Style Question

[Captain Anderson]

With March Madness literally about to tip off I wanted to pose a general question for the board. Is our (Mooney's) style of play ever going to allow us to be a consistent NCAA/NIT team? What I mean by that is our reliance on outside shooting and seemingly no emphasis on rebounding a formula that can get us in the top 4 of the A-10 most years? I realize that we have been a very good defensive team under Mooney traditionally and that this past year is souring my thoughts but our style seems to cause our guys to think a ton and not attack the game aggressively...particularly late in games when we seemed to play tight as hell over the past few years.

The teams that advance this weekend will be aggressive and find ways to get second chance points on the offensive glass when their outside shots aren't falling (And hit most of their foul shots when they do drive and get fouled) I just seems like Coach wants his "bigs" to be able to stretch the floor and we predictably get killed inside. I know there are tons of stats regarding rebounding margin that have been respectfully posted on this board but what I see with my own eyes is a team that gets pushed around on the glass and allows opponents high percentage second chance points (See Miami NIT game last year). Coach hasn't shown a history of changing things up so I guess we are hoping that the new recruits will be better shooters and defenders (Which I bet they will be) but that still leaves the question of rebounding and a lack of bigs.
I realize this is a loaded question (and a long post) but I'm looking for some responses and insight into how we can run Coach's system and be a top 4 team in the league. Because if that is not the goal with our facilities, tradition, etc then we are seriously undervaluing our program and short changing our players and fans.

 

[coachfezz]

I think system works if Coach learns how to use bigger lineup. My example is when Cline posts as pivot and true pivot is able to offense rebound and also the much happy block the shot on defense

 

[spiderman]

most (maybe all) tournament teams shoot a ton of 3's. that's the game these days. we don't shoot disproportionately more than everyone else.
and we do want to rebound. we don't do it well, but we want to. just not to the exclusion of other aspects of defense or transition.

 

[Eight Legger]

11 years, 2 appearances. I think we know the answer.

 

[SouthJerseySpiderFan]

What I mean by that is our reliance on outside shooting and seemingly no emphasis on rebounding a formula that can get us in the top 4 of the A-10 most years?

My answer would be probably not.

 

[SouthJerseySpiderFan]

. Coach hasn't shown a history of changing things up so I guess we are hoping that the new recruits will be better shooters and defenders (Which I bet they will be) but that still leaves the question of rebounding and a lack of bigs.

Yes, having 5 shooters on court should help but lack of just average rebounding I believe outweighs quality shooting over the long haul.

 

[keefusb]

Princeton seemed to do well this season with a similar formula to what we do. Main difference is P has really good athletes with good length, they have 5 or 6 players who shoot 35% or better, and they seem to rebound well.

I think the style can work with the right players, and some adjustments to tactical approach (change up on defense, more emphasis on rebounding, having 5 guys on the floor who can shoot the 3).

 

[spiderman]

when I look at stats from our better years vs our not so good ones, the thing that stands out is our 3 point shooting %.
I don't think we need all 5 guys shooting them. probably 4 on the floor that are threats. but we have to shoot better. need multiple players around 40%.

 

[MrTbone]

There are two systems at work here:

1. Offensive System - Has progressively improved year to year, resulting in a very efficient offense this last year that scored at a very good rate even while only shooting 36% from 3pt as a team. To s-man's point, if we shoot a percentage point or two better than that, it would make a massive difference.

2. Defensive System - Has historically been very good but was a trainwreck this year. I've said it's a good but brittle defense, and one that we can't rely solely upon. We complement this with more traditional defenses that don't relegate new players to the bench due to system complexity and you're in good shape. The defense can be stifling when 5 players who know it well and execute it well are in place.

Rebounding - I know this is the beaten dog around here. I can accept a negative rebounding margin if we're making up for it elsewhere, such as with 3pt defense or steals, etc. I actually think a big part of our problem with rebounding (defensively) is not a system issue, it's just execution. It pains me to think of how often we would get our hands on a rebound and not corral it, or have it slapped away by the opponent. We need bigger hands and more stickum. Someone contact Lester Hayes and the 70s/80s Raiders defensive backfield to see who their supplier is.

 

[Eight Legger]

Even if Mooney stays another 9 years and we make the NCAAs every single one of them, he still will have made it just slightly more than half the time. After 11 years, I think it's way too far along to ask questions about what Mooney's system is capable of doing. We've seen what it does for 11 years.

