Georgetown 88, Illinois 80 POSTGAME

So you're forming that opinion on our team that played without our arguably best player and PG and were down 1 with 45 secs. to play?
It is what it is, but it's not a step forward for the program.

Only winning is winning. That's trite but I think it's something we lose sight of too easily after nine million false dawns for this program.

The time for hype and good vibes was like a decade ago. The results haven't been good enough in forever and that changed not one iota last night. We could have and should have won a basketball game, and we endeavored to not do so. Onto the next.
 
It is what it is, but it's not a step forward for the program.

Only winning is winning. That's trite but I think it's something we lose sight of too easily after nine million false dawns for this program.

The time for hype and good vibes was like a decade ago. The results haven't been good enough in forever and that changed not one iota last night. We could have and should have won a basketball game, and we endeavored to not do so. Onto the next.
A lot of your recent posts have had a "black or white" theme haha. Life is in the gray, man!
 
Likes: foby
I thought I would comment on the complaint that we are giving up to many easy baskets, that our players can't stay in front of their man and that BU should be changing our defensive scheme.

Perhaps some of the coaches on here can comment on this, but BU appears to have focused the defense on getting turnovers over interior defense (i.e. pack line or zone). Those complaining about the defensive scheme regularly cite the "horrendous" opponents FG% statistic. However, this is not a simple issue. For each additional turnover we force, it is equivalent to about 1.2 missed FGs, as there is no opportunity to get a shot and potentially another on the offensive rebound. For example, we turned GT over 22 times to the 15 they turned us over. Using my 1.2 multiple the difference is about an additional 9 shots they would have gotten had the TOs been equal. Their effective FG% goes to less than 50% as a result. There is the added benefit that these shots are more likely to be skewed towards 2PT instead of 3PT shots since we are out chasing them off the 3PT line, so the PPS stat is likely to be lower (even though we did not shoot well from 3, we had same number of made 3s as GT). As a result, the equation for choosing a different defensive scheme really requires the alternative to reduce the opponents FG% very significantly (10%?). Staying in front of your man is great as it stops penetration, but is not necessary or even expected in this defensive scheme, as it is presupposed that the defense will rotate and double the guy driving. What BU appeared to be saying the post game interview was that the major problem defensively was that our off-ball guys were not quick enough to rotate to stop the drop off for an easy shot. As I understand the theory, if our guys are quicker to rotate, we will get the advantage of both a decreased effective FG% because of TOs forced and a lower actual opponents FG%. I assume that BU has made all these calculations. Personally, all things being equal, the pressure defense approach makes the games a heck of a lot more fun to watch.
 
I thought I would comment on the complaint that we are giving up to many easy baskets, that our players can't stay in front of their man and that BU should be changing our defensive scheme.

Perhaps some of the coaches on here can comment on this, but BU appears to have focused the defense on getting turnovers over interior defense (i.e. pack line or zone). Those complaining about the defensive scheme regularly cite the "horrendous" opponents FG% statistic. However, this is not a simple issue. For each additional turnover we force, it is equivalent to about 1.2 missed FGs, as there is no opportunity to get a shot and potentially another on the offensive rebound. For example, we turned GT over 22 times to the 15 they turned us over. Using my 1.2 multiple the difference is about an additional 9 shots they would have gotten had the TOs been equal. Their effective FG% goes to less than 50% as a result. There is the added benefit that these shots are more likely to be skewed towards 2PT instead of 3PT shots since we are out chasing them off the 3PT line, so the PPS stat is likely to be lower (even though we did not shoot well from 3, we had same number of made 3s as GT). As a result, the equation for choosing a different defensive scheme really requires the alternative to reduce the opponents FG% very significantly (10%?). Staying in front of your man is great as it stops penetration, but is not necessary or even expected in this defensive scheme, as it is presupposed that the defense will rotate and double the guy driving. What BU appeared to be saying the post game interview was that the major problem defensively was that our off-ball guys were not quick enough to rotate to stop the drop off for an easy shot. As I understand the theory, if our guys are quicker to rotate, we will get the advantage of both a decreased effective FG% because of TOs forced and a lower actual opponents FG%. I assume that BU has made all these calculations. Personally, all things being equal, the pressure defense approach makes the games a heck of a lot more fun to watch.
Coaching must include adjusting to other team's personnel and maximizing your own. We don't have the players to just impose our will on both ends of the court. I agree Underwood's style is more fun to watch. The question is can it be effectively executed (i.e. wins) or should it be adjusted at least some of the time based on opponent's personnel and scheme. I don't believe in losing games today in order to win games in the future.
 
Coaching must include adjusting to other team's personnel and maximizing your own.
BU's has clearly shown and talked about doing exactly this in the past. Relax for a few more games and see what comes from it. Judging this team based off essentially a 1-2 possession game and another where we more than took care of business is just lazy.

