I have to start by calling out so many posters on this Board as whiny little b***ches. I am sorry, but it is true. I popped onto the Board after the game expecting to see lots of different views on the game, like usual (some critical of some aspects, but some - and more - pleased for the team pulling out a tough, hard-fought victory). What did I find? Multiple threads of complaints, of calling the LOSING coach a better coach than the RU coach, of multiple disparagements of the RU team and of its coaching staff .... I would say the NEGATIVE threads felt like they outnumbered positive or even NEUTRAL threads (and I am not talking about posts within threads, but the starting threads themselves) by at least 3:1, maybe more. Jeez ... RU just WON, for goodness sakes ... in a rock fight ... against a hated local rival ... against a team that very likely at this stage of the season viewed this game as potential redemption for an awful start to their season ... against a team with FOUR top 100 recruits (all of whim had at least 1 season's P5 experience).
To those who argued (and it was at least 4-5 posters) that Holloway is the better coach, please, stop. Pikiell has the far better coaching resume (8 20-win seasons, 8 post-season appearances - 4 to the NCAA - 11 winning records in 19 seasons - and has completely built or rebuilt TWO programs, brought RU to the NCAA for the first time in 29 years with a team of 2 star recruits - and to the NCAA in back to back seasons), has coached his team to back to back wins over SHU, etc., etc., etc. Maybe Holloway is a great coach. But if so, how come his current SHU team is so bad with so many Top 100 recruits? FYI, is Mick Cronin of UCLA suddenly a bad coach because his team went 7-16 FT and only beat a now 4-5 Arizona by 3? If RU goes 20-28 FT - about their now season-average, RU wins by double digits, going away.
Next ... the name of the game is to WIN, to find ways to WIN, even when you are not executing at your best. RU just did that versus SHU (as they did versus Penn State). Yes, RU is still a work in progress, and must continue to improve as a team, and as individual players, if they wish to make the NCAA. But they have now 2 more OOC conference games - in 2 weeks ... so outside of finishing finals, taking a couple of holiday breaks, RU has 17 days (only 2 games in that span) before they hit the road against Indiana - and the real test to see whether RU is an NCAA invite team is undergone.
Next, people should remember: THE OTHER TEAM ALSO PLAYS AND TRIES TO WIN. People on this Board often act as if the other team is supposed to be like the Washington Generals, letting the Globetrotters do whatever they want. In addition, people need to remember that RU's top 2 players are 18-year-old TRUE FRESHMEN, no matter how talented they might be, and that in many cases the opposing team will have their best players as Seniors and Grad transfers - 22- and 23-year-old MEN. Two of SHU's top 3 players were Graduate Transfers, 5th year players, FYI. Against Penn State it was even more pronounced. Get used to it - RU walks into every game with ONE advantage: It is likely to have the 2 most talented players in the game. But that advantage will be offset by a significant DISADVANTAGE: The opposing team's best players are likely to be veterans, 22- and 23-year-old 4th and 5th year players.
One last comment for game specific comments: I have RU just ONE game behind where I expected them. Admittedly, that is a really bad game, the Kennesaw State loss (even if on the road, its a bad loss). The result of every other game is the exact result I projected. RU has 20 remaining games. Of those, I assign RU's remaining games as "Expected Wins" (10 - 8 in conference), "Expected Losses" (4), and "Swing/??" (6 - 2 road, 3 home and MSU at MSG) games. I do expect RU to win the 2 OOC games ... the task for the staff and team would then be to find a way to hold serve on the expected wins, and find a way to win 2 or 3 of the "Swing/??" games. For every game RU loses from the "Expected Win" column of mine, they need to offset with an extra win from either the Expected Loss" or the "Swing" columns.
Now, to the SHU game, specifically:
1) Offense: SHU gets a lot of credit for two things, specifically, that limited RU's offense: 1) They controlled the PACE of RU's offense through very solid defense - RU had to really work to get any good shots off; and 2) SHU pressured the ball causing a number of RU turnovers - 11 steals by SHU leading to 15 RU turnovers, often doubling the ball and using quick hands to poke away to get into the passing lanes. Oddly enough, I though RU did better against PSU's turnover creating defense than it did against SHU's defense. What may be lost is that RU had 6 turnovers in the 1st 5-7 minutes of the game (to SHU's credit) - but just 9 turnovers the remaining 33-35 minutes of the game. In other words, RU cleaned up its ball handling and passing somewhat. RU ended up with 11 turnovers in the 1st half - just 4 turnovers in the 2nd half.
