I have heard a lot about the missed FT's by the Bulldogs, but haven't heard how many FT' s cooper missed. Does anyone have that info?

I have heard a lot about the missed FT's by the Bulldogs, but haven't heard how many FT' s cooper missed. Does anyone have that info?

 

3-7 from the ft line...stats are on page 1

3-7 from the ft line...stats are on page 1

 

Cooper only reaching the line 7 times says a lot about this game.

3-7 from the ft line...stats are on page 1

Thanks. For Cooper only getting to the line that few times is a question in itself. But my point is why do people act as if Holmes should of wwon by more if they made more FT's when Cooper made less than 50% of theirs.

Cooper only reaching the line 7 times says a lot about this game.

I'm sure a few were 2 **** fouls so I would guess they got to the line less than 7 times which is curious.

Thanks. For Cooper only getting to the line that few times is a question in itself. But my point is why do people act as if Holmes should of wwon by more if they made more FT's when Cooper made less than 50% of theirs.

 

Cooper settled for a lot more jumpshots than Holmes, hence Holmes going to the line more. A lot of those foul shots by Holmes came late in the game with Cooper fouling to extend the game.

 

The refs let this one get VERY physical at both ends.

Thanks. For Cooper only getting to the line that few times is a question in itself. But my point is why do people act as if Holmes should of wwon by more if they made more FT's when Cooper made less than 50% of theirs.

 

Plain and simple... If Holmes would've made more foul shots, they would've won by more.

 

If they would've made more front ends of 1 and 1's, they would've had more total attempts.

 

If they wouldn't had missed so many late game FT's they could've shut the door and sealed the deal much sooner than they did.

 

Their end of the game FT shooting was awful. They survived in this game, but that may not always be the case late in closer games, and that concerns me, and I'd bet that it concerned Booher & Co. as well.