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

(04-24-2019 12:03 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 11:54 AM)dsquare Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:59 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:57 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Regardless of whether he returns or not, if you're putting a lot of stock in the Cats success next year on Brooks being a life or death factor, it's iffy at best. He's not proven he can stay on the court for more than 20 minutes, and in big games it's likely been lower. They are in a position they likely needed to add firepower with or without him. There's not certainty he will improve on that deficiency next year. Is there dilution, let's wait until we get to the end of May and see what the roster looks like. Very fluid situation right now.

Agreed. Brooks is a nice supporting player, Cumberland is the feature player who probably can't be replaced if he leaves.

The other thing that kind of gets lost in the situation, is a lot of our defensive woes in big games came from not being able to defend the 3 well enough. There is an assumption that we're a better defensive team with Brooks, and that is my belief certainly against teams with inside offensive presence, but at what cost? If he(Brannen) didn't play a 5 all the time, how do we stack up defensively against the 3 point nemesis that dogged us? Like i said, wait till the roster situation plays out in another month or so.

I think against most teams we would still be a better defensive team with Brooks, even those that shoot the 3 well. I think our issues defending the 3 were more an issue with philosophy. Micks defense mostly seemed to force teams to take shots from the outside, meaning we were helping off shooters too much at times to avoid giving up shots in the paint.

I don't know if anyone has numbers for this, but I agree that Brooks didn't hurt our 3 point defense. I'm fairly certain he helped it. For his size he was unusually solid when switched onto a perimeter player. Additionally, his presence in the paint allowed guys to be more aggressive with their perimeter defense and the team to help less.

As far as Mick's philosophy being to force more outside shots, I don't really agree. I think his biggest philosophy defensively was to prevent layups. I think in that sense he wanted to force more jump shots, but not specifically three point shots. Last year UC gave up a ton of 3 point shots, but the prior 4 years they finished between 146 and 205 (Out of 353) in 3 point shots allowed. That's fairly middle of the road.

I don't think last year's 3 point defense was a philosophy issue so much as a personnel and inexperience issue. They simply weren't as disciplined or solid in their rotations as the prior few years. They didn't seem to consistently understand where the help should come from and how to rotate and cover the help. Additionally, they had smaller, less athletic guards that teams could shoot over. I think that combo gave up a lot of threes.

no coach shall impede jarron getting back to the dance. dude can carry a team. at least in the aac

(04-24-2019 12:23 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 12:03 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 11:54 AM)dsquare Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:59 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:57 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Regardless of whether he returns or not, if you're putting a lot of stock in the Cats success next year on Brooks being a life or death factor, it's iffy at best. He's not proven he can stay on the court for more than 20 minutes, and in big games it's likely been lower. They are in a position they likely needed to add firepower with or without him. There's not certainty he will improve on that deficiency next year. Is there dilution, let's wait until we get to the end of May and see what the roster looks like. Very fluid situation right now.

Agreed. Brooks is a nice supporting player, Cumberland is the feature player who probably can't be replaced if he leaves.

The other thing that kind of gets lost in the situation, is a lot of our defensive woes in big games came from not being able to defend the 3 well enough. There is an assumption that we're a better defensive team with Brooks, and that is my belief certainly against teams with inside offensive presence, but at what cost? If he(Brannen) didn't play a 5 all the time, how do we stack up defensively against the 3 point nemesis that dogged us? Like i said, wait till the roster situation plays out in another month or so.

I think against most teams we would still be a better defensive team with Brooks, even those that shoot the 3 well. I think our issues defending the 3 were more an issue with philosophy. Micks defense mostly seemed to force teams to take shots from the outside, meaning we were helping off shooters too much at times to avoid giving up shots in the paint.

I don't know if anyone has numbers for this, but I agree that Brooks didn't hurt our 3 point defense. I'm fairly certain he helped it. For his size he was unusually solid when switched onto a perimeter player. Additionally, his presence in the paint allowed guys to be more aggressive with their perimeter defense and the team to help less.

As far as Mick's philosophy being to force more outside shots, I don't really agree. I think his biggest philosophy defensively was to prevent layups. I think in that sense he wanted to force more jump shots, but not specifically three point shots. Last year UC gave up a ton of 3 point shots, but the prior 4 years they finished between 146 and 205 (Out of 353) in 3 point shots allowed. That's fairly middle of the road.

