TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Aug 10, 2010 9:54:52 GMT -5
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 10, 2010 11:31:36 GMT -5
Here two of the of the most key problems with the way we play. I don't think any of it is unique to Princeton. #1 We try to be infinitely clever with mixing up the things we do within the tempo--but we rarely if ever mix up *the tempo itself.* We make all kinds of crafty cuts and look for unusual passing lanes etc. but it all happens at the same speed. This allows defenses to settle in. They know they will not be surprised with a drive or shot early in the shot clock so they just dig in and cut off the passing lanes. They "read" us just the same way we try to teach guys to "read and react". We are being read and reacted to too easily. It is analagous to a pitcher throwing fastballs 90% of the time. You have to run some quick-hit plays, even it means "forcing" things (if initiating means forcing), otherwise in effect you are "forcing" a monotonous tempo. By trying a little too hard not to force things in one way we are forcing things in another way i.e. forcing monotony. See Ohio St. game, among others. CW4 has done the best job of mixing it up, but we need more. It doesn't mean change the offense completely. It means asking a fastball pitcher to throw 65-70% fastballs instead of 90%, and developing a change up and a curve. #2 We emphasize "read and react" for our players, but need to think about how to make defenses read and react to us. We tend to go into this "bubble" mentality as if we were running the offense in a laboratory and its success only depended on our execution, we have to get more of a real-action mentality where we realize that it is our job to *take it to* defenses not just to "run" something. I can't believe that a) mixing up rhythms and b) initiating drives and getting your own shot have no place in Princeton. In essence, the problem ain't Princeton. So, is a top-10 offense not good enough for you?
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,768
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 10, 2010 11:41:12 GMT -5
I love how scoring an average amount versus the #15 ranked D (so, an above average performance) in the Final Four is somehow an indictment of the offense.
Our defense lost the Ohio State game, not the offense. And if it was the offense, it was Summers missing about nine open shots.
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Aug 11, 2010 8:51:32 GMT -5
I can't believe we're back to discussing the merits of the offense. I would think that all of us posters, since we watched so much of the team, would be able to cut through the crap of the media and see that we've actually been a damn good offensive team for almost every year III has been here. The problem last year was defense. I don't even know that it was rebounding (like it was the year before) as much as just a pure inability to guard anybody. That's where improvements need to be made, both in terms of scheme (those who know more about the game than me...do we still play a similar scheme to what we did with Roy, or have we moved much more to a matchup zone, just one with too many smaller players to be that effective?) and attitude.
Now there may be a debate about whether or not the perception of us playing the Princeton hurts us, regardless of what we run or how we do it. But we can't really be wondering whether or not we're a good offensive team. Cmon, that's for the first loss when we should have gotten Chris/Austin/Julian/Hollis/Aaron more shots and Chris/Henry/the new whipping boy was the reason we lost.
|
|
robbyt
Bulldog (over 250 posts)
Posts: 334
|
Post by robbyt on Aug 12, 2010 10:12:12 GMT -5
Wow, I learned some novel things here SF, like a) that you can allow a high-scoring final four team (Ohio St. Final Four) 67 points and lose because of defense b) that our offense was just fine against Ohio St. except for DaJuan taking some bad shots, despite national media attention drawn to the fact that Green took 5 shots *total*, could not get the ball in crunch time, and the offense's flatness and slowness www.fanslogon.com/Merchandise_4321.htmAlso, -You can, by simply throwing out a statistic like "top ten offense" off some guy's website, consider yourself to have no offensive issues. Despite losing 11 games. -Best of all, I learned from Chep that if you raise an issue about offense it means that you think you have a bad offensive team. And that such issues about the offense have *absolutely no place* on a thread titled "Princeton Offense Discussion." Love it.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,768
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 12, 2010 10:42:42 GMT -5