 

[72Spider]

Without playing aggressively on a consistent basis, which includes strong rebounding, you are limited as to your ceiling. We have a limited ceiling. Also think that our style of play limits our recruiting as well.

 

[Ulla1]

Without playing aggressively on a consistent basis, which includes strong rebounding, you are limited as to your ceiling. We have a limited ceiling. Also think that our style of play limits our recruiting as well.

72, I had also considered that our style may have limited recruiting. However, when one looks at the boring style played by UVA and yet they still get good recruits, then perhaps style is not so important. OSC

 

[spiderman]

style doesn't get you bids. it's the Jimmy's and Joe's, not the X's and O's.

 

[Eight Legger]

72, I had also considered that our style may have limited recruiting. However, when one looks at the boring style played by UVA and yet they still get good recruits, then perhaps style is not so important. OSC

Virginia plays in the ACC and has one of the best coaches in the nation. They are getting the recruits they are getting as a result of those two factors, not to mention the fact that they won the ACC two years in a row and almost won it this year, too.

 

[MrTbone]

How different was Beilein's style from what Mooney plays? I would suggest it's not that different. Matchup zone defense, perimeter-oriented offense. More finesse than power. I would wager that not many fans here have/had an issue with that system.

So if we're being honest, it's not the system that folks believe can't be successful, it's really disenchantment with the coach and his results. If we're talking results, Beilein made 1 NCAA in 5 years here with a far better starting point that Mooney with his 2 in 11 years where he had squat to work with at the start. Those ratios are equivalent.

I am not trying to defend CM or the system btw, but it feels like we have very selective memory about what has transpired in the not so distant past.

 

[WebSpinner]

uva is going to get "good" recruits, not "great" recruits just because they are acc and have some rep not like unc but still have been to the finals, etc. bennett has been able to win the acc even with not getting top 25 recruits. our bud in miami is doing well too and he emphasizes D more than O. we struggle to recruit well so it seems we have to have some type of system to compensate. to me, and admit, do not know what i am talking about, we just have to tweak things more. recall JB saying that he had to keep changing up his zone because good coaches found weaknesses which he had to find answers for or sink. CM has proven his system can work but maybe he has to keep fine tuning and not just stand pat, whether it be the O or the D.

 

[I-M-UR]

Yes, having 5 shooters on court should help but lack of just average rebounding I believe outweighs quality shooting over the long haul.

How would you know we never had 5 real shooters on the floor at one time.

But you're right you need some rebounding.

 

[I-M-UR]

How different was Beilein's style from what Mooney plays? I would suggest it's not that different. Matchup zone defense, perimeter-oriented offense. More finesse than power. I would wager that not many fans here have/had an issue with that system.

So if we're being honest, it's not the system that folks believe can't be successful, it's really disenchantment with the coach and his results. If we're talking results, Beilein made 1 NCAA in 5 years here with a far better starting point that Mooney with his 2 in 11 years where he had squat to work with at the start. Those ratios are equivalent.

I am not trying to defend CM or the system btw, but it feels like we have very selective memory about what has transpired in the not so distant past.

Not really apples to apples Beilein spent four of those years in the CAA a one bid league.

 

[WebSpinner]

not sure i would compare JB's 1-3-1 to what we play now. with dobbins out front in that zone, opponents really had to work hard to run their O.

 

[urfan1]

1-3-1 with KF out front?

 

[SpiderK]

1-3-1 with KF out front?

1-3-1 would be tough with bouncing Barney (KF) out front. Where would SDJ be and who would be the other 1 at the rear?

 

[WebSpinner]

heck, a lot of times JB had Jeff myers playing the deep in the paint -1-. have to be creative

 

[urfan1]

One school of thought with 1-3-1 when you have a "small" is to put him under the basket -- ie second 1. He can get the most help there.

 

[fan2011]

The style has gotten us to the sweet 16, it is at least good enough for that. Players need to execute it properly for it to work.

 

[MrTbone]

Not really apples to apples Beilein spent four of those years in the CAA a one bid league.

Apples to oranges agreed, but Tarrant was in the CAA and he got 5 bids in 12 years I think. So obviously you can win repeatedly in the CAA. Why didn't belie in? System? If so, why does he get different reverence than CM? He was clearly more adaptable, and is arguably a better x/o coach, but his results with his system weren't appreciably different in ncaa trips.

As for the D difference, fair point. I guess I think of it as a relatively uncommon defense, hence the comparison.

