XAVIER vs MARQUETTE

[DART87]

He did not call any. Which is inexcusable. There were a myriad of reasons to call one. Design a zone busting play. Emphasize ball control. Or even give the team a break. Since one doesn't carry over, it was poor coaching.

I agree it is inexcusable. Mack seems to want to save the TO for the last possession or let it go unused. The team looked so confused against the zone, I would have liked to see a TO after the second turnover in the corner and work a set play in there. One of Mack's strengths are his set plays out of time outs. Those seem to be marginalized before the half because there is a timing element after the inbound (to make sure the play is the last possession of the half) where the play stalls and the resulting shot attempts are not what we typically see after a timeout.

So use the throwaway timeout for a break/setup in the middle of the half instead of one that is not nearly as effective just before time expires.

[xu82]

He did not call any. Which is inexcusable. There were a myriad of reasons to call one. Design a zone busting play. Emphasize ball control. Or even give the team a break. Since one doesn't carry over, it was poor coaching.

No idea, but I wonder if he didn't want to take advantage of our superior depth and not give Marquette a break? They only went 7-8 deep. I didn't see much of the first half, but have to wonder if a little chat about beating the zone and taking care of the ball might not have been in order. I'm glad I don't have people nitpicking about every decision I make when I go to work! I'm sure he had his reasons...

[RoseyMuskie]

No idea, but I wonder if he didn't want to take advantage of our superior depth and not give Marquette a break? They only went 7-8 deep. I didn't see much of the first half, but have to wonder if a little chat about beating the zone and taking care of the ball might not have been in order. I'm glad I don't have people nitpicking about every decision I make when I go to work! I'm sure he had his reasons...

I'd agree if X was winning at the time. That makes perfect sense. But when you're consistently down by 5-9 points an entire half, I don't think that logic holds.

Overall, I'm pleased with the coaching performance yesterday. But something that glaring deserves its fair share of criticism.

[xu82]

I'd agree if X was winning at the time. That makes perfect sense. But when you're consistently down by 5-9 points an entire half, I don't think that logic holds.

Overall, I'm pleased with the coaching performance yesterday. But something that glaring deserves its fair share of criticism.

And I'm not disagreeing. I guess I'm more wondering what he was thinking. Did he feel our depth would eventually prevail and stuck to his plan despite the deficit? Did he forget we had timeouts or how to call one? It seems very odd based on what I've heard (and thankfully didn't SEE), so I wonder how he'd respond if questioned. (BTW, we were the better team from the moment I turned the TV on.)

[XU 87]

He did not call any. Which is inexcusable. There were a myriad of reasons to call one. Design a zone busting play. Emphasize ball control. Or even give the team a break. Since one doesn't carry over, it was poor coaching.

There are, I think, 4 tv timeouts each half. He had plenty of time to get these straight during one of those.

[RealDeal]

Amen to the hedging. If he was a spectacular athlete maybe, but having a fat cab driver hedging is just fucking stupid.

We have some shitty fans.

[LA Muskie]

There are, I think, 4 tv timeouts each half. He had plenty of time to get these straight during one of those.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I really thought he called one but I may have been mistaken about that. I know Wojo called one with about 1 min left in the 1st half.

Not calling a TO is not the same as not having TO opportunities to talk to your team. We had at least 5 in the 1st half. And there weren't a ton of stoppages. There wasn't a time in the 1st half (save perhaps the first 3 mins of the game) where I thought we needed a timeout.

[mohr5150]

I thought the fireworks at the beginning of the game were lacking in intensity yesrerday. I wish Mack would clean that up. He should have called a timeout to let Razzi's set the pilot better. It's ridiculous he allows that to happen. Fire his ass.

[SkyWalker]

He did not call any. Which is inexcusable. There were a myriad of reasons to call one. Design a zone busting play. Emphasize ball control. Or even give the team a break. Since one doesn't carry over, it was poor coaching.

I absolutely agree. It's one of my pet peeves about Mack. Your reasons for calling time outs are good; talk to the team etc. But what about just slowing down the opponents momentum. Wojo did this several times in the second half. I believe most coaches (likely 90%) are in this corner. Mack is not one of them.

[LadyMuskie]

Honestly, as poorly as we played in the first half, I'm not really sure any amount of time outs would have helped us. Yes you disrupt Marquette, but you may also disrupt a flow you're trying to establish on our side. In Mack's defense, if you have players who are tentative and worried about upsetting the coach, constantly calling time outs is not going to help you out there. If he can't get through to them before the game, using all of his time outs during it isn't going to make much difference.

