No more high hedge?

[ucp990411]

One of the reasons you use the hard high hedge is if you have players that would not be effective in a switching situation. Such as RJ being forced to play a big. DH has said he wants bigger guards who would have the ability to switch. Looks like we will have different philosophy on defense as well as offense.

 

[CardiacAndre7]

The only player this worked with was Whaley, because he was so good at it. Now that he’s gone, we shouldn’t do it anymore. It is pretty much free points.

 

[Kenny11]

Whaley was a master at it. Honestly one of the best I’ve ever seen. Sanogo got so much better at it his sophomore year but it still wasn’t a strength of his. Switching is ideal with some mixing up from time to time.

 

[bigknight3]

The only player this worked with was Whaley, because he was so good at it. Now that he’s gone, we shouldn’t do it anymore. It is pretty much free points.

You can't deny that sanogo improved at it last year. And as a team it was an effective defense more often than not. Unfortunately Creighton seemed to exploit it with ease and put bad tape out there for opposing coaches to follow.

 

[AdamaNation]

High hedge = weave.

 

[Giddyup5]

Our base defense should be man to man with automatic switch.

Then have 2 wrinkles depending on individual matchups. Drop coverage and high hedge.

Then have a basic zone for unusual situations.

 

[Palatine]

Whaley was a master at it. Honestly one of the best I’ve ever seen. Sanogo got so much better at it his sophomore year but it still wasn’t a strength of his. Switching is ideal with some mixing up from time to time.

Not a fan of the HH. The high hedge has led to our bigs picking up fouls 20+ feet from the basket. If they could do it without fouling it would be fine. But you have to adjust your defense to the strengths of your players.

 

[husky429]

2-4 high hedge is great. Even 1-4 if you have big guards like Newton and Castle.

Throwing Clingan and Sanogo into the high hedge is a terrible idea. Hurley does too much of it... forcing square pegs into round holes.

We need a more complex defense. It shows because good, well-coached teams beat us. And we're losing close games because teams figure us out.

Having a base man defense with switching and drop coverage, high hedge as options is a start. We should really have an ICE cover as well... it isn't that hard. Not having a zone in our back pocket is pretty frustrating too.

We need to stop being a 1 trick pony on defense. The high hedge is a fantastic trick, but it can't be our only option.

 

[bendm]

Not having a zone in our back pocket is pretty frustrating too.

110% needs to change w/ clingan

 

[ucp990411]

The high hedge is used to disrupt the offense and to deny north-south guard penetration. VS Creighton we did not adjust our rotations and they had a field day.

 

[Lefty2one]

I hate switching everything in the NBA unless you have the ideal personnel for it. In college I'd be fine with it because the offensive skill level is so much lower. With how most college bigs shoot the ball I'd play plenty of drop coverage. I think drop coverage is perfect for Sanogo and Clingan. Keep the paint clogged, keep opposing PGs from getting good looks beyond the arc, and keep our bigs from picking up cheap fouls.

 

[ucp990411]

I bet Jamie Dixon wishes he used the high hedge rather than switching in the 2011 Big East tournament

 

[auror]

We need a more complex defense. It shows because good, well-coached teams beat us. And we're losing close games because teams figure us out.

This is a bit of a tautology, though. Good, well-coached teams have better odds of beating everyone, otherwise they wouldn't be good and well-coached. And for example we didn't lose to Creighton in either game due to defense.

But it is true that our defense was a bit disappointing overall this season, considering the personnel. We took a small step back despite improvements from Sanogo and veterans everywhere in the rotation. I wouldn't be surprised if Hurley does change up the system a bit. A lot of new personnel, easier to do it now.

 

[Giddyup5]

I hate switching everything in the NBA unless you have the ideal personnel for it. In college I'd be fine with it because the offensive skill level is so much lower. With how most college bigs shoot the ball I'd play plenty of drop coverage. I think drop coverage is perfect for Sanogo and Clingan. Keep the paint clogged, keep opposing PGs from getting good looks beyond the arc, and keep our bigs from picking up cheap fouls.

This. There is usually not enough individual talent in college where switching will hurt you in the long run.

If a small guard switches onto a big man I would be perfectly content with them trying to back the guard down. Most bigs in college cannot take advantage of that mismatch.

Similarly, if one of our bigs switches to a guard, I would have them drop coverage and dare them to shoot over their length. There are not many 40%+ 3 point shooters in college. They will need to learn to move their feet and defend in isolation but it is doable.

I would argue the hard hedge is one of the worst defensive schemes to have for the college talent level.

There is a time and place for it especially against teams that rely heavily on their PG to generate offense. Ironically, it is a great D against our team last year where you wanted to limit Cole.

I’ve said this before. Our defense was way to easy to scout and prepare for. We need to mix our man to man up.

