Great Coaching

[Windyplayer]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but its funny that if Howard doesn't bank in that 3 in the last 2 minutes, this forum would be blowing up about how Wojo can't coach defense and his players lack mental toughness.

Or that charge called on Cartwright when, I think, Providence was up by around 6 with 2-3 minutes to play. Massive call.

As to coaching, I have to admit, I'm very much a novice in assessing a coach's body of work during an entire game. I'll defer to the resident experts.

[BallBoy]

Wojo did seem to make some adjustments that worked in the second half - the number of easy buckets for PC dropped off quite a bit. Kudos to him for that. At the end of the day, though, we don't win this game even if Markus score 35. Think about that. It's kind of tough to say this was a well coached game when we needed a 50 point performance to squeak out an OT win against a team playing without its leading scorer and rebounder.

Wojo deserves some credit for personnel management, but the players, especially Rowsey, deserve just as much for adjusting their games when playing in foul trouble.

If we assume that Markus scores 17 points less and no other player scores then yes, we would have lost but sometimes you ride the hot hand/weakness in the other team and part of being a good coach is getting your other players excited to let someone else shoot the ball.  Markus shot 19 times.  If he only scored 35 he probably wouldn't have gotten to shoot it 19 times so Rowsey, Hauser, Cain, Elliot, et al would have gotten more looks and would likely have scored more.

Taking any single stat or event in a game/season independently of other events/stats is a fruitless exercise.  The number of people on the board who take one minute stat/event and analyze it in a vacuum and decree the team/Wojo sucks, even when the team wins, is staggering.   

[BallBoy]

This is exactly correct. Scheming to cover up for one undersized, bad defender would be difficult. Two is pretty much impossible.
The defensive shortcomings of Howard and Rowsey is the price you pay for (necessarily) having them on the court together. At the end of the day, Marquette is better that way.

If someone could point out a great defensive team with two sub-6 foot guards who are poor on-ball defenders, I'd love to see it.

It is very apparent that most of MU's defensive problems start there.  I would add that in addition to being short, they are also not thick so fighting through a defensive screen is hard.  I believe this is why we see so much hedging on the defensive end.

[JamilJaeJamailJrJuan]

Maybe wojo should have just followed Vogue's idea and let them play until they fouled out.

WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Maybe wojo should have just followed Vogue's idea and let them play until they fouled out.

You know what is kinda funny -- he kind of did that with Sacar

[mu03eng]

This is exactly correct. Scheming to cover up for one undersized, bad defender would be difficult. Two is pretty much impossible.
The defensive shortcomings of Howard and Rowsey is the price you pay for (necessarily) having them on the court together. At the end of the day, Marquette is better that way.

If someone could point out a great defensive team with two sub-6 foot guards who are poor on-ball defenders, I'd love to see it.

And all the evidence you need is in the game itself, how the defense improved when Elliot came into the game and guarded Cartwright the Providence offense slowed down some. We saw the same thing against Wichita State, etc.

Whether the Scoop audience agrees with it or not, Wojo has made a coaching decision that says I'm going to maximize my offensive potential at the expense of my defensive capabilities. One can argue as to whether that is the right call or not, but one cannot argue that the defense sucks without acknowledging that it is a zero sum game and that you can't maximize offense while still improving the defense. I fully support the strategy.

Side note, this type of defensive trade off is going to show up more glaringly in a very tightly officiating game as one of the ways to make up for the defensive limitations is to be a little more physical. If you take that away either buckets are going to be easier or FTR is going to go through the roof.

[Newsdreams]

You know what is kinda funny -- he kind of did that with Sacar

Played only 9 minutes

[MU82]

WE JUST WON THE NATIONAL TITLE!

Handful of Scoopers: "Six lucky wins. If three of our guys didn't score a lot of points, we would have lost. And that one inbound play in our regional semifinal win ... that was weak. And after all this time, Theo still gets called for offensive fouls. And can you believe Wojo had Heldt hedge twice? Wojo only wins the easy national titles."

