What did UCLA do to completely disrupt Michigan's offense?
One thing that annoys me about mgoblog is the writers don't ever seem to analyze the last game of the season when Michigan loses. I like to hear what it was that the opponent did to end Michigan's season. Instead, it's just "it was a great season, time to move on".
In the case of the ugly UCLA loss, I'm curious what you guys think it was that UCLA was doing defensively that caused Michigan's offense to be so ugly. I don't buy into the thought that Michigan completely blew it, because UCLA was able to do the same thing to Alabama. There's something that UCLA does defensively that makes their opponents offense look terrible.
Must’ve been voodoo to make us miss those free throws and layups?
It's the same voodoo they used on Alabama b/c they couldn't buy a free throw.
Bad juju voodoo!
Give UCLA credit, they must have worked all season on their defensive free throw percentage.
They played at night.
I seriously think the time shift between back to back games played a role.
Totally agree. They play 10 times at 7 pm, Michigan wins at least 9, probably 10. Even though UCLA had been in IN long enough to acclimate, there's an advantage to West Coast teams in late games over EST teams. You see it in all sports.
Do you really think the UCLA players were going to bed at 11 pm Eastern for the last 2 weeks? They were staying up until their normal bed times.
When my kids come back to Michigan from WI and MN, they stay in the Central time zone, going to bed late and getting up late.
I've traveled enough to know that after two weeks, even if you travel to Tokyo, you're on local time.
Yeah, I think the later games messed with everyone, but at this point every team playing in the Elite 8 had played in central time for weeks and was on a normal schedule.
Indianapolis is Eastern time zone. Just sayin...
Im still messed up from the daylight savings time change from a few weeks ago .
Good lord the time zone thing again?!?!
Did you play sports much? Starting a game at 11 pm after a full day is a lot tougher mentally than starting at 11 am. To UCLA that's 8 pm their time.
My sports resume has zero bearing on being able to exercise some cogent judgement and come to the conclusion the time zone difference didn't matter after the teams were already acclimatized to the locale.
And for the record I lettered in three sports in HS... so you can go fuck yourself.
Starting a game at 11 pm after a full day is a lot tougher mentally than starting at 11 am.
No it's not.
AND didn't UCLA have the same start time? How did they manage to win? Weird!!! AND if it's a mental thing as you suggest, isn't Michigan supposed to be the smarter school. Hmmmm.
Michigan disrupted Michigan's offense. It became a game of simply throw it into the post instead of the great ball movement that had been so effective the majority of the year.
I said to myself 'I feel like I'm taking crazy pills' in watching the 2nd half and drank six beers in the process. The first half they were cold, fine. But I have never seen them run this one dimensional offense during the 2nd half of a game. I am befuddled, and honestly, some of this has to fall on Howard.
It was as if the game plan was 'let's go under the post because it's working somewhat and completely give up on the outside shot because it's just not falling and we're doing this because we want to keep it close and not go down more than seven points' vs. 'let's keeping taking shots to win this game. We believe in ourselves and expect that the shots will eventually start going in'.
They completely lost confidence in themselves.
If we play that game 10 times, Michigan probably wins 8 of them. And most of those wins are by 10 points or more. The shots were there, but they missed. That’s basketball.
See - thing is I don't think UCLA did much. By all means, give them all the credit in the world and they played a great game but I don't think you could point at anything and say "Well, that's the defense". I mean how many gimmies down low did we miss along with some very open shots? Sometimes the ball bounces the wrong way and that seemed to happen all night to us.
UCLA won. Simple. I did not see UCLA play a great game. Nothing stood out impressive to me. Juzang (sp?) was great. Outside of that, Michigan played an epically bad game. Missed open shots, bunnies, free throws, etc. They had unforced errors resulting in turnovers, they missed pass to score opportunities. All on them.
Watch Gonzaga put 85 on them and nobody will be talking about their defense, it’ll be about the Zags ability to make shots.
Thought the same thing. Contrast that with the Texas Tech game a few years ago where I thought their D was legit and we would have struggled almost any night against them (especially that Tariq Owens guy who could cover half the court on his own).
Yes, that's a great contrast.
When UM lost to Texas Tech, I thought "Wow...they are just better, especially their defense. We've got to get better if we want to make it back to the Final Four."
When UM lost to UCLA, I thought "Make a layup! Hit an open jumper!"
Sometimes the best team doesn't win. It's on Michigan's players why that was the case on Tuesday night -- they gave a full effort, played really good defense, but just didn't make shots.
Exactly this, thought the same thing.
On a totally separate note, Jack we-have-to-go-back Shephard beard is great. Assuming you're a fan of the series? My wife and I just finished up watching the series again recently. I feel as though it has aged well, given the fact season one is 17(!) years old this year. I did not watch the show live, only binge watched several years after it ended. I think that viewing method is the primary reason I have always been quite satisfied with the ending, compared to almost everyone I know who watched it live for six years and felt massively let down by the ending. Very random side note, sorry for the digression. You will now likely say that you just like the beard photo and don't know what Lost is! Cheers!
