Watched the Stony Brook game again! Observations.

[ctchamps]

I watched the game again - both halves. There was a lot of movement by the players in the first half. They were not lethargic in any way. They just had a problem finishing. But they are running things.

Tim Welsh was even more uncomfortable to listen to the second time around. His characterization of SN was over the top. He made it sound like SN only turned on his defense after making the 3 pointer in the second half. He totally ignored the two picks in the first half. The guy just doesn't like Shabazz.

DD has a lot of talent. He lacks confidence. OC has a lot of talent. He doesn't lack confidence. It's just a matter of when these guys become consistent. My guess is next season but I'm hoping they surprise us before this season ends.

I love the combo of SN and RB. It's bulls*t that they have chemistry problems. They know their roles. They are the least of Uconn's problems.

This team is a work in progress. When EW and Nolan are in the game they are unsure of what sets are being run and struggle with their spacing. This takes away from the flow of the game. Furthermore RB is still learning the roles and abilities of his players even as they are learning what KO wants them to do. This team struggled with easier opponents but I'm not sure this is indicative of a lack of talent or ability. It seems more a function of an entire reset of the team that is the combo of a new coach and the departure of players at the four and five necessitating role changes.

RB, SN, NG and RJE are a good nucleus of players that should keep this team in most games. The critical component, imo, is TO. He just needs to stay within himself and I'm not talking about what he does on the offensive end. He has to avoid foul trouble. He is critical to this team running offensive sets. He doesn't have to be directed to set picks or where to set himself on the floor. He works well with DD and NG. They are developing a real good feel for each other on both ends of the floor.

TO will have occasions where he gets stripped or blocked, but his up and under move in the first half was a thing of beauty. I like that the coaches are encouraging him to continue taking shots. They really need to avoid listening to Fishy. I'll take a TO and his desire to push himself to his limits any day over an AO who knows how to complain more than generate intensity. Certainly having a big hitting close to 50% of his shots is the formula for a great season. But what TO lacks in scoring punch he more than makes up in making his team mates better on the offensive end.

 

[Palatine]

Everything changed once the threes started dropping.

 

[bfair]

On offense I would like to see DD get the ball in that high post set we run. where the guards roll to the lane off a screen. I believe TO has done a good job here, but when the defense overplays the pass to the curler - DD as the ability to be a true triple threat. Again, a small detail but I like this set (because they don't run many) and this would help change it up a bit.

 

[gibhunter]

Honestly, without the 3s, UConn would've lost that game. They couldn't score anything inside the last 10 minutes of the game. They were getting outrebounded and outhustled on the glass. It's very weird watching these guys get eaten alive on the glass by smaller teams. It's like TO and DD don't feel like going hard to the ball.

I like what I see from Nolan and Wolf. I wish we could play EW, PN exclusively at 5 and TO, DD exclusively at 4. DD plays much better as a 4 as his 3-point shot is bad and he loves it way too much.

Then we can play RB 1, SN 2 (1), OC (2,3) and NG starting at 3. Weak now but pretty damn strong next year when it counts.

 

[aceboon]

No offense, but you lack pretty much a basic understanding of basketball with this comment. Stony Brook packed everything in the lane, the 3s were pretty much wide open and in the flow of the offense. Its not like they were launching Taliek Brown vs Pitt 3s as lucky prayers. Pikell made the decision to pack everything in the lane and try to take away the guards getting inside like vs Quinnipiac, our guys adjusted and took what the defense gave them, which was space on the perimeter to take and make 3s.

Honestly, without the 3s, UConn would've lost that game. They couldn't score anything inside the last 10 minutes of the game. They were getting outrebounded and outhustled on the glass. It's very weird watching these guys get eaten alive on the glass by smaller teams. It's like TO and DD don't feel like going hard to the ball.

I like what I see from Nolan and Wolf. I wish we could play EW, PN exclusively at 5 and TO, DD exclusively at 4. DD plays much better as a 4 as his 3-point shot is bad and he loves it way too much.

Then we can play RB 1, SN 2 (1), OC (2,3) and NG starting at 3. Weak now but pretty damn strong next year when it counts.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

I like what I see from Nolan and Wolf.

You do? Wolf played well in one game. Nolan looked good for one 5 minute stretch. Outside of that, it's not pretty.

 

[Waquoit]

No offense, but you lack pretty much a basic understanding of basketball with this comment. Stony Brook packed everything in the lane, the 3s were pretty much wide open and in the flow of the offense. Its not like they were launching Taliek Brown vs Pitt 3s as lucky prayers. Pikell made the decision to pack everything in the lane and try to take away the guards getting inside like vs Quinnipiac, our guys adjusted and took what the defense gave them, which was space on the perimeter to take and make 3s.

Yeah, but we're not going to go 10-22 from 3 on a regular basis.

