• 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!

Wake/Pitt

IAppreciateIt said:
What's odd is that I think our baseline inbounds plays have actually been really good, but ones coming from the sidelines have often been awful and/or non-existent.
Click to expand...

My guess is that when prioritizing what to spend practice time on, sideline inbounds plays are pretty low on the list. Unless the clock is an issue most sideline inbounds merely serve to put the ball in play so a team can run its normal offense. Inbounding from the baseline, however, offers a far greater opportunity to attack the defense directly on the inbounds.

If we get to a point where our biggest concern is Manning's ability to draw up sideline inbounds plays that lead to immediate baskets then he will have more than done his job.
 
We beat Manhattan in the first round of the NCAA tournament on a sideline inbounds play. Skip and Dino had it ready.
 
BiffTannen said:
We beat Manhattan in the first round of the NCAA tournament on a sideline inbounds play. Skip and Dino had it ready.
Click to expand...

That team had a lot less to work on fundamentals wise, and a lot more to work with basketball IQ wise. If and when we need it in an NCAA tournament game I see no reason to think Manning won't have something prepared.
 
What if we need it in a regular season game this week?
 
BiffTannen said:
What if we need it in a regular season game this week?
Click to expand...

Well if we need it against Duke I'm certainly not going to quibble with how Manning allocated his practice time.

If we need it against BC then it's evidence that we probably have more important things to work on than sideline inbounds plays.

Assuming we need a sideline inbounds play (i.e. the shot clock or game clock is <5) once every few games (which feels like an overgenerous estimate) that still comes out to around 10 times a season.

That means even if we draw up and execute a perfect play every time, sideline inbounds plays would account for 30 points over the course of a season, or 1.4% of our points. At this point I certainly hope we aren't spending more than 1.4% of our practice time on it.

It's just not a high percentage or highly used play. I'd honestly rather us spend more time on full court inbounds plays with <5 seconds before we work on sideline inbounds plays
 
RChildress: I think you are confusing sideline inbounds play with the real issue which is that several times this year Manning has called a GREAT timeout in the crunch moments of the game, and we have almost always ended up with a CMM iso play out of that timeout which essentially wastes the timeout. So we could be using a sidelines inbounds play, or it could just be a throw the ball in and then run the quick hitter. Either way, we need to be more effective in crunch time when inbounding the ball on the sidelines. We either need to have a repertoire of sideline inbounds we can pull from, or we need some quick hitters we can go to and get a good shot (ie: not a CMM step back 19 footer). I think you are right in that Manning has not allocated practice time to quick hitters. He is placing his focus on establishing his fundamental foundation. That is good. But we still want to win games now, and having a few good plays to run in the waning seconds of the shot clock would help us win now.
 
Say what you want about DM, but one thing for sure he is a confident and positive guy.

"I think the rest of the story will be told these next two games and how we go into the ACC Tournament," Manning said. "We've got two more games to get prepared to go win an ACC Tournament, and that's got to be our mindset.

I've heard the players talk about getting ready for the ACCT as well. No doubt they buy into what DM is doing.
 
Wrangor said:
RChildress: I think you are confusing sideline inbounds play with the real issue which is that several times this year Manning has called a GREAT timeout in the crunch moments of the game, and we have almost always ended up with a CMM iso play out of that timeout which essentially wastes the timeout. So we could be using a sidelines inbounds play, or it could just be a throw the ball in and then run the quick hitter. Either way, we need to be more effective in crunch time when inbounding the ball on the sidelines. We either need to have a repertoire of sideline inbounds we can pull from, or we need some quick hitters we can go to and get a good shot (ie: not a CMM step back 19 footer). I think you are right in that Manning has not allocated practice time to quick hitters. He is placing his focus on establishing his fundamental foundation. That is good. But we still want to win games now, and having a few good plays to run in the waning seconds of the shot clock would help us win now.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing normal play calls with an inbounds play. If we call a timeout, toss the ball to Codi in the backcourt and then fail to run a play that results in a good shot, then the issue is with the half court offensive play call or the execution of that play call.

