Page 1 of 1

We could have

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:35 pm
by Arkpony
We could have beaten them but for the TOs. First half was miserable in that regard (and poor shooting). But we came back from 17 pts down and cut it to 6. Shame we let this get away.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:38 pm
by skyscraper
Same story as Indiana. We are digging a hole for ourselves that I fear will haunt us in March.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 10:54 pm
by DanFreibergerForHeisman
Yup. 16 turnovers in a first half is a pretty good way to take yourself out of a game.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:17 pm
by lwjr
Hitting free throws would help also

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:29 pm
by SMU1523
skyscraper wrote:Same story as Indiana. We are digging a hole for ourselves that I fear will haunt us in March.


I just want to get back to .500

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:30 pm
by DanFreibergerForHeisman
It's hard to believe the free pitches are still a problem this season.

It sure seems like a simple deficiency to correct.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:48 pm
by SMU 86
DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's hard to believe the free pitches are still a problem this season.

It sure seems like a simple deficiency to correct.

SMU was 70.3% from the FT line and most teams would gladly take that. FT's were not the problem. Turnovers and not having more physical players were more of the problem.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:53 pm
by DanFreibergerForHeisman
SMU 86 wrote:
DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's hard to believe the free pitches are still a problem this season.

It sure seems like a simple deficiency to correct.

SMU was 70.3% from the FT line and most teams would gladly take that. FT's were not the problem. Turnovers and not having more physical players were more of the problem.

Yes, we were much better on FTs in the second half.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:00 am
by Junior
Our first half was just plain [deleted] poor. If anybody wants to offer different opinion, I will just say you're wrong this point.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:46 am
by gostangs
it was the worst half i have witnessed in the new Moody. Second half was waaay better - but this team we were playing was too athletic for us to get out of the hole we dug.

on the plus side - heard almost no pigs and thought we controlled our home court fan wise. Which is saying a lot since out team gave us almost nothing tonight.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:51 am
by Rebel10
Our bigs that we have now are more finesse than power.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:19 am
by mrydel
SMU 86 wrote:
DanFreibergerForHeisman wrote:It's hard to believe the free pitches are still a problem this season.

It sure seems like a simple deficiency to correct.

SMU was 70.3% from the FT line and most teams would gladly take that. FT's were not the problem. Turnovers and not having more physical players were more of the problem.

That 70.3 is deceptive. Nic was about the only one shooting FTs in the 2nd half and he rarely misses. In the first half when the lead was built for Arkansas we were in the 50% range.

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:34 am
by GiddyUp
Last yr I think we were down around the same at their place

Re: We could have

PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 8:44 am
by Nacho
i enjoyed the music.