ADVERTISEMENT

UR's identity

S

SpiderTrap

Graduate Assistant
Nov 6, 2007
6,150
2,196
113
What is the identity of UR basketball this season? Who are the Spiders in an overall sense.

In my mind - we are a team that is heavily reliant on our all-league guard - to score 20 a night and lead us to victory. We need Anthony to shoot well from 3, drive to the basket for some 2's and get fouled to shoot free throws, and create for others to help them get open shots.

We are not a very good shooting team. Mooney's offense is built from the outside in. Meaning - we need to knock down shots, and make people afraid of us out there to allow for better driving lanes for our two sub 5-10 guards, and make life easier for our big men - who are very limited in the post.

We have no consistency on offense - our three main scorers are Anthony, ShawnDre, and Cline. Both ShawnDre and Cline have been erratic this season so far and Anthony has had his ups and downs. Outside of them - there is very little support.

Defense - I think our defense is playing well this season. Call it a product of our offense running down the shot clock or having better sense of chemistry on defense or just better defenders, but overall - we are 28th in the country giving up only about 58 points a night. That is pretty good. Unfortunatley - our offense usually hits long cold spells each game and we have trouble scoring 55 a night.

Rebounding is the same old same old. We don't rebound well - but that is just highlighted extra this year because of our lack of shooting. In the past - we gave up offensive rebounds and 2 pointers, but made a 3 on the other end to compensate. This year - without shooters and with us using the clock on offense more, those offensive rebounds we give up become extremely valuable.

We are a team that will go as far as Anthony can take us. If he gets back on track and can score 20 a night and lead us (asking a lot, I know) then we can maybe still finish 4th or 5th in the league. Otherwise - we will be a 7-9 team in the league who is inconsistent.
 
Our identity is a mid pack A10 team that's pretty poorly constructed. It isn't a huge mystery and doesn't require extraordinary analysis.
 
Originally posted by SpiderTrap:
What is the identity of UR basketball this season? Who are the Spiders in an overall sense.

We have no consistency on offense - our three main scorers are Anthony, ShawnDre, and Cline. Both ShawnDre and Cline have been erratic this season so far and Anthony has had his ups and downs. Outside of them - there is very little support.
Click to expand...
Trap,

I would agree with almost everything you listed. I would temper one thought - For the most part I would not label Cline as "erratic". My feeling is that on balance (with the exception of a very few games), he has been consistent and a major contributor.

I have become a big fan of his. He's a great outside shooter for a 4 or 5 and is willing to take the ball to the hoop. We are lucky to have him. Without him, I'm willing to bet we'd have 2 or 3 more losses.

He is a guy that can score 20 a game if he gets minutes & takes a few more shots. The rest of this year and his next 2 years should be a pleasure to follow.

This post was edited on 1/16 2:52 PM by SpiderGuy
 
I agree - I think Cline will be a very good player for UR going forward. I originally thought going into this year it might take him until conference play to hit his stride. To almost shake the rust from his redshirt year, but even then - at most I saw him as maybe a 10 point a night guy and 4-5 rebounds.

His last 4 games I think show what he can do.

In those games - all A10 games too - so the competition is not weak - he is avg. 13.5 points, 4 rebounds, 53% from 3 and 60% overall. I expect those shooting percentages to drop down to normal levels, but looks like he could be a 40% from 3 and 50% overall type shooter when taking good shots. His defense needs improvement, but that is nothing new for most young players. He needs to learn how to play smart on defense and use his size and length to stay out of foul trouble because of his lack of athleticism and speed. He doesn't have to be the best defender on the team, but he can't be a liability. I think he will get there over time and improve.
 
Originally posted by SpiderTrap:
I agree - I think Cline will be a very good player for UR going forward. I originally thought going into this year it might take him until conference play to hit his stride. To almost shake the rust from his redshirt year, but even then - at most I saw him as maybe a 10 point a night guy and 4-5 rebounds.

His last 4 games I think show what he can do.

In those games - all A10 games too - so the competition is not weak - he is avg. 13.5 points, 4 rebounds, 53% from 3 and 60% overall. I expect those shooting percentages to drop down to normal levels, but looks like he could be a 40% from 3 and 50% overall type shooter when taking good shots. His defense needs improvement, but that is nothing new for most young players. He needs to learn how to play smart on defense and use his size and length to stay out of foul trouble because of his lack of athleticism and speed. He doesn't have to be the best defender on the team, but he can't be a liability. I think he will get there over time and improve.
Click to expand...
Agree. Defense needs improvement, and I hope the coaches work with him on this.