Because of a combination of turnovers and Harper's 2 fouls, and SHU's ability to set the pace, RU only got 22 FG attempts - and only 1 player was able to be effective .... but here is the advnatage of having 2 major talents - they can sometimes carry the team. Bailey carried RU in that 1st half: 15 points, on 9 of RU's 22 FG attempts, and 7 of RU's 11 FG makes ... Harper had 2 more FG's, for 6 points, and the rest of the team had 2 made FG's in 7 attempts. Was that a failure of the rest of the team, or SHU's credit slowing the game down, and Bailey just taking over. RU had just 2 assists that half - partly because when Bailey takes over, he tends to fo ISO - and no assists, therefore.
The 2nd half, Harper took over hitting 6-8 FG's, scoring 18 points. But he did get a little help from others also: Bailey with 6 points on 2 very important 3's, Derkack with 6 points, Sommerville with 3-4 FT.
The BIGGEST problem with RU's offense versus SHU, in the end, was not even the 15 total turnovers (which were solved in the 2nd half), nort even the lack of shooting attempts from the other players. It was the FT shooting. RU ended up hitting almost 54% of its attempted FG's and 54% from 3 - very good numbers versus a SHU team allowing its opponents to shoot just 40% FG and 29% from 3. The PROBLEM was 13-28 from the FT line ... and especially just 1-8 FT from Bailey (including the front end of a 1 and 1) - 1-8 from one of RU's stars. Bailey should be expected to hit 5-8 or 6-8 ... meaning he should have had 25-26 points, not 21, and RU would likely have won by double digits not a last second shot. Completely unpredictable, and unusual. It did not help that Harper only made 4-7 FT, that Davis missed both of his FT (after starting the year 7-11) or that Martini missed his sole try, the front-end of a 1 and 1. FYI, all the missed FT's also padded SHU's rebounding numbers, adding at least 6 rebounds of missed FT. I know it is small consolation, given the missed FT's, but RU continues to get to the FT line in copious amounts: Yet again, RU MADE more FT's than its opponent ATTEMPTED (well, in this game the same amount. This has been a consistent pattern throughout the season, a positive for RU.
I would add, at one point in the 2nd half, as RU led 59-57, TU had been 8-11 FT (11-20 on the game) - RU went 2-8 FT in the last 3 minutes. The following sequences included: an RU defensive stop, the Davis 0-2 FT, Sommerville 2-2 FT, SHU score, Harper great 12' pull-up, RU defensive stop, Harper 0-2 FT, SHU offensive rebound score, Bailey 0-2 FT, SHU tying score, Harper 3.
2) Defense: So ... RU's defense did some good things, and some not-so-good things. The not so good: Too many points in the paint (36 for SHU), too many easy-ish in-the-lane shots. And, RU was unable to force SHU into many turnovers - just 10 on the game, with just 4 steals. BUT ... RU also really limited SHU's 3-point attempts - perhaps this was intentional (I do not know). I do know SHU was shooting 36% from 3 on the season, but against RU hit just 5-19 (26%). Perhaps this was a deliberate focus of RU, to pressure the 3-point line - but in doing so, gave up some additional interior shots?
Also very good: a) RU committed very few fouls that led to FT's: RU committed just 15 fouls, leading to just 13 FT's; b) RU held SHU's leading scorer to just 8 points, allowing him just 4 FG attempts, and forcing him to commit 4 turnovers ... holding Addae-Wusu, their 3rd leading scorer to hit just 3-10 FG, and though they allowed SHU's 2nd leading scorer to get 15 points, it was on an inefficient 5-14 FG. In fact, SHU's top 3 scorers heading into this game were just 11-28 , combined. RU's defense was not tip top, but was more than adequate. In particular, Harper was solid defensively, and Davis, Williams, Derkack and Sommerville did well defensively, IMO.
3) Rebounding: So ... SHU had 31 rebounds to RU's 30 ... but just 8 offensive rebounds (of their 30 missed shots - under 30% of their misses) - that is a solid job of RU's defensive rebounding. Bailey was effective, with 7, and Williams was great with 7. Derkack had 5. As mentioned above, SHU had 6 of their 31 total rebounds off RU missed FT's - generally a much easier rebound than in game flow. If you exclude rebounds from missed FT's (and RU had 3 off SHU missed FT's, the true "game-flow" rebounding was RU 27, SHU 25 - and SHU is a generally good rebounding team, coming into the game with a +3 per game rebounding edge. Further improvement would be desired, but solid effort, at least.