I don't think last year's 3 point defense was a philosophy issue so much as a personnel and inexperience issue. They simply weren't as disciplined or solid in their rotations as the prior few years. They didn't seem to consistently understand where the help should come from and how to rotate and cover the help. Additionally, they had smaller, less athletic guards that teams could shoot over. I think that combo gave up a lot of threes.

That's valid. At the end of the day, when you have a guy playing center field(which is what Brooks was often doing), you can only apply so much pressure and rotate guys to fill the void. Teams which pass the ball well will get open shots against that, and the better shooting teams knocked them down. My guess is we'll see less trapping/doubling with Brannen and more straight up man pressure.

(04-24-2019 12:23 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 12:03 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 11:54 AM)dsquare Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:59 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 09:57 AM)dsquare Wrote:  Regardless of whether he returns or not, if you're putting a lot of stock in the Cats success next year on Brooks being a life or death factor, it's iffy at best. He's not proven he can stay on the court for more than 20 minutes, and in big games it's likely been lower. They are in a position they likely needed to add firepower with or without him. There's not certainty he will improve on that deficiency next year. Is there dilution, let's wait until we get to the end of May and see what the roster looks like. Very fluid situation right now.

Agreed. Brooks is a nice supporting player, Cumberland is the feature player who probably can't be replaced if he leaves.

The other thing that kind of gets lost in the situation, is a lot of our defensive woes in big games came from not being able to defend the 3 well enough. There is an assumption that we're a better defensive team with Brooks, and that is my belief certainly against teams with inside offensive presence, but at what cost? If he(Brannen) didn't play a 5 all the time, how do we stack up defensively against the 3 point nemesis that dogged us? Like i said, wait till the roster situation plays out in another month or so.

I think against most teams we would still be a better defensive team with Brooks, even those that shoot the 3 well. I think our issues defending the 3 were more an issue with philosophy. Micks defense mostly seemed to force teams to take shots from the outside, meaning we were helping off shooters too much at times to avoid giving up shots in the paint.

I don't know if anyone has numbers for this, but I agree that Brooks didn't hurt our 3 point defense. I'm fairly certain he helped it. For his size he was unusually solid when switched onto a perimeter player. Additionally, his presence in the paint allowed guys to be more aggressive with their perimeter defense and the team to help less.

As far as Mick's philosophy being to force more outside shots, I don't really agree. I think his biggest philosophy defensively was to prevent layups. I think in that sense he wanted to force more jump shots, but not specifically three point shots. Last year UC gave up a ton of 3 point shots, but the prior 4 years they finished between 146 and 205 (Out of 353) in 3 point shots allowed. That's fairly middle of the road.

I don't think last year's 3 point defense was a philosophy issue so much as a personnel and inexperience issue. They simply weren't as disciplined or solid in their rotations as the prior few years. They didn't seem to consistently understand where the help should come from and how to rotate and cover the help. Additionally, they had smaller, less athletic guards that teams could shoot over. I think that combo gave up a lot of threes.

In this day and age, if your focus is on stopping layups other teams are going to shoot the 3. Why would they take 18 foot jump shots for 2 when they can take a step or 2 back and get 3? The game has changed somewhat in that aspect.

I think the inexperience compounded the issue, but when your philosophy is to do everything in your power to prevent points in the paint, it’s inevitable that you are going to give up open looks from 3. That’s what I mean when I say a large part of our issue was based on philosophy.

I will add that it’s a sound philosophy overall, but when teams like Iowa are great at shooting the 3 and we have superior athletes, why would we not switch to a straight man and force them to score inside on us, when we would seem to have the advantage in that aspect?

