The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(03-24-2019 09:35 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Everyone likes to think that there are just a crop of 50% three point shooters sitting around waiting to come to UC. It's a lame fantasy that, frankly, suggests limited knowledge of basketball.

I largely agree but I'd add the addendum that there are a lot of great 3 point shooters out there, but they can't necessarily do much else that you need to win games like play defense, rebound, pass and handle the ball adequately at this level. Even if a guy can make 50% of his 3s it's not helping if the guy he is covering makes 90% of his 2s via basket or foul and forces his teammates to make fouls trying to cover for his deficiencies.

(03-24-2019 09:49 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 09:42 AM)dsquare Wrote:  We weren't a terrible shooting team this year. This is kind of the old Houston one Sunday not next Sundayscena rio. Iowa was 1/16 against Michigan and what 55% Friday? I think against certain teams our defensive strategy is more in play than the shooting issue. You have to man a team with slower good shooting athletes plain and simple. Anyone want to bet we beat Iowa in December in Chicago this year? Something tells me we see little of that zone up there. At the end of the day Cronin didn't adjust well or at all in the case of the press, and it lost him the game. It's on him.

Yep. In game adjustments or lack thereof by both coaches made the difference in outcome.
Won it for McCafferty.
Lost it for Cronin.

It's a narrow margin for error. We weren't that much(if any) more talented in that game. We were more athletic(when Brooks is on the floor) but Cronin did nothing to take advantage of that. Today Iowa hits 7/21 v what 11 or 12/21 against us. You win or lose on those shots. Did UT play better D, probably, but Iowa did get open looks. Key for us next year is keeping Brooks on the floor. I do agree with Cronin on that. It's a big difference for us. That's good, he's improved greatly. Hopefully Diarra makes a leap next year.

(03-24-2019 06:00 AM)Lush Wrote:  i too champion the cause of slashing. opens the floor up, gets folks to the line. next year it is my hope that keith will and logan create many practice shots for trevor. eliel only needs to play solid defense and clean the glass. a block a game would be nice. diarra could be a nightmare. the depth is untapped, but it's there

I don't entirely agree. There will be only five guards (when we start three).

Now, I'll admit, yes, plenty of front court players. I hope a few more of them are actually ready next year.

(03-24-2019 01:48 PM)dsquare Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 09:49 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 09:42 AM)dsquare Wrote:  We weren't a terrible shooting team this year. This is kind of the old Houston one Sunday not next Sundayscena rio. Iowa was 1/16 against Michigan and what 55% Friday? I think against certain teams our defensive strategy is more in play than the shooting issue. You have to man a team with slower good shooting athletes plain and simple. Anyone want to bet we beat Iowa in December in Chicago this year? Something tells me we see little of that zone up there. At the end of the day Cronin didn't adjust well or at all in the case of the press, and it lost him the game. It's on him.

Yep. In game adjustments or lack thereof by both coaches made the difference in outcome.
Won it for McCafferty.
Lost it for Cronin.

It's a narrow margin for error. We weren't that much(if any) more talented in that game. We were more athletic(when Brooks is on the floor) but Cronin did nothing to take advantage of that. Today Iowa hits 7/21 v what 11 or 12/21 against us. You win or lose on those shots. Did UT play better D, probably, but Iowa did get open looks. Key for us next year is keeping Brooks on the floor. I do agree with Cronin on that. It's a big difference for us. That's good, he's improved greatly. Hopefully Diarra makes a leap next year.

There is a difference between types of open shots. UC gives up tons of rythm 3pt shots, where the D collapses and the ball gets kicked out, or off an offensive rebound and kick back. Having a 5-10 guy chasing you 10 ft away on a closeout doesn't do a whole lot. Some defenses are designed to give semi open shots off the dribble, but not rythm shots.

(03-23-2019 09:20 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The Bearcats scored 1.07 points per possession yesterday. Only 4 teams have scored at least 1.07 points per possession and lost so far in the tournament. The Bearcats allowed 1.18 points per possession. Only 1 team has allowed that and won so far in the tournament. They were good on offense yesterday and bad on defense

Mark, in this case, I do not believe the numbers tell the whole story.

They shot 6-27 from the three, clearly indicative of a non-aggressive mindset, especially compared to the 14 FT attempts (hitting a solid 10).

No doubt, they did plenty of things very well. I'll take 22/38 from two-point range (0.578) any day of the year. 7 turnovers? Sign me up.

I thought, early, they had a pretty good strategy vs. their zone. Scott from the foul-line area was very productive in that soft middle. But eventually, they stopped going to that, and instead ended up hoisting up an excessive number of threes that were not falling.

And, all the non-attempts to break their press, and use superior athleticism in taking it to them, have been well-documented, so I don't need to dwell on that.

