PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Maryland 62 PSU 39

I watched the game again this morning. PSU competed hard. Keep it close for about 30 minutes. But, Maryland just has better athletes. Maryland played hard all game and overcame a slow start due to the many traveling violations (some phantom.) Maryland worked pretty hard to bang the ball inside. When Brooks and DJ were both out of the game Maryland had a huge physical advantage. Of course PSU did not “make shots.” But, many of those shots were rushed and well defended. By the way, Andrew played hard. He got hands (defections) on a lot of balls.

We have to move on the next game and take them one game at a time. Duquesne is a dangerous team. But, the Dukes are very small. I think we will be more comfortable against them.

If you told me before last night that we would hold them to 62 points, I’d say we win that game 9/10 times. There is no gameplan in the world that can account for 20 percent shooting and it’s tough to keep your head up when you just can’t make a shot.

I think defensively we were pretty solid for 30 minutes and then we just gave up when the shots continued to rattle out. Hard to blame them at that point really, we could have taken 100 shots and still lost at the rate we were going.

It’s time to move on, though. The season is not lost because of one bad home game and last night is not a representation of what this team can do. There are 20 or so more opportunities to make up for it still left on the schedule - steal a game or two that you aren’t expected to win and all is forgotten from last night.

I agree with you completely Craftsy. When shots aren’t falling, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it. Last night was not an indicator on how good/bad our team is, it was just one of those days. It’s unfortunate and frustrating to watch the team struggle as much as we did last night but at the end of the day we were just outmanned. Our biggest problem this year is the lack of an interior guy. It’s a shame that the two bigs we have coming in for our recruiting class next season couldn’t be a part of this team this year. I really think we are a just missing the depth from being a team that can make a run in the Big Ten.

I don’t think we were outmanned. We simply couldn’t get the shots to fall. We effectively won the rebounding battle (Maryland grabbed more boards than us but that’s only because we missed so many shots, we had the better rebounding percentages). Williams didn’t dominate us like everyone expected him to (he certainly had a nice line at 15 pts and 11 boards but that was actually slightly below his averages of 17.4 and 11.9).

Their press didn’t bother us either. 12 turnovers is certainly a number that you can live with. We also made our foul shots (8-11), although we didn’t get to the line very much (but we never do). We also didn’t have many assists, but you can’t if the ball isn’t going in the basket.

If we had been outmanned, I would have expected Maryland to have dominated the board and forced turnovers. They didn’t.

I thought ESPN analyst Mike Kelley summed it up pretty succinctly when he said “If you are a jump shooting team, you live and die by the jump shot”. Last night we died.

[quote="WEARE, post:3, topic:1587"]I agree with you completely Craftsy. When shots aren't falling, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it. Last night was not an indicator on how good/bad our team is, it was just one of those days. It's unfortunate and frustrating to watch the team struggle as much as we did last night but [b]at the end of the day we were just outmanned.[/b] Our biggest problem this year is the lack of an interior guy. It's a shame that the two bigs we have coming in for our recruiting class next season couldn't be a part of this team this year. I really think we are a just missing the depth from being a team that can make a run in the Big Ten.[/quote]

I don’t think we were outmanned. We simply couldn’t get the shots to fall. We effectively won the rebounding battle (Maryland grabbed more boards than us but that’s only because we missed so many shots, we had the better rebounding percentages). Williams didn’t dominate us like everyone expected him to (he certainly had a nice line at 15 pts and 11 boards but that was actually slightly below his averages of 17.4 and 11.9).

Their press didn’t bother us either. 12 turnovers is certainly a number that you can live with. We also made our foul shots (8-11), although we didn’t get to the line very much (but we never do). We also didn’t have many assists, but you can’t if the ball isn’t going in the basket.

If we had been outmanned, I would have expected Maryland to have dominated the board and forced turnovers. They didn’t.

I thought ESPN analyst Mike Kelley summed it up pretty succinctly when he said “If you are a jump shooting team, you live and die by the jump shot”. Last night we died.

