(01-22-2013 06:04 PM)TigerTimmy Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:35 PM)Dat.B.Me Wrote:  Although Villanova played a near perfect game, not having a shot clock then was very key. Back then I saw teams hold the ball for 4 to 5 minutes per possession.

The NCAA introduced the shot clock in 1985.

Villanova ran their legendary 4 guard offense in the 2005/2006 season.

The dude who is saying Nova played 4 bigs must have never seen this team play. Duh, that is what they called it a 4 guard lineup. 4 guards and 1 big.

not sure if you're referring to my post. nova started 4 guards and a big, true enough. but they didn't play 4 guards. If you look at the minutes, there were 4 guards and 4 bigs (or forwards, true forwards, not undersized like adonis, if you prefer).

Now, the 4 forwards averaged 64 minutes/game among them. Assuming there is always 1 big on the floor at any time, that's 40 minutes. That means 23 minutes/game there must be a 2nd big on the floor for 23 minutes/game, which is over half the game.

So, they did not run predominately 4 guard 1 forward, they split their offense between 4/1 and a more convention 3 guard/2 big lineup.

The 4g 1 big thing was unique, but that wasn't all they did and wasn't even what they did the majority of the time

(01-22-2013 06:49 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:04 PM)TigerTimmy Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:35 PM)Dat.B.Me Wrote:  Although Villanova played a near perfect game, not having a shot clock then was very key. Back then I saw teams hold the ball for 4 to 5 minutes per possession.

The NCAA introduced the shot clock in 1985.

Villanova ran their legendary 4 guard offense in the 2005/2006 season.

The dude who is saying Nova played 4 bigs must have never seen this team play. Duh, that is what they called it a 4 guard lineup. 4 guards and 1 big.

…and that particular Villanova team was very hard to beat. Tough as nails.

that was a good villanova team, but it is the exception and not the rule. i think that should be recognized. UT did well with dane bradshaw as a pf as well, it doesn't mean that's ideal

(01-22-2013 06:46 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 06:03 PM)NTMB Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:59 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 05:27 PM)NTMB Wrote:  you're just being incoherent at this point buddy.

Incoherent?

Incoherent means unclear or incomprehensible and my replies have been A-B-C IMHO.

I can’t dumb it down much more than I already have, and I have gone out of my way to include more detail(s) than the usual one-liners.

Not understanding my position ain’t my bad.

I understood your position with the very first post. Doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it. But your explanations are increasingly convoluted and irrelevant to the original point.

You think "small ball" is a recipe for disaster. You think Pastner chose to go small out of some deficiency in coaching ability. You think going small and winning is horrible because it foreshadows going small and losing.

I get it.

No. I don’t think you do. Let me make it clearer.

If Shaq & Black are out for whatever reason we will probably go small…EVEN IF THE OTHER TEAM REAMINDS IN THEIR CURRENT SET AND ARE NOT PLAYING SMALL, WE WILL PROBABLY GO SMALL.

Facts don’t lie and Josh has a track record of doing this. As I said this is one of my few gripes with Josh and it is what it is. Josh also knows this and tried to land more quality bigs like Parker, Poythress, (ect), but it didn’t work out.

Going small down the road won't be a viable option to continue to win. Use what you have and find a way to make it work is all I’m saying.

He can do it and now is the time to start. Period.

If Shaq and Black are out he SHOULD go small...We have no other viable bigs...You can't put Stan in and Hall seems like he really wants to make an impact but he keeps making mistakes.

I agree with one of your points, I think you made in this thread, that if you are more talented you make the other team adjust to you if your players are capable of executing your gameplan you should be able to beat them with it.

(01-22-2013 03:15 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 01:59 AM)lenetzach Wrote:  St Louis took away transition, from us and from Michigan State. (by the way, two days after they did this to us, Izzo went into halftime focused on needing to get more transition - but it was not going to happen and it didn't, bc the game plan was to play ball control for 30 seconds, and then send everyone back on defense after the shot.

This is a huge risk and something a coach only does when he believes he has very little chance.

The defense in the lane was also very aggressive. They also took away the lane from us and from MSU by double and triple teaming anyone with the ball there.

Also, they were roofing Tarik and climbing on him, literally hanging on his arms. This was also a risk, only taken by teams who believe they have nothing to lose.

The thing about double and triple teams is that they should leave someone open - in this case on the perimeter. Problem was that we couldn't hit a jump shot outside the lane and couldn't get a shot off inside, no matter how big Tarik was.

Do you know how Izzo solved SLU? He didn't. Luckily for him, Draymond Green can play like a point guard, and he started making perimeter jumpers in the 2nd half, and that drew a defender, so he also started driving the ball and making shots and assists.

Also SLU had two crazy deep 3s vs MSU like against us (we had a hand in the face btw). They went in against us, rattled out vs MSU. These happened at critical moments.

