Duke Post Game

[Fly Rodder]

I think Bell desperately misses Gerry. He worked on Bell's shot a lot last year.

Bell is shooting fine. He's at 34% from three on the year and 45% in conference.

It's that he doesn't bring anything else that makes him a net-negative player. He's been the same player since HS.

 

[DilemaCuse]

And coaches like a coach that they can consistently beat.

Ha, good point. Some teams in the league would be fine w our status quo.

 

[MikeSU02]

FWIW, I'm personally surprised we are as bad as we are. I thought we'd be at least competitive with better teams and easily beat bad teams. Similar to last year.

I knew the defense would be worse and said as much.
I had no faith in Carlos as said as much.

I was wrong on Bell, although ultimately not shocked, but had no clue he would be as bad as he's been offensively.

Pre-season I thought we'd be outside looking in on the bubble. Obviously I was wrong.

The incoming talent (both the transfers and the rooks) was overrated. So I was right on that.

I was wrong on Bell as well. I thought he'd make a leap. And I get his shooting has started to get better, but he's a country mile from where I thought he'd be. He's still a 2-3 dribble max guy. Looks disinterested half the time, etc.

But, it goes back to the blame pie of talent vs coaching. Again, I thought we'd be ok (def not 10-13 and def not in OT with Youngstown St, for example), but no tourney. But at this point, my real worry is that I just don't see the glimpses I need to see to have any faith in Red. And I don't love our roster by any means, imo they should be better, even with the injuries the team has sustained.

And I don't think any portal haul with our current recruits is going to shot put us into the NCAAT next year. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[RF2044]

What's the point of our centers setting screens? Both guys did it repeatedly against Duke. It's like it's just a formality. They come up, set a half a$$ screen, and then peel away without it doing a damn thing. Meanwhile, it's just taking time off the clock before someone (usually JJ) goes iso.

That's an easy one. In Jeopardy-style response:

"What is, because that's what JB used to have his centers do, and since Red doesn't have any other offensive concepts he's implemented, he just has the centers do the same thing even though it doesn't accomplish much?"

 

[MikeSU02]

What's the point of our centers setting screens? Both guys did it repeatedly against Duke. It's like it's just a formality. They come up, set a half a$$ screen, and then peel away without it doing a damn thing. Meanwhile, it's just taking time off the clock before someone (usually JJ) goes iso.

Transparently, I didn't see the game. But I've posted this before (and my comment is from it being pointed out by a friend originally) --

Every team uses the high screen and roll. Every team (college, NBA). Those that can do it well, create mismatches that have the ball handler make the correct decision to gain the advantage (eg hit the short roll for a 4 on 3, swing to a corner for three, drive if not picked up, oop if its there, etc -- you get the point). Using a big up top that can catch the pocket pass, can manage a 4 on 3 is a huge benefit. If they can finish an oop, again, huge benefit coming downhill. It opens the lane so the initial ballhandler (eg JJ) has room to make the best decision and make it quickly and accurately.

I don't believe we run it well. I also don't believe we defend it well. And I know this is a gross oversimplification, but it's not a bad bellwether for how well a team is coached for how productive they are executing the high screen and roll and defending the high screen and roll, but that's just my opinion.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Funny... "a lot of top recruits did not want to play" the 2-3 zone. Why would we let the recruits dictate our strategy? I'd rather we were a NCAA tournament bubble team playing the 2-3 zone than a team that is on the bubble of the ACC tournament playing M2M. I get that JB dropped the ball at the end to keep us out of the top 25... and that the NIL changes the landscape... but why change what worked?

Because college hoops is just a training program for the NBA to most of the better players. That's how they view it. They care very little about the school or it's tradition.

 

[RF2044]

Transparently, I didn't see the game. But I've posted this before (and my comment is from it being pointed out by a friend originally) --

Every team uses the high screen and roll. Every team (college, NBA). Those that can do it well, create mismatches that have the ball handler make the correct decision to gain the advantage (eg hit the short roll for a 4 on 3, swing to a corner for three, drive if not picked up, oop if its there, etc -- you get the point). Using a big up top that can catch the pocket pass, can manage a 4 on 3 is a huge benefit. If they can finish an oop, again, huge benefit coming downhill. It opens the lane so the initial ballhandler (eg JJ) has room to make the best decision and make it quickly and accurately.