And the thing is - if you are making a good percentage of your shots while rebounding and taking care of the ball, and playing adequate defense as we did last night… you will win a bunch of games also.

Last night was brutal, but outside of shooting woes we did pretty well on the other parts of the game people were most concerned with. It’s completely forgotten now, but everyone thought rebounding and defense would be our problem and we were fine in both areas despite giving up the last 10 minutes.

[quote="WEARE, post:3, topic:1587"]I agree with you completely Craftsy. When shots aren't falling, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it. Last night was not an indicator on how good/bad our team is, it was just one of those days. It's unfortunate and frustrating to watch the team struggle as much as we did last night but [b]at the end of the day we were just outmanned.[/b] Our biggest problem this year is the lack of an interior guy. It's a shame that the two bigs we have coming in for our recruiting class next season couldn't be a part of this team this year. I really think we are a just missing the depth from being a team that can make a run in the Big Ten.[/quote]

I don’t think we were outmanned. We simply couldn’t get the shots to fall. We effectively won the rebounding battle (Maryland grabbed more boards than us but that’s only because we missed so many shots, we had the better rebounding percentages). Williams didn’t dominate us like everyone expected him to (he certainly had a nice line at 15 pts and 11 boards but that was actually slightly below his averages of 17.4 and 11.9).

Their press didn’t bother us either. 12 turnovers is certainly a number that you can live with. We also made our foul shots (8-11), although we didn’t get to the line very much (but we never do). We also didn’t have many assists, but you can’t if the ball isn’t going in the basket.

If we had been outmanned, I would have expected Maryland to have dominated the board and forced turnovers. They didn’t.

I thought ESPN analyst Mike Kelley summed it up pretty succinctly when he said “If you are a jump shooting team, you live and die by the jump shot”. Last night we died.

And the thing is - if you are making a good percentage of your shots while rebounding and taking care of the ball, and playing adequate defense as we did last night… you will win a bunch of games also.

Last night was brutal, but outside of shooting woes we did pretty well on the other parts of the game people were most concerned with. It’s completely forgotten now, but everyone thought rebounding and defense would be our problem and we were fine in both areas despite giving up the last 10 minutes.

Well if defense and rebounding aren’t the problem and you claim we have “4 or 5 guys that can score pretty well” we should be set this year. :wink: Just one of those nights
[quote="WEARE, post:3, topic:1587"]I agree with you completely Craftsy. When shots aren't falling, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change it. Last night was not an indicator on how good/bad our team is, it was just one of those days. It's unfortunate and frustrating to watch the team struggle as much as we did last night but [b]at the end of the day we were just outmanned.[/b] Our biggest problem this year is the lack of an interior guy. It's a shame that the two bigs we have coming in for our recruiting class next season couldn't be a part of this team this year. I really think we are a just missing the depth from being a team that can make a run in the Big Ten.[/quote]

I don’t think we were outmanned. We simply couldn’t get the shots to fall. We effectively won the rebounding battle (Maryland grabbed more boards than us but that’s only because we missed so many shots, we had the better rebounding percentages). Williams didn’t dominate us like everyone expected him to (he certainly had a nice line at 15 pts and 11 boards but that was actually slightly below his averages of 17.4 and 11.9).

Their press didn’t bother us either. 12 turnovers is certainly a number that you can live with. We also made our foul shots (8-11), although we didn’t get to the line very much (but we never do). We also didn’t have many assists, but you can’t if the ball isn’t going in the basket.

If we had been outmanned, I would have expected Maryland to have dominated the board and forced turnovers. They didn’t.

I thought ESPN analyst Mike Kelley summed it up pretty succinctly when he said “If you are a jump shooting team, you live and die by the jump shot”. Last night we died.

I somewhat agree. We were not outmanned, at least athletically. UM had a very hard time keeping Talor and Tim in front, and we rebounded aggressively with them. It looked to me like we got a lot of good, relatively uncontested looks and opportunities to score.
From a skill standpoint, we looked outmanned. It’s not like we had shots going in and out, they were way, way off all night. Nobody on our team has shown any ability to be a dynamic outside shooter this year. By that I mean someone who can come off a screen and shoot or hit one when they’re not wide open standing still. We had some touches inside and whoever got it wanted nothing to do with it.
PSU did not look high-major skilled in any offensive area except rebounding.

