• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

DEFENSE

WFU Lurker said:
All three of Dino's teams were solid to good on defense.
Click to expand...

Because they had elite talent/athleticism.

We have some very good offensive talent but otherwise a lot of undersized or under-athletic players. No amount of coaching can overcome that. Good teams exploit that weakness.
 
BacktoBack said:
Because they had elite talent/athleticism.

We have some very good offensive talent but otherwise a lot of undersized or under-athletic players. No amount of coaching can overcome that. Good teams exploit that weakness.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I forgot that Dino gets zero credit for anything. My bad.
 
BacktoBack said:
Because they had elite talent/athleticism.

We have some very good offensive talent but otherwise a lot of undersized or under-athletic players. No amount of coaching can overcome that. Good teams exploit that weakness.
Click to expand...

That's not correct. While it's true we didn't have the ideal personnel to play great defense, we had enough to play decent defense. Too many times we are simply out of position and look lost. That's not due to not having great defensive talent, that's due to coaching and lack of effort on that end of the floor.
 
WFU Lurker said:
Sorry, I forgot that Dino gets zero credit for anything. My bad.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm not a Dino hater. But would you deny he had excellent talent? Far better than this team? I'm a fan of the packline.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
Let's say we would've won last night and even beat Cinncy Friday night, imagine how many points we'd have given up against UCLA, 120 would've been possible.
Click to expand...

I expect Cincy to take KSU apart defensively. There is a reason why they are 29-5.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
That's not correct. While it's true we didn't have the ideal personnel to play great defense, we had enough to play decent defense. Too many times we are simply out of position and look lost. That's not due to not having great defensive talent, that's due to coaching and lack of effort on that end of the floor.
Click to expand...

The way we score the ball we just need average defense to win a lot of games. the combo of lead feet arians and dinos combined with undersized wings and a big man who shows no interest in playing defense creates the mess we watched last night. Good teams will exploit that.

Do you honestly think this collection of players can be good defensively?
 
Bubble Boy said:
I dare say a major part of the reason we are so bad on defense is because we really have one single guy that plays more than 10 minutes game and is over 6'3" with decent athleticism. And he seems to be scared to death to challenge on defense in order to keep from getting into foul trouble.
Click to expand...

Indeed. JC has yet to play on a team with any semblance of consistency on help defense and even when there is weak side rotation, it's usually late and the player rotating is undersized and limited. Tough to gauge just where John is in his defensive development when the pressure to remain on the floor was so great. Not like we won a ton of games in which he didn't play 24 mins or more. Think he can learn the defensive principles to round out his game at the next level despite what Gottleib says.
 
BacktoBack said:
Oh I'm not a Dino hater. But would you deny he had excellent talent? Far better than this team? I'm a fan of the packline.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a clear cut case that Dino had far more talent over all three years. Certainly in year 2, but much more mixed in year 1 and 3. At least if you're talking about overall talent vs just defensive talent.

Overall talent (raw talent + experience):
-Dino year 1: Slightly worse than Manning year 3. Maybe a touch more raw talent, but not as much experience (Ish a soph, Teague and Johnson freshmen, and not much else).
-Dino year 2: Obviously more talent than Manning year 3.
-Dino year 3: Slightly better than Manning year 3. Similar talent, but more experience.

Defensive talent:
-Dino year 1: I don't think this team had just a ton more defensive talent than Manning year 3. If it did it was more in terms of not having very many big drains on defense, vs having real plus players.
-Dino year 2, 3: No argument that these teams had far more defensive talent.
 
PTownDeac said:
That's why you work on it until it gets better. If you're over matched athletically you have to use a zone defense.
Click to expand...

But that's a short sighted view. if you want your players to learn man then you teach them that. A half ass zone isn't worth spending the time and energy on. The best use of time now and going forward is being a good man-man team defensively
 
BacktoBack said:
But that's a short sighted view. if you want your players to learn man then you teach them that. A half ass zone isn't worth spending the time and energy on. The best use of time now and going forward is being a good man-man team defensively
Click to expand...

The present is not irrelevant.
 
I think winning in the present does more to build the program than anything.
 
What was most telling is after halftime, and certainly talking about it for 15 minutes, we come out and immediately give up a wide open layup off a set offense. Giving KS different looks on defense can't hurt. They ran the weave out front just like Louisville did and VT did. I was at the Louisville game and we handled it real well for the entire second half and half of the first half. Are you telling me that KS has better players than Louisville? They absolutely torched us on any minor lane penetration for a layup or a dunk. 3 point shooting is not their game but, of course, the rims absolutely gave them two 3's in the second half (and gave us one). Make them shoot from outside! 14-17 in the paint in the first half is beyond abysmal. It's just unbelievable. We had 3 field goals after 14 minutes and finished with 9 turnovers and 8 field goals in the first half. It was a miracle we were only down 4.
 
We lack size and athleticism at the 2/3 that gave us no chance to be a good defensive team. But we could have done better. JC is an amazing player, but he got straight bullied by LeDay and Johnson. He was not a great defender this season but he really struggled last 2 games.

How many 14/15/16 seeds this week will give up buckets like we did? They are certainly more limited than we are.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
That's not correct. While it's true we didn't have the ideal personnel to play great defense, we had enough to play decent defense. Too many times we are simply out of position and look lost. That's not due to not having great defensive talent, that's due to coaching and lack of effort on that end of the floor.
Click to expand...

Isn't it safe to say that there were multiple issues that led to such poor defense? Give Bob Huggins a few months with our roster, and I have no doubt that our defense would have been better (but still not great). Add a couple of decent athletes in the 6'5" to 6'8" range, and I have no doubt that our defense would have been better (but still not great). Hopefully Manning will have more athletic rosters going forward. And hopefully this coaching staff will improve their defensive acumen going forward.
 
WFU Lurker said:
The present is not irrelevant.
Click to expand...

This is the equivalent of when Grobe tried to run the triple option or whatever that crap was to start a season. You install your system and teach it. The hope is by the time players are upperclassmen they have mastered it.
 
BacktoBack said:
This is the equivalent of when Grobe tried to run the triple option or whatever that crap was to start a season. You install your system and teach it. The hope is by the time players are upperclassmen they have mastered it.
Click to expand...

The opposite really. It only made sense to install the triple option in 2013 as a move to build for the future. The system did not fit our present at all because we had a senior QB who was awful at running it.

And, really, the triple option was just sheer stupidity.
 
FWIW, I am not an advocate of going all in on a zone as the base defense. But, it would have been very helpful to have a serviceable zone to throw at teams situationally (foul trouble, specific match-up, etc).

Good teams can do that.

More than anything, I am tired of sacrificing the present for the future. Truth is, if we had been marginally better at defense in the present we would have had a bunch more wins this season, probably would have been ranked for at least a couple of weeks, and would have made at least the second round of the tournament.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top