So stopping the dribble drive straight up (without help) is a huge part of being good defensively. Its some coaching but a lot just physical ability. We don't have much of it with this group. Help and off ball defense is a lot coaching and a lot determination etc. We look lost at times here. Our help defenders are all ball watching way too much. What I mean is, is they watch the ball (you have to do this some obviously) and make a help move and then, as the play develops and help isn't needed, they just keep watching the ball and not reengaging with their man and their man moves and they end up standing alone in open space looking at the ball on the other side of the floor guarding nothing! Nescovic especially is guilty of this regularly, but we are doing a lot of it. Combine this with an inability to stop the ball and you will have real problems defensively. Stopping the ball may be difficult to fix because we simply may not have the physical gifts to be good at it, but fixing all our off ball stuff should be doable and I certainly hope we can get it figured out!
Mens: Maine @RC - Wed 11/20 7pm ESPN+
- Thread starter Section9.RowD
- Start date
did anyone notice the play last night where Tanner switched onto a big man as part of an on ball switch - Tanner took the pick man/roller - but then when the ball moved away, Walz tried to get Tanner to re-switch back to the wing on the perimeter so Walz could take the big man. Tanner looked over but stayed with the big, leaving both of them guarding him and the wing wide open. It never got passed to him luckily but at the ensuing dead ball seconds later, Walz slapped his hands in frustration and pointed it all out to Tanner. Was midway in 2nd half, on fans' side of the court, near the elbow. Was kind of encapsulating how it seems the guys don't know where to be or being on same page as yet.
Who are u talking about? The board is about 97% anti Mooney. The tiny few of us who do not relentlessly attack him during and after every game have continued to post.
Every Econ teacher I had at Richmond said never assume. When you assume you make an ASS of U and ME.
“Our opponent shot a miserable 6-for-30 from 3, that's 20% Someone must have been doing something right.”
For all you know our opponents were blind kids in wheelchairs, you didn’t watch so you don’t know what happened!!!
I’m with you here G. Baseball is a dangerous sport to evaluate off the box score. You can get a heap of information but sometimes there’s a lot that happens that never shows up there.
I did think last night, maybe my eyes were deceiving me - we did more of the classic old school Mooney switching defense where we basically switch everything. Its kind of an amoeba like zone. In the past few years - we have moved slowly away from it, and more to a classic man to man, but still very heave in switching - but at times last night, I thought it looked more like the defenses of old under Mooney. Its a good defense to run - but as pointed out with your example Brooklyn, in takes a high level of understanding and communication - which on the play you described, did not seem to be the case.
I hope your Econ teachers gave proper credit to their source for that joke.
For me it was Felix Unger!
Definitely not your 4700, you are here through thick and thin. Thinking of 80s and some others. In fact a few of them that I recall have not popped in. Oh well. They know they can wait it out and eventually we will be back in the tournament and they will be slam dunking on us. Meanwhile over at VCU they keep keeping on.
Was Maine blind kids in wheelchairs? No. If they were I expect I'd have heard about it someplace.
I didn't go to the SBA. I went to RC, where my professors taught me the value of critical thinking. Drawing a conclusion with plenty of supporting evidence is not assuming; it's using numerous facts to reach a reasonable conclusion.
I do know what happened. We won the game. Maine shot 20% from 3, and only 36% overall. It had far more possessions, given it had only six turnovers and we had only four steals, yet was unable to take advantage of the added opportunities. It had only seven assists. We had 15 turnovers, but Maine turned them into a mere seven points. We protected our own backboard, with 33 defensive rebounds to Maine's seven ORs. Poor shooting numbers, low assist totals, outrebounded by 10 indicates we did something right defensively.
As I said, I thought perhaps some would simply be happy we won. Obviously, that wasn't the case.
As far as the idiotic "Mooney cheerleader" comment, I'm a fan of the Spiders. When they win, I'm happy. As long as he's the coach, I want him to win as many games as possible. When he is no longer the coach, I'll do the same for the next guy. I don't want him to lose, unlike some here.
I'm happy we won. well ... more relieved. but watching it, there wasn't very much to be excited about or to think we've turned a corner yet.
we beat Maine by 4 at home. Roche made shots. that's the one positive I take from the game. I wouldn't say anyone else exceeded expectations.
I’m relieved we won as well. Hopefully this was a get right game to get the monkey off our back. It looks like team chemistry is still pretty low, and I think that plays a big part in why the offense has been so discombobulated and our defense has been so porous. I just wonder what’s going to happen when some of these guys start to gain some confidence and feel comfortable with each other.
if you didn't watch the game how do you know they weren't blind kids in wheelchairs? seems a logical jump I'm not willing to make by my read of the box score.
seriously though, Wood, I think you're making another logical jump in your take on the negativity by saying that people are rooting for losses. Most fans just want to win and win big. I don't think many are rooting for UR losses like you say. The negativity stems from the fact that people have lost hope - some long since - that Mooney is the coach to be able to consistently win and win big. I've said dozens of times if the program could win consistently at a .650 (Brian Gregory level) clip - essentially around the same level as last year - AND take the team to more NCAAs, I'm more than happy to have it be under Mooney. He runs a clean program, players like him, seems like a nice guy. It's just that, well, he doesn't win like that or go to many NCAAs. So if you factor that in and then start losing to Marist and Bucknell in the same season, yeah, there should be heat.
seriously though, Wood, I think you're making another logical jump in your take on the negativity by saying that people are rooting for losses. Most fans just want to win and win big. I don't think many are rooting for UR losses like you say. The negativity stems from the fact that people have lost hope - some long since - that Mooney is the coach to be able to consistently win and win big. I've said dozens of times if the program could win consistently at a .650 (Brian Gregory level) clip - essentially around the same level as last year - AND take the team to more NCAAs, I'm more than happy to have it be under Mooney. He runs a clean program, players like him, seems like a nice guy. It's just that, well, he doesn't win like that or go to many NCAAs. So if you factor that in and then start losing to Marist and Bucknell in the same season, yeah, there should be heat.
Most here want Mooney gone. The only way that happens, without another serious health scare, is if we keep losing.
Probably best if I just check out of basketball threads for a while.
I think there are some who want Huesman gone, too, but he keeps winning and thwarting their plans.