I don't believe we run it well. I also don't believe we defend it well. And I know this is a gross oversimplification, but it's not a bad bellwether for how well a team is coached for how productive they are executing the high screen and roll and defending the high screen and roll, but that's just my opinion.

What's hilarious [not really] is how easy we are to defend out of it.

The screen gets set, and the defending big switches to stay with the guard, pushing them east-west. The guard originally defending drops underneath the screen and picks back up our ball handler, who hasn't really gained any ground, and keeps them defended on the perimeter 99.9999% of the time. The defending big who hedged out initially drops down / hustles back to pick up their man -- who was never really a pick and roll threat 99.9999% of the time.

Poor set, poor execution, poor cutting.

 

[AcAndAc]

Because college hoops is just a training program for the NBA to most of the better players. That's how they view it. They care very little about the school or it's tradition.

Nor should they care. I find it hard to believe that the NBA has changed so much that it would be better to play for a 14-17 M2M team than for a 23-8 Zone team. Do NBA teams really rely on college M2M to get kids ready? Seems like they draft potential anyway. A guy that has played the zone for a year or three is not permanently broken somehow. Showcasing your talent in competitive games all year and in the big stage of March can be a boost too. Getting bounced from the ACC tourney (or not making it there) is not helping anyone...

 

[Sbucketball]

my real worry is that I just don't see the glimpses I need to see to have any faith in Red.

This is really the bottom line. If Red was going to turn into a top coach who could return us to glory, we would at least see glimpses of his brilliance, and then we'd say he needs time to put it together. It's been two years and we've seen nothing. He'll get better, but lack of glimpses makes me think he'll only reach mediocrity, which, for me, is not good enough.

 

[RF2044]

This is really the bottom line. If Red was going to turn into a top coach who could return us to glory, we would at least see glimpses of his brilliance, and then we'd say he needs time to put it together. It's been two years and we've seen nothing. He'll get better, but lack of glimpses makes me think he'll only reach mediocrity, which, for me, is not good enough.

100% spot on.

 

[MikeSU02]

This is really the bottom line. If Red was going to turn into a top coach who could return us to glory, we would at least see glimpses of his brilliance, and then we'd say he needs time to put it together. It's been two years and we've seen nothing. He'll get better, but lack of glimpses makes me think he'll only reach mediocrity, which, for me, is not good enough.

Totally agree.

And, listen, I'll gladly eat crow next year if Red knocks it out of the park, we're a top 25 team (or just ORV, honestly) and are generally pretty good. I'd rather be wrong and have Syracuse be good than be right and have them miss the tournament again.

 

[Nicknack]

Transparently, I didn't see the game. But I've posted this before (and my comment is from it being pointed out by a friend originally) --

Every team uses the high screen and roll. Every team (college, NBA). Those that can do it well, create mismatches that have the ball handler make the correct decision to gain the advantage (eg hit the short roll for a 4 on 3, swing to a corner for three, drive if not picked up, oop if its there, etc -- you get the point). Using a big up top that can catch the pocket pass, can manage a 4 on 3 is a huge benefit. If they can finish an oop, again, huge benefit coming downhill. It opens the lane so the initial ballhandler (eg JJ) has room to make the best decision and make it quickly and accurately.

I don't believe we run it well. I also don't believe we defend it well. And I know this is a gross oversimplification, but it's not a bad bellwether for how well a team is coached for how productive they are executing the high screen and roll and defending the high screen and roll, but that's just my opinion.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I understand the logic. My question was more about why do it when our centers seem so bad at doing it. Just watching the duke game, it looks like it's just something they've been told to do. There isn't much intent behind it.

 

[MikeSU02]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I understand the logic. My question was more about why do it when our centers seem so bad at doing it. Just watching the duke game, it looks like it's just something they've been told to do. There isn't much intent behind it.

Ah, my fault for misunderstanding. It's a fair question. We definitely do not execute it well at all, usually.