Loyola coach Jimmy Patsos made a bold move against the Davidson Wildcats: He double-teamed college basketball superstar Stephen Curry.
78-48 was the final score without the help of Curry. Andrew Lovedale picked Curry up by posting a 20-point, 10-rebound double-double.
"Anybody else ever hold him scoreless?" Patsos asked. "I'm a history major. (Are people) going to remember that we held him scoreless or (that) we lost by 30?"
Well, you held Curry to three shots, coach, and zero points, but you also lost by 30 since you basically had your team play 3-on-4 the whole game.
Tell me if I am wrong. Playing 3-on-4 is not really fair, so why put your team into that situation? Just play them 5-on-5 with your best defender face-guarding Curry.
"It seemed to me they were willing to risk the game at the expense of locking Steph up," Davidson coach Bob McKillop said. "When you put two people on somebody and you do it for 30 minutes and at the end of the game, you have to wonder what the reasons for that are."
That I do indeed wonder.
"If Oklahoma can't stop him, how is Loyola College going to stop him?" Patsos asked.
You're right coach. There is no way your team was going to stop Curry, but then again, you still got embarrassed by 30 points.
So I have to ask, was it a smart or dumb move by Patsos to play the triangle and two defense on Curry?
I personally think it was dumb. It took away the excitement from the fans who mostly likely just showed up to watch Curry play. Not only that, but it was really cheap at least in my opinion.
Like the new article format? Send us feedback!