FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 4, 2021 12:20:47 GMT -5
Blair, though, gets instantly beat off the dribble since he takes a bad angle to the ball-handler and, well, isn't a good defender. He doesn't just get beat...he gets toasted. This is a key point. In the first half, the Marquette ball-handler wasn't attacking immediately off the screen and instead got successfully slowed by the soft hedge. At halftime, they were clearly instructed to attack.To what degree do we think Blair's taking a bad angle here was due to Wahab being in his way? I thought they might have even run into each other at first, but I'm not sure having just re-watched it. The next poster lays it out: Wahab gets caught doing...I'm not sure what. He doesn't stay with the ball long enough to make it difficult on the dribbler, and he also doesn't bail out in a timely way to check the screener at the three point line. So the net effect seems to be: he's in Blair's way, and Blair has to run around him to the point that he gets even more toasted off the dribble. Wahab's whole sequence is pretty brutal here: at various points when you pause the highlight he ends up getting in Blair's way, recovering to the three point line with his back to an uncontested dribbler like two feet away, and frantically helping down to the paint as the pass is already going to the corner. It'd be one thing if Marquette was doing something uber-creative: last year I seem to recall they got a late dagger three for Howard on their second go-round of using something like an elevator screen action that (funny enough) I think Blair fought through the first time but then Mosely got caught on it. This is just...ehhh, a pretty pedestrian pick and roll.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 4, 2021 12:47:23 GMT -5
I would love to see a group of this board's xs and os guys/gals have two weeks, 14 days, two-a-days with the team, and then get to coach them for one game against Big East opponent, game or scrimmage, and then you evaluate your success in directing/coaching the team. I am not being condescending, just curious. I am not an xo guy, but many of you are. I would be curious about the evaluation. Obviously, it's impossible to know, but it would be interesting. I think part of the issue is that there are so many aspects of the job that aren't necessarily related to one another but all combine to be essential to success. (And that's setting aside something like recruiting, which obviously has nothing to do with assessing actual coaching). How well can you scout the other team and determine what they're likely to do? How well can you counter their tendencies? How well can you actually instruct the players on those tendencies and your plan (some folks are really good at breaking down film and strategizing but can't teach at all)? How well do you handle subs? How well do you handle play-calling? And so on....
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 4, 2021 12:54:25 GMT -5
Blair, though, gets instantly beat off the dribble since he takes a bad angle to the ball-handler and, well, isn't a good defender. He doesn't just get beat...he gets toasted. This is a key point. In the first half, the Marquette ball-handler wasn't attacking immediately off the screen and instead got successfully slowed by the soft hedge. At halftime, they were clearly instructed to attack.To what degree do we think Blair's taking a bad angle here was due to Wahab being in his way? I thought they might have even run into each other at first, but I'm not sure having just re-watched it. The next poster lays it out: Wahab gets caught doing...I'm not sure what. He doesn't stay with the ball long enough to make it difficult on the dribbler, and he also doesn't bail out in a timely way to check the screener at the three point line. So the net effect seems to be: he's in Blair's way, and Blair has to run around him to the point that he gets even more toasted off the dribble. Wahab's whole sequence is pretty brutal here: at various points when you pause the highlight he ends up getting in Blair's way, recovering to the three point line with his back to an uncontested dribbler like two feet away, and frantically helping down to the paint as the pass is already going to the corner. It'd be one thing if Marquette was doing something uber-creative: last year I seem to recall they got a late dagger three for Howard on their second go-round of using something like an elevator screen action that (funny enough) I think Blair fought through the first time but then Mosely got caught on it. This is just...ehhh, a pretty pedestrian pick and roll. I agree that it definitely wasn't a crisp and clean interchange. Going under the screen, though, should give Blair ample opportunity to avoid Q. I suppose there's some argument that Q shouldn't hedge at all (even softly) if Blair is going under that far away from the hoop. And that would make his rotation easier. Just play a straight drop. I agree it was a pedestrian PNR, but it was run very crisply and the timing was excellent on all the elements. Shoot, we hardly run anything crisply, no matter how pedestrian! If we want to blame Q for one thing or the other rather than Blair, that's cool with me. Again, my main point is that we failed to stop (or even slow) the initial action there, and that's what caused all the problems. (FWIW, my own read is that Q was caught in between on the rotation but that was more a function of the action happening so fast. It seems his initial responsibility was to check the screener on the pop. Maybe that shouldn't have been the tactic there but it seems like it was. And then dig down if he sees that Bile will have to leave his man. He takes a few steps to his primary responsibility and then comes down hard. Maybe he was indeed confused -- could be. But I do like that he moved with purpose and quickly in any event.)
|
|
FLHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Proud Member of Generation Burton
Posts: 4,544
|
Post by FLHoya on Jan 4, 2021 14:48:22 GMT -5
I agree it was a pedestrian PNR, but it was run very crisply and the timing was excellent on all the elements. Shoot, we hardly run anything crisply, no matter how pedestrian! Yeah, the play sort of crystallizes the combination of inexperience, lack of talent, and subpar coaching/scheme we're fighting against this season. It's not a surprise that in every close game thus far, our late-game execution has been extremely shaky. If nothing else, at least last season you'd have Allen and Mosely in key roles on either end of the court. Wasn't foolproof of course (see the elevators play or the turnover on the 2nd to last possession vs. Nova) but you felt the odds were a little better. Not sure what the scenario for closing out a close game is for this team right now other than "the one St. John's-Georgetown game each year when everyone plays like they took mushrooms at the under 4".
|
|
bostonfan
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,508
|
Post by bostonfan on Jan 4, 2021 15:30:36 GMT -5
I agree it was a pedestrian PNR, but it was run very crisply and the timing was excellent on all the elements. Shoot, we hardly run anything crisply, no matter how pedestrian! Yeah, the play sort of crystallizes the combination of inexperience, lack of talent, and subpar coaching/scheme we're fighting against this season. It's not a surprise that in every close game thus far, our late-game execution has been extremely shaky. If nothing else, at least last season you'd have Allen and Mosely in key roles on either end of the court. Wasn't foolproof of course (see the elevators play or the turnover on the 2nd to last possession vs. Nova) but you felt the odds were a little better. Not sure what the scenario for closing out a close game is for this team right now other than "the one St. John's-Georgetown game each year when everyone plays like they took mushrooms at the under 4". Could not agree more. The late-game execution so far this year is really bad ( and by late game I mean the 4:00 mark to end of the game). If you can run your plays and get a decent shot every time and not turn the ball over, then you have to live with the results offensively. On defense if you can maintain your defensive principles and force the other team into tough/contested shots, then you live with that. On the glass you need to understand the sense of urgency and make sure everyone boxes out and pursues the ball aggressively for every rebound. Sometimes there is a long rebound or odd bounce and then the other team gets an offense rebound, but it can't be because they are more aggressive to the glass. Understanding and playing solid situational basketball should give you chance in these close games. Making poor decisions and playing passive almost ensures you will lose those games.
|
|
|
Post by grandmahoya on Jan 4, 2021 17:18:20 GMT -5
All we needed at the end of the game were 2 or 3 defensive stops. Marquette was driving in because their jumpers weren't falling. Simply, they made adjustments at half-time and we didn't. All of our losses, when leading at half-time can be attributed to our lack of flexibility on defense. We need players like Jagan Mosely to take charges and get stops. Our defense is what's hurting us and that's where our focus should be. We score enough points to win most games. Ball handling and turn overs are a whole other issue and will improve with experience.
|
|
saxagael
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,898
|
Post by saxagael on Jan 4, 2021 20:02:29 GMT -5
A player moving if the ball was out at that spot is the same call to passing to another player out of bounds as both change the spot where the ball comes into play. Yes agreed both are violations. My point is it's not as if the inbounder accidentally shuffled his feet or walked towards his intended target. He was instructed to pass the ball to a teammate. So if you're defending Ewing (not you but others) then you are making one of two claims: 1. The players ran that play on their own accord unrelated to instructions that came directly from a timeout 2. You expect the players to know more about the rules than our coach Of all the hills for the pro-Ewing group to die on, I cannot believe anyone is defending this. And yes it didnt change the outcome of the game, but Ewing specifically called a timeout because he didn't think the game was over and wanted to run this play...that was illegal. Not defending Ewing. Just saying the call from the ref is the same call / violation if moving or pass out of bounds as the player is changing the spot of inbounding. If the play is drawn-up that way Ewing needed to check before he drew it up. All coaches check and Ewing has checked in the past. The endline ref should always be checked with by the player inbounding every time. This isn't expecting the players to know more than a coach, but this is drilled into the heads of players from middle school on up. I know Carey had it drilled into him from his travel team coaches. This is a good player task. People make mistakes, particularly in tight game with very little time left. Ewing got his.
