***Official NU@ISU Post Game Thread***

[cyclonenum1]

I see things like this posted often...how would you characterize McD's system and why do you think it won't work at this level?

Just a question, I don't have a dog in the fight.

I won't try to characterize his "system" but I was struck when reading the game notes from the game last Saturday that the SID puts out for the press (they were linked in a thread last Sunday)...those notes talked about some of the areas that GM coached teams focus on. It listed two that really struck me:

1) "Cyclones dig the long ball" (that is how it was termed)...it spoke of our focus on getting and making a lot of three pointers.

2) "Don't foul!" (that is how it was termed)...it spoke of our focus on not committing fouls...in fact it touted us as being something like #18 in the country in least fouls committed.

These types of focus really are cause for concern in my opinion.

Sure, making a lot of threes is a great thing but reliance on this as a staple of your offense is going to make you very inconsistent on that end of the court because you just cannot make a high percentage of these shots on a regular basis. It is also going to lead you to not get to the line much because you are not prone to taking it strong to the hole to get points in the paint. Lastly, teams that rely on the three as their primary offensive staple tend to fade down the stretch as the legs start to grow weary.

Again, not committing a lot of fouls sounds noble on the surface but I think what it really does is gives you a soft mindset when you are on the defensive end of the court. You are busy trying to avoid contact and fouling instead of playing the requisite tough defense needed to be competitive in a league like the Big 12.

After reading these game notes from the SID it does not surprise me that we tend to see a lot of offensive sets end up in a desperation three. It does not surprise me that we tend to see a lot of secondary players go off for career highs against us. It does not surprise me that we let opponents drive so easily into the lane. The bottom line is that our team is doing exactly what GM wants...shooting lots of threes on offense and trying not to foul on defense. We are soft because of what our coach has the team focused on doing.

 

[khaal53]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the "system" is the problem. I'm not here to defend Mac and say he's so great. I have my doubts just like everyone else. It just bothers me that people label his system as unable to work in the B12 but can't even describe his system all that well.

IMO, Mac is probably one of the few coaches that attempts to adapt his scheme to his talent on hand and to the opponent. He's not a slow it down coach and he's not a 40 minutes of hell coach. He doesn't play a trapping zone or a match-up zone.

Up through the Texas game when more depth was available we looked to run and ran our 3/4 court press often. As the roster has become more depleted we've had to abandon most of that. Our transition offense up to that point had been working much better than the 1/2 court sets, imo.

There isn't a facet of the game that Mac doesn't prepare for...whehter it is how many guys to send on the offensive glass or who to defend on the 3 point line (which he can get burned by when poor shooters get open looks). I'm fine with shading away from poor shooters, but you still have to guard them. You have to make the decision to cover up the better shooters first, but there's no reason to stand in the lane and watch Jeter make 4 3's on Wednesday.

People like to make a big deal out of the however many set plays he uses, saying it's too complicated. Let's ask this question...how many plays does a football team have to remember? A lot, right? But just like football you don't just run down the court and call 1 of 500 plays and cross your fingers and hope for perfect execution. Instead, you implement your gameplan in the practices leading up to the game and work on the plays that you think will give you the best advantage against the upcoming opponent.

Long story short...I don't think it's the system, per se. If we don't consider all of the off the court stuff (attrition) the biggest issues have been with execution and I personally think that at some point Mac needs to say "eff it!" go work harder. I think he tries to play the odds too much instead of like some of you note, having something as his bread and butter to always go back to.

 

[Wesley]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the "system" is the problem. I'm not here to defend Mac and say he's so great. I have my doubts just like everyone else. It just bothers me that people label his system as unable to work in the B12 but can't even describe his system all that well.

IMO, Mac is probably one of the few coaches that attempts to adapt his scheme to his talent on hand and to the opponent. He's not a slow it down coach and he's not a 40 minutes of hell coach. He doesn't play a trapping zone or a match-up zone.

Up through the Texas game when more depth was available we looked to run and ran our 3/4 court press often. As the roster has become more depleted we've had to abandon most of that. Our transition offense up to that point had been working much better than the 1/2 court sets, imo.

There isn't a facet of the game that Mac doesn't prepare for...whehter it is how many guys to send on the offensive glass or who to defend on the 3 point line (which he can get burned by when poor shooters get open looks). I'm fine with shading away from poor shooters, but you still have to guard them. You have to make the decision to cover up the better shooters first, but there's no reason to stand in the lane and watch Jeter make 4 3's on Wednesday.

