What is the advantage of Frank sloooowly bringing the ball up?

[FrancoPizza]

All I know is I'm starting to think "game manager" is just a politically correct term for a guard that can't or won't push the tempo.

 

[MikeSU02]

It seems to be something JB has encouraged. Is it because it gives our thin, weary team a bit of a breather? Is it to make sure our guys are set in their positions (while defense also gets set)? What are the advantages?

I see disadvantages galore, particularly how it eats the clock so that we don’t take a shot until 5 seconds or less is on the board. I know many of us would like to see the team play more quickly (and that is certainly how the Dome crowd feels) but there must be advantages to this strategy that I don’t understand.

I promised my 81 year old neighbor that I would ask the board this question.

1) Breather
2) Reduces possessions
3) Doesn't put more pressure on FH's ball-handling ability (he's not exactly Kyrie with the ball).

Yes, our offense is really rough, especially if we aren't hitting shots, but if we were pushing tempo, these guys would be passing out in the 2H of games.

We also don't have a group that can all pass and catch easily. So if Frank is sprinting the ball up, it's not exactly like they can be the 2014 Spurs moving the ball. We're going to have to grind out wins.

 

[rrlbees]

All I know is I'm starting to think "game manager" is just a politically correct term for a guard that can't or won't push the tempo.

yea, that's it. brilliant.

 

[JOC44]

To me, there are two huge advantages to our walking the ball up.

1. Nobody in this thread has mentioned (or maybe I missed it) the #1 reason why we need to limit possessions. Fewer possessions means fewer opportunities to commit a foul, and with a bench that goes one deep we can't afford foul trouble.

2. We lack the passing and finishing skill to succeed in unsettled situations, and unsettled situations are more likely to give the other team a run-out opportunity. By walking it up, we give up fast-break or semi-fast-break opportunities that we usually screw up while simultaneously limiting the number of chances the other team has to operate before our extremely good defense has set up.

 

[FrancoPizza]

Fewer possessions means fewer opportunities to commit a foul

Not sure if you checked the math on this but that just means there are longer possessions. Our foul trouble has more to do with stupid reach-ins, poor footwork, or over-the-backs.

By walking it up, we give up fast-break or semi-fast-break opportunities

I'll still take my chances with a 2-on-1 any day of the week. Sure we don't finish well but it beats playing 3-on-5.

 

[Bayside44]

Not sure if you checked the math on this but that just means there are longer possessions. Our foul trouble has more to do with stupid reach-ins, poor footwork, or over-the-backs.

I'll still take my chances with a 2-on-1 any day of the week. Sure we don't finish well but it beats playing 3-on-5.

You think pushing it up court will get us 2 on 1s? More like 4 on 3, 4 on 4.

 

[FrancoPizza]

You think pushing it up court will get us 2 on 1s? More like 4 on 3, 4 on 4.

It was in response to pure break or semi-break opportunities. Giving up on those is like saying we should have cancelled the football program during the GROB years. We're bad but let's not take crazy pills here.

 

[bballbeadle]

My biggest problem with it we have an inability to get good shots off. If we get the ball past halfcourt quicker it would give us a few more seconds to work with on the shot clock.

Yes, that’s what I dislike as well. We need every second!

 

[albanycuse]

One advantage is to not expose how bad our transition offense is.

 

[Bayside44]

It was in response to pure break or semi-break opportunities. Giving up on those is like saying we should have cancelled the football program during the GROB years. We're bad but let's not take crazy pills here.

There are so few "pure" break opportunities in the game now, teams get back and Frank is so vulnerable in those spots. I mean the Howard breakaway against Georgetown was a gift from the Almighty (because He hates Georgetown).

 

[FrancoPizza]

One advantage is to not expose how bad our transition offense is.

It's already been exposed like a naked old man opening his trench coat. There's a reason opponents are sending 5 to the offensive glass. Either they get the putback or we're on our way to a 2-on-1 turnover!

 

[rrlbees]

Not sure if you checked the math on this but that just means there are longer possessions. Our foul trouble has more to do with stupid reach-ins, poor footwork, or over-the-backs.

You might want to check your math. The longer possessions are ours which also reduces the other teams number of possessions.

 

[Briancuse]

Give guys a breather. Don't wear out your pg. Also frank is much better when the game slows down. It seems the faster he plays the more reckless he gets.

