Possession by possession breakdown of second half (only for those who like torturing themselves) | The Boneyard

Possession by possession breakdown of second half (only for those who like torturing themselves)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,382
Reaction Score
23,714
Last night's game seems to have sparked a lot of discussion regarding the zone offense, what was and was not accomplished against it, and whether the coaching staff made the necessary adjustments after getting an extended look at it. When I got home late last night, it surprised me how much grief Ollie was taking on here. Yes, it was brutally ugly for practically the entire half, but being at the game, the lack of results seemed to be a product of shoddy execution more than a lack of preparation. And, despite the requests of many UConn fans to burn all tapes of last night's contest, existing footage of that fateful second half more or less confirmed my initial suspicions following the game. What lies below, is a detailed account of each UConn possession in the second half - from the play design, to the execution, to the result) - that I'm happy to debate with anybody willing to to back and watch the play themselves. Otherwise, you'll just have to take my word that what I have described below is actually what happened:

20:00 – Napier slashes through the paint following a Nolan screen, and after briefly losing control of the ball, flips it to Calhoun in the left corner for an open three. Result: Good shot, miss.

19:28 – Clever double ball screen for Boatright on the left wing results in a mis-match, and after a nice head fake, the Stanford defense is dis-organized and Daniels is able to draw a foul. Result: Two made free throws

18:50 – Napier enters the ball to Nolan about a step behind the right block, and Nolan turns and launches an air-ball. Result: Bad shot, out of bounds.

18:06 – Stanford miss leads to a transition opportunity, and Napier feeds Daniels streaking to the basket along the left side of the floor. Daniels goes up soft and gets his shot blocked. Result: Good shot, miss.

17:40 – Nolan sets an ineffective screen for Napier on the left wing, but Napier’s savvy is on display, as he waits out the Stanford defense and threads the needle with a precise one-handed bounce pass on the door step. Result: Good shot, foul, one of two free throws made.

17:09 – In what was likely UConn’s best possession of the half in terms of player execution, Nolan successfully screens Boatright on the left wing, leading to a mis-match. Boatright easily beats his man off the dribble, gaining easy access to the paint, and feeds the alertly moving Giffey for an easy layup underneath. Result: Good shot, make.

16:30 – Boatright seeks to capitalize in transition off a Stanford make, and when nobody initially picks up the ball, he manages to get into the paint and loft a contested floater. Result: Average shot, miss.

16:07 (Stanford enters zone) After UConn executes their go-to play against the zone – which sees Napier begin with the ball on the right wing, Giffey screen the first high man, Napier pass the ball to Boatright on the left wing, and then Nolan screening the second high man – Boatright is eventually able to find room to enter the ball to Nolan, who had established deep position, on the left block. Normally, this would be a successful result for the offense, but in this instance, UConn is playing right into Stanford’s hands. Stanford’s defense is designed to funnel the ball into the interior – the underbelly of the UConn offense – and Nolan forces up an ugly shot. Result: Bad shot, miss.

15:17 – Boatright steals the inbounds pass around half court, and beats the two Stanford security defenders down the court for a high percentage layup opportunity. Result: Good shot, miss.

15:10 – After Stanford immediately turns it back over, Napier dives to the floor and alertly taps it to Boatright. Unfortunately, Boatright flubs it in the left corner and is unable to get the ball to an open Calhoun, who was wide open underneath the basket.

14:54 – After Daniels chases down an errant Stanford lob pass in the right corner, he attempts to drive it himself the length of the court and loses control. Result: Carrying violation, Stanford ball.

14:23 – As Napier continues to conduct an impressive point guard clinic, he flips a one-handed pass, on the run, right into Giffey’s pocket on the right wing. Although Giffey may have had room to shoot, he opts to pass it back out and re-start the offense. What followed was one of the worst possessions of the game in terms of off-ball activity and execution. Daniels sets a couple half-hearted screens for Napier on the right wing, but both are mis-timed, and the rest of the possession consists of an unsuccessful Napier isolation which sees him drive into traffic. Result: Bad shot, blocked out of bounds. Following the inbounds, there isn’t enough time on the shot clock for anything other than a contested Kromah three, which misses.

13:30 – A possession featuring little other than confusion ends fittingly, as Napier throws the ball away.

12:56 – Following a UConn timeout, Stanford goes into a light 2-2-1 press, likely just as means of decreasing UConn’s margin of error with a shorter shot clock. As soon as Napier receives the ball at the top of the key and begins to engineer the offense, and this seems to discombobulate the offense for the remainder of the possession, as Napier tries to squeeze the ball into traffic and has it knocked out of bounds. After the inbound play, UConn runs a nice play. Boatright is screened by Olander on the left side of the top of the key, and Boatright smartly manipulates the nearest low man by penetrating into the teeth of the zone, leaving Kromah – stationed in the left corner – open for a three. Result: Good shot, miss, rebound knocked out of bounds by Stanford. Following the out of bounds play, Kromah smartly penetrates into the teeth of the zone from the left wing and leaves the defense in chase mode. However, he drops it off to Olander, who fails to see the open Napier at the top of the key (pause at about the 11:58 mark in the telecast, there is nobody within ten feet of Napier) and forces up a bad shot. Result: Bad shot, miss.

11:43 – UConn executes fairly well on this trip, as they return to their most commonly utilized play against the zone. Daniels screens the initial high man, Olander screens the second high man seconds later, and suddenly, Napier peels off the screen and passes up an open jumper (pause at about 11:24 to see how much room he had to get a shot off) and feeds Kromah on the baseline. Kromah is unable to finish amongst the trees. Result: Bad shot, miss.

11:08 – After a well-defended Stanford possession, Boatright again is not picked up in transition, and he dribbles right into an open foul line jumper. Result: Good shot, miss.

10:55 – UConn goes back to the identical play they ran two possessions earlier, except this time, Napier reads the defense correctly and steps right into an open mid-range jumper. Result: Good shot, make.

10:23 – After some moderate gap penetration through the use of screens, Napier launches a contested three early in the clock. Result: Bad shot, miss.

9:54 – Napier and Brimah run two high ball screens in concession on the right side of the floor, and on the second attempt, Napier attracts two defenders and feeds a wide open Brimah on the slip. Unfortunately, the Stanford backline help had alertly shifted over, and Brimah forces up a wild dunk attempt. Result: Bad shot, miss.

9:07 – In a generally listless possession, Napier fires the ball across court to Calhoun, who attempts to drive and tosses up a tough shot, which deflects off Stanford out of bounds. On the inbounds, the Stanford defense falls asleep, and Napier feeds Daniels for an easy layup. Result: Good shot, make.

8:15 – UConn looks to have something brewing in the open court following a well-defended possession on the other end, but Boatright over-dribbles and turns it over.

8:03 – After a Stanford make, Napier smartly notices the unbalanced alignment of Stanford players, and he takes the inbounds pass and goes coast to coast for a basket. Result: Good shot, make.

7:35 – Napier, apparently feeling good about himself following the made basket, jogs up the court and launches a contested, NBA three. Result: Bad shot, miss.

7:03 – Ollie draws up a great play out of the timeout. Daniels and Napier engage in a pick and roll on the left wing, however, this only serves as a decoy for further action. Napier dribbles towards the right side of the court, Calhoun pops up to the left wing from the baseline, and Daniels sets an off-ball screen – it was a uniquely set screen, as Daniels was actually facing away from the basket, as if he was boxing out the defender - on the Stanford low man that had popped up to defend the shot. If Daniels had set the screen more firmly, Calhoun would have been wide open. As it was, Daniels only graced the defender, but Calhoun still had plenty of room to get a shot off. Result: Good shot, miss.

6:12 – As Stanford reclaims the lead, UConn runs another nifty play against the zone. On this particular play, Napier begins with the ball on the left side of the floor, about two feet behind the three point line. As Daniel sets a high ball screen on Napier’s right, Giffey shifts from his position on the right side of the floor to the top of the key, screening the high man defending Boatright. Napier takes about a step to the right, and fires a cross court pass to Boatright as Giffey simultaneously allows Boatright to get separation with a solid screen. The key to the play is Omar Calhoun, stationed in the right corner. Because of Giffey’s screen on the high man, Powell – the Stanford player stationed on the left block in the zone – is forced into a dilemma. He needs to retreat out to Calhoun – his initial assignment on the play – or help the high man that had been screened. In this instance, he chooses to stay home on Calhoun, leaving Boatright room to take an open mid-range jumper. Unfortunately, Boatright mis-reads the play, and force-feeds Calhoun the ball. However, Calhoun salvages the play, penetrating a step into the middle of the zone, and firing the ball across the court to a wide open Napier on the right wing. Result: Good shot, miss.

5:30 – After the TV timeout, UConn executes fairly well, as Napier feeds Boatright on the left wing for an open three. Result: Good shot, miss, rebound UConn. Following the offensive rebound, Napier is able to penetrate to the foul line, but his pass is not on target, and Boatright is forced to chase the ball and re-set the offense. Finally, with only a few seconds on the clock, Brimah sets a high ball screen for Boatright, who gets a decent look. Result: Good shot, out of bounds off Stanford. On the third attempt of the possession, Napier is again screened on the left side of the court, this time by Daniels. The screen is successful, and Napier is allotted plenty of room to get off a high percentage mid-range shot. However, he mis-reads the defenses and opts to take it all the way to the basket, missing. Result: Bad shot, miss.

3:28 – Daniels dribbles aimlessly into traffic, and gets tied up, possession arrow Stanford.

2:43 – Little is accomplished for most of the possession other than sub-par ball screening action, and the possession eventually culminates in an off-balance Giffey three with the shot-clock winding down. Result: Bad shot, miss, tip-in good by Daniels.

