|
Post by joe on Jan 3, 2018 8:42:12 GMT -5
Announcers even commented that when the PO does not have a 5 who could at least threaten to shoot (to draw out the defenses), there's a problem. When JF gets the ball at the top of the key, the defense drops back and fans out, clogging passing lanes, etc., and the offense stalls. Husek was a good PO 5, as when he had a hot hand it created problems for the opponent by drawing them out. JF is a power forward, not a center.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Jan 3, 2018 9:40:07 GMT -5
Well, not that he's a candidate in any way, but I'd take the guy who's shown you can take Carril's offense at the college level and speed it up (Mitch Henderson) and not someone who seems committed to playing games in the 50s. After playing two seasons (2014-16) at a relatively quick pace, Princeton has slowed it down the past two years. Their adjusted tempo ranks 329th this season. Princeton has never been a good offensive rebounding team under Henderson, but they're very good on the defensive glass.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2018 10:55:56 GMT -5
Announcers even commented that when the PO does not have a 5 who could at least threaten to shoot (to draw out the defenses), there's a problem. When JF gets the ball at the top of the key, the defense drops back and fans out, clogging passing lanes, etc., and the offense stalls. Husek was a good PO 5, as when he had a hot hand it created problems for the opponent by drawing them out. JF is a power forward, not a center. JF cannot score facing the hoop as a 5, as you stated, so as a 4, that would be more of a problem. He can score as a back to hoop 5, which is where he usually either starts or winds up in the offense
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jan 3, 2018 11:49:31 GMT -5
Announcers even commented that when the PO does not have a 5 who could at least threaten to shoot (to draw out the defenses), there's a problem. When JF gets the ball at the top of the key, the defense drops back and fans out, clogging passing lanes, etc., and the offense stalls. Husek was a good PO 5, as when he had a hot hand it created problems for the opponent by drawing them out. JF is a power forward, not a center. JF cannot score facing the hoop as a 5, as you stated, so as a 4, that would be more of a problem. He can score as a back to hoop 5, which is where he usually either starts or winds up in the offense
Kind of a no win situation it seems, although I think he can score on short range jumpers. When he gets it down low it seems he'll either make a nice strong move right from the get-go, or immediately pass it back out without even giving the defense a chance to consider the possibility of him making a move. Seems a lot of the seasoned big guys will often start to make a move, or even just hesitate for a second, maybe take a drop step or make a ball/head fake, to draw in the defense toward the paint slightly and open it up some for the shooters before they kick the ball back out to the perimeter. Requires good peripheral vision and a clear sense of where everyone is on the court at all times. 5 is a hard position to play well in the PO, from what I know, and what others have said on this board. My amateur opinion is that JF would thrive even more if he could play alongside and complement a true 6'10 or 6'11" center. Still an exciting player to watch develop.
Also maybe we should pick a PG and stick with him.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Jan 3, 2018 12:28:24 GMT -5
I did not get a chance to watch this game and certainly have no interest in doing so now. I studied the box score and was horrified and have glanced through the comments on this thread and some others. Thoughts
1. As to the comments that Carmody does not seem engaged based upon his comments to the press and on video, I say that is nonsense. This is exactly the guy we hired. I remember the presser when he was introduced. He was not a rah rah guy then and made no promises. I still see that. He is also at a point in his career where he is not going to sugarcoat things for the AD, the alumni, or the fans at large. He will do the job his way until he is fired.
2. Carmody hasn't asked me, but I agree with others who have written that it is time to give PB a couple of games where he knows he gets to run the show without fear of being pulled.