 

[PacificStorm]

freud,
I really enjoyed reading your post above. I just wish posters here would be gentler and kinder but never patronizing to our Huskies. Oftentimes I read stuff that borders on cruelty and maniacal egoism. Many of these posters don't really understand the game of basketball. The content of their posts portrays them as vainly and despicably trying to appear as though they are better than either Coach Calhon (in the past) and Coach Ollie(now) at the science of basketball . Our players work and play hard. Each of them, from the least to the best - in terms of talent and potential, deserves our unstinting support and wholesome admiration, be it during a winning or losing phase in the season. Coaching and disciplining them on and off the court are the tasks of the coaches, not ours. That's the definition of a loyal fan. We are not armchair generals. Let's all leave the constructive criticism to the near or true experts (like freud and very few others whose posts I like reading) of this game to hash it out in terms of constructive analysis and criticism. They know much better. As to the rest of us who know much less about the science and technicalities of this game, let's just show and express unconditional support to our athletes. They deserve no less. I'd like to see them with their heads high even after a bad loss as long as they have tried their best to meet the expectations placed on them, knowing that we are behind each one of them 100 percent.

 

[YearoftheHusky]

No offense, but you lack pretty much a basic understanding of basketball with this comment. Stony Brook packed everything in the lane, the 3s were pretty much wide open and in the flow of the offense. Its not like they were launching Taliek Brown vs Pitt 3s as lucky prayers. Pikell made the decision to pack everything in the lane and try to take away the guards getting inside like vs Quinnipiac, our guys adjusted and took what the defense gave them, which was space on the perimeter to take and make 3s.

Open looks or not, he is correct - without those threes falling, we (w)could've lost that game. Take those same shots and miss them, and we never get momentum and and never pull away. Luckily they fell, but to say he lacks a basic understanding of the game based on that comment is not fair.

 

[aceboon]

So you're in agreement with him that if UConn doesn't make shots, they lose the game. Brilliant stuff, my mind is blown.

Open looks or not, he is correct - without those threes falling, we (w)could've lost that game. Take those same shots and miss them, and we never get momentum and and never pull away. Luckily they fell, but to say he lacks a basic understanding of the game based on that comment is not fair.

 

[ctchamps]

Honestly, without the 3s, UConn would've lost that game. They couldn't score anything inside the last 10 minutes of the game. They were getting outrebounded and outhustled on the glass. It's very weird watching these guys get eaten alive on the glass by smaller teams. It's like TO and DD don't feel like going hard to the ball.

I like what I see from Nolan and Wolf. I wish we could play EW, PN exclusively at 5 and TO, DD exclusively at 4. DD plays much better as a 4 as his 3-point shot is bad and he loves it way too much.

Then we can play RB 1, SN 2 (1), OC (2,3) and NG starting at 3. Weak now but pretty damn strong next year when it counts.

Nolan has a lot of upside. But he is very raw. He has no clue much of the time what sets the team is running. When he figure it out, he will give valuable minutes to the team and definitely help on rebounding. EW is a poor man's TO currently.

 

[ctchamps]

Everything changed once the threes started dropping.

Everything changes when teams make shots! And it's not just the energy of the team. It's also the perspective of the fan.

I advocate people watch a game after the outcome! In the heat of the moment a lot of things are missed because much of our energy is directed by fear. I was planning on only watching the second half of the Stony Brook game. I'm glad I watched the first half. Half the time I muted Welch just to decide for myself what took place vs. having someone convince me about his perspective. I was surprised at how much was done really well by the team. They had a lot of good looks. I would argue they had better opportunities in the first half than the sequence of 7 three pointers they made in a row the second half.

 

[aceboon]

Agreed, its like someone pointed out Welsh had alot of canned talking points that he kept bringing up but they didn't necessarily apply to the game situation. The team got plenty of open looks in the first half that they either missed or turned down, you don't get those looks by standing around on offense. Welsh was the equivalent of Jim Lampley in boxing, Lampley often never calls the action correctly and misleads casual watchers. To me it was the same thing in this game.

Everything changes when teams make shots! And it's not just the energy of the team. It's also the perspective of the fan.

I advocate people watch a game after the outcome! In the heat of the moment a lot of things are missed because much of our energy is directed by fear. I was planning on only watching the second half of the Stony Brook game. I'm glad I watched the first half. Half the time I muted Welch just to decide for myself what took place vs. having someone convince me about his perspective. I was surprised at how much was done really well by the team. They had a lot of good looks. I would argue they had better opportunities in the first half than the sequence of 7 three pointers they made in a row the second half.

 

[ctchamps]

Agreed, its like someone pointed out Welsh had alot of canned talking points that he kept bringing up but they didn't necessarily apply to the game situation. The team got plenty of open looks in the first half that they either missed or turned down, you don't get those looks by standing around on offense.

