This game proves one thing
- Thread starter Marsh01
- Start date
Marsh01
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 15,655
- Like
- 24,050
SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 32,854
- Like
- 63,269
We gave up 25 points in the second half. if we'd done that in the first half, we win, even with the bad offesne.
swish7
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,303
- Like
- 5,932
It also proves how great Michigans defense is.
Every shot Louisville takes is challenged. The Ville is also getting suckered into driving into MIs bigs on every possession. Just like us.
Marsh01
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 15,655
- Like
- 24,050
True but if we scored in the first half we would have rolled them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
mountaincuse
All American
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,079
- Like
- 3,786
I did not think Michigan played good defense coming into our game. I was wrong
LennX6
All Conference
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,279
- Like
- 1,452
The first half was where the game was lost...
swish7
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 3,303
- Like
- 5,932
He needs to tweak the offense. The freelance style is great when you have self aware high IQ shot creators. It's not so good when you have 'almost awesome' guys like triche and MCW. Too many times they threw lobs to nobody, and made poor choices in the most critical situations.
The defense is great. Offensively, we need a more reliable 'system offense'
He might need to look at the types of guys he's recruiting. We need more blue collar centers, and guards that can shoot.
LennX6
All Conference
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,279
- Like
- 1,452
The conundrum is, does a defense this good actually subtract from your offense?
RF2044
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 30,646
- Like
- 98,819
When McCullough arrives, I have a feeling the offense is going to look pretty darn special...
Scotiacuse
Walk On
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2012
- Messages
- 223
- Like
- 203
It's hard to find big skill. If you settle for a smaller guy, the zone isn't as good. They certainly aren't mutually exclusive.
jncuse
I brought the Cocaine to the White House
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 19,272
- Like
- 32,854
IMO, 3 aspects did us in, even if we played well on D vs UM.
1) Due to UM talent, we needed to move alot in zone. Made rebounds on D even more difficult.
2) We could not swarm middle of zone as UM ad too many weapons. Made it difficult to create turnovers -- and Syeacuse really needed turnovers to score.
3) UM is not a stron team on D... but we were unable to take advantae of it.
1) Due to UM talent, we needed to move alot in zone. Made rebounds on D even more difficult.
2) We could not swarm middle of zone as UM ad too many weapons. Made it difficult to create turnovers -- and Syeacuse really needed turnovers to score.
3) UM is not a stron team on D... but we were unable to take advantae of it.
Knicks411
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 13,820
- Like
- 12,511
For all the talk about how bad the offense was, we were 22nd in the country in offensive efficiency, and one year removed from a season where we were 6th in offensive efficiency. In this 5 year run we've had, our offensive efficiency has ranked higher than our defensive efficiency in 3 of the 5 years. Our defense has been in the top 10 one time. (This year)
So I think, in general, we may be going a little too far with how great the zone is (in a historical sense, I mean. No question we had a great defense this year, and they've been in the top 20 the last 3 years, but it's not like this is a top 5 defense every year) and also how bad the offense is. It wasn't all that bad this year, and 3 of the last 5 years have seen a top 11 offense in the country.
So I think, in general, we may be going a little too far with how great the zone is (in a historical sense, I mean. No question we had a great defense this year, and they've been in the top 20 the last 3 years, but it's not like this is a top 5 defense every year) and also how bad the offense is. It wasn't all that bad this year, and 3 of the last 5 years have seen a top 11 offense in the country.
Quazzum69
Stable Genius
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,921
- Like
- 6,107
I don't think so. Southerland is probably not the best defensive option (although he is quick, long and athletic and pretty good in the zone) and he did almost nothing yesterday on offense, yet we still almost won. If you are long and athletic, Boeheim's zone works wonderfully if you rotate and trap correctly. We are now consistently getting zone players that are long and athletic but are pretty good to great on offense (Grant, Roberson, BJ, etc.).
SoBeCuse
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2011
- Messages
- 12,140
- Like
- 14,887
Yeah, at this stage in the Tourney you need to be able to score or score easier. Another thing this game proves is that speed skills. Both teams have some serious quickness especially Louisville, obviously.
I had this same debate with someone on the board a few months ago when our O was really in the tank. My theory is that we recruit for defense first and offense second so we have a lot of long rangy guards and forwards who are quick-twitch and very athletic. I've noticed that players who fit that profile usually are not always the best basketball shooters and also aren't the best shooters because they rely on their athleticism instead of their basketball skills. I liken it to the fact that there are running QBs and pocket QBs who can be good at either but if you can get one who can do both you are looking at RG3. In hoops you have great basketball players who have good all around games (GMAC) or great athletes (Rak) but the true elites are the ones who can do are great athletes with an all around floor game (Melo) with fluidity like McLemore. In order to prove my theory I asked whether or not this years JB would have recruited GMAC back in the day.
Anyways now that the heat of the season is off I don't think we recruit exclusively for the zone (DC3) and we would still take GMAC, but I still say that the fast twitch athletes don't tend to be the best offensively skilled guys. That is why we do so well in open court but not in half court.
RF2044
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Messages
- 30,646
- Like
- 98,819
Interesting theory. And yet, JB was known for the majority of his career as an offensive coach. It's really only been the last few years where the zone defense has been a significant differentiator [IMO].
I think a more likely thesis is that this year's team just had offensive limitations, versus JB recruits defense first and offense second. If Dion Waiters [for example] had been on this team, then maybe we wouldn't have been quite so anemic. We'd have had another shooter, and a guy who could get a basket at crunch time when we needed one--a skill lacking on this year's team. :noidea:
SWC75
Bored Historian
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 32,854
- Like
- 63,269
Let us all spend a moment dreaming of this team with Fab in the middle and Dion at the "2".
OK, back to reality.
007
All American
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 6,149
- Like
- 16,605
That this team, with its anemic offense, could come within a play or two of playing for the NC is a remarkable accomplishment and, in my mind, highlights two things: the defense was the best we ever had and JB did perhaps his best coaching job...ever.
Col. Bleep
All American
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2011
- Messages
- 4,820
- Like
- 8,979
You keep guards out of the paint...you slow down the other team.
We came to be pretty good at that.
Likewise, a lot of our offensive troubles came when MCW and Triche (to a lesser extent) couldn't penetrate.
They also had no post man to hit.
So we put up jumpers.
If we were on target...we did well.
If we were off...we were in trouble.