Unsure of Rebounding


#1

IMO, this is really the question for the whole season. I expect to see some changes in the starting lineup, and I think it will be due to rebounding. It’s kind of counterintuitive for players, but when opponents are tougher rebounding, PSU needs to be tougher, but not sure that’s been the case. When guys have trouble scoring inside, they tend to drift away from the basket, thinking it will be easier for them to score, which it might very well be, but it crowds up the arc, and makes it way too easy for the defense, not afraid of getting beat inside. And if you’re not playing tough inside on the offensive end, maybe you don’t play as tough on the defensive end. Cornley drifted outside on offense vs. teams like OSU, when Mullens came in. It’s almost understandable for him at his height, but for taller guys, they need to fight this tendency and battle it out inside, both ends of the court. More offensive rebounds will come if we’re trying to score in the paint. We’ll get buried in the Big 10 if they don’t. Games will look just like the Temple game, except some of the Big 10 teams have better offenses.

A few of us have been warning on this. Rebounds matter big time. Ed seems to agree. Be interesting to see what he does. Despite only playing 17 minutes per game, Edwards is averaging 5.4 rebounds, tied for 19th in the Big 10 with 7’0" Mike Tisdale. If he keeps that up, he’ll start in the front line by conference time. Call him a wing if you want, but his value is inside play, and to me, that ain’t no wing. Cornley hit 13 treys last year. Bill is 2-10 from the arc. Inside the arc, he’s 10-23. 15-20 treys from Bill would be fine.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/10/coach_unsure_of_rebounding.aspx


#2

[quote=“kidcoyote, post:1, topic:461”]IMO, this is really the question for the whole season. I expect to see some changes in the starting lineup, and I think it will be due to rebounding. It’s kind of counterintuitive for players, but when opponents are tougher rebounding, PSU needs to be tougher, but not sure that’s been the case. When guys have trouble scoring inside, they tend to drift away from the basket, thinking it will be easier for them to score, which it might very well be, but it crowds up the arc, and makes it way too easy for the defense, not afraid of getting beat inside. And if you’re not playing tough inside on the offensive end, maybe you don’t play as tough on the defensive end. Cornley drifted outside on offense vs. teams like OSU, when Mullens came in. It’s almost understandable for him at his height, but for taller guys, they need to fight this tendency and battle it out inside, both ends of the court. More offensive rebounds will come if we’re trying to score in the paint. We’ll get buried in the Big 10 if they don’t. Games will look just like the Temple game, except some of the Big 10 teams have better offenses.

A few of us have been warning on this. Rebounds matter big time. Ed seems to agree. Be interesting to see what he does. Despite only playing 17 minutes per game, Edwards is averaging 5.4 rebounds, tied for 19th in the Big 10 with 7’0" Mike Tisdale. If he keeps that up, he’ll start in the front line by conference time. Call him a wing if you want, but his value is inside play, and to me, that ain’t no wing. Cornley hit 13 treys last year. Bill is 2-10 from the arc. Inside the arc, he’s 10-23. 15-20 treys from Bill would be fine.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/10/coach_unsure_of_rebounding.aspx[/quote]

What did you think of our lineup at the end of the UMBC game when we had Woodyard at the point and Edwards at shooting guard? Must have killed you to see that. Such a waste of Edwards’ talents. :wink:


#3

[quote=“kidcoyote, post:1, topic:461”]IMO, this is really the question for the whole season. I expect to see some changes in the starting lineup, and I think it will be due to rebounding. It’s kind of counterintuitive for players, but when opponents are tougher rebounding, PSU needs to be tougher, but not sure that’s been the case. When guys have trouble scoring inside, they tend to drift away from the basket, thinking it will be easier for them to score, which it might very well be, but it crowds up the arc, and makes it way too easy for the defense, not afraid of getting beat inside. And if you’re not playing tough inside on the offensive end, maybe you don’t play as tough on the defensive end. Cornley drifted outside on offense vs. teams like OSU, when Mullens came in. It’s almost understandable for him at his height, but for taller guys, they need to fight this tendency and battle it out inside, both ends of the court. More offensive rebounds will come if we’re trying to score in the paint. We’ll get buried in the Big 10 if they don’t. Games will look just like the Temple game, except some of the Big 10 teams have better offenses.

