Thoughts on the game and the season


#1

Now that I’ve slept on one of the most disappointing meltdowns in recent PSU hoops history, here are my thoughts on the game and the season:

  1. I continue to believe that this is Ed’s deepest and most talented (albeit “raw” talent in many cases) team.

  2. I guess I expected Andrew Jones to pick up much of the slack from the departure of Cornley and the Babb/Woodyard/Frazier triumverate to make up for the loss of Stanley and Danny. Babb is definitely emerging - Woodyard is buried on the bench and Frazier has shown flashes.

  3. Really disappointed in Andrew Jones. I think Andrew Ott should play more minutes if not flat out get the start. Maybe AJ would be better coming off the bench. AJ seems to suffer from “two quick foul-itis” in too many games.

  4. Our opponents get way too many wide open shots from the perimeter - many of them three pointers. I was watching last night to try to figure out why. It seems we overplay the ball - but many teams seem to do that. We just don’t rotate well. This has been a problem for years. I thought it would be minimized this year with our deeper team and the ability to rotate fresh quality players in and out. We’re not just late to the ball - we’re really late.

  5. This team is at its best when we run. It’s more difficult to run when you don’t get defensive stops. So, just like in football, it all starts with the defense. We built up our lead in the first half when Michigan was clanking away and we could get the ball off the defensive boards and run. We should start running off made baskets - i.e. when the opponent scores, get the ball and fire it in bounds and get it to Talor or Tim to hustle down the court. It can be done, but it is something the bid guys have to work at.

  6. UM showed the rest of the Big Ten how to stymie PSU - double team Talor and watch the other guys stand around. Until we solve that, we aren’t winning many games.

  7. Time for a lineup shakeup?? I’d like to see Andrew Ott either play more or start and Bill Edwards get more PT. I’d also like to see what Sasa, Cam and Billy Oliver can give us. At least those guys look like they can shoot the ball and Sasa and Billy look to be aggressive towards the basket.

  8. Might be time for Ed to play more zone. It has to be an aggressive zone, but he has to give Talor a break somehow.

  9. Here’s my starting lineup: Ott, Talor, Babb, Jeff, and Frazier. DJ seems to play some of his best games off the bench. Andrew Jones - I just don’t know. Bill Edwards is first off the bench.

  10. Shooting. In most of the other games we lost, we didn’t shoot well. That wasn’t the case last night. We shot 49% from the field including 43% from three point range. That should have been good enough to win. Nobody shot many fouls last night, so that wasn’t an issue. Last night it was the D.

  11. Press. Our strength is our guards. Why not press more?

  12. Finally, I hate to say this, but maybe the NIT championship is about as far as Ed can take us. I’ve been a fan of Ed’s and thought he and the University were building the program in the right way. I have continuing nagging doubts about the defense and I’m really concerned about how this team has not jelled. I say if we don’t show dramatic improvement next year (like an NCAA bid), it might be time for a change. Then the question becomes who? We sure wouldn’t want a Calipari or Pitino type guys. Maybe a Fran Dunphy would be interested for the right $$.

We’ll see how the Sanderson hire works out. If it works out (and it sure looks like it will), then you try to replicate it for hoops. There are some differences to be sure (the AAU thing for example) but big $$ for a quality coach might get us to the next level.


#2

[quote=“Great Santini, post:1, topic:617”]Now that I’ve slept on one of the most disappointing meltdowns in recent PSU hoops history, here are my thoughts on the game and the season:

  1. I continue to believe that this is Ed’s deepest and most talented (albeit “raw” talent in many cases) team.

  2. I guess I expected Andrew Jones to pick up much of the slack from the departure of Cornley and the Babb/Woodyard/Frazier triumverate to make up for the loss of Stanley and Danny. Babb is definitely emerging - Woodyard is buried on the bench and Frazier has shown flashes.[/quote]

How is Babb “emerging”?

