|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 20, 2024 9:54:16 GMT -5
I also don't understand the potential PT concerns. Who did he think was coming in to definitively take away all of his time? Don't give me recruiting class rankings and recruit stars and whatever. We've been down that road before plenty of times and a good number of these kids never panned out or lived up to the billing. Really not happy that the default reaction to any challenge in PT is to pack up and run. How about get better during the offseason and earn the minutes? I think we need to wait to see what happens to understand the PT concerns. If you bring in Mintz? He'd definitely be right to be worried. That's certainly fair as an example where he'd clearly have been over-recruited, but Mintz isn't even here yet. Will be interesting to see where he ends up. We weren't any good, but I don't think he's finding a better situation than maybe being a top 3-4 option at a mid/low major somewhere if PT is the primary concern.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 20, 2024 9:45:20 GMT -5
A situation like this is exactly why it's becoming harder and harder to root for individual player development, especially during lost seasons. I don't know if he would have ended up being a top-flight BE caliber PG, but he did improve over the final month of the year. And now we have nothing to show for it. Just brutal.
I also don't understand the potential PT concerns. Who did he think was coming in to definitively take away all of his time? Don't give me recruiting class rankings and recruit stars and whatever. We've been down that road before plenty of times and a good number of these kids never panned out or lived up to the billing. Really not happy that the default reaction to any challenge in PT is to pack up and run. How about get better during the offseason and earn the minutes?
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 19, 2024 22:26:27 GMT -5
Well, the committee selected poorly. And they got a predictably poor result. Let the criticism continue, because that can't be allowed to happen again without some very public, timely, and pointed dissent.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 19, 2024 15:24:26 GMT -5
If the BE had gotten 2 or even 3 of the first 4 out, I would have probably agreed that their fate was sealed by unforeseen bid stealers.
But that wasn't even the case. The first 4 out was Oklahoma, Seton Hall, Indiana St., and Pitt. So yes, the Pirates were in theory 2 bid stealers away from the dance. But that's also saying that SJU and Providence's resumes were basically dead on arrival coming into NYC, even before considering Providence beat Creighton and SJU beat SHU while staying extremely competitive against a 1 seed. And that's very, very wrong.
I found it interesting that supposedly, NET is not even a criteria for selection. It's only used for seeding after selections are made. NET was the only criteria (outside of just raw numbers of wins) that UVA was even remotely competitive against when comparing against SJU, SHU, and Prov. If there's something out there that definitively supports UVA getting in over any of the excluded BE teams outside of just raw number of wins or some cop-out argument of "well the BE teams could've done more to get in," I'd love to see it.
Look, overall I appreciate Val. She led us out of the darkest times of 2013 when we weren't even sure we'd have a conference anymore. The initial TV deal with Fox Sports has been a net positive since the league reformed. And, if she's able to secure a competitive deal when the current contract expires, she will have done her job. But that benign statement yesterday and giving off the perception that she didn't go to bat for multiple institutions in the conference over the past few days was a big miss.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 18, 2024 10:23:47 GMT -5
Think this is key. There was a lot of talk about ACC admins publicly lobbying for UVA leading up to Selection Sunday. Didn't hear a peep from Val and Co. at all despite them having to know that they had 3 teams all near the cutline. We'll never know exactly how much the lobbying helped, but UVA has to appreciate the effort from its conference leadership today and I'm not sure I can say the same for SJU, SHU, and Prov. I do think Val has an obligation to at least publicly acknowledge some level of disagreement with the decisions that were made yesterday. I won't regurgitate the statistics and rankings that are out there, but it's plentiful and doesn't make it easy to justify the results that we saw on Selection Sunday. Obviously, what's done is done and we can't fix this now, but Val has a responsibility to let it be known that either the selection committee needs to better evaluate teams on the metrics it says it supposedly uses to make decisions, or that they have to let everyone know what the real evaluation criteria is so that the BE, as a conference, can better schedule or improve our performance accordingly going forward. It can't be just acceptance and silence.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 14, 2024 16:38:35 GMT -5
Obviously the on-court results this season were not what we wanted. But, I think there are other things outside of solely wins and losses that are just as problematic for this program and staff going forward.
When you're trying to convince a portal kid or HS recruit to come here that is worth their salt, you better come armed with 3 things.
First, the almighty NIL dollar. It's unfortunate that's the way it is today, but it's the sad reality. The powers that may be on the Hilltop have privately indicated this shouldn't be a problem. I have my reservations, but let's just assume it's a non-issue for now.
Second, they want to go somewhere where it's clear that they will be both have a chance to develop. What do we want to be known for in terms of getting guys to the next level? Skill development? Developing high basketball IQ? Endless motors? You've got to start building specific examples of previous players that you got to the next level and how you helped them get there. It's the only way for them to start envisioning going down the same path and getting themselves to where they want to be. I don't think we created a single example on a current roster this season that you could sell to a portaler or HS recruit. Maaaybe Fielder, but that's about it. Ed's going to have to point to his old Providence guys as examples. Eventually, that's not a story he's going to be able to tell and have it resonate.
Third, they want to go somewhere where they will get featured. Usage is king, and unless you're winning a lot of games and putting your guys in situations where complaints about PT and usage make the individual seem very selfish publicly, kids are only going to go where they are going to get a chance to play.
Things that no longer matter: the opportunity to win a championship, the chance to play on TV often (everyone does) and in a pro arena, academics, what their parents think is best for them, etc. Throw all of that out the window. If you still think that stuff is important, you are just kidding yourself. These guys are coming in just as any of us would for any job interview. How much am I getting paid and how will you contribute to my upward mobility? That's it.
To me, assuming #1 isn't a problem, Ed's got to figure out #2 ASAP. He has to create a compelling reason why talented kids should come here today. It can't be about what we did 40 years ago. It's got to be about what we were just able to do and what we can do for these players in terms of building their value today and for tomorrow. This year was a complete disaster in trying to accomplish this. The window to start doing so is closing fast, as it's only going to get harder to tell that story as each unsuccessful season passes. Huge spring/summer for this staff to make this right.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 14, 2024 16:13:47 GMT -5
I don't think you let anyone "test the market." If any want to enter the portal, best of luck, but we're not holding a spot for you. Nobody in the current group is irreplaceable. I think all 5 should be welcomed back, but nobody's position/role/minutes should be protected. If we can upgrade any position via the portal, we have to do so. That's just how it goes when you finish 2-18, some things need to change and that may mean some hurt feelings. My priority order for retention would be: 1. Fielder-maybe counter-intuitive since he received the least PT of the 5, but I think he has the highest ceiling and looked good down the stretch. 6'10 guys who shoot better than 40% from 3 have a lot of value. He's going to develop, and I'd like it to be here. 2. Styles-he showed a lot at times despite also having some forgettable games. But of the 5 hes the one I feel most certain could be a starter on a good team. Hopefully McKenna and Williams push him a little and he builds on the jump he made this year. 3. Brumbaugh- he was one of the most productive freshmen in the conference and he has 3 more years of eligibility. I don't see him being ready to be a starter on a good team next year, but would like to hang onto him to see if he'll develop as a backup next year and maybe be ready to lead the team as a RS junior. The outline of a very good upperclassman lead guard is there, he just needs to grow into it. 4. Cook- easy player to root for, but his defensive shortcomings are the root of our historically bad defense, IMHO. And he can't do much on offense unless he's right at the rim. Basically he's a rebound/hustle player and that's it. I can live with that as a 9th man, but is that a role he'll be content with? If he's a starter again next year I think it's trouble. I'd rather see Fielder and Sorber get the minutes along with whatever transfer big we're able to land. 5. Epps- again counter-intuitive because of his counting stats, but I just don't believe you win with tweener guards who dominate the ball, are inefficient shooters, and who don't excel in other areas (defense, point guard responsibilities, etc.). Like Cook I would welcome him back in a much smaller role, but something tells me he may not be happy going from this year where he had carte blanche to being a 6th man or something as a junior. But I think that's his destiny--either a microwave 6th man on a decent or better team, or a hot and cold ball dominator on a bad one. And if he's going to be the latter, I don't want it to be here (again). In a perfect world, all of these guys are back and they embrace their new roles when we add new and better players via portal. In the real world, that doesn't feel too likely. Hopefully the NIL budget is spread so that players with bright futures can be retained and players who aren't likely to be winners (even if they are strong in one or two areas) are de-prioritized and either embrace a new role or find a new situation. Solid comments on the priority list and agree about the "test the waters" comment. I think the world we live in now will require some level of re-recruitment for any current player to come back; you just can't assume anyone is 100% content and will stay. You can easily point to some pre-existing relationship between any player and Cooley or one of the assistants, but at the end of the day the almighty dollar talks and everyone has a price. As far as prioritizing goes, would probably have Rowan 2 and Cook is a distant 5. If we're able to turn Epps/Styles into 4th/5th options, they could thrive in those roles for a halfway contending team. But, I also realize that's going to take a significant jump in both adding talent elsewhere on the roster and substantial development on the parts of Fielder/Rowan. Would not consider bringing anyone else back other than those 5. I know some have expiring eligibility so it's a moot point, but none of the other guys are even rotation-level players on a team that has NCAA aspirations. I am still unsure how KSU got so much mileage out of Ish last season. I would also take a long and hard look about retention from a supporting staff perspective. Obviously we have to fill an assistant slot with Thomas leaving, but I would also expect a thorough review of what went wrong in Year 1 from a strength and conditioning perspective. This was a deficiency all season long and not something I would have expected to continue to be a problem under a new staff. If outside help is needed to improve in this area, I'd expect that to happen sooner rather than later so that the work can begin ASAP. We might not be the most talented group even next season, but I am done being pushed aside, thrown around, and in general just being bullied. The onus is on Ed to get back to basics and build an identity of toughness and grit, which is something I thought was the hallmark of his previous teams.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Mar 4, 2024 11:26:17 GMT -5
Wasn't going to let this impact the rest of my weekend, but circling back to this game with a couple brief comments:
Thought it was interesting to hear Fanta talk about how Cooley specifically mentioned pre-game that the game was an opportunity to show what they've learned from the first X game that should've been a win. Outside of making some shots that they should make with more regularity but usually don't, I didn't get the impression we learned anything.
The lone bright spot over the last 5-6 games continues to be Rowan. I don't think he will ever evolve into a true difference maker, but I believe he does have the ceiling to become one of the key support guys that you can use to build around a bonafide go-to guy. Plus size gives him a chance to really excel at the 1, and his decision making and shooting continue to improve as the game is hopefully slowing down for him. Will be an important summer for him.
I forget which of the numerous Claude layups down the stretch it was, but there was a X possession late where Heath, as the primary defender, was literally retreating away from a driving Claude as he went in for the layup. Maybe one of the most puzzling and disappointing individual defensive efforts I've ever seen. The opposite of taking on a challenge head-on.
Agree that there was some questionable officiating, but honestly felt it was more missed calls that should've resulted in FTs for us vs. questionable fouls on some of our guys. Both teams were hacking the crap out of each other because they both couldn't defend worth a damn, but to have ~20 FT less attempts... didn't think that should have been the case.
Just please mercifully get to the end on March 13th so we can figure out how to clean up this mess.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Feb 28, 2024 11:06:37 GMT -5
It's an important question.
From just a pure basketball standpoint... yes, there are teams that are extremely balanced 1 through 5 and just play tremendous team basketball. They're well coached, make few mistakes, and take no plays off. You can certainly succeed that way. 2023 FAU is a good recent example; no stars or go to guys, but no weaknesses. Davis and Goldin on this year's FAU team have taken on much larger roles, but I digress. The main point is that it's very, very difficult to build an elite team this way. If you want to win 18-20 games as a major, make the occasional tourney, etc. then you can certainly try to construct a roster and coach to it using this method.
