WTF: Chicago State stuns Northwestern

[lou v]

Here are @mshelton33's takeaways from the embarrassment in Evanston.

WildcatReport - Chicago State stuns Northwestern

Northwestern was shocked at home by Chicago State, 75-73, just days after earning a No. 25 ranking in the AP Poll.

northwestern.rivals.com

 

[GatoLouco]

My thoughts.

Summary: It happens. That is not to say I am not super mad at players and coach. It almost happened against a dreadful Western Michigan. That should have lit some fire under our butts against being complacent just because we are facing a bad team. I guess rolling over Detroit Mercy made us forget that.

The players - 70% blame - we should have won with whatever lineups or whatever decisions we saw out there

Just no focus. 14 turnovers are a good sign of that. We would sometimes start a decent action on offense and see that the open shots happened. Just to go back to possession after possession of apathy. Individually, WTF Berry! Were you even there? Did you have the flu? That was atrocious as was the fact our coach let you play 34 minutes.

The coaching - 30% blame - could not lit a fire under the players' arses.

Failed on having team ready to compete, ready to go in with a humble attitude. Failed on lighting that fire at half time, probably tried. This was one of those games a McCaffrey or Underwood tantrum might have been justified as a way of waking the team the F*** up. Maybe it was all pointless, nothing would have worked, but players' attitudes are never just solely on players, they are always, to some extent, leadership fails.

In game decisions... I have written multiple times that I am very much against changing the way a team plays against a clearly inferior opponent. Adjusting, sure, adapting to circumstances, sure. Changing, especially when you are not out of a game, no.

Playing Martinelli at 5 is changing, it was the first time we did it, ever. But I can kind of swallow it from a defensive perspective.

Offensively I am not sure why there was so much crying about our big guys in the game thread. Hunger was 2/2 and Matt 3/4 from the field by the time we decided to bench them both. They were fine, there's no world we expect them to be the dominant force on offense. Martinelli actually did not score a single field goal, just 2 from the FT line. So he was less productive on offense. He did not come in to solve offensive problems.

Defensively was where I told myself, alright, sure let's try it. We are having trouble staying in front of them so maybe this will jolt us. We opened up an 8 pt lead with Martinelli at 5, don't think it was because of it, more convinced it just happened. But, for a few minutes CSU did, indeed, stop scoring. Until they did not. And, not unlike a zone that works for a while, it took us too long to say screw it, the surprise is gone, the other team is now used to the new reality.

We posted Barnhizer once or twice just to stop doing it when it was working. We could have played big with Barnhizer at 3. Post Barnhizer, post Martineli as our motion was really off. We could just have floated a lot on defense to try to slow down their penetration, risking them going mental on 3's. We could have tried a box and one that I've never seen us try. We could have used Mullins to see if he brought some energy, after all, Berry was really, really struggling. We could have played Clayton more for the same reasons. Preston did not even play? And so on, and so on.

Probably the worst loss in the Collins era, at least from a numbers perspective. Even not from a numbers perspective. Cardet is a fine player, bouncy, fast, strong, but man CSU is small and not even disciplined. Their offense is often (maybe most times) one on one, resembling more street ball than organized big boy basketball. And we lost to them.

There was plenty to complain about players and coaches. But, ultimately, I do believe it was one of those nights. Mausoleum, things were off. We do have problems against guards that are a bit fast. That's kind of the only structural reason I find to explain our woes. Everything else was just... 💩 happens.

Good teams react and destroy DePaul after this. For now I think we are a good team. If we lose to DePaul, that changes.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

My thoughts.

Summary: It happens. That is not to say I am not super mad at players and coach. It almost happened against a dreadful Western Michigan. That should have lit some fire under our butts against being complacent just because we are facing a bad team. I guess rolling over Detroit Mercy made us forget that.

The players - 70% blame - we should have won with whatever lineups or whatever we had out there)

Just no focus. 14 turnovers are a good sign of that. We would sometimes start a decent action on offense and see that the open shots happened. Just to go back to possession after possession of apathy. Individually, WTF Berry! Were you even there? Did you have the flu? That was atrocious as was the fact our coach let you play 34 minutes.

The coaching - 30% blame - could not lit a fire under the players' arses.

