Anonymous
|
11-25-04 03:17 AM - Post#282
In a number of the posts about last night, I see assertions that when Zoller entered the game, he and the rest of the Quakers on the floor suddenly decided to take matters into their own hands and push the ball up the floor, allegedly in direct defiance of their coach's desires. How utterly absurd.
Anyone who honestly believes that Fran doesn't want this team to push the ball if they have the opportunity is just out to lunch. He knows the skill sets he has to work with and he has demonstrated in the past a willingness to run when he has the talent to do it effectively. Let's not forget that he also played on one of the best teams in Big 5 history and they pushed the ball aggressively.
What actually happened last night, in my opinion, is that Drexel came out extremely fired up and had the better of the play for the first 10 minutes or so as a result. Zoller's entry coincided with the inevitable decline in the Drexel intensity level, and Mark's energy, along with a few good calls and, most importantly, a Penn defensive effort that was solid all night, helped to turn the tide. Perhaps even more importantly, a few shots actually went into the basket, which helps all of the above.
Rest assured, however, that what did not in any way contribute to the run was any decision by the players to "play their own game and ignore Dunphy". Fran appeared to be very upset about the early turnovers in the half-court offense, and happy to see the breakouts when they occurred later.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Dunphy and the Running Game
11-25-04 03:16 PM - Post#283
In response to
I don't think Fran is opposed to getting easy baskets when the opportunities present themselves, but it's hard to say he's been an active proponent of a running game.
Penn ran with Matt and Jerome because they stole the ball a lot and because Jerome just ran. It seemed like Penn ran with Ira, but that was only because Ira stole the ball three times a game and dunked it.
In a lopsided win over Qpac how many fast break layups did Penn have? I'm not sure they had any. At Wisconsin the team had no fast break points and they didn't score against Providence so they couldn't have had any fast break points.
The two layups by Danley ahead of the field were the first two I remember this season and it's hard to remember that many from last season except when Ibby stole the ball.
So while I agree with you that the team "didn't just take matters into its own hands" - they do practice running - we'll see if the aggressive offense - which does risk a few extra TOs - continues against Bucknell and beyond. You have to "force" tempo. It doesn't just happen.
That said, they better start runnng the set offense better, or make some changes to it, because some games - poor defense, poor rebounding, Princeton - won't lend themselves to a lot of running.
|
light blue heavy
maximus
Posts: 164
Reg: 11-22-04
|
Re: Dunphy and the Running Game
11-26-04 02:43 AM - Post#284
In response to
Howard makes a good point that I had thought of over the last week. How much of coach D's philosophy is based on playing Princeton?
I mean, emphasizing older players who are less likely to get frustrated and have played many times against the system would be my response for effectively playing the tigers twice a year for a tripto the NCAAs. If I were doing that, I would also emphasize running an effective set-offense over running. And I would not worry about substitutions as much, since the pace of these games is so much slower.
just some thoughts.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Dunphy and the Running Game
11-26-04 04:27 AM - Post#285
In response to light blue heavy
I don't know if that's the reason for Fran's philosophy but it's a decent, logical guess.
The thing is, it's almost impossible to out-half court Princeton. They run half court sets about as well as anyone. It's what they do. I've always thought the key to beating them is to get them to do what they don't do: Shoot over defenders, shoot off the dribble, get them back on their heels on the defensive end. When Penn beats Princeton (in a game that isn't a nail-biter) it's not because Penn runs better half-court sets, it's because Penn takes Princeton out of its comfort zone.
My seat mates and I have seen a fair number of Penn-Princeton games and our strategy for beating the Tigers is simple (unfortunately, executing it is not): On offense: Attack. On defense: Deny the three at all costs. Everybody wigs out when the Tigers get a backdoor but it's the threes that kill. Unless you're inept on defense and give up backdoors all the time, it's difficult for a team that doesn't run and doesn't crash the offensive boards to beat you with twos.
|
Quaker Fan
maximus
Posts: 282
Reg: 11-23-04
|
Re: Dunphy and the Running Game
11-29-04 02:51 PM - Post#286
In response to
Against Q'piac the Quakers certainly had at least one fast break - who can forget the missed dunk by Kach where he failed to finish the dunk and Zoller came in for the tip...
|
|
