rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 1, 2015 21:48:57 GMT -5
In all fairness basically all 10 players thought the whistle had blown the play dead on that three, because it did. Replay showed whistle came after the shot. Yeah I heard it come after the shot in the replay too, but in real time I'm pretty sure it was a different whistle that came before. That's why so many players let their guard down, and in real time it looked like Davis shot it in part because he thought the play was already over, obviously it's always better to be safe than sorry though. Could be wrong though but the people I was with thought the same.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,532
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 1, 2015 23:07:52 GMT -5
2. We need to play Hopkins and Trawick less. In particular, Hopkins. He is a massive offensive liability and his occasional bright spots aren't enough to justify the time he gets. After we tied it, Hopkins dropped off the ball man on a fast break (open three), fouled twice on late rotations, got beat like a drum by Stainbrook, missed the front end of a one and one, gave up a put back dunk and committed a dumb turnover/missed shot. I'll take Copeland, thank you very much. Reasons why we lost, in order: Thompson's over-reliance on his upperclassmen...Hopkins was horrifically bad on both sides of the ball -- in the key stretch he gave up a 3 on the break, was late on two rotations leading to fouls, missed the front end of a one on one and got abused by Stainbrook. This, plus 0 points, yet Hopkins got 30 minutes. This would have been the perfect game for Hayes to get five minutes at least to see how he does vs another tall player with a good team. One poster mentioned that yesterday we needed a defensive presence down low. How about a seven-footer? The offense would not have been hurt by Hayes in and Hopkins out. There was no way but up from Hopkins on the offensive side. In the few minutes he has played, Hayes looks mechanical in his movements, like someone who knows where the C needs to move on offense and does it. As for the defense, as mentioned above, Hopkins was not the best last night. Maybe Hayes can bring something to help out when the others are playing so bad. Just a small change for 5 minutes to see what happens. To be clear, we need Hopkins to play, but there are 5 minutes to be found for Hayes.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 1, 2015 23:20:09 GMT -5
2. We need to play Hopkins and Trawick less. In particular, Hopkins. He is a massive offensive liability and his occasional bright spots aren't enough to justify the time he gets. After we tied it, Hopkins dropped off the ball man on a fast break (open three), fouled twice on late rotations, got beat like a drum by Stainbrook, missed the front end of a one and one, gave up a put back dunk and committed a dumb turnover/missed shot. I'll take Copeland, thank you very much. Reasons why we lost, in order: Thompson's over-reliance on his upperclassmen...Hopkins was horrifically bad on both sides of the ball -- in the key stretch he gave up a 3 on the break, was late on two rotations leading to fouls, missed the front end of a one on one and got abused by Stainbrook. This, plus 0 points, yet Hopkins got 30 minutes. This would have been the perfect game for Hayes to get five minutes at least to see how he does vs another tall player with a good team. One poster mentioned that yesterday we needed a defensive presence down low. How about a seven-footer? The offense would not have been hurt by Hayes in and Hopkins out. There was no way but up from Hopkins on the offensive side. In the few minutes he has played, Hayes looks mechanical in his movements, like someone who knows where the C needs to move on offense and does it. As for the defense, as mentioned above, Hopkins was not the best last night. Maybe Hayes can bring something to help out when the others are playing so bad. Just a small change for 5 minutes to see what happens. To be clear, we need Hopkins to play, but there are 5 minutes to be found for Hayes. I agree with the sentiment, but honestly the best thing I've seen Hayes do on the court for us is make consecutive free throws. He just seems to have not adjusted to his post-growth spurt body yet, but I'm not sure. Either way he's probably less of a threat than Hop on offense, as far as other teams are concerned but I could see him coming in a game and getting a few put backs to get himself started.
