Cvonvorys
Postdoc
Posts: 4473
Loc: Princeton, New Jersey
Reg: 10-11-06
|
11-10-17 11:11 AM - Post#235798
Well folks... We're just about there.
Personally, I'm very excited about the start of the season and the possibilities for the team this year. What a great way to open the season -- With a big win over Sydney Johnson and the Fairfield Stags.
My Top Ten List: "Things I'll Be Looking For In Their First Game":
1) Brodeur and Betley picking up where they left off last year.
2) Brodeur and Rothschild playing well while on the floor together.
3) Woods living up to P38's expectations.
4) Wood eliminating his TO problem and draining 3-pointer after 3-pointer.
5) Foreman, relieved of any scoring burden, becoming the quintessential point guard.
6) The freshmen getting some playing time and showing off their potential.
7) Contribution from an unexpected source.
8) Penn making more foul shots than Fairfield attempts.
9) Less than 10 turnovers for the Quakers.
10) A double-digit Penn victory to open the season.
What am I missing? I know most of you will say that #4 will never happen, so what would you replace that with?
By the way, it looks like the game will be available through the Fairfield Sports Network:
http://fairfieldstags.com/watch/?Live=43&ty pe=...
LET'S GO QUAKERS!!!
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32811
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Penn v Fairfield
11-10-17 11:32 AM - Post#235799
In response to Cvonvorys
Fairfield preview---16-15 last year and bounced by UMBC---a team we should beat if we have improved. They did have an Italy trip and 2 exhibition games, so I worry a bit that they may be in better sync....but I guess that is the question.
http://www.ctpost.com/sports/article/Fairfi eld-men...
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1899
Reg: 11-29-04
|
11-10-17 12:37 PM - Post#235807
In response to palestra38
Advantage Fairfield. They actually play games on their Italy trips.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-10-17 01:05 PM - Post#235811
In response to Penndemonium
Penn is going to Italy next summer I believe.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3052
Reg: 10-20-14
|
11-10-17 01:11 PM - Post#235812
In response to Penndemonium
Per Penn Game Notes, the probable starters are Woods (G), Foreman (G), Betley (G), Brodeur (F), Rothschild (C).
http://www.pennathletics.com/documents/2017/11/9/1 ...
Looking at last year's stats, the two teams have a lot of similarity. This should be a good challenge for the Quakers, right out of the gate.
Regarding items #4 - I don't feel that Wood will be seeing much action. Since SD wants to go with two bigs and Brodeur at the 4, it seems really important that Rothschild have a good game. Not only does he have to be involved in the offense, but he needs to avoid picking up an early foul or two.
|
SteveChop
PhD Student
Posts: 1154
Reg: 07-28-07
|
11-10-17 01:16 PM - Post#235814
In response to PennFan10
PF10 - Do you know anything else about the potential of an Italy trip next summer.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-10-17 01:57 PM - Post#235818
In response to SteveChop
4. Penn out rebounds Fairfield.
FYI, this is no easy game. We only beat them by 6 at home last year. Pomeroy gives Penn a 54% chance to win with predicted score of 73-72.
Will be a test early, and I think a really good sign if we win.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-10-17 02:00 PM - Post#235820
In response to SteveChop
PF10 - Do you know anything else about the potential of an Italy trip next summer.
Just that they are going, likely after school in May.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32811
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-10-17 02:05 PM - Post#235821
In response to Mike Porter
According to Sports-reference, they lost 2 sophs (Cobb and Johnson) who were their 2nd and 3rd leading scorers and will have several first year players in the game. We should be better and they should be worse, on paper, anyway.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-10-17 02:19 PM - Post#235822
In response to palestra38
Yes, I see that now too. Pomeroy has them ranked pre-season as slightly worse than last year. Challenge is that the game is at their house, so that's why it is just a little better odds than a toss up. Also their best player is a senior and is really good - Tyler Nelson - whose stats look like a super charged version of Betley's. Will need to contain him on D. Will be interested to see who matches up with him.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32811
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-10-17 02:24 PM - Post#235823
In response to Mike Porter
It's always tough to play the opener on the road. I like our chances, though.
|
yoyo
Senior
Posts: 365
Reg: 03-25-09
|
11-10-17 02:27 PM - Post#235824
In response to palestra38
Did Betley play in the game against Fairfield last year?
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3775
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
11-10-17 02:27 PM - Post#235825
In response to Penndemonium
Advantage Fairfield. They actually play games on their Italy trips.
Wow-- the Storied Italy Trip. That could probably be a b-school case. If that episode didn't make it clear that the program had issues with administrative competence, I don't know what would.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32811
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-10-17 02:32 PM - Post#235827
In response to Silver Maple
Fairfield message board--a lot of information on their team and this game:
http://fairfieldstags.proboards.com/board/1/men-ba...
|
yoyo
Senior
Posts: 365
Reg: 03-25-09
|
11-10-17 03:30 PM - Post#235832
In response to palestra38
Cool and there is a link to video for the game.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-10-17 04:31 PM - Post#235833
In response to palestra38
It's always tough to play the opener on the road. I like our chances, though.
Yep me too and feeling pretty good, but just not a push over us all. Let's Go Quakers!
