Our rebounding.

[NineOneSeven]

Great ending. That being said, we were a miraculous 35 footer away from a L. I had this as a loss, so no doubt I'll take the W.

Our rebounding was rough. The numbers might not tell the entire story (I don't know what they are off the top of my head), but just from my point of view, our guards really need to rebound better (for the full 40 minutes). Triche and MCW were very good rebounders for guards. Additionally, Fair and Grant really need to start boxing out. They rely on ball instincts and athleticism and rarely put their bodies on opponents. Killed us a few times tonight. You can talk all you want about thug ball (hate that, by the way), but Zanna had himself a ball game. Very physical player.

I'll certainly take the W, but giving up 6 offensive boards within the first 5 minutes of the game shouldn't happen. And no, this is not me b*tching, I want to actually talk about the game .

 

[Ghost]

Great ending. That being said, we were a miraculous 35 footer away from a L. I had this as a loss, so no doubt I'll take the W.

Our rebounding was rough. The numbers might not tell the entire story (I don't know what they are off the top of my head), but just from my point of view, our guards really need to rebound better (for the full 40 minutes). Triche and MCW were very good rebounders for guards. Additionally, Fair and Grant really need to start boxing out. They rely on ball instincts and athleticism and rarely put their bodies on opponents. Killed us a few times tonight. You can talk all you want about thug ball (hate that, by the way), but Zanna had himself a ball game. Very physical player.

I'll certainly take the W, but giving up 6 offensive boards within the first 5 minutes of the game shouldn't happen. And no, this is not me b*tching, I want to actually talk about the game .

I think Ennis actually did a pretty good job of mixing it up tonight. More so than I typically notice.

I thought CJ was pretty abysmal for the most part on the boards. I did think we might see Roberson get some minutes for exactly that reason. The kid seems to have a nose for the ball on the glass. I guess we may lose something on offense, maybe on defense as well by not having Gbinje down there - but I haven't really seen enough of either down low to assess that fairly.

 

[Cowtown]

Zanna had 14, last I looked. Heck, he had a big game that way. Happens. Defensive ebounding on the perimeter usually comes from closing out 3 point shooters. AR and BT were both pretty good at that, from what I saw. We may be a little less so these days, not sure. Thoughts?

 

[Waltdods]

Great ending. That being said, we were a miraculous 35 footer away from a L. I had this as a loss, so no doubt I'll take the W.

Our rebounding was rough. The numbers might not tell the entire story (I don't know what they are off the top of my head), but just from my point of view, our guards really need to rebound better (for the full 40 minutes). Triche and MCW were very good rebounders for guards. Additionally, Fair and Grant really need to start boxing out. They rely on ball instincts and athleticism and rarely put their bodies on opponents. Killed us a few times tonight. You can talk all you want about thug ball (hate that, by the way), but Zanna had himself a ball game. Very physical player.

I'll certainly take the W, but giving up 6 offensive boards within the first 5 minutes of the game shouldn't happen. And no, this is not me b*tching, I want to actually talk about the game .

It was terrible in the first half. I felt like it improved some in the second. I think some of this had to do with Christmas worrying about fouls and gbinije playing at the 3 for a while. But that definitely wasn't all of it. At times this year I think we've been the best defensive rebounding team SU has has in a while. At other times, not so much.

 

[orangepassion]

The rebounding and the 50-50 balls-it seemed like Pitt got every 50-50 loose ball.

 

[Knicks411]

They crushed us last night on the offensive glass; but in general this is one of the better rebounding teams, on both ends, we've had in a while.

 

[Cowtown]

Agreed, that's what Zanna's good at, and it's one of the things that makes Pitt tough. During the game, was he getting offensive rebounds by crashing from the back side? By the way it's played, the SU zone D gives that angle up, and always will because everyone inside is usually fronting ball side. So when the shot goes up, we're often boxed out. And the wing who fills the hole spot has his back to whoever is crashing from the "weak side."

 

[longislandcuse]

I do think the foul situation with no Keita played a part. Usually we'll give up some offensive rebounds especially to a team like Pitt but we counter that by owning the offensive glass on our end as well. Last night we seemed timid and maybe that's because we couldn't risk foul trouble.