No, I'm a big fan.
I watched the show live, and it was a different experience as LOST was perhaps the first show with a mythos with people using the internet to create and break down "easter eggs" and fan theories. The "we have to go back!" (source for my picture) was, in real time, a massive "What in the....!" mind-blowing moment; I couldn't wait to talk about it with people later.
I've watched a few individual episodes since (e.g., The Constant, my favorite TV drama episode of all time; the death of Alex, when I want to give an example of how poorly a difficult negotiation can go), but I am waiting a few years until my son gets old enough for a true, full, binge re-watch. I'm looking forward to it.
As far as the much-discussed ending, I have heard that from other binge watchers, and it makes sense. Myself, I was absolutely fine with it at the time, and still am, but my wife *loved* the whole thing (including the end) and she has a better sense for dramatic themes & arcs, so I would guess that helped me not to get too caught up in the "Well what about this thing...?" (which, granted, could have been tied up a bit better in spots).
And if Michigan ever wins a national championship, in basketball or football, I will change my profile pic to be a smiling Jack Shephard.
Cheers to you, as well.
I half expect some sort of Houston Astros-type conspiracy to run a dark energy field generator during opponent free throws, the only possible explanation for their incredible FT luck.
In seriousness, uh, well, they defend hard and they switch on screens, which helps keep Michigan from driving effectively in the ballscreen game and forces more iso possessions, something Michigan isn't really built to do well. The stuff Michigan could do to take advantage of this, like the post-ups with Hunter, worked but not that well. And Michigan shot really poorly.
This was a game where we really needed Livers. Someone who could go iso/create his own shot and knock down a mid-range jumper or get fouled. Franz can create a little but he just didn't have it that game. As a team, we couldn't buy a basket.....
Livers can't really create his own shot. But what he can do is just shoot over people, at his size.
Wtf are you talking about? First of all this "create your own shot" principle is grossly overemphasized on this board. The extent to which Franz or Smith can independently generate their own offense when they get the ball is not so overwhelmingly better than everyone else on the team. No, Livers isn't Lebron James or Kawhi Leonard, but he's not exactly Zack Novak either. Being able to shoot over people *is* creating your own shot, and is particularly helpful when the opponent is constantly switching on picks. Livers also developed a pretty decent turnaround jumper that may not rival MJ's but is clearly a dangerous weapon when the other team is forcing isos. Having Livers could have helped immensely in the UCLA game, since the odds of Franz AND Livers being ice cold in the same game is lower than just one of them.
What are you ranting about? I didn't say he isn't good. I specifically said he can get off his shot because of his size.
He's just not a guy you run iso for. Most of his points came in spot-up opportunities. You don't give him the ball and say "Get us a bucket." You still run your set through Smith or Wagner. Having Livers doesn't mean they don't have the ball in their hands.
"Livers can't really create his own shot."
And?
When he put the ball on the deck this year it usually went poorly. He shot much better on spot-ups than off the dribble.
What he can do is get off the shot against a closeout. But he still needs a teammate to initiate the action. He's a classic "3 and D" guy.
If he could create his own shot consistently, he'd be a lotto pick instead of probably a 2nd-rounder.
I'm ranting about the fact that there's a contingent of people constantly patrolling the message board to laboriously explain to everyone how "Ackshully, according to my esteemed knowledge of basketball offensive sets, there's no way Michigan could have won this game or done anything better than what they did. Smith and Franz were off and tragically they were the only offensive options for the entire game, and particularly on Michigan's final 3 shots."
No, Livers's game is not and has never been centered around isos, and Michigan may not run sets through him, but he is still undeniably an isolation threat. Ace specifically addressed this on his post about what the offense would lose with Livers's injury. Of his 62 2-pt jumpers this year, 25 were unassisted. When running the offense through Franz and Smith wasn't working, the option of dumping the ball to Livers--for a turnaround jumper in isolation after a switch--would have been a very nice weapon to have.
Franz is much more of a shot creator than Livers. Unfortunately he was stone cold from the floor.
Livers isn't a guy that you run isolation for, but he is a really good option on the wing when the defense collapses on dribble penetration.
UCLA had a size advantage over Brooks, which held him in check, and could match Smith's quickness with Campbell. Then when they switched, they had too much size for Smith and he's had trouble with that.
Dickinson had a matchup advantage against their bigs, but they were well-schooled and overplayed his right shoulder (which he goes to most of the time) forcing him into tough shots.
Brown was on and UCLA recognized this and blanketed him down the stretch.
This all put a lot of the burden on Franz, and he unfortunately had an off game.
We still had our chances, and missed some shots we normally make, but Cronin coached an excellent defensive game.
As much as I love this team, as I've thought about it, it shouldn't be a shock that they could have a night like this in the absence of Livers. Everyone else is either inconsistent or, in Hunter's case, a guy who needs to add a counter to his moves. We'd avoided a perfect storm of bad offense until UCLA, but it finally arrived.