He had one good game against a mediocre at best defense, in Michigan.

[quote=“Great Santini, post:1, topic:617”]3. Really disappointed in Andrew Jones. I think Andrew Ott should play more minutes if not flat out get the start. Maybe AJ would be better coming off the bench. AJ seems to suffer from “two quick foul-itis” in too many games.

  1. Our opponents get way too many wide open shots from the perimeter - many of them three pointers. I was watching last night to try to figure out why. It seems we overplay the ball - but many teams seem to do that. We just don’t rotate well. This has been a problem for years. I thought it would be minimized this year with our deeper team and the ability to rotate fresh quality players in and out. We’re not just late to the ball - we’re really late.

  2. This team is at its best when we run. It’s more difficult to run when you don’t get defensive stops. So, just like in football, it all starts with the defense. We built up our lead in the first half when Michigan was clanking away and we could get the ball off the defensive boards and run. We should start running off made baskets - i.e. when the opponent scores, get the ball and fire it in bounds and get it to Talor or Tim to hustle down the court. It can be done, but it is something the bid guys have to work at.

  3. UM showed the rest of the Big Ten how to stymie PSU - double team Talor and watch the other guys stand around. Until we solve that, we aren’t winning many games.[/quote]

I doubt it took UM to “show” the rest of the Big Ten how to stymie Penn State. People on this here board have been saying this is how to shut down the Lions for months. One look at this year’s lineup would have revealed the likelihood of success for that tasty little nugget of strategy.

Just because you haven’t seen these guys play much, doesn’t mean they would be any better than the players that Ed chooses to give the majority of PT.

Huh? In #4 you complain thaty “Our opponents get way too many wide open shots from the perimeter - many of them three pointers.” Then, later you advocate playing zone?

[quote=“Great Santini, post:1, topic:617”]9. Here’s my starting lineup: Ott, Talor, Babb, Jeff, and Frazier. DJ seems to play some of his best games off the bench. Andrew Jones - I just don’t know. Bill Edwards is first off the bench.

  1. Shooting. In most of the other games we lost, we didn’t shoot well. That wasn’t the case last night. We shot 49% from the field including 43% from three point range. That should have been good enough to win. Nobody shot many fouls last night, so that wasn’t an issue. Last night it was the D.

  2. Press. Our strength is our guards. Why not press more?

  3. Finally, I hate to say this, but maybe the NIT championship is about as far as Ed can take us. I’ve been a fan of Ed’s and thought he and the University were building the program in the right way. I have continuing nagging doubts about the defense and I’m really concerned about how this team has not jelled. I say if we don’t show dramatic improvement next year (like an NCAA bid), it might be time for a change. Then the question becomes who? We sure wouldn’t want a Calipari or Pitino type guys. Maybe a Fran Dunphy would be interested for the right $$.

We’ll see how the Sanderson hire works out. If it works out (and it sure looks like it will), then you try to replicate it for hoops. There are some differences to be sure (the AAU thing for example) but big $$ for a quality coach might get us to the next level.[/quote]


#3

Good input Santini,
My take:
Ed’s deepest team? - well we are 0-6 in NCAA’s in Ed years so maybe it’s about time. But, I am not a “deep” fan. I look at the performance of the guys “on the court.” It has not been good in league games. I don’t think the guys sitting on the bench would have played any better. It does NOT make be feel any better to think this years bench sitters are better than the bench sitters 4 years ago.
I like Ott’s play this season. He lost weight and moves better. Yeah, let’s give him more minutes.
Andrew is Andrew. Still one of my favorites. But his progress had indeed slowed. With 3-4 minutes or so to go in the 1st half Jones was playing with 2 fouls he still performed 2 “moving screens” at the top of the key. Ed could not get him out of the game faster.
Edwards needs some “tough love.” Gotta love his physical talent but he makes TOO MANY turnovers. I would have jumped 20 feet if I was the coach when he lost the ball after the “behind the back” dribble.
EVERY other BigTen team knows to double Taylor! They did not need SCum to show them.
I think our “best 8” players are playing. Maybe minor minutes distribution change (more for Ott.)
Maybe more zone…not sure. Don’t think we would be a good “pressing” team.
How many more years does Ed have on his contract? 5?
I don’t Ed can take us very far. We need someone with a “name” and big “personality” to overcome the apathy from the Administration and fan base.

