adlai
Century (over 100 posts)
Posts: 158
|
Post by adlai on Mar 11, 2009 10:28:00 GMT -5
One critical element has been lost in all of this. At one point this year, Kenpom ranked us not only as the #1 offense in the country, but as the #1 team in the country. Clearly, this team had talent and we had high hopes after UConn. We immediately jumped on every team and it seemed that we were inevitably up 10-0 or the like before the other team knew the game had started. After UConn, we only had one game like this which was Syracuse. We certainly have talent, but it turns out that later in the season teams learned our key weaknesses.
The Princeton offense or the version we run is more or less predicated on basically getting a layup or a three pointer. Despite Jon's slump for part of last year, he was known throughout his career as a deadly three point shot. It was more or less impossible to sag because he was going to make close to 50% of his open threes. Sapp was also a more credible threat last year and Summers could certainly shoot. Even if we were having an off night from three, there was a credible threat there and you didn't want us to heat up.
Moreover, going inside was a great option. Roy had to be double teamed, but when he did shoot he still made upwards of 60% I believe. Basically, every time the ball went into him, there was a very credible threat which would require the defense to shift. He could go left or right and scored quickly and efficiently. If the defense shifted to double team him, a teammate was open and he was a good and unselfish passer.
As the defense got out of position based on one of these threats, cuts would also open up. We ended up with a ton of easy layups which created an offensive threat of their own. If the teams got too spread out or rotated out of position, we would take advantage of that with ease.
This year, we really had no credible three point threat consistently throughout the season. The last game we seemed to make anything was against Syracuse (we even forced them to come out of their zone), but after that there was perhaps a game or two at most where we shot reasonably from three. The result was that teams would sit back in a zone daring us to make threes we just could not make.
This year Monroe was our only credible threat inside and he had but one move which was the running shot to the left. Teams quickly figured that out that his offense was one-dimensional. He had that drive move to his left as he never could go right. The defender would then just sit off his right shoulder which completely took this away or would mean he did not really necessitate the double team. On offense, this was a very different situation than last year with a 7-2 center that could go either way.
As a result, of not having a credible inside our outside threat, teams realized that they could clog up the passing lanes and their major goal was to take away the easy layups. That became their dominant defensive strategy and they did it brilliantly. I think we only saw the backdoor cut a couple of times per game most of the BE season.
I think the greatest challenge this year ended up being the lack of true three point threats. At the end of a couple of games when we were down three, there was no one on this team I thought would make the shot and neither did the opposition. That happened all game long. Wallace's 50% shooting from out there of years before just wasn't there in the BE season. Once teams figured this out and figured out how to stop Greg, bottling up the Princeton offense was not so tough.
We may have all-stars on the floor, but I would take a two star player who could do nothing else but drain threes for one of our key players. That is absolutely necessary for this offense. If we can find that, and Greg can learn to use his right hand (or even more importantly stays), the offense will be much crisper next year and this will turn into an aberration. If not, then yes, coach either needs to modify the offense for success or we will continue to struggle with these all-stars.
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 11, 2009 10:32:00 GMT -5
One critical element has been lost in all of this. At one point this year, Kenpom ranked us not only as the #1 offense in the country, but as the #1 team in the country. Clearly, this team had talent and we had high hopes after UConn. We immediately jumped on every team and it seemed that we were inevitably up 10-0 or the like before the other team knew the game had started. After UConn, we only had one game like this which was Syracuse. We certainly have talent, but it turns out that later in the season teams learned our key weaknesses. The Princeton offense or the version we run is more or less predicated on basically getting a layup or a three pointer. Despite Jon's slump for part of last year, he was known throughout his career as a deadly three point shot. It was more or less impossible to sag because he was going to make close to 50% of his open threes. Sapp was also a more credible threat last year and Summers could certainly shoot. Even if we were having an off night from three, there was a credible threat there and you didn't want us to heat up. Moreover, going inside was a great option. Roy had to be double teamed, but when he did shoot he still made upwards of 60% I believe. Basically, every time the ball went into him, there was a very credible threat which would require the defense to shift. He could go left or right and scored quickly and efficiently. If the defense shifted to double team him, a teammate was open and he was a good and unselfish passer. As the defense got out of position based on one of these threats, cuts would also open up. We ended up with a ton of easy layups which created an offensive threat of their own. If the teams got too spread out or rotated out of position, we would take advantage of that with ease. This year, we really had no credible three point threat consistently throughout the season. The last game we seemed to make anything was against Syracuse (we even forced them to come out of their zone), but after that there was perhaps a game or two at most where we shot reasonably from three. The result was that teams would sit back in a zone daring us to make threes we just could not make. This year Monroe was our only credible threat inside and he had but one move which was the running shot to the left. Teams quickly figured that out that his offense was one-dimensional. He had that drive move to his left as he never could go right. The defender would then just sit off his right shoulder which completely took this away or would mean he did not really necessitate the double team. On offense, this was a very different situation than last year with a 7-2 center that could go either way. As a result, of not having a credible inside our outside threat, teams realized that they could clog up the passing lanes and their major goal was to take away the easy layups. That became their dominant defensive strategy and they did it brilliantly. I think we only saw the backdoor cut a couple of times per game most of the BE season. I think the greatest challenge this year ended up being the lack of true three point threats. At the end of a couple of games when we were down three, there was no one on this team I thought would make the shot and neither did the opposition. That happened all game long. Wallace's 50% shooting from out there of years before just wasn't there in the BE season. Once teams figured this out and figured out how to stop Greg, bottling up the Princeton offense was not so tough. We may have all-stars on the floor, but I would take a two star player who could do nothing else but drain threes for one of our key players. That is absolutely necessary for this offense. If we can find that, and Greg can learn to use his right hand (or even more importantly stays), the offense will be much crisper next year and this will turn into an aberration. If not, then yes, coach either needs to modify the offense for success or we will continue to struggle with these all-stars. Complete agreement. Princeton O will never work without a few real shooters. And no offense works without a shooter or post presence. We simply were a poor offensive team this year.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 11, 2009 10:38:18 GMT -5
One critical element has been lost in all of this. At one point this year, Kenpom ranked us not only as the #1 offense in the country, but as the #1 team in the country. Clearly, this team had talent and we had high hopes after UConn. We immediately jumped on every team and it seemed that we were inevitably up 10-0 or the like before the other team knew the game had started. After UConn, we only had one game like this which was Syracuse. We certainly have talent, but it turns out that later in the season teams learned our key weaknesses. The Princeton offense or the version we run is more or less predicated on basically getting a layup or a three pointer. Despite Jon's slump for part of last year, he was known throughout his career as a deadly three point shot. It was more or less impossible to sag because he was going to make close to 50% of his open threes. Sapp was also a more credible threat last year and Summers could certainly shoot. Even if we were having an off night from three, there was a credible threat there and you didn't want us to heat up. Moreover, going inside was a great option. Roy had to be double teamed, but when he did shoot he still made upwards of 60% I believe. Basically, every time the ball went into him, there was a very credible threat which would require the defense to shift. He could go left or right and scored quickly and efficiently. If the defense shifted to double team him, a teammate was open and he was a good and unselfish passer. As the defense got out of position based on one of these threats, cuts would also open up. We ended up with a ton of easy layups which created an offensive threat of their own. If the teams got too spread out or rotated out of position, we would take advantage of that with ease. This year, we really had no credible three point threat consistently throughout the season. The last game we seemed to make anything was against Syracuse (we even forced them to come out of their zone), but after that there was perhaps a game or two at most where we shot reasonably from three. The result was that teams would sit back in a zone daring us to make threes we just could not make. This year Monroe was our only credible threat inside and he had but one move which was the running shot to the left. Teams quickly figured that out that his offense was one-dimensional. He had that drive move to his left as he never could go right. The defender would then just sit off his right shoulder which completely took this away or would mean he did not really necessitate the double team. On offense, this was a very different situation than last year with a 7-2 center that could go either way. As a result, of not having a credible inside our outside threat, teams realized that they could clog up the passing lanes and their major goal was to take away the easy layups. That became their dominant defensive strategy and they did it brilliantly. I think we only saw the backdoor cut a couple of times per game most of the BE season. I think the greatest challenge this year ended up being the lack of true three point threats. At the end of a couple of games when we were down three, there was no one on this team I thought would make the shot and neither did the opposition. That happened all game long. Wallace's 50% shooting from out there of years before just wasn't there in the BE season. Once teams figured this out and figured out how to stop Greg, bottling up the Princeton offense was not so tough. We may have all-stars on the floor, but I would take a two star player who could do nothing else but drain threes for one of our key players. That is absolutely necessary for this offense. If we can find that, and Greg can learn to use his right hand (or even more importantly stays), the offense will be much crisper next year and this will turn into an aberration. If not, then yes, coach either needs to modify the offense for success or we will continue to struggle with these all-stars. I think this is a tremendous post. I for one wonder how much moving the 3 point line back a foot affected our shooters. If you're a great shooter, a foot shouldn't matter, but I think some of our guys were at the very least partially affected by it. But keep in mind, I wouldn't call anyone on this year's team a pure shooter like a Wallace. I would agree completely with the suggestion that we need to bring in a guy who might not necessarily be a top talent who can wow you with his athletic ability, but can shoot lights out if left open. It's not that we took a ton of contested threes this year. Our Achilles heel was that when it came time to make teams pay by knocking down open shots from the perimeter, we couldn't do it on a consistent basis. According to Pomeroy, we shot 33.0% from 3 this year (221st in the nation). Compare that to 2008 (38.4%, 38th), 2007 (37.0% 73rd), 2006 (35.5%, 129th), and 2005 (36.5%, 75th) and this was easily the worst 3 point shooting team that we've had under JTIII. As for the guys returning next year, I really do think some of them have the capability to improve their outside shooting prior to the start of next year. Just like any other parts of their games involving fundamentals, it will take a lot of hard work during the off-season.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Mar 11, 2009 10:45:35 GMT -5
To me this thread has the most interesting and insightful posts of any I've seen on our situation and year. Thanks to all for contributing.
I'd like to throw in something else I have not seen mentioned. At the beginning of the year when we were on our way to a great year, the only person on the team that was receiving accolades in the press (and on this board) was Monroe. Is it possible the rest of the team got upset at that and it influenced how they and Monroe played after that?
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Mar 11, 2009 10:56:44 GMT -5
We simply did not have an answer for a sagging zone this year. I too believe our guys can improve as shooters, but I also completely agree with bringing in a long range specialist. I think Nikita was supposed to be that guy, but the game pressure seemed to get to him. We need a prototypical cold blooded 6'2" assassin on this club . . . now.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 11, 2009 12:16:24 GMT -5
NC - you've got it.
There's only so many forms of offense -- outside shooting, driving, low post, motion, offensive rebounding and fast breaks. When you are good at all of them, they feed off each other, creating opportunities as the defense needs to pick its poison.
When we couldn't hit an outside shot and Monroe didn't demand double teams down low... there's no real reason not to sag on the motion and penetration. And we're no good at fast breaking or offensive rebounding.
|
|
|
Post by centercourt400s on Mar 11, 2009 12:38:07 GMT -5
The team got unhinged from a chemistry standpoint by a schedule that was just too tough early on and never got it back. Vamo is touching on a major point that not too many others have picked up on... our schedule killed us this year. It killed us by killing our confidence, and we were vulnerable to that because we are YOUNG. A veteran team would have picked itself up after a couple of the BE losses and gotten a few quality wins in crunch time but our inexperienced team just crumbled under the stress. Take a look at the season’s results to see if this isn’t the case: 10-1 start, the only loss being to Tennessee, who shot the lights out. Final win of the opening run was on the road against #1 UCONN which represented the high water mark of our confidence. Losses to PITT and ND followed with a couple of rebounds against Providence and then Syracuse. I think the Syracuse win was actually a long term negative since we won basically because we shot the lights out, not because of good team skills or maturity. Then came our loss at Duke and the phantom technical. The team was already tired and emotionally fragile and that loss really hit them hard. The next three games were against teams that most observers thought they should beat, starting with West Virginia at home. Instead of bouncing back after Duke, the team looked stunned that West Virginia took it to them in their own building. This was the real start of the crisis of confidence because after heartbreak against a top 10 team on the road, what I think they expected was an easy home win against a squad with no national accolades, actually turned into a crushing, embarrassing loss in front of their fans. And they never recovered after that. I count only two quality performances after that: our OT loss at Syracuse and the 25 point win at South Florida. (The win at Villanova was scrappy and tough and they played hard but we really won in the end because Nova played poorly.) My point is that everyone acknowledges that we had one of the hardest schedules this year, if not THE hardest, and that this fact alone was a major contributor to our poor play. For years commentators took the Hoyas and Pops to task for scheduling creampuffs and I do think he overdid it at times. But Pops was also on to something, which is not surprising considering who we are talking about. A team needs to believe in themselves to be successful and one way to instill that belief is simply to win. Crafting a schedule to achieve the result of a confident team in March is crucial to a national contender’s success and Pops knew that. I’m sure III knows it as well but it just didn’t work out for us this year, partially because of his non-comf scheduling and partially because of bad luck with a murderer’s row BE this year. If the schedule hadn’t broken out the way it did, if some of the easier BE opponents had been better spaced out, I think the season could have gone quite another route, with at least a top 5 BE finish and a decent berth in the NCAAs. It’s all water under the bridge of course but potentially bodes well for next year.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,219
|
Post by hoyarooter on Mar 11, 2009 12:54:45 GMT -5
I've been writing for months that, from an offensive standpoint, our awful three point shooting was killing us. Most offenses don't work if a team has no outside threats (actually, I suppose if we were a great offensive rebounding team, we could have turned lots of those bricks into layups, but Blair doesn't play for us). The kids need to be shooting thousands of jumpers every day during the off season. This is a problem that can be fixed.