It’s similar to Mick’s philosophy on slowing down the tempo at times. We should have been attacking the press once we beat it. With our superior athletes it should have resulted in easy transition buckets, or Foul Shots.

i suppose mick knew nas would foul out sooner if we locked down on the paint so force em into lower percentage shots. that damn iowa game killed me. the crowd cheers as iowa brings their foul troubled big man in and then the announcer's all, and mick's countering! it was apparently a questionable call, but for nas to foul out immediately with like four minutes still to go, i laughed, turned the game off and jacked around downstairs. still would like him back though

(04-24-2019 01:48 PM)Lush Wrote:  i suppose mick knew nas would foul out sooner if we locked down on the paint so force em into lower percentage shots. that damn iowa game killed me. the crowd cheers as iowa brings their foul troubled big man in and then the announcer's all, and mick's countering! it was apparently a questionable call, but for nas to foul out immediately with like four minutes still to go, i laughed, turned the game off and jacked around downstairs. still would like him back though

There were several questionable fouls called on Brooks, IMO.

(04-24-2019 01:43 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  In this day and age, if your focus is on stopping layups other teams are going to shoot the 3. Why would they take 18 foot jump shots for 2 when they can take a step or 2 back and get 3? The game has changed somewhat in that aspect.

I think the inexperience compounded the issue, but when your philosophy is to do everything in your power to prevent points in the paint, it’s inevitable that you are going to give up open looks from 3. That’s what I mean when I say a large part of our issue was based on philosophy.

I will add that it’s a sound philosophy overall, but when teams like Iowa are great at shooting the 3 and we have superior athletes, why would we not switch to a straight man and force them to score inside on us, when we would seem to have the advantage in that aspect?

It’s similar to Mick’s philosophy on slowing down the tempo at times. We should have been attacking the press once we beat it. With our superior athletes it should have resulted in easy transition buckets, or Foul Shots.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Your defense can be multi-focused. Plenty of teams focus on stopping both. in 2018 for example, UC ranked 2nd in 2 point defense and 7th in 3 point defense. Even though they were great a 2 point defense, they forced a lot of bad 3 point shots.

Virginia this year is a great example of this. They were 3rd in 2 point defense and 9th in 3 point defense.

(04-24-2019 01:55 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I don't necessarily agree with this. Your defense can be multi-focused. Plenty of teams focus on stopping both. in 2018 for example, UC ranked 2nd in 2 point defense and 7th in 3 point defense. Even though they were great a 2 point defense, they forced a lot of bad 3 point shots.

Virginia this year is a great example of this. They were 3rd in 2 point defense and 9th in 3 point defense.

+1. Nothing changed schematically between 2018-19. In 2018 we had two incredibly talented defenders who were awesome at making the correct switches and got NBA contracts largely on their defensive ability. We just didn't have the quality of defensive players in 2019 if your goal was to win games based on defense.

(04-24-2019 01:55 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 01:43 PM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  In this day and age, if your focus is on stopping layups other teams are going to shoot the 3. Why would they take 18 foot jump shots for 2 when they can take a step or 2 back and get 3? The game has changed somewhat in that aspect.

I think the inexperience compounded the issue, but when your philosophy is to do everything in your power to prevent points in the paint, it’s inevitable that you are going to give up open looks from 3. That’s what I mean when I say a large part of our issue was based on philosophy.

I will add that it’s a sound philosophy overall, but when teams like Iowa are great at shooting the 3 and we have superior athletes, why would we not switch to a straight man and force them to score inside on us, when we would seem to have the advantage in that aspect?

It’s similar to Mick’s philosophy on slowing down the tempo at times. We should have been attacking the press once we beat it. With our superior athletes it should have resulted in easy transition buckets, or Foul Shots.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Your defense can be multi-focused. Plenty of teams focus on stopping both. in 2018 for example, UC ranked 2nd in 2 point defense and 7th in 3 point defense. Even though they were great a 2 point defense, they forced a lot of bad 3 point shots.

Virginia this year is a great example of this. They were 3rd in 2 point defense and 9th in 3 point defense.

Defenses can be multi-focused, especially if you have superior talent,, but Mick has stated that he learned in the Big East if you try to take away both you end up giving up everything. That’s why it’s his philosophy.

In 2018 we also had an elite defensive talent and probably can’t expect to have that every year. Mick’s philosophy of taking away points in the paint allowed more open 3’s this year without elite defenders like Jacob Evans. His philosophy on the matchup zone kept him from going away from it when we faced teams that excelled at shooting the 3.

I always rooted for Mick, but it seemed to me that he was determined to play his way, even if that didn’t give us the best chance to win. Again, that’s one of his philosophies.