(05-02-2021 07:12 AM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-02-2021 06:15 AM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 10:19 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 07:58 PM)Browning Hall Wrote:  

(05-01-2021 03:49 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Our problem as the roster stands now is we can't defend a Jarreau-type at the PG. LQ is a high level defender but not quick enough to stay in front of a high level PG. And it's down hill from there. Use one of the short guards and a Jarreau-type will shoot over him or post him up. We need a quick PG with some height, who can defend without giving advantage defensively, who can distribute & be a perimeter threat at the same time - yes a high level PG, if we want more than a 2nd Rd exit.

I’d also love a big PG, but we did okay with Jarreau this year with our #1 defense. Obviously, we didn’t neutralize him…but “okay” in the sense that we forced him into 10 turnovers. Not sure who/what to credit with that, other than defensive schemes and team effort.

Jarreau had 10 TOs? The entire UH team only had 10 TOs. Jarreau had 19-8-3 in the league game, 11-5-3 in the championship & the entire UH team had 14 TOs. And BTW, we lost to UH twice. And we also had guards playing that are no longer on the team*.

4 on 3/7 & 6 on 3/13, if you believe every box score you read on the internet.

*Yes, I picked up on that. Hence, defensive schemes and team effort. Losing doesn’t diminish our defensive effort.

I indicated we didn't have a PG that could defend a Jarreau-type PG. Jarreau had 19 pts in one game, 11 in the other & we lost both. You don't make wins out of losses doing the same things over & over despite the effort.

I get it. You think we lost both games because we didn’t have a 6’10” point guard. I’m only pointing out the fact that the way Penny has the team playing defense didn’t make it easy for him. He had 10 turnovers for a reason.