bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by bostonfan on Feb 29, 2016 9:38:32 GMT -5
The offense itself is not the issue. A lot of teams play with similar offenses schemes, where they play a more patient and deliberate system. Virginia is one of the best teams in the country and plays an even slower system than we do. The big difference of why it works for them and not for us, is they very rarely turn the ball over in the half court. If you are going to play a more patient system and count on your action and sets to get you good shots, then you need to take care of the ball and make sure you actuallyy get shots every possession.
There are a lot of issues with this years team, but the two biggest problems all year have been turnovers and fouling. Every game it seems like they have way too many sloppy turnovers. These are not even caused by pressure defense in most cases. It is just a case of the players being way too casual with the ball and telegraphing passes. These live ball turnovers are killers because they almost always turn into easy baskets for the other team. While the Hoyas defense could have been better all year it would not be rated as poorly as it is if you took away all the uncontested layups the other teams score off turnovers.
The fouling has now got to a point where you go into every game assuming we are going to give the other team about a 5 -7 point advantage just from the free throw line. Not too many teams can make up for that kind of disadvantage. You just can't keep fouling like they have all year. The "new" rules have been in place all year and other teams have adjusted as the season has worn on but Georgetown just does not seem to be able to defend without fouling. If they can't fix this next year they are going to continue to lose games because of it.
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,351
|
Post by hoyajinx on Feb 29, 2016 9:40:49 GMT -5
I think you would find many that disagree with the notion that the offense has been fine until relatively recently. Concerns about the defensive woes eclipsed our offensive concerns. I believe that if you look through some of even the early game threads you will see some frustration with the offense. I also don't think it's particularly helpful to point to the first few games of the year when other teams are also struggling to find their identity. Duke lost a ton of talent (and let's be honest, they aren't even that good), Wisconsin is an entirely different team right now, and that same Syracuse team lost to St. John's during that stretch. I'm not willing to hang my hat on the offense "working well" with this set of players because of modest success in that context.
And yes, turnovers have clearly become a problem. But how many of those are also caused by trying to plug this personnel into an offense they simply cannot run effectively? I'm not saying this type of offense cannot work in college basketball. I think a bunch of teams have been effective running a similar offensive set (including Big East teams). Our current roster simply cannot do it effectively, which has become glaringly obvious and has been for quite some time.
|
|
|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Feb 29, 2016 9:49:26 GMT -5
Butler got 44 FT's to our 24 (a lot at end though but still a big disparity). We had 23 turnovers to their 8. Pretty damn hard to win playing this type of basketball.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 29, 2016 9:55:55 GMT -5
I think you would find many that disagree with the notion that the offense has been fine until relatively recently. Concerns about the defensive woes eclipsed our offensive concerns. I believe that if you look through some of even the early game threads you will see some frustration with the offense. I also don't think it's particularly helpful to point to the first few games of the year when other teams are also struggling to find their identity. Duke lost a ton of talent (and let's be honest, they aren't even that good), Wisconsin is an entirely different team right now, and that same Syracuse team lost to St. John's during that stretch. I'm not willing to hang my hat on the offense "working well" with this set of players because of modest success in that context. And yes, turnovers have clearly become a problem. But how many of those are also caused by trying to plug this personnel into an offense they simply cannot run effectively? I'm not saying this type of offense cannot work in college basketball. I think a bunch of teams have been effective running a similar offensive set (including Big East teams). Our current roster simply cannot do it effectively, which has become glaringly obvious and has been for quite some time. There's always people complaining, after every game, about the offense. We could beat Golden State 138-110 and someone would complain that we looked too rigid doing it. I don't think it was unreasonable for the staff to not make wholesale changes early. In our second game of the year, against a top 10 team, we shot 48%/42%. Then, 42%/50% against Wisconsin. Then, 55%/41% against Duke. And then we beat Syracuse (though didn't perform as well offensively). Going into the BE season, I think an objective analysis would have concluded that our defense (particularly our fouling and inability to stop penetration) rather than our offense were our problems. And as for our offense, I think one would conclude looking at the numbers that we had shot the ball well enough against quality opponents to think that if we could draw some more fouls, stop turning it over, and maybe get some more rebounds, we'd turn those close losses into wins. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the staff to have focused on improving those things within the general confines of the system. And then we go out and actually win our first few BE games (albeit against bad opponents). I think we DID try to draw more fouls -- by encouraging dribble penetration and taking the reins off LJ (if, in fact, he ever was limited). We just haven't been good at it. And I'm sure we've tried to limit turnovers. Hindsight may tell us we should have tried something altogether different. But the next question is: What? What should we have done with this group on offense that would have helped. When Brad was in, we tried to get him the ball in the post an awful lot; no one else is really all that good down there. We've tried pick and rolls. We've tried just spreading the floor and having guys go one-on-one. Recently, we've even tried having guys come off down screens. I'm not sure what else, frankly, we can try or could have tried. EDIT: I've long been a proponent of inverting the post (which actually is a Princeton principle) and having DSR and Peak got the ball down there. DSR, in particular, seems skilled. So, we could have tried that. But who in the heck would have passed them the ball in there!?!?
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by bostonfan on Feb 29, 2016 10:01:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't disagree that the players on this years team might not be the best fit for this offense, but if that is true then the coach needs to make some adjustments to his system and use the skills his players do have. If your team has a tendency to turn the ball over too often then you need to move away from the deliberate system you are running and go to something that looks for more quick hitters on offense and make sure you get shots. Even if those shots are the "perfect" shot you want, they are at least getting shots and not turning it over. Those live ball turnovers are just killers. The Hoyas need to work so hard to score sometimes you just can't give the other team layups off of steals and expect to win games.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Feb 29, 2016 10:09:20 GMT -5
I think you would find many that disagree with the notion that the offense has been fine until relatively recently. Concerns about the defensive woes eclipsed our offensive concerns. I believe that if you look through some of even the early game threads you will see some frustration with the offense. I also don't think it's particularly helpful to point to the first few games of the year when other teams are also struggling to find their identity. Duke lost a ton of talent (and let's be honest, they aren't even that good), Wisconsin is an entirely different team right now, and that same Syracuse team lost to St. John's during that stretch. I'm not willing to hang my hat on the offense "working well" with this set of players because of modest success in that context. And yes, turnovers have clearly become a problem. But how many of those are also caused by trying to plug this personnel into an offense they simply cannot run effectively? I'm not saying this type of offense cannot work in college basketball. I think a bunch of teams have been effective running a similar offensive set (including Big East teams). Our current roster simply cannot do it effectively, which has become glaringly obvious and has been for quite some time. There's always people complaining, after every game, about the offense. We could beat Golden State 138-110 and someone would complain that we looked too rigid doing it. I don't think it was unreasonable for the staff to not make wholesale changes early. In our second game of the year, against a top 10 team, we shot 48%/42%. Then, 42%/50% against Wisconsin. Then, 55%/41% against Duke. And then we beat Syracuse (though didn't perform as well offensively). Going into the BE season, I think an objective analysis would have concluded that our defense (particularly our fouling and inability to stop penetration) rather than our offense were our problems. And as for our offense, I think one would conclude looking at the numbers that we had shot the ball well enough against quality opponents to think that if we could draw some more fouls, stop turning it over, and maybe get some more rebounds, we'd turn those close losses into wins. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the staff to have focused on improving those things within the general confines of the system. And then we go out and actually win our first few BE games (albeit against bad opponents). I think we DID try to draw more fouls -- by encouraging dribble penetration and taking the reins off LJ (if, in fact, he ever was limited). We just haven't been good at it. And I'm sure we've tried to limit turnovers. Hindsight may tell us we should have tried something altogether different. But the next question is: What? What should we have done with this group on offense that would have helped. When Brad was in, we tried to get him the ball in the post an awful lot; no one else is really all that good down there. We've tried pick and rolls. We've tried just spreading the floor and having guys go one-on-one. Recently, we've even tried having guys come off down screens. I'm not sure what else, frankly, we can try or could have tried. EDIT: I've long been a proponent of inverting the post (which actually is a Princeton principle) and having DSR and Peak got the ball down there. DSR, in particular, seems skilled. So, we could have tried that. But who in the heck would have passed them the ball in there!?!? So, serious question, do you think we are just a horrible team? I mean, it seems like you think it is unfair to criticize the coach, and I agree with your points to some extent, but you are so far on the other side of this, that dont you have to conclude that we are just pretty awful at basketball? I think people make these criticism because they find it hard to believe we can be this bad with this much talent.
