UConn offense #309 in the nation | The Boneyard

UConn offense #309 in the nation

It was a problem, at times. But ya, it was mostly all those missed jumpers. Uconn needs a pure shooter and a big lug down low to pull down a dozen or 15 rebounds per game including 5 O boards.
 
Palatine said:
UConn defense #41.

So I guess that our defense, even with all the junk zones, wasn't really the problem.

And I think our last scholarship should go to a shooter.
Expand ...
Source?
Kenpom adjusts for tempo has our offense ranked 166 and defense 58. I am guessing your source is just total points and doesn't adjust for tempo and since we play a slow pace game any ranking that doesn't adjust for tempo will underrate our offense and overate our defense.
 
Wait, Vance & Vital aren't shooters?

LOL

Palatine said:
UConn defense #41.

So I guess that our defense, even with all the junk zones, wasn't really the problem.

And I think our last scholarship should go to a shooter.
Expand ...
 
And we need a 5 that can score it a little, these 4 on 5 sets make it tough on the other players.
 
However you slice it, offense has been a problem under KO.

You can debate whether it's "Jimmies and Joes" vs. "X's and O's". The answer is probably both, and in the college game both of those fall on the coaching staff.
 
.-.
5-year average AdjO since Ollie: 83.8

5-year Average AdjO before Ollie: 41.6

This years 166 ranking is not the worst of the past 10 years though ... that would be 2007.
 
Palatine said:
UConn defense #41.

So I guess that our defense, even with all the junk zones, wasn't really the problem.

And I think our last scholarship should go to a shooter.
Expand ...

Would love to see a shooter added no doubt I agree there!
 
Tenspro2002 said:
However you slice it, offense has been a problem under KO.

You can debate whether it's "Jimmies and Joes" vs. "X's and O's". The answer is probably both, and in the college game both of those fall on the coaching staff.
Expand ...
I see your point but if you want to score you need shooters. It isn't that we don't have shooters we do but we lack consistent shooters. I think the x's and o's are fine but opponents D can get away with slacking off our big guys and they can do it without sacrificing rebounds.
 
.-.
Those numbers are right there with the football team's offense.
 
He has the ugliest shot in the history of shooting. And he might be the worst defender in all of college basketball.

walker11 said:
How many times do I have to quote you and say that Vance led the conference in 3 point shooting %? The team sucks but at least rag on them in a rational way.
Expand ...
 
This team needed:
  1. an experienced lead(er) guard
  2. a secondary ballhandler
  3. a slashing wing
  4. a shooter
  5. a big who could score down low
  6. a big who could rebound/pass
Next year, 1-3 are set. 4 could be good as well, as I expect Vance to lock in his stroke with a year of experience and associated confidence under his belt.

5 and 6? We'll see.
 
.-.
intlzncster said:
This team needed:
  1. an experienced lead(er) guard
  2. a secondary ballhandler
  3. a slashing wing
  4. a shooter
  5. a big who could score down low
  6. a big who could rebound/pass
Next year, 1-3 are set. 4 could be good as well, as I expect Vance to lock in his stroke with a year of experience and associated confidence under his belt.

5 and 6? We'll see.
Expand ...
Agree across the board. Will mention that I'm bullish on Vital's ability to become a knockdown catch-and-shoot specialist, in addition to Vance.
 
JSM1970 said:
He has the ugliest shot in the history of shooting. And he might be the worst defender in all of college basketball.
Expand ...

Dudes shot is pretty crisp man. Not ray's but very few peoples are. Sometimes a little slow biggest he dips a little low, but his feet are set, follows through well. Certainly passes the eye test. A lot like a slower version of currys IMO. Very little I'd change.

Pick on something realistic like his athleticism and occasional freshman decision making. You know, rational criticisms.
 
I don't agree that we don't have any shooters.

Purvis Adams Jackson and vital can all knock down shots. I wouldn't say any of them are great shooters. But it's not like we have nobody with the ability to shoot the ball.

Part of the problem is that our offense is so bad that they're forced to take so many bad shots.

If we ran better sets and had some actual off the ball movement then they would get better looks.

Their 3 point percentages are all being dragged down by the number of awful shots they're all forced to take. And even after that they're still all ok from 3.

People act like we have a bunch of talieks out there. (No offense to him but we all know he wasn't much of a shooter).

It's the coaching staffs job to, you know, put guys in position to succeed. We havent seemed to be very good at doing that the last 3 years.

Gibbs was the be poy. And he comes here and all of a sudden he can't shoot? It's our offense.
 
.-.
The numbers are from the NCAA web site. So if you want to live in denial, fine. Take it up with the NCAA. Not me.

We score around 66 points and give up around 65 points per game.

But if you watch the games with your eyes open. We miss a ton of open shots. Until we we have guys that can knock down open shots, we will be a poor team.

On the other hand, our defense hasn't been that bad.
 
HuskiesAllDay said:
I don't agree that we don't have any shooters.

Purvis Adams Jackson and vital can all knock down shots. I wouldn't say any of them are great shooters. But it's not like we have nobody with the ability to shoot the ball.

Part of the problem is that our offense is so bad that they're forced to take so many bad shots.

If we ran better sets and had some actual off the ball movement then they would get better looks.

Their 3 point percentages are all being dragged down by the number of awful shots they're all forced to take. And even after that they're still all ok from 3.

People act like we have a bunch of talieks out there. (No offense to him but we all know he wasn't much of a shooter).

It's the coaching staffs job to, you know, put guys in position to succeed. We havent seemed to be very good at doing that the last 3 years.

Gibbs was the be poy. And he comes here and all of a sudden he can't shoot? It's our offense.
Expand ...


Purvis knocks down shots, then doesn't and he has to be open. Jackson had open looks made one, short on everything tonight. Vital is inconsistent but makes a few here and there. Adams was making shots, he's hurt and by the way our only PG which is really key to an offense running. You aren't running any offense with Vital or Purvis running the point. And you see how Brimah and Facey have been playing, Facey can't make a play again for 2 weeks ad Brimah, well he's putrid.

Pretty simple, not sure what everyone's missing.
 
JSM1970 said:
Wait, Vance & Vital aren't shooters?

LOL
Expand ...

As awful as our shooting was... I think next season with an improved Vital, Vance, Adams, Gilbert and Larrier... our shooting will be fine
 
Palatine said:
The numbers are from the NCAA web site. So if you want to live in denial, fine. Take it up with the NCAA. Not me.

We score around 66 points and give up around 65 points per game.

But if you watch the games with your eyes open. We miss a ton of open shots. Until we we have guys that can knock down open shots, we will be a poor team.

On the other hand, our defense hasn't been that bad.
Expand ...


L. O. L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,214
Messages
4,557,482
Members
10,442
Latest member
StatsMan


Top Bottom