 

[EnnisEnvy]

Our penchant for giving up offensive rebounds has to get fixed. We gave up a lot last night and a lot against Duke. We take care of our defensive rebounding we will be extremely tough to beat. The two Pitt games and the Duke game aren't close if we don't give up 16-18 offensive rebounds to them. IMO this is our Achilles heel

 

[Cowtown]

Our penchant for giving up offensive rebounds has to get fixed. We gave up a lot last night and a lot against Duke. We take care of our defensive rebounding we will be extremely tough to beat. The two Pitt games and the Duke game aren't close if we don't give up 16-18 offensive rebounds to them. IMO this is our Achilles heel

Fair enough, but it's all in how you look at it. A rebound means the defense on the ball/shot was good. So if you force a team to shoot less than 40%, and hopefully down around 35, by vigorously defending the perimeter (including denying entry passes) your defense is playing well. And even giving up some offensive boards, you're still going to outrebound them defensively. So you're forcing them shoot from outside, missing more than they'd like, and getting more than half of the rebounds. Like JB said, "If you're the type of coach who switches out from zone because they made a few threes or got a few offensive rebounds, don't play zone because you're not a zone coach." And yes, I appreciate that it's easy to say that as long as you're winning, but that's the point. It's all about the W at the end of the game.

 

[shermstheman]

Cuse is going to give up offensive rebounds- always have, always will. Minimizing it would help but even with this, they have yet to lose. Not many teams will cause trouble here like Pitt can.. Cuse makes up for it in many other areas (steals, lack of turnovers, reducing high percentage shots, etc.) and JB calculates this when game planning. Not saying offensive rebounding isn't an issue but Cuse can overcome it most of the time (and all of the time this year so far).

 

[sufandu]

Yeah, there's no reason we can't talk about the teams weaknesses after a win. It's frustrating to see 2 or 3 Pitt players in position to box out our guys when they're on offense. I know the zone causes us to give up some offensive rebounds, but I feel like this is just a lack of attention, and it's something that happens nearly every year. If we rebound better on defense last night we win by 10.

 

[anomander]

Pitt is really the only team that has given us trouble on the offensive glass. We have had some very good games rebounding when I thought we could struggle. Part of playing the zone is having to deal with giving up a higher percentage of offensive boards. Long shots make long rebounds, and weird bounces, we just have to minimize it. Plus the other thing to remember when playing a zone is you are zone rebounding. You don't have a man to box out, you just rebound your space. JB has the big guys rely on their athleticism

 

[EnnisEnvy]

Pitt is really the only team that has given us trouble on the offensive glass. We have had some very good games rebounding when I thought we could struggle. Part of playing the zone is having to deal with giving up a higher percentage of offensive boards. Long shots make long rebounds, and weird bounces, we just have to minimize it. Plus the other thing to remember when playing a zone is you are zone rebounding. You don't have a man to box out, you just rebound your space. JB has the big guys rely on their athleticism

I understand you will have a few long rebounds playing a zone and also the concept of zone rebounding. However, you still have to recognize who is in your space. find them and get position. We don't do that well on a consistent basis. I think part of the reason is we don't have very "big" bigs. We have long and thin big guys who can be moved easier. We have given up double digit offensive rebounds in 13 of our 17 games vs conf. and national programs ( Vill., ND, Indiana, SJU, etc) We have escaped a few games we could have easily lost and most of those games we have lost the rebounding battle. This won't fly come tournament time when you get into better competition, especially being short on big men and their issue of getting into foul trouble.

 

[anomander]

I understand you will have a few long rebounds playing a zone and also the concept of zone rebounding. However, you still have to recognize who is in your space. find them and get position. We don't do that well on a consistent basis. I think part of the reason is we don't have very "big" bigs. We have long and thin big guys who can be moved easier. We have given up double digit offensive rebounds in 13 of our 17 games vs conf. and national programs ( Vill., ND, Indiana, SJU, etc) We have escaped a few games we could have easily lost and most of those games we have lost the rebounding battle. This won't fly come tournament time when you get into better competition, especially being short on big men and their issue of getting into foul trouble.

since JB has gone to exclusive zone defense which SU team has ever been a good defensive rebounding team? this isn't anything new, in fact other then the 2010 team, this is probably the best defensive rebounding team we have had.