|
|
GUJook97
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,445
|
Post by GUJook97 on Feb 29, 2016 10:13:27 GMT -5
I think you would find many that disagree with the notion that the offense has been fine until relatively recently. Concerns about the defensive woes eclipsed our offensive concerns. I believe that if you look through some of even the early game threads you will see some frustration with the offense. . Agreed. The difference between the beginning of the year and now is that teams allowed us to shoot 3 and we jacked up 25 of them a game, and made a decent number of them. Many posters made that point that we would live and die or 3 point shooting. BE teams have stopped letting us do that for 4 years. They come out to the perimeter because they know we sit out their stagnant, take away looks DSR and others have, and we have no answers.
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,351
|
Post by hoyajinx on Feb 29, 2016 10:14:55 GMT -5
There's always people complaining, after every game, about the offense. We could beat Golden State 138-110 and someone would complain that we looked too rigid doing it. I don't think it was unreasonable for the staff to not make wholesale changes early. In our second game of the year, against a top 10 team, we shot 48%/42%. Then, 42%/50% against Wisconsin. Then, 55%/41% against Duke. And then we beat Syracuse (though didn't perform as well offensively). Going into the BE season, I think an objective analysis would have concluded that our defense (particularly our fouling and inability to stop penetration) rather than our offense were our problems. And as for our offense, I think one would conclude looking at the numbers that we had shot the ball well enough against quality opponents to think that if we could draw some more fouls, stop turning it over, and maybe get some more rebounds, we'd turn those close losses into wins. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the staff to have focused on improving those things within the general confines of the system. And then we go out and actually win our first few BE games (albeit against bad opponents). I think we DID try to draw more fouls -- by encouraging dribble penetration and taking the reins off LJ (if, in fact, he ever was limited). We just haven't been good at it. And I'm sure we've tried to limit turnovers. Hindsight may tell us we should have tried something altogether different. But the next question is: What? What should we have done with this group on offense that would have helped. When Brad was in, we tried to get him the ball in the post an awful lot; no one else is really all that good down there. We've tried pick and rolls. We've tried just spreading the floor and having guys go one-on-one. Recently, we've even tried having guys come off down screens. I'm not sure what else, frankly, we can try or could have tried. EDIT: I've long been a proponent of inverting the post (which actually is a Princeton principle) and having DSR and Peak got the ball down there. DSR, in particular, seems skilled. So, we could have tried that. But who in the heck would have passed them the ball in there!?!? So, serious question, do you think we are just a horrible team? I mean, it seems like you think it is unfair to criticize the coach, and I agree with your points to some extent, but you are so far on the other side of this, that dont you have to conclude that we are just pretty awful at basketball? I think people make these criticism because they find it hard to believe we can be this bad with this much talent. I was literally going to ask a similar question. If no offensive changes would have or have worked to make this team more effective, and our defense has just been a lost cause from the jump, does that mean that we have a collection of bad basketball players or a collection of talented ones whose skill sets do not and cannot complement each others'? If the answer to that is in the affirmative, we will have a lot of problems going forward.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Feb 29, 2016 10:15:01 GMT -5
I really think a large problem on offense is lack of basketball IQ and lack of passing skills. If you look at the best JT3 teams, they excelled at passing and they had very strong basketball IQ. For example, how many turnovers have we had this year when somebody tries to pass the ball into the paint, only to have it picked off? I think this happens for two reasons: (a) our guys generally cannot make a good entry pass (this is not new - it was one of the biggest problems in feeding Josh Smith the last two years, as well), and (b) our guys frequently force the pass in when it is stupid to do so because the receiver is very well defended. That's a basketball IQ problem.