The thing about last night that scares me is I don’t think we have any pure shooters on this team. Battle is definitely a streak shooter. Frazier is not a great shooter, DJ usually shoots well, but like Frazier, mostly takes smart shots (DJ has trouble creating his own shot, and Frazier seems tentative to shoot). For as much as we hear about Cam’s shooting, it never happens in games. Brooks/Oliver might be good shooters for big guys, but they are not pure shooters. Buie looks like he is still figuring out what it takes to be a shooter at this level.

Unfortunately, all our average/streak shooters had a terrible night on the same night. Probably foolish to think that will be the norm…though equally as foolish to think we will shoot as well as we did against Furman many more times this season. Most likely we are somewhere in between. Will that be good enough in the Big 10?

Another problem with the shooting…the shots we are willing to take, and even more concerning, are those the only shots we are able to create? Missing loads of layups is one thing. Missing a lot of shots that weren’t good shots is another. The offense was terrible. I am convinced that Coach DeChellis makes different play signals during the game hoping to hide the fact that we are going to run a high ball screen for Talor on every play. I know many on here question the other players, but it would be hard for me to stay interested in a game/offense when for more than half of every shot clock one player is dominating the ball. I guess it’s a chicken/egg thing, but a lot of guys looked disinterested on the offensive end, and I had a hard time blaming them at times.

Defense did look good, but the young MD team also had a lot of unforced turnovers and looked uncomfortable for the first 10 minutes. Definitely a credit to our defense, but partly a knock on their offense. Effort on the glass was great. No doubt about that.

[quote=“NICU, post:8, topic:1587”]The thing about last night that scares me is I don’t think we have any pure shooters on this team. Battle is definitely a streak shooter. Frazier is not a great shooter, DJ usually shoots well, but like Frazier, mostly takes smart shots (DJ has trouble creating his own shot, and Frazier seems tentative to shoot). For as much as we hear about Cam’s shooting, it never happens in games. Brooks/Oliver might be good shooters for big guys, but they are not pure shooters. Buie looks like he is still figuring out what it takes to be a shooter at this level.

Unfortunately, all our average/streak shooters had a terrible night on the same night. Probably foolish to think that will be the norm…though equally as foolish to think we will shoot as well as we did against Furman many more times this season. Most likely we are somewhere in between. Will that be good enough in the Big 10?

Another problem with the shooting…the shots we are willing to take, and even more concerning, are those the only shots we are able to create? Missing loads of layups is one thing. Missing a lot of shots that weren’t good shots is another. The offense was terrible. I am convinced that Coach DeChellis makes different play signals during the game hoping to hide the fact that we are going to run a high ball screen for Talor on every play. I know many on here question the other players, but it would be hard for me to stay interested in a game/offense when for more than half of every shot clock one player is dominating the ball. I guess it’s a chicken/egg thing, but a lot of guys looked disinterested on the offensive end, and I had a hard time blaming them at times.

Defense did look good, but the young MD team also had a lot of unforced turnovers and looked uncomfortable for the first 10 minutes. Definitely a credit to our defense, but partly a knock on their offense. Effort on the glass was great. No doubt about that.[/quote]

Fair assessment. I think many here are too concerned with this idea of a “pure shooter” - not really sure where that came from suddenly, as offense has not been our problem for the last 3 seasons now… i guess a 20 percent shooting night brings all kinds of crap out that isn’t really reflecting reality. But Stanley Pringle was the last real deadly shooter from 3, and most guys didn’t even think of him as a 3-ball guy until about halfway through his senior run.

