Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Official Game Thread -- CU v #18 SMU

Buffnik said:
Blaming within 1 game is appropriate. Just because a stat is irrelevant over a season in the macro doesn't mean it's irrelevant on a given night.

Last night, if the Buffs and SMU each hit a typical 70% then CU picks up 4 points and SMU loses 2 points. It was a big deal.

It shouldn't overshadow what @Rugged is stressing, though. Buffs didn't make shots from inside 10 feet while SMU made theirs. I'm hoping that our front court was just having one of those nights with dead legs with their 4th game in 6 days after having to carry the team the night before.
Click to expand...

If you say that last nights loss was b/c of FT's you have to say CU got lucky against Penn St. B/c of FT's then.

BTW I'm completely agreeing with @Rugged 44-18 is way more telling than picking up a couple points from FT's.
 
cu2x said:
Larry's too old to know or care at this point.
Click to expand...

FWIW: I'm 67 and won 3 criminal jury trials this month, all against DAs in their late 20s/early 30s who, apparently like yourself, think they are pretty clever, based on their youth. Most of you morons who engage in age-bias are just afraid of aging yourselves. Grow up boy.[/QUOTE]

Ease down, hoss. If you knew my age you wouldn't have jumped to the age conclusion. My point was SMU basketball is a bought program. Just like Baylor.
 
I didn't have the opportunity to watch much this year until the SMU game. I liked most of what I saw. This is likely Tad's most athletic team. Good chemistry. Fortune has the build and skills to be a force. I'm looking for him to improve as he continues to find his place on the floor (or clear it out for himself). The bad is pretty evident to everyone. We have got to find a way to get some more shots at the rim. But, overall, I'm really excited to see what this team can do in conference.
 
azbuff said:
I didn't have the opportunity to watch much this year until the SMU game. I liked most of what I saw. This is likely Tad's most athletic team. Good chemistry. Fortune has the build and skills to be a force. I'm looking for him to improve as he continues to find his place on the floor (or clear it out for himself). The bad is pretty evident to everyone. We have got to find a way to get some more shots at the rim. But, overall, I'm really excited to see what this team can do in conference.
Click to expand...

I was just looking into this this morning. You can't shoot 37.5% at the rim in the 1/2 court and win many games.

Screen Shot 2015-12-27 at 10.23.58 AM.png
 
jgisland said:
I was just looking into this this morning. You can't shoot 37.5% at the rim in the 1/2 court and win many games.

View attachment 18385
Click to expand...

Great data. Thanks, jg. Just one of those nights when the team doesn't make shots it usually makes. Credit SMU for swarming defense and athleticism disrupting things. I hope that what we saw with this (and foul shooting) was a matter of dead legs from the 4th game in 6 days and they just didn't have the quick ups or normal feel for things. There's a chance that it's not that but a case of getting intimidated and frustrated by a team that is able to out-athlete them, which would be very worrisome.
 
Buffnik said:
Great data. Thanks, jg. Just one of those nights when the team doesn't make shots it usually makes. Credit SMU for swarming defense and athleticism disrupting things. I hope that what we saw with this (and foul shooting) was a matter of dead legs from the 4th game in 6 days and they just didn't have the quick ups or normal feel for things. There's a chance that it's not that but a case of getting intimidated and frustrated by a team that is able to out-athlete them, which would be very worrisome.
Click to expand...

We'll have a pretty good answer to that on New Years Day.
 
DBT said:
Any idea what the first half/second half breakdowns were? It seems like we made adjustments and were much better in the second half. At least defensively.
Click to expand...

SMU scored 24 points in the paint in the first half, 20 in the 2nd.
 
scoob said:
We'll have a pretty good answer to that on New Years Day.
Click to expand...

I knew Cal was athletic, but they straight made UVA look so slow and physically limited. Granted, much of that game was UVA having a horrendous shooting night, but Cal shredded the pack line for long portions of the game. I guess the good news is I'm pretty sure Cal will still be inconsistent due to youth, but the bad news is the proven way to shut Cal down is to play zone.
 
CVilleBuff said:
I knew Cal was athletic, but they straight made UVA look so slow and physically limited. Granted, much of that game was UVA having a horrendous shooting night, but Cal shredded the pack line for long portions of the game. I guess the good news is I'm pretty sure Cal will still be inconsistent due to youth, but the bad news is the proven way to shut Cal down is to play zone.
Click to expand...

There was some talk on the rivals board about tad using more zone. My feed went out in the second half so I missed about 6 minutes, but I only saw one possession where we went zone and it was coming out of a timeout. It worked then but usually when we run it it looks pretty clear we're out of sorts and don't practice it much. Did we actually run multiple possessions in zone against SMU?
 
PuebloBuff said:
There was some talk on the rivals board about tad using more zone. My feed went out in the second half so I missed about 6 minutes, but I only saw one possession where we went zone and it was coming out of a timeout. It worked then but usually when we run it it looks pretty clear we're out of sorts and don't practice it much. Did we actually run multiple possessions in zone against SMU?
Click to expand...
Yes- I seem to recall at least 3 possessions; when we took the lead late in the 2nd and built a small cushion.
 
Hat tip to @jgisland on this one - CU is leading the nation in opponent's shooting percentage at the rim - they're only making 48%. Conversely, we're allowing 55% from the left corner 3 and 47% from the right corner 3.

Perimeter defense has to step up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top