Now, you can argue that if our guys do not have a good basketball IQ, we shouldn't be running a system that requires that type of play. But, how many offenses are predicated on not passing or making decisions? We cannot run an isolation offense giving LJ Peak the ball every possession and letting him try to break down a defender because he's not at that level yet (he may be eventually), and when other teams play zone it would be very ineffective. The fact is, I just think this team lacks some basic fundamentals on both offense and defense (defending without fouling).
While I do not think Paul White would be a savior, I do think he would have had a significant impact potentially because he is a good passer, and he has a high ball IQ. In other words, he basically compensates for a lot of the weaknesses that are found on our current team. Would that have made us a top 25 team? Probably not, but we might have won a couple additional games, and maybe even enough to make the tournament.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,907
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 29, 2016 10:19:58 GMT -5
I think you would find many that disagree with the notion that the offense has been fine until relatively recently. Concerns about the defensive woes eclipsed our offensive concerns. I believe that if you look through some of even the early game threads you will see some frustration with the offense. I also don't think it's particularly helpful to point to the first few games of the year when other teams are also struggling to find their identity. Duke lost a ton of talent (and let's be honest, they aren't even that good), Wisconsin is an entirely different team right now, and that same Syracuse team lost to St. John's during that stretch. I'm not willing to hang my hat on the offense "working well" with this set of players because of modest success in that context. And yes, turnovers have clearly become a problem. But how many of those are also caused by trying to plug this personnel into an offense they simply cannot run effectively? I'm not saying this type of offense cannot work in college basketball. I think a bunch of teams have been effective running a similar offensive set (including Big East teams). Our current roster simply cannot do it effectively, which has become glaringly obvious and has been for quite some time. There's always people complaining, after every game, about the offense. We could beat Golden State 138-110 and someone would complain that we looked too rigid doing it. I don't think it was unreasonable for the staff to not make wholesale changes early. In our second game of the year, against a top 10 team, we shot 48%/42%. Then, 42%/50% against Wisconsin. Then, 55%/41% against Duke. And then we beat Syracuse (though didn't perform as well offensively). Going into the BE season, I think an objective analysis would have concluded that our defense (particularly our fouling and inability to stop penetration) rather than our offense were our problems. And as for our offense, I think one would conclude looking at the numbers that we had shot the ball well enough against quality opponents to think that if we could draw some more fouls, stop turning it over, and maybe get some more rebounds, we'd turn those close losses into wins. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the staff to have focused on improving those things within the general confines of the system. And then we go out and actually win our first few BE games (albeit against bad opponents). I think we DID try to draw more fouls -- by encouraging dribble penetration and taking the reins off LJ (if, in fact, he ever was limited). We just haven't been good at it. And I'm sure we've tried to limit turnovers. Hindsight may tell us we should have tried something altogether different. But the next question is: What? What should we have done with this group on offense that would have helped. When Brad was in, we tried to get him the ball in the post an awful lot; no one else is really all that good down there. We've tried pick and rolls. We've tried just spreading the floor and having guys go one-on-one. Recently, we've even tried having guys come off down screens. I'm not sure what else, frankly, we can try or could have tried. EDIT: I've long been a proponent of inverting the post (which actually is a Princeton principle) and having DSR and Peak got the ball down there. DSR, in particular, seems skilled. So, we could have tried that. But who in the heck would have passed them the ball in there!?!? Your edit goes to coaching in my view, how can a staff not be able to teach a basic entry pass? I said this earlier in the thread that they should go to a more screen based offense, mainly off the ball.. Anything that gives easier reads.. Hell design some plays and run those into the ground just change it up so the other team has to adjust.. Wideman had 7 steals Saturday! That happened because he knew what was coming..