I do agree that we settle for a lot of mediocre looks at times, and I also agree that is a product of our stagnant looking offense. That high ball screen is a waste of time at this point - Talor makes something out of it maybe 1 in 10 times that we run it, and usually just gets killed doing so. Not worth it and too easy to defend - not to mention low percentage. The dribble hand-off weave they like to run is also a waste. We don’t have the ball handlers on this team to be running those sets all night, there needs to be far less dribbling and far more passing… especially involving down-screens and back cuts, which I’ve seen actually work for us at times when we go that route.

It’s tough to change what these guys know 4 years into their careers though, so I doubt we see much difference. But they had better decide to light the nets up the rest of the way this year because 20-25 3-balls a night is going to the norm for us running the sets we do. I’m not a fan of our offensive strategy at all and never have been under Ed, but I can’t say it hasn’t been somewhat effective in the Talor Battle era. We aren’t deadly, but we’re efficient enough to win a good portion of our games if our defense plays well enough.

[quote=“tundra, post:1, topic:1587”]I watched the game again this morning. PSU competed hard. Keep it close for about 30 minutes. But, Maryland just has better athletes. Maryland played hard all game and overcame a slow start due to the many traveling violations (some phantom.) Maryland worked pretty hard to bang the ball inside. When Brooks and DJ were both out of the game Maryland had a huge physical advantage. Of course PSU did not “make shots.” But, many of those shots were rushed and well defended. By the way, Andrew played hard. He got hands (defections) on a lot of balls.

We have to move on the next game and take them one game at a time. Duquesne is a dangerous team. But, the Dukes are very small. I think we will be more comfortable against them.[/quote]

I agree with the athlete part. They were significantly more physical. I don’t buy the shooting thing at all. We definitely hurried shots, but Maryland had their way inside all night. Brooks and AJ were in early foul trouble, and Maryland dunked a bunch. Take away the 3, and they shot 19-38, scoring points in the paint at will. 34 to 18 points in the paint described the night. My worst fears were realized last night. Simple to beat PSU…take it inside. Until they find a way to stop that, this is going to be a struggle. An indication of how few attempts we had inside? The first FTA taken by someone other than Talor was Jeff Brooks at the 2:57 mark of the second half, demonstrating how scared guys were of trying to score inside. Not sure I’ve ever seen a major DI team with zero FTA’s other than 1 player for 37 minutes. Just the exact opposite of what they needed to do, go inside.

What should PSU have done? When a team pressures you at the arc(Talor had wicked pressure as did Tim) you go inside, either with give and go, or back door like Northwestern or pass it inside to bigs with their backs to the basket. Talor penetrated all night, and he had the FTA’s to prove it, but when your bigs are invisible inside, it cuts down your options. Hope they turn it around, but that had to be one of the most unprepared performances I’ve ever seen. What did they expect from Maryland? IMO, Ed gets an F on this one. I stated before the game, if PSU doesn’t go inside, doesn’t pressure their strength and reverts to the arc, they will get killed, and posters on this page will blame outside shooting. If you have a zero inside game, that’s what happens. That’s the way Lehigh and Fairfield played vs. us. It doesn’t work. Defenses just pressure the arc.

The Keys to the season thread…

We dont have a guy that can consistently hit a 3. that’s why i’m in favor of letting talor run the point, and a true shooting guard run the 2.

I think many here are too concerned with this idea of a "pure shooter" - not really sure where that came from suddenly, as offense has not been our problem for the last 3 seasons now... i guess a 20 percent shooting night brings all kinds of crap out that isn't really reflecting reality.

The Keys to the season thread…

Lastly, 2 shooters need to emerge. Battle will continue to be streaky so defenders have to worry about him but we need Marshall, Woodyard, Bowman, or Buie to be a reliable 3pt shooter. I have really high hopes for Bowman, though I've never seen him play. Just from his highlights and from what the coaches said, he's got to emerge for this team to have a chance.

We dont have a guy that can consistently hit a 3. that’s why i’m in favor of letting talor run the point, and a true shooting guard run the 2.

Agreed, but IMO, shooting is not the problem. If so, how does Maryland look so good? They don’t shoot that great. Difference is, they know how to play. IMO, PSU’s problem is structural.

