it's funny, because it took a major 'perfect' clunk of a FT by Tone, and Maddox shouldn't have even been in the lane for the FT shot, Rotegaard should have been there for a better chance of a rebound
on a day when our FT'ing was poor, we won due to a really bad FT!
ahh, sports!
Previous Message
Really loved that pass from Monson Jr. placed perfectly, and when things get frantic really easy to rush and throw it chest/shoulder level where it could be deflected. Bounce pass was perfect in that situation, and perfectly executed. Agree on the earlier assessment of the SD guy over coaching. Sure you’re taking away the 3 pointer, but you’re also stopping the clock and advancing the ball right to the opposing basket. Curious if he would have been using that strategy if the twin Traore’s would have been available for an on purpose miss? Previous Message
...case study in some great basketball in the clutch
after Maddox came in for AT, Maddox harasses Pope beyond the 3 pt line, Pope was looking at Maddox like he should own him, and pushed Monson (no foul called) like he has some unwanted fly. Pope took a poor shot that wasn't close.
...on the missed FT, Monson (and why was Monson even in there on the lane with AJ and not the taller Rootegard?? lol, that was a mistake that turned out well) crossed the lane to also apply pressure as AJ rebounded.
..AJ makes, Maddox has the wherewithal to instantly look back at the clock for awareness!
...as Pope inbounds (Pope wanted the ball) Maddox obstructs and cuts off the pass to the more open court without defense, instead forcing a Pope pass to the tighter corner!
...Monson sticks with Pope, and is in position to steal from the confused UCSD player
....Maddox spots AJ for the now famous perfectly placed bounce pass for a dunk, had that not been open, Rotegaard was in position for an open 3.
if you watch closely, just a great 90 seconds from Maddox, and he pretty much 'owned' Pope on those two critical plays.
AJ's another story, he took over in that 3rd OT, what a closer
80
Message Thread
« Back to index
on 1/22/2023, 11:04 am, in reply to "