3. I am quite confident that a player's parent has posted on the basketball thread. If I am right, DON'T DO THAT. It can never end well.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2018 13:09:52 GMT -5
JF cannot score facing the hoop as a 5, as you stated, so as a 4, that would be more of a problem. He can score as a back to hoop 5, which is where he usually either starts or winds up in the offense
Kind of a no win situation it seems, although I think he can score on short range jumpers. When he gets it down low it seems he'll either make a nice strong move right from the get-go, or immediately pass it back out without even giving the defense a chance to consider the possibility of him making a move. Seems a lot of the seasoned big guys will often start to make a move, or even just hesitate for a second, maybe take a drop step or make a ball/head fake, to draw in the defense toward the paint slightly and open it up some for the shooters before they kick the ball back out to the perimeter. Requires good peripheral vision and a clear sense of where everyone is on the court at all times. 5 is a hard position to play well in the PO, from what I know, and what others have said on this board. My amateur opinion is that JF would thrive even more if he could play alongside and complement a true 6'10 or 6'11" center. Still an exciting player to watch develop.
Also maybe we should pick a PG and stick with him. CG has been the point guard since game one he is replaced by PB when he is in foul trouble or is rested
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jan 3, 2018 13:22:09 GMT -5
Kind of a no win situation it seems, although I think he can score on short range jumpers. When he gets it down low it seems he'll either make a nice strong move right from the get-go, or immediately pass it back out without even giving the defense a chance to consider the possibility of him making a move. Seems a lot of the seasoned big guys will often start to make a move, or even just hesitate for a second, maybe take a drop step or make a ball/head fake, to draw in the defense toward the paint slightly and open it up some for the shooters before they kick the ball back out to the perimeter. Requires good peripheral vision and a clear sense of where everyone is on the court at all times. 5 is a hard position to play well in the PO, from what I know, and what others have said on this board. My amateur opinion is that JF would thrive even more if he could play alongside and complement a true 6'10 or 6'11" center. Still an exciting player to watch develop.
Also maybe we should pick a PG and stick with him. CG has been the point guard since game one he is replaced by PB when he is in foul trouble or is rested Did I not see both PB and CG playing at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 3, 2018 13:23:55 GMT -5
The last time Benzan started was the UMass game - thought it was Carmody coming to the conclusion that he needed more size in the back-court.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2018 13:42:52 GMT -5
CG has been the point guard since game one he is replaced by PB when he is in foul trouble or is rested Did I not see both PB and CG playing at the same time? When they are in together, rarely lately as WG points out, PB is almost always at the 2 guard
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 3, 2018 13:54:43 GMT -5
CG played thirty minutes last night and PB twenty, so they were on court together for about ten. 1. With 12:30 left in first half, PB joined CG, and they were together for two minutes until CG picked up his second foul - then PB finished the half at point. 2. With about 14 1/2 to go in 2nd half, PB joined CG for about five minutes, then exited. 3. PB came back in to join CG for most of the final three minutes. See pbp www.goleopards.com/sports/m-baskbl/stats/2017-2018/lcgame13.html#GAME.PLY
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jan 3, 2018 15:36:22 GMT -5
Thought so. And last year PB and AT also played at the same time, on occasion, I believe. Seems odd to have two "true" point guards playing at the same time. And why is PB no longer the starter? I understand CG is good, but so is/was PB in that role. He seemed to come into the season well-prepared, aggressive, confident, ready to take on a leadership role (granted I'm not in the locker room) and did great in the first few games (as far as I can tell). Only belaboring this as it might pertain to how losing playing time for no good reason might impact collective team psyche. In laymen's terms, it creates a "Why should I bother" attitude.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 3, 2018 16:25:34 GMT -5
Last season the primary backcourt was AT at the 1, PB at the 2. Imo CG is more of a point, PB more of a combo 1-2
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 3, 2018 16:56:48 GMT -5
Fwiw, Benzan's offensive performance through UMass (8 g) and since (5 g). Minutes per game, other stats per 40 minutes.
First 8 G. 32.5m. 8.9fga, 11.8p (50%), 4.6r, 2.8a, 1.8t Last 5 G. 21.4m. 10.1fga, 10.1p (37%), 4.9r, 3.7a, 2.6t
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 3, 2018 19:51:53 GMT -5
All of kids are pressing, rotations arent always easy to understand, competition for minutes impacts all of them, and fear of failure or being pulled is impacting freshmen. If this continues through January, I fear this will lead to bad habits, frustration and some departures. I don’t believe we can afford to lose ANY freshmen and perhaps if some were playing in a different system with upperclass leadership they would be having great years.