P.S. Wrestling team is on “Webcast” Virginia Duals


#4

[quote=“tundra, post:3, topic:617”]Good input Santini,
My take:
Ed’s deepest team? - well we are 0-6 in NCAA’s in Ed years so maybe it’s about time. But, I am not a “deep” fan. I look at the performance of the guys “on the court.” It has not been good in league games. I don’t think the guys sitting on the bench would have played any better. It does NOT make be feel any better to think this years bench sitters are better than the bench sitters 4 years ago.
I like Ott’s play this season. He lost weight and moves better. Yeah, let’s give him more minutes.
Andrew is Andrew. Still one of my favorites. But his progress had indeed slowed. With 3-4 minutes or so to go in the 1st half Jones was playing with 2 fouls he still performed 2 “moving screens” at the top of the key. Ed could not get him out of the game faster.
Edwards needs some “tough love.” Gotta love his physical talent but he makes TOO MANY turnovers. I would have jumped 20 feet if I was the coach when he lost the ball after the “behind the back” dribble.
EVERY other BigTen team knows to double Taylor! They did not need SCum to show them.
I think our “best 8” players are playing. Maybe minor minutes distribution change (more for Ott.)
Maybe more zone…not sure. Don’t think we would be a good “pressing” team.
How many more years does Ed have on his contract? 5?
I don’t Ed can take us very far. We need someone with a “name” and big “personality” to overcome the apathy from the Administration and fan base.

P.S. Wrestling team is on “Webcast” Virginia Duals

Edwards does turn the ball over way too much. He does have some skill, but he has to realize this isn’t HS any more. When he came to the bench after the behind-the-back dribble try and turnover, Ed put his hands out and I could read his lips saying “what was that?” IMO Edwards needs less time and Woodyard more. Cam didn’t get 1 minute last night and I think he has played well when given the opportunity, and I don;t mean garbage time either.[/quote]


#5

Sasa played one minute last night. Perfect team for him to play against, esp when we had the lead.

Did anybody else not like the rah rah atmosphere of Ed’s pre-game? Talk about non-tactical. I mean, “Dive for loose balls”? “Fight on the glass?,” “Watch the long rebounds?”

Do kids really need to hear this stuff?


#6

[quote=“kidcoyote, post:5, topic:617”]Sasa played one minute last night. Perfect team for him to play against, esp when we had the lead.

Did anybody else not like the rah rah atmosphere of Ed’s pre-game? Talk about non-tactical. I mean, “Dive for loose balls”? “Fight on the glass?,” “Watch the long rebounds?”

Do kids really need to hear this stuff?[/quote]

Did you watch Andrew Jones when Ed was giving the speech?


#7

[quote=“kidcoyote, post:5, topic:617”]Sasa played one minute last night. Perfect team for him to play against, esp when we had the lead.

Did anybody else not like the rah rah atmosphere of Ed’s pre-game? Talk about non-tactical. I mean, “Dive for loose balls”? “Fight on the glass?,” “Watch the long rebounds?”

Do kids really need to hear this stuff?[/quote]

I didnt see the start of the game, but a friend of mine told me about the pre-game speech and he said the same thing about Ed’s directives. Lots of generic, “do this”, and “do that”, but no direction on how to accomplish these goals. As a former coach, I was amused by what sounded like an uninspired pre-game speech. Funny thing is, it seemed to have worked. But what I would have really liked to hear is what he said at halftime? ::slight_smile:


#8
  1. Finally, I hate to say this, but maybe the NIT championship is about as far as Ed can take us. I’ve been a fan of Ed’s and thought he and the University were building the program in the right way. I have continuing nagging doubts about the defense and I’m really concerned about how this team has not jelled. I say if we don’t show dramatic improvement next year (like an NCAA bid), it might be time for a change. Then the question becomes who? We sure wouldn’t want a Calipari or Pitino type guys. Maybe a Fran Dunphy would be interested for the right $$.