Also, it seems to me that our three point shooting was well under 33% in conference. For every moderately decent game, we tossed in a couple 4-22 type games. Does anybody have those stats?
|
|
bmartin
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,459
|
Post by bmartin on Mar 11, 2009 13:05:41 GMT -5
I would not say JTIII inherited two NBA 1st round picks from Esherick. He inherited two big guys, one very raw and coached them up.
Do you think Hibbert would have become a 1st round pick under Esherick?
Do you think Jeff Green would have been a lottery pick under Esherick?
Do you think the 2007 team would have made the Final Four under Esherick?
|
|
Big Dog
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,912
|
Post by Big Dog on Mar 11, 2009 13:18:50 GMT -5
i'm also tired of hearing people say jt3 got to the final four with esherick's players 3 of the 5 starters were jt3 guys -summers, sapp, and wallace the main bench players were jt3 guys - rivers, macklin, ewing what round and at what position were those guys drafted? I know Hibbert and Jeff were NBA 1st rounders? what about the other guys? ;D Doesn't hurt to have that type of talent to inherit. I mean, lets call it for what it is. We get it: Folks hate Esherick. But let's not let Esh hate get in the way, and act like he had not recruited those guys, and those were not the two most important pieces to the reviving this dead program. A 7'2 center and NBA 1st round draft pick and 6'8 future Big East player of the year and NBA lottery pick? come on. Look, I don't have a problem with much of the discussion in this thread. But I don't want to hear anymore this lie that Giga likes to put out there that "JTIII got to the Final Four with Esh's recruits." As has already pointed out, this is just completely false--Wallace, Summers, Ewing, et al were critical to that team, and there simply would be no Final Four if only Esherick recruits had been on the team. the_way's point above is irrelevant to the issue. Saying that JTIII couldn't have gotten to the Final Four without two key players recruited by Esh isn't the same as Giga's implication, which is that Thompson got lucky by having Esh's pieces around and doesn't deserve 100% credit for that season. Besides, why do we even have to talk about Craig Esherick anymore? I don't understand the immediate desire of everyone to compare this to that. It really is a completely different situation, and I'm not sure there is anything that can be taken from the Esherror and applied to this. If Giga is trying to refight old battles long ago lost about the merits of Esh, I feel sorry for him. That said, this was a lost season that will leave a bitter taste for a while, and I appreciate the insightful efforts of many to try and explain what has been the most bizarre season I can remember every following. I expect there will even be a hangover effect next season, as we'll be looking for the first sign that something is rotten and that we're headed down the same path again. What needs to happen now is a full commitment by everybody involved to get back to work next year and never let this happen again. That starts not just with the returning "stars," but also with bench players who may be tempted to bail on the program and find stardom elsewhere.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 11, 2009 13:39:33 GMT -5
I would not say JTIII inherited two NBA 1st round picks from Esherick. He inherited two big guys, one very raw and coached them up. Do you think Hibbert would have become a 1st round pick under Esherick? Do you think Jeff Green would have been a lottery pick under Esherick? Do you think the 2007 team would have made the Final Four under Esherick? Yes, Jeff Green would have been a lotto pick and Roy Hibbert would have been an NBA 1st rounder. See Michael Sweetney. A lotto pick, coached by Esh. As you can see this year 2009, JTIII has a hard time motivating kids who seem to be doing their own thing. Gotta love the Esh hate around here. 5 years later and its still strong as ever. Can't give credit to the man for at least *some* of the good he did for this program. He didn't leave JTIII with nothing to work with. You don't get to the Sweet 16 and give the eventual National Champion Florida a run for their money in your 2nd year as a head coach without having some good players to work with. Thats a fact. Esh left JTIII 2 NBA 1st rounders to work with and a kid who was a born leader and helped this team without getting much playing time in Tyler Crawford. Thats a fact, Esh hate notwithstanding. Now, JTIII has his so-called talented team of ALL the players he recruited, they have had almost as bad of a season as Esh's talent depleted 2003-2004 season. Its a fact, Esh hate notwithstanding.
