Jump to content



UAlbany Athletics- America East-
SOCIAL MEDIA: UAlbany Facebook- UAlbany Instagram- UAlbany Twitter- UAlbany Blog-
MEDIA: Albany Student Press- America East TV- ESPN3- Schenectady Gazette- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio- The Team 104.5 ESPN Radio Archive interviews- Times Union College Sports- Times Union Sports- WCDB- WOFX 980-
FALL SPORTS LINKS: CAA Football-
WINTER SPORTS LINKS: College Insider- Pomeroy Ratings- Real TimeRPI-
SPRING SPORTS LINKS: Inside Lacrosse- Lax Power Backup Stick-
OTHER FORUMS: America East Forum- Any Given Saturday Forum- Championship Subdivision forum(1-AA Discussion) The Hen House - Siena Forum- Stony Brook Forum- Vermont Forum

UAlbany 63, CCSU 60 F/OT


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 33
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

bosi - I was just trying to bring to the for front that sometimes when things happen and we are FANATICS they multiply in our mind.

 

1 layups is 'Nice Play"

 

2 layups "What's Going ON"

 

3 layups and "We're Getting Annihilated" and it surely seems like 6.

 

When you hold your first 2 opponents to 60 or less you gotta be doing something right defensively. If we choose to pressure the perimeter shooters there are going to be times you get exploited.

 

Someone who was at the game? did UA really play some zone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bosi - I was just trying to bring to the for front that sometimes when things happen and we are FANATICS they multiply in our mind.

 

1 layups is 'Nice Play"

 

2 layups "What's Going ON"

 

3 layups and "We're Getting Annihilated" and it surely seems like 6.

 

When you hold your first 2 opponents to 60 or less you gotta be doing something right defensively. If we choose to pressure the perimeter shooters there are going to be times you get exploited.

 

Someone who was at the game? did UA really play some zone?

 

 

Patch,

 

I'm not denying it, it appears that I overemphasized the number. It was simply because Tobin made a comment that UA once again getting beaten inside for easy layups....or something to that effect. I agree with you though, we've played stout defense in the first two games. IMO with the exception of a few minutes last night....again, not having seen the game I would take my opinion/observation with a grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bosi - I was just trying to bring to the for front that sometimes when things happen and we are FANATICS they multiply in our mind.

 

1 layups is 'Nice Play"

 

2 layups "What's Going ON"

 

3 layups and "We're Getting Annihilated" and it surely seems like 6.

 

When you hold your first 2 opponents to 60 or less you gotta be doing something right defensively. If we choose to pressure the perimeter shooters there are going to be times you get exploited.

 

Someone who was at the game? did UA really play some zone?

 

Yes they did play zone for a little bit. I think they were in the zone when CCSU was getting those backdoor layups. And yes, at the game it did seem like that happened at least 5 or 6 times during the start of the second half. I think they are attempting to run Monmouth's matchup zone defense. Here is a blog article about a UA assistant going to Monmouth to learn this new zone.

 

http://blogs.timesunion.com/collegesports/?p=365

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at the game; here are some of my thoughts.

 

Zone

Yes, UA did play some 2-3 matchup zone. I expect it to be used sparingly throughout the season for a couple reasons. Even for that limited use, it needs to improve somewhat, but I expect that it will just through practice and game use during the OOC schedule.

 

1) We're more likely to face a good 3-point shooting team in league than a team that hurts us down low/slashing.

2) I can only see Brown going to it with certain lineups on the floor. For example, vs CCSU, and something we'll see in conference play, there were times when a post player would flash up past the foul line to move the ball from one wing to another (we do something similar). With the matchup, the 5 follows him up until he hands him off to one of the top 2. Jimmie moves well for a 5, so he is able to fill that role without too much of a problem, but I'm not sure whether we'd ask Giff to do it for any significant period of time.

3) Coach strikes me, as someone mentioned before, as a man-to-man guy, everything else being equal.

 

Layups

It was either back-to-back trips or 2 trips out of 3 (with a quick turnover in between) in the 2nd half that we allowed easy layups on back door cuts. CCSU apparently had just lost to Princeton, because a couple people in the stands made comments to the effect that "At least we learned something from the loss." I'm not sure whether we were in the matchup zone at that point or man-to-man, but it was a case where there was over-pressure on the wing and the guy made a nice cut where no one reacted to help in time.

 

Lillis

He picked up a silly touch foul early (within a minute) and 2 or 3 charging (player-control) fouls. That said, I only thought one of those player-control fouls was a "bad" one, following a bit of a scramble for the ball where we could have reset the offense (late in the 2nd half, when we had the lead). I'd MUCH rather see him being "over"- aggressive and looking for his shot than being passive. With his size and ability, he can get into the lane and get the pull-up 8-12 footer almost whenever he wants, and he has a nice soft touch with it. He picked up the charges making that extra move to get into layup territory, but like I said, they weren't bad charges and they could easily have (except for one) gone the other way or been no-calls.