[mayfairskatingrink]

WE JUST WON THE NATIONAL TITLE!

Handful of Scoopers: "Six lucky wins. If three of our guys didn't score a lot of points, we would have lost. And that one inbound play in our regional semifinal win ... that was weak. And after all this time, Theo still gets called for offensive fouls. And can you believe Wojo had Heldt hedge twice? Wojo only wins the easy national titles."

MU won't ever get to the Sweet 16 under Wojo.

[vogue65]

Played only 9 minutes

I could not watch the game,  how many points did Sacar prevent?  Were his fouls worth while?
How many points did we win by in regulation?   0?

[goinUptown]

I think its funny that the only complaint I ever consistently see on here about the defense is the bigs hedging on screens....yet I rarely see us give up a bucket because of it. It is a tried and true defensive strategy used by many coaches. I think us fans just have a harder time diagnosing defensive problems than offensive ones.

I don't think there is any scheme that would magically turn this into a good defensive team. Howard and Rowsey are pis poor on ball defensive players. That is why our defense is so poor. They cannot contain anyone on the perimeter and it puts our other players into tough positions, hence the constant foul trouble. But what they bring on offense outweighs what they take away on defense. As long as they are our stars, we will be a poor defensive team, no matter the scheme. A pack line or a zone might make us marginally better, but it would slow down the tempo and hurt our offense. Only way we win is if we run, gun, and outscore the other guy.

Exactly right, TAMU, which is another sign of Wojo's good (and improving) coaching.  Wojo has done the cost-benefit analysis and correctly in my opinion.  It paid off last year and will continue to pay off this year.  Of course, next year with a slightly different set of players, he'll do more CBA, and I expect our defensive will improve even more than it has over the last two years, all the while maintaining one of the most prolific offenses in all of college Hoops.

goinUptown

[Eldon]

And all the evidence you need is in the game itself, how the defense improved when Elliot came into the game and guarded Cartwright the Providence offense slowed down some. We saw the same thing against Wichita State, etc.

Whether the Scoop audience agrees with it or not, Wojo has made a coaching decision that says I'm going to maximize my offensive potential at the expense of my defensive capabilities. One can argue as to whether that is the right call or not, but one cannot argue that the defense sucks without acknowledging that it is a zero sum game and that you can't maximize offense while still improving the defense. I fully support the strategy.

Side note, this type of defensive trade off is going to show up more glaringly in a very tightly officiating game as one of the ways to make up for the defensive limitations is to be a little more physical. If you take that away either buckets are going to be easier or FTR is going to go through the roof.

Good analysis

[Dr. Blackheart]

It builds from the outside in because that is where college teams are going. Like it or not, it's better to die by twos than by threes. I think there are tweaks that can be made: don't hedge as hard/far and bring the weakside help closer to the lane to help with the big recovery....however with Rowsey's major defensive liabilities and Howard's significant liabilities I just don't think you can tweak enough to solve everything.

Once Elliot came in to make Cartwright, we definitely started to slow them down, but it also means the offense slows down a little bit so it's a delicate balance.

Show me a top defense in college that builds from the outside in?  I keep hearing this here and find no evidence to this myth propagated on Scoop.  Every Top 20 Pomeroy defense protects the paint or pressures full court (MSU, Virginia, Purdue, Texas, Tech, A&M, Cin).

75% of the points MU gives up are from inside the trey paint line (2FGM+FTM). MU fouls at a high rate (39% or 274th nationally yet the foul rate is a whopping 59% in BE play). One third of MU's opponents' shots are bunnies at the rim where they shoot 67%. 77% of their shots off a rebound are at the rim where they shoot 72% (compare that to MSU where they only give 34% of rebound shots at the rim). I see a post jokingly calling out MU's free throwing shooting defense (77% and 345th nationally, 82% in the BE). It's high because we foul guard's out top chasing them or on blow bys.  (#ftsnomatta but #givinguseastpointsmatta)

I see your other post defending the defense and pointing out the shortfalls. We all get that. We are not expecting this to be a Top 20 defense, just a Top 100. I get Wojo's philosophy. We do defend the three well, but is that because the paint is so wide open and any threes come late or are rushed in transition? We lament our guards sitting on the bench because they are in foul trouble because they are out of position for the dribble drives, are bad on ball defenders or are too small.  I hear the argument that going to another defense would be worse even though our A/B opponents are scoring in the 80s and 90s on us already.