 

[husky429]

This is a bit of a tautology, though. Good, well-coached teams have better odds of beating everyone, otherwise they wouldn't be good and well-coached. And for example we didn't lose to Creighton in either game due to defense.

But it is true that our defense was a bit disappointing overall this season, considering the personnel. We took a small step back despite improvements from Sanogo and veterans everywhere in the rotation. I wouldn't be surprised if Hurley does change up the system a bit. A lot of new personnel, easier to do it now.

Our games this vs HOF/elite coaches were: 2x vs Creighton, 3x vs Nova, MSU, and WVU.

We were a better team than Creighton, and we still haven't beat them...ever. We were clearly more talented this year and last.

We were better than MSU. We were better than WVU.

I think 'Nova was going to have our number 2/3 games no matter what, so I won't count them.

We also lost 5/6 games vs elite coaches the year before. And 3/4 the year before that. And 8/9 the year before that. I have Hurley at 3-19 vs HOF coaches

Is it a coincidence that last season we lost 4/4 games vs HOF coaches? Maybe, maybe not. I won't make the call for you. But I think it's pretty objective that 1) we lose close games, 2) we lose to HOF coaches even when our team is better, 3) we rarely lose games we're supposed to win. #3 is a good place to start, but we need changes to get to the next step.

IMO the way Hurley coaches rarely ends up with us punching above our weight class. We win more of these games... maybe not even most, but MORE if Hurley learns how to make adjustments on both ends of the floor.

 

[MexicoHusky]

One of the reasons you use the hard high hedge is if you have players that would not be effective in a switching situation. Such as RJ being forced to play a big. DH has said he wants bigger guards who would have the ability to switch. Looks like we will have different philosophy on defense as well as offense.

I don't like the high hedge because in years past, when we had elite guards, our guards would abuse it. They'd wouldn't give up the ball. Often end up with the big guarding them. Then take advantage of the mismatch...... but I don't like living in the past either.

 

[jdb50]

Hurley was hard headed last year with his hard hedge and other things. Whaley had the ability to knock the ball away from guards with his length and quick hands. Hurley can run the same stuff with AS and DC but it will be a mistake. One trick pony's don't last long against good coaches. Teach your guards to fight through picks and not have as much switching would be nice for a change.

 

[auror]

Our games this vs HOF/elite coaches were: 2x vs Creighton, 3x vs Nova, MSU, and WVU.

We were a better team than Creighton, and we still haven't beat them...ever. We were clearly more talented this year and last.

We were better than MSU. We were better than WVU.

I think 'Nova was going to have our number 2/3 games no matter what, so I won't count them.

We also lost 5/6 games vs elite coaches the year before. And 3/4 the year before that. And 8/9 the year before that. I have Hurley at 3-19 vs HOF coaches

Is it a coincidence that last season we lost 4/4 games vs HOF coaches? Maybe, maybe not. I won't make the call for you. But I think it's pretty objective that 1) we lose close games, 2) we lose to HOF coaches even when our team is better, 3) we rarely lose games we're supposed to win. #3 is a good place to start, but we need changes to get to the next step.

IMO the way Hurley coaches rarely ends up with us punching above our weight class. We win more of these games... maybe not even most, but MORE if Hurley learns how to make adjustments on both ends of the floor.

My point wasn't that we don't lose to hall of fame coaches. It's very clear we do. It's that everybody loses to hall of fame coaches. We didn't before because we HAD the hall of fame coach. I don't know that changing the defensive scheme will give us better odds against hall of fame coaches, because, again, hall of fame coaches beat everyone.

But to go further: 0.91, 0.88, 0.92, 1.01 ppp against in the non-Nova elite coach games. That's really good. Doesn't look like those coaches really took advantage of our defense to me. That's top 15 defensive efficiency on raw average.

Nova did though: 1.25, 1.11, 1.10. But they were an absolute elite offensive team that made the Final Four. They didn't have too much trouble against any scheme this year. (And one of those was the only game we won in this set! Kinda makes you think our offensive scheme aspect is the more important aspect in these elite coach matchups).

 

[husky429]

My point wasn't that we don't lose to hall of fame coaches. It's very clear we do. It's that everybody loses to hall of fame coaches. We didn't before because we HAD the hall of fame coach. I don't know that changing the defensive scheme will give us better odds against hall of fame coaches, because, again, hall of fame coaches beat everyone.

But to go further: 0.91, 0.88, 0.92, 1.01 ppp against in the non-Nova elite coach games. That's really good. Doesn't look like those coaches really took advantage of our defense to me. That's top 15 defensive efficiency on raw average.

Nova did though: 1.25, 1.11, 1.10. But they were an absolute elite offensive team that made the Final Four. They didn't have too much trouble against any scheme this year. (And one of those was the only game we won in this set! Kinda makes you think our offensive scheme aspect is the more important aspect in these elite coach matchups).