There's plenty of reason to still believe BU can get this team to become better defensively (and offensively for that matter).
 
I thought I would comment on the complaint that we are giving up to many easy baskets, that our players can't stay in front of their man and that BU should be changing our defensive scheme.

Perhaps some of the coaches on here can comment on this, but BU appears to have focused the defense on getting turnovers over interior defense (i.e. pack line or zone). Those complaining about the defensive scheme regularly cite the "horrendous" opponents FG% statistic. However, this is not a simple issue. For each additional turnover we force, it is equivalent to about 1.2 missed FGs, as there is no opportunity to get a shot and potentially another on the offensive rebound. For example, we turned GT over 22 times to the 15 they turned us over. Using my 1.2 multiple the difference is about an additional 9 shots they would have gotten had the TOs been equal. Their effective FG% goes to less than 50% as a result. There is the added benefit that these shots are more likely to be skewed towards 2PT instead of 3PT shots since we are out chasing them off the 3PT line, so the PPS stat is likely to be lower (even though we did not shoot well from 3, we had same number of made 3s as GT). As a result, the equation for choosing a different defensive scheme really requires the alternative to reduce the opponents FG% very significantly (10%?). Staying in front of your man is great as it stops penetration, but is not necessary or even expected in this defensive scheme, as it is presupposed that the defense will rotate and double the guy driving. What BU appeared to be saying the post game interview was that the major problem defensively was that our off-ball guys were not quick enough to rotate to stop the drop off for an easy shot. As I understand the theory, if our guys are quicker to rotate, we will get the advantage of both a decreased effective FG% because of TOs forced and a lower actual opponents FG%. I assume that BU has made all these calculations. Personally, all things being equal, the pressure defense approach makes the games a heck of a lot more fun to watch.
Yes, much more fun to watch. I am not a proponent of a full time zone, rather I think it helps to switch things up at times to throw off the opponent and to maximize your teams time on the court. When you get in foul trouble and are short handed (Trent out, Giorgi in foul trouble and we don't have a great longer duration alternative against a good / tall big) then you may have to go zone to protect.

So my take would be pressure man primary, but zone when necessary as per above. If I recall correctly, GU altered their D to double the high screen towards the end and threw us off / out of our flow the last two minutes of the game.
 
Coaching must include adjusting to other team's personnel and maximizing your own. We don't have the players to just impose our will on both ends of the court. I agree Underwood's style is more fun to watch. The question is can it be effectively executed (i.e. wins) or should it be adjusted at least some of the time based on opponent's personnel and scheme. I don't believe in losing games today in order to win games in the future.
Agree that you adjust. However, where we lose a key player on the morning of the game, the scheming has been largely done, and any significant adjustment to a strategy this early in the season to one that you have not prepared is more risky than staying with what you have prepared. I thought BU might change up to some zone on occasion (didn't we play zone one trip?), but assume under the circumstances he thought that it would not be as effective or team had not practiced it enough. As for playing up on Akinjo and McClung, I think Akinjo had 5 TOs, so it worked to some degree upon him. As for McClung maybe they didn't expect he could do what he did in any consistent manner. They did let him take 4 3PTrs, which he missed.
 
Someone tweeted during the first game about Giorgi continuing the Illini tradition of missing a tip in dunk and it just made me think of how few highlight reel plays we've had the last decade. Ekey alone probably holds the NCAA record for most attempted tip dunks without a conversion (But he gets a pass on that from me because of the Iowa buzzer beater).
 
Likes: tpbradley
It is what it is, but it's not a step forward for the program.

Only winning is winning. That's trite but I think it's something we lose sight of too easily after nine million false dawns for this program.

The time for hype and good vibes was like a decade ago. The results haven't been good enough in forever and that changed not one iota last night. We could have and should have won a basketball game, and we endeavored to not do so. Onto the next.
Yeah, you're absolutely right. You should probably stop watching the games and visiting this forum until they start winning consistently.
 
unfortunately, it's easy to see us starting 2-7, with losses to Gonzaga and then two other teams at Maui, then beating Mississippi Valley at home (they are bad),, then losing 3 in a row to Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Ohio State. That would be our worst start in.... ? Let's hope for some surprises.
You heard it here first. 5-4.
 
1. I can't tell you how impressed I am with Giorgi. His post D is really good- better than Black or Finke. I know one game is probably hyperbole, but he seems to understand positioning and how to use his body. I didn't see him ever try to body up early or give up position by lunging. And he is really good at defending the ball screen.
2. We are a better 3pt shooting team than we showed last night. At least, we better be. (I know having Frazier on the court helps with it)
3. The more I think of the Kipper/McClung steal, the more I think credit should go to McClung and less blame to Kipper. Let's face it, Kipper was alone and knew the man guarding him wasn't coming out. McClung made a great heads up/hustle play on that.
 