|
|
hoyaalf
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
I like what your doing very much. Why squirrel hate me?
Posts: 688
|
Post by hoyaalf on Mar 11, 2009 13:52:25 GMT -5
Adlai's post got a lot of positive feedback without one reference to it being a, 'newbie,' post.
Will wonders never cease?
A modest proposal: recruit second-class athletes with first-class minds and hearts to play Coach Capon's- Van Bredakollf's-Carill's-Thompson's offense.
A rebounding coach would be nice.
Do it every year. Avoid transfers.
|
|
|
Post by centercourt400s on Mar 11, 2009 13:58:39 GMT -5
The memory I'll always keep about Esherick was the 35 foot buzzer beater he hit on my birthday in 1978 to send the game against GW into overtime. We eventually won 78-77. He'll always be a Hoya hero to me. I suggest we keep the discussion to the current team. What is the point of comparisons to teams of the past?
|
|
mapei
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by mapei on Mar 11, 2009 14:29:40 GMT -5
Totally agree with the points about the way teams were able to defend us, and also that the lack of good outside shooting was critical.
I really miss 2007's version of Austin Freeman. He *was* a decent long range shooter, as well as a good cutter and rebounder. This year his energy level seemed way down. I seem to remember Jeff going through a sophomore slump, too, so I'm not giving up on him, but Austin's regression was undoubtedly one of the factors in our collapse.
The biggest, though, was losing six players (2 at an all-conference level) and something like 55% of our offense and rebounding. In hindsight, maybe the remarkable thing was looking as good as we did early on.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 11, 2009 14:37:39 GMT -5
Esherick was an awful coach, but like then, I do think the anti-Esherick sentiment was way overboard.
He was a poor game coach.
Few players developed under him.
He didn't really seem to have to have a strategy (perhaps why his in game tactics were so poor).
He couldn't recruit with the big boys.
That said, Esherick actually was pretty good at spotting the diamonds in the rough. He spotted a bunch of guys early who blew up too big for him to compete.
He grabbed quite a few underrated guys. He just couldn't keep them or get the most out of them.
I don't think he's anywhere near III in terms of coaching, but he could identify talent.
|
|
the_way
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
The Illest
Posts: 5,422
|
Post by the_way on Mar 11, 2009 14:46:38 GMT -5
Esherick was an awful coach, but like then, I do think the anti-Esherick sentiment was way overboard. He was a poor game coach. Few players developed under him. He didn't really seem to have to have a strategy (perhaps why his in game tactics were so poor). He couldn't recruit with the big boys. That said, Esherick actually was pretty good at spotting the diamonds in the rough. He spotted a bunch of guys early who blew up too big for him to compete. He grabbed quite a few underrated guys. He just couldn't keep them or get the most out of them. I don't think he's anywhere near III in terms of coaching, but he could identify talent. Fair and an objective assessment. Esh sucked as a head coach. Esh was the perfect assistant coach. He was loyal to a fault. He knew what type of player his head coach, JT2, needed and wanted, and he could evaluate talent, when somebody else was in charge. When JT2 stepped down, the entire regime should have ended then as well. Because the program had been stale from 1990 up until then. Once Esh got in charge, it was over. He had some talent. I still say to this day, that 2000-2001 with some decent coaching could have won the National title. Even the NIT finalist team and the year before that, we had some talent on the roster. Esh just couldn't do anything with it.