1:29 – After Napier nearly turns the ball over in the left corner, he attracts two defenders and feeds Daniels with a nifty behind-the-back pass. Daniels briefly has Giffey open in the corner, but he instead opts to drive and is fouled. Following the foul, Boatright takes two dribbles to access the paint, and kicks out to Napier, who gets a decent look from two feet behind the three point line. Result: Good shot, miss, rebound Giffey. Right after the rebound, Giffey feeds Napier at the top of the key, who forces up a contested three. Result: Bad shot, miss, timeout Stanford.

28.2 – Napier peels off a high ball screen shortly after a Kevin Ollie timeout and takes a contested, mid-range jumper. In the context of the situation, it’s probably the best shot you can hope for, but it certainly does not qualify as a high percentage shot. Result: Bad shot, miss.

7.7 – UConn flubs the rebound, which costs them a precious second and a half. By the time Napier crosses half court, only about four seconds remain, and Stanford intelligently picks him up right at the half court line, forcing him to give the ball up to Calhoun for a deep three. Result: Bad shot, game over.

So, what does all this tell us? (Other than I have too much time on my hands?) It tells us that the execution was a mixed bag, but as I examine all the different play designs employed by Ollie in the second half against the zone, I think it also tells us that he absolutely has the intellect to successfully game plan for zone defenses. Additionally, I think it's an indictment on what little trust Ollie has in his big men, because Stanford was trying to funnel the basketball into the low block for the entire half, and UConn rarely took them up on their offer. Instead, the crux of their offensive attack against the zone revolved around continuous ball screening that frequently spilled into an immediate double ball screen on the secondary high man atop the zone. Conventional wisdom seems to frown upon screening a zone with that type of frequency, but the best method attack is generally penetration to collapse the defense, followed by kick outs.

Of the 31 possessions UConn had in the second half last night, by my count, they produced fifteen good or great shots and 13 bad shots. The rest of the possessions ended in average shots, or turnovers. That's not a great ratio, or even a good one, but it's also not as startlingly dismal as it looked live. They executed with varying degrees of success, but when they did fail, I think it was more due to a lack of repetition against the zone than it was structural flaws. There were a lot of intricate configuration, especially directly following timeouts, that produced maneuvering room for our slashers and space for our shooters. Unfortunately, the two guys Kevin Ollie trusts the most with the ball in their hands - Napier and Boatright - regularly mis-read the defense down the stretch, forcing shots when it wasn't there, and passing on shots when they were there. But, that's to be expected to some extent for a team that hasn't seen heavy doses of zone since probably last season against Syracuse, almost ten months ago. Beating a good zone requires patience, attention to detail, and the composure to make shots when they become available. Unfortunately, last night also demonstrated some of the limitations that we currently have, and may still have later in the season. The foul line area in the zone was open for the entire second half, and not once did Kevin Ollie express any interest in putting a forward there - whether it be Daniels, Giffey, or Olander - and asking them to attack off the bounce. I fear that this was because Ollie felt he was hamstrung by his personnel. Aceboon alluded to this in a previous thread, and it's a problem I'm not sure is going to be resolved the rest of the year; Daniels is our only threat from fifteen feet and in, and even he is a bit inconsistent in the face up game due to his shaky ball-handling ability and limited court vision. Napier and Boatright have shown the ability to finish at the rim in the past, but they haven't had much success in this regard this season. It's discouraging when a defense is outright conceding a portion of the floor, and UConn doesn't have the pieces to take advantage. However, I have confidence in Ollie to exploit other inefficiencies within the zone defense like he did last season against Syracuse, and, in some instances, last night. I just watched Duke struggle with a horrific UCLA zone for a few minutes before figuring it out in the second half. If we play Stanford again, I'm confident that we will have a much more diverse plan of attack.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,382
Reaction Score
23,714
Player notes:

Napier - Aside from a few uncharacteristic forced shots down the stretch, I thought Shabazz was for the most part, his usual self tonight. Some of the passes he makes - from hitting shooters from across the court right in the shooting pocket, to threading the needle to big men slipping to the basket, to spotting a shooter out of the corner of his eye in the midst of penetration - are the type of plays only a handful of guys in the universe can make, and I'm including guys at the NBA level, too. His court vision is extraordinary, and if everybody else on the team had a fraction of the presence of mind that he does, this offense would be unstoppable. He's not a perfect player, and he didn't play particularly well for stretches in the second half...but, he dominated the first half and I have little doubt that it will take too long for him to figure out the zone.


Boat - Not one of Ryan's finer displays last night. He was far and away the biggest culprit of blown assignments defensively, often falling victim to mis-direction screens, subtle head fakes, and ball-watching. He's capable of stringing together flashes of brilliance defensively, but too often he is unable to maintain focus within a game, or even a possession. He's too easily distracted by the multitude of moving parts on every possession, and too easily manipulated by savvy guards. Offensively, he should be further along by this point. He doesn't force things as much as he used to, but his peripheral vision in traffic (this is a flaw that becomes especially obvious in person - I'd probably need too hands to count the times he missed an open shooter in transition) leaves much to be desired. Worse yet, his mid-range game has stagnated, and the multiple opportunities he had last night to knock down wide open mid-range shots to extend leads were wasted. A kid that has now played over 2,100 minutes at this level, with his talent, needs hit that development curve sooner rather than later, because he's running out of time if he has visions of the NBA.

