Ay-Ziggy-Zoomba.com

I don't know what got me thinking about this earlier this moring (probably procrastination ), but I have a question about our reaction to Dan benching Samarco in the second half of the Miami game (including my own). Essentially - why were we so pissed?

I ask this because I thought back to people repeatedly commenting that the only thing that matters is the MAC Tourney in this conference, alluding to the regular season amounting to little more than a series of exhibitions. I guess I'm wondering if we all got a little too short-sighted in our anger at losing by six with Samarco on the bench? I mean, if anything, the second half of that game, without Samarco, was perhaps the most encouraging thing that I have seen in at least a couple of years for the future of BG basketball. I have seen people openly wonder about what we are going to do for scoring when Martin graduates and, well, I think we all got our answer on Wednesday. This team proved itself capable of beating a team (they lost the game, but "won" the second half) without the leading scorer in the MAC - something, quite frankly, I didn't think they were capable of.

I'm rambling now, but I would like to hear what everyone's opinions are on this. I know that one of hammb's criticisms of Dakich (well, it seemed like that in the chat) is that he is willing to throw away wins to send messages, but if our collective view of the regular season equates to little more than an exhibition, then I don't really see how the two points of view coalesce - and I'm not trying to single hammb out, I'm speaking in generalities. Having had a few days away from the disappointment of a loss, I can't say that I disagree with what Coach D did at all. In fact, I have begun to doubt if we would have been able to cut the lead to single digits with Samarco on the floor. It seems to me as though Dakich taught the team that they don't need to rely solely on Samarco, and I think he send a very strong message to us, as fans.

This may not be the perfect analogy but here goes. Lebron shoots alot for the Cavs yet they still do well offensively and Lebron's teammates do get the ball and score maybe not 35 a game but they do score. Lebron is obviously the Cavs best player and ther're not the same without him.

If Samarco needs to do a better job of finding others more wide open than he is , than so be it and as a coach you do a better job of teaching him. At times I feel as though DD is trying to make sure we never have a player be so dominant in games too long. Having a dominant player isn't bad , its how that dominant player acts on the court and how he flows with his teammates. Do Z ,Damon Jones , or other Cavs players complain when Lebron scores 48 pts some night? No, cuz Lebron does a excellent job of finding that balance of scoreing when its obvious that he needs to score and be plenty unselfish enough to dish off to other players when he attracts dbl & triple teams. Samarco doesnt' need to play less just how to play better as the go to guy whithin the team.

I was pissed about it initially Bleeding, but after thinking about it I agree with you. We kind of discussed it in one of the other threads since the game, but we definitely played much better that half. I think sometimes when Samarco is on the floor our team gets into a lull of standing around watching what Samarco is gonna do...sadly we do that even when he's struggling (hence he ends up shooting 4-20 some nights).

Upon looking back at it the key to this season (for me) is improving towards the tournament and developing the younger players. Samarco is good and I hope he has a fantastic senior campaign, but he's gone after this year anyways...we need to develop some of the younger talent.

One of the things that has ALWAYS pissed me off about the Dakich offense is that it's way too perimeter oriented...we spend an awful lot of time passing around the 3 point arc hoping to find a good cut towards the basket with a passing lane...if that doesn't show itself we jack up a 3. It sounded as though in the 2nd half we did a lot better job of driving the ball and getting easy looks that way. I think Darryl Clements can drive the basketball. I know Nate Miller can drive the basketball. I would very much like to see more of that...drive and THEN kick out to the perimeter if you want; you know, the same way offenses have victimized us in recent years. With Marschall's ability I would like to see a lot more isolating and feeding him in the post as well...I think Polk could eventually develop into a post threat as well.

This team has talent. If benching Samarco for a half is key in helping develop that talent then so be it. Ideally Martin will see what happened in the 2nd half the other night and be willing to work within the confines of it. He is the type of player that can benefit greatly from that type of offense...he's not a threat to drive himself but would be great getting the ball from others who are.

I do believe Dan sometimes sacrifices wins to make a point. He has left more talented players on the bench in many instances, and has lost those players to transfer all too often...those things all cost the team wins. Perhaps the other night was not one of those times, but it has happened in the past. I like Dan, but as Flipper said, his one fatal flaw is that he's awfully stubborn...to a fault.

hammb wrote:I was pissed about it initially Bleeding, but after thinking about it I agree with you. We kind of discussed it in one of the other threads since the game, but we definitely played much better that half. I think sometimes when Samarco is on the floor our team gets into a lull of standing around watching what Samarco is gonna do...sadly we do that even when he's struggling (hence he ends up shooting 4-20 some nights).

Upon looking back at it the key to this season (for me) is improving towards the tournament and developing the younger players. Samarco is good and I hope he has a fantastic senior campaign, but he's gone after this year anyways...we need to develop some of the younger talent.

One of the things that has ALWAYS pissed me off about the Dakich offense is that it's way too perimeter oriented...we spend an awful lot of time passing around the 3 point arc hoping to find a good cut towards the basket with a passing lane...if that doesn't show itself we jack up a 3. It sounded as though in the 2nd half we did a lot better job of driving the ball and getting easy looks that way. I think Darryl Clements can drive the basketball. I know Nate Miller can drive the basketball. I would very much like to see more of that...drive and THEN kick out to the perimeter if you want; you know, the same way offenses have victimized us in recent years. With Marschall's ability I would like to see a lot more isolating and feeding him in the post as well...I think Polk could eventually develop into a post threat as well.

This team has talent. If benching Samarco for a half is key in helping develop that talent then so be it. Ideally Martin will see what happened in the 2nd half the other night and be willing to work within the confines of it. He is the type of player that can benefit greatly from that type of offense...he's not a threat to drive himself but would be great getting the ball from others who are.

I do believe Dan sometimes sacrifices wins to make a point. He has left more talented players on the bench in many instances, and has lost those players to transfer all too often...those things all cost the team wins. Perhaps the other night was not one of those times, but it has happened in the past. I like Dan, but as Flipper said, his one fatal flaw is that he's awfully stubborn...to a fault.

We didn't actually sacrifice a win against Miami because we were getting pounded and weren't showing signs of getting back into the game until Samarco went to the bench.

Furthermore, there's is a big, big, big problem with the logic behind the whole idea of "sacrificing a win to making a point". Winning IS the point. If you can win the game, exactly what point would a coach ever want to make in lieu of getting the win? Under what circumstances do you give up a game to teach a lesson, and what lesson would that be? I don't believe that any sane coach would ever give up a win to make a point. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

When Samarco went to the bench, I figured that he was either injured or in DD's doghouse. I'm glad it happened, however, because this team has a lot of horses. We have numerous players that can do a variety of things. However, this potential won't develop if the offense revolves around one player. We will be a much, much more potent team with contributions from across the board. Furthermore, Samarco himself will be more effective if other teams can't key on him.

Poor attempt to field that one-Your team is eking out a victory over the the Northern North Dakota School of Mining and Fishing, Wahotchee campus. Obviously your big gun is amping his stats for the sake of amping his stats. You have four straight winnable conference games coming up but the rest of the team is pretty hot because they aren't seeing the ball and because the Fighting Muskies 5'4" power forward is having a career day scoring in every which way around your offensive stud. Coach can:

A) Let it go and have your guy outscore their guy, win the game, piss off the team and get no effort from anyone for the conference season.
B) Pull the big gun and give NNDSMFWC the likely win, but show the team what teamwork is all about, while building some confidence in the guys who get the extra minutes in preparation for the conference run.
C) Spend halftime on his laptop brushing up his resume for that HC job in Florida, the one near the lake with the great bass fishing and PGA golf course.