This is a difficult system for coaches to recruit, especially the way the game is played today. We hired a terrific basketball coach for this style of play, but they believe in a system and that is what they will play. For those of us that are older and don’t mind the style because it requires using basic basketball fundamentals and execution, we all want different results.
Unfortunately today few HS coaches teach and most just let the kids play. So when you watch HS or AAU games it is not as easy to find kids that can play a princeton type system.
If we always have a roster with experienced juniors and seniors you can make a mistake in each class, or occasionally two,and still be fine. Today that is not the case and the staff has very few options as long as they continue this style of play. A year from now, with some divine intervention and much patience, as fans we might embrace the system and declare the brilliance of the coaches. Or we can be looking at a similar result, but only time will tell.
From the posts on this board we would all coach the team differently and have a set of very valid opinions and suggestions. My bet is there are a handful of posters that have coached, played or could coach at this level.
After two conference games, and my selections have me in last place, I am not sure my comments mean much but here you go
CG played free and easy until opponents watched film, PB is uncertain about his role,(means your PGs struggle and that hurts any offense—we don’t have a true 1, we have 3 who are 1 1/2 -last pure pg we had was my good friend Glenn Williams) , JF as others mentioned is your throw back 4 asked to play the 5 in a Princeton offense, KC might be hurt but needs established scorers around him to be effective-way too much pressure on him for where he is as a player, MZ stabilizes the play but would be better if he attacked the rim and took them out of the offense, CN has all the potential if they can get him to relax and let the game come to him, AB is a tough kid that should play the 3/4 in this offense and create match up issues for the opponent-he is tough enough to play that role in the PL, MF should be a great 5 in this offense if you move JF to the 4, JG has really nice upside and is both long and athletic, Copeland should be given time on the wing to show what he has because he can and has shot the ball well -my guess is this style is not what he needs to be productive and struggles in practice. I know nothing about the others to comment.
My lineup a bit slower but fits this style/system 5 MF 4 JF 3 AB 2 CN 1 PB
Some might even suggest I know nothing about the game .....
|
|
|
Post by ncaam on Jan 3, 2018 19:55:34 GMT -5
Any change would have to be an improvement. How about 5 minutes of man to man when shots are falling. How about 5 minutes for Stevens and Copeland. I'm no CBC but it couldn't hurt.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 3, 2018 20:08:00 GMT -5
Or occassionally going 3/4 Court 2-2-1 after a made basket—rotations and traps are easy and rarely get exposed on the back end and actually could create a turnover or two and in tight contests that can be the difference
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 3, 2018 20:09:25 GMT -5
That said coaches coach, players play, parents parent, and alums and fans just want wins!
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 4, 2018 8:20:14 GMT -5
Question from a dinosaur...has the old box and one completely disappeared? If it has...what was its weakness? I can remember seeing a good (quick) defender playing m2m on a hot shooter while the team played a 2-2 zone. It is not something done for long stretches, but it did help to control some hot hands back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 4, 2018 10:06:20 GMT -5
Question from a dinosaur...has the old box and one completely disappeared? If it has...what was its weakness? I can remember seeing a good (quick) defender playing m2m on a hot shooter while the team played a 2-2 zone. It is not something done for long stretches, but it did help to control some hot hands back in the day. Personally a favorite, not just for its effectiveness with the right shut-down "and one" defender, but for the attitude it shows the other team. With the right, hard-nosed defender, you're saying "enough is enough" and asserting to counter the opponent's strength. Even for a period of time, and this speaks to HC70's point earlier... even brief periods of changes or adjustments can throw the opponent off or out of their rhythm. It's clear that CBC wants to stick with something consistently, maybe given the young roster. However, some flexibility, even at reduced effectiveness, will force opponents out of their groove for a brief period of time. Keeping our players on their toes too may hopefully get them out of their own heads (some of the posters here have noticed hesitancy, or being gun-shy... I haven't seen any games in person this season, so I respect that viewpoint, and it is apparent to see if it's happening). More playing and less thinking can beat some of those jitters.