Exactly! First OC turnover was a pass he tried to make to a cutting SN at the baseline. SN was wide open and was going to make a lay up or get fouled. The problem was OC had no business trying to make a diagonal pass from the top of the key. It was easily stolen. It was a freshman mistake! That doesn't bother me. The only way these guys get to learn is to go out there and play the game at the pace of the Div 1 game.

My biggest bugaboo is that the fan misses most of the action in live mode, and when the team doesn't score the fan presumes that the team is flat, lethargic or unmotivated. That is rarely the case. Usually it's because the fan is distracted by the bottom line, the game score, and misses most of the action.

I often watch the game several times with rewind or stop action and am amazed at what I miss or think I saw! What I saw in the Stony Brook game was a very good job of coaching and subbing and players really starting to figure things out. The inexperience and the lack of a bonafide big will limit this team. But the future is promising if these kids don't get down on themselves.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

Open looks or not, he is correct - without those threes falling, we (w)could've lost that game. Take those same shots and miss them, and we never get momentum and and never pull away. Luckily they fell, but to say he lacks a basic understanding of the game based on that comment is not fair.

And without getting off to a blazing start against Michigan State, we could've lost that game. And without Napier going nuts late against QU, we could've lost that game. And without Wolf playing out of his mind against Wake Forest, we could've lost that game...

Look, we played like garbage against Stony Brook for most of the game. But those 3's we made down the stretch were not only wide open, but also taken by (arguably) our three best shooters in Napier, Giffey, and Calhoun. Sometimes good shooters get hot. It's not the craziest thing that's ever happened on a basketball court.

 

[ctchamps]

And without getting off to a blazing start against Michigan State, we could've lost that game. And without Napier going nuts late against QU, we could've lost that game. And without Wolf playing out of his mind against Wake Forest, we could've lost that game...

Look, we played like garbage against Stony Brook for most of the game. But those 3's we made down the stretch were not only wide open, but also taken by (arguably) our three best shooters in Napier, Giffey, and Calhoun. Sometimes good shooters get hot. It's not the craziest thing that's ever happened on a basketball court.

And isn't that the beauty of sports, it doesn't go the way we as fans script it!. Think "Shock the World"! Of course it can turn ugly as well. Say George Mason!

 

[Danzz]

No offense, but you lack pretty much a basic understanding of basketball with this comment. Stony Brook packed everything in the lane, the 3s were pretty much wide open and in the flow of the offense. Its not like they were launching Taliek Brown vs Pitt 3s as lucky prayers. Pikell made the decision to pack everything in the lane and try to take away the guards getting inside like vs Quinnipiac, our guys adjusted and took what the defense gave them, which was space on the perimeter to take and make 3s.

+1. Pikell wanted Uconn to live or die by the 3. Over the years a sagging packed in defense has worked the best against Uconn. Expect to see more of it this season.

 

[Husky68]

It's not like 10 out of 22 is impossible to believe. That's only 45.5%. On the season shooting 33% so would be about 7 made if 33%. Team should be more of 35 or higher % which would have last year been in top 130 in NCAA (this year team should be better shooters as sure won't be as good rebounders and were 33% last year). As an example the Ben Gordon championship year Uconn shot over 40% from 3.
Also, if make 7 in row to get to 10 for 22 were at one point 3 for 15 which is 20%. If are a 35% team and shoot about high teens in # of 3's the range of "more or less normal" is probably 35% +- 10% as 2 extra makes or misses changes the % by 10%.

 

[Palatine]

Last year 175 D1 teams shot .333 or better from behind the arc. We were right at the .333 line It is reasonable with Bazz, Boat and Calhoun taking most of our treys that we should be able to improve that mark.

 

[joober jones]

Boatright isn't that dependable from beyond the arc.

 

[huskyhal]

I was in a car on Sunday, so could only follow the game on my phone. And I haven't had the chance to watch a replay. From that perspective, a few observations:

1. UConn, unlike other elite teams, has rarely blown out the 'cupcakes' on their schedule to the extent we think they should. I always felt JC used these games to teach, send messages, and try different combinations of players/plays/styles. His hook was always the quickest in these games, especially if he felt guys were not taking this type of opponent seriously enough. In fact, this game seemed to follow a very familiar pattern (again keeping in mind that I was only following the score, not watching the action): UConn comes out sluggish/tentative, the other team comes out hot and aggressive, we allow them to stay in the game far longer than we think they should, then we wake up and put them away.
2. KO is using these games to hone his game-management skills ... clock management, substitutions, adjustments, etc. That's a good thing, but it means that things may look a bit more disjointed than they have over the JC years, even against teams we should easily beat.
3. Due to our circumstances, there is a smaller margin in talent between this UConn team and teams like Stony Brook. However, the Stony Brooks of the world are still playing the biggest game of their season when they play us, and their mental approach to this game was likely quite different than UConn's. That, again, has happened often in the past.

Given all that, I'd say Sunday's result was far from the train wreck that some threads have implied.