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 29, 2016 10:50:10 GMT -5
There's always people complaining, after every game, about the offense. We could beat Golden State 138-110 and someone would complain that we looked too rigid doing it. I don't think it was unreasonable for the staff to not make wholesale changes early. In our second game of the year, against a top 10 team, we shot 48%/42%. Then, 42%/50% against Wisconsin. Then, 55%/41% against Duke. And then we beat Syracuse (though didn't perform as well offensively). Going into the BE season, I think an objective analysis would have concluded that our defense (particularly our fouling and inability to stop penetration) rather than our offense were our problems. And as for our offense, I think one would conclude looking at the numbers that we had shot the ball well enough against quality opponents to think that if we could draw some more fouls, stop turning it over, and maybe get some more rebounds, we'd turn those close losses into wins. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the staff to have focused on improving those things within the general confines of the system. And then we go out and actually win our first few BE games (albeit against bad opponents). I think we DID try to draw more fouls -- by encouraging dribble penetration and taking the reins off LJ (if, in fact, he ever was limited). We just haven't been good at it. And I'm sure we've tried to limit turnovers. Hindsight may tell us we should have tried something altogether different. But the next question is: What? What should we have done with this group on offense that would have helped. When Brad was in, we tried to get him the ball in the post an awful lot; no one else is really all that good down there. We've tried pick and rolls. We've tried just spreading the floor and having guys go one-on-one. Recently, we've even tried having guys come off down screens. I'm not sure what else, frankly, we can try or could have tried. EDIT: I've long been a proponent of inverting the post (which actually is a Princeton principle) and having DSR and Peak got the ball down there. DSR, in particular, seems skilled. So, we could have tried that. But who in the heck would have passed them the ball in there!?!? So, serious question, do you think we are just a horrible team? I mean, it seems like you think it is unfair to criticize the coach, and I agree with your points to some extent, but you are so far on the other side of this, that dont you have to conclude that we are just pretty awful at basketball? I think people make these criticism because they find it hard to believe we can be this bad with this much talent. Yes and no. I'll start with the contrarian "no" part. I think it's important to acknowledge that we expected to be very good this year and we are, instead, middling to bad. So the extreme difference colors our reaction to the season. I also think we've been competitive in a lot of games this year against good teams. We lost them -- basically all of them. And that's all that matters. But, I don't think a "horrible" team plays within a possession of Maryland, Duke, and Villanova. Or beats Wisconsin, Cuse, or Xavier. I don't want to overstate it, some of our close losses weren't as competitive as the final score represents -- really, this last game against Butler fits that category. But we were right in the three games I mention down to the end. With that out of the way, yes, I think that this particular collection of talent is simply not nearly as good as we all thought they were -- and by "all" I include the coaches and the players themselves. The injuries didn't help, but I'm not one that uses those as an excuse. On defense, we're just horrific. Nobody except for LJ can consistently keep his man in front of him, right? I mean, don't we lose the quickness battle at virtually every match-up? That's the root of it. It doesn't matter what kind of defense you play. You have to be able to keep someone in front of you or you're at a disadvantage. Good communication can make-up for some of that, and we're clearly a collection of players that are bad at that too. I'm really not sure the Coach could do much about our lack of quickness. If we bring in one guard that can play better D than did DSR, it solves a lot of problems on that end of the court. On offense? We're pretty bad there, too. Here's where I think the perceived talent is deceptive. We DO have talented guys, but their talents don't complement one another. Just think about our five current best players (our starters with LJ instead of Tre). Marcus is a good 3P shooter. But only off the catch. He can't dribble past anyone. He's a terrible passer. And he's not skilled enough in the post to be useful down there. All that may well improve -- there's no reason to think it won't -- but that's what he is now. Jesse has terrific shooting touch. But he's sort of like Marcus. He's not going to dribble past anyone. He seems like he has good basics in the post game, but he's nowhere near consistent