Now that we know who the great 8 are, can you weigh in if they are really the state-wide best 8 in 2A?
Posted on 2/27 9:06 AM | IP: Logged
Not saying that it isn't the best 8, but it is interesting that in the Friday night regionals, only one "home" team (higher seed) won. That was White River. Otherwise, lower seeds won: Kingston, Lindbergh, Lynden, Anacortes, and Clover Park. Now on Sat., both higher seeds won. It is interesting also that even though Lynden and Anacortes finished 3 and 4 in the districts, they won their regional games. They were the #1 and #2 seeds from the NWC, and in the end it worked out for them.
Posted on 2/27 7:59 PM | IP: Logged
I think the 2A ranks are pretty well balanced this year so should be interesting to see the final 8 play. The only regional game that shocked me was Squalicum losing. Of the teams representing district 1 I really thought Lynden & Anacortes had above average shots to win. Thought Squalicum was a shoe in & thought Kingston would beat Cedarcrest in a close game.
Posted on 2/28 8:28 AM | IP: Logged
I agree completely with B-E, though I rated Kingston/Cedarcrest a toss-up. Very evenly matched teams in that one. There should be some great action at the Sundome this week!
Posted on 2/28 6:48 PM | IP: Logged
Agree. Who's buying the BBQ and ice cream?
Posted on 2/28 6:53 PM | IP: Logged
While I'm surprised Squalicum lost, I can't say I'm "shocked." This was not the first time the Storm layed an egg this season. Anyone remember their game against Bellingham? How about their 4th quarter shooting drought at home, against Anacortes. Squalicum had shown the ability to shoot themselves out of a game well before Regionals. I was a little surprised Dickson didn't go to Mattix more. Early in the game he showed he could get to the rack against a much smaller Lindbergh front line. I thought this was the year Cedarcrest would break through. They went toe to toe with a dirt tough Kingston team for 32 minutes. If not for a brutal "no call" at the end, they win.
This post was edited on 2/28 9:06 PM by Warrant3
Posted on 2/28 8:04 PM | IP: Logged
I think I've discussed Squalicum's vulnerabilities at length this year in did my posts. Inconsistent outside shooting and a lack of depth did sink the Storm this year. With the new rules, are the team's represented the BEST in state? Don't think so... but I didn't vote for Obama either. Not sour grapes as you have to find a way to win at crunch time. Keepin' it real. Congrats again to those in the final 8...
Posted on 2/28 8:48 PM | IP: Logged
Well I can honestly say I was shocked when the Storm lost. I felt that those early season losses would teach them that they need to go hard all 4 quarters, not just "show up" - especially when it's win or go home. Evidently not. In both the Bellingham & Lindbergh games they played focused and lights out in the 4th quarter. Had that same intensity been in place the first three quarters I believe there would have been different outcomes. As for Mattix, I didn't think he was very effective vs Lindbergh. Just seemed out of sync - letting rebounds get away, missing some quick passes at the basket, etc. They went small with Youtsey in the 4th and that's when the comeback happened, Youtsey hitting three 3's in the quarter.
Finally, I had no real issue with that no-call at the end of the Cedarcrest game. That kid was going down the lane at the speed of light and threw up an off-balance shot at the buzzer. He tried to initiate contact as it happened but he hit the ground due to being out of control as much as anything. And who's to say if he would have hit both free throws anyway. I was OK with the no-call on that one.
Posted on 2/29 7:07 PM | IP: Logged
If I remember correctly they pulled Mattix well before the late run. Lindbergh was doubling Mattix every time he touched the ball. They certainly seemed to be concerned about him. As far as the "no call" is concerned, I understand the reluctance to make it in that situation. In this instance, the guy got hammered, and I think the call should have been made. We'll just agree to disagree.