• 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!

Post game thoughts (Rutgers)

DCDeac said:
I really don't understand why we switch so much on defense. Manning still seems like a coach who will just hammer away at a square peg in a round hole. In Wilbekin we have a player who has to be on the floor for his shooting but creates a horrible matchup defensively with anyone who can shoot over him. He looks fine on defense staying in front of guys, but if someone has a stepback jumper or can just shoot over him he looks terrible. But we run a defense on the perimeter where we switch everything and guarantee offenses can get the matchups they want? Not even screens - we switch on just basic rotations. It still looks like Manning's ideal team has 10 interchangeable guys with loosely defined roles and he can just run whatever combo he wants at an opponent, but that also means every player has to know the scouting report on every opponent.

Maybe it'd make more sense if a team is lights out from 3 and getting caught up in a pick meant 3 points, but Rutgers can't shoot at all. We could have dropped under screens all night. Instead we just lost guys on dives to the basket in the 8th switch of a possession, or they waited for the inevitable mismatch and took advantage.

Luckily Rutgers is terrible and we stole the win, but we can't let good teams dictate matchups and expect to beat them. At least not until we have a Crawford/Codi/Crab/Collins/Devin lineup on the floor.
Click to expand...

Really? We must have been watching different games.
 
simosfrostyone said:
Really? We must have been watching different games.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying he doesn't get beaten occasionally - everyone does - I just mean overall he's pretty quick laterally and usually can stay in front of an opposing small guard. He's just extremely vertically challenged.
 
DCDeac said:
I'm not saying he doesn't get beaten occasionally - everyone does - I just mean overall he's pretty quick laterally and usually can stay in front of an opposing small guard. He's just extremely vertically challenged.
Click to expand...

Well, I think he is challenged vertically and laterally. Not sure about horizontally.
 
Collins and Crawford have been the most pleasant surprises for me thus far. McClinton and Dinos have been the greatest disappointments, esp. McClinton. Dinos had one fabulous half and some decent scoring games; but his defense and passing have not demonstrated substantial improvement over last season.

But, we're only 7 games into the season.
 
The only improvement in Dinos's game has been inside. He looks like he's trying to add a post game. His footwork and inside presence are not good, but he's better driving to the basket than last year and seems to be able to finish decently if he goes up strong. He's never going to be a back to the basket guy, but if he can add some high-low stuff, that'd be great.

His defense is a massive liability though. He is too slow to defend stretch 4s and lacks the skill and strength to defend at the 5.
 
its amusing to me that this board has such wildly fluctuating opinions on who can play defense and who can't. I think most of us are basketball savvy enough to see who is good at offense, but we seem to have no idea about who can play defense. Except Dinos, we all know he can't play D :)
 
Buttermaker said:
Of course they are and do. But they are taught absolutely nothing as they come up, apparently, on defensive fundamentals. That surprises, no, amazes me.
Click to expand...

respectfully, you must not follow basketball at all
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I hope they were just jet lagged or something last night. I don't know what percentage Rutgers ended up shooting in the 2nd half, they cooled off a lot down the stretch, but for at least 10-12 minutes they had to be shooting 70 percent or so and I don't hardly think Rutgers is capable of doing that against air.
Click to expand...

Yeah somewhere into their second half run, a stat popped up showing they were shooting 73%.
 
Numbers don't lie! Top three +/- are:
John Collins +16
TVH +11
Rondale +5
 
The best lineup by far was the obvious one at +11. No other lineup was better than +3.
Bryant Crawford - Cornelius Hudson - Devin Thomas - John Collins - Mitchell Wilbekin

These two lineups were -6 and -8.
Bryant Crawford - Cornelius Hudson - Devin Thomas - Konstantinos Mitoglou - Mitchell Wilbekin
Bryant Crawford - Devin Thomas - Greg McClinton - Konstantinos Mitoglou - Mitchell Wilbekin
 
Moore looks to be more of a project than we thought
 
WFUtoUSC said:
Moore looks to be more of a project than we thought
Click to expand...

I think he's got some skills though, definitely got some potential and not another 7 footer that can't walk and chew gum at the same time. DM has a chance to prove with Moore how good he is able to develop big men since most assume that should be his strength.
 
DeacsATS said:
Oh, and we are officially #1 in Kenpom... for Luck.

"Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky)."
Click to expand...

RedSoxFaithful said:
somewhere rj's head is exploding, over and over again, like it's stuck in a gif loop
Click to expand...

Don't interpret this as defending rj, but I just hate that it's called luck. I appreciate KP quantifying this, but the ability/inability to win despite (or in spite of) your efficiencies could be due to luck, or it could be due to about the farthest thing from what we colloquially call "luck" as you can get. It's a great stat to banter about though.

jaybone said:
8. I think Dinos was sick
Click to expand...

Crossed my mind too, or at least was by far the most affected by travel. He missed so many of the open threes we've come to expect him to make. I do think he'd be a better option the bench as Collins continues to develop.

FWIW (not much), Lunardi tweeted his seed list last night and Wake was in his "other" category with teams like Richmond, Marquette, and UNLV, just behind the second four out. We were also the 11th ACC team he listed.
 
DeacsOrDie said:
Wrangor, I have been very frustrated with our lack of 1) getting a hand up in the shooters face and 2) our terrible close-outs on the perimeter. It's basketball 101 and Mannings defenses don't do these two things.
Click to expand...

Agree. Close out is a major concern he needs to fix. We don't break down properly and thus we either don't get out to the shooter or they head fake and fly past us on the dribble.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I think he's got some skills though, definitely got some potential and not another 7 footer that can't walk and chew gum at the same time. DM has a chance to prove with Moore how good he is able to develop big men since most assume that should be his strength.
Click to expand...

Moore is much better than Washington, probably better than freshman year Ty Walker as well.
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I think he's got some skills though, definitely got some potential and not another 7 footer that can't walk and chew gum at the same time. DM has a chance to prove with Moore how good he is able to develop big men since most assume that should be his strength.
Click to expand...

Absolutely has some skills. And maybe I'm not accurately remembering the scouting reports on him (offensively advanced, needs work defensively) or my expectations were too high. But yeah, I agree that next year could be a fun coming out party for him. Seems to have good instincts, but a little slow to the spot and/or working out his footwork
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top