enough that you'd want to feed him consistently. He can't hold onto the ball. And he, too, is a terrible passer right now (and you can sense that he's scared of turning it over as he goes to make any pass). Ike? He can't beat anyone off the dribble either. In fact, he can't really dribble, period. He's also a terrible passer (almost incredibly so). You would think he could use his size in the post, but we haven't really seen it. His one skill, theoretically, is shooting (and he can shoot off the bounce unlike the first two). But he's been awful at it this year! So....I guess it's not really a skill. DSR? I think he's had a perfectly good year. But he can't really beat anyone off the dribble. And his shooting is very streaky. We probably win one or two more games if he just hits one or two incredibly wide-open threes. Finally, LJ has been great overall. But he can't stay on the court. And for all his offensive skills, he doesn't make his teammates better at all because he hasn't yet learned when or how to dish. So, the one guy we have that can penetrate off the dribble isn't able to use that skill to find open guys. And the one guy that can pass when he penetrates (DSR) can't really penetrate effectively! We ought to be able to use the fact that we have four guys on the court (I'm not counting Ike) who are good catch and shoot three point shooters. But our passing is so bad, our screen-setting is so bad (I mean, we either don't make contact with the defensive player, or we foul him!), and we have nobody who can penetrate and kick that we don't get enough wide open ones. I absolutely think it's fair to criticize the coach in the sense that these are his players, and they simply aren't as good as he thought they were and/or he hasn't been able to get them to improve enough in crucial areas. That's a huge part of the sport. As the old saying goes: Frank and Joe beat Xs and Os. If your guys are better, you're going to usually win. And if they're worse, it doesn't matter what you draw up, you're usually going to lose. So, that's on the staff. I also think it's absolutely fair to criticize the staff for not having a couple more quick hitting set plays for certain guys. To their credit, we actually do for LJ. And we do in terms of post entry. But not really for anyone else. That's all a tough indictment. But (again, not counting Paul or Akoy) four of our five guys are freshmen or sophomores. That's important to remember. They're probably not going to get quicker. But Marcus and Jesse can get more consistent in the post, which would be huge, given their outside game. And Ike can certainly improve both his shooting and his handle. And we've seen LJ improve a ton; even if he simply doesn't regress, we've got plenty from him. Their comfort on defense in terms of communication is bound to improve (it can't get worse!). Their quickness likely won't. But, again, if we can just get a guard that can stop penetration, it makes all of their defense a lot better.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Feb 29, 2016 11:03:12 GMT -5
There's always people complaining, after every game, about the offense. We could beat Golden State 138-110 and someone would complain that we looked too rigid doing it. I don't think it was unreasonable for the staff to not make wholesale changes early. In our second game of the year, against a top 10 team, we shot 48%/42%. Then, 42%/50% against Wisconsin. Then, 55%/41% against Duke. And then we beat Syracuse (though didn't perform as well offensively). Going into the BE season, I think an objective analysis would have concluded that our defense (particularly our fouling and inability to stop penetration) rather than our offense were our problems. And as for our offense, I think one would conclude looking at the numbers that we had shot the ball well enough against quality opponents to think that if we could draw some more fouls, stop turning it over, and maybe get some more rebounds, we'd turn those close losses into wins. So, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the staff to have focused on improving those things within the general confines of the system. And then we go out and actually win our first few BE games (albeit against bad opponents). I think we DID try to draw more fouls -- by encouraging dribble penetration and taking the reins off LJ (if, in fact, he ever was limited). We just haven't been good at it. And I'm sure we've tried to limit turnovers. Hindsight may tell us we should have tried something altogether different. But the next question is: What? What should we have done with this group on offense that would have helped. When Brad was in, we tried to get him the ball in the post an awful lot; no one else is really all that good down there. We've tried pick and rolls. We've tried just spreading the floor and having guys go one-on-one. Recently, we've even tried having guys come off down screens. I'm not sure what else, frankly, we can try or could have tried. EDIT: I've long been a proponent of inverting the post (which