I’d love to see us get more athletic across the roster. Add a few taller guards (nothing wrong with a diminutive, super quick pg but don’t have a bunch of small guards…get a taller combo guard like Gonsalves who can defend, get his shot off, and even help out on the boards). Recruit rim protection and athletic bigs who can compete on the glass and not get bludgeoned on the offensive boards. Watching this St. Peter’s game and they are more athletic than us as a 15 seed from a tiny league. We can get better athletes…Mooney’s system just doesn’t emphasize athleticism or it even seem to encourage it.
Rebounds
- Thread starter mr.spider
- Start date
I mean we have one poster out here battling windmills. We have been a juggernaut for the last 15 years and it because we totally ignore an aspect of the game that any other coach in the nation would say is important. But keep battling those windmills. I don't think it is any coincidence that we rebounded better and actually played good defense in our A10 run and Iowa.
But do we? Often shredded by a dribble driver after an opponent's D rebound, bc he is driving with momentum to the basket while our set defense is static.
Yep KE, I think moon needs to designate Hovde as defensive coordinator and run the offense.
Offensive rebounding is also dependent upon how many opportunities exist, which of course is inversely proportionate to shooting percentage. So if you are a great shooting team, you have fewer chances to get offensive rebounds. I would like to see a stat of offensive rebounds as a percentage of opportunities for them. That would be more meaningful.
I would like to how many of those very few offensive rebounds we turn into second chance points. That is probably much more rare, since the poor guy who stayed to get the offensive rebound has been left all alone.
Last edited:
What you’re looking for is offensive rebounding percentage…the Spiders ranked 328th this year.
I think the most important stat is offensive efficiency. That is points per possession. It factors in offensive rebounds. If I team A scores 2 points without an offensive rebound, and Team B scores 2 points after getting an offensive rebound, their efficiency that possession would be the same. The last 3 years we were 53, 46, and 79 in offensive efficiency. Our 3 point % the last 3 years was .362, .357, and a not very good .329. My biggest concern going into this past year was 3 point shooting, and I think that will be my biggest one again next year.
I'll admit to not being too too worried about offensive rebounding. It does make sense for a guy like Burton to go after them, as he has a good shot to get them. If we have Sherod chasing them, more likely not to get it and give up numbers in transition. But being 160 or 170 in defensive rebounding is not great, and when combined with poor ability to stop the ball was a reason we lost a lot of games earlier in the year. That is a lot of coaching and lack of emphasis.
This. For a system that is highly predicated on good outside shooting we have been middling the last couple years and for several before the 19-20 season. Needs work.
Glad you mentioned these teams especially a fellow A10 team Davidson since I agree very similar in style of play. I posted before something similar to this but maybe you missed it? Deficiency with O rebounds I don't have an issue with it except agreeing with @spider23 combined with at best these days average D boarding for me is getting bullied.
Only going to give you stats comparing the seasons both teams have been in the A10 which totals 8.
Davidson D bounding ranked 136, 228, 72, 18, 35, 48, 13, and 10th = Averaged 70th a season
Richmond D bounding ranked 279, 268, 243, 161, 250, 104, 243, 144th = Averaged 211th a season
Mooney needs to step up his game in getting his teams to improve on the defensive glass.
And going back comparing from Mooney's first season till Davidson entered the A10. The difference gets plenty worse. Like Davidson bering top 100 every year with 6 seasons top 50 and Spiders only in the 200 and 300s with best season ranked 225th.
Good numbers there SouthJersey. The issue is over all rebounding including Defensive rebounding. I am ok with philosophy to stop transition and bot emphasize offensive rebounding. Still haven't seen a good excuse not to defensive rebound or emphasize d rebounding. I saw a certain poster say he was going to go back in hiding. Same poster totally ignores defensive rebounding and ignores this part of the equation. I don't understand why this is not emphasized or enforced.
Thank you Tyler Burton.
Tyler will need 25 rebounds a game next season for us to stay in the top 300.
I bet you didn't know that Davidson's defensive efficiency the last 3 years was 163, 164, and 154, while ours was 54, 99, and 94. I also bet you didn't know that each of the last 3 years, Davidson was 180 or higher in 3 point defense. We were bad this year at 3 point D, but the previous 2 years we were a very good 48 and 68, even though if you read our board those years, you would think we were worst in the country at it. Like offense, sometimes defensive rebounding is a give and take thing. Maybe I am not as upset about some of these things as you guys are because I believe in the give and take philosophy, and have always coached that way. It's hard to be really good at every stat, pretty much unrealistic, so I coach accordingly.
Back to rebounding, if what you are saying is we would have had more defensive rebounds with a more athletic big instead Grant the last several years, I agree with you. If what you are saying is we would have had more defensive rebounds with bigger guards on the floor, I agree with you. We can disagree, but I am glad we had Jacob and Grant here, and Blake the previous two years. I think it's the type of players that make the difference. Size and/or athletic ability go a long way when it comes to rebounding. Sounds like you think it's just coaching, so we can disagree there too. If Grant played more above the rim at 6'10, and we had bigger guards, would we have gotten more defensive rebounds? Yes, right? Now, if the argument is get more athletic bigs or bigger guards who can produce big numbers offensively and do things that guys like Grant, TJ, Jacob, Blake, and the numerous other great small guards we have had could do offensively, sure, let's do it.
Would I like to get more rebounds? Sure, just like I always want to have fewer turnovers and shoot better from 3 than my opponents. Where I disagree is I don't think rebounding has cost us as many games as some of you think. I think teams are built a certain way, and not being as good as what you normally are good or great at loses way more games for you than something that you aren't consistently good at. For example, I think 3 point shooting and our overall offense at times this year cost us more games than defensive rebounding. But, again, just my opinion, and we can disagree. All good.
What is wrong with getting skilled guys that are athletic too????
Oh yeah, only ACC can get those guys. We should aim for ncaa twice in 10 years and not aim to be a Butler or Xavier or St. MARY'S. I forgot. Woe is us, woe is us.
Oh yeah, only ACC can get those guys. We should aim for ncaa twice in 10 years and not aim to be a Butler or Xavier or St. MARY'S. I forgot. Woe is us, woe is us.
You lost me at "I bet"
Generally agree with this sentiment, I’d absolutely love to be better at rebounding but would prefer to shoot the three better. I actually don’t blame the O as much as I think we had really bad D for long stretches this year, we just couldn’t get stops. When we pressed we were better defensively and to me that is coaching, not athleticism. But I digress.
I do think we have bad fundamentals with D rebounding. Guys just don’t put their butts on someone when shots go up. Boxing out is fundamental but not something we seem well schooled in. O rebounding is systematic and while I don’t love the shoot and run mentality, it is what it is to your point.
Last edited:
