- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 9,382
- Reaction Score
- 23,714
Got home from the game about an hour ago, and I'm seeing posts about Ollie "losing his luster", the team being overrated, etc. Logic and rationality seem to go by the wayside after every loss, but the stupidity is especially pronounced after the first loss, apparently because of delusions of a perfect season and expectations that needed some tempering. I'm not here to tell you everything is sunshine and roses, but let's also not make any asinine declarations on the basis of a bad half that's going to become material for everybody to laugh at in brighter days.
Let me first address the narrative that seems to be gaining the most traction here - the one regarding Kevin Ollie. If you watched the game tonight and came away thinking Ollie was the reason for the loss, I really don't know what to say other than I completely disagree. Stanford showed us a zone in the first half, and UConn carved it up fairly easily, with Boatright and Napier curling into the creases of the zone and collapsing the defense. In the second half, Stanford ran the zone back, but this one contained more aggressive principles, as the Stanford defense seemed determined to hedge emphatically - it was almost a fragmented trap, and the goal seemed to be to force the ball out of Napier's hands at all costs. This isn't an unusual strategy against UConn - N.C. State adopted a variation of the same philosophy last season against us, except it was a more man-to-man-oriented defense. While I was watching the second half, it began to look eerily reminiscent of the Louisville game from the 2011 season (the first game). Essentially, the intention is to cut the head off the snake, and limit the collateral damage the mere presence of a great player causes the opposition. In that game, it was Kemba (Louisville was able to restrict his rim-run opportunities and force UConn to generate secondary offensive design), tonight, it was Shabazz. I had a pretty good view from section 206 - Napier simply destroyed Stanford. His phenomenal court vision was on full display, as he was able to spot shooters from across the floor, squeeze the ball into tight windows, and annihilate them in transition. I think he recorded seven assists in the first half, and he was well on his way to a 15+ assist night if Stanford didn't adjust - give Johnny Dawkins credit.
This is where the chess match began. After Giffey hit a layup in transition to put us ahead 43-30 with a little under 17 minutes to go, UConn went over six minutes without scoring, and many of the possessions featured the same bewilderment and helplessness you would expect from a team encountering its first extended look at the unconventional zone Johnny Dawkins had designed. They must have went six or seven possessions without generating anything that would be considered even an average shot. At the 10:55 TV timeout (Randle put Stanford ahead with two free throws right after, to cap a 14-0 run), UConn's offense began to resemble an adequate D-1 attack. Napier hit a wide open mid-range jumper following the timeout on a nicely designed play from Ollie (I'll get into the specifics tomorrow when I have more time). The following possession was a Napier heat check, as he launched from a couple feet behind the three point line, and missed. After that, Napier fed Brimah on a side pick and roll and Brimah missed blew the dunk (he should have taken a power dribble and gone up strong, he was too far away from the hoop to dunk - he'll learn this with experience). Calhoun put up a wild, ill-advised mid-range jumper the following possession, and a couple possessions later, UConn executed another well-designed play to perfection and got Calhoun a wide open three in the corner, which he missed. For the remaining six minutes, UConn executed against the zone with varying degrees of success - on some possessions they got good shots, on others the execution was cringe-worthy.
The point is this: too many of us fall victim to the make-or-miss nature of the game. I'm not going to sit here and pretend UConn was running some profound, Knight-esque motion offense, but it wasn't nearly as stagnated or abominable as some of you would make it seem. A play that results in a high percentage shot that a player missed isn't a poor reflection on the coach; it's a reflection on the player, and statistical variation. UConn had shot 45% from three entering play - some regression was in order, and unfortunately, it presented itself tonight in the form of a 6 for 22 outing (27%), in which one of the best players in the country missed practically everything he hoisted up in the second half. In the final ten minutes of play, UConn executed well-enough to win. The staples of successful UConn zone offense were evident - high ball screening, penetration to the foul line, drive and dish activity - along with some encouraging east/west movement that led to open shots. So, before you make posts questioning Ollie's basketball intellect, and his ability to successfully counter strategic punches with punches, do your homework. Go back and watch the tape - watch the multiple open looks from three Calhoun, Napier, Kromah, and Boatright all had, and didn't knock down. Watch DeAndre Daniels, Ryan Boatright, and Tyler Olander consistently neglect open shooters in the corner due to tunnel vision tendencies. Before you come at me with this nonsense about how Ollie's not running offense against the zone, please, watch the tape, and don't generalize. I'm not trying to be over-protective of the guy; he obviously has some deficiencies, as all coaches do (especially the younger one's). Let's just try to keep things in perspective a bit and not make any rash judgments after a bad half of basketball.