actually is a Princeton principle) and having DSR and Peak got the ball down there. DSR, in particular, seems skilled. So, we could have tried that. But who in the heck would have passed them the ball in there!?!? Your edit goes to coaching in my view, how can a staff not be able to teach a basic entry pass? I said this earlier in the thread that they should go to a more screen based offense, mainly off the ball.. Anything that gives easier reads.. Hell design some plays and run those into the ground just change it up so the other team has to adjust.. Wideman had 7 steals Saturday! That happened because he knew what was coming.. I don't necessarily disagree on the entry pass. That would be my initial thought too. But if guys just stink at passing, what do you do? Of our top 5 players (Jesse, Ike, Marcus, LJ, and DSR), only DSR is someone I'd call a good passer. And he's not exactly Magic Johnson. They can't even pass it effectively around the perimeter! So, it's not entirely surprising that they can't get an entry pass right. I completely agree on having a quick hitting play or two. Completely. We DO have one or two for LJ. That side-court hand-off to him and we now are running some down-screens where he curls. But I agree that having some screening action to free some guys up where there's no read involved would be helpful. As I said in the other recent post, though, we're pretty darned bad at screen-setting too! And you still have to be able to deliver the pass to the guy coming off the screen -- at the right time and to the right spot -- so he can catch and shoot efficiently. And you need some guys with quickness to exploit the advantage the screen provides. I'm not sure we can do that with this group. The one place we have an advantage (at least in theory) is being able to put five guys on the court that all can catch and shoot. I think we actually began the Butler game with some off the ball screen action for Ike coming up for a catch and shoot three (that he, naturally, missed). It's hard to tell if we tried it for him or others again. EDIT: Look, if we came out with our best five and ran a five-out offense that just involved a down screen on the weak side for someone to shoot a quick three, I'd be interested to see if we could make it work. I think the D would just end up switching everything and we wouldn't have the quickness to take advantage of the switch. That's basically what happens on our weave and PNR. But, I'm all for trying.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,907
|
Post by EtomicB on Feb 29, 2016 12:06:18 GMT -5
Your edit goes to coaching in my view, how can a staff not be able to teach a basic entry pass? I said this earlier in the thread that they should go to a more screen based offense, mainly off the ball.. Anything that gives easier reads.. Hell design some plays and run those into the ground just change it up so the other team has to adjust.. Wideman had 7 steals Saturday! That happened because he knew what was coming.. I don't necessarily disagree on the entry pass. That would be my initial thought too. But if guys just stink at passing, what do you do? Of our top 5 players (Jesse, Ike, Marcus, LJ, and DSR), only DSR is someone I'd call a good passer. And he's not exactly Magic Johnson. They can't even pass it effectively around the perimeter! So, it's not entirely surprising that they can't get an entry pass right. I completely agree on having a quick hitting play or two. Completely. We DO have one or two for LJ. That side-court hand-off to him and we now are running some down-screens where he curls. But I agree that having some screening action to free some guys up where there's no read involved would be helpful. As I said in the other recent post, though, we're pretty darned bad at screen-setting too! And you still have to be able to deliver the pass to the guy coming off the screen -- at the right time and to the right spot -- so he can catch and shoot efficiently. And you need some guys with quickness to exploit the advantage the screen provides. I'm not sure we can do that with this group. The one place we have an advantage (at least in theory) is being able to put five guys on the court that all can catch and shoot. I think we actually began the Butler game with some off the ball screen action for Ike coming up for a catch and shoot three (that he, naturally, missed). It's hard to tell if we tried it for him or others again. EDIT: Look, if we came out with our best five and ran a five-out offense that just involved a down screen on the weak side for someone to shoot a quick three, I'd be interested to see if we could make it work. I think the D would just end up switching everything and we wouldn't have the quickness to take advantage of the switch. That's basically what happens on our weave and PNR. But, I'm all for trying. I guess I have to agree about the passing but man is it frustrating to do it!! How did we all misread this team so badly? I'm in for trying some 5 out sets too, I just need some hope next season honestly..
|
|