Discussion in 'Colorado Basketball Message Board' started by Buffnik, Jan 21, 2012.
Do you like this policy?
Don't like it at all. Last I checked, points count the same whether they are scored in the first minute of the game or last minute of the game. By benching a player for having too many fouls, you are unnecessarily limiting his production and thus the production of the team. I'd rather have a star player play 20 minutes and foul out 5 minutes into the second half than only play 15 minutes but be in there for the last couple minutes, particularly when the guy is not a great free throw shooter (this is general-speak, I know Dre played 25 minutes tonight). Also, note that Dre only ended up with 3 fouls, something that often happens when players get in early foul trouble. Basically I'm against benching a player for being in foul trouble in pretty much any situation, unless he is being benched for the fouls being part of a larger problem with the player's play in a particular game or is playing scared because of the fouls and letting in easy buckets.
#1 - Allowing your best players (especially defensive/rebounding players) to play with a little more abandon in the second half because they're not in immediate foul trouble is a good thing.
#2 - There really is no number two ... I believe that Tad Boyle may be the best thing that's happened to CU sports since Bill McCartney ... and it took him four frickin years to actually show some sucess.
So ... lighten up Francis. :nod:
Why not tell them to play with that same abandon in the first half? It all counts the same in the end. Love Tad and think he's doing great things here but just like any coach, there are things he can do better IMO.
Do points count the same in the first and second halves? Absolutely. However, even a stat guy will tell you that higher-leverage possessions tend to exist in the second frame. You get two fouls, you sit. It's sound basketball.
If 'Dre had picked up a Pac-12, bull**** 3rd foul late in the first, we wouldn't have seen him til the 15-12 minute mark in the 2nd half. His defense out of the gate after intermission was key.
Also, never question Coach Boyle. #RollTad
Yes, I agree with sitting a player for a period of time after getting a 2nd first-half foul. I don't know if riding the pine until halftime is always the right thing to do, but you have to get the player off the court so they don't pick up #3.
IMO the value of those higher leverage situations is overrated. Playing a guy 5 less minutes than he should get is worth quite a bit more than the tiny extra value of those possessions. You might be able to argue that a guy who is a great free throw shooter will be worth enough to make up for that at the end (both due to end-game fouling and also because they can get to the line on non-shooting fouls once you're in the bonus) or a guy who is a great 3 point shooter can be worth more if you're behind and need 3s to catch up, but Dre doesn't fit either of those descriptions.
With regards to your second paragraph, I disagree with sitting him in that situation too.
You know what's great? CU basketball is relevant again. We can agree or disagree about the finer points ... but the fact is that several of us actually care about the state of the program. I'm not sure that was the situation three or four years ago.
In short .. GO BUFFS!!! :thumbsup:
You obviously sit the guy at first, but you can't let a tie game when the player goes out with 4 minutes left in the 1st half turn into a 12 point deficit at halftime. There are certainly situations out there where you need to take the risk and put them in for the last couple minutes of a half.
It's nice. Our two remaining Saturday home games are against the two teams that we trail by 1/2 a game in the conference so they're going to be important and hopefully we can sell out the Foam Dome for those two games.
If you can avoid falling too far behind without a key player than its completely worth it. I guarantee that Tad had an eye on the rebounding numbers and the score obviously and if either started to get out of hand I think he would've put Dre back in. But Andre's D in the second half made the difference in the game and if he would've gotten a 3rd in the first half theres a good chance we wouldn't have seen him down the stretch. Don't EVER question Tad Boyle.
i like that he has a principle. i think with as few fouls we have to give in the paint...or how we struggle to score the rock from the perimeter at times.....i might be more "situational". but, last time i checked....no one was paying me to coach basketball.
This is completely a situational decision and Tad made the right call with Dre and this team. If Simba was playing at a higher level or if Cain was still on this team you may give Dre a little leeway and hope he doesn't pick up that 3rd foul knowing you had other options. But that isn't reality with this team, Dre is needed out there in the 2nd half, there just isn't that front court depth (even though Dre is a guard :huh for Dre not to be in there during crunch time.
Its a good philosophy as long as you don't become stubborn with it...protects you defensively in the second half.
If you have a chance to get way behind in the first half and the player with 2 fouls is the key to keeping it close, you have to gamble. But, I think you are more willing to gamble going for a conference title later in the year or in the conference tournament than you are in the middle of the conference season.
Everything should be situational.
I know there is a lot of commentary in the NBA revolving around this topic and Bynum. Recently teams have done everything they can to get Bynum to pick up two early fouls knowing that Mike Brown will sit him. He changes the game and when he goes out all offense has to flow through Bryant. Many would argue he should stay in, because it changes how they Lakers play. No one really cares to see Metta play the outside game, or bumble around in the paint. It just isn't effective.
You see Stan Van Gundy operating a different philosophy with Dwight. When Dwight gets into Foul trouble, he is too important to the team. He is taken out, but he comes back in if the team isn't operating very well or if they need to stop the bleeding.
Both these situations revolve around the offensive side of the ball. Dre is important to us on offense, but is he Dwight Howard important? I would argue with the way Austin has been playing he is not. Tad has been using him in the second half because of his importance to us on the defense in the second half.
So, basically I support Tad's decision. Dre needs to make his impact defensively in the second half when our offense dies.
Roy Williams pulled Harrison Barnes tonight when he picked up his 2nd foul with 10 mins left in the first half. It was fairly close at the time, with UNC leading by 12ish with 6:30 left in the half he put him back in.
Clearly Roy doesn't have a hard and fast rule, but according to thebasketballdistribution.com UNC has the 11th best starting 5 and a pretty decent bench to fall back on. Obviously there are a lot of factors that go into this, Barnes isn't having a first team all-american year like was projected, but he isn't a guy you want on the bench in crunch time.
Separate names with a comma.