|
Post by ColumbiaHeightsHoya on Dec 23, 2015 11:50:45 GMT -5
NC, I disagree on Reggie. If we are playing man, he frequently gets beat leaving us to scramble on D. Too big of a liability. If we can hide him in a zone, then fine, but he terrifies me when he is in.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Dec 23, 2015 12:02:48 GMT -5
So let's say we're one-dimensional all over the place. Could we not run DSR, Peak, Cameron, Copeland, and Derrickson rotating in Campbell and Govan (and White when healthy) and actually move quickly drive and kick and look for threes actively? I don't love three-heavy offenses but we shoot a ton anyway after our Washington Generals weave leaves someone holding the ball when the music stops. Is that not in the skill set of those players? Then bring in Hayes as a change of pace? Defensively, can we extend full court more often to dictate the amount of time opponents have to operate and not allow them to charge into the gums of our 2-3? This is college basketball. Few teams have a host of multi-dimensional players. They just have an identity and a shared goal on both ends. I don't know what our goals are right now much less how our schemes support them. On defense, I've strongly advocated a passive zone press for those exact reasons. Agreed. And on offense, as I said earlier, I'd be in favor of experimenting with a small lineup akin to what you discuss. The challenge, I think, would be on the boards. That is, we may not get many on either end. That could be a huge problem. You'd have to see if the tradeoff was worth it (if there is one). But I'd certainly be in favor of trying. (I'd add the one caveat that until this last game, our offense really hasn't been statistically terrible; I'd still have been in favor of trying different things.) I'd love to do what you suggest Giga, in terms of drive and kick, because we do have a pretty good shooting team (or, at least, I think we do), particularly if we go small. I think I can also confidently say that III -- right now -- would be thrilled if guys would do this. That is, I don't think it's even an adjustment (aside from going small). We already play a lot of five-out, so it's certainly not a foreign concept. I'm not trying to be glib, but I think the problem isn't with the "shoot" but it's with both the "drive" and the "kick." Peak can get to the hoop but has shown no ability to kick. Nobody else has really shown an ability to penetrate to the basket, such that they'd draw other defenders consistently. I'd like to think Campbell can, but I haven't seen it consistently. And, bless him, DSR is just a touch not quick enough to make it work, which is too bad, because he's the best passer on the team. Offensively, at the end of the day, the problem is that none of the players we really hoped would improve (even marginally) has done it. DSR is, at best, the same. Ike is no better. Peak is no better. Campbell has been worse so far (perhaps due to injury). Paul, unfortunately, is hurt. Brad and Reggie and Derrickson have improved (or been better than expected), but they weren't the guys you were counting on to lead the party.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,639
|
Post by DallasHoya on Dec 23, 2015 12:13:15 GMT -5
I haven't read the 22 pages in this thread, so maybe this has been covered already.
I don't understand the use of Copeland and Derrickson against the zone last night. Against Syracuse, Copeland was put in the middle at the foul line and Derrickson on the wing. Copeland had multiple turnaround jumpers at the elbow - I remember thinking that's the best player we've ever ever head to play that position against a zone. Derrickson had multiple open threes on passes from Copeland and others, and had 13 points in only 24 minutes.
Last night, their positions were reversed. Copeland shot 0-4 from three and Derrickson was 0-2 from two.
Why isn't Copeland always in the middle against the zone???
