|
Post by HC92 on Jan 17, 2018 22:44:26 GMT -5
I know we’ve had this discussion before but can it possibly be the right strategy to have all five guys immediately retreat to the other end of the floor as soon as we put up a jump shot? It is so frustrating, particularly when a long rebound almost hits a retreating Crusader as he’s trying to get back down the court against Kentucky . . . uh, I mean Army.
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Jan 17, 2018 22:53:32 GMT -5
Extremely frustrated and I vented on this earlier during the game. This is right up there with sacrifice bunting in baseball on my list of HC athletics things I’d like to change
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 17, 2018 22:57:10 GMT -5
Army’s fast-break points by game in PL play prior to tonight: 2,4,4,5,0,5. What are we afraid of?
|
|
|
Post by hchoops on Jan 17, 2018 23:01:36 GMT -5
The strategy, like it or not, is not merely to prevent fast breaks, but to dissuade early offense and possible numerical advantages. We try to set up our zones before the offense can beat them up the court, which many teams try to do. Other teams do this, most famously, Virginia. Wisconsin under Bo Ryan did it also.
|
|
|
Post by HC92 on Jan 17, 2018 23:07:46 GMT -5
I’d rather have the extra possessions. Our half court defense isn’t exactly locking people down even when we have it completely set up as the other team is collecting its 30th uncontested defensive rebound of the game. And it’s not like we have a bunch of big, slow guys out there who take forever to get back down the floor. It might make sense in the ACC or the B1G depending on your personnel. Don’t think it make sense in the PL.
|
|
|
Post by sader1998 on Jan 18, 2018 8:31:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by WorcesterGray on Jan 18, 2018 8:39:55 GMT -5
Doesn't seem to be a tactical choice based solely on defensive strategy. There's a pretty strong correlation between the P.O. and a disinclination to rebound at the offensive end. Teams ranked 300+ in OR%, include:
16-17. Princeton, Richmond, American, Holy Cross 15-16. N. Dakota, Richmond, American, Holy Cross, Denver 14-15. N. Dakota, Richmond, American, Denver, Princeton 13-14. Princeton, Richmond, Denver, American (295th)
Virtually all of Carmody's (and Scott's) teams prior to that were also 300+. Don't hold your breath waiting for anything to change.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 18, 2018 8:46:02 GMT -5
We're not very good at defensive rebounding, why would we want to try for offensive rebounds? Butler hangs back once in a while for an offensive rebound attempt.
|
|
|
Post by bringbackcaro on Jan 18, 2018 8:56:20 GMT -5
It’s a lazy strategy.
Did we ever have trouble “setting up” the defense when we had one of the top offensive rebounding teams in the country with RW?
With a coaching philosophy to shorten games and limit the number of possessions, wasting the opportunity to earn extra possessions on ~20 occassions per night doesn’t make any sense.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 18, 2018 9:35:32 GMT -5
My unscientific observation is that he goes for the O-boards more than just once in a while. I wonder and assume he has "permission" to do so from Carmody or he'd be yanked. Maybe CWC thinks he's too slow to get back on defense to help anyway and has nothing to lose.
It does bother me that we are conceding this aspect of the game. A few years back, Army was even more egregious in that when they took foul shots they'd have all their players back and not one, except the free throw shooter, was on the offensive side of the court.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 18, 2018 9:57:45 GMT -5
That was one of the things (not the only one) that may have cost their coach his job. It drove Army fans crazy.
|
|
|
Post by lou on Jan 18, 2018 10:04:26 GMT -5
That was one of the things (not the only one) that may have cost their coach his job. It drove Army fans crazy. Don't think he was fired if that's what you mean, he's the Drexel coach now
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Jan 18, 2018 10:08:48 GMT -5
He was "encouraged" to move on and - at the time - I got the feeling he was glad to do so.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 18, 2018 12:35:18 GMT -5
He was "encouraged" to move on and - at the time - I got the feeling he was glad to do so. Curious about the source for that. I had not heard anything like that. He was much more successful than Jim Crews. Perhaps their most successful coach since Coach K. Had interest from several higher-level schools, including Drexel who gave him a large raise. Spiker left Army in pretty good shape. All five current starters were recruited by him. One interesting thing about Drexel's pursuit of Spiker is that they asked Army to waive the buyout provision in Spiker's contract. Army refused and for a while Drexel looked at other candidates. If Army wanted him gone, all they had to do to facilitate it was to waive the buyout.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Jan 18, 2018 15:44:59 GMT -5
Believe the Army coach referenced by sader1970 above was Crews and may be the one "asked to move on." Though IIRC it was characterized as a firing, occurred in mid-September and there was some reports of abuse of a player. Spiker, who succeeded Crews is now the Drexel coach and was fairly successful at Army.
|
|
|
Post by bison137 on Jan 18, 2018 16:19:21 GMT -5
Believe the Army coach referenced by sader1970 above was Crews and may be the one "asked to move on." Though IIRC it was characterized as a firing, occurred in mid-September and there was some reports of abuse of a player. Spiker, who succeeded Crews is now the Drexel coach and was fairly successful at Army. Oh, it was confusing with the reference to the coach in question getting the Drexel job. You are correct that Crews was fired, not just encouraged to move on. And there was abuse of one or more players according to very reliable sources. He went on to fail miserably at St. Louis, after getting the HC job after Majerus had to step down for health reasons.
|
|
|
Post by sader1970 on Jan 18, 2018 17:32:35 GMT -5
So, Crews' total abandonment of offensive rebounds and a little thing like abusing his players resulted in his firing?
|
|
|
Post by DiMarz on Jan 18, 2018 18:41:02 GMT -5
I think it is the new wave in basketball..shoot the three and make it....I see it in college hoops and the NBA..The Celtics do the same thing and with much success..I think it is part of the philosophy to take fewer shots and score more points....by shooting a higher percentage...I don't think the staff is going to change up now, but we did see HC push the ball last night and put up shots much quicker than any other game..Coach alluded to that in his post game comments...I did enjoy hearing the staff encourage the players on the floor to "run" with the ball..Perhaps we will see more of this since there was success in the first half! Teams today are more likely built with 4 out and 1 in as compared to teams in the past that were built with 2 guards, 2 forwards and a center, 3 inside players and 2 outside....
|
|