Objectively, there is quite a bit of similarity in those styles as it relates to dependence on perimeter shooting and the kind of players you recruit for it.

 

[Eight Legger]

Beilein would have had a second bid if the CAA hadn't screwed us that last year in the league. And he basically inherited an all-senior team his first year, so he had a bit of a rebuild for a year or two after that.

 

[urfan1]

he inherited a senior team that had enjoyed little success

 

[MolivaManiac]

This is probably my biggest concern about the Mooney regime overall. When we had our best stockpile of players, we got routed in the NCAA both times. We got pushed around by St Mary's and then by Kansas because we play such a soft style of basketball.

I don't want to diminish our Sweet 16 but lets be honest. We greatly benefitted from Morehead State upsetting Louisville. Yes, that's the way the NCAA tourney works but in 4 ncaa games, we were routed in 2, had a big rally against Vandy led by arguably the greatest player in program history and beat an OVC team.

 

[MrTbone]

This is probably my biggest concern about the Mooney regime overall. When we had our best stockpile of players, we got routed in the NCAA both times. We got pushed around by St Mary's and then by Kansas because we play such a soft style of basketball.

I don't want to diminish our Sweet 16 but lets be honest. We greatly benefitted from Morehead State upsetting Louisville. Yes, that's the way the NCAA tourney works but in 4 ncaa games, we were routed in 2, had a big rally against Vandy led by arguably the greatest player in program history and beat an OVC team.

We do have a relatively thin margin of error it seems, so I agree on this point. I never felt like the Tarrant teams were overly dependent on the three, but my brain was largely clogged with hops and bong resin (minus the bong resin) during that timeframe.

This year was the first year in a long time that I felt like we could compete and might be better by just pounding it inside with TJ and TA. It probably demonstrates at least on offense that the system isn't completely dependent on outside shooting to be productive.

D is another matter. In either case, it demonstrates that the system is really only as good as the guys you have to play it, so I think focus on recruiting is frankly where our weaknesses lie (lay?).

 

[keefusb]

We should go to something like a 1-3-1 more often than we do. We have good players to put at the top, like KF and possibly DB next season. We could put SDJ at the 1 under the basket, or out on a wing. Some teams that run 1-3-1 do put a bigger player under the basket for rebounding, but it all depends on who you can put on the floor.

Should we ever get back to the NCAAs, having some size helps. Opposing bigs have killed us in the NCAAs and OOC over the years, the list is waaay too long to type here, but the astute fans know who they were. Our system, and being in a non P5 conference hurts our ability to recruit quality big men, hence my thought of looking outside the US and Canada for players.

 

[Ulla1]

Kee, agree that is really difficult to compete with the P6 for true big men. However, this might be remedied by having shorter but more athletic guys. This looks to be where we are heading. Obviously Khwan is athletic, but so too are Monte and Nick. The Spiders will be healed faster than some on this board think. Cannot wait to see next season's edition. Roll Spide! OSC

 

[keefusb]

Have heard most of my life that you can't coach size. I tend to think that size is less important in conference, but when you play a tough OOC schedule against P5 programs, and when you hit the NCAA's, we have shown that even with our very best teams (2010 NCAA and 2011 Sweet 16 teams for example), we get killed by superior inside size (Kansas: Morris Twins, Thomas Robinson; St. Mary's: Omar Samhan).

I agree with Mo that our system (CM) and lack of size are something of a ceiling for our program. Right now, I'd be happy for us to be in a post season tourney. period.

 

[Hanca]

Have heard most of my life that you can't coach size. I tend to think that size is less important in conference, but when you play a tough OOC schedule against P5 programs, and when you hit the NCAA's, we have shown that even with our very best teams (2010 NCAA and 2011 Sweet 16 teams for example), we get killed by superior inside size (Kansas: Morris Twins, Thomas Robinson; St. Mary's: Omar Samhan).

I agree with Mo that our system (CM) and lack of size are something of a ceiling for our program. Right now, I'd be happy for us to be in a post season tourney. period.

Its CM's system and his recruits. He is the ceiling.

 

[Captain Anderson]

Kee, agree that is really difficult to compete with the P6 for true big men. However, this might be remedied by having shorter but more athletic guys. This looks to be where we are heading. Obviously Khwan is athletic, but so too are Monte and Nick. The Spiders will be healed faster than some on this board think. Cannot wait to see next season's edition. Roll Spide! OSC

Dayton always seems to have a bunch of 6'6 and 6'7 athletic guys but no real giants inside. I feel like they play way more physical/aggressive than we do in term of competing on the boards and they have become basically the flagship program of the A-10 in terms of NCAA bids every year....although our "friends" from Broad St are certainly entering into the conversation unfortunately.