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-10-17 06:39 PM - Post#235853
In response to Mike Porter
Vegas says Penn -2.5
|
Cvonvorys
Postdoc
Posts: 4473
Loc: Princeton, New Jersey
Reg: 10-11-06
|
Re: Penn v Fairfield
11-11-17 05:05 PM - Post#235941
In response to Cvonvorys
My Top Ten List: "Things I'll Be Looking For In Their First Game":
1) Brodeur and Betley picking up where they left off last year. (Not their finest moments.)
2) Brodeur and Rothschild playing well while on the floor together. (Didn't see it.)
3) Woods living up to P38's expectations. (Didn't see it, either. Is it possible that P38 could be wrong?)
4) Wood eliminating his TO problem and draining 3-pointer after 3-pointer. (3-4 from 3 and only 1 turnover... Caleb confirmed my faith in him.)
5) Foreman, relieved of any scoring burden, becoming the quintessential point guard. (Not good... 4-11 & 2-7 from 3, but 4 assists v 2 turnovers and 7-8 from the FT line.)
6) The freshmen getting some playing time and showing off their potential. (Nope. Eddie Scott got some PT, but has 1 rebound to show for it.)
7) Contribution from an unexpected source. (No.)
8) Penn making more foul shots than Fairfield attempts. (Ugh... Not even close. Penn = 11-19 from the foul line / Fairfield = 20-24 from the foul line.)
9) Less than 10 turnovers for the Quakers. (YES!!! Penn with only 9 TOs... But why did it seem like more?)
10) A double-digit Penn victory to open the season. (Ugh Ugh Double Ugh!!!)
That being said, some interesting stats:
Betley leading the team with 10 rebounds.
Donahue second on the team with 6 rebounds.
Two Penn starters with 0 points.
|
rbg
Postdoc
Posts: 3052
Reg: 10-20-14
|
11-11-17 11:54 PM - Post#235957
In response to Cvonvorys
There were some positives, but, sadly, more negatives in this afternoon's game.
Positives
-- Betley, Foreman and Brodeur did not have their best games, but all still look good.
-- Goodman's three point shooting was reminiscent of his offensive performance in the Ivy Tournament semifinal, but the other parts of his game were solid.
-- Wood did a good job from three. He had a couple good games early at CCSU and Navy last year, so I am cautiously optimistic with today's performance.
-- 9 turnovers was certainly a positive.
-- Two point shooting (52%) was good, and similar to last year.
-- Woods is still an unknown at this point.
-- Rothschild, Donahue and Jones were all ineffective.
-- They got to the line a little more than last year, but the FT shooting (58%) was poor.
-- A school record # of threes (39) was a negative and the 23% three point shooting may have been worse.
-- The Stags' two leading scorers totaled 50 points.
-- Giving up 4 three pointers on 24% shooting was good, but giving up 24 two pointers on 62% was bad.
The biggest problem, on offense and defense, appears to be the lack of a second quality front court player. Without another offensive option, down low, Penn seemed content to have its guards heave three pointers. Defensively, they could not stop the Stags on the inside.
While a good backup, Rothschild does not seem to be a reliable starting and productive forward. Donahue does continue to hustle, but does not seem to have improved his three point shooting. Jones will have his moments hitting threes, but should not be counted on being a consistent offensive force.
Penn does have three solid starters with Foreman at the point, Betley at the wing and Brodeur down low. Goodman is also a good point guard to come off the bench. If Wood can play like he did today, then he can be the two guard. Otherwise, Goodman will have to play in that spot until Woods gets into game shape.
Simmons looks like he has the abilities to be a good compliment to Brodeur at the other forward position. Until he is ready, it may be more prudent to start MacDonald or Jones and keep Rothschild as a backup.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
11-12-17 10:16 AM - Post#235971
In response to rbg
Very disappointing start yesterday. The players executed poorly but Really this loss goes squarely on Steve Donahue. We all heard about the move to two bigs. He started two bigs and had 2 in there much of the time, So if that is the apparent strategy why in the world did we shoot 39 3s, which is 5 more attempts than our highest attempts against Columbia at home last year (also a loss). The game I watched featured zero shot attempts by Max (he played bad otherwise but really never got the ball in the post) and more importantly 4 of AJs 12 shots were 3s. He really didn’t get many post touches either and when he did, he scored going 6-8 from non three land. What about high low action? None. When they went zone I saw Max or AJ get to the high post with no entry passes multiple times. Our guards just dribbled around the perimeter hoping for the Red Sea to part. We had two bigs on the floor for somewhere around 50 of 80 possible minutes and they took a combined 8 shots in the paint, all of which were AJ.
And while we were going 9-39 from 3 ( and still somehow scored 72 pts) while not feeding the post our guards were regularly posted up by Fairfield bigs who got easy layups. Fairfield took 56 shots to score 80and we took 72 shots to score 72.
If you wanna jack up threes then play 4 guards and have at it. ( we tried some of that too) Don’t play two bigs with no plan to actually use them.
Then the rotations made no sense. SD played 12 different players. Only 3 who made the trip didn’t play. there was no continuity on the floor. I can’t imagine 12 guys are regularly in the rotation in practice so some of what SD did was not anything they had practiced. It’s mind boggling you can go a whole offseason and come up with this for a game plan. No thank you.
Maybe he is saving it for Lasalle. I hope so.
|