|
|
hoya9797
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,207
|
Post by hoya9797 on Jan 4, 2021 20:08:25 GMT -5
Yes agreed both are violations. My point is it's not as if the inbounder accidentally shuffled his feet or walked towards his intended target. He was instructed to pass the ball to a teammate. So if you're defending Ewing (not you but others) then you are making one of two claims: 1. The players ran that play on their own accord unrelated to instructions that came directly from a timeout 2. You expect the players to know more about the rules than our coach Of all the hills for the pro-Ewing group to die on, I cannot believe anyone is defending this. And yes it didnt change the outcome of the game, but Ewing specifically called a timeout because he didn't think the game was over and wanted to run this play...that was illegal. Not defending Ewing. Just saying the call from the ref is the same call / violation if moving or pass out of bounds as the player is changing the spot of inbounding. If the play is drawn-up that way Ewing needed to check before he drew it up. All coaches check and Ewing has checked in the past. The endline ref should always be checked with by the player inbounding every time. This isn't expecting the players to know more than a coach, but this is drilled into the heads of players from middle school on up. I know Carey had it drilled into him from his travel team coaches. This is a good player task. People make mistakes, particularly in tight game with very little time left. Ewing got his. Not sure why you are trying to be a jerk, but that is something you do a bit, as I said I didn't see the end play. There are common things that are done every play in nearly every good program. I think you’ve stumbled across the problem here.
|
|
saxagael
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,898
|
Post by saxagael on Jan 4, 2021 20:25:35 GMT -5
Not defending Ewing. Just saying the call from the ref is the same call / violation if moving or pass out of bounds as the player is changing the spot of inbounding. If the play is drawn-up that way Ewing needed to check before he drew it up. All coaches check and Ewing has checked in the past. The endline ref should always be checked with by the player inbounding every time. This isn't expecting the players to know more than a coach, but this is drilled into the heads of players from middle school on up. I know Carey had it drilled into him from his travel team coaches. This is a good player task. People make mistakes, particularly in tight game with very little time left. Ewing got his. Not sure why you are trying to be a jerk, but that is something you do a bit, as I said I didn't see the end play. There are common things that are done every play in nearly every good program. I think you’ve stumbled across the problem here. Read the line above it. Ewing has done this in the past where he would ask the ref as they are at the scorers table at timeouts. He also would get after Akinjo for not checking with the ref on plays. I know Ewing does this has I've watched games with middle school and high school travel team players and they have called out Ewing for asking refs and seeing Georgetown players ask, just like their coaches drill into them. It is clear you aren't hear because you are a fan of basketball and love the game. Your reason for being here is clear.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Jan 5, 2021 13:08:46 GMT -5
All we needed at the end of the game were 2 or 3 defensive stops. Marquette was driving in because their jumpers weren't falling. Simply, they made adjustments at half-time and we didn't. All of our losses, when leading at half-time can be attributed to our lack of flexibility on defense. We need players like Jagan Mosely to take charges and get stops. Our defense is what's hurting us and that's where our focus should be. We score enough points to win most games. Ball handling and turn overs are a whole other issue and will improve with experience. To be fair last year we had 3 pretty good defenders (Allen, Jagan, Jamorko) playing together and we were still an awful defensive team that blew leads. I think it's safe to say it's not all about the players at this point. If you listen to Ewing you can tell what his plan is. When the players execute the plan but it doesn't work then somehow the players get blamed.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,356
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 5, 2021 13:17:26 GMT -5
All we needed at the end of the game were 2 or 3 defensive stops. Marquette was driving in because their jumpers weren't falling. Simply, they made adjustments at half-time and we didn't. All of our losses, when leading at half-time can be attributed to our lack of flexibility on defense. We need players like Jagan Mosely to take charges and get stops. Our defense is what's hurting us and that's where our focus should be. We score enough points to win most games. Ball handling and turn overs are a whole other issue and will improve with experience. To be fair last year we had 3 pretty good defenders (Allen, Jagan, Jamorko) playing together and we were still an awful defensive team that blew leads. I think it's safe to say it's not all about the players at this point. If you listen to Ewing you can tell what his plan is. When the players execute the plan but it doesn't work then somehow the players get blamed. It took him 3 years to end the hard hedge disaster. How long will it take to end the awful “leave your perimeter shooter alone to help inside the paint” defensive scheme? I appreciate Bobby Bancroft’s post-game conference questions (re: that defensive scheme) which have shown it’s what Pat is asking from his players. It has been years since we were wondering if it was player error or coaching instruction? Remember how many times Mac tried the steal inside the paint only to be nailed by his shooter?
|
|