Back in 2011, Louisville exposed some flaws in our roster. In the aftermath of that game, teams were content to zone us for prolonged periods of time, and some agonizing spurts of offensive ineptitude followed. But, guess what? We were better for it in the end, and I think that's the way it will turn out this season, too. By forcing us to work harder for our points - by eliminating the Napier/Boatright ball screens that resulted in such easy points - I suspect the offense will be better for it in the long haul. Stanford exposed weaknesses in our personnel tonight - most pressingly, they exposed the tendency of Daniels, Boatright, Calhoun, and Kromah to dribble without purpose, and drive without a dual-mindset of shooting and passing. These guys - especially Calhoun and Daniels - are a bit one-dimensional as offensive players. If we want to maximize our ability on the offensive end of the floor, the ball, at some point, was going to have to start moving more crisply, and from side to side in a more efficient, razor-sharp manner. Nothing can doom a half-court attack like over-dribbling and driving into traffic, two flaws that a zone exacerbates. I'm hopeful that, much like our growing pains in 2011, the zone forces us out of our bad habits and the game starts slowing down for some of these guys.
Despite the putrid shooting, inconsistent execution, and overall disappointment, I'm very happy to report that tonight was arguably our best defensive performance of the season. Stanford entered play 23rd in offensive efficiency (not sure on the exact number, but I believe it was in that ballpark), and UConn held them to 35% shooting, and, perhaps more importantly, eleven offensive rebounds. Aside from a few lapses leading to pen threes, it was as flawless a defensive performance as you're going to see against a good offensive team. Dribble containment was excellent, post defense was much improved, there was a collective urgency on the boards, and the layers of help that exist in every great defense were certainly prevalent tonight. If we're going to struggle in one facet of the game at this point in the season, I'd much prefer it be offense rather than defense. Offensive struggles aren't at usual at this point in the season, as significant samples of tape and information become readily available to coaches who spend their entire nights scheming, and tailoring their defensive attack to the opposition's weakness. As history suggests, it's much easier for a strong defensive team to get hot offensively for a few games in March than for a bad defensive team to outscore their demons. With tonight's game, UConn has skyrocketed to 11th in defensive efficiency, which is right about where you want to be if you have any shot at making a run.
In an effort to wrap this thing up before 4 in the morning, I'll have to push the individual player and play evaluations off until tomorrow. But, the more I think about this loss, the less it bothers me. Don't get me wrong: I was as disgusted as the next guy leaving the XL Center tonight, and I'm probably going to have a hard time maintaining my sanity as I begin the long, three and a half day wait for these guys to redeem themselves on Sunday. It's concerning that this team hasn't displayed demonstrable improvements on the offensive side of the floor, given some variation of everybody we're seeing in our rotation, sans Kromah and Brimah, have now played over 40 games together as a five man unit. I just don't think any less of this team after tonight than I did driving to the game. The composition of this team is conducive to a lot of close games, and they've proven over the last year + to be able to win them at a high rate. I'll still go to war against anybody else in the country with this team, and this coach, and feel like I have a good chance to win it at the end with the ball in Napier's hands. I hope at least part of what I just wrote was coherent, and go Huskies.
Let me first address the narrative that seems to be gaining the most traction here - the one regarding Kevin Ollie. If you watched the game tonight and came away thinking Ollie was the reason for the loss, I really don't know what to say other than I completely disagree. Stanford showed us a zone in the first half, and UConn carved it up fairly easily, with Boatright and Napier curling into the creases of the zone and collapsing the defense. In the second half, Stanford ran the zone back, but this one contained more aggressive principles, as the Stanford defense seemed determined to hedge emphatically - it was almost a fragmented trap, and the goal seemed to be to force the ball out of Napier's hands at all costs. This isn't an unusual strategy against UConn - N.C. State adopted a variation of the same philosophy last season against us, except it was a more man-to-man-oriented defense. While I was watching the second half, it began to look eerily reminiscent of the Louisville game from the 2011 season (the first game). Essentially, the intention is to cut the head off the snake, and limit the collateral damage the mere presence of a great player causes the opposition. In that game, it was Kemba (Louisville was able to restrict his rim-run opportunities and force UConn to generate secondary offensive design), tonight, it was Shabazz. I had a pretty good view from section 206 - Napier simply destroyed Stanford. His phenomenal court vision was on full display, as he was able to spot shooters from across the floor, squeeze the ball into tight windows, and annihilate them in transition. I think he recorded seven assists in the first half, and he was well on his way to a 15+ assist night if Stanford didn't adjust - give Johnny Dawkins credit.
This is where the chess match began. After Giffey hit a layup in transition to put us ahead 43-30 with a little under 17 minutes to go, UConn went over six minutes without scoring, and many of the possessions featured the same bewilderment and helplessness you would expect from a team encountering its first extended look at the unconventional zone Johnny Dawkins had designed. They must have went six or seven possessions without generating anything that would be considered even an average shot. At the 10:55 TV timeout (Randle put Stanford ahead with two free throws right after, to cap a 14-0 run), UConn's offense began to resemble an adequate D-1 attack. Napier hit a wide open mid-range jumper following the timeout on a nicely designed play from Ollie (I'll get into the specifics tomorrow when I have more time). The following possession was a Napier heat check, as he launched from a couple feet behind the three point line, and missed. After that, Napier fed Brimah on a side pick and roll and Brimah missed blew the dunk (he should have taken a power dribble and gone up strong, he was too far away from the hoop to dunk - he'll learn this with experience). Calhoun put up a wild, ill-advised mid-range jumper the following possession, and a couple possessions later, UConn executed another well-designed play to perfection and got Calhoun a wide open three in the corner, which he missed. For the remaining six minutes, UConn executed against the zone with varying degrees of success - on some possessions they got good shots, on others the execution was cringe-worthy.
