rockhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,830
|
Rebounding
Nov 23, 2016 11:04:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by rockhoya on Nov 23, 2016 11:04:09 GMT -5
You mean rebounding the ball is skewing his rebounding stats? Who would've thunk it Isaac had 13 rebounds against Maryland. Otherwise, he's 4 rebounds twice, 3 rebounds twice, and he didn't get a rebound against Wisconsin. Thanks google
|
|
NCHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,927
|
Post by NCHoya on Nov 23, 2016 11:04:56 GMT -5
In my mind, this is real simple. If you are not putting in the effort on the boards, see Copeland & Govan, you sit. Plain and simple. If that does not motivate them, then it is clear the player has no interest in playing competitive high major basketball and it is time to use that scholarship elsewhere.
III has never been tough enough on his players, why does he accept this level of effort? On many teams, Copeland would be buried on the bench at this point until he proved it in practice and in limited game minutes that he cares. Does anyone think we would be any worse than 2-3 without Copeland playing?
Hayes should start, Govan should come in for instant offense, but in limited minutes. I would just sit Copeland, he is hurting the team. More than anything, I just want to see a team that gives a damn play tonight. The result matters, but I have been embarassed more about the effort than the results.
|
|
|
Post by hoyasaxa2003 on Nov 23, 2016 12:06:12 GMT -5
In my mind, this is real simple. If you are not putting in the effort on the boards, see Copeland & Govan, you sit. Plain and simple. If that does not motivate them, then it is clear the player has no interest in playing competitive high major basketball and it is time to use that scholarship elsewhere. I agree with you in principle, but last night that would have led to us forfeiting the game with everyone on the bench because nobody rebounded well except Hayes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 12:21:59 GMT -5
According to the box score, we were outrebounded 46 to 19.
|
|
|
Post by trillesthoya on Nov 23, 2016 12:42:12 GMT -5
the kids in this video are rebounds and the dad is our players
|
|
hoya73
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by hoya73 on Nov 23, 2016 13:07:55 GMT -5
I think Trey Mourning has demonstrated that he'll expend effort on rebounding and successfully so. Don't understand, when nobody else is doing anything to get rebounds, why Mourning doesn't get some run.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,531
|
Post by prhoya on Nov 23, 2016 13:12:52 GMT -5
I think Trey Mourning has demonstrated that he'll expend effort on rebounding and successfully so. Don't understand, when nobody else is doing anything to get rebounds, why Mourning doesn't get some run. Maybe our very own lastmanstandig (Sportswriter Ben S.) can ask JT3 in a pre- or post-game press conference what is going on with Trey, Reggie and Marcus?
|
|
hoyazeke
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,837
|
Post by hoyazeke on Nov 23, 2016 13:31:23 GMT -5
As it has already been stated, rebounding is about hustle, desire and want-to. We have a team that is mostly made of finesse players who don't want to put a body on someone. I can somewhat understand giving up offensive rebounds on shot attempts but on free throws is unacceptable. That happened against Oregon and Wisky. I don't see one player that I feel I can count on to put a body on somebody and get a defensive rebound. Not on player. Our players get boards by athleticism not by technique. That is why we are so bad......
|
|
Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,920
|
Post by Filo on Nov 23, 2016 13:43:27 GMT -5
Rebounding has been a problem for Hoyas teams for some time now. Don't know if the stats bear that out, but I don't care. My eyes tell me that Hoya players are never in the right position to grab a rebound and have no idea how to box out, and, for the most part,* could not care less about it. Couple this with the fact that the head coach apparently hasn't focused on rebounding at all over the years, and this is what you get. Absolute embarrassment.
As has been mentioned, DSR was a good rebounder for a guard. I am sure there are a few other players who were OK at it, but none come to mind right now.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 23, 2016 14:04:24 GMT -5
Rebounding has been a problem for Hoyas teams for some time now. Don't know if the stats bear that out, but I don't care. My eyes tell me that Hoya players are never in the right position to grab a rebound and have no idea how to box out, and, for the most part,* could not care less about it. Last night was an embarrassment. No question about it. Even accounting for the fact that Wisconsin is the single best rebounding team in America right now (as measured by rebounding percentage). For the record, the stats do bear out what your eyes tell you. Here are where we stand in D1 in overall rebounding rate: 2017: 307 (obviously skewed by last night, but still....) 2016: 126 2015: 67 2014: 147 2013: 120 2012: 29 (hooray!) 2011: 78 2010: 84 2009: 190 2008: 63 2007: 16 2006: 37 Pretty interesting, although probably not all that surprising. There's almost a direct correlation here between the numbers and our overall success. 2013 is the only season that we finished outside the top 100 and made the NCAAs. Our five best rebounding teams (06, 07, 08, 12, and 15) had a combined 9 NCAAT wins (at least one each of those five seasons). The other seasons? No NCAA wins. Rebounding rate isn't everything -- you can certainly win other ways, and I'm sure this sort of relationship wouldn't be true for every other team out there. But it clearly shows that at least for a JTIII team, overall success is highly dependent on getting boards.
|
|
|
Rebounding
Nov 23, 2016 14:14:10 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by professorhoya on Nov 23, 2016 14:14:10 GMT -5
Rebounding has been a problem for Hoyas teams for some time now. Don't know if the stats bear that out, but I don't care. My eyes tell me that Hoya players are never in the right position to grab a rebound and have no idea how to box out, and, for the most part,* could not care less about it. Last night was an embarrassment. No question about it. Even accounting for the fact that Wisconsin is the single best rebounding team in America right now (as measured by rebounding percentage). For the record, the stats do bear out what your eyes tell you. Here are where we stand in D1 in overall rebounding rate: 2017: 307 (obviously skewed by last night, but still....) 2016: 126 2015: 67 2014: 147 2013: 120 2012: 29 (hooray!) 2011: 78 2010: 84 2009: 190 2008: 63 2007: 16 2006: 37 Pretty interesting, although probably not all that surprising. There's almost a direct correlation here between the numbers and our overall success. 2013 is the only season that we finished outside the top 100 and made the NCAAs. Our five best rebounding teams (06, 07, 08, 12, and 15) had a combined 9 NCAAT wins (at least one each of those five seasons). The other seasons? No NCAA wins. Rebounding rate isn't everything -- you can certainly win other ways, and I'm sure this sort of relationship wouldn't be true for every other team out there. But it clearly shows that at least for a JTIII team, overall success is highly dependent on getting boards. I would venture to say there is a correlation between our rebounding success and big line ups. When we go with 3 guard line ups or two point guards like we have been doing this year we suffer. When Copeland plays the 4 the overall team rebinding suffers. The 2007 team had 7-2 hibbert 6-9 Jeff green 6-8 Summers/6-9 Ewing 6-3 sapp 6-0 Wallace The ability to field 3 6-8 plus guys in the front court positions makes all the difference in college rebounding IMO.
|
|
|
Post by FrazierFanatic on Nov 23, 2016 14:23:45 GMT -5
Rebounding has been a problem for Hoyas teams for some time now. Don't know if the stats bear that out, but I don't care. My eyes tell me that Hoya players are never in the right position to grab a rebound and have no idea how to box out, and, for the most part,* could not care less about it. Couple this with the fact that the head coach apparently hasn't focused on rebounding at all over the years, and this is what you get. Absolute embarrassment. As has been mentioned, DSR was a good rebounder for a guard. I am sure there are a few other players who were OK at it, but none come to mind right now. Otto comes to mind.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,443
|
Post by hoyarooter on Nov 23, 2016 14:41:18 GMT -5
USCU also killed us on the boards. Definitely lack of effort. Govan and Copeland had the same number of rebounds as Abraham Lincoln last night.
|
|
|
Post by professorhoya on Nov 23, 2016 15:04:24 GMT -5
USCU also killed us on the boards. Definitely lack of effort. Govan and Copeland had the same number of rebounds as Abraham Lincoln last night. A.L. Can board though. 6 foot 4 back in 1865 like being 7-4 now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Rebounding
Nov 23, 2016 16:12:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2016 16:12:09 GMT -5
Last night was an embarrassment. No question about it. Even accounting for the fact that Wisconsin is the single best rebounding team in America right now (as measured by rebounding percentage). For the record, the stats do bear out what your eyes tell you. Here are where we stand in D1 in overall rebounding rate: 2017: 307 (obviously skewed by last night, but still....) 2016: 126 2015: 67 2014: 147 2013: 120 2012: 29 (hooray!) 2011: 78 2010: 84 2009: 190 2008: 63 2007: 16 2006: 37 Pretty interesting, although probably not all that surprising. There's almost a direct correlation here between the numbers and our overall success. 2013 is the only season that we finished outside the top 100 and made the NCAAs. Our five best rebounding teams (06, 07, 08, 12, and 15) had a combined 9 NCAAT wins (at least one each of those five seasons). The other seasons? No NCAA wins. Rebounding rate isn't everything -- you can certainly win other ways, and I'm sure this sort of relationship wouldn't be true for every other team out there. But it clearly shows that at least for a JTIII team, overall success is highly dependent on getting boards. I would venture to say there is a correlation between our rebounding success and big line ups. When we go with 3 guard line ups or two point guards like we have been doing this year we suffer. When Copeland plays the 4 the overall team rebinding suffers. The 2007 team had 7-2 hibbert 6-9 Jeff green 6-8 Summers/6-9 Ewing 6-3 sapp 6-0 Wallace The ability to field 3 6-8 plus guys in the front court positions makes all the difference in college rebounding IMO. Only if they're good rebounders. We featured 3 bigs last year up front, had one of the top 12 biggest lineups in D1, and still finished 126th.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 32,081