 

[Cuse315Pat]

Rebounding I believe is the only problem this team has right now. We gave up 16-18 offensive rebounds to Pitt twice and Duke, leading to somewhere around an average of 18 second chance points for each team. It's also what kept ND in the game and Wake Forest. Yes, I know, the zone makes it tougher for us to rebound, but a chunk of the offensive rebounds other teams get seem to be from a lack of effort on our part. Handful each game. By this I mean not attempting to box out players, or just watching the ball fall to the ground and THEN going for it, leading to tie ups and scrambles that seem to go to the other team a lot.

We do get mugged on a lot of rebounds though and they are never called fouls somehow.

If this team starts getting more boards and boxing out better, we may not lose a single game for real. They are just THAT damn good at everything else.

 

[anomander]

Rebounding I believe is the only problem this team has right now. We gave up 16-18 offensive rebounds to Pitt twice and Duke, leading to somewhere around an average of 18 second chance points for each team. It's also what kept ND in the game and Wake Forest. Yes, I know, the zone makes it tougher for us to rebound, but a chunk of the offensive rebounds other teams get seem to be from a lack of effort on our part. Handful each game. By this I mean not attempting to box out players, or just watching the ball fall to the ground and THEN going for it, leading to tie ups and scrambles that seem to go to the other team a lot.

We do get mugged on a lot of rebounds though and they are never called fouls somehow.

If this team starts getting more boards and boxing out better, we may not lose a single game for real. They are just THAT damn good at everything else.

i'm telling you boxing out isn't stressed as much as go up and get the ball. unless they have position on a guy you will rarely see any SU player look for a player to box out.

 

[sufandu]

since JB has gone to exclusive zone defense which SU team has ever been a good defensive rebounding team? this isn't anything new, in fact other then the 2010 team, this is probably the best defensive rebounding team we have had.

2003. We out rebounded opponents 1425 to 1333 over the course of the season. Melo averaged 10 and Warrick had 8.5.

 

[sufandu]

i'm telling you boxing out isn't stressed as much as go up and get the ball. unless they have position on a guy you will rarely see any SU player look for a player to box out.

I think that's the issue. Just because you aren't guarding a specific guy doesn't mean you can't find one to box out when the shot goes up.

 

[anomander]

2003. We out rebounded opponents 1425 to 1333 over the course of the season. Melo averaged 10 and Warrick had 8.5.

that was also a great rebounding team. were we exclusive zone then? i was thinking post LeMoyne upset in my time frame, but you are definitely right 2003 was great on the glass

 

[anomander]

I think that's the issue. Just because you aren't guarding a specific guy doesn't mean you can't find one to box out when the shot goes up.

thats what i'm saying is i don't believe JB teaches that. he wants his athletes to go up and get the ball in their area of the zone.

 

[Knicks411]

2008 was our best defensive rebounding team. (This is one of my favorite stats)

2003 we were a bad defensive rebounding team, like we usually are. We were 278th in the country in defensive rebounding%.
After the game last night, we dropped to 219th in the country in defensive rebounding%, which sounds bad (and it is), but it would be our third best finish in the last 12 years.

 

[sufandu]

thats what i'm saying is i don't believe JB teaches that. he wants his athletes to go up and get the ball in their area of the zone.

I get that. I'm suggesting he should teach it. It's not like it would take something away from anything else we do. Boxing out is the easiest skill in basketball to perform. All it really requires is effort.

 

[anomander]

2008 was our best defensive rebounding team. (This is one of my favorite stats)

2003 we were a bad defensive rebounding team, like we usually are. We were 278th in the country in defensive rebounding%.
After the game last night, we dropped to 219th in the country in defensive rebounding%, which sounds bad (and it is), but it would be our third best finish in the last 12 years.

sounds about right. i really don't think this years team is as bad of a rebounding team as it's being made out to be. maybe i'm just used to giving up a ton of offensive rebounds, but we did pretty good on the glass against teams like UNC, Baylor, and IU who were pretty good rebounding teams in their own right. I've come to live with giving up off rebounds, but at least we seem to limit teams to only 1 per possession. Their have been seasons were it seemed the other team shot until they missed.

Even with giving up offensive rebounds we make up for it with steals, blocks, and low opponents fg %

 

[sufandu]

that was also a great rebounding team. were we exclusive zone then? i was thinking post LeMoyne upset in my time frame, but you are definitely right 2003 was great on the glass

I would guess we were 95% zone then. I think the only time we really didn't zone was when we got way behind (which happened a few times that year) and we went to the press.