(01-14-2013 11:42 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  For some of the older guys, remember when Alford played at Indiana and was one of the best shooters ever in the college game but couldn't dribble a lick and Knight would have single screens, double screens, staggered screens all in one set to get him an open shot, I don't see why we can't do that for our three guards. Sorry, just realized, might take some type of coaching.

There were times when Alford got a touch on every offensive possession. He would also pump fake then jump into a defender, an offensive foul, and the refs would always call a foul on the defender.


Verticality
(Sport: Basketball)
Definition

Used to ensure that a player has a legal position. A defender who already has moved into a position and raises his arms and hands within the vertical plane is in legal position, and therefore should not be charged with a foul if an offensive player comes into contact with them.

(01-14-2013 11:49 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 11:42 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  For some of the older guys, remember when Alford played at Indiana and was one of the best shooters ever in the college game but couldn't dribble a lick and Knight would have single screens, double screens, staggered screens all in one set to get him an open shot, I don't see why we can't do that for our three guards. Sorry, just realized, might take some type of coaching.

There were times when Alford got a touch on every offensive possession. He would also pump fake then jump into a defender, an offensive foul, and the refs would always call a foul on the defender.


Verticality
(Sport: Basketball)
Definition

Used to ensure that a player has a legal position. A defender who already has moved into a position and raises his arms and hands within the vertical plane is in legal position, and therefore should not be charged with a foul if an offensive player comes into contact with them.

Yes, but once you establish you are a star you get those calls, I believe he was a 90% or better free throw shooter. I think being in the final 25 for Wooden award might reap Kilpatrick some of these benefits, I just don't think our better players are put in the best spots offensively to take full advantage of their capabilities.

(01-14-2013 09:39 AM)BearChatter v2.0 Wrote:  Wow. So much negativity from everyone.

Have to agree....many "experts" on this board.

(01-14-2013 12:29 PM)BUTLER B CAT Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 AM)BearChatter v2.0 Wrote:  Wow. So much negativity from everyone.

Have to agree....many "experts" on this board.

the offense is struggling. fair lackluster for the last month.

yes, thats negativity but its also real. doesnt take "expert" to analyze offense either.

sure, being negative sucks. or we can be satisfied and pleased with our great start. I personally see a lot of growth and improvement options and hope we continue to get better

If we're going to point out all the negatives with the offense (and I agree with most of them), let's also point out the 0 turnovers in the first half that led to a huge lead on the road.

To pile on...
We were told preseason by Cash that if they aren't playing fast then something is horribly wrong. So, is something wrong then? Our tempo since we started playing real teams is the same as every other year IMO.

(01-14-2013 12:29 PM)BUTLER B CAT Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:39 AM)BearChatter v2.0 Wrote:  Wow. So much negativity from everyone.

Have to agree....many "experts" on this board.

Apparently you were an EXPERT when you posed this:

"How did this team EVER win 13 games. I skipped bowling for this?"

Not so great an expert on this:

"You're going to see a good inside player at Pitt....7ft Adams"
Non Factor

So maybe you'd be better off taking notes from what you read here

Our offense reminds me of an old quote from the coach of the 1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers, John McKay. When asked about the execution of his offense he quipped "I would be in favor of it".

:)

I think Mick realized last game that they need to lessen the number of offensive possessions by limited turnovers and dribble drive probing the defense. Yes it will not be pretty, but it will result in more wins...

I hope the next move is to work on efficiency offensively.

I understood the game plan. Rutgers gets alot of points off fastbreaks and struggles in the halfcourt. UC wasn't going to allow them easy buckets.

But if we're going to slow it down, let's stop with the passing around the perimeter and then panic shot with 5 seconds left.

(01-14-2013 09:05 AM)LoudCity Wrote:  Guess I shouldnt post that the off. efficiency was a 1.24 which is thru the roof and highest its been since MD E. Shore, UC is usually around 1-1.05 but it wasnt pretty so who cares.

Can we stop using the Rutgers game as an example of our poor offensive efficiency since the numbers above show that it was actually one of our best games when it comes to that category?

