At what point...

[Floorslapper]

Question:

At what point does the coaching staff scrap the hard hedge by our big man on high ball screen action?  Matt and Harry certainly aren't fleet of foot enough to recover in a timely fashion.  Theo?  Maybe, but is just 18 games into his college career.  The risk factor of the opposition scoring 40 feet from the basket is about .05%.  Whereas the constant dump down beating our recovering big man for a layup is 95%. 

Additionally:

At what point after watching Butler get Elliott switched onto Martin creating a complete and total mismatch, do you not either change defenders (Sacar), or move to a zone?  Make Butler beat you over the top via the three, which a zone encourages.  We were shredded in the paint and mid-range.

[tower912]

The hedge on the high pick and roll is a staple of man defense at all levels.  Two 5'10 guards out front hurts the 2-3 zone as much as it does man to man.   Switching on to Martin is a choice.  Give Scar more minutes and watch him hurt the offense?   Bring in the other skinny freshman, Cain? (My choice).  Don't switch?  Also a viable option.

The way Sam was yelling, I have the impression a lot of guys weren't playing to the scouting report, weren't switching or rotating according to plan.

[Floorslapper]

Not sure the hard hedge is a staple of a pack line defense?  Need to play to your personnel.  Our bigs are not agile enough to effectively execute this approach.

Regarding zone against Butler, I'd have used a 1-3-1 with Markus at the point, Hauser at the bottom, Rowsey in middle at FT Line, Cain and Elliott on the wings.

Butler has no dominant big (no need for Heldt, Froling, Theo) and are a middling O-Rebounding team at 147 in country.  Felt we looked tired late in second half.  Zone conserves energy.  Butler ranks 35 in 2pt FG%, 167 in 3pt FG%.  Length of Cain and Elliott on wings would help contest the threes.  Placing Howard and Rowsey in the respective positions limits their defensive deficiencies. 

[NickelDimer]

I have no problem with the design but my god is Matt Heldt terrible at executing this. He commits way too hard and gets caught lagging behind and giving up easy baskets over and over. Very frustrating

[Daniel]

Question:

At what point does the coaching staff scrap the hard hedge by our big man on high ball screen action?  Matt and Harry certainly aren't fleet of foot enough to recover in a timely fashion.  Theo?  Maybe, but is just 18 games into his college career.  The risk factor of the opposition scoring 40 feet from the basket is about .05%.  Whereas the constant dump down beating our recovering big man for a layup is 95%. 

Additionally:

At what point after watching Butler get Elliott switched onto Martin creating a complete and total mismatch, do you not either change defenders (Sacar), or move to a zone?  Make Butler beat you over the top via the three, which a zone encourages.  We were shredded in the paint and mid-range.

Agree a lot here.  Statistically, how many times has our high hedge worked versus it breaking down?  I have no idea what the stat is, but the feel is it doesn?t work.  Our gett8ng burned 8n the paint is ongo8ng.  Something, and I do t know what, has to be adjusted to the players we have on the floor or who could be on the floor.   It is maddening

[GGGG]

The hard hedge has very rarely been a problem.  When it is, it looks really bad, but that is hardly been the main problem of the defense.  Last night it is just poor communication.  They couldn't handle pick and rolls without the hedge.

And you really want this team to play a pack line?  Teams would shoot right over it.  And it would slow down the game.

Tower did a good job summarizing the problems in the other thread.  80% of this is a personnel issue.

[tower912]

Not sure the hard hedge is a staple of a pack line defense?  Need to play to your personnel.  Our bigs are not agile enough to effectively execute this approach.

Regarding zone against Butler, I'd have used a 1-3-1 with Markus at the point, Hauser at the bottom, Rowsey in middle at FT Line, Cain and Elliott on the wings.

Butler has no dominant big (no need for Heldt, Froling, Theo) and are a middling O-Rebounding team at 147 in country.  Felt we looked tired late in second half.  Zone conserves energy.  Butler ranks 35 in 2pt FG%, 167 in 3pt FG%.  Length of Cain and Elliott on wings would help contest the threes.  Placing Howard and Rowsey in the respective positions limits their defensive deficiencies.

