Two missing ingredients on this team right now.

[AuH2O]

When players are hitting everything they throw up including 25 foot contested shots........it tends to make any defense look bad. As for the "spark plug".......he is now trying to get a medical redshirt for next year. Going to have to be someone else in that role. Could be Thomas. He did it against Iowa.

We need to stop with this idea that teams miraculously hit a crazy high % of shots against ISU and consider it a fluke. After 4 years of these "flukes" it's time to understand a couple things.

1. Running at a good D1 shooter after he's caught it in rhythm with his feet in position and can shoot without making any adjustment is not "contesting" a shot. A good D1 shooter is perfectly capable of ignoring a runout or even a hand in his face. That's typically considered about as wise open a shot as a good shooter should expect. Those are the "contested" threes teams hit against us.
2. When shooters get good looks and hit some of these shots, the truly contested shots are going to fall more when a shooter is feeling it. Conversely, if you can frustrate a shooter by denying him good looks, the open shots tend to not fall.

 

[clones8232]

The problem Matt had was not bad shots, it was the lack of open chances. This led to him trying to force contribute at the end that resulted in some poor turnovers.

When teams are pushing up on our shooters with instructions not to leave them we need some set plays/structured movement to help free them up. The majority of our offense is just space out and play, not structured. Matt, Hallice, and others will struggle to get looks at times if we are not working to help create them. I wish we would run a bit more "sets" on offense. We have definitely seen how effective are structured inbounds plays can be.

+1
seems to be very limited movement without the ball. i believe in another thread (or maybe this one) someone referred to 'playground ball'. I can live with all the isolation, but you have to mix in some set plays or guys like Thomas are relying on other teams losing them in transition.

 

[Cardinal2001]

McDermott used to love sets.

 

[Gunnerclone]

We need to stop with this idea that teams miraculously hit a crazy high % of shots against ISU and consider it a fluke. After 4 years of these "flukes" it's time to understand a couple things.

1. Running at a good D1 shooter after he's caught it in rhythm with his feet in position and can shoot without making any adjustment is not "contesting" a shot. A good D1 shooter is perfectly capable of ignoring a runout or even a hand in his face. That's typically considered about as wise open a shot as a good shooter should expect. Those are the "contested" threes teams hit against us.
2. When shooters get good looks and hit some of these shots, the truly contested shots are going to fall more when a shooter is feeling it. Conversely, if you can frustrate a shooter by denying him good looks, the open shots tend to not fall.

You should make a defensive coaching DVD series called "Guaranteed to Give Up 0 PPG".

 

[NickTheGreat]

I'm just hoping it's a team with a new coach and one of the leaders out for the season.

 

[ce1]

It seems our big issue for this season is defending perimeter guards. Against UNI, we couldn't contain guard penetration. When guards start converting from close range or working through screens, it forced rotations of help defense. That left three point shooters open. Open three point shooters are going to make a lot of 3s at the high D1 level.

Limiting help rotations, especially around the 10-15 foot range, is key to playing good 3 point defense. That along with strong a screen defense strategy (rotate v work over the screener). The alternative is outscoring the opponent, which has really been our primary defense to guard penetration for the last two years. When your effective scoring percentage is as high as ISU, you'll win a lot of games. But when effective scoring dips, we're vulnerable without better perimeter defense.

 

[ISU42]

The one that was a "bad shot" he made.

Why was it a bad shot? I don't remember it that well.

 

[DiehardClone]

It seems our big issue for this season is defending perimeter guards. Against UNI, we couldn't contain guard penetration. When guards start converting from close range or working through screens, it forced rotations of help defense. That left three point shooters open. Open three point shooters are going to make a lot of 3s at the high D1 level.

Limiting help rotations, especially around the 10-15 foot range, is key to playing good 3 point defense. That along with strong a screen defense strategy (rotate v work over the screener). The alternative is outscoring the opponent, which has really been our primary defense to guard penetration for the last two years. When your effective scoring percentage is as high as ISU, you'll win a lot of games. But when effective scoring slows, we're vulnerable without better perimeter defense.

I've got an X's and O's kind of question that I wonder if you could comment on. During that game it seemed like UNI did a really good job of getting open shots via the on-ball screens (better than most teams). Anyone can set a screen, but I see a lot of D1 screeners who are so eager to roll into the lane that they don't hold their screen long enough for the dribbler to gain any real advantage. UNI's screeners would hold their position as long as it took for the dribbler to gain an advantage. So that was part of it.

But the other thing I think UNI did really well involved the the dribbler, who would usually get right next to the screener before making his move to the left or to the right. By doing this it would leave very little room, so that it was pretty much impossible for the defender to stay with him when the dribbler would make his big move. Can you comment on that? I'll hang up for the answer, thanks.

 

[allfourcy]

My wife God bless her knows nothing about basketball but she's watched a lot this year. Even she says "these guys just will not do any more than necessary to win a basketball game will they"
For some reason this team when they get a bad team instead of saying oh boy it's going to be a dunk fest we are going to have some fun tonight excetera it's almost like you have to really motivate these guys to play hard. I don't understand it.
I feel like most of the time they play fairly dis interested but then turn it on for 5 or 10 good minutes to put a team away. But when they don't its a dog fight and its that way every team no matter how good or bad they are.

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with your wife. None of us know the day in and day out work these guys put in. Do we really think they're just throwing out a ball and playing lackadaisical on purpose? Don't buy it. These guys spend a lot of extra time working on their game and it means a lot how they represent the Cardinal and Gold. They have high goals. Now, do we have a lot of 'work' to do to get better? Absolutely. Should we be pleased with their level of play or consistency? Heck no. But I think we have to refrain from making general statements that they're only playing when the name on the other shirt is a big opponent. Unlike others, guess I think its much more than effort.

 

[VeloClone]

We need to stop with this idea that teams miraculously hit a crazy high % of shots against ISU and consider it a fluke. After 4 years of these "flukes" it's time to understand a couple things.

1. Running at a good D1 shooter after he's caught it in rhythm with his feet in position and can shoot without making any adjustment is not "contesting" a shot. A good D1 shooter is perfectly capable of ignoring a runout or even a hand in his face. That's typically considered about as wise open a shot as a good shooter should expect. Those are the "contested" threes teams hit against us.
2. When shooters get good looks and hit some of these shots, the truly contested shots are going to fall more when a shooter is feeling it. Conversely, if you can frustrate a shooter by denying him good looks, the open shots tend to not fall.

Shots from 4 feet outside the NBA arc with a hand in their face and desperation 3s as the shot clock expires are shots you want the opposition to take and we have seen a lot of these go in in both the iowa and UNI games.

 

[Gunnerclone]

Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with your wife. None of us know the day in and day out work these guys put in. Do we really think they're just throwing out a ball and playing lackadaisical on purpose? Don't buy it. These guys spend a lot of extra time working on their game and it means a lot how they represent the Cardinal and Gold. They have high goals. Now, do we have a lot of 'work' to do to get better? Absolutely. Should we be pleased with their level of play or consistency? Heck no. But I think we have to refrain from making general statements that they're only playing when the name on the other shirt is a big opponent. Unlike others, guess I think its much more than effort.

This guy gets it. Self righteous, love the smell of their own farts fan that comes on to gloat about how much they "knew" and "how right they were" after a loss is pathetic. They're like the Yelp reviewers on South Park.

 

[psyclone51]

My wife God bless her knows nothing about basketball but she's watched a lot this year. Even she says "these guys just will not do any more than necessary to win a basketball game will they"
For some reason this team when they get a bad team instead of saying oh boy it's going to be a dunk fest we are going to have some fun tonight excetera it's almost like you have to really motivate these guys to play hard. I don't understand it.
I feel like most of the time they play fairly dis interested but then turn it on for 5 or 10 good minutes to put a team away. But when they don't its a dog fight and its that way every team no matter how good or bad they are.

Your wife, who you say knows nothing about basketball, is saying the same things as many posters on this forum. Makes sense to me; most posters here don't know near as much about basketball as they think, or any more than someone who knows nothing about basketball. I am getting a much clearer picture of this team now - and the less I know about basketball, the clearer that picture becomes.

 

[Dingus]

We need to stop with this idea that teams miraculously hit a crazy high % of shots against ISU and consider it a fluke. After 4 years of these "flukes" it's time to understand a couple things.

1. Running at a good D1 shooter after he's caught it in rhythm with his feet in position and can shoot without making any adjustment is not "contesting" a shot. A good D1 shooter is perfectly capable of ignoring a runout or even a hand in his face. That's typically considered about as wise open a shot as a good shooter should expect. Those are the "contested" threes teams hit against us.
2. When shooters get good looks and hit some of these shots, the truly contested shots are going to fall more when a shooter is feeling it. Conversely, if you can frustrate a shooter by denying him good looks, the open shots tend to not fall.

Come on man, you can't stop Les Jesperson, you can only hope to contain him. Besides, the shooters were open because we were doing such a good job helping out and keeping Washpun from penetrating.

 

[SpokaneCY]

Along with leadership I think there are no defined roles on this team. Right now everyone thinks they can score and they press too hard such as taking it to the rim or shooting a contested three. What stood out to me against UNI was we were having success in the paint to McKay and Niang and yet we still had Thomas taking bad shots, Nader trying to go one on one, etc... This is where we need to have that leader on the floor that is telling everyone what is happening and where the ball is going. The offense should not be going through Nader or Thomas at this point and someone needs to be candid with them on their role. When Monte comes down the floor and passes to Nader, Nader is thinking score and gets himself in bad positions. Kane was a master of doing this and at times pretty animated when teammates were not in a position or playing outside their role.

Many of the 3 misses were wide open. These guys have been taking and hitting those shots for years but we will always have those games when they don't fall. We still shot 53% for the game.

I could probably quibble over when a few of the shots were taken, but by and large they were taken within the offense and taken when open.

Matt is a shooter and he needs to shoot. Same with Nader and Niang. I'm not sure you can point to the 11:32 mark in the first half as when they should quit taking the shots they are designed and trained and usually hit. IMHO we will win WAY more games sticking with the basic offense and taking the bad shooting games as they come whether its from 3, missing a bunch of chippies or doinking the FTs.

It's a long season and losses happen to every team - the good ones and even the ones (like us) that have unrealistic expectations.

 

[jahfg]

Many of the 3 misses were wide open. These guys have been taking and hitting those shots for years but we will always have those games when they don't fall. We still shot 53% for the game.

I could probably quibble over when a few of the shots were taken, but by and large they were taken within the offense and taken when open.

Matt is a shooter and he needs to shoot. Same with Nader and Niang. I'm not sure you can point to the 11:32 mark in the first half as when they should quit taking the shots they are designed and trained and usually hit. IMHO we will win WAY more games sticking with the basic offense and taking the bad shooting games as they come whether its from 3, missing a bunch of chippies or doinking the FTs.

It's a long season and losses happen to every team - the good ones and even the ones (like us) that have unrealistic expectations.

No. nader should be backing his man in the paint anytime he gets the ball. Or passing immediately.

 

[bosco]

The team is what it is. They aren't going to be the great defensive team that everyone wants. They aren't built that way. They'll win games with their offense. On most nights it'll be good enough but they'll lose a few if their offense isn't "on". If the offense is running on all cylinders there isn't a team out there that they can't beat.

Hopefully they'll get on a good run in the tourney. Enjoy it while it lasts because next year there's going to be a lot more discussions of what the team is missing and the list is going to be a lot longer than what's in this thread.

 

[jahfg]

Come on man, you can't stop Les Jesperson, you can only hope to contain him. Besides, the shooters were open because we were doing such a good job helping out and keeping Washpun from penetrating.

It's not that we played perfect perimeter defense. It's that many of UNI's 3s came from NBA range, and yes, many were contested, meaning they didn't have time to simply set up and shoot without pressure. They had to catch and fire. That is what a contested shot is. Those are shots we can live with (or die in this case.)

What I would like to see is not letting them shoot the first one uncontested. Niang let Uthoff and Jesperson shoot from deep without putting a hand up. They hit it, and their confidence grew. Simply raising your hands will keep those guys, especially Jesperson, from shooting from that deep.

 

[AuH2O]

You should make a defensive coaching DVD series called "Guaranteed to Give Up 0 PPG".

Nice straw man argument. You're right, there is no point between giving up 0 ppg and consistently having teams shoot above their normal %.

Are some shots truly low % and contested yet go in? Of course. The problem is that after every game this happens, they see somewhat contested shots going in and think this is pure chance. Some shots, some entire games, maybe. If you want to watch great 3 pt defense, watch Monte in Forte 2 years ago on Stillwater. It was a huge difference between what we typically see. And most top 5 teams can take a shooter like that and get him out of his rhythm.

 

[Rural]

We should be running all shooters off the 3-point line. And when we do run shooters off the line, McKay has to be waiting in the paint. That means a step in front of the rim, not attached to his guy on the opposite block. Discouraging a drive is better than trying to swat it at the last second. He has been too late and guards have been able to finish over him. I think Burton is going to give us a defensive boost in the lane. I'd love to see him get more minutes tomorrow.

I don't think they'll be any worry about that.

 

[DesignerClone]

Nice straw man argument. You're right, there is no point between giving up 0 ppg and consistently having teams shoot above their normal %.

Are some shots truly low % and contested yet go in? Of course. The problem is that after every game this happens, they see somewhat contested shots going in and think this is pure chance. Some shots, some entire games, maybe. If you want to watch great 3 pt defense, watch Monte in Forte 2 years ago on Stillwater. It was a huge difference between what we typically see. And most top 5 teams can take a shooter like that and get him out of his rhythm.

Agreed. Allowing a great shooter to catch in rhythm and THEN getting a hand in his face simply isn't always enough. Although I despise KU, how many times during or after a game with them do you hear frustrated Cyclone fans say something in the vein of "our shooters couldn't even get in POSITION to shoot?!" Too many.