If you think we need to work on our end of game play calling then say as much. If Codi has the ball at halfcourt with 15 seconds left and we need a bucket the play call should be the same regardless of where we inbounded the ball from.

When we are inbounding the ball with more than 7 or so seconds to play from the sideline we have two options:

1. Get the ball in to Codi (or whoever you want initiating the offense) and run a normal play that our team has practiced and executed throughout the season.

or

2. Run a designed inbounds play that Manning draws up on the spot and that the team has spent 20-30 minutes of total practice time on.

I'd rather us go with and practice number 1.
 
To each his own. I would rather have both options at our disposal. our production in those scenarios seems to agree. We simply aren't getting good shots.
 
Wrangor said:
To each his own. I would rather have both options at our disposal. our production in those scenarios seems to agree. We simply aren't getting good shots.
Click to expand...

As would I. But our coaches have a limited amount of practice time to invest in things that will improve our chances of winning. Option 1 has a higher return on investment than option 2.

I think your main criticism with "those scenarios" is that we seem to abandon our normal playbook in favor of a Codi isolation.

If that is a valid criticism (topic for another day), then the solution is almost certainly to run our normal playbook rather than spend significant practice time learning new plays for a very specific, rather rare situation.
 
Deac83 said:
Say what you want about DM, but one thing for sure he is a confident and positive guy.

"I think the rest of the story will be told these next two games and how we go into the ACC Tournament," Manning said. "We've got two more games to get prepared to go win an ACC Tournament, and that's got to be our mindset.

I've heard the players talk about getting ready for the ACCT as well. No doubt they buy into what DM is doing.
Click to expand...

Yep. DM definitely talks the talk. Would be great for the players to walk the walk and do alittle damage and play spoiler in the ACCT.
 
BiffTannen said:
We beat Manhattan in the first round of the NCAA tournament on a sideline inbounds play. Skip and Dino had it ready.
Click to expand...

when did we play manhattan in the first round of the ncaa tournament?
 
Milhouse said:
when did we play manhattan in the first round of the ncaa tournament?
Click to expand...

2004, though I think it was the second round. We played the 13 seed and the 12 to advance to sweet 16. Can't remember which game was the Manhattan one. I do remember they had a guard absolutely go off on us and being terrified that we were going to lose.
 
If standings play out as expected, will see like face NCSU 1st game in tourney?
 
RChildress107 said:
2004, though I think it was the second round. We played the 13 seed and the 12 to advance to sweet 16. Can't remember which game was the Manhattan one. I do remember they had a guard absolutely go off on us and being terrified that we were going to lose.
Click to expand...

Beat VCU in round 1, while Manhattan beat Florida. Then beat Manhattan in round 2. Then fucked around and lost to St. Joes.
 
DeaconSig said:
Beat VCU in round 1, while Manhattan beat Florida. Then beat Manhattan in round 2. Then fucked around and lost to St. Joes.
Click to expand...

This is correct. I only know that because I wore the shirt yesterday.

I was at the first round games in Denver that year: Maryland, Syracuse, Carolina, Princeton, Texas...can't remember who else.
 
If we win that game we will play the 6 seed which will be one of Pitt, Miami, State, or Clemson (I bet it will end up being Pitt based on remaining schedules for each team)
 
If WF beats VT on the tourney's opening night, WF will play the #6 seed at 9:30 pm next Wednesday. The #6 seed will be the team that is seeded the highest amongst Pitt, Clemson, State or Miami. Currently, all 4 are 8-8. Clemson hosts State tonight, and Miami plays at Pitt tomorrow. Clemson has the toughest remaining game (@ ND); Miami has the easiest (VT at home); so, ranking the most likely to least likely opponent: 1. Miami, 2. State, 3. Pitt, 4. Clemson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top