- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 9,379
- Reaction Score
- 23,676
A lot of opinions circulating the board right now. I might as well throw a few more out there.
I think just about all of us would agree that 1-1 wasn't a terrible result this week. To play 48 hours and a flight after an emotional game against SMU was always going to be difficult. Yes, Cincinnati had to do the same thing, but they were at home and needed to have that win. I'm guessing a lot of us penciled that in as a loss even before the season.
As far as I'm concerned, the main question confronting this team isn't whether they will make the tournament, but rather, if they're good enough to accomplish anything if and when they get there. Obviously, they have to get in first, but my point is, all of the agonizing over the bubble watch is really besides the point and I haven't spent much time worrying about. If, following the next 5-8 games, it isn't conclusive that we should be in the tournament on our own merits, then I have no interest in dancing anyways. There's no point in showing up if we're going to play like we did in the first half of the Gonzaga and Maryland games. I don't want to hear about the AAC getting screwed or anything else. There's no damn reason we shouldn't win the conference tournament. If we lose three in a row to a team like Cincinnati or Temple, then we deserve what we get.
I will attempt to answer the question that introduces the preceding paragraph, but first, I must admit that this team befuddles me. Much as it seems I and countless others have been screaming it from the mountaintops all season, it's worth mentioning again: the pieces are there. I projected this group as the #2 team in America before the season, and despite all evidence flying in opposition of that stance, I'm still not convinced that I was wrong.
By some distinct creation of my mind, there is a certain reluctance of reality to align with the boneyard visionaries that plotted their path to greatness before the beginning of the season. There are recurring moments of incredulity with this group that summon this:
Only difference being, I actually am mad, because with everything being in place for another Utopian realization of UConn basketball - where we win a championship and leave everybody else bewildered - there appears to be some sort of mental blockade prohibiting this from happening. We're not ruling out the possibility that this is supernatural, but also, there is a tendency of our players to make unconscionable errors at times when it feels like we're starting to figure things out. Name a player, and I'll make a very quick association to a play or habit that leaves me gasping for air. How many times are we going to watch Daniel Hamilton travel before Kevin Ollie loses his mind? How many layups - unmistakably uncontested layups - have Gibbs, Purvis, and Nolan left on the table this season? Amida Brimah? I sympathize with the fact that he's a relative novice to the game, but it's time to learn how to catch the basketball. Not some of the time, not most of the time, all of the time. Hell, I'm fairly certain there was one game this season where we were called for multiple lane violations.
There has been a lot of criticism directed towards the coaching staff, not all of it unjustified. But this group...they sometimes don't do the things that all D-1 basketball players are expected to know how to do from day one. The double-dribble that Purvis was called for near the end of the Temple game was stupefying to the extent that it was evident there had to have been psychological factors at play. That psychological factor could be as simple as "it was late in the game, he was nervous, and opposing students were screaming at him" but nonetheless it's concerning when your leaders sometimes resemble a middle-schooler trying to talk to a girl for the first time during crunch-time (still not sure why the girls wouldn't engage me back in the day on the topic of the motion offense, losers).
I'm as big a believer as anybody else that luck plays an inordinate role in determining the outcome of sports games. However, this core group of players has lost close games at an abnormal rate for nearly two seasons now (318th in luck last year, 320 in luck this year). At some point, that becomes tricky to qualify. Maybe they're due to rip off 6 straight close wins...it seemed to happen with the 2011 team after they were snake-bitten in Big East play. Then again, maybe there's a concrete reason that we're struggling to win close games.
I don't want my post to be rejected by the infamous character limit (there's a good chance I'm the only one who encounters this problem), so I'll leave you with a couple observations on what I've seen and how I project things to evolve moving forward:
1. Enough with the cuteness. Get your five best players on the court to start the game. I can handle one of Rodney and Jalen coming off the bench, but not both. And if one of them picks up a foul or two, that doesn't mean we need to sit them for ten minutes at a time. I understand protecting Brimah, but if Ollie sits somebody like Adams because he picks up two fouls in the first half one more time I'm going to crawl through the TV and bring him to the scorers table myself. You can't coach paralyzed by the fear of foul trouble. We played, what, 12 games without Brimah? If he fouls out, he fouls out.