It is simply wrong to think that a greater commitment to playing bigs would have won the SLU game.

It helps to have such a dominant inside presence that another team wants to shut it down. But the way that it helps (unless the NCAA adopts defensive 3 seconds) is that it opens up shooters. Open shooters have to make shots.

Lol, Rick Majerus was a master of driving opposing coaches nuts. He concentrated on beating teams back down the floor on defense and setting up a collapsing paint area zone. If the ball went into the paint they would double and triple team. If they tried to drive they would switch and double usually causing a difficult shot or pass.

Majerus said his reasoning for running the shot clock down was to limit total possessions of the game. He thought if his team could limit possessions he could control the game flow, and with his style of defense he would always have a chance to win at the end. He didn’t do this because he thought he had little chance to win, he did it because it was his developed coaching philosophy.

You’re correct about Green as they had no answer after he got hot. But he also got some key rebounds down the stretch and played good defense in the paint. Izzo also turned up his defense in the paint and forced ST Louis to take deep shots, which like you said they didn’t hit. I think we are in total agreement on most of this but…

I think you’re wrong thinking a big man would make no difference. I like Spoon but he can’t guard a 4 and is totally ineffective against a 5. I don’t recall a single pass to Spoon at the 5 in that game. In fact I can only think of a handful of passes to him at that position all year. Other coaches knew this and Majerus did too and really didn’t guard him like a true big. Spoon is a face up player, not a back to the basket center. We were playing 4 against 5 especially on offense.

Even though fighting very hard at the 5 Spoon would easily get pushed out of position on the defensive end and this gave him little chance to get a defensive rebound. This made it very difficult for us to even start transition plus gave ST Louis the edge in rebounding and (guess what?). Pass it back out and run more clock again.

Not being able to throw a rock in the sea didn’t help either. Couldn’t buy a basket inside or out. I would have liked to see Spoon take some of those critical perimiter shots because he had been playing very well. Can’t do it at the 5 spot

To his credit Josh realized this and put Hall back in to help. But it was too late to affect the outcome.

Almost half of Wesley's shots came from outside. He was 0-3. He was 3-4 inside.

And you are saying that SLU's offensive rebounds were the reason they ended up with 5 more boards? That would be all 6 of their offensive rebounds, vs our 8? Meaning that if Wesley hadn't had to play part of the game inside because of foul trouble, we could have held them to 0 or 1 offensive rebound? Sounds plausible. Makes much more sense than the fact that we missed outside shots while their whole team was in the lane, outnumbering us for the rebound (defensive for them).


Your claim about rebounds leading to transition makes me question whether you watched the game, and I've already explained why.

Well Marshall is up next for the Tigers with a starting frontline of Tennon 6'8 Pittman 6'9 and Spikes 6'10. They play Southern Miss tonite in Hattesburg. The Eagles play small with a frontline of 6'6, 6'5 and 6'8

(01-22-2013 07:24 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  If Shaq and Black are out he SHOULD go small...We have no other viable bigs...You can't put Stan in and Hall seems like he really wants to make an impact but he keeps making mistakes.

I agree with one of your points, I think you made in this thread, that if you are more talented you make the other team adjust to you if your players are capable of executing your gameplan you should be able to beat them with it.

Stan & Hall being unable to play is the same problem we had last season. We now have Shaq but he seems somewhat foul prone too, at least to this point.

We have had the more talented team in many of the games we’ve played, and in many of those games we’ve changed to adapt to our opponent’s game plan. Or it could be our plan IS to adapt. Lol, you tell me.

(01-23-2013 10:11 AM)Dat.B.Me Wrote:  Well Marshall is up next for the Tigers with a starting frontline of Tennon 6'8 Pittman 6'9 and Spikes 6'10. They play Southern Miss tonite in Hattesburg. The Eagles play small with a frontline of 6'6, 6'5 and 6'8

looks like Marshall doesn't like playing against Small ball?

(01-22-2013 08:04 PM)lenetzach Wrote:  Almost half of Wesley's shots came from outside. He was 0-3. He was 3-4 inside.

And you are saying that SLU's offensive rebounds were the reason they ended up with 5 more boards? That would be all 6 of their offensive rebounds, vs our 8? Meaning that if Wesley hadn't had to play part of the game inside because of foul trouble, we could have held them to 0 or 1 offensive rebound? Sounds plausible. Makes much more sense than the fact that we missed outside shots while their whole team was in the lane, outnumbering us for the rebound (defensive for them).

I see what you’re saying but you’re missing my point. Spoon got on a roll and played his best ball in the second half of the season. He had been scoring well even hitting 3’s. During that game our problem was we couldn’t hit enough perimeter shots to force St Louis out of their collapsing defense set. They played THEIR game all night long.