 

[97spiderfan]

Its CM's system and his recruits. He is the ceiling.

Exactly. While I put much of the blame for the past 5 years largely on our putrid recruiting, our "system" also puts at a strategic disadvantage in some areas. The most significant is the cerebral nature of hoops we play takes the fire out of players.

As I watch these NCAA games, I am continually surprised by the intensity and displays of emotions that players from almost all teams display when they make a big play or need a big play. I'm surprised because I've watched us play all year and rarely if ever saw that from our players.

We really need a demonstratively excitable player on the roster. I hope that is Demonte and I hope Mooney is able to alter his cerebral/detached coaching philosophy to allow us to play with more passion and fire.

 

[72Spider]

Just like rebounding our intensity comes and goes. At times (too few) we have been able to rebound. At times (too few) we have played with real intensity. We certainly played with intensity in the first half of the Fordham A10 Tournament game. But this team lacked the fire in the belly to perform that way on a consistent basis. I agree, am looking forward to DeMonte and his fellow recruits suit it up for the Spiders. I sense a new day is coming.

 

[LongTimeLurkerFirstTimePoster]

re: Have heard most of my life that you can't coach size. I tend to think that size is less important in conference, but when you play a tough OOC schedule against P5 programs, and when you hit the NCAA's, we have shown that even with our very best teams (2010 NCAA and 2011 Sweet 16 teams for example), we get killed by superior inside size (Kansas: Morris Twins, Thomas Robinson; St. Mary's: Omar Samhan).

I agree with Mo that our system (CM) and lack of size are something of a ceiling for our program. Right now, I'd be happy for us to be in a post season tourney. period.


Since Dick Tarrant showed up, when in Richmond hoop history, have we had big men with the size to handle Morris Twins, Robinson and Samhan? The answer is Never. Look at Todd McCullough did to Eric Poole at the Verizon Center in 1998. 24 points 18 rebounds, we got outrebounded 43-20.

 

[SpiderK]

Exactly. While I put much of the blame for the past 5 years largely on our putrid recruiting, our "system" also puts at a strategic disadvantage in some areas. The most significant is the cerebral nature of hoops we play takes the fire out of players.

As I watch these NCAA games, I am continually surprised by the intensity and displays of emotions that players from almost all teams display when they make a big play or need a big play. I'm surprised because I've watched us play all year and rarely if ever saw that from our players.

We really need a demonstratively excitable player on the roster. I hope that is Demonte and I hope Mooney is able to alter his cerebral/detached coaching philosophy to allow us to play with more passion and fire.

We had enough talent on this team to be in the top four of the A-10 the last 4 years. We just didn't for one reason or another. Mostly, injuries, defections, and poor coaching.

 

[SouthJerseySpiderFan]

How different was Beilein's style from what Mooney plays? I would suggest it's not that different. Matchup zone defense, perimeter-oriented offense. More finesse than power. I would wager that not many fans here have/had an issue with that system.

Completely agree both play more finesse style and Beilein gets away with it in the B10 to boot. Though not to get bogged down with stats but here is a comparison of their defensive rebounding average rankings for last 7 years.

Mich 121
UR 282

UR best number was the Sweet 16 team at 218. Mich worst 2 years they ranked 270 and 175. Team records 15-17 and 16-16 respectively.

Of course it's not the end all to winning basketball, but gosh CM the D bounding SUCKS forever and please do something about it.

 

[NewURfan]

Style of play does play a factor in being a consistent NCAA participate.
Fact..no system playing college has won NCAA since real ncaa field expanded to 64
The system turns players into soft perimeter players and not gritty aggressive for rebounding. Defensively the system employs too much emphasis on help switching too much with gimic defenses. Players loose the edge of actually having to dig down deep and guard your guy 1 on 1 putting the weight on having to stop or contest harder. It takes the pride out of individualy locking down your guy. Thus our system attracts big guys who just wanna shoot threes wing guys who shoot threes that don't bang guards who have no pressure of being primary ball handler and floor general the assignments are all shared with anyone on the floor. No ownership

So why would a star individual wanna come to UR where it's not open to feeding the big down low in his sweet spot or wing players iso on wing or a scoring guard who needs back in hands all game to actually run the team?