Failed on having team ready to compete, ready to go in with an humble attitude. Failed on lighting that fire at half time, probably tried. This was one of those games a McCaffrey or Underwood tantrum might have been justified as a way of waking the team the F*** up. Maybe it was all pointless, nothing would have worked, but players' attitudes are never just solely on players, they are always, to some extent, leadership fails.

In game decisions... I have written multiple times that I am very much against changing the way a team plays against a clearly inferior opponent. Adjusting, sure, adapting to circumstances, sure. Changing, especially when you are not out of a game, no.

Playing Martinelli at 5 is changing, it was the first time we did it, ever. I can kind of swallow it from a defensive perspective.

Offensively I am not sure why there was so much crying about our big guys in the game thread. Hunger was 2/2 and Matt 3/4 from the field by the time we decided to bench them both. They were fine, there's no world we expect them to be the dominant force on offense. Martinelli actually did not score a single field goal, just 2 from the FT line. So he was less productive on offense. He did not come in to solve offensive problems.

Defensively was where I told myself, alright, sure let's try it. We are having trouble staying in front of them so maybe this will jolt us. We opened up an 8 pt lead with Martinelli at 5, don't think it was because of it, more convinced it just happened. But, for a few minutes CSU did, indeed, stop scoring. Until they did not. And, not unlike a zone that works for a while, it took us too long to say screw it, the surprise is gone, the other team is now used to the new reality.

We posted Barnhizer once or twice just to stop doing it when it was working. We could have played big with Barnhizer at 3. Post Barnhizer, post Martineli as our motion was really off. We could just have floated a lot on defense to try to slow down their penetration, risking them going mental on 3's. We could have tried a box and one that I've never seen us try. We could have used Mullins to see if he brought some energy, after all, Berry was really, really struggling. We could have played Clayton...

Probably the worst loss in the Collins era, at least from a numbers perspective. Even not from a numbers perspective. Cardet is a fine player, bouncy, fast, strong, but man CSU is small and not even disciplined. Their offense is often (maybe most times) one on one, resembling more street ball than organized big boy basketball. And we lost to them.

There was plenty to complain about players and coaches. But, ultimately, I do believe it was one of those nights. Mausoleum, things were off. We do have problems against guards that are a bit fast. That's kind of the only structural reason to explain some of our woes. Everything else was just, it happens.

Good teams react and destroy DePaul after this. For now I think we are a good team. If we lose to DePaul, that changes.

The decision to remove Nicholson and insert Martinelli at the 5 was a disaster. We stuck with it for 10 minutes until it was obvious that CSU was attacking the paint.

For one, the lob to Nicholson was available and there was nothing CSU could have done to stop it.
We just don't seem to know how to execute it.
Second, Hunger had played well in his first half stints and CSU couldn't guard him.
Third, Preston didn't play at all. In the past when he has been the biggest guy on the court, he has played well.

Lastly, when you make the decision to bench all 3 of your centers, that leaves you with 5 players.
Langborg played the whole 40 minutes and twisted his ankle but Collins plowed ahead, eliminating our advantage, playing our opponent's game.

I was there. It was appalling.

 

[Sec.112]

Playing Martinelli at 5 is changing, it was the first time we did it, ever. But I can kind of swallow it from a defensive perspective.

It wasn't the first time this year. But I agree, it's a scary look.

 

[rogerkim]

Agree with everything said in this thread. But minor clarification: Preston was available, but was feeling "under the weather", per CCC in his post-game remarks.

In a game where our team clearly was lacking energy, I can understand the decision not to play Preston - if he was feeling sick, he probably wouldn't have contributed a whole lot of energy off the bench.

 

[rogerkim]

In game decisions... I have written multiple times that I am very much against changing the way a team plays against a clearly inferior opponent. Adjusting, sure, adapting to circumstances, sure. Changing, especially when you are not out of a game, no.

At least from a coaching aspect, this was the key factor, IMHO. Switching to "small ball" to fit what Chicago State was doing was not a good decision. I don't have a problem with switching it up for a short period of time, but against an inferior opponent, we need to stick with what makes us a superior team.

But I think the bigger factor was the lack of energy by the players. They all just seemed flat. I haven't watched all the games, but it's the first time I've seen it this season. So I agree with your 70%/30% split of responsibility between players and coaches for this loss.