You point out the positives, but the negatives are brutal. Just a mediocre defense, but with adjustments with the chasing, can make this team deadly with this offense. I mean really, if your guards cannot defend the blow-by, why are they chasing?  If you have to hedge 5-8 feet past the key as a result, to give up the paint, why?  If your team is in constant foul trouble, why?  If your team is out of position on rebounds, why? If you are giving up 75% of your points inside the line, why keep doing what you are doing 30-40 feet from the basket?  Would we give up 100 points trying something else? Wojo has put in the zone trap.

Just asking for a Top 100 not a Mendoza Line defense.

[GGGG]

Show me a top defense in college that builds from the outside in?  I keep hearing this here and find no evidence to this myth propagated on Scoop.  Every Top 20 Pomeroy defense protects the paint or pressures full court (MSU, Virginia, Purdue, Texas, Tech, A&M, Cin).

75% of the points MU gives up are from inside the trey paint line (2FGM+FTM). MU fouls at a high rate (39% or 274th nationally yet the foul rate is a whopping 59% in BE play). One third of MU's opponents' shots are bunnies at the rim where they shoot 67%. 77% of their shots off a rebound are at the rim where they shoot 72% (compare that to MSU where they only give 34% of rebound shots at the rim). I see a post jokingly calling out MU's free throwing shooting defense (77% and 345th nationally, 82% in the BE). It's high because we foul guard's out top chasing them or on blow bys.  (#ftsnomatta but #givinguseastpointsmatta)

I see your other post defending the defense and pointing out the shortfalls. We all get that. We are not expecting this to be a Top 20 defense, just a Top 100. I get Wojo's philosophy. We do defend the three well, but is that because the paint is so wide open and any threes come late or are rushed in transition? We lament our guards sitting on the bench because they are in foul trouble because they are out of position for the dribble drives, are bad on ball defenders or are too small.  I hear the argument that going to another defense would be worse even though our A/B opponents are scoring in the 80s and 90s on us already.

You point out the positives, but the negatives are brutal. Just a mediocre defense, but with adjustments with the chasing, can make this team deadly with this offense. I mean really, if your guards cannot defend the blow-by, why are they chasing?  If you have to hedge 5-8 feet past the key as a result, to give up the paint, why?  If your team is in constant foul trouble, why?  If your team is out of position on rebounds, why? If you are giving up 75% of your points inside the line, why keep doing what you are doing 30-40 feet from the basket?  Would we give up 100 points trying something else? Wojo has put in the zone trap.

Just asking for a Top 100 not a Mendoza Line defense.

Instead of complaining again and again and again, what exactly would you do?  I mean outside of the cliched "build from the inside out."  Because I don't see many good options that aren't going to cause problems elsewhere.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Instead of complaining again and again and again, what exactly would you do?  I mean outside of the cliched "build from the inside out."  Because I don't see many good options that aren't going to cause problems elsewhere.

This thread is about you Scoop Intelligencia defending Wojo's scheme. I provided an analysis why it is a horrid scheme. If your position continues to be "what else would you do?" Or this is the "new way teams are playing defense", please provide your analysis. I'll await your detailed response

As to what I would do, I covered it in numerous times in past threads. Again, a varied pack line defense that utilizes our big height, protects the paint and our guards. This high pressure, scramble defense is not a defense that deserved so much off-season attention.

As to complaining again and again, I will stop when we play start to mediocre defense again and again.

[cheebs09]

I don't know that a packline would work with this team either. That would just make us have to defend longer. There are a lot of times where we defend well almost the full shot clock only to give up a layup after a breakdown at the end.