A few of us have been warning on this. Rebounds matter big time. Ed seems to agree. Be interesting to see what he does. Despite only playing 17 minutes per game, Edwards is averaging 5.4 rebounds, tied for 19th in the Big 10 with 7’0" Mike Tisdale. If he keeps that up, he’ll start in the front line by conference time. Call him a wing if you want, but his value is inside play, and to me, that ain’t no wing. Cornley hit 13 treys last year. Bill is 2-10 from the arc. Inside the arc, he’s 10-23. 15-20 treys from Bill would be fine.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/10/coach_unsure_of_rebounding.aspx[/quote]

Does anybody here read this forum before they post things anymore? :smiley:


#4

Rebounds are a concern. The good and best Parkhill teams were famous for a great rebound margin rating. A minus rebound margin can be a big reason how you can allow a team like Gardner Webb to hang with you. don’t sleep on them…they beat UNCW. We need to improve here. I am always scratching my head as to how our top rebounder is our pg. and man can that kid rebound. I’d like to see Jones pick it up. He’s a specimen. I’d like to see our numbers improve. 165 is not real good, especially when you consider that we are in the weaker spot in the schedule. Hopefully that speaks to the quality of opponents we have played and how NCAA hoops continues to bridge the gap between the great teams and the perennial losers and small schools.
I say we beat VT by 7 and how about we out rebound margin them by the same!
Giggity!