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Jan 1, 2015 23:31:32 GMT -5
FLHoya, here is my response: How could you have missed the fact that Xavier, a very well coached team, had our game plan in their back pockets. Heck the coach was even yelling to remind everyone that we were going to try to get the ball in to Josh and that "Jabril is a slasher, don't forget it." The point that I was making, however, is that we have to move beyond playing predictable ball. There are other guys on this team other than DSR and Josh that can score. We need to unleash them, as it were, catch our opponents of guard once in a while. Now, having said that, I am not saying forget about Josh and DSR. They should be more a part of the natural flow of the game rather than the only focus of this team. Also, I keep saying this each year for the last ten years--LET THE KIDS RUN! We run a ton! We ran so much against Indiana, the frenetic pace of the game was all the announcers discussed. That said, we aren't the early eighties Lakers. We arent going to run off a made basket. So without turnovers or solid defensive rebounding, how exactly do we run? We did press to try to influence the pace and create turnovers but it didnt work. Coach constantly is motioning to push the pace off of rebounds, so he agrees. Its just not always possible if the numbers aren't there. If you don't mean "run," but mean "take earlier shots in the half court," well, I don't think that's been a problem this year at all. In fact, more often its been the opposite. As for adjusting to Xavier's knowledge of our sets, I think our players have become too one-dimensional to some degree, except for DSR. Anyone with one good eye know that all Jabril seems comfortable doing is driving in a straight line to the basket. It's not rocket science to point that out. But there's no adjustment to be made there from a coaching standpoint -- he just needs to take and make more threes. Throughout the year, the freshmen were quite "unleashed" (particularly Peak). He seems to have gotten less aggressive as shots haven't fallen, but that isn't a strategic decision either. And you don't think Peak fall off in taking shots is a coach's decision?
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Jan 1, 2015 23:50:51 GMT -5
He failed to make any attempt to box out at least twice that I recall, lost track of his man on defense multiple times, missed his 3point attempt badly. Looked extremely unsettled. I realize that playing time in the conference I'd the only way to overcome that, but struggling to fight back in your confetence opener is not the time for those minutes. After we tied it, Hopkins dropped off the ball man on a fast break (open three), fouled twice on late rotations, got beat like a drum by Stainbrook, missed the front end of a one and one, gave up a put back dunk and committed a dumb turnover/missed shot. I'll take Copeland, thank you very much. Copeland for Hopkins on defense?? Good Lord, no no no. Hopkins made 3 or 4 defensive mistakes in 30 minutes. Copeland made at least 4 in 7 minutes. And it wss Copeland's man who had the putback dunk; he did not even attempt to box out, the guy flew past him, and Hopkins was closest to him when he got to the ball. You are reaching badly trying to pin that one on Hopkins. And he did give us some defensive presence, had a couple of blocks and altered shots. No way Copeland is doing any of that. On offense, no one could look worse than Hop did last night. But Copeland looked lost on offense as well, he has started to disappear at times. I grant that dealing with Hopkins on the offensive end is making it harder to value the defense, but he is still our best defensive big by a longshot. That may be an indictment of our bigs, but it is still the case.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,245
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 1, 2015 23:56:27 GMT -5
Those calling for less Hopkins and more of the freshmen are understanably frustrated with Hopkins offense, but one factor confronting the coaching staff is the cost of playing Josh Smith on the defense. Yes, Smith has been much improved on defense this year, but he is still not mobile and the longer he plays the less effective he becomes. Hopkins is far superior at this time to any of the other 4-5 options from purely a defensive standpoint. So to the coaches it is somewhat a case of pick your poison. The problem is compounded when you add Peak and Jabril to the lineup as that leaves you with 4 players who do not contribute perimeter scoring. So as frustrated as it gets, I am not certain what the options are unless the staff just goes small and uses White and Copeland at the 4 and places Hopkins as purely a backup post. That strategy would not have worked against a big team like Xavier and neither White nor Copeland could handle the size of that frontline without Hopkins in the game to provide help. Doing this will still guarantee Hops at least 15+ minutes a game.. If Hopkins has to play 30 minutes on a regular basis the team won't reach it's potential, the staff has to force feed Copeland minutes.. He's gonna get pushed around some, he's gonna make mistakes but he has the talent to learn & adapt.. Hop is what he is, I think we all know that.. Time to see what Copeland can be with a consistent 15+ minutes per game..
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Jan 2, 2015 0:08:09 GMT -5
After we tied it, Hopkins dropped off the ball man on a fast break (open three), fouled twice on late rotations, got beat like a drum by Stainbrook, missed the front end of a one and one, gave up a put back dunk and committed a dumb turnover/missed shot. I'll take Copeland, thank you very much. Copeland for Hopkins on defense?? Good Lord, no no no. Hopkins made 3 or 4 defensive mistakes in 30 minutes. Copeland made at least 4 in 7 minutes. And it wss Copeland's man who had the putback dunk; he did not even attempt to box out, the guy flew past him, and Hopkins was closest to him when he got to the ball. You are reaching badly trying to pin that one on Hopkins. And he did give us some defensive presence, had a couple of blocks and altered shots. No way Copeland is doing any of that. On offense, no one could look worse than Hop did last night. But Copeland looked lost on offense as well, he has started to disappear at times. I grant that dealing with Hopkins on the offensive end is making it harder to value the defense, but he is still our best defensive big by a longshot. That may be an indictment of our bigs, but it is still the case. Lol you're right I just noticed that half of what he listed never actually happened. Copeland was the worst freshman yesterday unfortunately.
|
|
OldHoyafan
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,387
|
Post by OldHoyafan on Jan 2, 2015 0:14:53 GMT -5
I have DVR'd every game this year. I deleted the Butler game right after it ended. There was nothing positive to take from in watching it again. It was a tired uninspired team that played that game. I deleted this one also. Last night was a similar uninspired effort. Do not know why . Maybe holiday season or lateness of start of game but everyone seemed a step slow. Agree with those who said the freshmen all looked like freshmen last night. To my surprise White is looking more like a freshmen lately. He still takes the open shot but it is not falling, also his lower body weakness is showing against the big power forwards. Reynolds was backing him down with ease. Those who say we should run more, are overlooking the speed of our point guard. DSR is a great scorer not a great PG, or a fast PG. Even when he is ahead on the break his moves are very deliberate and it gives defense time to catchup. He can still be a good PG like John Wall.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 2, 2015 8:40:39 GMT -5
We run a ton! We ran so much against Indiana, the frenetic pace of the game was all the announcers discussed. That said, we aren't the early eighties Lakers. We arent going to run off a made basket. So without turnovers or solid defensive rebounding, how exactly do we run? We did press to try to influence the pace and create turnovers but it didnt work. Coach constantly is motioning to push the pace off of rebounds, so he agrees. Its just not always possible if the numbers aren't there. If you don't mean "run," but mean "take earlier shots in the half court," well, I don't think that's been a problem this year at all. In fact, more often its been the opposite. As for adjusting to Xavier's knowledge of our sets, I think our players have become too one-dimensional to some degree, except for DSR. Anyone with one good eye know that all Jabril seems comfortable doing is driving in a straight line to the basket. It's not rocket science to point that out. But there's no adjustment to be made there from a coaching standpoint -- he just needs to take and make more threes. Throughout the year, the freshmen were quite "unleashed" (particularly Peak). He seems to have gotten less aggressive as shots haven't fallen, but that isn't a strategic decision either. And you don't think Peak fall off in taking shots is a coach's decision? No, I don't. heck, he took the last shot of regulation against Indiana. I just think he has lost some confidence.
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Jan 2, 2015 11:44:59 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Jan 2, 2015 11:56:03 GMT -5
Copeland for Hopkins on defense?? Good Lord, no no no. Hopkins made 3 or 4 defensive mistakes in 30 minutes. Copeland made at least 4 in 7 minutes. And it wss Copeland's man who had the putback dunk; he did not even attempt to box out, the guy flew past him, and Hopkins was closest to him when he got to the ball. You are reaching badly trying to pin that one on Hopkins. And he did give us some defensive presence, had a couple of blocks and altered shots. No way Copeland is doing any of that. On offense, no one could look worse than Hop did last night. But Copeland looked lost on offense as well, he has started to disappear at times. I grant that dealing with Hopkins on the offensive end is making it harder to value the defense, but he is still our best defensive big by a longshot. That may be an indictment of our bigs, but it is still the case. Lol you're right I just noticed that half of what he listed never actually happened. Copeland was the worst freshman yesterday unfortunately. SF is definitely reaching but I'm starting to come around on just throwing Copeland in the fire and seeing what he is capable of for extended minutes. It is awful hard for freshman to adjust to the college game and this is especially true getting inconsistent spot minutes. Copeland is a stud and I'm starting to think he needs every opportunity to succeed and succeed now. I'm still a Hopkins fan for what he brings to the defensive side of the ball, but he is what he is at this point and that ain't changing. Whether MH starts at 4 or not, let's get Copeland 15-20 mpg at least and see if he can recreate what he did against Butler in Bahamas. He'll improve on defense if he gets enough opportunity for trial by fire. We're in a delicate position here because, I think the 4 frosh need to be battle-tested by the stretch run for this team to actually advance in the tournament BUT we are past the time of the season where we can play around - we need Wins or else a tournament berth will quickly devolve from definite to likely to possible to questionable.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 2, 2015 12:31:38 GMT -5
I don't see much to disagree with. The gist of the article is that our offense at times is dependent on getting out on the break and getting easy baskets or, if we're in the half-court, having Josh or DSR scoring. I suppose I would say that there have been plenty of games this year when others (LJ, AB, Jabril) have given us a viable third option, but certainly not this game. This game, for a variety of reasons, our primary weapons didn't work. We weren't really able to get out and run this past game, like we were against an Indiana, though I don't think that's a failure in strategy (that is, I think Coach would like us to run). I don't think trying to utilize Josh heavily at the outset was a strategic mistake either. He easily could have gotten their big into foul trouble, or it could have turned out that their big couldn't really guard him one on one, and that would have opened up a lot of things for us (as it does against virtually every other opponent). Neither happened, of course, and that took away a primary weapon of ours. But it still seemed to be the best initial plan. As the article notes, in addition to shutting down Josh (somewhat) they did a nice job of trying to focus on DSR and of course, DSR's foul issues made that job easier for them by limiting his playing time. Given what happened, we needed someone else to come up with a big offensive game. That it didn't happen isn't an indictment of our plan of attack, but more just a failure of those guys to contribute offensively. Virtually any non-elite team is going to struggle when its top guys struggle. The difference between good and great often is having viable third and fourth and fifth options. So, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you that we would be best off having more options available to us, but I think Coach would agree! For example, I think he wants Peak to be assertive and aggressive. The best evidence for that I can find is that he has given Peak a ton of rope to take a lot of shots. At times in the past, or with other players, he's had a fairly quick hook for a "bad" or a "quick" shot, but not really so with LJ, as far as I can tell. I think III realizes that LJ's development into a consistent offensive weapon is vital for us to succeed. Maybe I'm wrong and he has dialed LJ back, but I don't think there's any evidence for that. With this game in particular, Coach said as much in his post-game comments by referring to our need to use our third and fourth options in a half-court set. I think, without saying so directly and throwing anyone under the bus, that means (for example) "hey, LJ, when you're out there, and they're keying on others, you need to do your thing, and we need others to put you in position to do your thing." Offensively, we're going to be perfectly fine many games because nearly every team we play can't guard Josh with one man, and that by definition creates options elsewhere (like Peak or Jabril or Bowen using their best skills to cut to the basket hard off of doubles). When Josh is guardable, or if he's in foul trouble, our best bet is to either use our defense to get easy baskets or have DSR (as with Indiana) go off and carry us. That's going to happen sometimes too. But neither really happened here, and because no one filled the void, we lost. Again, that's not a failure in strategy. To be a very good team this year, we're going to need someone else to consistently step up. That may mean Jabril decides he can take and shoot threes, which open up his straight line drives, or it may mean that Jabril learns to pull up on his drives or dish consistently. Or it may mean that LJ shoots threes consistently, which also open up his drives. Both Jabril and LJ (not surprisingly) have had success driving against athletically overmatched teams, but the sledding is more difficult against guys that can competently defend (particularly if they know you won't shoot it). Or, it may mean that Paul or Ike steps up and consistently performs offensively without giving up too much on the defensive end. We don't really need that third option if Josh is on the court and able to overwhelm the defense (and, again, that will happen most nights). But to be really good, we will need it. This was a tough matchup for us: a solid team, on the road, with a big that can guard Josh straight up. I don't think there's another game like it on the schedule (although we'll be challenged in similar ways other games when Josh is out with fouls).
|
|
KHoyaNYC
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,901
|
Post by KHoyaNYC on Jan 2, 2015 13:08:00 GMT -5
We need to go with our best lineup every game forward. That means the 5 players who get the most minutes should be our best 5 players. Those 5 players do not include Hopkins. That doesn't mean Hopkins can't still start, he just shouldn't be getting the kind of minutes he does.
|
|
|
Post by JohnnyJones on Jan 2, 2015 14:12:22 GMT -5
We're in a delicate position here because, I think the 4 frosh need to be battle-tested by the stretch run for this team to actually advance in the tournament BUT we are past the time of the season where we can play around - we need Wins or else a tournament berth will quickly devolve from definite to likely to possible to questionable. Agree with the sentiment generally, but unfortunately we are already at questionable and need wins to head the other direction.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,097
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 2, 2015 15:33:52 GMT -5
I may have missed it, but did anyone discuss the obvious reason for this loss? White uniforms.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 2, 2015 15:37:11 GMT -5
I don't see much to disagree with. The gist of the article is that our offense at times is dependent on getting out on the break and getting easy baskets or, if we're in the half-court, having Josh or DSR scoring. I suppose I would say that there have been plenty of games this year when others (LJ, AB, Jabril) have given us a viable third option, but certainly not this game. This game, for a variety of reasons, our primary weapons didn't work. We weren't really able to get out and run this past game, like we were against an Indiana, though I don't think that's a failure in strategy (that is, I think Coach would like us to run). I don't think trying to utilize Josh heavily at the outset was a strategic mistake either. He easily could have gotten their big into foul trouble, or it could have turned out that their big couldn't really guard him one on one, and that would have opened up a lot of things for us (as it does against virtually every other opponent). Neither happened, of course, and that took away a primary weapon of ours. But it still seemed to be the best initial plan. As the article notes, in addition to shutting down Josh (somewhat) they did a nice job of trying to focus on DSR and of course, DSR's foul issues made that job easier for them by limiting his playing time. Given what happened, we needed someone else to come up with a big offensive game. That it didn't happen isn't an indictment of our plan of attack, but more just a failure of those guys to contribute offensively. Virtually any non-elite team is going to struggle when its top guys struggle. The difference between good and great often is having viable third and fourth and fifth options. So, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you that we would be best off having more options available to us, but I think Coach would agree! For example, I think he wants Peak to be assertive and aggressive. The best evidence for that I can find is that he has given Peak a ton of rope to take a lot of shots. At times in the past, or with other players, he's had a fairly quick hook for a "bad" or a "quick" shot, but not really so with LJ, as far as I can tell. I think III realizes that LJ's development into a consistent offensive weapon is vital for us to succeed. Maybe I'm wrong and he has dialed LJ back, but I don't think there's any evidence for that. With this game in particular, Coach said as much in his post-game comments by referring to our need to use our third and fourth options in a half-court set. I think, without saying so directly and throwing anyone under the bus, that means (for example) "hey, LJ, when you're out there, and they're keying on others, you need to do your thing, and we need others to put you in position to do your thing." Offensively, we're going to be perfectly fine many games because nearly every team we play can't guard Josh with one man, and that by definition creates options elsewhere (like Peak or Jabril or Bowen using their best skills to cut to the basket hard off of doubles). When Josh is guardable, or if he's in foul trouble, our best bet is to either use our defense to get easy baskets or have DSR (as with Indiana) go off and carry us. That's going to happen sometimes too. But neither really happened here, and because no one filled the void, we lost. Again, that's not a failure in strategy. To be a very good team this year, we're going to need someone else to consistently step up. That may mean Jabril decides he can take and shoot threes, which open up his straight line drives, or it may mean that Jabril learns to pull up on his drives or dish consistently. Or it may mean that LJ shoots threes consistently, which also open up his drives. Both Jabril and LJ (not surprisingly) have had success driving against athletically overmatched teams, but the sledding is more difficult against guys that can competently defend (particularly if they know you won't shoot it). Or, it may mean that Paul or Ike steps up and consistently performs offensively without giving up too much on the defensive end. We don't really need that third option if Josh is on the court and able to overwhelm the defense (and, again, that will happen most nights). But to be really good, we will need it. This was a tough matchup for us: a solid team, on the road, with a big that can guard Josh straight up. I don't think there's another game like it on the schedule (although we'll be challenged in similar ways other games when Josh is out with fouls). I'm not sure what people expect III to do with the offense. We're already more versatile than we've been in recent years. As a team, we've added the fast break, dribble drive from Peak and Bowen, low post play from Josh and offensive rebounding from Hopkins, Josh and others to an offense that last year, after Josh was ineligible, was essentially Markel and DSR playing one on one and off screens and the such. Against Xavier, we didn't get the break because we didn't force turnovers and they got back on D. We did okay on the offensive boards. Josh played terrible so the low post was out. Peak and Bowen were shut down, as were many of the cuts because we couldn't hit from outside. At some point, there's no amount of game-planning that can work if execution is not there.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,097
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 2, 2015 16:01:01 GMT -5
At some point, there's no amount of game-planning that can work if execution is not there. It works here: Why not on the court?