2. It may be difficult to notice, but I think the offense is coming along. There have been moments for this offense, and typically, they involve fairly straightforward dribble-drives and kicks that eventually decentralizes the help defense. Eventually, Adams is going to have to acquire a jumper, but for now, assuming the spacing is pristine, he can continue to play the role of 2014 Terrence Samuel 2.0.
I have and will object to Brimah being the primary ball screener. Opponents know that you're not going to zip a pass into him at the elbow. He's not a threat to pass or dribble. If somebody like Hamilton is operating out of a ball screen at the top of the key, allow Miller to set the high ball screen, roll towards the paint, and station Brimah as a lurker along the baseline.
Moreover, utilizing a big man as a ball screener allows him to establish post position easier. Screening forces your defender to engage in the screening action, meaning Miller can slip to the block unscathed. Swing the ball from the top of the key to the strong side, and suddenly the post entry is a lot easier.
3. Match-ups - assuming we make the tournament - will be vital, simply because our front court defense often vacillates between dominant and average based on opposing personnel. Miller, for instance, is a valuable defensive piece who can guard the ball well and switch onto guards, but when he's stuck with a dangerous pick and pop big, he tends to veer too far off. Against a team like Villanova (four out), UConn would likely switch 1-4, soft hedge 1-5 screens, and force Villanova to hit enough shots over Brimah to win.
You go up against a team like Duke where Ingram is playing the four and popping weak side, it could be trouble for UConn defending ball screens (though I'd imagine they'd score on the other end, too). Iowa would be tough, too.
4. One of the prevailing flaws of this team concerns the ability of our guards to get their shots off quickly. Purvis and Gibbs are effective set shooters, but I don't think they're guys who can get accurate shots off in tight windows.
The NCAAT is a ways away. For now, I'm worried about the conference tournament. Yes, I know that's not for another couple weeks, but this UConn team can mend a lot of wounds during three days in Orlando. There is not a team there we should not beat. We haven't played our best basketball, but fortunately, there is still plenty of time. If we can condense each possession from every game into carefully negotiated chess matches, we are going to very likely win.
I think just about all of us would agree that 1-1 wasn't a terrible result this week. To play 48 hours and a flight after an emotional game against SMU was always going to be difficult. Yes, Cincinnati had to do the same thing, but they were at home and needed to have that win. I'm guessing a lot of us penciled that in as a loss even before the season.
As far as I'm concerned, the main question confronting this team isn't whether they will make the tournament, but rather, if they're good enough to accomplish anything if and when they get there. Obviously, they have to get in first, but my point is, all of the agonizing over the bubble watch is really besides the point and I haven't spent much time worrying about. If, following the next 5-8 games, it isn't conclusive that we should be in the tournament on our own merits, then I have no interest in dancing anyways. There's no point in showing up if we're going to play like we did in the first half of the Gonzaga and Maryland games. I don't want to hear about the AAC getting screwed or anything else. There's no damn reason we shouldn't win the conference tournament. If we lose three in a row to a team like Cincinnati or Temple, then we deserve what we get.
I will attempt to answer the question that introduces the preceding paragraph, but first, I must admit that this team befuddles me. Much as it seems I and countless others have been screaming it from the mountaintops all season, it's worth mentioning again: the pieces are there. I projected this group as the #2 team in America before the season, and despite all evidence flying in opposition of that stance, I'm still not convinced that I was wrong.
By some distinct creation of my mind, there is a certain reluctance of reality to align with the boneyard visionaries that plotted their path to greatness before the beginning of the season. There are recurring moments of incredulity with this group that summon this:
Only difference being, I actually am mad, because with everything being in place for another Utopian realization of UConn basketball - where we win a championship and leave everybody else bewildered - there appears to be some sort of mental blockade prohibiting this from happening. We're not ruling out the possibility that this is supernatural, but also, there is a tendency of our players to make unconscionable errors at times when it feels like we're starting to figure things out. Name a player, and I'll make a very quick association to a play or habit that leaves me gasping for air. How many times are we going to watch Daniel Hamilton travel before Kevin Ollie loses his mind? How many layups - unmistakably uncontested layups - have Gibbs, Purvis, and Nolan left on the table this season? Amida Brimah? I sympathize with the fact that he's a relative novice to the game, but it's time to learn how to catch the basketball. Not some of the time, not most of the time, all of the time. Hell, I'm fairly certain there was one game this season where we were called for multiple lane violations.