[RoseyMuskie]

There are, I think, 4 tv timeouts each half. He had plenty of time to get these straight during one of those.

But why forego a chance to set up a play? He did a nice job of that yesterday..

[LA Muskie]

But why forego a chance to set up a play? He did a nice job of that yesterday..

I would LOVE for someone to ask him about timeouts on the radio show this week. Will someone please volunteer?

[D-West & PO-Z]

I'm thrilled we came back and won this game with the season on the line. Remy and Myles were huge... Unbelievably clutch shots. I don't think Mack called a single timeout in the first half. I would have thought he would have taken several to show the team what offense we should be running against the different zones Marquette was throwing at us... Looked completely lost and confused the entire first half.

The crowd got very loud in the second half which was a big advantage... Although every time it really started to rock Wojo would call a timeout which was very smart.

I commented on this at the game. Very good uses of timeouts.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Oh and I am 1-1 at XU games this year. 1-0 at home and 0-1 on the road.

I have some issues on the road this year, thinking about changing my lineup. Think my wife would mind if I sub her out for another lady friend??? Gotta do something drastic right?????

[RoseyMuskie]

I would LOVE for someone to ask him about timeouts on the radio show this week. Will someone please volunteer?

Don't know your tone, but if it's sarcasm, I don't understand why. A timeout could be the difference between a basket or not. And clearly that was the difference in the game yesterday.

[LA Muskie]

It wasn't sarcasm. I really do hope you or someone else calls in and asks him why he didn't call a timeout at the 6-minute mark of the 1st half.

I think you are vastly overestimating the value of a TO -- particularly in that context in the 1st half at home -- and I think Mack (and most coaches) would find the criticism on that point rather "amusing."

I do agree with trying to steal a possession/score to close the half.

[Muskie]

Oh and I am 1-1 at XU games this year. 1-0 at home and 0-1 on the road.

I have some issues on the road this year, thinking about changing my lineup. Think my wife would mind if I sub her out for another lady friend??? Gotta do something drastic right?????

Brilliant.

[xu82]

Oh and I am 1-1 at XU games this year. 1-0 at home and 0-1 on the road.

I have some issues on the road this year, thinking about changing my lineup. Think my wife would mind if I sub her out for another lady friend??? Gotta do something drastic right?????

Go ahead, see if Roseanne Barr is available!

[XU3232]

I commented on this at the game. Very good uses of timeouts.

Same here... drove me insane when he called them.

[Masterofreality]

Oh and I am 1-1 at XU games this year. 1-0 at home and 0-1 on the road.


As am I. Hope it's 2-1 after Providence.

[D-West & PO-Z]

As am I. Hope it's 2-1 after Providence.

As do I MOR.

[Xville]

I feel like the defense in the second half was the best I have seen all season long. That was encouraging.....we shall see what happens on Thursday, but hopefully that defense travels on the road this time

[X-Fan]

I feel like the defense in the second half was the best I have seen all season long. That was encouraging.....we shall see what happens on Thursday, but hopefully that defense travels on the road this time

I agree. It made me want to stick with a Man to Man D the rest of the season. Also, if the offense can get going again, it'll make playing D a bit easier.

[Masterofreality]

I feel like the defense in the second half was the best I have seen all season long. That was encouraging.....we shall see what happens on Thursday, but hopefully that defense travels on the road this time

Not to beat a dead horse, but who was the guy who played basically 20 minutes in the second half?

Uh, Remy Abell.

[XUFan09]

Not to beat a dead horse, but who was the guy who played basically 20 minutes in the second half?

Uh, Remy Abell.

I don't think anyone, Mack included, was shocked by his performance. It's not like you're positing anything controversial by calling Remy our best defender. Now, here's the question:

Was his significant playing time vs. Marquette because Mack realized he made a mistake in cutting his playing time at Villanova?
-or-
Was it because whatever Mack was trying to instill in Remy got through in the practices in between the two games and in the first half of the Marquette game, so Mack ramped his minutes back up?

We don't know the details from practice and the locker room, but considering that I don't think many D1 coaches are that quick to acknowledge a mistake, I'm going to go with the latter option.

[Masterofreality]

Well, Remy didn't start again, and after a particularly horrible team defensive stretch in the first half vs Marquette he goes in.

I have the opinion that the staff finally had enough of JP leaving gaps as wide as the Grand Canyon in our defense. What I think was that it finally hit them upside of the head that whether Remy "played better team defense" or not, he had to be in there.