NCAA® Men’s Basketball
Division I
Rebound Margin
Through Games 12/06/2009
Rank Name GM W-L REB RPG OPP REB OPP RPG REB MAR
1 Tulsa 8 7-1 347 43.4 243 30.4 13.0
2 Cincinnati 6 5-1 267 44.5 190 31.7 12.8
3 Boston College 8 6-2 331 41.4 229 28.6 12.8
4 Baylor 8 7-1 340 42.5 239 29.9 12.6
5 Oregon 7 4-3 279 39.9 195 27.9 12.0
6 Washington 7 6-1 295 42.1 213 30.4 11.7
7 Southern Miss. 6 5-1 238 39.7 168 28.0 11.7
8 La Salle 7 5-2 286 40.9 207 29.6 11.3
9 Michigan St. 8 6-2 350 43.8 261 32.6 11.1
Kentucky 8 8-0 338 42.3 249 31.1 11.1
11 George Washington 7 6-1 295 42.1 218 31.1 11.0
Evansville 6 4-2 252 42.0 186 31.0 11.0
13 Quinnipiac 7 4-3 301 43.0 225 32.1 10.9
14 Coastal Caro. 9 7-2 387 43.0 292 32.4 10.6
15 UC Riverside 7 5-2 286 40.9 213 30.4 10.4
16 Georgetown 6 6-0 230 38.3 173 28.8 9.5
17 Kansas 7 7-0 305 43.6 240 34.3 9.3
18 Charleston So. 8 4-4 358 44.8 285 35.6 9.1
19 Xavier 7 5-2 287 41.0 224 32.0 9.0
Mississippi St. 7 5-2 284 40.6 221 31.6 9.0
21 Villanova 8 8-0 352 44.0 282 35.3 8.8
22 Chicago St. 6 3-3 238 39.7 186 31.0 8.7
23 Wichita St. 8 7-1 300 37.5 232 29.0 8.5
24 North Carolina 9 7-2 378 42.0 302 33.6 8.4
Notre Dame 9 8-1 335 37.2 259 28.8 8.4
26 North Dakota St. 7 3-4 288 41.1 229 32.7 8.4
27 Duke 8 7-1 337 42.1 270 33.8 8.4
28 Troy 8 5-3 343 42.9 280 35.0 7.9
Old Dominion 8 5-3 300 37.5 237 29.6 7.9
30 Florida St. 9 7-2 362 40.2 292 32.4 7.8
31 Murray St. 8 7-1 302 37.8 240 30.0 7.8
Pittsburgh 8 7-1 300 37.5 238 29.8 7.8
33 Georgia Tech 7 6-1 290 41.4 236 33.7 7.7
34 Ohio 6 4-2 270 45.0 224 37.3 7.7
Texas 6 6-0 257 42.8 211 35.2 7.7
36 Wake Forest 7 5-2 299 42.7 246 35.1 7.6
37 Providence 8 5-3 360 45.0 300 37.5 7.5
38 Ark.-Pine Bluff 6 0-6 206 34.3 162 27.0 7.3
39 Illinois St. 7 7-0 263 37.6 212 30.3 7.3
40 Miami (FL) 9 8-1 347 38.6 285 31.7 6.9
41 LSU 6 4-2 239 39.8 198 33.0 6.8
42 SMU 5 2-3 176 35.2 142 28.4 6.8
43 Illinois 8 6-2 307 38.4 254 31.8 6.6
44 St. Mary’s (CA) 7 6-1 285 40.7 239 34.1 6.6
Tennessee 7 6-1 267 38.1 221 31.6 6.6
46 Oral Roberts 9 5-4 355 39.4 296 32.9 6.6
47 San Jose St. 6 3-3 240 40.0 201 33.5 6.5
48 Hawaii 7 3-4 254 36.3 209 29.9 6.4
49 Gardner-Webb 6 3-3 251 41.8 213 35.5 6.3
50 Southern Utah 9 3-6 344 38.2 288 32.0 6.2
51 Southern California 6 2-4 218 36.3 181 30.2 6.2
52 Utah St. 7 4-3 264 37.7 221 31.6 6.1
53 California 8 5-3 317 39.6 269 33.6 6.0
54 West Virginia 5 5-0 178 35.6 149 29.8 5.8
55 UAB 9 8-1 327 36.3 275 30.6 5.8
56 Colorado St. 8 5-3 306 38.3 260 32.5 5.8
San Diego St. 8 6-2 305 38.1 259 32.4 5.8
Marquette 8 6-2 298 37.3 252 31.5 5.8
59 Mercer 8 3-5 342 42.8 297 37.1 5.6
New Mexico 8 8-0 318 39.8 273 34.1 5.6
61 Texas St. 8 3-5 325 40.6 281 35.1 5.5
Louisiana Tech 8 7-1 303 37.9 259 32.4 5.5
Washington St. 8 6-2 286 35.8 242 30.3 5.5
64 Clemson 9 7-2 357 39.7 308 34.2 5.4
65 Idaho 7 5-2 265 37.9 227 32.4 5.4
Virginia 7 4-3 248 35.4 210 30.0 5.4
St. Bonaventure 7 4-3 244 34.9 206 29.4 5.4
68 Radford 6 4-2 271 45.2 239 39.8 5.3
69 Morehead St. 6 2-4 213 35.5 182 30.3 5.2
70 Stephen F. Austin 7 5-2 231 33.0 195 27.9 5.1
71 Lamar 9 3-6 357 39.7 312 34.7 5.0
Iowa St. 9 6-3 348 38.7 303 33.7 5.0
Lipscomb 7 2-5 260 37.1 225 32.1 5.0
74 North Texas 7 5-2 277 39.6 243 34.7 4.9
75 Nevada 6 2-4 254 42.3 226 37.7 4.7
76 Stony Brook 8 6-2 317 39.6 280 35.0 4.6
77 Connecticut 7 6-1 294 42.0 262 37.4 4.6
Oregon St. 7 4-3 243 34.7 211 30.1 4.6
79 Seton Hall 6 6-0 253 42.2 226 37.7 4.5
80 Milwaukee 9 6-3 346 38.4 306 34.0 4.4
East Carolina 9 4-5 345 38.3 305 33.9 4.4
82 Wisconsin 7 6-1 248 35.4 217 31.0 4.4
83 Cal St. Fullerton 5 3-2 203 40.6 181 36.2 4.4
84 Morgan St. 8 5-3 338 42.3 304 38.0 4.3
Gonzaga 8 6-2 309 38.6 275 34.4 4.3
Ohio St. 8 7-1 302 37.8 268 33.5 4.3
87 Georgia St. 9 5-4 336 37.3 298 33.1 4.2
88 Sam Houston St. 8 5-3 308 38.5 275 34.4 4.1
89 Jacksonville St. 7 3-4 253 36.1 225 32.1 4.0
UTEP 5 5-0 197 39.4 177 35.4 4.0
91 Davidson 8 2-6 299 37.4 268 33.5 3.9
Central Mich. 8 3-5 278 34.8 247 30.9 3.9
93 Louisville 7 5-2 281 40.1 254 36.3 3.9
94 Campbell 5 4-1 174 34.8 155 31.0 3.8
95 Loyola Marymount 9 3-6 325 36.1 291 32.3 3.8
96 Oakland 8 4-4 315 39.4 285 35.6 3.8
Appalachian St. 8 4-4 298 37.3 268 33.5 3.8
A&M-Corpus Christi 8 4-4 290 36.3 260 32.5 3.8
99 Utah Valley 7 3-4 254 36.3 228 32.6 3.7