Omar - I'm not going to sugar coat it, he's been pretty bad this year. Defensively, he's much less of a liability than he was last season, but he still needs to grow a little bit more with his fundamentals before we call him a plus defensive player. Offensively, he's a one-dimensional player who still can't dribble or pass, which is a big problem for a guard who wants to play big minutes against tough competition. Given he has now taken nearly 200 threes in his career, and has shot 32% in those attempts, I do wonder how much longer we allow him to struggle before the coaching staff tries to re-model his shooting stroke. I'm still inclined to give him a pass, because I don't think you can over-estimate how difficult it is to return from hip surgery, but this team would be a lot better if Omar were able to break out of his slump.

Kromah - He's the best defender at the guard position on the team, and he's a lot better at making plays off the dribble than Giffey and Calhoun are at this point. It's unlikely that he's going to shoot 50% from three for the rest of the year, but he is certainly an enormous upgrade over R.J. Evans.

Giffey - I thought Ollie drew up some real nice plays to generate open threes last night, but I think he drew them up for the wrong guy (Calhoun). I said this in a previous thread, but now that teams have included Giffey in scouting reports, we're going to need to work a little bit harder to get him looks than the rudimentary Bazz/Giff pick and pops. Defensively, I was impressed with the defense he played on Powell, who he must have been conceding at least 20 pounds and a couple inches too. He also grabbed a huge rebound on one of the final possessions that will go unnoticed because of the final result. I wouldn't mind Giffey playing a more prominent role in the zone offense, rather than just serving as a screener and decoy shooter. He can put the ball on the floor a little bit, and I wouldn't even mind experimenting with him in the post, as he has a nice turn-around jumper.

Daniels - Just as I'd like to see Giffey more involved in the zone offense, I'd also like to see Daniels more involved. I see no reason he can't catch the ball at the foul line and make a play - for whatever reason, we never really tried that last night (he certainly has the skill set to do it). As I previously alluded to, he's not the best ball-handler, and he's also not great at passing in traffic. But in terms of getting easy baskets, he's by far our best bet, and in that regard, there was no reason for him to have only ten shot attempts last night. He shot 60% from the field, while the rest of the team shot 26%. Early in the second half, he gave up a couple offensive rebounds and got his shot blocked, and that earned him a seat on the bench for a while. But aside from that, I thought he played a great game.

Olander - Tyler just isn't giving us enough right now. He's always a step slow defensively, his offensive awareness is sub-par for a senior, and his inability to finish at the rim at even a respectable rate really limits what we can do on offense. For somebody who is our "offensive" option at the five, 39% from the floor won't get it done.

Nolan - I thought Phil played well defensively last night - and was a reason Powell shot 4 for 18 - but he's simply too big of a liability offensively to justify giving him more than a token start and 5-10 minutes after that. If there is anything positive to take away from his game last night, and really, this season, it's that he seems to have no trouble establishing position on the block, and when he does get the ball, he has the foot work to generally get a good look. Unfortunately, he's from the Alex Oriakhi/Kendrick Perkins school of post touch, so don't be surprised if he begins to lose minutes to this next guy.

Brimah - If you're looking for a silver lining, look no further. He was his usual active self defensively, but he played with far more poise (only two fouls in 13 minutes is a step in the right direction) than he has at any point this season. He was only credited with two blocked shots, but he altered at least a couple more, and I'd be willing to wager Stanford's field goal percentage was significantly lower with him on the court. He's not too far off from blossoming into the defensive force that can take a team from good to elite on that end of the court, and when I look at the impact he made on the game last night in a short period of time - 2 blocks, 4 rebounds - I wonder why he only played 13 minutes yesterday. Even if the kid doesn't start, he needs to be playing the most minutes of all our big men barring foul trouble, because the others just haven't demonstrated the same sort of upside.

Just to re-iterate, yesterday's loss is bothersome - mostly because of how bad Stanford played - but I don't think it's indicative of any sort of fatal flaw that's going to continue to crop up later in the season. The Napier-Kromah-Giffey-Daniels-Brimah five-man unit is growing terrifyingly stingy defensively, and if we can get any type of consistent production out of Boatright and Calhoun, this team is still going to be just as dangerous later in the season as we thought it could be. I don't think yesterday was a matter of schematic shortcomings, we just needed repetitions against zone defenses. Given Napier is probably the smartest point guard in the country, we were shooting 45% from three before yesterday, and our head coach has proven in the past to be able to defeat zones far better than the one we saw last night, I'm not overly concerned that Stanford exposed a blueprint that other teams are going to be able to effortlessly replicate. There is just too much firepower here for me not to believe this team is going to start to score points by the bunch, and when we do, we have the defense to morph into a contender.
 