BU's has clearly shown and talked about doing exactly this in the past. Relax for a few more games and see what comes from it. Judging this team based off essentially a 1-2 possession game and another where we more than took care of business is just lazy.

There's plenty of reason to still believe BU can get this team to become better defensively (and offensively for that matter).
Adding to that post: BU stated, post game yesterday, that this team will be battle hardened for the Big Ten season. That seems to be his goal at the moment. He has also stated that he expects the team to make progress each month.

When Trent gets back and Adonis is ready to go, we should see a marked improvement. IF the other kids start contributing, then we could expect better results.

I think we have upgraded every position. Now it is mentality during the game.
 

Deleted member 17900

D
Guest
3. The more I think of the Kipper/McClung steal, the more I think credit should go to McClung and less blame to Kipper. Let's face it, Kipper was alone and knew the man guarding him wasn't coming out. McClung made a great heads up/hustle play on that.
McClung made a good play, no doubt, but I still blame Kipper. When the game is on the line and there is a loose ball, it doesn’t matter if there is noone within 30’ of you, you better be going 100mph to secure that ball. It was a lazy play at the worst possible time. Still, Kipper didn’t lose us the game.

I agree with the other posters saying we should have played some zone. GT is not a jump shooting team, we played to their strengths the entire game. Mixing it up a little would have at least forced them to make some shots outside the paint.
 
I thought I would comment on the complaint that we are giving up to many easy baskets, that our players can't stay in front of their man and that BU should be changing our defensive scheme.
Didn't you watch the 3 guys of the FS1 telecast at halftime? Did you hear what they said? They said Georgetown should be telling their players to run no offense. Just spread Illinois out and drive right down the lane for easy baskets. Well, they sure were right.
 
Besides the pressure D allowing for open players, Illinois had a hard time staying in front. Damonte and Feliz are good lateral defenders. Ayo and Griffin struggle at times, allowing their man to beat them.

If you want to find blame, I say the open 3s we missed and getting beat off the dribble. Trent is worth about 10 pts minimum. Really missed his speed and shooting.
 
Likes: Illini-Rule
Western Illinois
Besides the pressure D allowing for open players, Illinois had a hard time staying in front. Damonte and Feliz are good lateral defenders. Ayo and Griffin struggle at times, allowing their man to beat them.

If you want to find blame, I say the open 3s we missed and getting beat off the dribble. Trent is worth about 10 pts minimum. Really missed his speed and shooting.
I believe that if Trent had been available we would have won this game!
 
Kipper had a solid game by the numbers. He was our second leading scorers with 13 points, had 5 rebounds, 5 assist. Almost identical to Andre Feliz. Slightly better points and rebounds than Damonte and Giorgi. Somehow these players played great (they did) and somehow Kipper is shade-bait.

Agree he had one bad hustle play, 1-2 airballs but overall represented the team well. Just wasn't a great game for him.
 
I find this post really uninformed from a basketball perspective. Georgetown had as much length and size as anyone we'll play. You really need this offense running at full steam to get the looks that make a great shooter like AJ shine, and it's got to be that much crisper when you play a team like Gtown. I think later in the year as they get better at running the offense, you'll have games where AJ goes off. We were gassed at times, and the second half was a struggle. They'll get better at that, and when Trent's in the lineup, that alone will help AJ.
Did you watch last season at all? Against athletic teams he was nonexistent. How is that uninformed? After watching Illini basketball for over 40 years I think I have a pretty good idea who belongs on a big ten court. If/when our offense runs full steam, AJ will be a bit player.
 
Winged Warrior
I tend to believe BU when he says AJ was affected the most by Trent's absence. He will get open shots because with Trent, Ayo, and possibly Feliz on the floor at the same time as AJ, there's just no way teams can stick to him with the other's ability to penetrate.
 

Deleted member 746094

D
Guest
I tend to believe BU when he says AJ was affected the most by Trent's absence. He will get open shots because with Trent, Ayo, and possibly Feliz on the floor at the same time as AJ, there's just no way teams can stick to him with the other's ability to penetrate.
I want AJ to succeed and contribute this year as much as anyone. The eye in the sky never lies. Against shorter- slower athletes his IQ and hustle allow him to be more impactful. I do think he can be a decent 3 and D guy this season. Unfortunately, his shot starts at his chin and his release is slow. Against quicker- longer athletes he just struggles to get his shot off. He needs to pump fake and dribble drive a few times a game and it will slow their close outs so he can get that extra split second he needs. We need him out there though because he has the attitude and is the type of competitor BU wants this team to be about.
 
Likes: TheVille
AJ is a solid player. I think he can contribute more offensively this year with Ayo and Feliz added to help create more opportunities for others.
 
I don’t disagree. If we were Kentucky or Duke we wouldn’t be thrilled if it turned out we were a potential bubble team. I said I’m upset not because I expected to win but because it was winnable and losing this one is not good for our chances of approaching the bubble.
Understandable.