Maybe that's a function of us being overextended. Maybe the packline helps us limit penetration and makes our rotations easier. However, that limits possessions and less chances for us to outscore the.

Maybe Wojo wants the other team to shoot quickly and hope it's a long two and get the ball back on our better half of the court quicker. Almost a less extreme Grinnell style where it comes down to which offense is more efficient and hope we can force some turnovers even if he trade off us some easier two pointers for them.

[GGGG]

This thread is about you Scoop Intelligencia defending Wojo's scheme. I provided an analysis why it is a horrid scheme. If your position continues to be "what else would you do?" Or this is the "new way teams are playing defense", please provide your analysis. I'll await your detailed response

As to what I would do, I covered it in numerous times past threads. Again, a varied pack line defense that utilizes our big height, protects the paint and our guards. This high pressure, scramble defense is not a defense that deserved so much off-season attention.

As to complaining again and again, I will stop when we play start to mediocre defense again and again.

I've said it before.  Continue to do what they are doing because I think the problem is the players more than the scheme.

And I think a pack line would be terrible because teams would shoot over the guards all day long.  (And I would rather guard the 3 than the 2.)  And I don't want to slow down the pace because it fuels the offense.

I expect the defense to be substantially better next year with Rowsey gone, Morrow eligible and John more experienced.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

As to what I would do, I covered it in numerous times in past threads. Again, a varied pack line defense that utilizes our big height, protects the paint and our guards. This high pressure, scramble defense is not a defense that deserved so much off-season attention.

Year two of this where even if you went with a new scheme it is too late to teach it effectively. 

If it were me I would do some of what Wojo is doing - throw in a few traps/zones to confuse and maybe cause a turnover or quick possession.  I would tighten the scramble up too.  Cut down on the real-estate they are trying to cover.  Finally there seems to be an execution problem with the defense where the helper is constantly either confused/paralyzed into not helping, helping when it is not needed  or out of position to help effectively.  Causing extra rotations and lots of chasing.  I think this group can even play this scheme more effectively...they rarely look like they are playing defense as one unit (and thats not a height problem) 

Someone pointed out during our good stretch at providence we did better on D.  I have that impression to and wish i had the replay or stats breaking that out...would actually inform if it is true and would confirm the MH/Rowsey at the same time issue. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think a pack line would improve the defense. But I think it would hurt the offense more. We had a similar situation last season when Wojo fell in love with the zone after beating Nova last season. Went 1-4 in those 5 games before switching back to man full time.

I think with the players we have our best chance for winning is maximizing the offense even at expense of the defense. It's not because of height or experience (though those don't help) it's because Rowsey and Howard are historically bad on ball defenders. We will miss Rowsey overall next year but his departure will be addition by subtraction on the defensive side.

Maybe adding a few curveballs every once in awhile to throw off opposing offenses.

[jesmu84]

This thread is about you Scoop Intelligencia defending Wojo's scheme. I provided an analysis why it is a horrid scheme. If your position continues to be "what else would you do?" Or this is the "new way teams are playing defense", please provide your analysis. I'll await your detailed response

As to what I would do, I covered it in numerous times in past threads. Again, a varied pack line defense that utilizes our big height, protects the paint and our guards. This high pressure, scramble defense is not a defense that deserved so much off-season attention.

As to complaining again and again, I will stop when we play start to mediocre defense again and again.

Do you think it would serve this team well if we slightly improved the defense, if, in return, the offense became less effective/efficient?

[Dr. Blackheart]

Do you think it would serve this team well if we slightly improved the defense, if, in return, the offense became less effective/efficient?

Yes. I think we beat UGA and X at home. A a few to come here on the road too. 

[GGGG]

I think we'd be undefeated if our opponents never scored. CMON WOJO!!!

[Dr. Blackheart]

I think we'd be undefeated if our opponents never scored. CMON WOJO!!!

From Wojo's suckling breast to Scoop.  Great defense!

[GGGG]

From Wojo's suckling breast to Scoop.  Great defense!

I've stated my opinion.  You ignore it.

Whatever.