Players:
1) Harper: Somewhat limited in the 1st half, having to sit down for a chunk (5 minutes, perhaps) with 2 fouls - he did come back with 7 minutes left in the half, and 2 fouls (committed 2 turnovers in the last 7 minutes of the half). Had trouble getting to his spots in the first half, had 3 first half turnovers, was 2-5FG in the first half. But ... well ... superb execution in the 2nd half: 6-8 FG (including 3-4 3-pointers), 3 rebounds, 2 assists, solid defense without fouling (and the 1 foul he was called for sure looked like a great, clean, recovery blocked shot) - and of course the clutch buzzer beating 3. No one can figure out what SHU was doing that last play - letting Harper receive the in-bounds pass uncontested, soft coverage bringing the ball up the court, getting an uncontested (even if long) 3. It is true Harper had an excellent jab step that spun #33 around, freeing him for the truly uncontested shot -0 so Harper deserves some credit for a good move. Even so ... everyone in the arena knew RU wanted the ball in Harper's hands, and even knowing Holloway must have told his team DO NOT FOUL ... how can they not double Harper on the in-bounds pass, to at least try to prevent him from receiving the ball? And the 3 was a beautiful shot: not outrageously long (maybe NBA-distance 3), in perfect form and rhythm. And made.
2) Bailey: If Harper won the game for RU, Bailey gets credit for single-handedly keeping RU in the game in the 1st half, with getting and making good shots, in rhythm, that could not be easily contested ... and making 2 hugely timely 3's in the 2nd Half ... and getting 7 rebounds. On the downside, he was a ridiculously bad 1-8 FT - should have had 25-26 points, not "merely" 21 points. he was also slow getting out to the 3-point line several times when defending Toumi (who hit 2 3's). Still, a good overall game, and scored 21 points om just 15 shots (9-15 FG, 2-3 3-pointers) ... How strange is it to be saying an RU player scored 21 points - and should have much more? Are we already so blase about Bailey and Harper's offensive skills that we tale 20+ point games for granted?
3) Derkack: Not the starter, but off the bench had the 3rd best all around game vs SHU. He did force his sole 3, but otherwise was an okay 2-5 FG, HIT HIS FT's (5-6), scored 9 points, 5 rebounds, a steal and an assist - and high energy defense. Definitely a key player this game. I really like him coming off the bench did have the 5th most minutes.
4) Williams: I thought Williams played really well, though it does not jump out in the box score. He only attempted 2 shots - he did not force ANYTHING into the teeth of SHU's defense. I know he had 3 turnovers, also. But I thought his passing was excellent (the box score said 2 assists, I counted 3, frankly) - when he had the ball the ball kept moving for the most part. he was really looking to set up his teammates. And ... he had 7 rebounds, tied with Bailey for leading rebounder. I thought he also played good defense. I may be wrong (someone should feel free to correct me), but he did cover WUsu and Coleman at times - so Coleman did score 15 - but Wusu and Coleman also combined for 8-22 FG shooting. And Williams had 2 of RU's 4 steals. Additionally, I thought Williams was a stabilizing force for RU.
5) Davis: Yeah, he missed to crucial FT's after being fouled in transition - and had another shot blocked at the rium ... and had 2 TO's, only 1 assist. BUT ... I think he continued to provide the excellent defense he had done versus Penn State - and RU needs him to be the effective on-ball defender he had been last season, that I thought he'd be this season - and until the Penn State game had NOT been. I thought Davis was fine versus SHU - though he had been better versus Penn State.
6) Sommerville: Hit hugely important FT's towards the end (the only RU player to hit any FT's in the last 3 minutes of the game), 3-4 FT on the game. He only had 3 rebounds in 24 minutes, BUT ... despite allowing Okorafor to get 4 offensive rebounds, I felt Sommerville continued to show progress defensively: RU's only blocked shot, solid "wall-up" positional defense, etc. Yes, still room for improvement, but slowly but hopefully surely, getting there.
7) The Rest: Hayes - hit the single 3 he took, but was not open very much, and in a slow-down, fewer possession game like this, when Harper and bailey dominated the ball each half, not that many chances ... Acuff - missed his only 3, which was not a reason to not play, but he did little else and got a DNP in thje 2nd half ... Martini - 8 minutes in the 1st half, zero rebounds, poor defense, missed the front end of a 1 + 1, DNP in the 2nd half.