People like to make a big deal out of the however many set plays he uses, saying it's too complicated. Let's ask this question...how many plays does a football team have to remember? A lot, right? But just like football you don't just run down the court and call 1 of 500 plays and cross your fingers and hope for perfect execution. Instead, you implement your gameplan in the practices leading up to the game and work on the plays that you think will give you the best advantage against the upcoming opponent.

Long story short...I don't think it's the system, per se. If we don't consider all of the off the court stuff (attrition) the biggest issues have been with execution and I personally think that at some point Mac needs to say "eff it!" go work harder. I think he tries to play the odds too much instead of like some of you note, having something as his bread and butter to always go back to.

I wish it was not the system, but with the players on our team they seemed to have had problems with this system for four years. Even UNI looked like they have had problems with their comparable system the last two games. Too many times we have to force a shot up when our PG sauntered down the court and ate up half the posssession time.

 

[isufbcurt]

You could not be more wrong...there is a decent sized cabal of McDermott "friends and family" that post on this site...they are GM supporters first and foremost and ISU supporters only because GM is at ISU.

I've posted this before and I'll post it again. I have never met Grag McDermont, so I am not a friend or family member of his, but he is the ISU Men's Basketball coach so I will support him.

 

[oldman]

At halftime I would have bet anybody 100 bucks that we would lose the game. We came back and won and it surprised me so I'm very happy with it. That walk back to the car would have been bitter and sad had we lost. Instead we got to talk about Brackins stuffing it in traffic. It was a fun one, too bad there were probably 7k people there TOPS.

I know that some didn't show because they are apathetic, but more would've showed if it would've been on the weekend and not -2 degrees. Myself included. Wed nites suck for me.

 

[Ficklone02]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the "system" is the problem. I'm not here to defend Mac and say he's so great. I have my doubts just like everyone else. It just bothers me that people label his system as unable to work in the B12 but can't even describe his system all that well.

IMO, Mac is probably one of the few coaches that attempts to adapt his scheme to his talent on hand and to the opponent. He's not a slow it down coach and he's not a 40 minutes of hell coach. He doesn't play a trapping zone or a match-up zone.

Up through the Texas game when more depth was available we looked to run and ran our 3/4 court press often. As the roster has become more depleted we've had to abandon most of that. Our transition offense up to that point had been working much better than the 1/2 court sets, imo.

There isn't a facet of the game that Mac doesn't prepare for...whehter it is how many guys to send on the offensive glass or who to defend on the 3 point line (which he can get burned by when poor shooters get open looks). I'm fine with shading away from poor shooters, but you still have to guard them. You have to make the decision to cover up the better shooters first, but there's no reason to stand in the lane and watch Jeter make 4 3's on Wednesday.

People like to make a big deal out of the however many set plays he uses, saying it's too complicated. Let's ask this question...how many plays does a football team have to remember? A lot, right? But just like football you don't just run down the court and call 1 of 500 plays and cross your fingers and hope for perfect execution. Instead, you implement your gameplan in the practices leading up to the game and work on the plays that you think will give you the best advantage against the upcoming opponent.

Long story short...I don't think it's the system, per se. If we don't consider all of the off the court stuff (attrition) the biggest issues have been with execution and I personally think that at some point Mac needs to say "eff it!" go work harder. I think he tries to play the odds too much instead of like some of you note, having something as his bread and butter to always go back to.

Running set plays is pretty elementary, so I never felt that the sheer number of plays we have should be an issue, its the fact that running set plays is easy to scout. Especially if everyone runs to a certain spot on the floor and then the play begins.....the defense gets to set up too....it seems a better secondary fast break/motion offense, which transitions into a set play would be much harder for a defense to stop.

First and foremost though our execution is lacking, and obviously everything comes down to that.

 

[khaal53]

Running set plays is pretty elementary, so I never felt that the sheer number of plays we have should be an issue, its the fact that running set plays is easy to scout. Especially if everyone runs to a certain spot on the floor and then the play begins.....the defense gets to set up too....it seems a better secondary fast break/motion offense, which transitions into a set play would be much harder for a defense to stop.

First and foremost though our execution is lacking, and obviously everything comes down to that.

You think scouting/preparing defensively for set plays is easier than scouting/preparing for a motion offense?

Set plays are meant to take advantage in certain areas at certain times so they're going to be constructed very specifically. It isn't like every set play starts from each player running to a certain spot and has it's own starting point...that would obviously be waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy to easy to pick up on.

 

[Ficklone02]

You think scouting/preparing defensively for set plays is easier than scouting/preparing for a motion offense?

Set plays are meant to take advantage in certain areas at certain times so they're going to be constructed very specifically. It isn't like every set play starts from each player running to a certain spot and has it's own starting point...that would obviously be waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy to easy to pick up on.

