palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32810
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-16-20 05:45 PM - Post#296844
In response to Tiger69
Are you still sitting on the edge of the Sea of Cortez, waiting for death to roll in?
|
Tiger69
Postdoc
Posts: 2814
Reg: 11-23-04
|
01-16-20 06:55 PM - Post#296847
In response to palestra38
Si. Just dug myself out of the snow in Silverton and made the three day trip South (one day layover in Tucson to have breakfast at my very favorite am eatery, Frank’s by Day, Francisco’s por la Noche. Salud from San Carlos.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1899
Reg: 11-29-04
|
01-16-20 08:36 PM - Post#296850
In response to Tiger69
I love Steve D and what he has done for our program. He has installed a system which broadly has made our players better than the sum of its parts. When they play teams that underestimate us, we can pick them apart with our passing and ball movement.
Our players are not multi-dimensional, however. We don't actually have too many great shooters (just Betley and Martz) and neither creates their own shot. We don't have very many great slashers (Dingle and Goodman sometimes), and we aren't lock-down on defense. AJ is our lone multi-tool player on both sides of the court.. When we win, it is through the subtle balance of OK team metrics coming together. When we lose, opponents reduce our team to the individual parts - and those parts are not dominant one-on-one and do not create separation from our opponents.
I hope Steve D figures it out. My recommendation is KEEP THE BALL MOVING!
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Crickets
01-16-20 09:31 PM - Post#296851
In response to palestra38
The interesting thing is that I think our gameplan presumed that we were more talented than Princeton. Princeton wanted to cut off the passes and the 3s and make us play them one on one, and I think our assumption coming into the first game was that that was fine. We assumed Dingle and Goodman could drive and score (and get a few assists), and that even Betley would drive more. I don’t think that was a bad plan/assumption — it fit with the available information coming in. It just wasn’t right, at least for those two games.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32810
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 09:58 AM - Post#296868
In response to SomeGuy
It wasn't right because we were exposed as pretenders. I don't know how anyone seeing those games would think that we will get back to the tournament except in the same manner we did last year---with a .500 league record and by the skin of our teeth. We all expected Betley to return at his pre-injury level, and that Wang would be a force....also that Washington would come back to at least close to his early season performance last year. Instead, none of that has happened and we are essentially the same team as last year but lost Woods, Silpe, Rothschild and Donahue, who totalled over 23 ppg, 13 rpg and 7 apg. I have to take some responsibility myself for thinking they could replace this production. But it's obvious that they lost too much to replace with freshmen and if they are getting essentially nothing from the sophs and juniors, we are screwed.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 10:33 AM - Post#296871
In response to palestra38
I tend to agree with Penndemonium here. My point is that against Princeton we went away from what works for us because we thought they were playing into our hands by reducing the game to one on one matchups, and therefore let it happen. The key is to find ways to play our game, rather than accepting being drawn into playing one on one.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32810
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 10:35 AM - Post#296872
In response to SomeGuy
Our game is too easily defensible and we don't have enough experienced talent to go to a Plan B
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2138
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 01:05 PM - Post#296883
In response to SomeGuy
I tend to agree with Penndemonium here. My point is that against Princeton we went away from what works for us because we thought they were playing into our hands by reducing the game to one on one matchups, and therefore let it happen. The key is to find ways to play our game, rather than accepting being drawn into playing one on one.
My take is that it was less a case of our going away from what we do best and more one of Princeton taking those opportunities away from us. Note how they defend cutters. Total ball denial, to the point where the passing lanes are invisible. Then they run us off the three point line. From the high post, AJ had opportunities to shoot, but that was about it. They figured Aririguzoh could make his life difficult in the low post, but they weren't afraid to give him the three point shot from the top of the arc.
And then we couldn't stop turning the ball over, either.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Crickets
01-17-20 01:43 PM - Post#296885
In response to weinhauers_ghost
Agreed that they were taking that stuff away, but our response was not to cut and instead to try to drive. My point is that you have to keep cutting. Make them defend it for the full 30.
To make a silly comparison to youth basketball, every year I have a kid refuse to cut “because they know where I’m going.†They still have to defend you doing it, and making them defend you doing it (over and over) eventually leads to opportunities. Don’t just say they’re taking Ryan away and leave floating out on the perimeter with a defender to create space for Dingle to drive. Have him keep cutting, and make them do the work to take him away.
I think we made a choice to let them take things away because we thought we still had an advantage. Turns out we didn’t. So play our game, and make them keep working to take what we do away. Despite the last 4 games against them, I don’t think Princeton defends well enough to keep doing it — we just have to keep doing it. It’s not about plan B. It’s about using Plan A.
|
Jeff2sf
Postdoc
Posts: 4466
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-17-20 04:58 PM - Post#296894
In response to SomeGuy
what you say is plausible some guy. not sure it happened that way but i can buy it.
