pennsive
Junior
Posts: 200
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Cornell
01-16-24 01:36 PM - Post#361769
In response to Mike Porter
He is not THE problem. He is better than our alternatives. The problem is team defense and a marked inability to play aggressive man to man defense for two halves, denying the three and denying penetration without fouling. Often, as yesterday, we allow wide open threes as though we expect the other team not to make shots they practice every day in shoot around practices. Look how closely Cornell guarded your three point shooting in the second half. For years our front line, especially, has been less athletic and less physically strong than our opponents, and we wear down as the game progresses. Solid team defense without fouling is and has been our Achilles Heel for years. Conversely, we are typically bullied in the second half, to the point that we have no legs, and then we fold up. It is not the fault of our center. The question to focus on is WHY we couldn’t score in the second half, and why we allowed them to shoot three pointers as though they were having a pre-game shoot around. This wasn’t random. It has happened to us historically, even with a healthy Clark and with Dingle to bail us out and keep us close enough to mask those problems.
|
Mike Porter
Postdoc
Posts: 3619
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 11-21-04
|
Re: Cornell
01-16-24 02:01 PM - Post#361772
In response to pennsive
He is not THE problem. He is better than our alternatives. The problem is team defense and a marked inability to play aggressive man to man defense for two halves, denying the three and denying penetration without fouling. Often, as yesterday, we allow wide open threes as though we expect the other team not to make shots they practice every day in shoot around practices. Look how closely Cornell guarded your three point shooting in the second half. For years our front line, especially, has been less athletic and less physically strong than our opponents, and we wear down as the game progresses. Solid team defense without fouling is and has been our Achilles Heel for years. Conversely, we are typically bullied in the second half, to the point that we have no legs, and then we fold up. It is not the fault of our center. The question to focus on is WHY we couldn’t score in the second half, and why we allowed them to shoot three pointers as though they were having a pre-game shoot around. This wasn’t random. It has happened to us historically, even with a healthy Clark and with Dingle to bail us out and keep us close enough to mask those problems.
For the record, I'm not saying Spinoso is the problem. I was just reacting to the commentary about him.
I agree that generally defense is the biggest problem, though the offense isn't top 100 either.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1900
Reg: 11-29-04
|
01-16-24 05:37 PM - Post#361780
In response to Mike Porter
Yeah, Spinoso is much better than our other options right now, and became much better than Mosh. We just haven't had really good big men recruits except for Brodeur from Donahue's early years.
If he could hit his free throws plus any ONE of the the open 8 footer jumpshot, the 4 foot scoop, or the 6 foot fadeaway, he would be much closer to Brodeur than Mosh.
I give him credit on seemingly working his way into becoming our best big man, though. I don't think many expected much from him as a recruit.
Ubochi has some tantalizing abilities, but isn't quite ready.
I think Foster will be one of our best for a while, but I predict we will use him at C instead of a more natural PF. This is the problem with thin big man recruiting classes.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-17-24 08:39 PM - Post#361808
In response to penn nation
Was Columbia much more impressive? Penn led much later in the game than Columbia did. Yes, Columbia held within striking distance longer. But they never had a lead after the 5 minute mark of the first half. Also, Penn played one bad defensive half — Columbia played two. Columbia looked better than Penn did on offense, I suppose. It’s the “much” word I’m questioning—Columbia’s 12 point loss looked a little better than Penn’s 17 point loss, but to me the difference between the two games was within the margin of error.
|
penn nation
Professor
Posts: 21214
Reg: 12-02-04
|
01-17-24 09:30 PM - Post#361810
In response to SomeGuy
I watched most of that Cornell-Columbia contest. It was anyone's game. Pretty amazing considering they were really undersized and, like Penn, missing a top player (De La Rosa).
It was a 3 point game with 5:40 to play. By that point in the Penn game, Cornell was up by 21.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-18-24 08:42 PM - Post#361815
In response to penn nation
Yes, I watched the game too. While Columbia hung in there, to me it looked like they were drafting behind a team that could score at will. They just never looked to me like they had any chance to stop Cornell — all they could do was hope they kept shooting the lights out. So to me it looked more like a lightning in a bottle or fools gold kind of game, where shooting really well for a while masked the fact they were outclassed. You could say the same of Penn’s first half certainly (and maybe it was Cornell’s cold shooting rather than Penn’s defense that made the first half what it was). But watching the two games I thought Penn showed the ability to defend Cornell for stretches, while Volumbia did not.
|
|