8) General: Many wanted Pikiell to shorten RU's rotation, well here it is: Starters are Harper, Bailey, Williams, Davis, Ogbole ... primary, every game bench players are Derkack and Sommerville, and MAYBE Hayes ... spot, situational (based on match-ups, foul trouble, specific in-game needs and "hotness" of the player) players: Acuff, Martini and maybe Grant occasionally. There it is: 8-man rotation with Acuff and Martini, and maybe Grant as situational players.
To those who argued (and it was at least 4-5 posters) that Holloway is the better coach, please, stop. Pikiell has the far better coaching resume (8 20-win seasons, 8 post-season appearances - 4 to the NCAA - 11 winning records in 19 seasons - and has completely built or rebuilt TWO programs, brought RU to the NCAA for the first time in 29 years with a team of 2 star recruits - and to the NCAA in back to back seasons), has coached his team to back to back wins over SHU, etc., etc., etc. Maybe Holloway is a great coach. But if so, how come his current SHU team is so bad with so many Top 100 recruits? FYI, is Mick Cronin of UCLA suddenly a bad coach because his team went 7-16 FT and only beat a now 4-5 Arizona by 3? If RU goes 20-28 FT - about their now season-average, RU wins by double digits, going away.
Next ... the name of the game is to WIN, to find ways to WIN, even when you are not executing at your best. RU just did that versus SHU (as they did versus Penn State). Yes, RU is still a work in progress, and must continue to improve as a team, and as individual players, if they wish to make the NCAA. But they have now 2 more OOC conference games - in 2 weeks ... so outside of finishing finals, taking a couple of holiday breaks, RU has 17 days (only 2 games in that span) before they hit the road against Indiana - and the real test to see whether RU is an NCAA invite team is undergone.
Next, people should remember: THE OTHER TEAM ALSO PLAYS AND TRIES TO WIN. People on this Board often act as if the other team is supposed to be like the Washington Generals, letting the Globetrotters do whatever they want. In addition, people need to remember that RU's top 2 players are 18-year-old TRUE FRESHMEN, no matter how talented they might be, and that in many cases the opposing team will have their best players as Seniors and Grad transfers - 22- and 23-year-old MEN. Two of SHU's top 3 players were Graduate Transfers, 5th year players, FYI. Against Penn State it was even more pronounced. Get used to it - RU walks into every game with ONE advantage: It is likely to have the 2 most talented players in the game. But that advantage will be offset by a significant DISADVANTAGE: The opposing team's best players are likely to be veterans, 22- and 23-year-old 4th and 5th year players.
One last comment for game specific comments: I have RU just ONE game behind where I expected them. Admittedly, that is a really bad game, the Kennesaw State loss (even if on the road, its a bad loss). The result of every other game is the exact result I projected. RU has 20 remaining games. Of those, I assign RU's remaining games as "Expected Wins" (10 - 8 in conference), "Expected Losses" (4), and "Swing/??" (6 - 2 road, 3 home and MSU at MSG) games. I do expect RU to win the 2 OOC games ... the task for the staff and team would then be to find a way to hold serve on the expected wins, and find a way to win 2 or 3 of the "Swing/??" games. For every game RU loses from the "Expected Win" column of mine, they need to offset with an extra win from either the Expected Loss" or the "Swing" columns.
Now, to the SHU game, specifically:
1) Offense: SHU gets a lot of credit for two things, specifically, that limited RU's offense: 1) They controlled the PACE of RU's offense through very solid defense - RU had to really work to get any good shots off; and 2) SHU pressured the ball causing a number of RU turnovers - 11 steals by SHU leading to 15 RU turnovers, often doubling the ball and using quick hands to poke away to get into the passing lanes. Oddly enough, I though RU did better against PSU's turnover creating defense than it did against SHU's defense. What may be lost is that RU had 6 turnovers in the 1st 5-7 minutes of the game (to SHU's credit) - but just 9 turnovers the remaining 33-35 minutes of the game. In other words, RU cleaned up its ball handling and passing somewhat. RU ended up with 11 turnovers in the 1st half - just 4 turnovers in the 2nd half.
Because of a combination of turnovers and Harper's 2 fouls, and SHU's ability to set the pace, RU only got 22 FG attempts - and only 1 player was able to be effective .... but here is the advnatage of having 2 major talents - they can sometimes carry the team. Bailey carried RU in that 1st half: 15 points, on 9 of RU's 22 FG attempts, and 7 of RU's 11 FG makes ... Harper had 2 more FG's, for 6 points, and the rest of the team had 2 made FG's in 7 attempts. Was that a failure of the rest of the team, or SHU's credit slowing the game down, and Bailey just taking over. RU had just 2 assists that half - partly because when Bailey takes over, he tends to fo ISO - and no assists, therefore.
