...and I suppose we should be thankful for small steps.
Arright... before I get into this, if you're pulling for us to lose, then please just do everyone else a favor and stay TF outta this thread. I feel safe in saying I've been fussing at the staff and team as much as anyone during games, but I want to stay analytical for those here who appreciate it.
With that outta the way, our recent foibles have bothered me to the point of forcing myself to go back and rewatch large parts of the previous games --- I should get double-time combat pay for that, but 2 x 0 is still nuthin, so... --- and once I finish some initial comments, I'll try to share what I learned later in this post.
So look, we all know this game shouldn't have had to come down to Eliot's heroics but let's revisit how we got there:
- In complete fairness, it needs to be acknowledged that much of the 1st half featured some steps in the right direction schematically. We were eons better on D than last time out --- better effort, better communication, fewer lapses.
- Most importantly on offense, we were much more VERTICAL in half-court --- less lateral and circular actions and more focus on getting the rock toward the rack --- and we were more consistently trying to push transition even in absence of number advantages. Make no mistake, we still need to run the Secondary correctly more often, but it was at least a positive step nonetheless.
- Now, back to the opening reference: Before the season I stated that this team would be more successful if RJ scored less than last season. Now, by that I did NOT mean by missing so damn many shots --- I meant by making a needed change to our approach. Ever since our Natty game run, Hubert has defaulted to scheming for RJ. Hell, we sure did it last season. And again in fairness, if RJ was shooting even remotely like he has in previous seasons we win most of our losses so far. BUT, that is fool's gold, as we're now witnessing, a true double-edged sword. It has absolutely killed us this season. That 4/14 at Louisville was case-in-point. OK, good news is we stepped away from that to a degree today. As we saw, Jackson was the guy with the shot attempts today, and with the way things are going that makes more sense.
So... WTF went south in the 2nd half? In fairness again, O'Connell and his jabronie crew did an absolute number on us, inventing calls for ND while we weren't even in the damned bonus at the end of the game (!) --- in fact, I thought for sure they would foul us down to the buzzer at the end (Thanks, BTW). But once again, we mostly put ourselves in the precarious position of losing what should've been a working and expanding lead:
- We turned tight-ass. We stopped pushing pace --- only 2 Secondary points after 11 in the 1st --- and slowed down. Granted, part of that resulted from not securing rebounds or loose balls, but mostly from reverting to old habits in half-court. Let's focus on that for a second, as there were 3 major things that went wrong:
1. We reverted to starting possesions with that useless high lateral pass and/or (way-too-high) ball-screens. Teams have scouted that and you saw ND consistently run what I call a "shadow double" where they aren't risking full-on trapping, but still have two sets of hands obstructing any pass-out from upper no-man's land. Long story short, it stalled our previous vertical actions.
2. We reverted to isolations --- this time to Ian instead of RJ, but that's still a bad idea. Fact is, at this point in his development, Ian needs to get the rock on the move or on the catch --- his handle is just too loose right now to be reliable in isos.
3. What DID work was our fade-screen action --- we got several wide-open looks for 3s and/or runners (for both Ian and RJ) but we just missed the shots down the stretch.
- What drove me crazy on the defensive end was turning passive. ND mirrored Louisville by playing bumper-pool and forcing and/or backing the ball into the paint, and for too many possessions that 1st-half communication disappeared, or they got bailed out by sketchy whistles when we did get a stop. Here's the thing though --- why be a damn sitting duck? We could've ruined their day with some well-timed scrambles, but nada.... I honestly just don't get it. That should've been mixed in long before we got burdened with foul trouble...
and what the heck were we thinking in the last 4.8? We started out correctly by forcing the short inbound, but with that much time you do NOT want to have our guys backing out until you at least force a redirect by jumping the dribbler at a safe distance.
- Finally, one last time in fairness, Notre Dame ALWAYS plays us tough up there --- even when we're playing well --- and they obviously made this one a special occasion, what with their green unis and shit. But the most frustrating thing is that the cure for what ails us is not rocket science --- it's applied geometry. If nothing else, we did a bit better at that for 20 minutes today, so there's that...
Anyway, small steps are better than none, I suppose, but we'd best take more (and for a longer time) Tuesday. SMU is pretty doggone good. I'll certainly take the W today, especially since we've left little room for Ls...