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Jan 2, 2015 16:57:51 GMT -5
I don't see much to disagree with. The gist of the article is that our offense at times is dependent on getting out on the break and getting easy baskets or, if we're in the half-court, having Josh or DSR scoring. I suppose I would say that there have been plenty of games this year when others (LJ, AB, Jabril) have given us a viable third option, but certainly not this game. This game, for a variety of reasons, our primary weapons didn't work. We weren't really able to get out and run this past game, like we were against an Indiana, though I don't think that's a failure in strategy (that is, I think Coach would like us to run). I don't think trying to utilize Josh heavily at the outset was a strategic mistake either. He easily could have gotten their big into foul trouble, or it could have turned out that their big couldn't really guard him one on one, and that would have opened up a lot of things for us (as it does against virtually every other opponent). Neither happened, of course, and that took away a primary weapon of ours. But it still seemed to be the best initial plan. As the article notes, in addition to shutting down Josh (somewhat) they did a nice job of trying to focus on DSR and of course, DSR's foul issues made that job easier for them by limiting his playing time. Given what happened, we needed someone else to come up with a big offensive game. That it didn't happen isn't an indictment of our plan of attack, but more just a failure of those guys to contribute offensively. Virtually any non-elite team is going to struggle when its top guys struggle. The difference between good and great often is having viable third and fourth and fifth options. So, I don't think I'm disagreeing with you that we would be best off having more options available to us, but I think Coach would agree! For example, I think he wants Peak to be assertive and aggressive. The best evidence for that I can find is that he has given Peak a ton of rope to take a lot of shots. At times in the past, or with other players, he's had a fairly quick hook for a "bad" or a "quick" shot, but not really so with LJ, as far as I can tell. I think III realizes that LJ's development into a consistent offensive weapon is vital for us to succeed. Maybe I'm wrong and he has dialed LJ back, but I don't think there's any evidence for that. With this game in particular, Coach said as much in his post-game comments by referring to our need to use our third and fourth options in a half-court set. I think, without saying so directly and throwing anyone under the bus, that means (for example) "hey, LJ, when you're out there, and they're keying on others, you need to do your thing, and we need others to put you in position to do your thing." Offensively, we're going to be perfectly fine many games because nearly every team we play can't guard Josh with one man, and that by definition creates options elsewhere (like Peak or Jabril or Bowen using their best skills to cut to the basket hard off of doubles). When Josh is guardable, or if he's in foul trouble, our best bet is to either use our defense to get easy baskets or have DSR (as with Indiana) go off and carry us. That's going to happen sometimes too. But neither really happened here, and because no one filled the void, we lost. Again, that's not a failure in strategy. To be a very good team this year, we're going to need someone else to consistently step up. That may mean Jabril decides he can take and shoot threes, which open up his straight line drives, or it may mean that Jabril learns to pull up on his drives or dish consistently. Or it may mean that LJ shoots threes consistently, which also open up his drives. Both Jabril and LJ (not surprisingly) have had success driving against athletically overmatched teams, but the sledding is more difficult against guys that can competently defend (particularly if they know you won't shoot it). Or, it may mean that Paul or Ike steps up and consistently performs offensively without giving up too much on the defensive end. We don't really need that third option if Josh is on the court and able to overwhelm the defense (and, again, that will happen most nights). But to be really good, we will need it. This was a tough matchup for us: a solid team, on the road, with a big that can guard Josh straight up. I don't think there's another game like it on the schedule (although we'll be challenged in similar ways other games when Josh is out with fouls). I'm not sure what people expect III to do with the offense. We're already more versatile than we've been in recent years. As a team, we've added the fast break, dribble drive from Peak and Bowen, low post play from Josh and offensive rebounding from Hopkins, Josh and others to an offense that last year, after Josh was ineligible, was essentially Markel and DSR playing one on one and off screens and the such. Against Xavier, we didn't get the break because we didn't force turnovers and they got back on D. We did okay on the offensive boards. Josh played terrible so the low post was out. Peak and Bowen were shut down, as were many of the cuts because we couldn't hit from outside. At some point, there's no amount of game-planning that can work if execution is not there. Not only are we