The only caveat that I can throw in here is that maybe CMack decided to throw Macura out there to the wolves to teach him how much better he needs to be defensively to be the elite player that he obviously aspires to be. He got shown hard lessons against 'Nova and Marquette.

[xufan2434]

If Remy continues to play like he did that 2nd half and brings that intensity every game.. Then I think it'll be safe to say the move Mack made paid off and people won't even be talking about this stretch anymore. We'll see come Thursday though. Is the game at Providence the biggest game of the year to date?

[XUFan09]

Your response doesn't really prove the first option true over the second, as there are so many other factors involved. Okay, Remy was subbed in after a bad defensive stretch. What does that definitively say? Remy was still part of the regular substitution pattern, and some substitutions were likely to occur after that stretch. Also, it's not like Mack doesn't value him highly as a defender in that situation. He just has emphasized how he needs to be better within the system in the long run. Frankly, he does need to be for this team to succeed. Also, remember that Remy did play in the first half against Villanova before leaving with two fouls, and that's when Mack was likely unhappy with his practice performance after the Butler game (along with his performance in the second half of that game).

It's very likely that Mack decided after the two in-between practice days and after Remy's performance in the Marquette first half that he "got it" and proved himself, even if he hadn't done quite enough to start over another player. Remy's post game comments about how much he values his defense for this team suggest that too.

I think Mack sees Macura as a guy his works hard all the time and is a high-risk-high-reward type of player. Sometimes it's a risk worth taking and sometimes it isn't.

[bobbiemcgee]

I feel like the defense in the second half was the best I have seen all season long. That was encouraging.....we shall see what happens on Thursday, but hopefully that defense travels on the road this time

and the defense in the first half was the worst of the season. We were lucky to be down only 9 @ halftime.

[Masterofreality]

Also, remember that Remy did play in the first half against Villanova before leaving with two fouls, and that's when Mack was likely unhappy with his practice performance after the Butler game (along with his performance in the second half of that game).

It's very likely that Mack decided after the two in-between practice days and after Remy's performance in the Marquette first half that he "got it" and proved himself, even if he hadn't done quite enough to start over another player. Remy's post game comments about how much he values his defense for this team suggest that too.

Look, I respect our disagreement here, and maybe I'm dense, but you are basically saying that Abell sucked against Butler.- which he did not. He scored 15 points, held Dunham to 10- 5 of which were gift free throws when he wasn't guarding Dunham, and played decent defense when Dunham wasn't in there. If Mack was pissed at Abell in the Butler game, why did he play him 36 minutes? JP Macura did nothing in the Butler game to earn a start vs Villanova. 11 minutes of bad defense and ZERO points. JP's defense was also horrific against 'Nova, and yet he earns a start over Abell vs Marquette? We didn't lose at Butler because of Remy Abell and he shouldn't be responsible because other guys can't stop Woods, Barlow, Chrabacz or Jones.By the way. Remy was rushed right back in the first 4 minutes in the Villanova game after we got torched to the tune of 11-2 immediately.

I don't know what happens in practice, but people who have been to them tell me that there is no problem with Remy's effort. There certainly has not been any lack of effort shown by him in games. I haven't seen anything that told me that. Remy Abell never did not "get it". Thank Gawd somebody on that bench finally decided that we might want to put a guy,who is arguably our best all around player, back in the game- practice impressions or not- before it was too late.

No one can explain to me what JP Macura did or has done to earn a start over. Remy Abell. Period.

[casualfan]

Look, I respect our disagreement here, and maybe I'm dense, but you are basically saying that Abell sucked against Butler.- which he did not. He scored 15 points, held Dunham to 10- 5 of which were gift free throws when he wasn't guarding Dunham, and played decent defense when Dunham wasn't in there. If Mack was pissed at Abell in the Butler game, why did he play him 36 minutes? JP Macura did nothing in the Butler game to earn a start vs Villanova. 11 minutes of bad defense and ZERO points. His defense was also horrific against 'Nova, and yet he earns a start over Abell?

I don't know what happens in practice, but people who have been to them tell me that there is no problem with Remy's effort. There certainly has not been any lack of effort shown by him in games. Thank Gawd somebody on that bench finally decided that we might want to put a guy,who is arguably our best all around player, back in the game- practice impressions or not- before it was too late.

Yeah and to follow that up it's not like sitting Remy was the only questionable decision Mack made in the 'Nova game.