NY Rangers hockey- some years ago, mid season, Herb Brooks was hired as Rangers coach. He immediately turned things around. After squeaking into playoffs, the Rangers demolished the first two teams, then faced the Canadiens. Game 1, Rangers, Game 2, Rangers. Then the Canadiens figured something out. Hockey teams, coming from their own end take the puck up the sides of the rink to avoid a steal and opponent goal. The Rangers didn’t do this, but took it up the middle, in front of their own net. Sounds risky, but as nobody did that, no defense prepared for it. Canadiens saw this after watching films, adjusted, and swept the Rangers. A structural change got the Rangers into winners, a structural adjustment by the Canadiens ended that.

With PSU basketball, think what happened last night on offense. Battle was belted at the arc, and when he tried to penetrate, he was often hand checked. That’s tiring, and before bonus, an effective strategy to stop him from scoring. He’d pass left and right around the arc, but his teammates couldn’t create on their own. So, where was the opportunity, or as they say in hockey or soccer, where was the space? Inside, I’d say, but nobody was there, and nobody went there, except for Talor on drives and he was stopped by hand checks. But driving isn’t as good as passing inside. Why? Bobby Knight says the most important thing in playing D is keeping your eye on the ball. If you pass inside, defenders at the arc have to turn to see the ball, and slough off the tight arc coverage, and/or take their eye off their man. That never happened last night, not once. If everybody’s at the arc, no passes are inside, and no need for defenders to turn or slough off, they just look left and right, not behind them, and stay in PSU players’ faces. It’s structural, not shooting related. You want good arc shots, unhurried? Change the structure. Get it inside, force defenders to turn, then go without the ball or have it kicked out. It’s easy to do. Like the hockey example, it changes the game. PSU tries to play the entire game on the perimeter. It doesn’t work, and it’s a snap to defend. Back door runs(and Tim to Talor was one nice one) were invented to beat this exact kind of defense, in your face, overplaying D. That along with back to the basket setup would have forced Maryland to not overplay on D, and they did that all night. And how did we respond? Take longer and/or hurried treys. Awful. But fixable.

[quote=“kidcoyote, post:12, topic:1587”]Agreed, but IMO, shooting is not the problem. If so, how does Maryland look so good? They don’t shoot that great. Difference is, they know how to play. IMO, PSU’s problem is structural.

NY Rangers hockey- some years ago, mid season, Herb Brooks was hired as Rangers coach. He immediately turned things around. After squeaking into playoffs, the Rangers demolished the first two teams, then faced the Canadiens. Game 1, Rangers, Game 2, Rangers. Then the Canadiens figured something out. Hockey teams, coming from their own end take the puck up the sides of the rink to avoid a steal and opponent goal. The Rangers didn’t do this, but took it up the middle, in front of their own net. Sounds risky, but as nobody did that, no defense prepared for it. Canadiens saw this after watching films, adjusted, and swept the Rangers. A structural change got the Rangers into winners, a structural adjustment by the Canadiens ended that.

With PSU basketball, think what happened last night on offense. Battle was belted at the arc, and when he tried to penetrate, he was often hand checked. That’s tiring, and before bonus, an effective strategy to stop him from scoring. He’d pass left and right around the arc, but his teammates couldn’t create on their own. So, where was the opportunity, or as they say in hockey or soccer, where was the space? Inside, I’d say, but nobody was there, and nobody went there, except for Talor on drives and he was stopped by hand checks. But driving isn’t as good as passing inside. Why? Bobby Knight says the most important thing in playing D is keeping your eye on the ball. If you pass inside, defenders at the arc have to turn to see the ball, and slough off the tight arc coverage, and/or take their eye off their man. That never happened last night, not once. If everybody’s at the arc, no passes are inside, and no need for defenders to turn or slough off, they just look left and right, not behind them, and stay in PSU players’ faces. It’s structural, not shooting related. You want good arc shots, unhurried? Change the structure. Get it inside, force defenders to turn, then go without the ball or have it kicked out. It’s easy to do. Like the hockey example, it changes the game. PSU tries to play the entire game on the perimeter. It doesn’t work, and it’s a snap to defend. Back door runs(and Tim to Talor was one nice one) were invented to beat this exact kind of defense, in your face, overplaying D. That along with back to the basket setup would have forced Maryland to not overplay on D, and they did that all night. And how did we respond? Take longer and/or hurried treys. Awful. But fixable.[/quote]

Great post. That’s one think I love about this board, there are some true basketball junkies here who know more about the game than I do, so I can learn. Good analysis.

