gman2 said:
you had to know something was gonna happen, everybody thought wa was a lock, books would've taken a huge bath
Washington
- Thread starter Tupac
- Start date
you had to know something was gonna happen, everybody thought wa was a lock, books would've taken a huge bath
mjalam said:
naturally, any time a ranked team in the prime time tv game, theyre going to get the majority of the action. but there were far heavier public choices this afternoon and yesterday. this game was a blip on the radar and the books werent sweating this one. truthfully, a lot of the country (unfortunately) still doesnt know about washington. i know where youre coming from though.
i suppose you're right, but that had a lot to do with my reasoning for stanford, lucky yes, but in sports most outcomes are decided by lucky shots or endings
3 Seconds said:
Justin Dentmon. Their true freshman PG. They have a lot of idiots on the team. How about Jamal Williams in OT? He threw their first 2 possessions out of bounds when nobody was even around him, then missed the front end of a one-and-one. And he is a SENIOR. Roy is the only guy who plays with any semblance of poise. And Brockman will be very good too. The rest of them don't know their azzes from a hole in the ground.
of course none of you that had uw -2 will bemoan the fact that the only scenario that you could have possibly covered happened
5.9 secs left
stan ball down 1
a bad pass with 2.1 secs left and an immediate foul then another to get into the 1-1 then both ft's made
if stanford actually just attempts a shot.....YOU LOSE IN REGULATION
5.9 secs left
stan ball down 1
a bad pass with 2.1 secs left and an immediate foul then another to get into the 1-1 then both ft's made
if stanford actually just attempts a shot.....YOU LOSE IN REGULATION
mjalam said:
i tend to think stanford is better than their record. theyre not a scrub team. hell, they were a preseason top 25 team. so this isnt even an upset. i felt washington's athleticism would play a major role in the outcome. stanford was out of sync at times, but you really cant put a price on how good teams find ways to win and inexperienced teams find ways to lose. washington snatched defeat from the jaws of spread victory ... and thats both a credit to stanford and an indictment of the still unproven washington program.
gjn23 said:
It would have been very possible for them to miss a shot and then immediately foul whomever rebounded the ball for UW. Not saying CERTAIN, but it definitely could have happened.
Glenn Quagmire said:
not the way they inbounded the ball....toward halfcourt
a shot takes 1-2 seconds off the clock then the "potential miss" leads to a rebound, which may take more time off the clock, considering stanford was going to crash the boards...then game would have ended......
had stanford attempted a shot with 2-3 seconds or less then they was little chance for a uw cover
obviously took a brutal beat on washington, but lost in all of this is that stanford really did a great job of executing that final 2.1 to even get a semi-clean look. way, way too often you see a team draw something up that leaves them with a heave from 50+ feet at the buzzer. good/smart teams like stanford (here's a concept) actually EXECUTE an inbounds play.
moreover, there are so many times that teams have far more than 2 seconds (say, 5 or 6 seconds) and they somehow bungle their way into an off-balance halfcourt heave. or with 0:06, a kid shoots a 40 footer with 2.5 seconds left when one or two dribbles more gets him a reasonable shot. stanford did a great job of running a precise inbounds play. but my fu.ckin god is washington stupid. stanford got a great look with 0:02 left whereas most teams bungle a full-court possession with 0:06 or 0:07 left
gman2 said:
Did anyone catch the replay of that play? I'm not making excuses and this isn't sour grapes because Washington deserved to lose for not defending that play well enough and fouling for some crazy reason, but the guy that caught the ball at midcourt took AT LEAST 3 steps before he passed that ball. Not sure if it was Haryasz, but it was a big guy. Anyway, I was amazed they didn't call the walk on him.