100 South Carolina St. 5 4-1 199 39.8 181 36.2 3.6
101 Charlotte 7 6-1 297 42.4 272 38.9 3.6
Long Island 7 4-3 278 39.7 253 36.1 3.6
Loyola (IL) 7 5-2 276 39.4 251 35.9 3.6
104 Florida 8 8-0 309 38.6 281 35.1 3.5
Oklahoma St. 8 7-1 308 38.5 280 35.0 3.5
UTSA 8 6-2 292 36.5 264 33.0 3.5
107 Virginia Tech 7 6-1 253 36.1 229 32.7 3.4
108 Citadel 10 6-4 336 33.6 302 30.2 3.4
109 Syracuse 8 8-0 316 39.5 289 36.1 3.4
South Fla. 8 7-1 296 37.0 269 33.6 3.4
111 Marshall 6 5-1 248 41.3 228 38.0 3.3
112 Pepperdine 8 3-5 307 38.4 281 35.1 3.3
113 Ball St. 5 2-3 169 33.8 153 30.6 3.2
114 Rhode Island 6 5-1 225 37.5 206 34.3 3.2
115 Hofstra 8 5-3 316 39.5 291 36.4 3.1
Kansas St. 8 7-1 311 38.9 286 35.8 3.1
117 Holy Cross 9 2-7 336 37.3 308 34.2 3.1
118 Bowling Green 7 4-3 259 37.0 238 34.0 3.0
BYU 7 6-1 256 36.6 235 33.6 3.0
Georgia 7 4-3 244 34.9 223 31.9 3.0
UC Santa Barbara 6 4-2 215 35.8 197 32.8 3.0
122 Harvard 8 6-2 291 36.4 268 33.5 2.9
123 Weber St. 7 3-4 257 36.7 237 33.9 2.9
124 Buffalo 6 3-3 242 40.3 225 37.5 2.8
125 UCF 8 6-2 286 35.8 264 33.0 2.8
126 Purdue 7 7-0 264 37.7 245 35.0 2.7
127 Texas A&M 8 7-1 300 37.5 280 35.0 2.5
128 San Francisco 8 2-6 273 34.1 254 31.8 2.4
129 Memphis 6 5-1 213 35.5 199 33.2 2.3
130 Missouri St. 7 7-0 231 33.0 215 30.7 2.3
131 Siena 8 5-3 299 37.4 281 35.1 2.3
Kent St. 8 5-3 291 36.4 273 34.1 2.3
Portland 8 5-3 274 34.3 256 32.0 2.3
134 Albany (NY) 9 3-6 330 36.7 310 34.4 2.2
135 Air Force 6 4-2 206 34.3 193 32.2 2.2
136 Temple 8 6-2 302 37.8 285 35.6 2.1
Fairfield 8 6-2 288 36.0 271 33.9 2.1
William & Mary 8 6-2 279 34.9 262 32.8 2.1
139 Green Bay 10 8-2 353 35.3 333 33.3 2.0
Montana 8 5-3 264 33.0 248 31.0 2.0
Middle Tenn. 7 3-4 244 34.9 230 32.9 2.0
Nebraska 7 5-2 225 32.1 211 30.1 2.0
143 East Tenn. St. 9 4-5 340 37.8 323 35.9 1.9
144 South Ala. 8 6-2 295 36.9 280 35.0 1.9
145 UNC Wilmington 8 3-5 307 38.4 293 36.6 1.8
146 Pacific 7 6-1 246 35.1 234 33.4 1.7
147 Massachusetts 8 4-4 293 36.6 280 35.0 1.6
Texas Tech 8 8-0 283 35.4 270 33.8 1.6
149 Southern Ill. 5 3-2 172 34.4 164 32.8 1.6
150 Canisius 7 4-3 256 36.6 245 35.0 1.6
Boise St. 7 4-3 254 36.3 243 34.7 1.6
Columbia 7 3-4 246 35.1 235 33.6 1.6
153 IUPUI 9 7-2 295 32.8 281 31.2 1.6
154 Minnesota 8 5-3 285 35.6 273 34.1 1.5
Oklahoma 8 5-3 270 33.8 258 32.3 1.5
Iowa 8 3-5 268 33.5 256 32.0 1.5
157 St. John’s (NY) 7 6-1 249 35.6 239 34.1 1.4
158 Auburn 8 4-4 298 37.3 287 35.9 1.4
Loyola (MD) 8 4-4 296 37.0 285 35.6 1.4
Eastern Wash. 8 3-5 296 37.0 285 35.6 1.4
Toledo 8 2-6 284 35.5 273 34.1 1.4
162 Austin Peay 9 5-4 318 35.3 306 34.0 1.3
163 Belmont 8 6-2 306 38.3 296 37.0 1.3
Youngstown St. 8 3-5 276 34.5 266 33.3 1.3
165 Penn St. 8 5-3 272 34.0 263 32.9 1.1
166 Savannah St. 9 4-5 281 31.2 271 30.1 1.1
167 Mississippi 8 7-1 321 40.1 314 39.3 0.9
Eastern Mich. 8 5-3 286 35.8 279 34.9 0.9
169 Southeastern La. 7 6-1 258 36.9 252 36.0 0.9
St. Peter’s 7 3-4 254 36.3 248 35.4 0.9
171 UALR 9 4-5 300 33.3 293 32.6 0.8
172 Arizona 7 3-4 260 37.1 255 36.4 0.7
173 American 9 1-8 322 35.8 316 35.1 0.7
Cornell 9 7-2 301 33.4 295 32.8 0.7
175 Alabama 8 6-2 284 35.5 279 34.9 0.6
176 Vanderbilt 7 6-1 272 38.9 268 38.3 0.6
Sacred Heart 7 4-3 241 34.4 237 33.9 0.6
Creighton 7 3-4 239 34.1 235 33.6 0.6
179 Fla. Atlantic 6 3-3 240 40.0 237 39.5 0.5
180 Indiana St. 7 5-2 250 35.7 247 35.3 0.4
North Carolina St. 7 6-1 247 35.3 244 34.9 0.4
Cal Poly 7 2-5 239 34.1 236 33.7 0.4
183 Detroit 8 6-2 283 35.4 280 35.0 0.4
Butler 8 6-2 246 30.8 243 30.4 0.4
185 New Orleans 7 5-2 250 35.7 248 35.4 0.3
Akron 7 4-3 243 34.7 241 34.4 0.3
Northern Ariz. 7 2-5 236 33.7 234 33.4 0.3
188 Richmond 8 7-1 283 35.4 281 35.1 0.3
189 Western Caro. 8 7-1 297 37.1 296 37.0 0.1
St. Louis 8 5-3 278 34.8 277 34.6 0.1
191 Wofford 9 4-5 303 33.7 303 33.7 0.0
192 Chattanooga 8 4-4 302 37.8 303 37.9 -0.1
Arizona St. 8 6-2 249 31.1 250 31.3 -0.1
194 Indiana 7 3-4 276 39.4 277 39.6 -0.1
Arkansas St. 7 3-4 273 39.0 274 39.1 -0.1
UCLA 7 2-5 249 35.6 250 35.7 -0.1
Army 7 5-2 230 32.9 231 33.0 -0.1
198 Jacksonville 5 0-5 171 34.2 172 34.4 -0.2
199 Rice 8 4-4 290 36.3 292 36.5 -0.3
TCU 8 5-3 286 35.8 288 36.0 -0.3
La.-Monroe 8 3-5 272 34.0 274 34.3 -0.3
202 Drexel 9 4-5 331 36.8 334 37.1 -0.3
203 Dayton


