Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1899
Reg: 11-29-04
|
12-13-16 01:08 AM - Post#215636
I figured Brodeur deserves his own thread. It's obvious that he is the most exciting big man since Ugonna, as many have noted.
But I took a look - he is ahead of U's freshman stats already at this point - and he hasn't even reached the conference games. He is at 14PPG, 6.1 RPG, and 52% FG%. At the end of the season, U averaged 11PPG, just under 6RPG, and 50% FG%.
What I like most about Brodeur is that his game is built on great fundamentals. He is a great athlete and has a physical game, but he has honed specific moves that can work even against top competition.
U had a strange game in this manner. He had great games against top competition, but sometimes would have head scratching complacency against weaker teams. I recall him being in Dunphy's dog house a fair amount for a star player. While their season rebounding averages are near equal, I like Brodeur's rebounding fundamentals a lot more.
Brodeur never stops hustling. He is a lot of fun to watch.
Edited by Penndemonium on 12-13-16 01:17 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 7001
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Brodeur
12-13-16 02:58 AM - Post#215638
In response to Penndemonium
I figured Brodeur deserves his own thread. It's obvious that he is the most exciting big man since Ugonna, as many have noted.
But I took a look - he is ahead of U's freshman stats already at this point - and he hasn't even reached the conference games. He is at 14PPG, 6.1 RPGe, and 52% FG%. At the end of the season, U averaged 11PPG, just under 6RPG, and 50% FG%.
What I like most about Brodeur is that his game is built on great fundamentals. He is a great athlete and has a physical game, but he has honed specific moves that can work even against top competition.
U had a strange game in this manner. He had great games against top competition, but sometimes would have head scratching complacency against weaker teams. I recall him being in Dunphy's dog house a fair amount for a star player. While their season rebounding averages are near equal, I like Brodeur's rebounding fundamentals a lot more.
Brodeur never stops hustling. He is a lot of fun to watch.
U was playing with two senior All-Ivy guards who were shouldering the scoring burden. Despite his talent he was never the first choice on offense his freshman year. The fact that he still reached a double-digit scoring average as the third option was pretty impressive.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
12-13-16 08:07 AM - Post#215640
In response to Chip Bayers
Brodeur was Donahue's prize recruit of this class - a player Donahue has been tracking for years. If this is the type of player Donahue wants and can successfully recruit then yes please, bring in more.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: Brodeur
12-13-16 08:19 AM - Post#215641
In response to Penndemonium
We had a nice big man in DNH, too, but AJ is ahead of him in several respects. When AJ gets the ball in the post, he has a series of great moves he can use to get to the hoop. He is also a fantastic passer. Most importantly, given the number of touches he gets and passes he makes, he does not turn it over anywhere near as much as DNH did, at least to this observer.
Edited by penn nation on 12-13-16 08:20 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
12-13-16 09:13 AM - Post#215643
In response to penn nation
Add in that Brodeur has a fantastic motor. He doesn't take plays off and he wears down the other team. It's the same with Howard.
That's the difference between fading and getting blown out in the last 5 minutes vs. winning the game.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32811
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Brodeur
12-13-16 09:34 AM - Post#215645
In response to penn nation
DNH is a completely different player, of course, but the real difference in production is that we now have the kind of ball movement we only could have dreamed about over the past 4 years. I counted as many as 9-10 passes in a sequence leading to a basket yesterday. We move and weave and don't turn the ball over often doing it. AJ is part of that, of course, and DNH (although he became a better passer over his 4 years) never was the kind of guy who could take the ball at the high post and either pass or roll to the basket. But right now, our ball movement is better than any Penn team since the Allen-Maloney teams.
|
10Q
Professor
Posts: 23368
Loc: Suburban Philly
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-13-16 09:40 AM - Post#215646
In response to palestra38
Exactly. The ball movement was crisp. The player movement was crisp and precise. The announcers marvelled. Q marvelled.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21193
Reg: 12-02-04
|
Re: Brodeur
12-13-16 09:42 AM - Post#215647
In response to palestra38
Yes, I made a comment in the game thread that in stretches the passing, movement and spacing reminded me of those Allen-Maloney teams.
Edited by penn nation on 12-13-16 09:43 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
12-13-16 09:54 AM - Post#215650
In response to TheLine
The hustle and motor points are exactly right. Amazing that, after guarding a 7'6 guy for most of 36 minutes, he still had enough left to get to the basket for a couple of absolutely huge field goals at the end.
Also, I don't want to disparage our prior center, who was also very good. But I think Brodeur is better right now than DNH was as a senior.
And I don't want to disparage Ugonna, who was awesome as a junior and senior. But Brodeur is better than Ugonna was as a freshman, too. As another poster pointed out, Jordan and Langel were the clear focal points of that team, and Owens was in there taking heat off U as well. There's no question who our opponents want to stop this year.
One question with AJ is how much room there is to get better. He's pretty polished right now. I don't know if he translates to a huge scorer down the line, or whether he is kind of like a big Louis Dale or Ryan Wittman (two kids Donahue coached who came in ready to play and got better, but not necessarily in an obvious statistical sense).