We’ll see how the Sanderson hire works out. If it works out (and it sure looks like it will), then you try to replicate it for hoops. There are some differences to be sure (the AAU thing for example) but big $$ for a quality coach might get us to the next level.

[/quote]

Completely agree about ED’s ceiling. I agree ED deserves next year - but at some point, we need to see progress. If not, get rid of him. Agreed on his pre-game speech - almost as bad as the effort in the second half :slight_smile:

Also, I don’t understand the love-fest with Edwards. While he does have a nice skillset, he’s overmatched at this level right now.


#9

Some of you need to get over the idea that we played “well” in that first half - somehow I don’t think our superb defense had much to do with UM’s 0-11 start from 3 point land, and of the 7 first half turnovers by the Wolverines I’d give us credit for maybe 2 of them as “takeaways” while the rest were just dumb plays by Michigan.

We scored 31 points in the first half - not like we were setting the nets on fire. Hell, we scored 24 in the second half which ain’t too far behind that pace and everyone feels like we took a crap in that half by comparison.

The only real difference between the 2nd half and the 1st half was that Michigan started making shots and we started turning the ball over slightly more.

10 2nd half turnovers compared to 7 first half - if you’ll remember back to the Minnesota game the only real difference in the game there was turnovers as well.

Seems to me that is generally becoming the biggest issue we have in league play so far. Who does that fall on?


#10

I wouldn’t get too concerned about the pre-game speeches. It is almost like a made-for-TV 30 seconds. When you play 30 games, you can’t be Vince Lombardi every night. I’m sure ED is getting a little more specific when the cameras aren’t rolling.


#11

Exactly - you never sit there trying to fire your team up right before they go out with a bunch of nitty-gritty details. It’s all just motivation at that point, with a few reminders about basic stuff like hustling and giving it all your effort, blah blah blah.

If you’re waiting til 2 minutes before the game to start explaining your strategy for the game, you’re in trouble.

Think you guys get caught up on some weird stuff sometimes.


#12
[quote="GoSpikes, post:10, topic:617"]I wouldn't get too concerned about the pre-game speeches. It is almost like a made-for-TV 30 seconds. When you play 30 games, you can't be Vince Lombardi every night. I'm sure ED is getting a little more specific when the cameras aren't rolling.[/quote]

Exactly - you never sit there trying to fire your team up right before they go out with a bunch of nitty-gritty details. It’s all just motivation at that point, with a few reminders about basic stuff like hustling and giving it all your effort, blah blah blah.

If you’re waiting til 2 minutes before the game to start explaining your strategy for the game, you’re in trouble.

Think you guys get caught up on some weird stuff sometimes.

I probably shouldn’t speak for every coach, but those I have worked with used the time before the game to reinforce game strategy. Myself, I used the time to reiterate the game philosophy and what we hoped to accomplish, i.e. push the tempo, or run the 1 or 2 sets we designated as useful for the game or always look for so-and-so coming off of the double screen.

If you think you’re in trouble using the 2 minutes before the game to explain your strategy, what does it say if you are using the 2 minutes before the game to explain the fundamental basics (dive for loose balls, fight on the glass, etc.)?


#13
[quote="GoSpikes, post:10, topic:617"]I wouldn't get too concerned about the pre-game speeches. It is almost like a made-for-TV 30 seconds. When you play 30 games, you can't be Vince Lombardi every night. I'm sure ED is getting a little more specific when the cameras aren't rolling.[/quote]

Exactly - you never sit there trying to fire your team up right before they go out with a bunch of nitty-gritty details. It’s all just motivation at that point, with a few reminders about basic stuff like hustling and giving it all your effort, blah blah blah.