Playing Larry Austin as much as he did was quite odd. I know Mack said he played very well, but if that was the case why did he not take his warmup off against Marquette in a game where we were really struggling at certain points?

[xufan2434]

Yeah and to follow that up it's not like sitting Remy was the only questionable decision Mack made in the 'Nova game.

Playing Larry Austin as much as he did was quite odd. I know Mack said he played very well, but if that was the case why did he not take his warmup off against Marquette in a game where we were really struggling at certain points?

Because he was hurt with an ankle injury per pre-game and post game reports

[waggy]

Well MOR at least ya got Casual in your corner.

LOL.

[Masterofreality]

Well MOR at least ya got Casual in your corner.

LOL.

Don't worry. I'll piss him off again soon too.

[LadyMuskie]

Yeah and to follow that up it's not like sitting Remy was the only questionable decision Mack made in the 'Nova game.

Playing Larry Austin as much as he did was quite odd. I know Mack said he played very well, but if that was the case why did he not take his warmup off against Marquette in a game where we were really struggling at certain points?

According to Shannon Russel, Austin didn't play against Marquette because he hurt his ankle against Nova and wasn't healthy enough to play Saturday.

[LA Muskie]

Personally, I think Remy got shafted. Mack made him a fall guy, and frankly he should have been the last to have been made an example of. Perhaps he needed to work on the defensive system. I get that. All his teammates seem to need help. But at least he was playing defense. Which you really couldn't say about anyone else, save perhaps Dee.

If Remy continues to look like he did in the 2nd half against Marquette does that mean Mack was right? I'm not so sure. Maybe. But maybe it just means we would have had a shot at 'Nova if he didn't mess with the kid in the first place.

Just my opinion on this one.

[waggy]

So now Mack is just "messing" with kids?


I'm no Mack super supporter, but this is simple internet jockey silliness. These thoughts are being fomented on another forum is my bet.

[DART87]

My High School coach (yes High School) told the team to ignore anything he said to the press (small town paper) it was all for their consumption and had nothing to do with what was going on in the locker room. I believe this is true for most coaches. Is Mack going to come out and tell everyone exactly what is happening with the team...hell no. Shannon may be getting mixed messages but I doubt the team is.

XU needs a leader on the floor, Remy is the best candidate at the moment...is he ready for that responsibility? Is Mack trying to coach him into that role?

And this is just my opinion on this one too.

[LA Muskie]

So now Mack is just "messing" with kids?


I'm no Mack super supporter, but this is simple internet jockey silliness. These thoughts are being fomented on another forum is my bet.

Huh? (And I mean that sincerely. I have no idea what you're talking about. If it was directed to me, I certainly wasn't suggesting that Mack was intentionally "messing" with anyone.)

[waggy]

Huh? (And I mean that sincerely. I have no idea what you're talking about. If it was directed to me, I certainly wasn't suggesting that Mack was intentionally "messing" with anyone.)


Well it's exactly what you said. Do I need to quote you?

[LA Muskie]

Well it's exactly what you said. Do I need to quote you?

No it's not. And I'm staring at my post. I think you are reading something into it that's not there.

[waggy]

No it's not. And I'm staring at my post. I think you are reading something into it that's not there.


Personally, I think Remy got shafted. Mack made him a fall guy, and frankly he should have been the last to have been made an example of. Perhaps he needed to work on the defensive system. I get that. All his teammates seem to need help. But at least he was playing defense. Which you really couldn't say about anyone else, save perhaps Dee.

If Remy continues to look like he did in the 2nd half against Marquette does that mean Mack was right? I'm not so sure. Maybe. But maybe it just means we would have had a shot at 'Nova if he didn't mess with the kid in the first place.

Just my opinion on this one.


:headscratch:

[LA Muskie]

You're right. I used the word "mess." But like I said, you're reading something into it that's not there. I didn't say he "messed with him" intentionally. And I most certainly didn't intend it that way. But I do think it was the result. And I still do. Remy has been one of our few (possibly only) consistent bright spots. Particularly on the defensive end of the court.

I have no interest in engaging with you further. If you want the last word on this (and I know you do), have at it. I should have known better.

[waggy]

I don't want the last word LA. I believe you if you say you don't think Mack is intentionally messing with the players.

Does Urban Meyer mess with his players? ...Whenever he damn well feels like it.

Course he's won national championships.

[LA Muskie]

I don't want the last word LA. I believe you if you say you don't think Mack is intentionally messing with the players.