Wow, I learned some novel things here SF, like a) that you can allow a high-scoring final four team (Ohio St. Final Four) 67 points and lose because of defense Ohio State 2007 was the nation's 4th best offensive team, in terms of scoring points per possession, once you adjust for opponents. They were 15th in defense. The game between OSU and Georgetown was played at an excruciating slow pace -- 58 possessions for each team. We gave up 67 points, and scored 60. Given OSU's strengths, both our O and D played decently, but not well enough to win. And if you're going to go with a culprit, it's probably the D. We got beat by a good team. Was our O perfect? Of course not. Is there an expectation of that? Is every offense perfect every game. Should Roy Williams have scrapped his secondary break for failing against us in the Elite Eight? b) that our offense was just fine against Ohio St. except for DaJuan taking some bad shots, despite national media attention drawn to the fact that Green took 5 shots *total*, could not get the ball in crunch time, and the offense's flatness and slowness www.fanslogon.com/Merchandise_4321.htmWhat do you mean by "no offensive issues?" There are always things to improve. But the way people talk, it's like there are fundamental problems that will cripple this team forever. It's not a question of system. It's a question of execution. It is in almost any system out there. We didn't have a decent offensive game and not a great one against Ohio State (one game after DESTROYING UNC offensively) because of the system -- it was because Summers couldn't hit a shot. I can't speak for chep, but yes, there are things you can certainly point out about the offense. I think your post was reasonable -- although I'm not sure I understand or agree entirely on the pace thing -- right up until the OSU thing. What's with the persecution syndrome here? People may disagree with you on a message board. It's not personal. [/quote]
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,768
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Aug 12, 2010 10:53:58 GMT -5
Here two of the of the most key problems with the way we play. I don't think any of it is unique to Princeton. #1 We try to be infinitely clever with mixing up the things we do within the tempo--but we rarely if ever mix up *the tempo itself.* We make all kinds of crafty cuts and look for unusual passing lanes etc. but it all happens at the same speed. This allows defenses to settle in. They know they will not be surprised with a drive or shot early in the shot clock so they just dig in and cut off the passing lanes. They "read" us just the same way we try to teach guys to "read and react". We are being read and reacted to too easily. It is analagous to a pitcher throwing fastballs 90% of the time. You have to run some quick-hit plays, even it means "forcing" things (if initiating means forcing), otherwise in effect you are "forcing" a monotonous tempo. By trying a little too hard not to force things in one way we are forcing things in another way i.e. forcing monotony. See Ohio St. game, among others. CW4 has done the best job of mixing it up, but we need more. It doesn't mean change the offense completely. It means asking a fastball pitcher to throw 65-70% fastballs instead of 90%, and developing a change up and a curve. I think we do a lot more of this now, with running quite a bit. I don't know if there's really a benefit to jacking quick shots. I'm fine with a quick drive -- and I think Chris has done that more than most people remember -- but the quick jumper is ugh. Mostly because the jumper is ugh. The thing we don't do quick that I'd like to see is quickly into the post. It's a huge advantage because college guys often forget to get set up properly. As a Charger fan, I always think of this as the Marty Schottenheimer / Norv Turner conundrum. Forget the level of the coaches, but Marty is very much a "we're going to impose our will / nothing fancy, execution will win out" type of guy. Run up the middle on 4th and 1 and if we don't get it, we didn't deserve it. Norv is the opposite. He's the guy that looks for the weakness in the opponent and exploits it. On 4th and 1 he runs play action or a halfback pass. I'm not sure if either is better; and obviously it's not binary, it's a spectrum. (For those allergic to coaches who can't win in the playoffs -- Parcells is a Marty; Belicheck a Norv). I'm not really sure where III is either. The offense inherently thinks like a Norv. But the insistence on running the O and D is somewhat Marty. Either way, this year I'm completely sold on the Norv approach. Who can impose their will on the opponent? Austin can, a bit. But Chris, while I love him, is not going to dominate at will -- he's done a great job of moving from being a dominant HS player to a more opportunistic type in college. That sounds awful, but in HS I doubt he ever had to think about if he could get to the rim against the players in front of him. Even Greg wasn't really at dominant level yet; this year there's nothing approaching that down low versus quality teams. We need to take what the D gives us this year, because we simply don't have an overly dominant talent. We can force the issue against Rutgers, but WVU? Pitt?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Aug 12, 2010 13:13:32 GMT -5
Wow, I learned some novel things here SF, like a) that you can allow a high-scoring final four team (Ohio St. Final Four) 67 points and lose because of defense b) that our offense was just fine against Ohio St. except for DaJuan taking some bad shots, despite national media attention drawn to the fact that Green took 5 shots *total*, could not get the ball in crunch time, and the offense's flatness and slowness www.fanslogon.com/Merchandise_4321.htmAlso, -You can, by simply throwing out a statistic like "top ten offense" off some guy's website, consider yourself to have no offensive issues. Despite losing 11 games. -Best of all, I learned from Chep that if you raise an issue about offense it means that you think you have a bad offensive team. And that such issues about the offense have *absolutely no place* on a thread titled "Princeton Offense Discussion." Love it. Wow, you either have little man syndrome or Edited envy. Which is it? Also, I'm glad to know that KenPom is just "some guy's website."