. No defense plays to MU's  personnel.
Young teams wear out with 10 minutes to go on the road.   You are thinking about an old school zone to conserve energy.  A modern zone chasing shooters off the 3 pt line is just as energy intensive.

[D'Lo Brown]

The hard hedge has very rarely been a problem.  When it is, it looks really bad, but that is hardly been the main problem of the defense.  Last night it is just poor communication.  They couldn't handle pick and rolls without the hedge.

And you really want this team to play a pack line?  Teams would shoot right over it.  And it would slow down the game.

Tower did a good job summarizing the problems in the other thread.  80% of this is a personnel issue.

Very rarely? I?d say about a half dozen buckets a game are directly attributable to it. I think it should be a major point of emphasis for Wojo to fix. I do agree with you on it being largely a personnel issue, though, that?s really what it comes down to.

The point I?d like to make is, teams are clearly scouting this and instantly make the pass for the easy bucket when it happens. There has to be a way to make an improvement here because if not, it?s only going to get worse as teams work it into their game plans.

If we are giving up a ridiculously easy 2 points 75% of the time we do this, then what is the point of it?

[GGGG]

Very rarely? I?d say about a half dozen buckets a game are directly attributable to it. I think it should be a major point of emphasis for Wojo to fix. I do agree with you on it being largely a personnel issue, though, that?s really what it comes down to.

The point I?d like to make is, teams are clearly scouting this and instantly make the pass for the easy bucket when it happens. There has to be a way to make an improvement here because if not, it?s only going to get worse as teams work it into their game plans.

If we are giving up a ridiculously easy 2 points 75% of the time we do this, then what is the point of it?

It's nowhere near six times a game.  I think the hard hedge was worth 2 or 3 yesterday. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

We'll try this again with numbers, although this won't move the Scoop Intelligencia.

>The average NCAA team, for every 10 shots taken, gives up 10.50 points on threes and 9.96 points on twos.
>For the total season, Marquette gives up 9.9 points on threes (good) and 11.1 on twos (really, really bad).
>In Big East play, MU gives up 9.7 points on threes and 11.8 on twos (very well coached by our opponents).

When Marquette over pressures the perimeter by moving 4-5 players out of the paint, our opponents go right to the paint because of high hedging by MU, outward spacing by MU, weak help defense available by MU, slow recovery by MU's bigs, and more fouling on their shooters. The result:

>The average team gives up 69.7% of their points via twos and free throws.
>For the season, MU gives up 75.6% this way.
>In the Big East, it is a whopping 80.3% as MU is more likely to foul scrambling on twos...and foul their best shooters.

On a per shot basis, MU's conference opponents would have to shoot 40%+ on treys to make it even in consideration not to keep attacking the freebies in the paint. There are about 25 teams that with only Nova and MU from the BE who shoot that.

Protect the paint! Build the defense from the baseline out and extend the pressure the threes like every top rated college defense. MU is very tall at the 3-4-5, but with has slow foot speed. Why scramble them?  You heard Jordan yesterday against us: Always three on the ball. Every time our guards penetrated, three players scrambled to the paint. Every shot, the same. This New Age Defense talk is whacko.

[GGGG]

No one has used New Age Defense except for you - it's actually a scheme very similar to what Buzz used. 

[Floorslapper]

No one has used New Age Defense except for you - it's actually a scheme very similar to what Buzz used.

This point, and the point Tower makes about it being personnel related would hold water, BUT, Buzz's midget team was ranked 55 in defense.

Wojo's teams are trending the wrong direction:

Year 1 - 69th
Year 2 - 88th
Year 3 - 165th
This year - 176th

Keep in mind this is a roster full of Wojo's players.  On the positive, love the offensive firepower Wojo has assembled.  Fun team to watch - yet frustrating considering we have 2 of the Top 10 players in all of college basketball in Pomeroy's O-Rating/High Usage category.  That's an incredible accomplishment - which you would hope would translate to more than a borderline NCAA team.

[GGGG]

This point, and the point Tower makes about it being personnel related would hold water, BUT, Buzz's midget team was ranked 55 in defense.