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Dec 23, 2015 12:16:01 GMT -5
So let's say we're one-dimensional all over the place. Could we not run DSR, Peak, Cameron, Copeland, and Derrickson rotating in Campbell and Govan (and White when healthy) and actually move quickly drive and kick and look for threes actively? I don't love three-heavy offenses but we shoot a ton anyway after our Washington Generals weave leaves someone holding the ball when the music stops. Is that not in the skill set of those players? Then bring in Hayes as a change of pace? Defensively, can we extend full court more often to dictate the amount of time opponents have to operate and not allow them to charge into the gums of our 2-3? This is college basketball. Few teams have a host of multi-dimensional players. They just have an identity and a shared goal on both ends. I don't know what our goals are right now much less how our schemes support them. On defense, I've strongly advocated a passive zone press for those exact reasons. Agreed. And on offense, as I said earlier, I'd be in favor of experimenting with a small lineup akin to what you discuss. The challenge, I think, would be on the boards. That is, we may not get many on either end. That could be a huge problem. You'd have to see if the tradeoff was worth it (if there is one). But I'd certainly be in favor of trying. (I'd add the one caveat that until this last game, our offense really hasn't been statistically terrible; I'd still have been in favor of trying different things.) I'd love to do what you suggest Giga, in terms of drive and kick, because we do have a pretty good shooting team (or, at least, I think we do), particularly if we go small. I think I can also confidently say that III -- right now -- would be thrilled if guys would do this. That is, I don't think it's even an adjustment (aside from going small). We already play a lot of five-out, so it's certainly not a foreign concept. I'm not trying to be glib, but I think the problem isn't with the "shoot" but it's with both the "drive" and the "kick." Peak can get to the hoop but has shown no ability to kick. Nobody else has really shown an ability to penetrate to the basket, such that they'd draw other defenders consistently. I'd like to think Campbell can, but I haven't seen it consistently. And, bless him, DSR is just a touch not quick enough to make it work, which is too bad, because he's the best passer on the team. Offensively, at the end of the day, the problem is that none of the players we really hoped would improve (even marginally) has done it. DSR is worse. Ike is no better. Peak is no better. Campbell has been worse so far. Paul, unfortunately, is hurt. Brad and Reggie and Derrickson have improved (or been better than expected), but they weren't the guys you were counting on to lead the party. I think that's where we disagree. I find it hard to believe these guys physically can't drive and kick (the Butler corner play we ran for Ike against Radford for example or the Peak 3 last night). I just think they're not looking for it or not in the right position for it most of the time. Also their mindset when they receive the ball doesn't seem to be to shoot a three in rhythm. There's just that hesitation in everyone like "should I be doing this or is there a backdoor cut I should be forcing?" But we both agree, it's worth trying. I just wish we would.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2015 12:44:35 GMT -5
So let's say we're one-dimensional all over the place. Could we not run DSR, Peak, Cameron, Copeland, and Derrickson rotating in Campbell and Govan (and White when healthy) and actually move quickly drive and kick and look for threes actively? I don't love three-heavy offenses but we shoot a ton anyway after our Washington Generals weave leaves someone holding the ball when the music stops. Is that not in the skill set of those players? Then bring in Hayes as a change of pace? Defensively, can we extend full court more often to dictate the amount of time opponents have to operate and not allow them to charge into the gums of our 2-3? This is college basketball. Few teams have a host of multi-dimensional players. They just have an identity and a shared goal on both ends. I don't know what our goals are right now much less how our schemes support them. Whose driving and kicking?? The only kid I see getting into the lane is Peak and when he does he usually looks to score not kick..
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 23, 2015 13:08:57 GMT -5
On offense, I'm all for getting out on the break. We just don't seem to be well equipped for it, especially if Tre isn't in the game. Particularly early in the game, we tried to race the ball up the court, but we didn't have very many odd-man opportunities. The couple of times we had semi-contested fast break chances, we didn't even convert. Reggie has shown an ability to both shoot and get to the basket. And so has DSR, though he's not shooting as well as we've seen in the past. So far, DSR is the only guy on the entire team who seems to be a plus passer. (Marcus made a bizarre looking sky hook pass to a back-door cutter that got intercepted in the first half.) We can still score when we shoot well, since that's a potential strength of a lot of these guys. Saying that we should "use our athleticism" sounds good in practice, but too few of these guys (I'm looking mostly at you, Ike and L.J.) have shown the ability to translate athletic talent into a multi-faceted offensive game. . Well that's what you have to sacrifice if Cameron is in. He's awful on the break. DSR had a 3 on 1 and passed it to Cameron and Cameron slowed down and had the ball stripped out of bounds on what should have been an gimmie two points.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 23, 2015 13:16:13 GMT -5