more versatile, we're deeper (though I understand people want us to be deeper yet, which is a fair discussion point). This is a completely different team from last year. Offensively, the area I really want us to focus on is finding ways to get our guys that can make threes into positions where they are comfortable getting and taking them. A specific spot on the floor, perhaps. Or attempts coming out of specific actions within our sets. I think often good three point shooting teams -- including some of our teams in the past -- are successful because they are good at getting guys attempts over and over again in the same way. Some guys are better shooting when the pass comes from the post, others are better off the dribble, and some are most successful from the corner (or straight-on, or what have you). We haven't really been adept at that to date this year. That would be the one strategic/tactical item I'd want the team to work on for that side of the floor. Find the one way Jabril really feels comfortable taking threes, for example, and try to make sure he gets one fairly early in the game.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 15,245
|
Post by EtomicB on Jan 2, 2015 17:03:54 GMT -5
After we tied it, Hopkins dropped off the ball man on a fast break (open three), fouled twice on late rotations, got beat like a drum by Stainbrook, missed the front end of a one and one, gave up a put back dunk and committed a dumb turnover/missed shot. I'll take Copeland, thank you very much. Copeland for Hopkins on defense?? Good Lord, no no no. Hopkins made 3 or 4 defensive mistakes in 30 minutes. Copeland made at least 4 in 7 minutes. And it wss Copeland's man who had the putback dunk; he did not even attempt to box out, the guy flew past him, and Hopkins was closest to him when he got to the ball. You are reaching badly trying to pin that one on Hopkins. And he did give us some defensive presence, had a couple of blocks and altered shots. No way Copeland is doing any of that. On offense, no one could look worse than Hop did last night. But Copeland looked lost on offense as well, he has started to disappear at times. I grant that dealing with Hopkins on the offensive end is making it harder to value the defense, but he is still our best defensive big by a longshot. That may be an indictment of our bigs, but it is still the case. Hopkins wasn't on the court for this play.. To be fair on the other side though, Farr wasn't Copeland's man on that put back dunk either because G'town was in it's "zone" on all out of bounds defense.. Farr actually came from Bowen's side of the court to establish position and for some reason Josh who was manning the middle of the zone left the circle area to cover Stainbrook who didn't even have the ball.. When Macura takes the jumper, Farr has already established a box out position alone under the basket.. He didn't fly by Copeland on the play.. Here are Hopkins numbers versus the 6 HM teams G'town has faced this season.. MPG - 25.5 RPG - 5.3 BPG - 2.1 APG - 1.1 TPG - 1.5 PPG - 3.6 Fouls per game = 4.6 No doubt that Hopkins is the teams best defensive big but is that fact enough to live with these numbers? I think he'd get very similar #'s in 17 or so minutes.. I have no idea if Copeland will come around this year but I'm all for getting him 15+ minutes consistently to find out..
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 2, 2015 17:13:56 GMT -5
I'm not sure what people expect III to do with the offense. We're already more versatile than we've been in recent years. As a team, we've added the fast break, dribble drive from Peak and Bowen, low post play from Josh and offensive rebounding from Hopkins, Josh and others to an offense that last year, after Josh was ineligible, was essentially Markel and DSR playing one on one and off screens and the such. Against Xavier, we didn't get the break because we didn't force turnovers and they got back on D. We did okay on the offensive boards. Josh played terrible so the low post was out. Peak and Bowen were shut down, as were many of the cuts because we couldn't hit from outside. At some point, there's no amount of game-planning that can work if execution is not there. Not only are we more versatile, we're deeper (though I understand people want us to be deeper yet, which is a fair discussion point). This is a completely different team from last year. Offensively, the area I really want us to focus on is finding ways to get our guys that can make threes into positions where they are comfortable getting and taking them. A specific spot on the floor, perhaps. Or attempts coming out of specific actions within our sets. I think often good three point shooting teams -- including some of our teams in the past -- are successful because they are good at getting guys attempts over and over again in the same way. Some guys are better shooting when the pass comes from the post, others are better off the dribble, and some are most successful from the corner (or straight-on, or what have you). We haven't really been adept at that to date this year. That would be the one strategic/tactical item I'd want the team to work on for that side of the floor. Find the one way Jabril really feels comfortable taking threes, for example, and try to make sure he gets one fairly early in the game. Agree.
|
|