I am aware of everything you just responded with. Yes that is the point of having set plays, to adhere very specifically to the talents of your players vs. the opposition.

Yes I do think its easier to be prepared for a set play offense.....it will take more time to breakdown the tape....obviously you can only prepare so much for a motion offense, because most of those offenses are organized chaos. You just need to be prepared to know the restrictions a coach places on each player.

 

[khaal53]

I am aware of everything you just responded with. Yes that is the point of having set plays, to adhere very specifically to the talents of your players vs. the opposition.

Yes I do think its easier to be prepared for a set play offense.....it will take more time to breakdown the tape....obviously you can only prepare so much for a motion offense, because most of those offenses are organized chaos. You just need to be prepared to know the restrictions a coach places on each player.

Maybe I'm just dumb (don't answer that), but I guess I just disagree. With a pure "free lance" motion offense you have to adhere to some defensive fundamentals strictly (not getting beat on cuts and defending screens) making it a known commodity what you need to do to defend successfully. If it's a patterned motion offense that's even easier to prepare for in most ways.

With set plays you can just get straight up "out-executed" without realizing what is happening. If a team were to run set plays every time down the floor (which ISU doesn't do) and the multiple set plays had the same starting point, scouting that would be extremely difficult.

 

[Ficklone02]

Maybe I'm just dumb (don't answer that), but I guess I just disagree. With a pure "free lance" motion offense you have to adhere to some defensive fundamentals strictly (not getting beat on cuts and defending screens) making it a known commodity what you need to do to defend successfully. If it's a patterned motion offense that's even easier to prepare for in most ways.

With set plays you can just get straight up "out-executed" without realizing what is happening. If a team were to run set plays every time down the floor (which ISU doesn't do) and the multiple set plays had the same starting point, scouting that would be extremely difficult.

I agree with alot of what you are saying. I don't think I'm communicating very well what I'm trying to say. Lets just say I think both offenses can be successful if executed well. We're having trouble executing, which is the chief problem.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

IMO, Mac is probably one of the few coaches that attempts to adapt his scheme to his talent on hand and to the opponent.

This is where I think Greg's biggest problem lies. We never get really good at anything.

 

[snowcraig2.0]

Maybe I'm just dumb (don't answer that), but I guess I just disagree. With a pure "free lance" motion offense you have to adhere to some defensive fundamentals strictly (not getting beat on cuts and defending screens) making it a known commodity what you need to do to defend successfully. If it's a patterned motion offense that's even easier to prepare for in most ways.

IMO, the problem is the kind of player. I think sets are good for teams with very cerebral players who can shoot the three and understand spacing. I think our team doesn't have the highest bball IQ, and they don't shoot the 3 that well. A motion offense would give them less to think about and enable them to use their athletic ability more.

Just my opinion.

 

[khaal53]

I agree with alot of what you are saying. I don't think I'm communicating very well what I'm trying to say. Lets just say I think both offenses can be successful if executed well. We're having trouble executing, which is the chief problem.

Agreed.

 

[khaal53]

Snowcraig, I think a lot of what you say is true.

I don't think his adapting scheme for talent on hand necessarily inhibits the team from getting good at anything. But when you have all the attrition, especially during the season, and he has to adapt even more then that highlights things like that.

I think you're right about the basketball IQ for some of the guys. I do think that either philosophy could be effective and that Greg has tried both this year at different times. He's let them play a lot more this year than in years past.

 

[CloneIce]

I've posted this before and I'll post it again. I have never met Grag McDermont, so I am not a friend or family member of his, but he is the ISU Men's Basketball coach so I will support him.

Even if his being employed as ISU MBB Coach is a detriment to the ISU MBB program?

I am a Cyclone fan, not a fan of one particular coach. If the program will be more successful with a different coach, I am in favor of that. All recent history of our MBB program indicates that the program would very likely be more successful with a different coach.

 

[WalkingCY]

I won't try to characterize his "system" but I was struck when reading the game notes from the game last Saturday that the SID puts out for the press (they were linked in a thread last Sunday)...those notes talked about some of the areas that GM coached teams focus on. It listed two that really struck me:

1) "Cyclones dig the long ball" (that is how it was termed)...it spoke of our focus on getting and making a lot of three pointers.

2) "Don't foul!" (that is how it was termed)...it spoke of our focus on not committing fouls...in fact it touted us as being something like #18 in the country in least fouls committed.

These types of focus really are cause for concern in my opinion.