GemParty

Co~host of the Sliders & Curveballs Podcast
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,457
Reaction Score
6,971
You are INSANE, and I love you for it. I only read paragraphs #1 and the last one (of the time breakdown post). I trust the horror story in the middle is accurate.
 

intlzncster

i fart in your general direction
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
28,930
Reaction Score
60,232
Absolutely no one can argue with you until they do this kind of homework. Big hat tip for the effort.

(full disclosure: I didn't read all of it)
 

GemParty

Co~host of the Sliders & Curveballs Podcast
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,457
Reaction Score
6,971
Nolan is quoted as saying, " when I get the ball, I have a hundred moves in my mind". I think he needs to pick 3 and work on them 500x a day.
 

willie99

Loving life & enjoying the ride, despite the bumps
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
7,297
Reaction Score
22,898
thank you

and there is no doubt Ollie knows how to attack any defense we see, he too is still learning what works best

we will be fine
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2011
Messages
1,495
Reaction Score
6,817
Player notes:
Daniels - Just as I'd like to see Giffey more involved in the zone offense, I'd also like to see Daniels more involved. I see no reason he can't catch the ball at the foul line and make a play - for whatever reason, we never really tried that last night (he certainly has the skill set to do it). As I previously alluded to, he's not the best ball-handler, and he's also not great at passing in traffic. But in terms of getting easy baskets, he's by far our best bet, and in that regard, there was no reason for him to have only ten shot attempts last night. He shot 60% from the field, while the rest of the team shot 26%. Early in the second half, he gave up a couple offensive rebounds and got his shot blocked, and that earned him a seat on the bench for a while. But aside from that, I thought he played a great game.

Awesome job champs, once again. I think we will go as far as DD takes us. He and Bazz are our top two guys, and we need his inside scoring ability to be the counter to Bazz, especially late in the game. Bazz needs to understand this, as does Boat.
 
Joined
Sep 29, 2013
Messages
413
Reaction Score
798
Thanks Champs. I don't know about these other guys and whether they have lives, but I read the entire post.
 

cohenzone

Old Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
19,172
Reaction Score
23,545
I.applaud your persistence. It should be noted that of the 31 possessions you identified, 7 were transition possessions, not attacks against a set up zone. That leaves 24 possessions against the zone. Aside from small quibbles about what constitutes a good or bad shot (for example, I didn't think Nolan's air ball was necessarily the wrong choice of shot, which is how I would look at it), the question remains about whether UConn's way of attacking the zone is normally the most effective way. Presumably it is the coach's method. Dribbling the ball for well more than half of most possessions did nothing to force much movement by the off ball defenders. Passes work better because there is the better chance of a shooter getting to a spot with a better opening than UConn wound up with on a huge proportion of possessions.

Granted the UConn's absence of a strong post presence hurts, the failure to use any of DD, NG, OC or TO in the middle of the zone assured that nobody near the hoop was going to see the ball or that a shooter would be available with a truly open jumper outside a zone forced to collapse some toward the middle. I think there were many more bad possessions than you do in terms of the quality of shot or the degree to which the shot was contested. Way too much use of the dribble. I also tend to cringe when Krohma jacks up a 3 early in a possession as he tends to do. He ought to be option 4 most if the time when he's in.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
27,766
Reaction Score
71,195
When I saw this, I thought they could do it all night. I thought the problem was solved.

10:55 – UConn goes back to the identical play they ran two possessions earlier, except this time, Napier reads the defense correctly and steps right into an open mid-range jumper. Result: Good shot, make.

UNFORTUNATELY! They never repeated that play with SN stepping into the gap for a two-pointer that is almost automatic for him.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
16,490
Reaction Score
37,272
Epic post.

A common thread throughout this -- which I observed in real time -- is that screening the zone was highly ineffective. I think that this is because (1) Daniels is a soft player who does not like getting physical and setting hard screens (this also explains his somewhat disappointing rebounding numbers and occasional weak finishes at the rim), and (2) we did it so much Stanford knew how to adjust to it, and we never counter-adjusted.

I agree completely that a major failure was the inability or unwillingness to exploit the spot at the foul line in the center of the zone. I don't think lack of personnel is a problem. Someone like Giffey, who has a high basketball IQ, can shoot it well, knows when/how to pass, and has enough of a handle to make guys respect it inside 15 feet, is an ideal candidate to break down the zone from that spot.