Also, I’ve been a Rangers fan for many years and remember the Brooks Era. I actually think it was the Islanders rather than the Canadiens, but you’re correct about the rest of it. They also would pass the puck backwards to reorganize their attack if necessary, which I think is roughly analogous to passing inside and then back out in hoops. Anyway, thanks for some good Rangers memories.

[quote="kidcoyote, post:12, topic:1587"]Agreed, but IMO, shooting is not the problem. If so, how does Maryland look so good? They don't shoot that great. Difference is, they know how to play. IMO, PSU's problem is structural.

NY Rangers hockey- some years ago, mid season, Herb Brooks was hired as Rangers coach. He immediately turned things around. After squeaking into playoffs, the Rangers demolished the first two teams, then faced the Canadiens. Game 1, Rangers, Game 2, Rangers. Then the Canadiens figured something out. Hockey teams, coming from their own end take the puck up the sides of the rink to avoid a steal and opponent goal. The Rangers didn’t do this, but took it up the middle, in front of their own net. Sounds risky, but as nobody did that, no defense prepared for it. Canadiens saw this after watching films, adjusted, and swept the Rangers. A structural change got the Rangers into winners, a structural adjustment by the Canadiens ended that.

With PSU basketball, think what happened last night on offense. Battle was belted at the arc, and when he tried to penetrate, he was often hand checked. That’s tiring, and before bonus, an effective strategy to stop him from scoring. He’d pass left and right around the arc, but his teammates couldn’t create on their own. So, where was the opportunity, or as they say in hockey or soccer, where was the space? Inside, I’d say, but nobody was there, and nobody went there, except for Talor on drives and he was stopped by hand checks. But driving isn’t as good as passing inside. Why? Bobby Knight says the most important thing in playing D is keeping your eye on the ball. If you pass inside, defenders at the arc have to turn to see the ball, and slough off the tight arc coverage, and/or take their eye off their man. That never happened last night, not once. If everybody’s at the arc, no passes are inside, and no need for defenders to turn or slough off, they just look left and right, not behind them, and stay in PSU players’ faces. It’s structural, not shooting related. You want good arc shots, unhurried? Change the structure. Get it inside, force defenders to turn, then go without the ball or have it kicked out. It’s easy to do. Like the hockey example, it changes the game. PSU tries to play the entire game on the perimeter. It doesn’t work, and it’s a snap to defend. Back door runs(and Tim to Talor was one nice one) were invented to beat this exact kind of defense, in your face, overplaying D. That along with back to the basket setup would have forced Maryland to not overplay on D, and they did that all night. And how did we respond? Take longer and/or hurried treys. Awful. But fixable.[/quote]

Great post. That’s one think I love about this board, there are some true basketball junkies here who know more about the game than I do, so I can learn. Good analysis.

Also, I’ve been a Rangers fan for many years and remember the Brooks Era. I actually think it was the Islanders rather than the Canadiens, but you’re correct about the rest of it. They also would pass the puck backwards to reorganize their attack if necessary, which I think is roughly analogous to passing inside and then back out in hoops. Anyway, thanks for some good Rangers memories.

How about the GAG Line. Ratelle (sp) centering Gilbert and Hatfield. 2nd line was Tkachek centering Vickers and Fairburn.

Yes, I rememberer them, with Brad Park and the two goalies (Gilles V. and Eddie G.). I remember some heartbreaking playoff loses to the Bruins and Flyers back then.