I do agree, defense might have been the bigger problem of the two, but I still think the offense could have been better in taking full advantage of what was working.

(03-25-2019 05:20 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(03-23-2019 09:20 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The Bearcats scored 1.07 points per possession yesterday. Only 4 teams have scored at least 1.07 points per possession and lost so far in the tournament. The Bearcats allowed 1.18 points per possession. Only 1 team has allowed that and won so far in the tournament. They were good on offense yesterday and bad on defense

Mark, in this case, I do not believe the numbers tell the whole story.

They shot 6-27 from the three, clearly indicative of a non-aggressive mindset, especially compared to the 14 FT attempts (hitting a solid 10).

No doubt, they did plenty of things very well. I'll take 22/38 from two-point range (0.578) any day of the year. 7 turnovers? Sign me up.

I thought, early, they had a pretty good strategy vs. their zone. Scott from the foul-line area was very productive in that soft middle. But eventually, they stopped going to that, and instead ended up hoisting up an excessive number of threes that were not falling.

And, all the non-attempts to break their press, and use superior athleticism in taking it to them, have been well-documented, so I don't need to dwell on that.

I do agree, defense might have been the bigger problem of the two, but I still think the offense could have been better in taking full advantage of what was working.

BearcatMan (iirc) indicated that they went to a 1-3-1 and not the 2-3 where the middle is exposed. While we certainly improved with Tre in the middle of the 2-3 when we did get zoned, a lot of times we still struggle. All caveats related to our 3 pt defense applied, that is why we need shooters. We need ppl that can bust zones because our zone offense is still relatively poor. We don't need to build a team around shooting treys like NBA teams do. We just need enough shooters to keep defenses honest so that they don't pack it in or so that we can punish them for ill advised doubles. Sure it would likely be tough to hide them on defense but we played Cane and his defense was about some of the worst i have ever seen from scholly D.1.

(03-25-2019 05:20 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  

(03-23-2019 09:20 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The Bearcats scored 1.07 points per possession yesterday. Only 4 teams have scored at least 1.07 points per possession and lost so far in the tournament. The Bearcats allowed 1.18 points per possession. Only 1 team has allowed that and won so far in the tournament. They were good on offense yesterday and bad on defense

Mark, in this case, I do not believe the numbers tell the whole story.

They shot 6-27 from the three, clearly indicative of a non-aggressive mindset, especially compared to the 14 FT attempts (hitting a solid 10).

No doubt, they did plenty of things very well. I'll take 22/38 from two-point range (0.578) any day of the year. 7 turnovers? Sign me up.

I thought, early, they had a pretty good strategy vs. their zone. Scott from the foul-line area was very productive in that soft middle. But eventually, they stopped going to that, and instead ended up hoisting up an excessive number of threes that were not falling.

And, all the non-attempts to break their press, and use superior athleticism in taking it to them, have been well-documented, so I don't need to dwell on that.

I do agree, defense might have been the bigger problem of the two, but I still think the offense could have been better in taking full advantage of what was working.

You stay scoring, you put the opponent on their heels which makes your defense that much better. Iowa was playing with their foot on the gas the entire second half because we were on our heels.

Offense beat defense that game.

Simple answer...Yes. Guys who make shots are better than guys who dont make shots

(03-24-2019 06:00 AM)Lush Wrote:  i too champion the cause of slashing. opens the floor up, gets folks to the line. next year it is my hope that keith will and logan create many practice shots for trevor. eliel only needs to play solid defense and clean the glass. a block a game would be nice. diarra could be a nightmare. the depth is untapped, but it's there

This is not directed at you, but there are just too many things that we need to have break annually to consistently stay over the hump. Let’s Define “over the hump” as something Not completely off the charts. Let’s call it two sweet 16s every five years. We wish the bench was better, and the bench coaching, and a slasher and Diarra and of course recruiting is right at the top of the list. I guess I’ve just accepted what BC 1 said Which is an occasional run would just be an anomaly.

JC had a below average game. That’s something our team just can’t afford. I’ll say that JJ and Scott Nearly made up for it with many jump shots made- higher than normal, but our 3pt D was even worse than usual. Our margin for error is just toooooo small.

As basketball junkies, with many of us having lived through a FF, We know what that feels like. We pretty much have no choice but to just keep
cheering and waiting for the day it happens again.

(03-24-2019 10:22 AM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Mick needs to get away from the matchup zone against 3 point shooting teams. Period.

Was there anything said in the post game or afterward that makes you think that will happen? Besides hitting the recruiting trail hard, was there anything said that made somebody think that changes are coming?

Serious question.

I’ve definitely seen change in offense. He has mentioned many times that you have to score more to beat good teams. But his defense is not anywhere near what it’s made out to be.