The 2nd half, Harper took over hitting 6-8 FG's, scoring 18 points. But he did get a little help from others also: Bailey with 6 points on 2 very important 3's, Derkack with 6 points, Sommerville with 3-4 FT.
The BIGGEST problem with RU's offense versus SHU, in the end, was not even the 15 total turnovers (which were solved in the 2nd half), nort even the lack of shooting attempts from the other players. It was the FT shooting. RU ended up hitting almost 54% of its attempted FG's and 54% from 3 - very good numbers versus a SHU team allowing its opponents to shoot just 40% FG and 29% from 3. The PROBLEM was 13-28 from the FT line ... and especially just 1-8 FT from Bailey (including the front end of a 1 and 1) - 1-8 from one of RU's stars. Bailey should be expected to hit 5-8 or 6-8 ... meaning he should have had 25-26 points, not 21, and RU would likely have won by double digits not a last second shot. Completely unpredictable, and unusual. It did not help that Harper only made 4-7 FT, that Davis missed both of his FT (after starting the year 7-11) or that Martini missed his sole try, the front-end of a 1 and 1. FYI, all the missed FT's also padded SHU's rebounding numbers, adding at least 6 rebounds of missed FT. I know it is small consolation, given the missed FT's, but RU continues to get to the FT line in copious amounts: Yet again, RU MADE more FT's than its opponent ATTEMPTED (well, in this game the same amount. This has been a consistent pattern throughout the season, a positive for RU.
I would add, at one point in the 2nd half, as RU led 59-57, TU had been 8-11 FT (11-20 on the game) - RU went 2-8 FT in the last 3 minutes. The following sequences included: an RU defensive stop, the Davis 0-2 FT, Sommerville 2-2 FT, SHU score, Harper great 12' pull-up, RU defensive stop, Harper 0-2 FT, SHU offensive rebound score, Bailey 0-2 FT, SHU tying score, Harper 3.
2) Defense: So ... RU's defense did some good things, and some not-so-good things. The not so good: Too many points in the paint (36 for SHU), too many easy-ish in-the-lane shots. And, RU was unable to force SHU into many turnovers - just 10 on the game, with just 4 steals. BUT ... RU also really limited SHU's 3-point attempts - perhaps this was intentional (I do not know). I do know SHU was shooting 36% from 3 on the season, but against RU hit just 5-19 (26%). Perhaps this was a deliberate focus of RU, to pressure the 3-point line - but in doing so, gave up some additional interior shots?
Also very good: a) RU committed very few fouls that led to FT's: RU committed just 15 fouls, leading to just 13 FT's; b) RU held SHU's leading scorer to just 8 points, allowing him just 4 FG attempts, and forcing him to commit 4 turnovers ... holding Addae-Wusu, their 3rd leading scorer to hit just 3-10 FG, and though they allowed SHU's 2nd leading scorer to get 15 points, it was on an inefficient 5-14 FG. In fact, SHU's top 3 scorers heading into this game were just 11-28 , combined. RU's defense was not tip top, but was more than adequate. In particular, Harper was solid defensively, and Davis, Williams, Derkack and Sommerville did well defensively, IMO.
3) Rebounding: So ... SHU had 31 rebounds to RU's 30 ... but just 8 offensive rebounds (of their 30 missed shots - under 30% of their misses) - that is a solid job of RU's defensive rebounding. Bailey was effective, with 7, and Williams was great with 7. Derkack had 5. As mentioned above, SHU had 6 of their 31 total rebounds off RU missed FT's - generally a much easier rebound than in game flow. If you exclude rebounds from missed FT's (and RU had 3 off SHU missed FT's, the true "game-flow" rebounding was RU 27, SHU 25 - and SHU is a generally good rebounding team, coming into the game with a +3 per game rebounding edge. Further improvement would be desired, but solid effort, at least.