Daniels should be another good option, but his handle is too loose and his passing instincts are terrible -- he basically wets himself whenever a double-team comes.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
4,089
Reaction Score
5,890
Player notes:

Napier - Aside from a few uncharacteristic forced shots down the stretch, I thought Shabazz was for the most part, his usual self tonight. Some of the passes he makes - from hitting shooters from across the court right in the shooting pocket, to threading the needle to big men slipping to the basket, to spotting a shooter out of the corner of his eye in the midst of penetration - are the type of plays only a handful of guys in the universe can make, and I'm including guys at the NBA level, too. His court vision is extraordinary, and if everybody else on the team had a fraction of the presence of mind that he does, this offense would be unstoppable. He's not a perfect player, and he didn't play particularly well for stretches in the second half...but, he dominated the first half and I have little doubt that it will take too long for him to figure out the zone.


Boat - Not one of Ryan's finer displays last night. He was far and away the biggest culprit of blown assignments defensively, often falling victim to mis-direction screens, subtle head fakes, and ball-watching. He's capable of stringing together flashes of brilliance defensively, but too often he is unable to maintain focus within a game, or even a possession. He's too easily distracted by the multitude of moving parts on every possession, and too easily manipulated by savvy guards. Offensively, he should be further along by this point. He doesn't force things as much as he used to, but his peripheral vision in traffic (this is a flaw that becomes especially obvious in person - I'd probably need too hands to count the times he missed an open shooter in transition) leaves much to be desired. Worse yet, his mid-range game has stagnated, and the multiple opportunities he had last night to knock down wide open mid-range shots to extend leads were wasted. A kid that has now played over 2,100 minutes at this level, with his talent, needs hit that development curve sooner rather than later, because he's running out of time if he has visions of the NBA.

Omar - I'm not going to sugar coat it, he's been pretty bad this year. Defensively, he's much less of a liability than he was last season, but he still needs to grow a little bit more with his fundamentals before we call him a plus defensive player. Offensively, he's a one-dimensional player who still can't dribble or pass, which is a big problem for a guard who wants to play big minutes against tough competition. Given he has now taken nearly 200 threes in his career, and has shot 32% in those attempts, I do wonder how much longer we allow him to struggle before the coaching staff tries to re-model his shooting stroke. I'm still inclined to give him a pass, because I don't think you can over-estimate how difficult it is to return from hip surgery, but this team would be a lot better if Omar were able to break out of his slump.

Kromah - He's the best defender at the guard position on the team, and he's a lot better at making plays off the dribble than Giffey and Calhoun are at this point. It's unlikely that he's going to shoot 50% from three for the rest of the year, but he is certainly an enormous upgrade over R.J. Evans.

Giffey - I thought Ollie drew up some real nice plays to generate open threes last night, but I think he drew them up for the wrong guy (Calhoun). I said this in a previous thread, but now that teams have included Giffey in scouting reports, we're going to need to work a little bit harder to get him looks than the rudimentary Bazz/Giff pick and pops. Defensively, I was impressed with the defense he played on Powell, who he must have been conceding at least 20 pounds and a couple inches too. He also grabbed a huge rebound on one of the final possessions that will go unnoticed because of the final result. I wouldn't mind Giffey playing a more prominent role in the zone offense, rather than just serving as a screener and decoy shooter. He can put the ball on the floor a little bit, and I wouldn't even mind experimenting with him in the post, as he has a nice turn-around jumper.

Daniels - Just as I'd like to see Giffey more involved in the zone offense, I'd also like to see Daniels more involved. I see no reason he can't catch the ball at the foul line and make a play - for whatever reason, we never really tried that last night (he certainly has the skill set to do it). As I previously alluded to, he's not the best ball-handler, and he's also not great at passing in traffic. But in terms of getting easy baskets, he's by far our best bet, and in that regard, there was no reason for him to have only ten shot attempts last night. He shot 60% from the field, while the rest of the team shot 26%. Early in the second half, he gave up a couple offensive rebounds and got his shot blocked, and that earned him a seat on the bench for a while. But aside from that, I thought he played a great game.

Olander - Tyler just isn't giving us enough right now. He's always a step slow defensively, his offensive awareness is sub-par for a senior, and his inability to finish at the rim at even a respectable rate really limits what we can do on offense. For somebody who is our "offensive" option at the five, 39% from the floor won't get it done.

Nolan - I thought Phil played well defensively last night - and was a reason Powell shot 4 for 18 - but he's simply too big of a liability offensively to justify giving him more than a token start and 5-10 minutes after that. If there is anything positive to take away from his game last night, and really, this season, it's that he seems to have no trouble establishing position on the block, and when he does get the ball, he has the foot work to generally get a good look. Unfortunately, he's from the Alex Oriakhi/Kendrick Perkins school of post touch, so don't be surprised if he begins to lose minutes to this next guy.

Brimah - If you're looking for a silver lining, look no further. He was his usual active self defensively, but he played with far more poise (only two fouls in 13 minutes is a step in the right direction) than he has at any point this season. He was only credited with two blocked shots, but he altered at least a couple more, and I'd be willing to wager Stanford's field goal percentage was significantly lower with him on the court. He's not too far off from blossoming into the defensive force that can take a team from good to elite on that end of the court, and when I look at the impact he made on the game last night in a short period of time - 2 blocks, 4 rebounds - I wonder why he only played 13 minutes yesterday. Even if the kid doesn't start, he needs to be playing the most minutes of all our big men barring foul trouble, because the others just haven't demonstrated the same sort of upside.