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8237
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-13-16 11:18 AM - Post#215663
In response to SomeGuy
My memories tend to fade a bit with age, but these comparisons of AJ to U don't work for me aside from the fact that neither one is a true 5. U was more comfortable facing the basket and never had AJ's size even after he filled out. AJ strikes me as a more relentless defender. U a better shooter. Both great running the floor though. AJ is already getting better and will continue to do so. The key from here on in is who we can put on the floor with him in the front court. Having Max to back him up is great but we need another real 4, if only to help with the rebounding at both ends and make it harder for defenses to pack the lane. MacDonald and Howard are really pitching in, but one is undersized anf the other is a senior.
|
besnoah
Masters Student
Posts: 803
Reg: 12-14-05
|
12-13-16 11:33 AM - Post#215664
In response to Streamers
Having Max to back him up is great but we need another real 4,
I find this interesting because my assumption about Brodeur coming into the season was that he was a 4 who was going to have to play complementarily to a big. But it's fairly clear at this point that he's the 5, probably for the next 4 years. And at this point I think I'd probably rather surround him with shooting or a bouncy wing like Matt Howard at the 4 than put another traditional big in the lane with him.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32811
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-13-16 11:36 AM - Post#215665
In response to besnoah
"Bouncy" is an understatement for the Howard we have seen so far this year. Where was that guy until now? He is playing at a level I would most equate to Ira Bowman his senior year, but Howard shoots better.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
12-13-16 11:43 AM - Post#215667
In response to palestra38
My outside impression is that Howard benefited quite a bit from the coaching change. He has always been a good hustle player. Now with improvement in his outside shot and playing in a more disciplined offense (and defense for that matter) he has come into his own.
Plus he had a rep since his HS days at being a hard worker. Hard workers with the right combination of intelligence, basketball IQ and athleticism are most likely to improve.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12533
Reg: 12-07-04
|
12-13-16 11:52 AM - Post#215670
In response to SomeGuy
One question with AJ is how much room there is to get better. He's pretty polished right now. I don't know if he translates to a huge scorer down the line, or whether he is kind of like a big Louis Dale or Ryan Wittman (two kids Donahue coached who came in ready to play and got better, but not necessarily in an obvious statistical sense).
We've already seen it a few times, but I expect him to develop that 3-point shot similar to how Zoller did, but much sooner in his career.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
12-13-16 12:26 PM - Post#215678
In response to besnoah
I'm not opposed to this, but I'd like the bouncy wing who can shoot the 3 to be about 6'7. Of course, saying we could use a 6'7 Matt Howard isn't saying much of anything -- so could every other program in the country.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
12-13-16 12:26 PM - Post#215679
In response to Quakers03
The Howard narrative is one of the things I love best about college basketball. The talented kid who works hard and does all the right things for three years with little to show for it, and for whom it then all comes together his senior year. Right now I'd have to say he's playing at a first team all Ivy level. It just warms the cockles of my heart.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
12-13-16 12:37 PM - Post#215682
In response to TheLine
It's interesting, because last year when he wasn't shooting it well from outside, he didn't seem like a system fit.
I think it speaks volumes about both the player and the coach that they both worked to figure it out. Howard really has filled in where his skillset might not have been a fit, and Donahue seems to have found ways to make sure we take advantage of everything Howard brings to the table. So much so that it's now hard to imagine how Donahue's system works without the bouncy 4 who can slash, shoot, hit the offensive boards, and cover anybody from 1-4.
|
Streamers
Professor
Posts: 8237
Loc: NW Philadelphia
Reg: 11-21-04
|
12-13-16 01:13 PM - Post#215684
In response to SomeGuy
It's interesting, because last year when he wasn't shooting it well from outside, he didn't seem like a system fit.
I think it speaks volumes about both the player and the coach that they both worked to figure it out. Howard really has filled in where his skillset might not have been a fit, and Donahue seems to have found ways to make sure we take advantage of everything Howard brings to the table.
I want to second this. His defense has also improved a lot although he is still a little foul prone. This is another example of how coaching makes such a difference. Imagine how good Howard could have been without spending 2 years in the dark ages?
On a related note, I was very negative about MacDonald - could not see why he was getting all the minutes, but he is also finding ways to score in this system. He had a couple of timely hoops in the second half last night, for example. Again, an example of coaches working with what they have instead of what they want.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1899
Reg: 11-29-04
|
12-13-16 01:36 PM - Post#215685
In response to Streamers
Even though I was one of the first to be critical of MacDonald on this board, I want to add that I am not doubting he is positive for the team. He surprised me because I was expecting a tall lanky sharpshooting shooting guard, and he wound up to seem more like a bulky small forward who doesn't really drive or shoot exceptionally. All of that said, I don't doubt that he's playing for a good reason and that Donahue is doing the right thing. I did notice that he plays within himself, keeps the ball moving, and does the yeoman work setting screens. He always looks like he knows what he's doing out there. I don't doubt that his minutes and savvy prevent some of the bonehead type of plays that we had in the past and also help push more ball-control oriented guards like Donahue, Silpe, and Foreman to move the rock around. Finally, he seems able to guard bigger and more athletic players than his substitutes. I think he's a solid contributor partly for what he does and partly for what he doesn't do. The latter doesn't show up on the stat sheet.
I just thought he'd be more of a pure shooter for Donahue's system, since that seemed to be his rep.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1899
Reg: 11-29-04
|
12-13-16 01:40 PM - Post#215686
In response to Penndemonium
One more thing on Brodeur. I almost hate to say this - you all are going to kill me for this. But he reminds me a bit of Kit Mueller. As much as I hated watching Mueller, it is a compliment to Brodeur. It's the way he positions himself on the high post, looks for the backdoor, and can drive to the hoop on either side with a long underhanded finger roll. Mueller was more of a point center, whereas Brodeur is more physical.
Again, this was a compliment. I love his game.
|