Players:
1) Harper: Somewhat limited in the 1st half, having to sit down for a chunk (5 minutes, perhaps) with 2 fouls - he did come back with 7 minutes left in the half, and 2 fouls (committed 2 turnovers in the last 7 minutes of the half). Had trouble getting to his spots in the first half, had 3 first half turnovers, was 2-5FG in the first half. But ... well ... superb execution in the 2nd half: 6-8 FG (including 3-4 3-pointers), 3 rebounds, 2 assists, solid defense without fouling (and the 1 foul he was called for sure looked like a great, clean, recovery blocked shot) - and of course the clutch buzzer beating 3. No one can figure out what SHU was doing that last play - letting Harper receive the in-bounds pass uncontested, soft coverage bringing the ball up the court, getting an uncontested (even if long) 3. It is true Harper had an excellent jab step that spun #33 around, freeing him for the truly uncontested shot -0 so Harper deserves some credit for a good move. Even so ... everyone in the arena knew RU wanted the ball in Harper's hands, and even knowing Holloway must have told his team DO NOT FOUL ... how can they not double Harper on the in-bounds pass, to at least try to prevent him from receiving the ball? And the 3 was a beautiful shot: not outrageously long (maybe NBA-distance 3), in perfect form and rhythm. And made.
2) Bailey: If Harper won the game for RU, Bailey gets credit for single-handedly keeping RU in the game in the 1st half, with getting and making good shots, in rhythm, that could not be easily contested ... and making 2 hugely timely 3's in the 2nd Half ... and getting 7 rebounds. On the downside, he was a ridiculously bad 1-8 FT - should have had 25-26 points, not "merely" 21 points. he was also slow getting out to the 3-point line several times when defending Toumi (who hit 2 3's). Still, a good overall game, and scored 21 points om just 15 shots (9-15 FG, 2-3 3-pointers) ... How strange is it to be saying an RU player scored 21 points - and should have much more? Are we already so blase about Bailey and Harper's offensive skills that we tale 20+ point games for granted?
3) Derkack: Not the starter, but off the bench had the 3rd best all around game vs SHU. He did force his sole 3, but otherwise was an okay 2-5 FG, HIT HIS FT's (5-6), scored 9 points, 5 rebounds, a steal and an assist - and high energy defense. Definitely a key player this game. I really like him coming off the bench did have the 5th most minutes.
4) Williams: I thought Williams played really well, though it does not jump out in the box score. He only attempted 2 shots - he did not force ANYTHING into the teeth of SHU's defense. I know he had 3 turnovers, also. But I thought his passing was excellent (the box score said 2 assists, I counted 3, frankly) - when he had the ball the ball kept moving for the most part. he was really looking to set up his teammates. And ... he had 7 rebounds, tied with Bailey for leading rebounder. I thought he also played good defense. I may be wrong (someone should feel free to correct me), but he did cover WUsu and Coleman at times - so Coleman did score 15 - but Wusu and Coleman also combined for 8-22 FG shooting. And Williams had 2 of RU's 4 steals. Additionally, I thought Williams was a stabilizing force for RU.
5) Davis: Yeah, he missed to crucial FT's after being fouled in transition - and had another shot blocked at the rium ... and had 2 TO's, only 1 assist. BUT ... I think he continued to provide the excellent defense he had done versus Penn State - and RU needs him to be the effective on-ball defender he had been last season, that I thought he'd be this season - and until the Penn State game had NOT been. I thought Davis was fine versus SHU - though he had been better versus Penn State.
6) Sommerville: Hit hugely important FT's towards the end (the only RU player to hit any FT's in the last 3 minutes of the game), 3-4 FT on the game. He only had 3 rebounds in 24 minutes, BUT ... despite allowing Okorafor to get 4 offensive rebounds, I felt Sommerville continued to show progress defensively: RU's only blocked shot, solid "wall-up" positional defense, etc. Yes, still room for improvement, but slowly but hopefully surely, getting there.
7) The Rest: Hayes - hit the single 3 he took, but was not open very much, and in a slow-down, fewer possession game like this, when Harper and bailey dominated the ball each half, not that many chances ... Acuff - missed his only 3, which was not a reason to not play, but he did little else and got a DNP in thje 2nd half ... Martini - 8 minutes in the 1st half, zero rebounds, poor defense, missed the front end of a 1 + 1, DNP in the 2nd half.
8) General: Many wanted Pikiell to shorten RU's rotation, well here it is: Starters are Harper, Bailey, Williams, Davis, Ogbole ... primary, every game bench players are Derkack and Sommerville, and MAYBE Hayes ... spot, situational (based on match-ups, foul trouble, specific in-game needs and "hotness" of the player) players: Acuff, Martini and maybe Grant occasionally. There it is: 8-man rotation with Acuff and Martini, and maybe Grant as situational players.