While that could be acceptable for game 1, to come in with the same strategy for game 2 is, um, not wise.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2138
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
01-17-20 05:10 PM - Post#296897
In response to SomeGuy
One thing was obvious: we didn't have the one-on-one defenders to stop them from getting what they wanted in the paint in the first game. Schwieger abused everyone who guarded him other than Simmons.
If you'd looked at Princeton's out of conference performance, you would have seen a team that wasn't shooting well from three point range, and you could have anticipated that they would change up their offense in order to mask that weakness. It seems we didn't game plan for such a change.
They looked a lot more like Princeton in the second game.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-17-20 05:45 PM - Post#296903
In response to Jeff2sf
I would argue that we didn’t use the same strategy in game 2. In game 2, we went to plan F, where we start Simmons, try to use him in the low post for the first time all year until Princeton figured out we were doing it, tried to run Betley off screens until they figured that out, and then had AJ play one on one. Again, the problem was that our response to getting away from our game the first time was to get even further from our game the second time.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6412
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-17-20 06:24 PM - Post#296910
In response to weinhauers_ghost
I know I’m defending what didn’t work, but . . .. I think the staff views backing off the 3 point line, even against a bad shooting team, as unnecessarily playing roulette. If you engage in. 3 point shooting contest, you open yourself up to random results. So I think coming in we thought that we would get twos at the rim and 3s, and we would force Princeton to take tough 2s further from the basket. And that would be a winning recipe. We changed it up in game 2 (allowing 3s). Didn’t work either.
|
PennFan10
Postdoc
Posts: 3585
Reg: 02-15-15
|
01-17-20 07:28 PM - Post#296913
In response to SomeGuy
Again, we are 155th in defense while remaining 15th at limiting 3pt attempts and 320th at 3pt defense. Opponents will miss 3’s more as we play more home games but we can’t stop people who have good scorers, 1 on 1.
Offensively we went from 64th before the 2 games to 125th after. If teams have AJ stoppers (no one really does except Princeton for 1 game) we are gonna struggle. If AJ is scoring like game 2 vs P, we need at least 1 other (probably 2) to have good games. Dingle laid an egg in New Jersey which was unfortunate.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3618
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-17-20 09:58 PM - Post#296919
In response to PennFan10
Game Notes are out and continue to be pretty useless. Again just shows starting lineup as same as last game, which I'd be pretty surprised by honestly.
Still shows Jonah Charles as out as well. Wonder if he is still on track for mid-Jan as it is mid-Jan and we could use an infusion of someone else who can shoot.
A few things I would like to see tomorrow. Coach Donahue finding what is right combination moving forward and getting a few other players involved.
I think it is a miss if we don't get MLL time against both St. Joes and Temple. I liked that he got time in game 2 against Princeton. He didn't have time to do much, but did manage to get a block on RA of Princeton in pretty short order. We need more of that!
I equally think this is an opportunity to try to craft a role for Washington that he is more comfortable with moving forward this year and also need to get him time.
If we go through these last two non-conf games and still need 18 mins from Ray Jerome in another conference game this year, we're in serious trouble.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32810
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-17-20 10:25 PM - Post#296920
In response to Mike Porter
"If we go through these last two non-conf games and still need 18 mins from Ray Jerome in another conference game this year, we're in serious trouble."
This!
I've come full circle to Jeff's POV. If we have to play a senior who essentially couldn't get off the bench most of the prior 3 years, we are hopelessly shallow and have no chance. Moreover, we are not developing our freshemen for future teams. I don't see any upside to playing Ray Jerome for any serious minutes. If we are playing for the present, we should put Washington out there and see if we can get him back to the level he played the first half of last year. If we are playing for the future, we should be playing freshmen.
Shades of Malcolm Washington.
|
weinhauers_ghost
Postdoc
Posts: 2138
Age: 64
Loc: New York City
Reg: 12-14-09
|
01-18-20 01:32 AM - Post#296938
In response to palestra38
One huge part of the problem at present is that we are getting nothing at all offensively from Martz and Monroe. They've been active defensively, but neither of those guys got so much as a clean look at the basket in either Princeton game. Eddie Scott was a DNP in the road game.
|
UPIA1968
PhD Student
Posts: 1121
Loc: Cornwall, PA
Reg: 11-20-06
|
Re: Jerome
01-18-20 05:16 PM - Post#297016
In response to weinhauers_ghost
Ray started and played more than half of the game today against St. Joes. He did play better D than some of the others. Scored 4 points.
|
palestra38
Professor
Posts: 32810
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Jerome
01-18-20 07:14 PM - Post#297034
In response to UPIA1968
We cannot win with Ray Jerome playing 30 minutes.
|
Quakers03
Professor
Posts: 12530
Reg: 12-07-04
|
01-18-20 07:29 PM - Post#297040
In response to weinhauers_ghost
Martz can give you instant offense and his d is no worse than anyone else’s out there. A female player got on me at a game two years ago for being on Jerome for poor shots. Two years later nothing has changed. He may be a great kid and a player favorite, but what’s the hope? Why not let Lucas play?
|