 

Rebounding

Listening to the post-game and looking at the stat sheet I was shocked to see we "won" rebounding by 10. Even so, allowing 12 offensive boards to a much smaller team is something that I think we have to improve on or it will bite us in conference play. The frustrating thing was that at least 3 of those came off of FT, when there's really no reason for the bigger team not to grab the board, since we are Given inside position.

 

Ambrose

I wish I knew why he didn't see more PT, because it's really bugging me. He was certainly productive while he was out there, being very aggressive on the boards (he had the most impressive board of the game - he went up... and seemed to keep going up... and more up... before grabbing it with two hands and coming down strong) and giving us another quality scoring option (while staying within the offense - not trying to do to much). He was the first up from the bench during a couple of subs and timeouts, clapping and cheering, so it didn't look like he had any sort of attitude problem. He was sitting 3 or 4 down from Coach's end of the bench, so he wasn't sulking by himself or anything.

 

It was also interesting to see him basically playing the 3 spot - he was out there with Jon (who is seeing good PT really doing very solid) and Lillis/Hastings.

 

I liked our D for the most part, very high energy, with only a few lapses. I'd hope that our larger lineup (or a smaller one with a leaper like Ambrose) could be a little more dominant on the boards, but it's early yet.

Edited by Zalman B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably the first game I can remember in a while that the bench outscored the starters. It might have happened but I don't remember it. A testament to the strength of that depth - Coach Brown played 11 guys in the first half and I liked them all.

 

I agree with you heartily about Ambrose, that was a fine debut and left me wanting to see more of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, who's guilty? I'll contribute to the defense fund. From the CCSU board:

 

Skyhawkct

Post subject: RE: The Albany bball game Posted: Nov 15, 2007 - 08:16 PM

 

How bout that AU fan who deliberately sat behind your section Rich and made a lot of noise! I was ready to smack him in the head. (But he was about 200 lbs heavier than me)

 

Rich

Post subject: UA vs CCSU BBall Posted: Nov 16, 2007 - 01:24 AM

 

Yes, Sky, that fan was making things tough, especially when he'd yell out "box out" as the Central shooter was about to shoot.

 

I mean, what do they expect from visitors? Or don't they ever get any?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, who's guilty? I'll contribute to the defense fund. From the CCSU board:

 

Skyhawkct

Post subject: RE: The Albany bball game Posted: Nov 15, 2007 - 08:16 PM

 

(But he was about 200 lbs heavier than me)

 

Well, unless this dude weighs somewhere between 8 and 12 pounds, it can't be me.

I think we have to look for somebody 350 pounds plus....

Edited by haggyland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record:

 

I was sitting in my assigned seat. I bought a ticket at the box office window, wearing purple and a big steve & barry's jacket. If they want to seat me in "Rich's" Section, then it's on them.

 

I'm a big guy, but I'm not quite tipping the scales at 350, or even 300 just yet. Probably about 280 or so. That said, judging from the physique of the people sitting in front of me, Sky made a good call by showing restraint.

 

I apologize for not being completely up-to-date with the new NEC rule changes. I was unaware that fans were required to be silent during FT attempts. I guess I got lucky that I didn't cost us the game by having a technical foul assessed.

 

Finally, it seemed we needed the reminder to box out during FT and CCSU was missing a ton of attempts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B)-->

QUOTE(Zalman B @ Nov 16 2007, 02:22 PM) 27588[/snapback]
For the record:

 

I was sitting in my assigned seat. I bought a ticket at the box office window, wearing purple and a big steve & barry's jacket. If they want to seat me in "Rich's" Section, then it's on them.

 

I'm a big guy, but I'm not quite tipping the scales at 350, or even 300 just yet. Probably about 280 or so. That said, judging from the physique of the people sitting in front of me, Sky made a good call by showing restraint.

 

I apologize for not being completely up-to-date with the new NEC rule changes. I was unaware that fans were required to be silent during FT attempts. I guess I got lucky that I didn't cost us the game by having a technical foul assessed.

 

Finally, it seemed we needed the reminder to box out during FT and CCSU was missing a ton of attempts.

 

I think we have a confession.

Anyways, keep up the good work, but if you really want to get uner their skin show up on Saturday for the football game.

 

Go Danes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh, NEC schools have a rule requiring silence during FT attempts???

 

Well, now there's an amorphous rule. If that is the rule, what is impermissible noise? What if, at a NEC game, I cough, sneeze, talk loud, or pass gas? At a minimum, I would expect that the rule would implicitly (and through application) except bodily functions, however loud they may be.

Edited by UA_MA_2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...