|
|
superan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by superan on Mar 11, 2009 14:59:18 GMT -5
This year, we really had no credible three point threat consistently throughout the season. The last game we seemed to make anything was against Syracuse (we even forced them to come out of their zone), but after that there was perhaps a game or two at most where we shot reasonably from three. The result was that teams would sit back in a zone daring us to make threes we just could not make. This year Monroe was our only credible threat inside and he had but one move which was the running shot to the left. Teams quickly figured that out that his offense was one-dimensional. He had that drive move to his left as he never could go right. The defender would then just sit off his right shoulder which completely took this away or would mean he did not really necessitate the double team. On offense, this was a very different situation than last year with a 7-2 center that could go either way. As a result, of not having a credible inside our outside threat, teams realized that they could clog up the passing lanes and their major goal was to take away the easy layups. That became their dominant defensive strategy and they did it brilliantly. I think we only saw the backdoor cut a couple of times per game most of the BE season. I think the greatest challenge this year ended up being the lack of true three point threats. At the end of a couple of games when we were down three, there was no one on this team I thought would make the shot and neither did the opposition. That happened all game long. Wallace's 50% shooting from out there of years before just wasn't there in the BE season. Once teams figured this out and figured out how to stop Greg, bottling up the Princeton offense was not so tough. We may have all-stars on the floor, but I would take a two star player who could do nothing else but drain threes for one of our key players. That is absolutely necessary for this offense. If we can find that, and Greg can learn to use his right hand (or even more importantly stays), the offense will be much crisper next year and this will turn into an aberration. If not, then yes, coach either needs to modify the offense for success or we will continue to struggle with these all-stars. adlai pretty much stated thought for thought of what I knew about the team this year. As far as 3-pt statistics, I did some analysis and believe it or not, we shot 34% in big east play and 32% in out of conference play. Key outliers: Syracuse game 1(57%), Marquette game 1(47%), and 42% against Rutgers and Cincinnati. Regardless, 33% overall is pretty damned awful for a Div-1 team (i think someone said ranked in the 200s?). With no credible outside threat, our specific offense is greatly hindered.
|
|
|
Post by vamosalaplaya on Mar 11, 2009 15:43:22 GMT -5
Perhaps Adlai is actually JT III. That explains his dearth of posts. He periodically checks the board and sets it straight.
Great post.
From a chicken or the egg standpoint, was the three point shooting a by-product of the weak inside game? Teams didn't need to collapse on Monroe or Vaughn and they could pressure the three? Or the shooting was so weak that defenses could suffocate Monroe?
|
|
|
Post by centercourt400s on Mar 11, 2009 16:04:54 GMT -5
I think a large part of the 3 point woes has to do with the guys trying so hard to please their coach that they avoided open 3s to look for the extra pass and especially the open cutter. The 1st few times Henry got in games this year he immediately bombed away from three and it was obvious that III cut his playing time and told him not to shoot from outside because he only took one or two more all year. So, III emphasizes the extra pass, look for the cutter, pass up the open 3 for a better two, etc and the guys do just that. The unfortunate result is that when the 3 is their best shot they often hesitate… and hesitation is not a recommended part of a solid outside shot.
|
|
superan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,900
|
Post by superan on Mar 11, 2009 16:05:31 GMT -5
Perhaps Adlai is actually JT III. That explains his dearth of posts. He periodically checks the board and sets it straight. Great post. From a chicken or the egg standpoint, was the three point shooting a by-product of the weak inside game? Teams didn't need to collapse on Monroe or Vaughn and they could pressure the three? Or the shooting was so weak that defenses could suffocate Monroe? Our 3-pt shooting has been weak since game 1 against jacksonville (5 for 23). Our inside game was working pretty well. By the time big east play started, opposing coaches knew where to trap us since we were so one dimensional. This is why we saw such a contrast between the first half of the season to the second half of the season. Everyone finally knew our number and called us out every game. Given our three point shooting at the beginning of the season, I don't blame JTIII from telling players to move away from it since it was just wasting possessions (according to statistics there is a noticeable drop-off in 3 point attempts from the beginning to the end of the season. something like 20 avg. attempts to 15 avg. attempts). It was just that bad.
|
|