Sure, making a lot of threes is a great thing but reliance on this as a staple of your offense is going to make you very inconsistent on that end of the court because you just cannot make a high percentage of these shots on a regular basis. It is also going to lead you to not get to the line much because you are not prone to taking it strong to the hole to get points in the paint. Lastly, teams that rely on the three as their primary offensive staple tend to fade down the stretch as the legs start to grow weary.

Again, not committing a lot of fouls sounds noble on the surface but I think what it really does is gives you a soft mindset when you are on the defensive end of the court. You are busy trying to avoid contact and fouling instead of playing the requisite tough defense needed to be competitive in a league like the Big 12.

After reading these game notes from the SID it does not surprise me that we tend to see a lot of offensive sets end up in a desperation three. It does not surprise me that we tend to see a lot of secondary players go off for career highs against us. It does not surprise me that we let opponents drive so easily into the lane. The bottom line is that our team is doing exactly what GM wants...shooting lots of threes on offense and trying not to foul on defense. We are soft because of what our coach has the team focused on doing.

Excellent Post.

This style will NEVER work in the B12....and don't give me this "we don't have enough players" crap. We are not agressive defensively.....and chucking threes is not the way to go about winning ball games. Especially from this team....since they rarely go in. We need to be in the lane and following our driver's shot off the glass for put-back points. When we are all around the perimeter....we don't get to the foul line enough as well. Horrible style....horrible coaching. Really, there isn't enough adjustments throughout a game with this guy. Praying for three's to go in are not the answer.

Time for a new coach and staff.

 

[CloneIce]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't think the "system" is the problem. I'm not here to defend Mac and say he's so great. I have my doubts just like everyone else. It just bothers me that people label his system as unable to work in the B12 but can't even describe his system all that well.

IMO, Mac is probably one of the few coaches that attempts to adapt his scheme to his talent on hand and to the opponent.

Disagree. Many basketball coaches adapt their scheme to their opponent as much or more than Gmac.

Have you watched Missouri play much this year? They are not afraid to switch it up, and when they find something that works they exploit it. They are not afraid at all to slap on a zone, or to press for one half and then not press the other half, or to switch it up offensively. Andersen's personnel play a wide range of minutes per game based on who has the hot hand on a given night. Last season their inside talent was better than their guards, this year vice versas. He is great at adapting.

Heck, Kansas plays a triangle and two defense fairly often when the situation dictates. Bill Self adapts his system to his opponent when he needs to. There are a lot of good coaches who adjust to their opponents very well.

I don't know if the system is the problem or not. What our offensive "system" is exactly has been pretty hard to pin down these past 4 years. It certainly hasn't been anything especially effective or groundbreaking.

 

[CloneIce]

This is where I think Greg's biggest problem lies. We never get really good at anything.

Yes. We lack an identity or a focus on exploiting a particular strength of our team (or weakness of our opponent).

 

[khaal53]

Disagree. Many basketball coaches adapt their scheme to their opponent as much or more than Gmac.

Have you watched Missouri play much this year? They are not afraid to switch it up, and when they find something that works they exploit it. They are not afraid at all to slap on a zone, or to press for one half and then not press the other half, or to switch it up offensively. Andersen's personnel play a wide range of minutes per game based on who has the hot hand on a given night. Last season their inside talent was better than their guards, this year vice versas. He is great at adapting.

Heck, Kansas plays a triangle and two defense fairly often when the situation dictates. Bill Self adapts his system to his opponent when he needs to. There are a lot of good coaches who adjust to their opponents very well.

I don't know if the system is the problem or not. What our offensive "system" is exactly has been pretty hard to pin down these past 4 years. It certainly hasn't been anything especially effective or groundbreaking.

We may just agree to disagree. Mac has played zone and ran the 3/4 court trap at various times this year. Anderson switches things up but his system is essentially always the same-uptempo chaos.

I haven't seen KU run the T-2 yet this year (doesn't mean he hasn't) but that requires a pretty specific opponent. Usually a team with two dynamic guards that are lacking on the inside a little bit. Who did KU run that against?

Anderson and Self however will garner the praise that you have given because they have been pretty successful. That is a big difference between them and Mac.

 

[Toasted40]

This is where I think Greg's biggest problem lies. We never get really good at anything.

Quoted for truth.

That has been a major contention of mine. There is no identity at Iowa State. There is no foundation to fall back on when things go wrong during the game.

Look at K State, they are going to be physical, play tough d, and rebound. Missouri has their press, and they want to force tempo. Okie State wants to press, spread the floor and create open looks with dribble penetration.

All of the coaches in the Big 12 have placed an identity on their program. Greg has not.

It's another reason that when the other team goes on a run, we have a hard time stopping them. Nothing to fall back on.