Finke missed 4 games last year with his concussion. Don't know if that means anything regarding protocol.
We don't play again until Monday, so having a week to heal up should be enough, hopefully.
Finke missed 4 games last year with his concussion. Don't know if that means anything regarding protocol.
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.
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.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.
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.Coaching must include adjusting to other team's personnel and maximizing your own.
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.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.
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.
Quoting Larry Bird:There is athleticism outside of dunks. Counting dunks is just... dunks.
thank you
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
Understandable.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.