Agreed. Looks like the game plan was to get Riley in foul trouble (they did) and then have hunter feast. But UCLS’s game plan was to keep forcing Hunter to his left, so he’d have to use his right hand or have an awkward left handed shot. They also had a lot of length and didn’t really double Hunter all that much, so Hunter couldn’t find those cross court passes that usually unlock an open shooter with one or two passes. When that fell apart, we weren’t getting a lot of good looks and when we did, we didn’t hit them.
The free throw meltdown by both Alabama and us was weird, but I think when the shots aren’t falling for anyone the basket seems that much smaller when you’re shooting a free throw. As the game wore on, I was actually dreading getting to the line as I felt that those were going to be hard to make given the collective shooting struggles.
At the end of the day, UCLA had a plan to make it UGLY given our tendencies and we played right into it. There wasn’t much of a counter, except it might have been interesting to try a small ball lineup with Johns at the 5, and have Franz, Brown, Brooks, and Smith surrounding him. UCLA would have had to defend the perimeter and John’s would have had more space to go after Nwogu. Also Brown would have had more opportunities for some open looks. We ran something similar in the first half, but with Hunter and it worked pretty well.
Yep...
They gummed everything up and forced Michigan to play hero ball - and Michigan doesn't have anyone who can actually get their own shot.
if you want good analysis, perhaps give the writers time to properly go through the game again instead of tossing out a knee-jerk reaction.
Damn it, Ace, I want an analysis (which I won't have to pay for), and I want it now. And I want curly fries and a medium Coke Zero Sugar.
And I expect that analysis to completely agree with my preconceived notions, or they'll be hell to pay, mister!
agree with my preconceived notions
... and liberally sprinkled with: it was the refs, but Michigan academics, and online U pejoratives!
His point holds more water when it comes to football season but his expectation on timeliness is wild considering the game was a day and a half ago and this site is free and all.
Gosh, you must be mistaking us for patient, reasonable people. :-D
This would certainly be the first time anyone ever mistook me for that.
Maybe he's a masochist who's still bitter about the absence of a defensive UFR from the 2018 OSU game.
Hmmm...
November 30, 2019 through today is... 488 days.
Seems to take the writers a LOT of time " to properly go through the game ".
My opinion (I haven't rewatched the game so these are just in-game observations): Michigan usually runs at a faster tempo. UCLA slowed down the game, many times making it across half court in 8-9 seconds with no one pressuring them. In fact, if Michigan had put late pressure on Campbell, say after 7 seconds came off the shot clock, they could have forced some 10 second violations. UCLA was dragging. Michigan started playing down to that level. The stretch after Juzang got hurt was one of the few times that the game sped up. Michigan got into their rhythm, and, if I remember right, came back to take the lead.
There were a number of times I was yelling at the TV for Smith and Eli to speed up when bringing the ball down court after a miss. UCLA's methodical, plodding game kept Michigan from going on an extended run. Our game slowed game and guys stood around too much.
Completely agree... The early-game run that gave Michigan a 9 point lead was the only time in the first half where they sped things up, also. The rest of that half was spent standing around until it was time to play hero-ball. It was pretty clear to me that Michigan allowed itself to play UCLA's game. This may be because UM has played some slower games in the B1G, and they turned out okay. But, for whatever reason, they played slow - which is UCLA's preferred method. Not often can you beat another team at their game - especially when you get to the last 8 teams.
Will Gonzaga allow themselves to slow down? If they do, they'll find themselves in the same slog that Alabama and Michigan wallowed in. But I suspect they'll push the pace and win by 20+...
I think you two above got it... Cronin was able to get UCLA to impose their tempo on the game after the first 5-8 minute sprint at the front end of the game. Switching on screens successfully, being responsible in getting back on defense, "suckering" for lack of a better term Michigan to play outside->inside instead of inside->outside, and Michigan didn't have the answer with successful outside shooting or a penetrating ball handler to break down the screen switcher.
Pass downs to Hunter didn't generate the kick outs to open shooters, or cutters to the basket. Offense got stagnant, and UCLA got a better than expected performance out of Juzang. This was Michigan's worst game from the players on the floor in a while at an inopportune time. And I think if you got Juwan in a moment of honesty, he probably would say after looking at the game tape they probably should have moved Hunter off the block to the elbow and have him run more Loyola Chicago type action with lots of cutters like Johns / Wagner / Brooks, with Brown getting more minutes and looks.
All that being said, they shoot 9 out of 11 instead of 6 out of 11 from the free throw line and we're probably talking about Michigan defending against UCLA's last gasp shot to try and take the lead instead of the inverse.
We're not a fast-paced team. I'm not sure where people are getting this idea. Michigan-UCLA was two slow-paced teams going at it.
Michigan usually runs at a faster tempo. UCLA slowed down the game
Not really. Both teams favor a slow pace. Michigan ranked 261st nationally in possessions per game. UCLA is 292nd.
We're just normally far more efficient than that. Turning it over on a quarter of our possessions sure didn't help, and then shooting 20-51 on the others didn't compensate.