Wojo's teams are trending the wrong direction:

Year 1 - 69th
Year 2 - 88th
Year 3 - 165th
This year - 176th

Keep in mind this is a roster full of Wojo's players.  On the positive, love the offensive firepower Wojo has assembled.  Fun team to watch - yet frustrating considering we have 2 of the Top 10 players in all of college basketball in Pomeroy's O-Rating/High Usage category.  That's an incredible accomplishment - which you would hope would translate to more than a borderline NCAA team.

As I have said all along, it's mostly the players.  Yes, Wojo recruited those players so it's his fault, but I don't care what the scheme is, this isn't going to be a good defensive team.

[Daniel]

The hard hedge has very rarely been a problem.  When it is, it looks really bad, but that is hardly been the main problem of the defense.  Last night it is just poor communication.  They couldn't handle pick and rolls without the hedge.

And you really want this team to play a pack line?  Teams would shoot right over it.  And it would slow down the game.

Tower did a good job summarizing the problems in the other thread.  80% of this is a personnel issue.

If 80% is personnel issues and 20% is coaching i assume, who is responsible for the personnel we have?  The coaching staff brought these guys in and the coaching staff is teaching them defense.  No?

[GGGG]

If 80% is personnel issues and 20% is coaching i assume, who is responsible for the personnel we have?  The coaching staff brought these guys in and the coaching staff is teaching them defense.  No?

Correct.  I have never stated otherwise.

[tower912]

This point, and the point Tower makes about it being personnel related would hold water, BUT, Buzz's midget team was ranked 55 in defense.

Wojo's teams are trending the wrong direction:

Year 1 - 69th
Year 2 - 88th
Year 3 - 165th
This year - 176th

Keep in mind this is a roster full of Wojo's players.  On the positive, love the offensive firepower Wojo has assembled.  Fun team to watch - yet frustrating considering we have 2 of the Top 10 players in all of college basketball in Pomeroy's O-Rating/High Usage category.  That's an incredible accomplishment - which you would hope would translate to more than a borderline NCAA team.

How many freshmen played on Buzz's midget teams?     Offensively, what did that team do that required other teams to alter their personnel groupings?     Yes, Buzz's offense with the midget team caused other teams to take their bigs off of the floor more often.  How often does an opponent this year have to change their rotations to compensate for the team Wojo puts on the floor.    The midgets had five guys who would drive and dish, drive and dish, until somebody missed a rotation, got their head turned around, and MU got either an open 3 or a lay up.    Huggins, for one, had to take size off of the floor because of an inability to stop the drive and dish.    So MU's offensive structure and the players who ran it, helped the defense by cutting down on the mismatches.     

You're  not wrong.    But understand why.      This year's team doesn't have tough minded seniors,  doesn't have a Lazar or Butler.   Doesn't have an offense that requires the other team to play something other than their normal rotation. 

[Floorslapper]

How many freshmen played on Buzz's midget teams?     Offensively, what did that team do that required other teams to alter their personnel groupings?     Yes, Buzz's offense with the midget team caused other teams to take their bigs off of the floor more often.  How often does an opponent this year have to change their rotations to compensate for the team Wojo puts on the floor.    The midgets had five guys who would drive and dish, drive and dish, until somebody missed a rotation, got their head turned around, and MU got either an open 3 or a lay up.    Huggins, for one, had to take size off of the floor because of an inability to stop the drive and dish.    So MU's offensive structure and the players who ran it, helped the defense by cutting down on the mismatches.     

You're  not wrong.    But understand why.      This year's team doesn't have tough minded seniors,  doesn't have a Lazar or Butler.   Doesn't have an offense that requires the other team to play something other than their normal rotation.

While I agree that our team this year is not as experienced as was the midget team, I disagree that we are not the offensive juggernaut that was the midgets team.  I believe we are much more skilled and present more problems to opposing coaches this year, than that year. 

Having 3 ELITE, high usage, high efficiency players puts a ton of stress on opposing coaches to match personnel/gameplan.  The volume of floor space we force a defense to defend is huge, and leads to great driving lanes for Sacar, as well as "roll" opportunities for our big.  Furthermore the shot-making and ability of both Rowsey and Howard to hit at an uncanny percentage highly contested and high degree of difficulty 3's further challenges defenses.  They cannot be allowed ANY airspace.

Hauser is every bit the player Lazar or Jimmy was.  Hauser is a VERY good defender, and elite offensively. 

