|
Post by Crucis#1 on Dec 31, 2017 11:00:26 GMT -5
It’s time for the offensive strategy to be re-evaluated, and changed to maximize the abilities of the current team.
Has anyone seen the Princeton offense being run at the high school or prep school level recently? If so, has those teams been successful, and sent players to D1 programs?
In it’s heyday the PO was beautiful to watch in execution, however like the weave and the set shot, it’s time as an offensive game plan may no longer be relevant to creating a sustained winning program. American looses to Bucknell by 31 points this past Friday. Maybe it is time for both Carmody and Brennan to move to a new game plan.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Dec 31, 2017 11:03:21 GMT -5
@freddieowens You don’t guard, you don’t win. 8:05 PM · Dec 30, 2017 Maybe he could add another one - "you don't rebound, you don't win." There are only seven D1 teams that rebound more poorly at the defensive end than Holy Cross- records in parens. Savannah State (3-11) Maryland-ES (3-11) Alcorn St. (4-9) Incarnate Word (5-7) Citadel (5-8) Arkansas Pine Bluff (0-14) N. Florida (5-11) Combined W-L, 25-71 Sometimes, alas, you are the company you keep.
|
|
|
Colgate
Dec 31, 2017 11:13:26 GMT -5
Post by HCFC45 on Dec 31, 2017 11:13:26 GMT -5
To me, it's pretty simple... We won against SH, Harvard and UNH. Why? They played us man-to-man for the most part. Look at the Harvard game in particular, straight man-to-man the whole game. SH and Harvard games showed our best ball movement, especially the Harvard game! In my opinion, Harvard would have won had Tommy A gone zone!
Opponents have adapted and played little to no man-to-man against us and though we may have adapted to those changes in defense,either we are not executing our offense well enough to win or we need to make further changes to put ourselves in a better position to win!
|
|
|
Post by Crucis#1 on Dec 31, 2017 11:28:46 GMT -5
To me, it's pretty simple... We won against SH, Harvard and UNH. Why? They played us man-to-man for the most part. Look at the Harvard game in particular, straight man-to-man the whole game. SH and Harvard games showed our best ball movement, especially the Harvard game! In my opinion, Harvard would have won had Tommy A gone zone! Opponents have adapted and played little to no man-to-man against us and though we may have adapted to those changes in defense,either we are not executing our offense well enough to win or we need to make further changes to put ourselves in a better position to win! Exactly! Too my point, you cannot successfully execute the PO against a zone defense. It is designed to be run against a man to man, where you can shake loose your defender for an open shot. What we are seeing is a one and done shot possession from the outside with very little of an inside presence offensively with the exception of JF on his spin moves, which are a pleasure to watch. I don’t believe those moves are part of the PO playbook.
|
|
|
Post by Non Alum Dave on Dec 31, 2017 12:03:50 GMT -5
I wasn't necessarily thinking about just this years HC team, but in general. Pete Carill's teams had much more time to put other team's defenses to sleep. I also wonder/worry if having 2 teams running basically the same thing in the same league makes it that much easier for the other 8 teams to prepare.
|
|
|
Colgate
Dec 31, 2017 14:39:19 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Xmassader on Dec 31, 2017 14:39:19 GMT -5
HCFC45. Couldn’t agree more. Although Harvard was favored going into the game, I told several posters that HC would have a pretty good shot at winning because I knew that TA would play the heavy denial Bobby Knight/Mike Krzyzewski MTM defense the whole game without any adjustments—-a defense against which the PO works most effectively. TA came thru as predicted and HC and CBC won their 4th in a row vs. the Crimson. Subsequent opponents (as they should) have pressured the ball and played more zone...and the results have been predictable—only 63.5 ppg, 2-4 shot clock violations per game and numerous forced 3 pointers at the end of the shot clock.
Having said that, the greater (to far greater) concerns, as several other posters have noted, are the defense and rebounding. .IIRC, Princeton under CBC played mostly MTM defense and played it effectively—despite not being the most athletically gifted team, particularly against non-league opponents. Perhaps, CBC can utilize the MTM more going forward in the PL along with the matchup and in place of the 1-3-1. Prospective advantages would be better box outs/defensive rebounding, fewer wide open opposition 3s, comparable defensive skills in teaching the matchup and MTM and decrease of use of a defense not ideally suited to available personnel (e.g., not having an EG-like player with the quickness and length to effectively play the bottom of the 1-3-1). Of course, there are prospective disadvantages as well—-getting beat off the dribble more, increased foul trouble, etc. which is why we may want to keep the matchup as the primary defense and use MTM (and to a lesser extent) the 1-3-1 as change-ups. In any case, at 3-9, we may have very little to lose and may pick up valuable experience playing the MTM when we need it later this yr. and in subsequent yrs.
|
|
|
Colgate
Dec 31, 2017 14:48:34 GMT -5
Post by hchoops on Dec 31, 2017 14:48:34 GMT -5
Vs Colgate after many of our scores we showed a full 1-3-1 press, unseen previously. We usually then dropped back to a matchup. We played very little to no 1-3-1 half court. Colgate played mostly man D.
|
|