#5
[quote="kidcoyote, post:1, topic:461"]IMO, this is really the question for the whole season. I expect to see some changes in the starting lineup, and I think it will be due to rebounding. It's kind of counterintuitive for players, but when opponents are tougher rebounding, PSU needs to be tougher, but not sure that's been the case. When guys have trouble scoring inside, they tend to drift away from the basket, thinking it will be easier for them to score, which it might very well be, but it crowds up the arc, and makes it way too easy for the defense, not afraid of getting beat inside. And if you're not playing tough inside on the offensive end, maybe you don't play as tough on the defensive end. Cornley drifted outside on offense vs. teams like OSU, when Mullens came in. It's almost understandable for him at his height, but for taller guys, they need to fight this tendency and battle it out inside, both ends of the court. More offensive rebounds will come if we're trying to score in the paint. We'll get buried in the Big 10 if they don't. Games will look just like the Temple game, except some of the Big 10 teams have better offenses.

A few of us have been warning on this. Rebounds matter big time. Ed seems to agree. Be interesting to see what he does. Despite only playing 17 minutes per game, Edwards is averaging 5.4 rebounds, tied for 19th in the Big 10 with 7’0" Mike Tisdale. If he keeps that up, he’ll start in the front line by conference time. Call him a wing if you want, but his value is inside play, and to me, that ain’t no wing. Cornley hit 13 treys last year. Bill is 2-10 from the arc. Inside the arc, he’s 10-23. 15-20 treys from Bill would be fine.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/10/coach_unsure_of_rebounding.aspx[/quote]