 

[Arangeman]

 

[pearl31]

It seems to be something JB has encouraged. Is it because it gives our thin, weary team a bit of a breather? Is it to make sure our guys are set in their positions (while defense also gets set)? What are the advantages?

I see disadvantages galore, particularly how it eats the clock so that we don’t take a shot until 5 seconds or less is on the board. I know many of us would like to see the team play more quickly (and that is certainly how the Dome crowd feels) but there must be advantages to this strategy that I don’t understand.

I promised my 81 year old neighbor that I would ask the board this question.

huh. never took you for the flamethrower type.

 

[JOC44]

Not sure if you checked the math on this but that just means there are longer possessions. Our foul trouble has more to do with stupid reach-ins, poor footwork, or over-the-backs.

Thanks for questioning my basic math skills.

Riddle me this, Euclid: How many fouls do you think get called on us during the 8-10 seconds it takes for Frank to get the ball in the offensive end and start running the offense? How many “stupid reach-ins, poor footwork, or over-the-back” fouls do our guys commit while Frank is walking it up?

 

[bballbeadle]

huh. never took you for the flamethrower type.

Me either.

 

[FrancoPizza]

View attachment 121938

That quote is pretty damning if you ask me. Surprised JB even admitted he’s basically too old to do things differently. Since when is that supposed to be a valid excuse?

 

[OttoMets]

That quote is pretty damning if you ask me. Surprised JB even admitted he’s basically too old to do things differently. Since when is that supposed to be a valid excuse?

I'm critical sometimes, but I'll call that better than an excuse: it's a legitimate reason.

I wish Boeheim were more candid about that kind of thing. From where I stand, he's gotten more conservative as he's gotten older. And there's no shame in that. I love that kind of quote. More of that would play well with a lot of the fanbase, I believe. "I'm 70-whatever, I'm in the Hall of Fame. I do XY and Z because that's what I've gotten most comfortable with at this stage." That sort of reasoning makes perfect sense and it beats some of the other contradictory things Boeheim says when he gets frustrated with the team or impatient with the press.

 

[FrancoPizza]

I'm critical sometimes, but I'll call that better than an excuse: it's a legitimate reason.

I wish Boeheim were more candid about that kind of thing. From where I stand, he's gotten more conservative as he's gotten older. And there's no shame in that. I love that kind of quote. More of that would play well with a lot of the fanbase, I believe. "I'm 70-whatever, I'm in the Hall of Fame. I do XY and Z because that's what I've gotten most comfortable with at this stage." That sort of reasoning makes perfect sense and it beats some of the other contradictory things Boeheim says when he gets frustrated with the team or impatient with the press.

Yes it’s better than being contradictory but we still have to look at the merits of what he’s saying. Maybe an analogy helps:

“I am a great Fortran developer but it sometimes gets tiresome trying to code everything this way. Truth be told i think java and .NET is pretty interesting. If I was 40 years old I’d start dabbling in that web stuff, but those days have passed me by.”

Would you keep this guy on payroll because he wrote some great Fortran applications in 1995?

 

[Cheriehoop]

“Would you keep this guy on payroll because he wrote some great Fortran applications in 1995?“

Would you replace the guy if in the past 5 years, his programs were named in the top 8 in the nation in 2012, top 4 in both 2013 and 2016?

 

[FrancoPizza]

“Would you keep this guy on payroll because he wrote some great Fortran applications in 1995?“

Would you replace the guy if in the past 5 years, his programs were named in the top 8 in the nation in 2012, top 4 in both 2013 and 2016?

No, because his overall body of work was killing our business... and even worse - hurting our ability to recompete for future contract awards. He closed on a 2016 deal in Japan when the executives were all delirious from sushi poisoning. They would’ve signed anything that night.

 

[Bayside44]

No, because his overall body of work was killing our business... and even worse - hurting our ability to recompete for future contract awards. He closed on a 2016 deal in Japan when the executives were all delirious from sushi poisoning. They would’ve signed anything that night.

This is clearly keeping you up all night.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Yes it’s better than being contradictory but we still have to look at the merits of what he’s saying. Maybe an analogy helps:

“I am a great Fortran developer but it sometimes gets tiresome trying to code everything this way. Truth be told i think java and .NET is pretty interesting. If I was 40 years old I’d start dabbling in that web stuff, but those days have passed me by.”

Would you keep this guy on payroll because he wrote some great Fortran applications in 1995?

If he brought in the most or second most dollars, and was the biggest and most well known ambassador of your company? Sure.