Spoon could have helped if he could hit a few from the outside in the second half. He had been making mid-range shots during our run, and at 6-9 he was the player who could get a decent shot off before the double came. Again, Spoon can’t shoot from the perimeter playing center.

Quote:Your claim about rebounds leading to transition makes me question whether you watched the game, and I've already explained why.

I already know why. I said we couldn’t even START (attempt) transition because you have to get the offensive rebound first. I know they were sending 3-4 back on defense after the shot, but you don’t quit trying. Any easy basket can always help.

St Louis hurt us getting defensive boards especially after Spoon went to center. We were missing shots and they were clogging the lane. We got a few offensive boards because some were long shots that clanked off for the long rebound.

(01-24-2013 05:14 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:11 AM)Dat.B.Me Wrote:  Well Marshall is up next for the Tigers with a starting frontline of Tennon 6'8 Pittman 6'9 and Spikes 6'10. They play Southern Miss tonite in Hattesburg. The Eagles play small with a frontline of 6'6, 6'5 and 6'8

looks like Marshall doesn't like playing against Small ball?

Marshall has been getting curb stomped for most of the year. Injuries hurt them earlier but they still can’t get it together. They shot only 33% from the floor & 33% from 3.

Southern Miss shot 63% from the floor & 62% from 3, and it was even higher before they cleared their bench. Hard to be in the game when a team shoots like that.

About the rebounding and transition - You're killing me smalls!

I can't follow the logic of us getting the board 3x more than them on their end, but we could have tried more transition if we hadn't gotten out rebounded.

It's time to give up the transition argument, and especially the rebounding. It's just wrong and it isn't gonna fly.

(01-24-2013 05:14 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(01-23-2013 10:11 AM)Dat.B.Me Wrote:  Well Marshall is up next for the Tigers with a starting frontline of Tennon 6'8 Pittman 6'9 and Spikes 6'10. They play Southern Miss tonite in Hattesburg. The Eagles play small with a frontline of 6'6, 6'5 and 6'8

looks like Marshall doesn't like playing against Small ball?

Yipes!!! Yep

(01-25-2013 01:58 AM)lenetzach Wrote:  About the rebounding and transition - You're killing me smalls!

I can't follow the logic of us getting the board 3x more than them on their end, but we could have tried more transition if we hadn't gotten out rebounded.

It's time to give up the transition argument, and especially the rebounding. It's just wrong and it isn't gonna fly.

Teams that run never give up on transition. I watched a team this week get shut down on running only to win the game with a couple of easy transition baskets when it counted.

The other thing that has been missed in this thread is Spoon. IMHO he played his best bball in the last 10 or so games. Playing the center vs St Louis eliminated what he did best and this is producing OUTSIDE of the paint. No one else could hit jack.

In crunch time Spoon never got his chance to do what he does best. A couple of jumpers and a 3….you never know.

(01-21-2013 04:28 PM)tigergg Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 04:09 PM)Cletus

You're right mairving

It was all about defensive matchups toward the end of the game when it was evident Harvard was really trying to hit 3's to get back into the game.

Tarik can't guard effectively that far from the basket.

Memphis held Harvard one of the best teams shooting 3's to 25% on 4-16.

Ended up a very smart strategy.

Harvard set season lows for field goals made, three-pointers, and three-point percentage.

Can the OP rebut those facts? No ............

[img' Wrote:  http://blogfiles.wfmu.org/KF/2011/08/24/..._Petey.gif[/img]

We did hold Harvard to season lows so explain to me how in the heck this game was even close..If I would have known those stats before the game started I would have thought we would have won by 30 at least..I'm not being argumentative but it doesn't make sense..

Just whom might I ask does that benefit? There's also NOT many spreads in Vegas that reflect that???????

(01-21-2013 06:41 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 05:25 PM)mairving Wrote:  

(01-21-2013 05:01 PM)BealeStreetTiger Wrote:  I like Josh but there’s one thing he could learn from Cal and other good coaches. Cal was not afraid to play bench players during actual close games to see what they could contribute. He played Rose & Reek in different schemes and once tried Spoon at point guard.

Josh won’t.

So Pastner is a terrible coach because he experiments with a small lineup and wins a game?
But Cal is a great coach because he experiments with different lineups?

I guess you missed the games we lost last year going small. IIRC in the last game we lost in the regular season we let Michael Jordan’s son play like Michael Jordan. Easy to drive or pull up and shoot with a 3 playing a 5. A caveman could do it.

Cal & other good coaches experiment while the game is ongoing not only in scrub time. Spoon (for example) didn’t come in as point guard, he started at the point and Cal allowed him to stay in longer than 2 seconds. Cal never went small for any length of time.

Never said Josh was terrible and this is one of the few concerns I have with him. But this is an important one and opposing coaches WILL take advantage of it.

OK, I think WE understand what the REAL issue is NOW......May I suggest THERAPY