Is there a rangers fan board that you would recommend, by the way? (Although after yesterdays PSU-MD game, maybe an off topic distraction is just what we need).

Somebody posted that they watched the game again, which I just did.

As some said, there were some positives. Hustle, etc. IMO, this is not the players’ fault. It’s Ed’s. Yes, we stink, that’s the bad news. The good news is, I think it can be fixed.

What I noticed in the game was the offense. It can’t work. It’s not just no back to the basket. This HC offense, other than break, does one thing, and one thing only. Set screens. Sometimes for Talor, which is why he’s often double teamed as both the screened and guy switching take him. But often it’s a down screen and someone, DJ, Brooks, etc. runs to the arc to get the ball. This is one s*** offense. Very often AJ is on the weak side. I know of no other offense where your big man is on the weak side regularly, but he’s there to set screens for Talor or player running from the baseline. Very often there are 3 on the weak side, and two on the strong side. Who does this? Against a zone, this will be death. Aren’t you supposed to do just the opposite. more guys on the strong side to overload the zone? Vs. man you should do the same thing, with one on the weak side. Many teams run screens vs. man, but they’re usually on ball reversals and the wing cuts diagonally through the lane getting a screen from the guy posting up(doesn’t have to be the center). Our offense is hollow, with nobody inside the arc facing the ball. They’re only there to set downscreens, or higher up screens usually for Talor. IMO, this just can’t work. It leads to perimeter screens or downscreens which lead to perimeter catches. Sometimes when Talor is screened for, he beats it and dishes, but this is not good bball. NFW. IMO, this is a simple fix. But will it be done? Doubt it.

Here’s Pete Newell’s reverse action offense. See where #4 is? Well, that could be AJ, and when the ball is reversed over the top the wing #3, runs off the screen set by #4, #1 to top of key, #2 to the corner on the “new” strong side. Triangle offense similar. But in our offense, there is no #4(he’s useless at the weak side elbow, an impossible place to catch a pass). It’s hollow. Keep in mind, #4 doesn’t have to even shoot. He can catch the ball and kick it out, weak or strong side, or he can screen for the cutter. AJ could do this all day long. What he’s doing now is harder, and he’s often called for a moving screen, as he has to both high and down screen, pretty complicated for a center.

http://hooptactics.net/freesite/offstrategies/motionoffense/reverseaction1.php

Do you know how great it would be for Brooks, Tim, Talor, Taran and maybe DJ, to be the #3 in this setup and get AJ to screen while they race to the hoop waiting for a return pass? Fans would go nuts, as you’d see some dunks, maybe 2 per game. :wink:

After watching last night’s game I actually think this team may be worse than last year’s. I know, it was a truly horrific shooting night but as someone mentioned:

We dont have a guy that can consistently hit a 3.

Bad night or not, I think that is a true statement. We did last year in Babb. And when you consider that we now have a shorter bench. I just don’t see how this team is any better. DJ and AJ have given us pretty much what they did last year. Brooks has shown some inspired play so far but it was the same story as last year. Until he does it against someone decent I remain uncoinvinced. Talor is still Talor and while Frazier has done some nice things this season, I wouldn’t call his play a huge step up thus far. On the bench we are basically comparing Edwards, Ott and Babb against Oliver and Buie. Is there a clear advantage there?

[quote=“pmhewitt, post:17, topic:1587”]After watching last night’s game I actually think this team may be worse than last year’s. I know, it was a truly horrific shooting night but as someone mentioned:

Bad night or not, I think that is a true statement. We did last year in Babb. And when you consider that we now have a shorter bench. I just don’t see how this team is any better. DJ and AJ have given us pretty much what they did last year. Brooks has shown some inspired play so far but it was the same story as last year. Until he does it against someone decent I remain uncoinvinced. Talor is still Talor and while Frazier has done some nice things this season, I wouldn’t call his play a huge step up thus far. On the bench we are basically comparing Edwards, Ott and Babb against Oliver and Buie. Is there a clear advantage there?[/quote]
I think I’d give it to Edwards, Ott, and Babb.