Is it just me...
- Thread starter zambam
- Start date
It's a data point- that's it. It's some bad data because we should be able to pound a team like that into the ground and we should not be allowing open 3 point shot after open 3 point shot. I think player evaluations are WAY premature at this point as I think there is enough talent to compete at a fairly high level. The issue I think most see is that carryover issue with the defensive scheme or lack of ability of players to execute it.
Honestly, I don't think you would be saying that had the Gophers won by 40. Besides, practice is vitally important to a team's development, especially in college. Sure, maybe is was a glorified practice in front of 10,000 people, but the bottom line is the same: Minnesota struggled against a vastly inferior opponent. However, you have to be happy with Trevor's dominance, Ralph's shooting and Dre Hollins's passing. That's three of the five starting playing well -- which is encouraging. As for the depth, I think that's going to take some time to develop. Elliot is a Division II-typle player and so is Maverick. But I still have faith that Oto can become an all-conference-type player as well as Coleman.
GopherJake
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 24,242
- Reaction score
- 7,507
- Points
- 113
Yep. This is something that should be correctable though, don't you think? We played LOTS of guys and LOTS of new guys yesterday. I don't think it's something to be overly concerned with *at this point*.
A lot of new pieces, not surprised to see them struggle some. I didn't expect a 40 point beatdown like some, but yes, it is concerning when you struggle to put them away. Hopefully there were just some first game jitters, considering again how many new guys were out there, and we'll see a better performance in Game 2.
From the Barn
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 4,255
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
The realistic line-ups did dominate. The little chippers, led by Armelin at pg were bad. I'll worry when the realistic line-up is getting beat.
SelectionSunday
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2008
- Messages
- 24,587
- Reaction score
- 4,656
- Points
- 113
No, it's not just you. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. ...
Bad Gopher
A Loner, A Rebel
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 23,302
- Reaction score
- 10,568
- Points
- 113
Not criticizing, bga, but I'm wondering why you're surprised that a team that gave up open 3-point shot after open 3-point shot last year does the same in their first game this year. Getting outside looks against the ball line defense is like taking candy from a baby. That's why, in the coach's words, we had "matchup problems" against NDSU last year. Needless to say, I was pretty disgusted with the defensive outcome, especially watching in person last night.
Beej raises a good point. Whether it's Bemidji State or Michigan State there seems to be way too many open threes available to the other team over the last couple of seasons. Why is that?
GophersOnTheRise
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 3,751
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
Tubby likes to double down on the post. Makes it a little tougher to score around the basket, but makes us very susceptible to open threes obviously.
Who said I was surprised?
I wish I had saved the very instructional piece someone put up last year on the intricacies of the ball line defense. It seems that it's a defense that only works well if you have experienced, long, quick and athletic players- in which case, any defense works because the players are so good. IIRC it was a defense that was designed before the three point shot rule was installed.
Why double down on the post in favor of defending the three when you have perhaps the three best shot blockers of any front line in America (Mbakwe-Sampson-Williams)? Seems like one would want to install a system that fits the modern game and the players one has to work with. Oh well.
GophersInIowa
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 42,135
- Reaction score
- 23,411
- Points
- 113
I don't think our 3 point defense is as bad as some make it seem. Yes we had a lot of 3-point made baskets against us last year. But we were right in the middle of the pack in the Big Ten in 3 point percentage defense last year so it wasn't terrible.
As you said, I think Tubby would rather give up open looks outside than down low. And we have a very good frontcourt so that makes a difference. By the way, we were 1st in the Big Ten in FG percentage defense and 22nd overall in the country last year.
Gold Vision
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2008
- Messages
- 6,302
- Reaction score
- 1,833
- Points
- 113
You can attribute a lot of the shot blocking to the help D in the post.
Goph in Iowa - this is a complex issue. Obviously Tubby is a great coach so he has a reason why he sticks with it. However, we enticed the opposition to take a whopping 450- 3 point shots last year in 18 Big Ten games, so while their shooting percentage against was middle of the pack opponents obviously felt it was a great strategy to avoid going inside against our tall group of shot blockers. Here's are the problems I see with that:
1. With the opponents taking nearly half their shots from 3pt range we forced fewer turnovers than anyone inthe conference at 9.6 - I think the two are related as it's much less likely that you are going to turn itover shooting from the perimeter.
2. The three point shot is a huge mental lift for the opponent and we allowed 8.4 made threes a game in Big Ten play last year. You are giving the other team a lot of energy with that many threes.
3. The fact that so many of our opponents shots were threes- dramatically reduces the effect of us having a very good overall field goal percentage defense since 40% shooting from 3 is equal to 60% shooting from 2 pt land.
1) We did not have enough good perimeter defenders last season, which was why we did not cause enough turnovers and couldn’t defend the perimeter well. In other words, the lack of turnovers and the poor perimeter defense were resultant of the common denominator that we lacked good perimeter defenders. Not that there may be a causal relationship between the two phenomena, turnovers and 3 pt defense.
2&3) There “always” is a trade-off when picking on which area, interior or perimeter, to put more defensive emphasis. In other words, the lower FG% inside can have the opposite effect on the opponents. And, more emphasis on the perimeter can easily result in foul troubles for our bigs and/or higher scoring inside by the opponents.
It would be wonderful if we were great in every area. Unfortunately, we did not have enough capable players to be so last season. So, ee took one thing at the expense of the other. Was it the cause of our failed campaign last season? When things go that badly, everything did play its part to the result. Our 3 pt defense is no exception to it. However, was it as critical given the situation? My answer is no because there were no difference in 3 pts both attempted and made per game before and after Nolen went down as far as the conference season is concerned (I did post it before and just don’t want to go back there to get the figures). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the 3 pt defense was not a critical factor in our failure with Nolen out of action.
It does not mean you are wrong as we did have a problem with 3 pt defense. Just that I do not believe it was critical enough to shift our defensive focus toward it with the limited personnel we had last season. Spelling out our weaknesses is one thing, but doing so in the context of “how to improve them” given the situation and the personnel is quite another.
It does not mean you are wrong as we did have a problem with 3 pt defense. Just that I do not believe it was critical enough to shift our defensive focus toward it with the limited personnel we had last season. Spelling out our weaknesses is one thing, but doing so in the context of “how to improve them” given the situation and the personnel is quite another.