Does Urban Meyer mess with his players? ...Whenever he damn well feels like it.

Course he's won national championships.

Thanks. To be clear I don't think Mack was. I think we was just trying to do SOMETHING to set the ship straight. I just think Remy took the brunt of that, and find it a bit unfair. But that's easy to say from the (very) cheap seats. I know that.

[XUFan09]

Look, I respect our disagreement here, and maybe I'm dense, but you are basically saying that Abell sucked against Butler.- which he did not. He scored 15 points, held Dunham to 10- 5 of which were gift free throws when he wasn't guarding Dunham, and played decent defense when Dunham wasn't in there. If Mack was pissed at Abell in the Butler game, why did he play him 36 minutes? JP Macura did nothing in the Butler game to earn a start vs Villanova. 11 minutes of bad defense and ZERO points. JP's defense was also horrific against 'Nova, and yet he earns a start over Abell vs Marquette? We didn't lose at Butler because of Remy Abell and he shouldn't be responsible because other guys can't stop Woods, Barlow, Chrabacz or Jones.By the way. Remy was rushed right back in the first 4 minutes in the Villanova game after we got torched to the tune of 11-2 immediately.

I don't know what happens in practice, but people who have been to them tell me that there is no problem with Remy's effort. There certainly has not been any lack of effort shown by him in games. I haven't seen anything that told me that. Remy Abell never did not "get it". Thank Gawd somebody on that bench finally decided that we might want to put a guy,who is arguably our best all around player, back in the game- practice impressions or not- before it was too late.

No one can explain to me what JP Macura did or has done to earn a start over. Remy Abell. Period.

I think you and I are dealing with a bit of miscommunication, which you seem to have already suggested. I in no way said that Remy sucked against Butler. Simply, his performance specifically in the second half left something to be desired, at least in Mack's eyes, and the practices after that didn't change that perception. It's weird, because Mack has talked so much about effort recently. Effort this, and effort that. Effort is how starting spots will be determined. Effort will seriously affect how much you play (e.g. Macura busted his ass in practice and in the Villanova game but when he was caught watching a three-point shot without trying to contest it, he was immediately off the court). But, when Mack talks about Remy (publicly, at least), he doesn't mention effort. He mentions his team defense, which, granted, is a big deal in the packline. A really good individual defender can still screw over his team by not helping at the proper moments, not switching at the proper moment, not covering the proper man in transition. When you rely on teammates to be in certain places on defense and then they aren't, the offense suddenly has a significant advantage, making help defense almost as important in the packline as one-on-one defense. Part of what made "the Hammer" awesome was his lockdown defense while being a great help defender.

It's just strange, because Mack basically talks about how all the players need to give a full effort for 35 seconds of the shot clock, 40 minutes of the game. But then, he basically says, "Now Remy, we need better defense within the team from him." Remy seems to be getting a different standard from everyone else. Like LA said, he seems to have become the "fall guy." Is that unfair or unnecessary? Possibly, I'm willing to entertain that. But maybe it's exactly what Remy needs; part of being a leader is sometimes taking the brunt of the punishment, being held to a higher standard for his own play while also owning the shortcomings of the team as a whole. Remy can be so good that "disappointing play" from him doesn't look that bad. The analogy is far from perfect, but the situation reminds me of Drew Lavender getting benched by Miller in favor of the legend Johnny Wolf. It's not like he was playing awful. He was playing alright, but Miller expected more from him and was proven right in the end. Maybe the same situation is happening with Mack and Abell, not just for this season but for next season too.

[LA Muskie]

Good point '09. It could be like a teacher being harder on an A student for doing B+ work than anyone else in the class. (The difference being that classes aren't trying to win games so the whole isn't at risk of suffering the consequences...) But if that was Mack's theory, I guess I can't really quarrel with it, no matter the potential effect on any particular game. For that's my theory of parenthood and I don't want to be a hypocrite.

[X-band '01]

My High School coach (yes High School) told the team to ignore anything he said to the press (small town paper) it was all for their consumption and had nothing to do with what was going on in the locker room. I believe this is true for most coaches. Is Mack going to come out and tell everyone exactly what is happening with the team...hell no. Shannon may be getting mixed messages but I doubt the team is.

XU needs a leader on the floor, Remy is the best candidate at the moment...is he ready for that responsibility? Is Mack trying to coach him into that role?

And this is just my opinion on this one too.


Jim Mora Sr. was Dart87's Coach