Film Session: Bombs away

  • 02/14/2011 9:55 pm in

After a first half where it scored half its points in the paint and only made one 3-point attempt, Michigan flipped the script and mounted it’s 22-point second half lead on the strength of a bevy of 3-point makes.

A look at Michigan’s sharpshooting barrage in the latest edition of Film Session.


The Hoosiers turn the ball over on their first offensive possession of the second half, as Jordan Hulls’ pass to Tom Pritchard on a pick-and-roll runs afoul:

Zach Novak scoops up the loose ball and pushes it up the court:

With nobody else back and  Hulls and Will Sheehey both looking to stop the ball, Novak has the option to pass to two open shooters on the left wing in Stu Douglass and Tim Hardaway Jr.:

Novak opts for Douglass, who has room to rise, fire and connect on the triple:



Darius Morris dumps it off to Novak:

Novak swings it up to Douglass, as Jordan Morgan sets a pick on Verdell Jones for Hardaway:

Novak cuts through as Douglass kicks it over to Morris on the wing:

Jones sinks into the lane while keeping an eye on Hardaway, which allows Morgan to get a body in front of him as Morris darts into the lane:

This gives Hardaway enough separation to get off a three over a closing-out Jones, which he connects on:



Hardaway passes over to Morgan at the top of the key:

Morgan kicks it over to Novak, as Douglass sets a pick for Hardaway:

Jones and Hulls switch on the pick with Jones now marking Douglass:

And here’s Morgan again with the pick:

Which gives Douglass plenty enough room to fire and hit:

Three possessions to start the half here, and three straight makes from beyond the arc for the Wolverines, which led to a Tom Crean timeout.



Here’s a cut of three more open 3-point attempts the Wolverines got before the 10-minute mark in the second half, two of which they connected on. The first two by Novak and Hardaway came in transition as Indiana failed to pick either of them up. The last came because Matt Roth had to close out all the way from the rim on Douglass, allowing him space to shoot. (Apologies for the lack of audio on this.)

Filed to:

  • RobD

    Was at the game. Demoralizing to watch that run. IU played like befuddled little middle schoolers. They never got beat down low in this game–Michigan has very little post presence–but they still didn’t cover the three. Confounding. Foul trouble didn’t help.

  • MillaRed

    I am looking forward to the day we no longer have spurts where we look like “befuddled little middle schoolers.”

    Funny stuff. Sad. But funny none the less.

    Nice work Ryan. The fact we cannot seem to set ourselves up for these looks is still a little bothersome.

  • InTheMtns

    This was a disappointing game, but it made me look at the reality of who this team is instead of the version of the team I’ve had in my head. We aren’t a bad team but we aren’t a good team either.

    I’ll say that I appreciate that IU had the grit to not quit and mount the comeback. But I’ve also got to say that it didn’t really impress me much — Michigan had fallen asleep with their lead and then sort of panicked when IU got close. Michigan is a young team and young teams do that. IU made a great run but making a run when the game is over is easier than making a run when the game is winnable.

    Winning road games seems to be beyond us this year. I think IU is fully capable of beating NW and PU in our final two home games but for sure IU has to bring their A game both times. Based on what CTC said in two post game interviews, it seems that he might be concerned that the players might be on the brink of folding for the season. I hope playing in Assembly Hall shakes them out of it. The rest of the season is going to be tough, though, because everyone we are playing is playing with the post season in mind and they have to beat us.

    Here’s to playing well at home! Go IU!!!!!

  • InTheMtns

    I’m with ya, MIlla — it is bothersome that we can’t seem to set ourselves up for the looks like the ones shown in this film session. As well as the fact that at times we can’t seem to stop them from happening! I do think we’re growing and making progress but we sure aren’t there yet. Guess we’ll continue to look forward to when we are.

  • MillaRed

    When this type of thing has been discussed the typical answer is “we don’t
    have the players, they aren’t good enough to run around screens etc.”

    Come on that’s rubbish isn’t it? I have a hard time believing we have 5 guys
    that have 5 better defenders for 40 minutes every single game.

    Still yet…….no open looks from a set play. I don’t get it. Not being
    sarcastic. I just don’t get it!

  • InTheMtns

    If that’s the argument, then yes, it does seem unlikely that we always have 5 guys who are poorer than the other team’s 5 defenders for 40 minutes every game.

    I don’t know what’s the reason that we seldom have a successful play for an open look. Funny thing is, I remember that we did have successful set plays for open looks two years ago when we supposedly had less talented players than we have now. I’m assuming, though, if they these guys could do it, they would.

    I’m thinking one reason it isn’t happening is because we’ve become way too predictable and easy to defend. .JerryCT made a suggestion recently that we ought to have every player setting screens and I’d like to see some of that. As it is now, EVEN I can tell when a screen is coming, where it will be, who will set it, etc.!!

    On theses open looks for Michigan — to be fair — one of them happened after VO got knocked down on the break. The shot happened while we were still 4 on 5. Michigan might have gotten the open look anyway but I’d like to think not if VO had been back.