Ewert86PC
Metrodome Era Survivor
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 7,622
- Reaction score
- 2,906
- Points
- 113
Because I am a glutton for punishment, I watched my recording of the Northwestern game and one thing dawned on me: there is a lot of bad self-centered decision making going on, especially after halftime.
The most glaring example for me was with 7:08 left in the second half. Northwestern actually misses a shot and McBrayer gets the rebound. He takes the ball the length of the court, driving to the basket for a layup. A layup that has as less defensive opposition than the defense found in a pickup game with tired old gym rats.
In the face of this unimpressive defensive force what does McBrayer do? Does he continue to glide to the basket and score two points? No, he kicks it out to a cold shooting Morris who misses a three point shot.
Now I can see where the Gophers having scored two points twenty seconds earlier might make them feel the need to put more pressure on Northwestern by scoring three points and cutting their deficit to seventeen points, but this is the wrong decision. You are down by twenty points. Your team has scored fourteen points in thirteen minutes. You do not give up two points in a high percentage scoring situation for the hopes of getting one more point out of a more risky, lower scoring percentage situation. You have to take the points that you are given.
Giving up a sure two points for a possible three points isn't what team basketball is about. This is self-interest masquerading as team play. In this situation the player who sacrificed two points can boast of making a sacrifice for the greater good of the team, which is utter bull**** because you are down twenty points, and in five to ten seconds you will probably be down twenty-two or twenty-three points.
Where does this kind of play come from? Ultimately it is the player. The player makes these decisions. The player makes the decision based on their priorities and their awareness of what the team needs during the game. McBrayer may have been aware that his team was down by twenty points. He knew that three points is more than two, but he didn't appreciate that two points from a high probability scoring chance helped his team more than trying to score three points from a riskier lower probability scoring chance.
How does this kind of play come about? Poor coaching. A coach doesn't just draw up plays for the players who are on the court. A coach doesn't just play puzzle pieces with the players on the court. A coach motivates the players. A coach guides the players. A coach maintains standards of player behavior. A coach provides the players with an understanding of how their skills help the team succeed and a vision of how helping the team succeed is in their best interest. A coach gives players decision making skills that help the team win.
Richard Pitino draws up plays, arranges skill combinations of players on the floor and he may even motivate them off the court, but it is obvious to me that he is not giving them good decision making skills on the court and his players have inverted the game dynamic of the player winning when the team wins to be that the when the player wins then the team wins.
This team still does not play as a team because each player is working too hard to prove that they are a team player. There is too much competition within the team to be a team that they are not an effective team on the court. The person who can stop this is the coach and the coach is not doing it, but that's okay we will all get participation medals for playing in the Big Ten this season.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
The most glaring example for me was with 7:08 left in the second half. Northwestern actually misses a shot and McBrayer gets the rebound. He takes the ball the length of the court, driving to the basket for a layup. A layup that has as less defensive opposition than the defense found in a pickup game with tired old gym rats.
In the face of this unimpressive defensive force what does McBrayer do? Does he continue to glide to the basket and score two points? No, he kicks it out to a cold shooting Morris who misses a three point shot.
Now I can see where the Gophers having scored two points twenty seconds earlier might make them feel the need to put more pressure on Northwestern by scoring three points and cutting their deficit to seventeen points, but this is the wrong decision. You are down by twenty points. Your team has scored fourteen points in thirteen minutes. You do not give up two points in a high percentage scoring situation for the hopes of getting one more point out of a more risky, lower scoring percentage situation. You have to take the points that you are given.
Giving up a sure two points for a possible three points isn't what team basketball is about. This is self-interest masquerading as team play. In this situation the player who sacrificed two points can boast of making a sacrifice for the greater good of the team, which is utter bull**** because you are down twenty points, and in five to ten seconds you will probably be down twenty-two or twenty-three points.
Where does this kind of play come from? Ultimately it is the player. The player makes these decisions. The player makes the decision based on their priorities and their awareness of what the team needs during the game. McBrayer may have been aware that his team was down by twenty points. He knew that three points is more than two, but he didn't appreciate that two points from a high probability scoring chance helped his team more than trying to score three points from a riskier lower probability scoring chance.
How does this kind of play come about? Poor coaching. A coach doesn't just draw up plays for the players who are on the court. A coach doesn't just play puzzle pieces with the players on the court. A coach motivates the players. A coach guides the players. A coach maintains standards of player behavior. A coach provides the players with an understanding of how their skills help the team succeed and a vision of how helping the team succeed is in their best interest. A coach gives players decision making skills that help the team win.
Richard Pitino draws up plays, arranges skill combinations of players on the floor and he may even motivate them off the court, but it is obvious to me that he is not giving them good decision making skills on the court and his players have inverted the game dynamic of the player winning when the team wins to be that the when the player wins then the team wins.
This team still does not play as a team because each player is working too hard to prove that they are a team player. There is too much competition within the team to be a team that they are not an effective team on the court. The person who can stop this is the coach and the coach is not doing it, but that's okay we will all get participation medals for playing in the Big Ten this season.
Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