Please search your memories...say to 5 years ago. Remember?

Now bring your brain back to real time, 2013.

It's OK to be disappointed in losing games, or with lackluster offense, but this gloom and doom from some of you that drones on and on, puts a damper on what could be a cloud 9 experience.

We're back. Enjoy it.

(01-14-2013 07:02 PM)subflea Wrote:  Can we stop using the Rutgers game as an example of our poor offensive efficiency since the numbers above show that it was actually one of our best games when it comes to that category?

(01-14-2013 07:02 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:05 AM)LoudCity Wrote:  Guess I shouldnt post that the off. efficiency was a 1.24 which is thru the roof and highest its been since MD E. Shore, UC is usually around 1-1.05 but it wasnt pretty so who cares.

Can we stop using the Rutgers game as an example of our poor offensive efficiency since the numbers above show that it was actually one of our best games when it comes to that category?

No doubt.

Please put Shaq, Sanders or Rubles in the high post, please. Watching Louisville, they did a great job of having a high post presence.

(01-14-2013 09:32 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 07:02 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 09:05 AM)LoudCity Wrote:  Guess I shouldnt post that the off. efficiency was a 1.24 which is thru the roof and highest its been since MD E. Shore, UC is usually around 1-1.05 but it wasnt pretty so who cares.

Can we stop using the Rutgers game as an example of our poor offensive efficiency since the numbers above show that it was actually one of our best games when it comes to that category?

No doubt.

all Im asking for is 1 pick and roll, I get everything else, the stats, all that other stuff.

(01-14-2013 08:57 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 07:02 PM)subflea Wrote:  Can we stop using the Rutgers game as an example of our poor offensive efficiency since the numbers above show that it was actually one of our best games when it comes to that category?

eh, the efficiency rating is good almost entirely due to not turning the ball over. I think it can be true that our offense was pretty stagnant and we were still efficient by never giving away possessions. If we can make it a trend to never turn it over, we might continue to overcome it, but we don't play Rutgers every game either.

(01-15-2013 08:15 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 08:57 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 07:02 PM)subflea Wrote:  Can we stop using the Rutgers game as an example of our poor offensive efficiency since the numbers above show that it was actually one of our best games when it comes to that category?

eh, the efficiency rating is good almost entirely due to not turning the ball over. I think it can be true that our offense was pretty stagnant and we were still efficient by never giving away possessions. If we can make it a trend to never turn it over, we might continue to overcome it, but we don't play Rutgers every game either.

Yeah, that's the question. Is the efficiency we saw Saturday night sustainable the rest of the year? Going back to last year we are a team that won't turn it over much. But can we shoot well. To me watching Saturday night we took a lot of poor shots because of a stagnant offense at the end of the shot clock. We hit more of them than we had been the previous 7 or 8 games. Still think we need to work harder to get better shots throughout the possession than just burn the clock down.

(01-14-2013 09:33 PM)Intimidate Dominate Celebrate Wrote:  Please put Shaq, Sanders or Rubles in the high post, please. Watching Louisville, they did a great job of having a high post presence.

UofL is going to destroy us when we play....it won't be close.

(01-15-2013 08:15 AM)uccheese Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 08:57 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 07:02 PM)subflea Wrote:  Can we stop using the Rutgers game as an example of our poor offensive efficiency since the numbers above show that it was actually one of our best games when it comes to that category?

eh, the efficiency rating is good almost entirely due to not turning the ball over. I think it can be true that our offense was pretty stagnant and we were still efficient by never giving away possessions. If we can make it a trend to never turn it over, we might continue to overcome it, but we don't play Rutgers every game either.

It was good because UC just showed the blueprint for guard heavy squads to break down Rutgers' D...be patient until they over commit...and they will...then penetrate.

Yes, the Cats were VERY efficient. Most possessions they took one shot with about 7 seconds on the shot clock and made it. If you feel comfortable that we'll get the same result from here on out you're crazy. The story is still the same with our offense, if we make shots we win if we don't we'll lose.