Re: The Morphing of the PO into the RO

[Anachnoid]

I like our players and think they are all good and talented. I really like the first few years under the Mooney era with the lockdown D ( the first year that was all they could do and maybe having size on the court was a reason-Sylla at guard) and the subsequent young class Geriot et al, running the true PO. One of my favorite games was in the Hook when led by KA, DG and RB they sliced and diced the hoos with precision until the refs literally took over such that the Hook paper noted there was less contact in muggings at the corner than the refs let the Hooksters have at the spiders. But the argument became we can't get the next level of talent running the PO as this is not what the players want. In conjunction, KA began a greater role and we became a more guard oriented O and backdoors and lane cuts disappeared. kA was followed by CL and now K0 and the emphasis is all guard with threes and drives. The art of passing so featured early has also disappeared. The bigs are on the perimeter keeping the center clear for the driver, usually by K0 but also TA. TD. There is the occasional drive and dish but it is so unexpected by the recepient that a turnover results. Yes these examples may be broad strokes by one view and can probably be picked at with individual examples but the end result is that the RO is guard oriented and not focused on five players, each running a pattern to allow an open look/layup. Lately, I have been watching just the guards during some college games. The PG is the true floor leader- LP at the hook runs his patterns and always returns to the top to reset the O. The Good teams are also able to make precision short inside bounce passes in a crowd to the big driving in the paint.. GTown runs a PO and they alway seem to have a big neat the bucket who is expecting the dish or in a position for a stick back or rebound. Iit may be that we have the ability to do these things and that we are lacking.a non point guard shooter to open things up. My personal preference is lock down (and switching up) D's and the PO leading to a. 40-38 win with the other teams complaining on their boards they had an off night or didn't play their best. When was they last time we read those comments consistently?

 

[HuntsmanSpider]

It is amazing how far we have distanced ourselves from year 1 of Mooney's PO. I miss the balance, both in philosophy and roster makeup, during our first year back in the NCAAs. Having DG5's frame on the outside, and good length from RB really helped us out when the offense had tough games. KA had to give up height at times, but he had such active hands to where he would get steals and flip the scoreboard with his D. The only time we really had issues on D was when the opposition took their time and switched our PO-oriented big man into having to guard the top of the key.


What I'm curious to know is when we recruited the next wave of guys--the current roster--did we land these guys because Mooney told them we were transitioning to a new style of play? Even if we did go back to the PO, I'm not sure this group of guys are best suited for it. But the next wave--could we pull in players this athletic that would better fit in Mooney's old system? Dunno.

Currently we seem best suited for...something else that our coaching staff hasn't really figured out yet. I think we're getting there, sort of, on offense. But we just give up too much on D at this point. Unfortunately, the identity struggle is not surprising, as Mooney and his assistants aren't really diversified outside of the PO.