|
|
chep3
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,314
|
Post by chep3 on Aug 12, 2010 15:33:10 GMT -5
Wow, I learned some novel things here SF, like a) that you can allow a high-scoring final four team (Ohio St. Final Four) 67 points and lose because of defense b) that our offense was just fine against Ohio St. except for DaJuan taking some bad shots, despite national media attention drawn to the fact that Green took 5 shots *total*, could not get the ball in crunch time, and the offense's flatness and slowness www.fanslogon.com/Merchandise_4321.htmAlso, -You can, by simply throwing out a statistic like "top ten offense" off some guy's website, consider yourself to have no offensive issues. Despite losing 11 games. -Best of all, I learned from Chep that if you raise an issue about offense it means that you think you have a bad offensive team. And that such issues about the offense have *absolutely no place* on a thread titled "Princeton Offense Discussion." Love it. First off, as SF pointed out, we didn't play great in the OSU game, but we were playing a very good team. I'm not sure that was a "scheme" thing as much as a (a) we didn't play our best, (b) Jeff could have been more aggressive (while still playing entirely within the confines of the system), and (c) even given those two things, if some of the good looks we missed went down, who knows. I don't see anything about that game that indicates an endemic problem with the system or offense. Second, yes you can be a very good offensive team and lose 11 games. You do it by being bad at defense. Third, I didn't say or mean to imply we have "no offensive issues." There's just an ever present questioning of the offense on this board (albeit it's been tame this summer) that annoys me. See the post-mortem after pretty much any loss last year. It seems as if our offense gets ripped even by our own fans often and is used as a scapegoat for pretty much every issue that's wrong with the team. I'm not implying you're doing that right now, it was more of a meta-comment for the entire board and the ever-present questioning of the offense. I thought this thread began as a discussion of the perception of the offense, but then devolved into your run-of-the-mill (albeit less vitriolic) discussion of the merits of our offense.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Aug 13, 2010 23:37:05 GMT -5
There is not one person on this years team who was on the team that lost to OSU, therefore our discussion of this game is entirely apt and required
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Aug 14, 2010 7:15:57 GMT -5
There is also no players on this years team who have played in an NCAA tournament victory or was born before the last national championship appearance, what's your point?
My point is the Princeton can make a team successful, but can't take a team the whole way without good talent and a post presence, which requires good recruiting and retention of role players and marginal talent..
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Aug 14, 2010 9:57:48 GMT -5
Not true austin and chris played in the win over UMBC in 2008.
|
|
skyhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,496
|
Post by skyhoya on Aug 14, 2010 11:02:59 GMT -5
yep, forgot we played them before Davidson
|
|
|
Post by theicon on Aug 16, 2010 10:32:00 GMT -5
I'm a UVA fan, but I laugh at everyone blasting the so-called Princeton style offense. When G'Town played Nova, Cuse, and Duke...they ran them out the gym. I mean it all comes down to defense and rebounding, but this team is tough when they get out and run a little bit. I think they get in trouble when they look for the perfect shot and hold the ball until late in the shot clock. It seems as though JTIII is willing to adapt style according to personnel, but he doesn't get enough credit for it. HE DOES NEED TO GET MORE VOCAL IN RECRUITING, and dismiss the stigma.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Aug 16, 2010 12:34:26 GMT -5
I'm a UVA fan, but I laugh at everyone blasting the so-called Princeton style offense. When G'Town played Nova, Cuse, and Duke...they ran them out the gym. I mean it all comes down to defense and rebounding, but this team is tough when they get out and run a little bit. I think they get in trouble when they look for the perfect shot and hold the ball until late in the shot clock. It seems as though JTIII is willing to adapt style according to personnel, but he doesn't get enough credit for it. HE DOES NEED TO GET MORE VOCAL IN RECRUITING, and dismiss the stigma. Pretty accurate observations in my view. Well stated theicon.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,330
|
Post by prhoya on Aug 16, 2010 13:07:08 GMT -5
"I mean it all comes down to defense and rebounding..." - this will make any kind of offense look good and all the talk of whether our style is good or bad go away!
|
|
|
Post by bigelephant on Aug 16, 2010 13:32:28 GMT -5
A little less conversation and a little more action please! (read aggressive rebounding, pressure D, more fast breaks and less predictability)
|
|