Just to re-iterate, yesterday's loss is bothersome - mostly because of how bad Stanford played - but I don't think it's indicative of any sort of fatal flaw that's going to continue to crop up later in the season. The Napier-Kromah-Giffey-Daniels-Brimah five-man unit is growing terrifyingly stingy defensively, and if we can get any type of consistent production out of Boatright and Calhoun, this team is still going to be just as dangerous later in the season as we thought it could be. I don't think yesterday was a matter of schematic shortcomings, we just needed repetitions against zone defenses. Given Napier is probably the smartest point guard in the country, we were shooting 45% from three before yesterday, and our head coach has proven in the past to be able to defeat zones far better than the one we saw last night, I'm not overly concerned that Stanford exposed a blueprint that other teams are going to be able to effortlessly replicate. There is just too much firepower here for me not to believe this team is going to start to score points by the bunch, and when we do, we have the defense to morph into a contender.

Good stuff. Will read in more detail later today. Thanks for the great effort. It is appreciated. The work product is exemplary. JMHO per the usual....
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
29,747
Reaction Score
48,445
Epic post.

A common thread throughout this -- which I observed in real time -- is that screening the zone was highly ineffective. I think that this is because (1) Daniels is a soft player who does not like getting physical and setting hard screens (this also explains his somewhat disappointing rebounding numbers and occasional weak finishes at the rim), and (2) we did it so much Stanford knew how to adjust to it, and we never counter-adjusted.

I agree completely that a major failure was the inability or unwillingness to exploit the spot at the foul line in the center of the zone. I don't think lack of personnel is a problem. Someone like Giffey, who has a high basketball IQ, can shoot it well, knows when/how to pass, and has enough of a handle to make guys respect it inside 15 feet, is an ideal candidate to break down the zone from that spot.

Daniels should be another good option, but his handle is too loose and his passing instincts are terrible -- he basically wets himself whenever a double-team comes.

It looked to me that Stanford had the spot at the top of the key defended. They left the flanks wide open and UConn didn't exploit them. Stanford never needed to move off the center.
 

nomar

#1 Casual Fan™
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
16,240
Reaction Score
47,036
I am not reading Champs' post (although I'm sure it's incisive) and I question the sanity of anyone who did.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
14,019
Reaction Score
74,868
Nolan is quoted as saying, " when I get the ball, I have a hundred moves in my mind". I think he needs to pick 3 and work on them 500x a day.

One move and one counter. That's all he should be concerned with right now.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,382
Reaction Score
23,714
I.applaud your persistence. It should be noted that of the 31 possessions you identified, 7 were transition possessions, not attacks against a set up zone. That leaves 24 possessions against the zone. Aside from small quibbles about what constitutes a good or bad shot (for example, I didn't think Nolan's air ball was necessarily the wrong choice of shot, which is how I would look at it), the question remains about whether UConn's way of attacking the zone is normally the most effective way. Presumably it is the coach's method. Dribbling the ball for well more than half of most possessions did nothing to force much movement by the off ball defenders. Passes work better because there is the better chance of a shooter getting to a spot with a better opening than UConn wound up with on a huge proportion of possessions.

Granted the UConn's absence of a strong post presence hurts, the failure to use any of DD, NG, OC or TO in the middle of the zone assured that nobody near the hoop was going to see the ball or that a shooter would be available with a truly open jumper outside a zone forced to collapse some toward the middle. I think there were many more bad possessions than you do in terms of the quality of shot or the degree to which the shot was contested. Way too much use of the dribble. I also tend to cringe when Krohma jacks up a 3 early in a possession as he tends to do. He ought to be option 4 most if the time when he's in.

That's a good observation, but in fact, it was even less possessions than that against the zone, given Stanford didn't enter the zone until around the 16 minute mark in the second half. Of the set plays against the zone, I feel like our undoing was poor execution rather than methodology. Is it the most effective way to attack a zone? I don't know, that's a good question. But keep in mind, we used largely the same game plan against the Syracuse zone last season, and it yielded good results. In this regard, it seems like Ollie is tailoring his attack towards the strengths of his personnel. We're a drive and kick-oriented team, rather than a group that's going to be able to methodically slice up a zone with interior passing and post ups. It's difficult for me to question the approach too much until we have a larger sample to evaluate - until then, I'm inclined to believe it was an execution problem.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,382
Reaction Score
23,714
Epic post.

A common thread throughout this -- which I observed in real time -- is that screening the zone was highly ineffective. I think that this is because (1) Daniels is a soft player who does not like getting physical and setting hard screens (this also explains his somewhat disappointing rebounding numbers and occasional weak finishes at the rim), and (2) we did it so much Stanford knew how to adjust to it, and we never counter-adjusted.