I am disappointed in Ike all-around this season. I keep hearing he is a stud, not seeing it. If that was true, he should be taking over games, I dont think Otto asked for permission from III to take over and neither should Ike. No one is going to get mad if he is taking the ball toward the rim versus settling for a 3. He is long, how about a post-up, he can do that on his own since he is a decent ball handler. He really has no cretaivity or aggression to his game, until that develops he is no stud to me. This is regardless of coaching, Peak was going off script last night trying to make something happen and he got the line and made 7-8, he saved us with that aggression. Agree with everything except Copeland doesn't have elite wingspan. 6-9 wit a 6-9 wingspan which is average to below average for the NBA. I think that hurts him on rebounds and rim protecting defense. Copeland is the guy who has to take over if this team is going to go anywhere. But it often seems like he's hiding and has fallen in love with the 3pt shot from the corner. The only problem with that is it takes him away from being a big that can get offensive rebounds or threaten dribble penetration when he's camped out in the corner. He still gets a quiet 16 points but if he asserted himself he should be getting 22+ points a game at this level.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 23, 2015 13:20:16 GMT -5
NC, I disagree on Reggie. If we are playing man, he frequently gets beat leaving us to scramble on D. Too big of a liability. If we can hide him in a zone, then fine, but he terrifies me when he is in. I wouldn't say terrified but to me he should be a very good 9th or 10th man. It's great that he's improved so much but it seems like III has fallen in love with him and he's being utilized like a 6th man. As a 6th man I think he's below average because of his athletic limitations on D and offense. Granted he's still hustling out there and giving it all he has but he just is a below average athlete and when you couple that with a unit of Hayes and DSR everything breaks down on D since all 3 are not very athletic.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 23, 2015 13:23:33 GMT -5
I haven't read the 22 pages in this thread, so maybe this has been covered already. I don't understand the use of Copeland and Derrickson against the zone last night. Against Syracuse, Copeland was put in the middle at the foul line and Derrickson on the wing. Copeland had multiple turnaround jumpers at the elbow - I remember thinking that's the best player we've ever ever head to play that position against a zone. Derrickson had multiple open threes on passes from Copeland and others, and had 13 points in only 24 minutes. Last night, their positions were reversed. Copeland shot 0-4 from three and Derrickson was 0-2 from two. Why isn't Copeland always in the middle against the zone??? Otto had a much better midrange and was very aggressive shooting his midrange whenever open. Copeland I feel has fallen in love with his 3 point shot (which is very good and alot better than Ottos at this stage) but he simply gets less touches because he's camping in the corner behind the 3pt shot waiting for an open look. I've just never found Copland to be assertive and ready to take over the game with 30 points except for maybe the Butler game. But we really need him to be aggressive and shooting 18-20 shots a game especially for this years team.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Dec 23, 2015 13:26:22 GMT -5
So let's say we're one-dimensional all over the place. Could we not run DSR, Peak, Cameron, Copeland, and Derrickson rotating in Campbell and Govan (and White when healthy) and actually move quickly drive and kick and look for threes actively? I don't love three-heavy offenses but we shoot a ton anyway after our Washington Generals weave leaves someone holding the ball when the music stops. Is that not in the skill set of those players? Then bring in Hayes as a change of pace? Defensively, can we extend full court more often to dictate the amount of time opponents have to operate and not allow them to charge into the gums of our 2-3? This is college basketball. Few teams have a host of multi-dimensional players. They just have an identity and a shared goal on both ends. I don't know what our goals are right now much less how our schemes support them. Whose driving and kicking?? The only kid I see getting into the lane is Peak and when he does he usually looks to score not kick.. Peak and Kaleb are probably the only guys who can really drive and kick on this team because they are threats to finish quickly and explosivley if not guarded. I think Copelands handles are a little suspect when he gets into double teams. Maybe Paul White with his floater but he's not a scoring threat right now since he can't jump.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,672
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Dec 23, 2015 15:51:49 GMT -5
I assumed there'd be plenty of heart attack games this season. But this one wasn't on the list. This season might be heart attack free, because we might not be expected to win any more games, thus any win is a revelation!
|
|
lichoya68
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
OK YOUNGINS ARE HERE AND ARE VERY VERY GOOD cant wait GO HOYAS
Posts: 17,443
|
Post by lichoya68 on Dec 23, 2015 17:06:49 GMT -5
ugly game glad we gutted it out to win but not in sync at all on defense or offense.. GOTTA GET IT TOGETHER BY DEPAUL WHO had great energy on o and d and just destroyed a VERY good GW team better be ready REALLY READY need energy to beat those guys
|
|
|
Post by hoyalove4ever on Dec 23, 2015 17:45:45 GMT -5
A few quick thoughts:
1) It was great to see a Hoya game in person, and there were a decent number of Hoya fans in the house, including fairly large groups supporting both LJ and Ike. Plus, I walked right past Sleepy, who lives in nearby Gastonia! HOYA SAXA!!!
