Kevin It seems that there is an awful lot of one on one play offensively. Good news, they all can shoot but play together much. Lots of playground stuff. They have a long way to go. Happy New Year. Ray '65
Pinnis definitely needs more playing time. Hargrove has done nothing to help this team. Powell needs to step up his game also. Play as a team not as individuals.
May I suggest a 2-3 zone. It would help us to stop getting killed in the paint. Use our 5 underneath instead of posting up all the time to set inefficient screens. Give Pinnis a chance backing up Oswin. We need the bulk under the basket to defend.
St. John’s likes to run so we better be ready for alot of sprinting. Let Hopkins shoot treys and good luck to us vs. Ejoufor. But above all we need the burning desire to win! Upset the Johnnies. Go Friars!
It’s always a nice thing to suggest, but Kevin nailed why it could be double edged. A bad zone is worse than a bad man…and this staff (outside of Gomes) has not only never really coached it, their mentors and defensive philosophies are almost fundamentally antithetical to it. I hope they can implement and utilize it in the offseason, but I’d avoid playing a style that involves as many nuances and a reliance on communication that players haven’t played and coaches haven’t coached. Get them to play fundamentally strong M2M first.
That said, a zone should be in every team’s playbook (and more so if you aren’t one of the elites). And I think the proliferation of three point shooting might actually play into zone concepts if coached properly. It’s true that many players are better shooters…but now there are a lot of players who have no business shooting taking way too many shots. The best 3PAs always come in rhythm off penetration and, ideally with an interior presence to suck in help. Additionally the game is very high ballscreen/PNR centric. A zone mitigates a lot of the PNR action and is fundamentally designed to prevent paint pressure. And given the lack of traditional frontcourt presence in today’s game, a zone can be designed to cheat and extend to the perimeter as well.
It’s always been a great equalizer for teams without the sheer athleticism to overwhelm teams in a straight man. It’s a shame we don’t see more of it implemented. Always felt it was an ego thing - as if playing zone was an admission that “we aren’t as good, talented or as athletic as the teams we are playing.”
If you’re not perennially a top 25/top 4-5 seed, then that will more often be the case…and that pretty much every team outside of maybe 15. Plus, playing a porous man and giving up 90ppg might be a worse sign that your team is not as good, talented or athletic as the team you’re playing.
Can't run a 2-3 in the modern era you'd give up 120 points a game on like 25 three's. It's not 1982. And you can't get out and run transition - which is what this team is built for - out of zone. But agreed on Pinnis and agreed on letting Hopkins shoot all the 3's he wants. I am strangely hopeful and optimistic for this one...
Interesting data points, analysis and thoughts. Some observations and questions:
The Oswin/Jones 1-2 punch on Defense - interesting to see how much separations there regarding the metrics and everyone else.
The Sellers thing on Defense continues to befuddle me. I just don't see it in games but it must be happening.
Zone defense: just wonder if can jive with what he is trying to do schematically trying to get into transition on offense and creating shot value asymmetries. Can he mix the two? I did notice some use of it lately....curious to see if he can graft the two concepts together in a productive way.
Amen on at least taking at look at Pinnis. Hargrove is terrible. Simply awful and I feel bad saying it because I have two kids playing in college about his age and I don't want people talking about my kid that way. I don't know what's going on here...but it's disastrous. He gets pushed around, fouls every 10 seconds and has zero offensive game. Curious if the BE game is just moving too fast for him and he should have stayed at Drexel, or if there's a crisis of confidence for some other reason? I saw him check into a game earlier this year when Oswin had yet again committed two stupid fouls early and English made a particular type of eye contact with him with a particular type of "come on, lets see you do what I see in practice in game time!" vibe that made me really worried for the entirety of the season. It was a look and a vibe I know all too well as a player and a coach....that particular ship isn't likely to turn around. I wonder why? What's the fall off from what you saw in practices to now?
I noticed the same thing about the Seton Hall game; it seems like something might have been figured out--you are putting some data to a feeling that I thought I was picking up on. Momentum is built of moments, it's been said, so perhaps that game was a moment that can be built on.
The Friars are entertaining to watch this year, and even though I have downgraded my outlook on them as an 16-17 win NIT team to a 13-14 win or so non-NIT type team...I am really, really curious if they can crack a code or two and reset their trajectory. I wonder if there's actually enough talent here to build a team that could make a miracle BE tourney run. That may be the Stockholm syndrome talking though.
I think confidence gets overlooked a lot when breaking down players we haven't seen prior to playing for the Friars. Hargrove looked tough when I saw him in practice (and on tape) and I'm sure the staff is continually hoping it will click for him at some point. Even simple finishes -- much easier finishes than he had at Drexel -- seem to be an adventure.
