Game Thread: Xavier v Creighton University (1/29/2022)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjf123

Yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Ha!

Guess I take back everything I said. Nah, that 1st half was a sh!t show. The 2nd half on the other hand smelled so much nicer. For those wondering (and I know there are many) the 5th grade St. Ignatius Wildcats bested St. Pius 42-29. Started slow, turned it on and dominated. Hummnn, sounds familiar. Oh and a total of 37 layups were missed. But I might have missed a few.

Doesn't matter if it's coaching or talent. Winning covers your ass. Ask Joe Torre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xudash

So, is it the coach or is it the shooters?

Is good shooting in this case still masking poor coaching decisions, or did the coach manage a good outcome with the shooters finally connecting?

---

I am sincerely looking for some input into this question, given the severity of criticism that Steele faces sometimes (and I understand the criticism).

Here is a tidbit from the post game article:

As Xavier sprinted to a 19-0 run to start the second half, Steele decided to ride his starting lineup – Scruggs, Johnson, Jones, Freemantle and Nunge – for nearly the first 13 minutes of the half.

"We were on such a big run, we just let it roll," said Steele. "Zach finally asked to come out, he was gassed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xudash

I am sincerely looking for some input into this question, given the severity of criticism that Steele faces sometimes (and I understand the criticism).

Here is a tidbit from the post game article:

As Xavier sprinted to a 19-0 run to start the second half, Steele decided to ride his starting lineup – Scruggs, Johnson, Jones, Freemantle and Nunge – for nearly the first 13 minutes of the half.

"We were on such a big run, we just let it roll," said Steele. "Zach finally asked to come out, he was gassed.

---

I wish I knew. MOR had an interesting thought. Maybe we ought to shrink the bench further by letting the starters play more minutes. Perhaps they would play more relaxed if they didn't feel rushed to do damage early in the game, before they get pulled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jumpin_Jamal_Forever

I wish I knew. MOR had an interesting thought. Maybe we ought to shrink the bench further by letting the starters play more minutes. Perhaps they would play more relaxed if they didn't feel rushed to do damage early in the game, before they get pulled.

---

Yup. Duh coach tight pants.

Went to the game today. First half was God awful. Tale of two halves for sure. If Creighton doesn’t go super cold in the second half then Xavier loses this game. Cannot put yourself in a 17-point hole against good teams and expect to win. Need to be more consistent if going to compete with the top echelon of teams in the Big East. Xavier showed a lot of heart today in a hostile environment. They deserve credit where credit is due. Hopefully they can build on the momentum from the second half of this game!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xudash

I am sincerely looking for some input into this question, given the severity of criticism that Steele faces sometimes (and I understand the criticism).

Here is a tidbit from the post game article:

As Xavier sprinted to a 19-0 run to start the second half, Steele decided to ride his starting lineup – Scruggs, Johnson, Jones, Freemantle and Nunge – for nearly the first 13 minutes of the half.

"We were on such a big run, we just let it roll," said Steele. "Zach finally asked to come out, he was gassed.

---

That was a GOOD coaching decision IMO to leave the lineup in there as long as they could. But there have been times when i really don't understand why he subs the way he does. Such as in the 1st half. In first half Steele did one of his patented "line changes", where he subbed in Odom, Kunkle, and Hunter all at the same time, taking out Scruggs, Jones and Johnson. IF I was sitting in that seat, I'd have subbed them in one at a time, which would give each of the starters a short blow but wouldn't be much of an overall drop in talent. X dropped way behind at that point.

Instead of doing a wholesale substitution, I'd probably have put Kunkle in for Johnson at first, since Johnson had forced a couple of shots early and missed. Then I would have reinserted Johnson, taken Kunkle back out, and put Odom in for Jones. This would have allowed Scruggs to move to the wing and Odom takes over the point. If Odom was doing Ok at that point, I take Scruggs out and put Jones back in. I would continue to rotate those 5 players, but I would be very conscious of who was having a good game, and who wasn't. I wouldn't be all that concerned about keeping the starting lineup for the 2nd half, the same as the 1st half either. I'd start the 2nd half with the 5 players that played the best in the 1st half. I would rotate Free, Nunge, and Hunter, using Hunter to give the two starters a blow, but almost always keeping 2 of those 3 players on the floor at the same time. maybe would use Miles or one of the others to fill in for a minute or two along the way. Let's remember that with all the media timeouts that TV has, no player is really playing much more than 4-5 minutes at a stretch without getting a short break.

In regard to which comes first, the shooting or the coaching, it is the shooting. If NO players can hit shots, then no amount of lineup manipulation is going to change the outcome. Look at Creighton in the 2nd half, they started out 2-12 in 3 pointers and lost a 17-point lead to an X team that hit 3 of its first 4. They make a few of those, or X starts out 2-4, then X is still trailing and probably loses the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XUGRAD80

That was a GOOD coaching decision IMO to leave the lineup in there as long as they could. But there have been times when i really don't understand why he subs the way he does. Such as in the 1st half. In first half Steele did one of his patented "line changes", where he subbed in Odom, Kunkle, and Hunter all at the same time, taking out Scruggs, Jones and Johnson. IF I was sitting in that seat, I'd have subbed them in one at a time, which would give each of the starters a short blow but wouldn't be much of an overall drop in talent. X dropped way behind at that point.

Instead of doing a wholesale substitution, I'd probably have put Kunkle in for Johnson at first, since Johnson had forced a couple of shots early and missed. Then I would have reinserted Johnson, taken Kunkle back out, and put Odom in for Jones. This would have allowed Scruggs to move to the wing and Odom takes over the point. If Odom was doing Ok at that point, I take Scruggs out and put Jones back in. I would continue to rotate those 5 players, but I would be very conscious of who was having a good game, and who wasn't. I wouldn't be all that concerned about keeping the starting lineup for the 2nd half, the same as the 1st half either. I'd start the 2nd half with the 5 players that played the best in the 1st half. I would rotate Free, Nunge, and Hunter, using Hunter to give the two starters a blow, but almost always keeping 2 of those 3 players on the floor at the same time. maybe would use Miles or one of the others to fill in for a minute or two along the way. Let's remember that with all the media timeouts that TV has, no player is really playing much more than 4-5 minutes at a stretch without getting a short break.

In regard to which comes first, the shooting or the coaching, it is the shooting. If NO players can hit shots, then no amount of lineup manipulation is going to change the outcome. Look at Creighton in the 2nd half, they started out 2-12 in 3 pointers and lost a 17-point lead to an X team that hit 3 of its first 4. They make a few of those, or X starts out 2-4, then X is still trailing and probably loses the game.

---

Thank you. Very reasoned response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xudash

So, is it the coach or is it the shooters?

Is good shooting in this case still masking poor coaching decisions, or did the coach manage a good outcome with the shooters finally connecting?

---

Here’s what Gillen would have said had he been covering the game.

Gillen: “The late Great Chuck Daly once said, ‘Shooting makes up for a multitude of sins.’ He was right.”