The point is this: too many of us fall victim to the make-or-miss nature of the game. I'm not going to sit here and pretend UConn was running some profound, Knight-esque motion offense, but it wasn't nearly as stagnated or abominable as some of you would make it seem. A play that results in a high percentage shot that a player missed isn't a poor reflection on the coach; it's a reflection on the player, and statistical variation. UConn had shot 45% from three entering play - some regression was in order, and unfortunately, it presented itself tonight in the form of a 6 for 22 outing (27%), in which one of the best players in the country missed practically everything he hoisted up in the second half. In the final ten minutes of play, UConn executed well-enough to win. The staples of successful UConn zone offense were evident - high ball screening, penetration to the foul line, drive and dish activity - along with some encouraging east/west movement that led to open shots. So, before you make posts questioning Ollie's basketball intellect, and his ability to successfully counter strategic punches with punches, do your homework. Go back and watch the tape - watch the multiple open looks from three Calhoun, Napier, Kromah, and Boatright all had, and didn't knock down. Watch DeAndre Daniels, Ryan Boatright, and Tyler Olander consistently neglect open shooters in the corner due to tunnel vision tendencies. Before you come at me with this nonsense about how Ollie's not running offense against the zone, please, watch the tape, and don't generalize. I'm not trying to be over-protective of the guy; he obviously has some deficiencies, as all coaches do (especially the younger one's). Let's just try to keep things in perspective a bit and not make any rash judgments after a bad half of basketball.
Back in 2011, Louisville exposed some flaws in our roster. In the aftermath of that game, teams were content to zone us for prolonged periods of time, and some agonizing spurts of offensive ineptitude followed. But, guess what? We were better for it in the end, and I think that's the way it will turn out this season, too. By forcing us to work harder for our points - by eliminating the Napier/Boatright ball screens that resulted in such easy points - I suspect the offense will be better for it in the long haul. Stanford exposed weaknesses in our personnel tonight - most pressingly, they exposed the tendency of Daniels, Boatright, Calhoun, and Kromah to dribble without purpose, and drive without a dual-mindset of shooting and passing. These guys - especially Calhoun and Daniels - are a bit one-dimensional as offensive players. If we want to maximize our ability on the offensive end of the floor, the ball, at some point, was going to have to start moving more crisply, and from side to side in a more efficient, razor-sharp manner. Nothing can doom a half-court attack like over-dribbling and driving into traffic, two flaws that a zone exacerbates. I'm hopeful that, much like our growing pains in 2011, the zone forces us out of our bad habits and the game starts slowing down for some of these guys.
Despite the putrid shooting, inconsistent execution, and overall disappointment, I'm very happy to report that tonight was arguably our best defensive performance of the season. Stanford entered play 23rd in offensive efficiency (not sure on the exact number, but I believe it was in that ballpark), and UConn held them to 35% shooting, and, perhaps more importantly, eleven offensive rebounds. Aside from a few lapses leading to pen threes, it was as flawless a defensive performance as you're going to see against a good offensive team. Dribble containment was excellent, post defense was much improved, there was a collective urgency on the boards, and the layers of help that exist in every great defense were certainly prevalent tonight. If we're going to struggle in one facet of the game at this point in the season, I'd much prefer it be offense rather than defense. Offensive struggles aren't at usual at this point in the season, as significant samples of tape and information become readily available to coaches who spend their entire nights scheming, and tailoring their defensive attack to the opposition's weakness. As history suggests, it's much easier for a strong defensive team to get hot offensively for a few games in March than for a bad defensive team to outscore their demons. With tonight's game, UConn has skyrocketed to 11th in defensive efficiency, which is right about where you want to be if you have any shot at making a run.
In an effort to wrap this thing up before 4 in the morning, I'll have to push the individual player and play evaluations off until tomorrow. But, the more I think about this loss, the less it bothers me. Don't get me wrong: I was as disgusted as the next guy leaving the XL Center tonight, and I'm probably going to have a hard time maintaining my sanity as I begin the long, three and a half day wait for these guys to redeem themselves on Sunday. It's concerning that this team hasn't displayed demonstrable improvements on the offensive side of the floor, given some variation of everybody we're seeing in our rotation, sans Kromah and Brimah, have now played over 40 games together as a five man unit. I just don't think any less of this team after tonight than I did driving to the game. The composition of this team is conducive to a lot of close games, and they've proven over the last year + to be able to win them at a high rate. I'll still go to war against anybody else in the country with this team, and this coach, and feel like I have a good chance to win it at the end with the ball in Napier's hands. I hope at least part of what I just wrote was coherent, and go Huskies.