2) Good effort at the end to pull this one out. The players picked it up toward the end. They wanted to win this game. That was nice to see.
3) Really bad defense at times. The threes are one thing, but letting mediocre players take us baseline at will was tough to watch.
4) Reggie and Marcus can really shoot, and thank goodness for it.
5) LJ may have been pressing in front of family and friends, but he finished in style. Huge three for him late. His fans were vocal in expressing their displeasure for DSR and their thoughts that there are what we would call chemistry issues at work. LJ played very flat at times and was walking around way too much. He really picked it up toward the end, though.
6) Hayes should have had at least 10-15 points, and if he had been able to do so, we would have won going away.
7) The rest of the team needs to hit the boards like Ike. Being at the game, it really helped seeing how active he is and how he is working to position himself for boards throughout the play. Great hustle from Ike.
8) There were times when we won the loose ball struggle, but all in all, this team needs to dive for more loose balls.
We need more energy and focus throughout the game. This team still has talent. Let's see if they answer the bell in BEAST play.
|
|
Hoyaholic
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 748
|
Post by Hoyaholic on Dec 23, 2015 22:23:49 GMT -5
Copeland I feel has fallen in love with his 3 point shot (which is very good and alot better than Ottos at this stage) but he simply gets less touches because he's camping in the corner behind the 3pt shot waiting for an open look. I agree you that his shot looks prettier than Otto's, but the numbers don't lie - Otto was a much better 3pt shooter as a soph (42% vs 36%)
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 23, 2015 23:08:22 GMT -5
I agree you that his shot looks prettier than Otto's, but the numbers don't lie - Otto was a much better 3pt shooter as a soph (42% vs 36%) I know it may seem like semantics but a higher percentage doesn't necessarily mean "better shooter".
|
|
|
Post by johnnysnowplow on Dec 29, 2015 10:22:30 GMT -5
I know it may seem like semantics but a higher percentage doesn't necessarily mean "better shooter". Outside of leaping ability and overall athleticism, Copeland is not better than Otto at a single facet of the game, shooting included. It's not even close.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 29, 2015 10:45:48 GMT -5
I know it may seem like semantics but a higher percentage doesn't necessarily mean "better shooter". Outside of leaping ability and overall athleticism, Copeland is not better than Otto at a single facet of the game, shooting included. It's not even close. Right....
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 29, 2015 16:09:23 GMT -5
Outside of leaping ability and overall athleticism, Copeland is not better than Otto at a single facet of the game, shooting included. It's not even close. Right.... I agree, Otto was clearly better in every facet of his game at the same point in his career. Copeland might be a bit more athletic but Otto was far more skilled and a significantly better defender.
|
|
rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Post by rockhoya on Dec 29, 2015 17:07:21 GMT -5
I agree, Otto was clearly better in every facet of his game at the same point in his career. Copeland might be a bit more athletic but Otto was far more skilled and a significantly better defender. Athleticism and shooting are hardly the only two facets of a players game...
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Dec 29, 2015 17:24:49 GMT -5
I agree, Otto was clearly better in every facet of his game at the same point in his career. Copeland might be a bit more athletic but Otto was far more skilled and a significantly better defender. Athleticism and shooting are hardly the only two facets of a players game... I agree. And Otto's game was better in nearly every aspect at the same time in his career (comparing sophomore years). Just off the top of my head, Otto was more efficient, he was a far better rebounder, he probably had better basketball IQ, he shot threes better, and he was an all around significantly better defender (and it's not even close on that). Copeland is a very good player with a lot of promise, too, I just don't think he's there yet. It's sort of unfair to make this comparison anyway. Otto's sophomore jump was pretty amazing. Virtually no players do that.
|
|