However, if you want to be elite (and this is where I believe we want to be), you need 2 critical things on offense. First, you need at least 1 go-to guy who is legitimately capable of taking over a game and winning it at any point. This is the player who requires a double team to slow him down and even attempt to stop him. He can create his own shot with relative consistency and is at least moderately efficient. Recent guys who we thought could play this role but could not include Mcclung, Aminu, and now Epps. They are just not at that level, and we haven't had that kind of player in quite some time (maybe DSR comes closest). IMO, you need at least 1. If you lucky enough to have 2, you can really force teams to pick their poison and there's probably only a handful of teams each year that successfully can. But let's start with finding 1.
The second thing you need are complementary players who can consistently make teams pay when your go-to guy is getting doubled. Modern basketball requires the go-to guy to be able to do something that the defense cannot stop without committing an extra defender (double team, hedge, help, trap, whatever). Once that double comes, it all comes down to... can your go-to guy be both creative and unselfish enough to find open teammates in spots they can excel in, and can those other guys consistently knock down shots from those spots. We've consistently fallen short in this area as well. We've either had someone like Q who could command some additional defensive attention but was unwilling/unable to pass to teammates, or guys who we recruited as knockdown shooters that end up not being able to make teams pay for leaving open on a consistent basis. Ish is a good example for this season. Kaiden came closest but was so poor on the defensive end that it negated any offense he could provide. We really need to start adding guys to the roster that other teams are fearful of leaving open and not guys who are being dared to shoot. Any player on the floor that you don't need to account for defensively is a huge minus in terms of spacing. You could maybe get away with it 10 years ago. You can't today.
Defensively, I think the fixes are a combination of coaching, game-planning and execution of that gameplan, and effort/desire. I just don't think you can coach desire into kids, especially in the modern era when they are already getting fat checks that could reasonably suppress that hunger. By the time they are ready to enter college or come via the portal, you probably already have a fair idea of how hard they are going to play. We have to stop bringing in kids who consistently exhibit bad body language, take plays off, don't run back in transition, etc. They are poison for a roster regardless of their talent. All that being said, the other half of it is coaching. Does the staff have a workable solution that, if executed properly, would stop or slow down the other team, force the other team to be uncomfortable and ideally go away from their preferred option(s)? I am sure the last staff did not and the current one hasn't shown it yet. Focusing on taking away 3-point shots is great, but at the expense of what? It is not clear to me from game-to-game this season what we are trying to take away. Is it forcing a specific player to a spot they don't like to be in? Is it a conscious effort to allow an opposing 4th/5th option to try and beat us? Can we mask any of our deficiencies? From our results and what I see, it doesn't look like we currently focus on any of those things.
Coaching is also about improving skills and emphasizing the fundamentals. We haven't had a team that I thought consistently boxed out and played more physical than their opponents in over a decade. We haven't had players that we've seen make a considerable jump in ability from season-to-season or even within a single season in a long time. Guys don't get physically stronger, incrementally quicker, etc. and then we wonder why we are outclassed athletically year after year. Player development is stagnant and when that happens, the ceiling becomes incredibly lower. I know this is much more challenging with consistent roster turnover and the potential difficulties in trying to retain kids who DO develop, but development still needs to happen. I'm hoping this staff can show more with a new group of players next year because outside of maybe 1-2 kids on this current squad, I'm not seeing a whole lot of room for growth.
In sum, all of that is a lot. But it has to be when you are consistently winning 10 or less games a year. There are certain things I am hopeful Cooley and company can correct (physicality, effort, better game-planning and execution). There are other things I am less confident in (player skill development, recruitment of elite talent). Unfortunately, it will take all of those things to get us back to where we want to be.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Feb 7, 2024 12:50:24 GMT -5
The whole discussion about trying to figure out the most efficient way to allocate dollars to build a competitive roster is very sobering. I've seen Pitino called a hypocrite for his salary cap comments the other day, and there is definitely some merit to that, But, he's really not that far off.
The biggest issue right now isn't even the dollars, but that you can't ever be certain that you're going to be able to retain a player year after year. If a kid develops and dramatically improves, he's probably going to immediately want more money and go to the highest bidder. If a kid stagnates or regresses, you're left with a decision to basically kick him to the curb because he's not worth his "salary" anymore and the dollars could be better spent elsewhere (assuming you can find a better/more efficient player to replace). We've seen that the multiple transfer rule can be bent and will probably continue to face pressure. And god forbid someone tries to revive APR at some point.
I did think one thing Pitino mentioned could alleviate some of the problems. He proposed having players sign multi-year contracts in place of letters of intent. As a coach, I'd be much more interested in a player who was willing to commit long term (i.e. more than a year) and to a fixed dollar price. If I'm going to spend the time and effort to improve one of my players, I need to ensure that I'm going to see the fruits of my labor down the road in terms of the players contributing to wins. It would work both ways too. If a kid ends up not being able to hack it at this level, they still get some financial security / extra years of education (although who are we kidding, these guys are employees and not students at this point) out of it by being under contract. Then, you don't have to worry about 80-90% of your team jumping into the portal every spring and not being sure who is even going to be on the roster come late summer.
I'm sure then this leads down to another rabbit hole of whether or not schools can trade players who are under contract, but this is the mess NIL created to begin with. CFB/CBB are increasingly no different than pro leagues.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 29, 2024 17:37:20 GMT -5
Out of pocket for most of the weekend but did catch all of the game.
Overall, I thought the level of effort was decent enough to win, surely with some average shot making and avoiding a couple of untimely turnovers. Every time it looked like Providence would put the game out of reach, we counterpunched and kept them within striking distance. I appreciated what I thought was a conscious effort to get into our offensive sets earlier and not burn 15-20 seconds aimlessly dribbling on the perimeter without giving the defense anything to be concerned about. That needs to continue regardless of who our opponent is. Along with the more prolonged looks of 2-3 zone, this also shows me that the coaching staff is willing/able to make adjustments. Ish wasn't great defensively, but it does look like his perimeter shooting is turning a corner the last few games which at least gives you a reason to keep him on the floor for spacing purposes. Hoping he can keep hitting at a respectable clip.
The bad.. I don't know if there's a nagging or injury or not (TBQF, I don't really care and it's becoming a tiresome excuse at this point IMO), but Heath consistently makes some of the worst decisions / inopportune mistakes and fails in clutch moments in crunch time. The back-to-back turnovers in a 2-point game under 2 minutes... just can't have that from an experienced guard. Epps obviously did not have a good shooting night, but he's in the unfortunate role of being the guy because there's no one else that can be trusted to be the guy. Sometimes it ends up being that way. But he did have a couple of open looks that you'd hope would go down that did not.
Absolutely worth mentioning that in what was a 1-2 possession game for the final 8 minutes, there were 2 just mind-numbingly horrible flagrants called on us. I'm sorry, but if you've got to spend 3-5 minutes going freeze frame by freeze frame trying to figure out if something was a flagrant, it probably wasn't warranted. Flagrants are literally called flagrants for a reason; they are obviously offensive and should be near impossible to argue the contrary that they aren't. Neither was even close to fitting the bill. In a game that close, 2 extra possessions are enormous. Yes, the refs tried to insert themselves a third time by giving the Providence bench a technical that also probably wasn't warranted, but I would've like to see the players 100% decide the game on the court versus having someone take a microscope to a replay for 10+ minutes just to get some of the spotlight on a national TV game. Shameful.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 24, 2024 9:45:24 GMT -5
One of the things I was excited about coming into this season was getting a new strength and conditioning coach here to shore up some of the physicality issues (or lack thereof) that we've seen over the past few seasons. Was thinking we might not be pretty, but there'd be a better chance of us playing some bully ball of our own this season. And I get that a kid like Fielder is still acclimating to the college level and hasn't had time yet to fully develop. But, I've been pretty damn disappointed with the returns on this front so far. Aside from Cook, who was the only Hoya I thought showed up and at least gave a halfway passable effort last night, everyone else was getting manhandled for 40 minutes. We can't finish through contact and we can't prevent opponents from finishing through contact. That's a recipe for disaster.
I knew there'd be nights this year where we'd be outclassed purely from a skill and athleticism standpoint, but I did not expect us to look like a freshman JV team bouncing off the varsity at every instance of contact. In addition to all the failures on the skills/fundamentals development end so far this season, strength and conditioning in my view has been a big F so far and it was very apparent against Butler, maybe moreso than any other game so far.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 23, 2024 9:59:34 GMT -5
Wasn't able to post over the weekend, but one thing I'm not seeing being talked about that I think warrants more attention are the two awful perimeter closeouts by Epps and Fielder that resulted in 6 Xavier FTs (they made all 6). Take those two glaring mistakes away and I think that's a result we almost assuredly come away with regardless of our late game defensive collapse and whatever your thoughts may be on the last shot (personally, I didn't have a problem with it). Bahe is probably one of the worst color guys FS employs (although come to think of it, none of them are really all that great minus Raf), but he said at the time that the fouled 3-point shooters would come back to bite us as a mistake you can't make trying to win on the road. And it did. I agree with this, except that didn't we also benefit from two fouls that were called on three point shots, and didn't we also make all six free throws? So that's a wash. Agree, but we're not ideally looking for a wash there. We need to be disciplined enough to come out ahead in that exchange. Can't control the mistakes of the other team, just our own.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 22, 2024 15:14:23 GMT -5
Wasn't able to post over the weekend, but one thing I'm not seeing being talked about that I think warrants more attention are the two awful perimeter closeouts by Epps and Fielder that resulted in 6 Xavier FTs (they made all 6). Take those two glaring mistakes away and I think that's a result we almost assuredly come away with regardless of our late game defensive collapse and whatever your thoughts may be on the last shot (personally, I didn't have a problem with it).
Bahe is probably one of the worst color guys FS employs (although come to think of it, none of them are really all that great minus Raf), but he said at the time that the fouled 3-point shooters would come back to bite us as a mistake you can't make trying to win on the road. And it did.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 14, 2024 14:41:36 GMT -5
I've been very tough on Supreme Cook all year, but that was the first complete game I feel like he competed on both ends and easily his best as a Hoya. Not having Clingan in there helped, but this is the Supreme Cook I want to see every night; being active on not only the offensive glass, but defensive as well (thought he was shorted at least 2 defensive rebounds) and punishing teams by doing his work getting deep position in the paint and forcing either a foul or an easy bucket. Even loved the assist for the wide open corner 3 there in the 2nd half; that's a play that we 110% would've seen Q force up a wild shot or travel in previous seasons. Kudos to Cooley for continuing to feed him and emphasize him in the offense where possible; how often times in recent seasons would we completely ignore the hot hand or go away from an obvious advantage and try something else?
Unfortunately, the rest of the team decided to take most of the game off and start the long weekend early. Ish continues to be a nightmare; the missed wide open 3 (no one was within 10 feet of him) mid 2nd half to cut it to 3 that was followed up with a Spencer 3 to push the lead back to 9 was the backbreaking sequence of the game. Really had a chance to put true game pressure on UConn, but the one guy we counted on coming into this season to hit these type of 3s just can't find the mark and doesn't contribute positively in any other aspect of the game. At some point, leadership/intangibles have to give way to production/results.
Two other things stood out during most of the game. First, we did give up way too many open looks from 3, but UConn's guards just have the size to elevate over smaller guards even on semi decent closeouts and get good looks. This is what elite teams do; you're not always going to get wide open 3s but to go far in March you're going to have to hit your fair share of lightly-medium contested 3s too. Karaban/Spencer did that. Second, it seemed like everyone outside of Cook really had issues finishing at the rim and a lot of them were of the weight-room variety. Thought we were revamping our strength and conditioning this offseason with some new coaches so that we wouldn't be bouncing off of defenders and being unable to finish in traffic and through contact as we have in recent seasons. With frosh like Rowan and Fielder, it's more acceptable. With some of the older guys and especially upperclassmen, less so. Disappointed that we missed that many bunnies simply because of lack of strength/focus.
Hoping the guys can take a cue from Cook; getting that level of effort and intensity from 6-7 guys instead of 1 and maybe we have a fighting chance on Friday night.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 10, 2024 10:38:16 GMT -5
Fully agree with the commentary regarding giving up 2s vs 3s. I've been very happy with the renewed focus this year on better closeouts on shooters, not overhelping off known shooters, etc.
I would love to see the data behind first shot defense for 2s vs. second/third/etc. chances. I don't necessarily think our first shot defense from inside the arc has been that bad, but the inability (and at times, complete disinterest) of our frontcourt to help on the defensive glass and prevent follow up opportunities which have been converting at an ultra-high rate is what's really killing us at this point. Our frontcourt is not committing towards putting a body on somebody when the first shot goes up. It's either a half-hearted jump at a contest or slightly being pulled out of position with no immediate effort to recover and box-out. I even saw one defensive possession last night (the "hot potato" rebound between Epps/Styles as the telecast described it) where Cook started to leak out for a fast break as the shot was going up. Can't happen. Kudos to our guards for trying their best to help with the defensive glass as much as possible, but they're almost being forced to do so because the frontcourt isn't pulling their weight. When people talk about this team being soft and being surprised by the lack of physicality from a Cooley-led team, this is it right here. And I don't buy it's an athleticism issue; you can hustle and get after it on the glass without being the best athlete. There are countless mid majors who can accomplish this.
IMO, since I agree this is going to be a game of tradeoffs, we've got to eliminate as many of the attempts at contesting that cause guys to be out of position for the rebound. In close quarters near the rim you have to, but there are lot of mid-range shots in the 8-10 foot range that don't require a fly-by or an attempt at a block. Shot goes up, put an ass on somebody and commit to ending the possession. We are 222nd nationally in blocks, so it's not like we are piling up the rejections or even shot alterations anyways. Kind of a brutal stretch here with the next two games, but any progress on this front would be a welcome sight.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 9, 2024 21:43:03 GMT -5
I understand we have a lot of deficiencies in certain areas, but Cooley had a horrific final 3 minutes there. Didn't look like we had a plan on offense at all instead of dribbling 20 seconds off the clock with 0 movement and being unable to even make a simple first pass to start a play. Subbing in a cold and ineffective Massoud and putting him in a position where has to put the ball on the floor had disaster written all over it. Not denying the inbounds twice to a 93% FT shooter or at the very least trapping him to force him to give it up tells me either it wasn't in the scouting report or that we weren't prepared to execute it. Neither is good. Can't keep giving away games like this. Not asking for the world at the snap of a finger here but you gotta show some tangible results and evidence of progress at some point. Cooley in his post game presser admitted that he crashed the plane. But I also think the Massoud sub is what 95% of coaches would have done. You were down 3 with under 2 minutes to play. He subbed Massoud for Bristol to get another 3 point shooter on the court. It didn't work. But A LOT of coaches would've made that substitution in a huge possession down 3 even if Massoud had been awful up to that point. Who would you rather have shoot a 3 between Bristol and Massoud if the opportunity presented itself? As for the fouling at the end, the coaches were ballistic. Especially Blaney that they fouled Dawes instead of trapping...BOTH TIMES. So while the coaches deserve the blame for it happening on their watch, I don't doubt that the message was delivered properly but not executed properly. Yep, and that's already a step over the last coach who would've eagerly thrown his team under the bus. Re: Massoud vs. Bristol, I may agree with you if its final 20-30 seconds and you may only get one quality shot for a tie. But not with 2 minutes to go. You still have to worry about defensive possessions at that point and you don't necessarily need a 3 at that juncture. I think Massoud is sub 30% FG after tonight for the year and 3pt% isn't much better. The fact we are even debating who should be on the floor in this scenario is alarming.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Jan 9, 2024 20:54:16 GMT -5
I understand we have a lot of deficiencies in certain areas, but Cooley had a horrific final 3 minutes there.
Didn't look like we had a plan on offense at all instead of dribbling 20 seconds off the clock with 0 movement and being unable to even make a simple first pass to start a play. Subbing in a cold and ineffective Massoud and putting him in a position where has to put the ball on the floor had disaster written all over it. Not denying the inbounds twice to a 93% FT shooter or at the very least trapping him to force him to give it up tells me either it wasn't in the scouting report or that we weren't prepared to execute it. Neither is good.
Can't keep giving away games like this. Not asking for the world at the snap of a finger here but you gotta show some tangible results and evidence of progress at some point.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 19, 2023 21:06:40 GMT -5
Well, just a couple things here. First, when your starting guards shoot 4-18 (which included two late baskets) and 0-6 from three, you ain't winning. And second, it just seems truly weird to me that we are a pretty good offensive rebounding team, but a terrible defensive rebounding team. That seems to be the case in most games. Today, Butler had nearly as many offensive rebounds as we had defensive rebounds. That is completely unacceptable, but it just seems to be our fate this season. This is basically the season in a nutshell. I said it after the win at ND and it's held true in previous losses as well as tonight. Just too many guys who are completely disinterested in helping to end a possession with a fundamental boxout and rebound who ARE also capable of crashing the glass with max effort on the offensive end because it could lead to putback points and stat padding. I refuse to believe that our defensive rebounding is being completely held back across the board by scheme and personnel. Guys just need to WANT to do it on both ends and take some pride in getting stops. It's something I'm sure fell on deaf ears towards the end of the last regime. I expected Ed to be able to clean this up a little sooner than this. As a team... 16 defensive rebounds, 15 offensive rebounds surrendered. Supreme Cook... 6 offensive rebounds, 1 defensive rebound tonight. Starting center managed 1 defensive rebound in 29 minutes. I don't like singling guys out but that is unacceptable. Our first shot defense has room for improvement but it certainly is good enough to survive if we hold our own on the boards like we should. It's purely an effort thing IMO. Take some pride in getting a stop and get the damn defensive board. For a team that struggles as badly as we do to generate turnovers, it should be even MORE of an emphasis. There will be other BE teams that we will struggle to keep off the boards, and there's little than can be done to prevent that. I accept that. Butler is not one of those teams. Really had hoped to get some momentum coming off the road win. Poor effort tonight.
|
|
|
Post by RockawayHoya on Dec 16, 2023 17:04:36 GMT -5
Far from perfect, but a road win against a major conference team (albeit definitely on the weaker side) with your leading scorer/playmaker sidelined is a damned good result.
The game's ebbs and flows directly correlated with two things: our defensive rebounding and turnovers. Defensive rebounding was atrocious for about 24 minutes, incredibly solid for about 10, and then so-so the rest of the game. But it was a huge contributing factor towards erasing a deficit and building a lead. Again, saw multiple guys (Cook, Styles) give far better effort on the offensive glass than on the defensive end. Just not something that can happen if you want to beat quality teams with any kind of consistency. That being said, goes without saying that it was a hell of an effort play on the final possession by Cook to contest and block the shot without fouling.
The defensive assignment miscues aside, Fielder showed he has the potential to be a significant offensive weapon moving forward. Not a lot of guys with both his size and skill set. You just hope the physical maturity comes sooner rather than later and he continues to evolve and gain confidence.
Better free throw shooting keeps you in close games. Will take 18-23 (78%) every night.
Not sure that we had any good answer for it, but down the stretch ND repeatedly ran an offensive set that consisted of waiting until we switched Massoud onto Burton and then allowing Burton to attack him off the dribble. He's a tough cover for anyone, but ideally you'd like to see us throw in a few wrinkles here and there. Burton was in autopilot by the end of the game and I don't think we did nearly enough scheme-wise to make him uncomfortable.
Nice to close out the OOC on a positive note. Aside from the Holy Cross disaster, team has been about where I thought it would be. Would like to see us build on this going into what should be a winnable game on Tuesday at a place we've historically had success.
|
|