|
Post by DanMcQ on Nov 23, 2016 16:45:35 GMT -5
I think Trey Mourning has demonstrated that he'll expend effort on rebounding and successfully so. Don't understand, when nobody else is doing anything to get rebounds, why Mourning doesn't get some run. Maybe our very own lastmanstandig (Sportswriter Ben S.) can ask JT3 in a pre- or post-game press conference what is going on with Trey, Reggie and Marcus? Casual didn't fork over the dough to send him to Maui.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,531
|
Post by prhoya on Nov 23, 2016 17:06:34 GMT -5
Last night was an embarrassment. No question about it. Even accounting for the fact that Wisconsin is the single best rebounding team in America right now (as measured by rebounding percentage). For the record, the stats do bear out what your eyes tell you. Here are where we stand in D1 in overall rebounding rate: 2017: 307 (obviously skewed by last night, but still....) 2016: 126 2015: 67 2014: 147 2013: 120 2012: 29 (hooray!) 2011: 78 2010: 84 2009: 190 2008: 63 2007: 16 2006: 37 Pretty interesting, although probably not all that surprising. There's almost a direct correlation here between the numbers and our overall success. 2013 is the only season that we finished outside the top 100 and made the NCAAs. Our five best rebounding teams (06, 07, 08, 12, and 15) had a combined 9 NCAAT wins (at least one each of those five seasons). The other seasons? No NCAA wins. Rebounding rate isn't everything -- you can certainly win other ways, and I'm sure this sort of relationship wouldn't be true for every other team out there. But it clearly shows that at least for a JTIII team, overall success is highly dependent on getting boards. Aleutian, do you have the offensive rebounding numbers for those same years?
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,672
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Nov 23, 2016 17:19:20 GMT -5
Rebounding is all about position, timing, and incentive. Personal story: we were playing an intramural game at McD and we were losing because of our poor rebounding in the first half. Since I was the best rebounder on the team, this was all on me, and our captain called me out at half time. In the second half I was all over the boards and we won easily. The coaches just have to call the players out, if they are not getting the rebounds. Something happened last night, because we couldn't rebound the whole game.
|
|
|
Post by aleutianhoya on Nov 23, 2016 17:59:12 GMT -5
Last night was an embarrassment. No question about it. Even accounting for the fact that Wisconsin is the single best rebounding team in America right now (as measured by rebounding percentage). For the record, the stats do bear out what your eyes tell you. Here are where we stand in D1 in overall rebounding rate: 2017: 307 (obviously skewed by last night, but still....) 2016: 126 2015: 67 2014: 147 2013: 120 2012: 29 (hooray!) 2011: 78 2010: 84 2009: 190 2008: 63 2007: 16 2006: 37 Pretty interesting, although probably not all that surprising. There's almost a direct correlation here between the numbers and our overall success. 2013 is the only season that we finished outside the top 100 and made the NCAAs. Our five best rebounding teams (06, 07, 08, 12, and 15) had a combined 9 NCAAT wins (at least one each of those five seasons). The other seasons? No NCAA wins. Rebounding rate isn't everything -- you can certainly win other ways, and I'm sure this sort of relationship wouldn't be true for every other team out there. But it clearly shows that at least for a JTIII team, overall success is highly dependent on getting boards. Aleutian, do you have the offensive rebounding numbers for those same years? Ask and ye shall receive (by the way, none of these are adjusted for schedule strength, so we're assuredly better overall in every year if you did that adjustment, but the correlation likely holds): 2017: 288 2016: 215 2015: 52 2014: 159 2013: 194 2012: 41 2011: 134 2010: 176 2009: 173 2008: 152 2007: 8 2006: 70 Pretty similar but not quite the same correlation. With the exception of 07, we've never really been a good offensive rebounding team.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,531
|
Post by prhoya on Nov 23, 2016 18:08:04 GMT -5
Aleutian, do you have the offensive rebounding numbers for those same years? Ask and ye shall receive (by the way, none of these are adjusted for schedule strength, so we're assuredly better overall in every year if you did that adjustment, but the correlation likely holds): 2017: 288 2016: 215 2015: 52 2014: 159 2013: 194 2012: 41 2011: 134 2010: 176 2009: 173 2008: 152 2007: 8 2006: 70 Pretty similar but not quite the same correlation. With the exception of 07, we've never really been a good offensive rebounding team. Thanks. Yikes! That drop-off from 07 to 08 (when DaJuan would shoot 3s and before the ball hit the rim, he was crossing half-court)! 194 for 2013?! Last year was bad. I'll take a 41, 52 or 70 any year now.
|
|