Arright... before I get into this, if you're pulling for us to lose, then please just do everyone else a favor and stay TF outta this thread. I feel safe in saying I've been fussing at the staff and team as much as anyone during games, but I want to stay analytical for those here who appreciate it.
With that outta the way, our recent foibles have bothered me to the point of forcing myself to go back and rewatch large parts of the previous games --- I should get double-time combat pay for that, but 2 x 0 is still nuthin, so... --- and once I finish some initial comments, I'll try to share what I learned later in this post.
So look, we all know this game shouldn't have had to come down to Eliot's heroics but let's revisit how we got there:
- In complete fairness, it needs to be acknowledged that much of the 1st half featured some steps in the right direction schematically. We were eons better on D than last time out --- better effort, better communication, fewer lapses.
- Most importantly on offense, we were much more VERTICAL in half-court --- less lateral and circular actions and more focus on getting the rock toward the rack --- and we were more consistently trying to push transition even in absence of number advantages. Make no mistake, we still need to run the Secondary correctly more often, but it was at least a positive step nonetheless.
- Now, back to the opening reference: Before the season I stated that this team would be more successful if RJ scored less than last season. Now, by that I did NOT mean by missing so damn many shots --- I meant by making a needed change to our approach. Ever since our Natty game run, Hubert has defaulted to scheming for RJ. Hell, we sure did it last season. And again in fairness, if RJ was shooting even remotely like he has in previous seasons we win most of our losses so far. BUT, that is fool's gold, as we're now witnessing, a true double-edged sword. It has absolutely killed us this season. That 4/14 at Louisville was case-in-point. OK, good news is we stepped away from that to a degree today. As we saw, Jackson was the guy with the shot attempts today, and with the way things are going that makes more sense.
So... WTF went south in the 2nd half? In fairness again, O'Connell and his jabronie crew did an absolute number on us, inventing calls for ND while we weren't even in the damned bonus at the end of the game (!) --- in fact, I thought for sure they would foul us down to the buzzer at the end (Thanks, BTW). But once again, we mostly put ourselves in the precarious position of losing what should've been a working and expanding lead:
- We turned tight-ass. We stopped pushing pace --- only 2 Secondary points after 11 in the 1st --- and slowed down. Granted, part of that resulted from not securing rebounds or loose balls, but mostly from reverting to old habits in half-court. Let's focus on that for a second, as there were 3 major things that went wrong:
1. We reverted to starting possesions with that useless high lateral pass and/or (way-too-high) ball-screens. Teams have scouted that and you saw ND consistently run what I call a "shadow double" where they aren't risking full-on trapping, but still have two sets of hands obstructing any pass-out from upper no-man's land. Long story short, it stalled our previous vertical actions.
2. We reverted to isolations --- this time to Ian instead of RJ, but that's still a bad idea. Fact is, at this point in his development, Ian needs to get the rock on the move or on the catch --- his handle is just too loose right now to be reliable in isos.
3. What DID work was our fade-screen action --- we got several wide-open looks for 3s and/or runners (for both Ian and RJ) but we just missed the shots down the stretch.
- What drove me crazy on the defensive end was turning passive. ND mirrored Louisville by playing bumper-pool and forcing and/or backing the ball into the paint, and for too many possessions that 1st-half communication disappeared, or they got bailed out by sketchy whistles when we did get a stop. Here's the thing though --- why be a damn sitting duck? We could've ruined their day with some well-timed scrambles, but nada.... I honestly just don't get it. That should've been mixed in long before we got burdened with foul trouble...
and what the heck were we thinking in the last 4.8? We started out correctly by forcing the short inbound, but with that much time you do NOT want to have our guys backing out until you at least force a redirect by jumping the dribbler at a safe distance.- Finally, one last time in fairness, Notre Dame ALWAYS plays us tough up there --- even when we're playing well --- and they obviously made this one a special occasion, what with their green unis and shit. But the most frustrating thing is that the cure for what ails us is not rocket science --- it's applied geometry. If nothing else, we did a bit better at that for 20 minutes today, so there's that...
Anyway, small steps are better than none, I suppose, but we'd best take more (and for a longer time) Tuesday. SMU is pretty doggone good. I'll certainly take the W today, especially since we've left little room for Ls...
Last edited:
