internetter
Postdoc
Posts: 3399
Loc: Los Angeles
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Northwestern 09-01-18 08:25 PM - Post#260873
In response to hoopsfan
Calling plays, setting Ds are successful if players perform. The best Os don't work unless shots are made.
I don't recall the exact quote, but Stengel nailed it: execution is what counts.
Edited by internetter on 09-01-18 08:28 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
AntiUngvar
Masters Student
Posts: 530
Age: 69
Loc: New York City
Reg: 07-23-18
|
Re: Northwestern 09-01-18 11:43 PM - Post#260875
In response to internetter
Proud to be a small part of this thread- a lot of solid commentary offered from a multitude of sources.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
09-02-18 11:38 AM - Post#260881
In response to Silver Maple
Not sure I agree. Goodman did a good job in the first half keeping Penn in the game. But, in the second half, Penn made some adjustments and ran away with it. There was long stretch during which Columbia was completely ineffective on both ends of the court, and that was pretty much the game. Goodman wasn't a major factor during that period. That doesn't sound like Engles outcoaching Donahue.
Totally agree with you, SM.
I like Smith as a player but think Engels relies on him too much to the detriment of other players on the team. Hickman wasn't a good fit and will turn out to be an addition by subtraction, though might not be readily apparent because of the loss of Meisner and Faulds.
|
Silver Maple
Postdoc
Posts: 3765
Loc: Westfield, New Jersey
Reg: 11-23-04
|
09-02-18 01:23 PM - Post#260889
In response to SomeGuy
Agreed that Penn made adjustments as the game went on. But without Goodman’s first half, none of that would have mattered. We would have been blown out. The reason that was a danger was because of adjustments Columbia made after the first game. They took Betkey away entirely and limited AJ’s impact (though he was still very efficient and effective). The lack of comparative depth was the issue for Columbia, and is not something they could coach their way out of.
So I’ve been thinking about this post since yesterday, and I just can’t agree with your interpretation of events. Engles made some adjustments based on the first game, Donahue saw was happening, looked down the bench, saw a guy who he thought could be a part of the counter-adjustment, put the guy in with some instructions, and straightened things out. That’s move-and-counter-move. It’s not Engles out coaching Donahue and Donahue just catching a lucky break. Maybe we’re just haggling over semantics here.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5597
Age: 60
Reg: 07-07-09
|
Northwestern 09-02-18 03:24 PM - Post#260891
In response to Silver Maple
It's more than semantics.
Columbia was the perfect team to play Goodman against. Donahue did it, that worked.
Donahue then made adjustments and Engels didn't counter.
The big turning point was when Meisner celebrated blocking that in bounds pass and the entire Penn team responded while Columbia did nothing.
The better motivated and better coached team won that game.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
09-02-18 06:12 PM - Post#260894
In response to TheLine
I disagree on this. Hickman will be addition by subtraction on offense. But he was Columbia’s best perimeter defender and their only perimeter defender with division one size. So he will be a big subtraction on Defense (unless Ellis is ready to defend from day one), which just exacerbates the exact thing that Columbia doesn’t do. I don’t think it’s a question of coaching or offense. i don’t think you can be a winning team in our league on the defensive end playing two of Smith, Adlesh, and Stefanini together, let alone all 3.
|