As I posted above, I'd like to see how other coaches would react to us going to a lineup of Howard, Rowsey, Hauser, Elliott, Cain.  The slashing and athletic ability of Cain and Elliott would be maximized playing with the Big 3.

[Shark]

Y?all need to calm down Holy crap

[Stretchdeltsig]

I agree with many here that Wojo has to change the defense so teams can't take advantage of our 5'11" guards by picking.  And our bigs should not be guarding 25' away from the rim.  The bigs should protect the rim at all times. 
We are capable of much better defense.  Surprised that Wojo isn't a better defensive coach.  Our offense is a given.  If we defend we will win.

[GGGG]

While I agree that our team this year is not as experienced as was the midget team, I disagree that we are not the offensive juggernaut that was the midgets team.  I believe we are much more skilled and present more problems to opposing coaches this year, than that year. 

I don't agree with that at all.  That team had seven players who averaged 10+ per game.  (This one has three.) 

That team shot just as good from the 3 as this one does, but it also had multiple players who could put the ball on the floor and score. 

And while I like Sam, Lazar was a very efficient, high usage player as a senior.  Sam isn't at that level yet.

[tower912]

While I agree that our team this year is not as experienced as was the midget team, I disagree that we are not the offensive juggernaut that was the midgets team.  I believe we are much more skilled and present more problems to opposing coaches this year, than that year. 

Having 3 ELITE, high usage, high efficiency players puts a ton of stress on opposing coaches to match personnel/gameplan.  The volume of floor space we force a defense to defend is huge, and leads to great driving lanes for Sacar, as well as "roll" opportunities for our big.  Furthermore the shot-making and ability of both Rowsey and Howard to hit at an uncanny percentage highly contested and high degree of difficulty 3's further challenges defenses.  They cannot be allowed ANY airspace.

Hauser is every bit the player Lazar or Jimmy was.  Hauser is a VERY good defender, and elite offensively. 

As I posted above, I'd like to see how other coaches would react to us going to a lineup of Howard, Rowsey, Hauser, Elliott, Cain.  The slashing and athletic ability of Cain and Elliott would be maximized playing with the Big 3.

Then we disagree.  And this team is a really good offensive team.   But our roster does not force other teams to adjust to us.   Lazar and Jimmy were first round draft picks.    Are you predicting that for Sam?    And yes, a coach has to plan for this offense.    He can do it with his normal line up with extending the man, no help off of Markus or Rowsey, have the bigs show all of the time, and bet that the other two guys can't score enough to hurt.     With any kind of size or defensive ability at guard, it can be done.     Buzz's midget team required slow bigs who couldn't defend in space to come off the floor.   
    They have played that line up.   It was the comeback at Villanova.    It worked for a few minutes.   Eventually, they ran out of gas and time.    It is a nice change up in the right circumstances.    It isn't going to be the base. 

[Daniel]

Correct.  I have never stated otherwise.

Ok ty. That really makes it 100% coaching and staff. But maybe we have seen the recruiting shift now from finesse to more physical or defensive minded guys like John, Cain, Elliot and Morrow as latest recruits. 

[GGGG]

Ok ty. That really makes it 100% coaching and staff. But maybe we have seen the recruiting shift now from finesse to more physical or defensive minded guys like John, Cain, Elliot and Morrow as latest recruits. 

Yes ultimately it's on Wojo.  It's just my opinion that the scheme they use is fine.  It's the players that are a problem.  They are young and small on the perimeter.

[Daniel]

Yes ultimately it's on Wojo.  It's just my opinion that the scheme they use is fine.  It's the players that are a problem.  They are young and small on the perimeter.

Hopefully we recruit some defensive force next year and hereafter.  No one would have passed on Howard or a Rowsey for sure. Outstanding offensive players. But teams cannot go deep without very good defense.  Hoping for the best in future.  Need a great point next year

[GGGG]

Hopefully we recruit some defensive force next year and hereafter.  No one would have passed on Howard or a Rowsey for sure. Outstanding offensive players. But teams cannot go deep without very good defense.  Hoping for the best in future.  Need a great point next year

I think Wojo figured it out late.  Cain, Elliott and John will be very good defensively.