn’t doing anything to get position when shots when up last night. Right now anderson is a much better rebounder, partly because he’s more athletic and partly because he has a better sense for putting himself in a position to come up with those boards. We are a guard shoot first team that benefits from his presence down low, but until he can make an impact in the paint on the defensive end (besides drawing fouls) we aren’t going to be able to take the next step (i.e., winning consistently).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on BC Interruption
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