What did you think of our lineup at the end of the UMBC game when we had Woodyard at the point and Edwards at shooting guard? Must have killed you to see that. Such a waste of Edwards’ talents. :wink:

Wasn’t paying that close attention. But I already posted that Woodyard has a great handle from what I saw, and suggested he could be a 2, but you’re right, maybe a 1. BTW, I thought Edwards was not that sharp in that game. He had 3 TO’s(led in that), shot 1-8, 0-2 from the arc, but he was still second in rebounds with 7. Posters often say we lost because, “we shot poorly”, and that may be true. But that’s the result, not necessarily the cause of the loss. And what’s the solution to that? Shoot better? What I and some others are suggesting, is that we need to set up and try to score in the paint. We need to spread the offense and have fewer guys at the arc. We need to have the big guys get more rebounds, both ends. Playing inside on offense will help here, as they’ll be in better position. On D, box out better. We need to play differently. Those are more solutions to problems than results. IMO, the two biggest issues are overall rebounding and scoring in the paint. Address those, if you can, and things will fall into place. Don’t and the team will do poorly in Big 10 play. Playing inside will also get us to the foul line more, into the penalty situation sooner, opponents in foul trouble, all sorts of good stuff. Less wing play, more bruiser play.

Sorry Cappy, missed it. I did read it, but in the scrolling news banner at the top. But I could ask the same to you. Why open a thread on the the story if it’s already in the news banner, especially since you don’t comment on it? Aren’t you guilty of the same thing of which you’re accusing me? The story was already posted. I opened a thread, cause I wanted to say something on it. Yes, I should have seen your thread. Next time I open, I’ll go through the 1st page and check for threads, esp yours. :wink:

One other thing Cappy. Because you don’t comment on many of your open threads, but just link, nobody else comments on them, so your posts with links drift down the page quickly, supplanted by more recent. The way I normally post is to read the most recent or active threads. I don’t normally read the top 10 threads in terms of which are most recent, but usually the top 3 or 4. So, what I’m saying is for you to say something, darn it. Yes, it may affect your karma if you take a position pro or con, but that’s what makes the board fun. Many posters get tons of replies because they’re so opinionated. Often wrong, karma damaging, but so what? We want to know what you think, Cappy, not what you read. We each have our mouse in hand, waiting to express disapprobation for a wayward post. :wink:


#6
[quote="kidcoyote, post:1, topic:461"]IMO, this is really the question for the whole season. I expect to see some changes in the starting lineup, and I think it will be due to rebounding. It's kind of counterintuitive for players, but when opponents are tougher rebounding, PSU needs to be tougher, but not sure that's been the case. When guys have trouble scoring inside, they tend to drift away from the basket, thinking it will be easier for them to score, which it might very well be, but it crowds up the arc, and makes it way too easy for the defense, not afraid of getting beat inside. And if you're not playing tough inside on the offensive end, maybe you don't play as tough on the defensive end. Cornley drifted outside on offense vs. teams like OSU, when Mullens came in. It's almost understandable for him at his height, but for taller guys, they need to fight this tendency and battle it out inside, both ends of the court. More offensive rebounds will come if we're trying to score in the paint. We'll get buried in the Big 10 if they don't. Games will look just like the Temple game, except some of the Big 10 teams have better offenses.

A few of us have been warning on this. Rebounds matter big time. Ed seems to agree. Be interesting to see what he does. Despite only playing 17 minutes per game, Edwards is averaging 5.4 rebounds, tied for 19th in the Big 10 with 7’0" Mike Tisdale. If he keeps that up, he’ll start in the front line by conference time. Call him a wing if you want, but his value is inside play, and to me, that ain’t no wing. Cornley hit 13 treys last year. Bill is 2-10 from the arc. Inside the arc, he’s 10-23. 15-20 treys from Bill would be fine.

http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/10/coach_unsure_of_rebounding.aspx[/quote]

What did you think of our lineup at the end of the UMBC game when we had Woodyard at the point and Edwards at shooting guard? Must have killed you to see that. Such a waste of Edwards’ talents. :wink:

Wasn’t paying that close attention. But I already posted that Woodyard has a great handle from what I saw, and suggested he could be a 2, but you’re right, maybe a 1. BTW, I thought Edwards was not that sharp in that game. He had 3 TO’s(led in that), shot 1-8, 0-2 from the arc, but he was still second in rebounds with 7. Posters often say we lost because, “we shot poorly”, and that may be true. But that’s the result, not necessarily the cause of the loss. And what’s the solution to that? Shoot better? What I and some others are suggesting, is that we need to set up and try to score in the paint. We need to spread the offense and have fewer guys at the arc. We need to have the big guys get more rebounds, both ends. Playing inside on offense will help here, as they’ll be in better position. On D, box out better. We need to play differently. Those are more solutions to problems than results. IMO, the two biggest issues are overall rebounding and scoring in the paint. Address those, if you can, and things will fall into place. Don’t and the team will do poorly in Big 10 play. Playing inside will also get us to the foul line more, into the penalty situation sooner, opponents in foul trouble, all sorts of good stuff. Less wing play, more bruiser play.

Sorry Cappy, missed it. I did read it, but in the scrolling news banner at the top. But I could ask the same to you. Why open a thread on the the story if it’s already in the news banner, especially since you don’t comment on it? Aren’t you guilty of the same thing of which you’re accusing me? The story was already posted. I opened a thread, cause I wanted to say something on it. Yes, I should have seen your thread. Next time I open, I’ll go through the 1st page and check for threads, esp yours. :wink:

One other thing Cappy. Because you don’t comment on many of your open threads, but just link, nobody else comments on them, so your posts with links drift down the page quickly, supplanted by more recent. The way I normally post is to read the most recent or active threads. I don’t normally read the top 10 threads in terms of which are most recent, but usually the top 3 or 4. So, what I’m saying is for you to say something, darn it. Yes, it may affect your karma if you take a position pro or con, but that’s what makes the board fun. Many posters get tons of replies because they’re so opinionated. Often wrong, karma damaging, but so what? We want to know what you think, Cappy, not what you read. We each have our mouse in hand, waiting to express disapprobation for a wayward post. :wink:

From what I’ve seen I’d really like to see Woodyard get more minutes. He has a good handle, a sweet stroke and can play D.


#7

He looked awesome dribbling the other night. He does have a nice stroke. Except for Talor and to some extent, Tim, we don’t really have many players who can create their own shot and shoot off the dribble from any distance. Looks like he can. Certainly has the handle to beat guys off the dribble, which is a big part of it.