But those HOF coaches didn't beat everyone this year. Creighton wasn't good. MSU wasn't good. WVU wasn't good. No they DIDN'T beat everyone. HOF coaches are beating us much more consistently than other teams, even when we have objectively more talent on the floor.

 

[HuskyHawk]

But those HOF coaches didn't beat everyone this year. Creighton wasn't good. MSU wasn't good. WVU wasn't good. No they DIDN'T beat everyone. HOF coaches are beating us much more consistently than other teams, even when we have objectively more talent on the floor.

Ok. But what does that mean? It means our coach was more vulnerable to their adjustments than others were. McDermott just obliterated us. A few changes would have fixed that but Hurley was too rigid.

If the defense continues the high hedge at a high rate, Clingan will never play significant minutes at UConn. So one of those two things has to change. As others noted, Sanogo got a lot better at it. But the whole story about him being worn down? Duh. Flashing out, then recovering, then flashing out, then recovering. Well that is not something you ask a big guy to do 30 minutes a game without negative consequences.

I expect Dan to change the D. He will have a bigger team, can play a little differently. Sag back a bit more.

 

[auror]

HOF coaches are beating us much more consistently than other teams, even when we have objectively more talent on the floor.

This is your original point:

We need a more complex defense. It shows because good, well-coached teams beat us.

You've ignored the parts of my posts dealing with how those teams didn't actually score very much against us at all other than Nova.

We lost to MSU and WVU because we shot 5 for 37 combined from 3 in those 2 games and were missing starters to injury in both (2 against WVU). We lost to Creighton because we scored 0.86 and 0.98 points per possession. Didn't lose any of those 4 games against the "not good" teams with elite coaches because of our defense.

 

[husky429]

This is your original point:

You've ignored the parts of my posts dealing with how those teams didn't actually score very much against us at all other than Nova.

We lost to MSU and WVU because we shot 5 for 37 combined from 3 in those 2 games and were missing starters to injury in both (2 against WVU). We lost to Creighton because we scored 0.86 and 0.98 points per possession. Didn't lose any of those 4 games against the "not good" teams with elite coaches because of our defense.

Sure. I'll stand corrected on the defense.

I'll gather you're unwilling to hop off Hurley's jock and look at the 3-19 record vs elite coaches since he got to Storrs right? Or are we just pretending every HOF coach has an unbeatable top-25 squad every year. Was it Huggins who didn't even get above .500 this year? And MSU was SO STRONG this season, right?

I don't really even care to look at the reasons. If you can't objectively look at the #s and see that Hurley's style of coaching--whatever it is about it--makes his teams struggle vs well-coached teams more than other, similarly ranked programs... I'm not sure this conversation is worth having.

Three things are objectively true:

1) Hurley's teams almost always beat teams they should. Even Nova had issues with that this year.

2) Hurley has a well below average record in close games.

3) Hurley's teams do not perform well vs teams with HOF/elite coaches, even when more talented.

 

[husky429]

It means our coach was more vulnerable to their adjustments than others were.

Hit the nail on the head. Vilnerability to adjustments is a great way to put it.

We've gotten to a point where recruiting and talent have us at a top-25 level. I expect to hover around there from here on out. The next step involves more skill and adaptability on both ends of the floor. That's how you beat HOF coached teams and win tourney games.

 

[AntG168]

Sure. I'll stand corrected on the defense.

I'll gather you're unwilling to hop off Hurley's jock and look at the 3-19 record vs elite coaches since he got to Storrs right? Or are we just pretending every HOF coach has an unbeatable top-25 squad every year. Was it Huggins who didn't even get above .500 this year? And MSU was SO STRONG this season, right?

I don't really even care to look at the reasons. If you can't objectively look at the #s and see that Hurley's style of coaching--whatever it is about it--makes his teams struggle vs well-coached teams more than other, similarly ranked programs... I'm not sure this conversation is worth having.

Three things are objectively true:

1) Hurley's teams almost always beat teams they should. Even Nova had issues with that this year.

2) Hurley has a well below average record in close games.

3) Hurley's teams do not perform well vs teams with HOF/elite coaches, even when more talented.

I don’t think he’s disagreeing with your point. He’s pointing to the defense not being the issue more so the offense

 

[husky429]

I don’t think he’s disagreeing with your point. He’s pointing to the defense not being the issue more so the offense

He said "everybody loses to HOF coaches" in his first reaponse to me. I pointed to the defense and was proven wrong. Nonetheless his original response is a gigantic wad of stupidity.

Huggins lost 17x. Mcdermott lost 12. Izzo lost 13x this season. Those teams were not good.

Year in and year out we are unable to adapt to high-level coaching despite having equal or greater talent on the floor. Ignoring that is ridiculous. We have a big enough sample size at this point to see patterns and not all of them are good.