If you’re waiting til 2 minutes before the game to start explaining your strategy for the game, you’re in trouble.

Think you guys get caught up on some weird stuff sometimes.

I probably shouldn’t speak for every coach, but those I have worked with used the time before the game to reinforce game strategy. Myself, I used the time to reiterate the game philosophy and what we hoped to accomplish, i.e. push the tempo, or run the 1 or 2 sets we designated as useful for the game or always look for so-and-so coming off of the double screen.

If you think you’re in trouble using the 2 minutes before the game to explain your strategy, what does it say if you are using the 2 minutes before the game to explain the fundamental basics (dive for loose balls, fight on the glass, etc.)?

Those aren’t “fundamentals” really, they’re hustle type plays. It was obvious Ed was trying to fire them up right before they left the locker room. You guys are nitpicking at this point.

The fact is - the team probably spent hours this week discussing the gameplan, and probably most of the time in the locker room before the cameras got there as well. But you don’t send a team out of the locker room in deep thought, rather - you’d prefer to send them out there ready to go into a fight.


#14

[quote=“Craftsy21, post:9, topic:617”]Some of you need to get over the idea that we played “well” in that first half - somehow I don’t think our superb defense had much to do with UM’s 0-11 start from 3 point land, and of the 7 first half turnovers by the Wolverines I’d give us credit for maybe 2 of them as “takeaways” while the rest were just dumb plays by Michigan.

We scored 31 points in the first half - not like we were setting the nets on fire. Hell, we scored 24 in the second half which ain’t too far behind that pace and everyone feels like we took a crap in that half by comparison.

The only real difference between the 2nd half and the 1st half was that Michigan started making shots and we started turning the ball over slightly more.

10 2nd half turnovers compared to 7 first half - if you’ll remember back to the Minnesota game the only real difference in the game there was turnovers as well.

Seems to me that is generally becoming the biggest issue we have in league play so far. Who does that fall on?[/quote]

We never got in an offensive rhythm (first or second half), but I think there was certainly a difference in our defense between the halves. I have not seen UM play too many times this season, so I can’t comment on how much of their bad offense in the first half was because they were not trying vs. us being very active and dictating what they could do. We were covering up a lot of the looks UM was trying to get and getting a hand in the face of shooters. Babb basically took Harris out of the game in the first half, and we all know how important he is to the UM offense. I agree that 0-11 for any team won’t directly be attributed to the defense played against them. For as good as shooters are in college basketball, they will still usually hit a contested shot here or there. On the flip side, I saw a lot of wide open looks in the second half, which UM was knocking down.


#15

Re: Pre game speeches. Of all the games in various sports I’ve played, I don’t think I ever heard a word of a pre-game or half time talk. I was always focused on the game or thinking about some girl.


#16

John Beilein said nothing to his team at halftime. He walked in on them and just walked out. Just an FYI.


#17

That’s interesting. I would love to find out what the players said. I wonder if Manny or Sims or anybody stepped up and gave a talk. Did anybody pay attention to how quickly the UM team was back out on the floor?


#18

Just think of the athletic heights you could have achieved if you had just paid more attention. I think that’s what held Joe Crispin back as well.


#19

I had a JV coach in HS do the same thing. We were down 34-12 at halftime and coach didn’t say a word to us at halftime. We won the game 48-46.


#20
[quote="eric17, post:16, topic:617"]John Beilein said nothing to his team at halftime. He walked in on them and just walked out. Just an FYI.[/quote]

I had a JV coach in HS do the same thing. We were down 34-12 at halftime and coach didn’t say a word to us at halftime. We won the game 48-46.

So does this mean Ed should talk less? Always liked counter-intuitive thinking!