I agree completely that a major failure was the inability or unwillingness to exploit the spot at the foul line in the center of the zone. I don't think lack of personnel is a problem. Someone like Giffey, who has a high basketball IQ, can shoot it well, knows when/how to pass, and has enough of a handle to make guys respect it inside 15 feet, is an ideal candidate to break down the zone from that spot.

Daniels should be another good option, but his handle is too loose and his passing instincts are terrible -- he basically wets himself whenever a double-team comes.

You bring up a good point about Daniels (he seems wired to avoid contact at all costs, unless he's personally challenged, in which case he usually responds), but I don't know if I agree with your assessment of screening the zone being highly ineffective. To me, there were a lot of mis-reads from Boatright and Napier, and that contributed to the bad shots more so than poor screening. Additionally, Napier took a lot of uncharacteristically bad shots, early in the shot clock, and never really gave the offense a chance to materialize.

I do agree with you on the second part, though. Screening the zone isn't a bad idea, but when you screen it every possession it becomes a bit redundant and the defense begins to have a better understanding of how to defend it. One thing they did occasionally against Syracuse last season was flash Napier to the foul line, dump the ball into him, and allow him to read the defense from there. I wonder if we'll see more tweaks like that in the future.
 

jleves

Awesomeness
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
4,307
Reaction Score
15,517
1) While I sort of appreciate the effort, the over analysis seems a bit much.

2) The next fruckface that quotes it, I'm going to castrate. You have to scroll through the entire thing on a phone and now my fingers are bloody.

3) Tell me you don't have kids.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,382
Reaction Score
23,714
1) While I sort of appreciate the effort, the over analysis seems a bit much.

2) The next fruckface that quotes it, I'm going to castrate. You have to scroll through the entire thing on a phone and now my fingers are bloody.

3) Tell me you don't have kids.

1) It's over-analysis in the sense that I need to find something better to do with my time, but I find that taking the time to go back and re-watch everything - from what they're trying to accomplish on a given possession, to what players did and did not appear to do their jobs, to the type of shots they're getting - is worthwhile. If anything, I hope it sheds some light on the the various transactions that occur in every possession - if anything, it should prove something to the "they're just standing around out there", crowd.

3) No kids for me (that should be obvious by now)
 

jleves

Awesomeness
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
4,307
Reaction Score
15,517
1) It's over-analysis in the sense that I need to find something better to do with my time, but I find that taking the time to go back and re-watch everything - from what they're trying to accomplish on a given possession, to what players did and did not appear to do their jobs, to the type of shots they're getting - is worthwhile. If anything, I hope it sheds some light on the the various transactions that occur in every possession - if anything, it should prove something to the "they're just standing around out there", crowd.

3) No kids for me (that should be obvious by now)
Honest reply: I'm sure your detailed analysis is good - I've usually liked your posts. But there aren't many people that are going to read it all to get to the point of 'they weren't just standing around.' Sometimes, less is more.

But if you needed to do it and some people like the analysis, cool.

Keep posting - and wear a condom! :)
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
9,382
Reaction Score
23,714
Honest reply: I'm sure your detailed analysis is good - I've usually liked your posts. But there aren't many people that are going to read it all to get to the point of 'they weren't just standing around.' Sometimes, less is more.

But if you needed to do it and some people like the analysis, cool.

Keep posting - and wear a condom! :)

Yeah, believe me, I understand most people are going to shy away from this sort of thing - I, myself, probably would not read a post of that length, so those that do read them, I appreciate. It's for my personal sanity more than anything else that I write these, and the fact that a few others enjoy reading them is a bonus. I certainly don't have the energy to do it after every game, but some games provoke more activity on these boards than others and I just need to get it off my chest.
 
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
14,019
Reaction Score
74,868
1) It's over-analysis in the sense that I need to find something better to do with my time, but I find that taking the time to go back and re-watch everything - from what they're trying to accomplish on a given possession, to what players did and did not appear to do their jobs, to the type of shots they're getting - is worthwhile.

I like to get really, really high and do the same thing.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,135
Reaction Score
20,042
I hope I'm not in the minority - I love the (over)analysis and considering the amount of posts written without giving any thought, I feel fortunate to see this type of detail. I would have loved to rewatch the second half to see how things went astray, but its way more convenient spending 10 minutes reading about it.

I do agree with tenspro that not flashing people to the middle was a slightly bigger issue than you believe. Even if it not wide open, the defense still collapses and leads to more openings overall. Giffey is ideal for this role, and as mentioned, we had success with running Bazz to the line last year. DD was also good in this position, even with his flaws, simply because he scored so well from here. DD actually did flash several times last night (if my memory serves) but quickly bailed to set a screen for Bazz. Can you imagine that we spent a year watching AO try make sound decisions from the high post v. zone D?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
665
Guests online
3,246
Total visitors
3,911

Forum statistics

Threads
160,176
Messages
4,220,151
Members
10,083
Latest member
ultimatebee


.
Top Bottom