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 4, 2018 10:35:24 GMT -5
Not a fan of box-and-one, and not the cure for what is causing the problem on the perimeter, imho. We seem to always be aggressively over-extending/swarming to the ball side in general, and the ball in particular, trying to cause turnovers. Opponents have been consistently successful in finding wide-open teammates at the arc by reversing hard to the weak side and into gaps (especially the corners), much more quickly than we can rotate to cover. Staying at home more defensively to shrink the size of these holes would help.
Giving shooters lots of time to catch, set and shoot is a recipe for disasters like the one at Lafayette. Particularly infuriating that we got torched by a guy who releases his shot from his mid-section, a shot that he could not get off with reasonable defensive pressure. Worth mentioning again what happened when Petrie tried to go baseline and jump-shoot as Matt Faw (not our best defender) closed. Faw did not have to leave his feet or even extend vertically - he reached down and took the ball out of Petrie's hand as he released.
Happily admit I'm not the sharpest observer. Maybe it's my lying eyes, and I'm not understanding what we are trying to do, or failing to do properly - I defer to hoops, bbc, and others who can explain otherwise what's happening here. But there's a very good reason why team after team is shooting an unusually high rate of threes against us and reaping the rewards for doing so.
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 4, 2018 10:35:50 GMT -5
Last night Ok state tried a junk defense, inc box and 1 on super frosh Trae Young. They “limited” him to 27, 11 assists and 9 rebounds, while his teammates got constant open looks for 3s. Result was a 20 point defeat. I had not seen the box and 1 in years in college. It is a desperate D. High schools try it more frequently. (As an aside, our HC freshman team in 63-64 had Tom Greeley average 28 ppg while no one else averaged more than 6-7. He faced constant boxes and 1. My job in practice was to play the 1. I did as bad a job as our opponents.) Young could be the next Steph Curry.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 4, 2018 10:57:49 GMT -5
No basketball expert but hopefully our schollie athletes are a little quicker/better than you in your prime, hoops (no disrespect intended) and we need to try something different because I think we are in pretty universal agreement that what we are doing now is doing nothing to stop open 3s that are just killing us. What's the old expression? "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of . . . . . "
Unfortunately, agree that Carmody is likely to just do what he's been doing for the last 2.5 years.
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Jan 4, 2018 11:27:17 GMT -5
Good points above following mine. IMHO box and one not deployed as a long-term strategy, but a temporary one to throw off the other team. The base four would not overextend too far, playing close to a zone/man across the key. The and one defender would deny that Lafayette clown from touching the ball. He wouldn't have the chance to shoot since he wouldn't touch the ball in the half court.
Correct it is more of a chancy D, or at least has some holes that can be exploited, but using that kid Young as an example of why it shouldn't be run isn't the best case. You said himself they're calling him the next Stef Curry, who was an NBA MVP. A player with that potential is going to make any college scheme look bad.
I hate the 1-3-1, and i hated it when Willard ran it for some sets when he was here. Particularly putting a 1 or a 2 at the base of the 1-3-1 (we've argued for and against here over the last few months and years when it comes up...) to have baseline speed sacrifices some rebounding chops-- a deficit of HC's in these losses they cannot afford to further weaken.
Throw out the 2-3 matchup if you want to play any zone, and if they're lighting it up on the perimeter, play man to man like 90% of the rest of D1 colleges can do. If we're that much slower year after year, how are we doing targeting top tier high school players?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 4, 2018 12:05:11 GMT -5
I did not use the Young situation as an example of why it should not be run. The fact that I have seen no college run it in decades is an Indication that it does not work. Many open shots in the lane.
|
|
|
Post by efg72 on Jan 4, 2018 12:38:25 GMT -5
if you feel compelled to use a junk defense in an effort to slow down a shooter perhaps the more effective option is a 1-3 or 1-1-2- chaser - exposes you to other perimeter shooters but closes down the lane while covering the top of the key and elbow--you just need to change up after a few possessions and go back to it if and when it is needed
|
|