Kevin It seems that there is an awful lot of one on one play offensively. Good news, they all can shoot but play together much. Lots of playground stuff. They have a long way to go. Happy New Year. Ray '65
Pinnis definitely needs more playing time. Hargrove has done nothing to help this team. Powell needs to step up his game also. Play as a team not as individuals.
May I suggest a 2-3 zone. It would help us to stop getting killed in the paint. Use our 5 underneath instead of posting up all the time to set inefficient screens. Give Pinnis a chance backing up Oswin. We need the bulk under the basket to defend.
St. John’s likes to run so we better be ready for alot of sprinting. Let Hopkins shoot treys and good luck to us vs. Ejoufor. But above all we need the burning desire to win! Upset the Johnnies. Go Friars!
It’s always a nice thing to suggest, but Kevin nailed why it could be double edged. A bad zone is worse than a bad man…and this staff (outside of Gomes) has not only never really coached it, their mentors and defensive philosophies are almost fundamentally antithetical to it. I hope they can implement and utilize it in the offseason, but I’d avoid playing a style that involves as many nuances and a reliance on communication that players haven’t played and coaches haven’t coached. Get them to play fundamentally strong M2M first.
That said, a zone should be in every team’s playbook (and more so if you aren’t one of the elites). And I think the proliferation of three point shooting might actually play into zone concepts if coached properly. It’s true that many players are better shooters…but now there are a lot of players who have no business shooting taking way too many shots. The best 3PAs always come in rhythm off penetration and, ideally with an interior presence to suck in help. Additionally the game is very high ballscreen/PNR centric. A zone mitigates a lot of the PNR action and is fundamentally designed to prevent paint pressure. And given the lack of traditional frontcourt presence in today’s game, a zone can be designed to cheat and extend to the perimeter as well.
It’s always been a great equalizer for teams without the sheer athleticism to overwhelm teams in a straight man. It’s a shame we don’t see more of it implemented. Always felt it was an ego thing - as if playing zone was an admission that “we aren’t as good, talented or as athletic as the teams we are playing.”
If you’re not perennially a top 25/top 4-5 seed, then that will more often be the case…and that pretty much every team outside of maybe 15. Plus, playing a porous man and giving up 90ppg might be a worse sign that your team is not as good, talented or athletic as the team you’re playing.
Can't run a 2-3 in the modern era you'd give up 120 points a game on like 25 three's. It's not 1982. And you can't get out and run transition - which is what this team is built for - out of zone. But agreed on Pinnis and agreed on letting Hopkins shoot all the 3's he wants. I am strangely hopeful and optimistic for this one...
Interesting data points, analysis and thoughts. Some observations and questions:
The Oswin/Jones 1-2 punch on Defense - interesting to see how much separations there regarding the metrics and everyone else.
The Sellers thing on Defense continues to befuddle me. I just don't see it in games but it must be happening.
Zone defense: just wonder if can jive with what he is trying to do schematically trying to get into transition on offense and creating shot value asymmetries. Can he mix the two? I did notice some use of it lately....curious to see if he can graft the two concepts together in a productive way.
Amen on at least taking at look at Pinnis. Hargrove is terrible. Simply awful and I feel bad saying it because I have two kids playing in college about his age and I don't want people talking about my kid that way. I don't know what's going on here...but it's disastrous. He gets pushed around, fouls every 10 seconds and has zero offensive game. Curious if the BE game is just moving too fast for him and he should have stayed at Drexel, or if there's a crisis of confidence for some other reason? I saw him check into a game earlier this year when Oswin had yet again committed two stupid fouls early and English made a particular type of eye contact with him with a particular type of "come on, lets see you do what I see in practice in game time!" vibe that made me really worried for the entirety of the season. It was a look and a vibe I know all too well as a player and a coach....that particular ship isn't likely to turn around. I wonder why? What's the fall off from what you saw in practices to now?
I noticed the same thing about the Seton Hall game; it seems like something might have been figured out--you are putting some data to a feeling that I thought I was picking up on. Momentum is built of moments, it's been said, so perhaps that game was a moment that can be built on.
The Friars are entertaining to watch this year, and even though I have downgraded my outlook on them as an 16-17 win NIT team to a 13-14 win or so non-NIT type team...I am really, really curious if they can crack a code or two and reset their trajectory. I wonder if there's actually enough talent here to build a team that could make a miracle BE tourney run. That may be the Stockholm syndrome talking though.
I think confidence gets overlooked a lot when breaking down players we haven't seen prior to playing for the Friars. Hargrove looked tough when I saw him in practice (and on tape) and I'm sure the staff is continually hoping it will click for him at some point. Even simple finishes -- much easier finishes than he had at Drexel -- seem to be an adventure.