There has been a lot of criticism directed towards the coaching staff, not all of it unjustified. But this group...they sometimes don't do the things that all D-1 basketball players are expected to know how to do from day one. The double-dribble that Purvis was called for near the end of the Temple game was stupefying to the extent that it was evident there had to have been psychological factors at play. That psychological factor could be as simple as "it was late in the game, he was nervous, and opposing students were screaming at him" but nonetheless it's concerning when your leaders sometimes resemble a middle-schooler trying to talk to a girl for the first time during crunch-time (still not sure why the girls wouldn't engage me back in the day on the topic of the motion offense, losers).
I'm as big a believer as anybody else that luck plays an inordinate role in determining the outcome of sports games. However, this core group of players has lost close games at an abnormal rate for nearly two seasons now (318th in luck last year, 320 in luck this year). At some point, that becomes tricky to qualify. Maybe they're due to rip off 6 straight close wins...it seemed to happen with the 2011 team after they were snake-bitten in Big East play. Then again, maybe there's a concrete reason that we're struggling to win close games.
I don't want my post to be rejected by the infamous character limit (there's a good chance I'm the only one who encounters this problem), so I'll leave you with a couple observations on what I've seen and how I project things to evolve moving forward:
1. Enough with the cuteness. Get your five best players on the court to start the game. I can handle one of Rodney and Jalen coming off the bench, but not both. And if one of them picks up a foul or two, that doesn't mean we need to sit them for ten minutes at a time. I understand protecting Brimah, but if Ollie sits somebody like Adams because he picks up two fouls in the first half one more time I'm going to crawl through the TV and bring him to the scorers table myself. You can't coach paralyzed by the fear of foul trouble. We played, what, 12 games without Brimah? If he fouls out, he fouls out.
2. It may be difficult to notice, but I think the offense is coming along. There have been moments for this offense, and typically, they involve fairly straightforward dribble-drives and kicks that eventually decentralizes the help defense. Eventually, Adams is going to have to acquire a jumper, but for now, assuming the spacing is pristine, he can continue to play the role of 2014 Terrence Samuel 2.0.
I have and will object to Brimah being the primary ball screener. Opponents know that you're not going to zip a pass into him at the elbow. He's not a threat to pass or dribble. If somebody like Hamilton is operating out of a ball screen at the top of the key, allow Miller to set the high ball screen, roll towards the paint, and station Brimah as a lurker along the baseline.
Moreover, utilizing a big man as a ball screener allows him to establish post position easier. Screening forces your defender to engage in the screening action, meaning Miller can slip to the block unscathed. Swing the ball from the top of the key to the strong side, and suddenly the post entry is a lot easier.
3. Match-ups - assuming we make the tournament - will be vital, simply because our front court defense often vacillates between dominant and average based on opposing personnel. Miller, for instance, is a valuable defensive piece who can guard the ball well and switch onto guards, but when he's stuck with a dangerous pick and pop big, he tends to veer too far off. Against a team like Villanova (four out), UConn would likely switch 1-4, soft hedge 1-5 screens, and force Villanova to hit enough shots over Brimah to win.
You go up against a team like Duke where Ingram is playing the four and popping weak side, it could be trouble for UConn defending ball screens (though I'd imagine they'd score on the other end, too). Iowa would be tough, too.
4. One of the prevailing flaws of this team concerns the ability of our guards to get their shots off quickly. Purvis and Gibbs are effective set shooters, but I don't think they're guys who can get accurate shots off in tight windows.
The NCAAT is a ways away. For now, I'm worried about the conference tournament. Yes, I know that's not for another couple weeks, but this UConn team can mend a lot of wounds during three days in Orlando. There is not a team there we should not beat. We haven't played our best basketball, but fortunately, there is still plenty of time. If we can condense each possession from every game into carefully negotiated chess matches, we are going to very likely win.
