more on NH post game

[dslyank]

I know coach Brown is not staying up nights reading this blog/ nor should he be, but since "most" on this blog agree it is OK to be an armchair qb, here is my humble and perhaps stupid opinion for what it is worth:

Maybe if we did not have 60 sets/plays, young studs like Ambrose could learn more by having to learn less. Also, since we do not shoot the ball well and since we do not handle the ball well, perhaps if we did not try to use 34 seconds out of 35 everytime down court we would be less likely to turn the ball over and less likely to have to force a shot/play/set. Perhaps if we pushed the ball up court and tried to shot sooner instead of passing the ball around for 34 seconds (and throwing it away). we could use one of our strengths--rebounding to get some points when our poor shooting is poor. And infact this might help guys like Ambrose and even Hastings who seem more suited to an up tempo offense, shoot better.

[McFan]

Others will certianly disagree, but go ahead play armchair QB, that's part of the fun.

[Clickclack]

I agree!

[McFan]

Funny, I read this before the other thread.

[S-money]

I know coach Brown is not staying up nights reading this blog/ nor should he be, but since "most" on this blog agree it is OK to be an armchair qb, here is my humble and perhaps stupid opinion for what it is worth:

Maybe if we did not have 60 sets/plays, young studs like Ambrose could learn more by having to learn less. Also, since we do not shoot the ball well and since we do not handle the ball well, perhaps if we did not try to use 34 seconds out of 35 everytime down court we would be less likely to turn the ball over and less likely to have to force a shot/play/set. Perhaps if we pushed the ball up court and tried to shot sooner instead of passing the ball around for 34 seconds (and throwing it away). we could use one of our strengths--rebounding to get some points when our poor shooting is poor. And infact this might help guys like Ambrose and even Hastings who seem more suited to an up tempo offense, shoot better.

 

I was thinking the same things today. We have been able to push the ball faster since Martin has been running the point and the other freshmen have been playing more, so why not try to score more quickly? It's when the shot clock is down to 10 that we get into trouble--no Jamar clear-out circus shot. Since we don't have that option now, let's use more of the first 25 seconds to score.

 

I also wonder about the number of plays. I never played organized ball, so I've no idea how much is too much.

 

We do need to care for the ball better, though. Turnovers seem to really be killing us in some games.

[Dane96]

I was thinking the same things today. We have been able to push the ball faster since Martin has been running the point and the other freshmen have been playing more, so why not try to score more quickly? It's when the shot clock is down to 10 that we get into trouble--no Jamar clear-out circus shot. Since we don't have that option now, let's use more of the first 25 seconds to score.

 

I also wonder about the number of plays. I never played organized ball, so I've no idea how much is too much.

 

We do need to care for the ball better, though. Turnovers seem to really be killing us in some games.

 

 

20-30 sets are not all too much. It is pretty standard. Heck, in football, some teams have 20-30 plays for one formation.

 

I think you make a great observation (as does dyslank) about pushing the ball. For those that know Brown's success at Sullivan, his teams regularly scored 80. He advocated pushing the ball.

 

Problem I think we have now is that the team is A) prone to TO's and this is not good when your pushing the ball, and we have some lumbering guys out there who cant exactly push the ball for 40 minutes. As good as they are Lillis and Wilson are not built for that...and certainly neither is Gifford and Covington. Connelly...not so much either though a closer to the push side of the bell curve.

 

The three frosh are very athletic, and the videos that boysidid provided on Logan and Jake seem to indicate they are of similar ilk. RAFFA MOST CERTAINLY IS. Those are 6 athletic guys...so I expect the future of the program to go in that direction.

 

Right now, however, I think Will is in a bind with the guys we have and what he may want to do. If you are not very good in transition D, which we are not, and you are not very fast, you cant push the ball and take quick shots.

 

It's unfortunate but the case.

 

Jerel, not sure what his deal is...but the defense is below what I had hoped because of what we were told of him...and his offense has been missing since Day 1. That being said, he can still be a SIGGERS...rather than a Ross.

[GODANESGO]

It's not just grasping offensive sets that Brown has been critical of Ambrose for, it's also fulfilling defense assignments.

 

A quicker run-and-gun offense might be worth a shot of course, but like D96 mentioned, we likely don't have horses to do that for 40 minutes. That type of offensive would also increase the posessions, and therefore, shots that the opposing team would have, which wouldn't necessary be a great thing with our current lower shooting percentages.

 

I think we run our offensive sets relatively well, but are set back by the poor ball-handling and low shooting percentage that we've seen.

 

Definitely stuff for coach Brown and the rest of the staff to work on as we head into the couple months of conference play..but that's why he makes the big bucks!

 

The 'good' thing that I look to take is that we've been playing for 40 minutes every game and have 'been in' every game (other than Duke, of course) despite what I have seen to be relatively poor play with no one player being consistantly 'hot' for more than 1 half.

 

GO DANES!

[UA_MA_2000]

Not sure if this was covered, but the problem with pushing the ball and attempting to score fast is that you give the other team more chances to score. And that is not good for us if we don't put up a lot of points and are shooting poorly from the outside like we have been.

Quick story:

 

Back in college, every college player on the hoops team was allowed to play in the on-campus rec league (in the spring); however, only 1 player per recreational league team was allowed. I got assigned to the computer/World of Warcraft Club. We were horrible. I mean, these guys are the type of people who would want to "re-boot" Windows whenever the other team scores a basket. You get my point. We were playing the best team in the league, so I told the computer kids we just needed to hold on to the ball and run out the clock. There was no shot clock in the league. Halftime score: 12-9, we were winning!

 

The final score was them, 22-16. Even though we lost, my team was so happy, and a lot of students (i.e., the computer lab people, lol) came over to watch the game because of our very effective stall strategy! I was a PG back then, so I just dribbled around in the backcourt away from 1-3 defenders and then dished to a computer club kid under the basket who was usually left alone. 33% of the time, the computer club kid would make the layup. Good enough for 16 points. LOL.

 

Anyways, my point here is that by holding on to the ball and thereby limiting the possessions of the other team, you increase the chances of holding the other team to fewer points.

 

Just a thought.

[albanyhoops31]

I agree. We need to push the ball more. The offensive sets in the 3-4 games I've seen don't do all that much.