- This topic has 137 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Dorn, Abu, Smith Jr, M Johnson are all better on the break. When we get full strength I am hoping we can run teams ragged like we got run last night. If we can hurry the other team up it also helps our defense too. Quick shots by an opponent help a poor defensive team. We will never guard like UVA. Go back and look at his (Gott’s) greatest wins though. He can get them to play good defense.
I don’t know if we should have kept running last night. Quick shots no, but on fast breaks, absolutely. I think that’s what he wants to do generally, so that’s what we did. There was a sequence also where we almost go back into the game, cut it to 9 I think on 2 possesions with the ball and couldn’t convert. I’d like to have seen it slow down on important possessions, yes. That’s on DSJr I think. That’s what I mean by him needing to get better.
I can see your point about getting chippy. I agree we’ve been passive. Maybe I’m just being paranoid about refs misinterpreting our players against “some” teams.
AS far as the zone, I don’t think it would have helped, but sure why not try it a little more. Nothing to lose the way that game went.
Rye + 1. And I’ll raise you.. I like a lot about this team and its potential, but unfortunately, I think the numbers all show that you need to be above average defensively to advance into the the final weekends of the Dance. No matter how good on offense you are. Why? Because you’ll have bad shooting nights. And you’ll run into teams, like Creighton, who shoot it lights out. One of SFN local statisticians crunched some numbers and nicely summarized the results about 2-3 years ago. Better be better than average on both sides.
Cause for concern, is that the inmates appear to be running the asylum already. I’ve seen Schroyer go nuts several times on the bench, but zero reinforcement from the head man. If pine and time don’t follow the crime, youngsters don’t listen and learn. No excuse this early in the season to not use the bench as a lesson.
I think we might be better off with Schroyer as the head man. There were rumblings when we hired him that if Gott imploded, he was going to be the guy. Gott’s a recruiter for sure, but if he can’t get it done this year with the talent he has, he’s just not a good enough coach.
As for defense, ESPN did a “statistical model” analysis prior to the year ranking all teams based on factors — offense, defense, coach, talent. We were 15th, but the team with the worst defensive rank (83rd) and the least balance. It was also clear to be really good, one needs to be top 25 in both areas, which we are not. That’s where the recent “good” teams have been.
Note, this isn’t a one loss, fire the coach post. It’s just a view about problems that have been inherent in Gott’s program for years. I hope we get them corrected. We’re really close to being good, but these problems have to be fixed.
No excuse this early in the season to not use the bench as a lesson.
Right on. Except the sample size is a bit small on determining if its experience or effort as to why defense is not being played up to par & we’re a short bench at the moment. Before its all said and done Gott will have the opportunity to give more minutes to a more “balanced” line-up, let’s see how that goes. If there was ever an opportunity to have his teams play pressure defense, full-court pressure, etc., have guys constantly rotating in for fresher bodies, this is the first real season to do that. 10 deep without any real drop-off in talent, at least not offensively : )
Regarding the zone, the one thing that makes our man to man look good is our zone d. It gives up more offensive rebounds and open 3s.
Teams that move the ball well -which Creighton does – eat that stuff up. OTOH, it is probably a good d against us.
Give these guys time though. It is a young team and is still in the infancy of developing chemistry. The team ready to throw down together was an excellent sign.
Regarding the zone, the one thing that makes our man to man look good is our zone d. It gives up more offensive rebounds and open 3s.
Teams that move the ball well -which Creighton does – eat that stuff up. OTOH, it is probably a good d against us.
Give these guys time though. It is a young team and is still in the infancy of developing chemistry. The team ready to throw down together was an excellent sign.
Chop: Did you see the exhibitions? Have you seen us play the match up? Not trying to be combative, but generally asking. It looked great in the exhibitions (way better than our man to man). The few times we switched to it in the “regular” games, we have forced a bad/long shot. It basically snuffs out the middle and shots close to the basket and then traps at the perimeter.
It’s sort of like stacking the line in football and forcing the opponent to throw. That’s fine with me because I’d rather have a team beat us by shooting 35 3s than by fouling us out. We’ll beat more teams than not that way.
I watched pretty big chunks of both of them. But those weren’t good or well-balanced teams.
If a team is well-coached and skilled – they will rip it apart. There’s a reason only 1 consistent power consistently plays it – it takes a lot of time, communication and discipline.
Our zone d yields easier shots than our man to man, we tried against Creighton anf they ripped it apart if memory serves correct.
I remember a handful of possessions and Creighton shooting long shots. Give me that any day.
Of course I’m a bit of a contrarian against the modern game. I don’t subscribe to 3 > 2 and 33% = 50%. Give me 50%, some and 1s and another of those 5/7 precious ones against the opponent and I like my chances against the 3/35% crowd any day of the week. They might win on a day that they go 3/45%, but that’s at most 1/5 days in college ball.
Rye – I look at a zone from a guard that could shoot pov. My eyes lit up when I saw a zone. The key was simply being disciplined enough to not take the fools gold. Good shots are available vs a zone with skill, discipline and execution. The same can’t be said with man-to-man.
I think that theory works without an easy 3 point line. This 3 point line is too easy and most good teams have at least 2 shooters on the floor capable of getting those easy shots. Further, if you don’t have good rebounding fundamentals, you get killed on the boards.
St Joe’s got plenty of good looks and rebounds, they just didn’t convert. I do think a zone is good to throw in on occasion – due to foul trouble, fatigue or trying to break momentum…I just think it’s not as effective as man to man d.
Chop: I think the middle game is dead in college basketball. We’re one of the few teams around that still really uses it (function of the high post). When I watch most college teams, I see a lot of shots right around the basket, a lot of 3 point shots and little to nothing else.
I also see a sport with a 50% player transfer rate. That’s paired with a trend for players to give up their eligibility to chase pro $$$. Anya will be the first 4 year player under Gott to graduate and exhaust his eligibility. This is much worse for the high majors. Of the “good” teams in our league, only UNC and UVA really keep players around 4 years. Most teams are trying to go from storming, norming and performing every year.
To me, that’s a combination that makes zones highly effective in the college game. They’re easy to teach and to introduce new players into. They require discipline and shooting to beat (and I think fewer kids can shoot now than they could 20 years ago). Discipline comes with time and reps in a system, which most teams don’t have a chance to build. Heck, they work in the international game, against teams like team USA that don’t have a lot of time together.
I also think man to man takes time to learn to play well, particularly a really effective man that uses a lot of switching and mixes in some trapping. We have 5 years that show us that we don’t teach it well. We foul at an alarming rate and give up many an uncontested shot in the lane as a result. We rank 75+ in defensive stats every year. Why keep doing the same thing?
Why not try something else? Why not try something that at least makes a team seek the perimeter as their first option? Why not run a defense that puts our all time leading shot blocker in the lane with his back to the basket facing the offensive players? Seems like a low risk strategy for me, and should absolutely be the plan when Anya is on the court.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