His offensive is really good. One other thing I'm seeing - he seems to pass up shots on occasion. Maybe he's lured into the "let's make yet one more pass thing" that seems to be a big part of the CM offense. If I'm coaching, and given the fact that TJ is one of the 2 best shooters on the team, I'd be trying to amp up his number of shots taken per game. His % is good...so we have to assume that he's going to make more points...especially considering that we have few other options.

This post was edited on 1/16 3:00 PM by SpiderGuy
 
I would say this year's Spiders remind of the 2006 Super Bowl Losing Bears--all defense no offense.
 
Originally posted by SpiderFan:
I would say this year's Spiders remind of the 2006 Super Bowl Losing Bears--all defense no offense.
Click to expand...
Except UR's good defense is a bit of a fallacy (as discussed in a thread last week). Opponent scoring in total points is relatively low because UR holds the ball a long time and both teams get few possessions. If you look at scoring allowed per possession (a truer measure of defense), UR is very average.
 
Richmond has a pretty average defense this year, we hold teams to .988 points per possession (138th in the country.) Last year we held teams to .992 points per possession, but that was good for 58th in the country at the time. Of course if you adjust for our opponents' offense our rankings are actually better (2015: 91st best, 2014: 48th best)
 
Yep. Prior to the A-10 games, we were almost exactly average defensively among the 355 D1 teams. We have seemed to be a little better defensively in 3 of the 4 league games, at least by the eye test, but I don't know what the stats bear out. I thought we did a good job denying the ball last night, but obviously a bad job boxing out and defensive rebounding.
 
I love stats including hmmm........rebounding stats (a bad subject for U of R fans), but in the end it's wins & losses that matters.
 
Don't rebound well?? Lol. We don't rebound at all, just sometimes it falls into one of our players hands.
 
I think Terry Allen is the wild card for the rest of the year and next year. He can be a real player, but just won't do it. That kid should dominate the mediocre teams we are playing this year. Can't figure out why he is aggressive some nights and no shows on other nights. ANO should easily have 8 points and 8 rebounds a game also. This team is built to rebound and kick out to the small shooters, but coaches don't recognize it.
 
Yes it must be, but I did see rebounding on TV and it looks like a promising new innovation to the game.
 
Saw replay of Mooney's radio show last night. They took questions from the audience and one of the questions was about rebounding. CM reiterated his views on offensive rebounding suggesting that was more important to get back to stop fast breaks by opponent.
 
Gotta be confusing to players, especially in a fast paced game. Do I rebound or not? I have seen players almost avoid the ball that coming right in their direction. It's just not natural to not want to go after a ball that's coming your way and for that reason I think it carries over to offense.
 
I just don't get it...straight out of Mooney's mouth.
For as long as I can remember in basketball terms, and that's awhile, you have 2 guards and 3 big men on the floor.
When a shot is taken guards drop back and big men crash the boards.
Unless a guard drives then it's the responsibility of one of the bigs furthest from the rim to rotate back.
Put a body on somebody, block out, then go for the ball. Every ball. (Our coach used drill into us...Ball You Man. If it's Ball Man You, you are in deep you know what and will be on the bench.)
Rebounding 101.
This subject has been discussed and analyzed here in nauseating detail for several years now and its fruitless.
Our Coach does not emphasize rebounding, one of the most basic and important fundamentals of the game. The more shots you take, the less accurate you have to be. The fewer shots they take, the fewer points they score. Value the ball.
There is no hope on this issue unless he changes philosophy and emphasis.
This post was edited on 1/17 9:40 AM by 8legs
 
Originally posted by 72Spider:
Saw replay of Mooney's radio show last night. They took questions from the audience and one of the questions was about rebounding. CM reiterated his views on offensive rebounding suggesting that was more important to get back to stop fast breaks by opponent.
Click to expand...
I referred to this before as a prevent defense used in football. I remember couple years ago Seattle took the lead on Atlanta in football playoff game. With very little time left on game clock Seattle went prevent defense. Atlanta takes kickoff, then throws a couple down field passes against the prevent defense, kicks a field goal, and wins the game.

I just don't buy CM's strategy on rebounding. We get beat enough times on fast breaks that I'd "roll the dice" & actually let the guys try to get offensive rebounds. Giving up chances for offensive rebounds is a real opportunity cost. If you look at the teams (example - GW), and what the results pay back on offensive rebounding, it seems we're on the negative side of things. Do we really prevent more fast breaks than the foregone 2nd chance points via rebounding opportunities by saying "no" to offensive rebounding?

Just don't get the entire rebounding strategy CM employs. If you have guys that are 6'7" and above, let them bang the boards. Maybe that's just some "old school strategy" that U of R sees as outdated, or the staff thinks that the CM rebounding philosophy is a better option. IMHO it's adding to losses...especially when we shoot poorly.
 
SpiderGuy,
Agree with what you say and would just point out you don't have to be 6'7" to be a good rebounder.
 
Originally posted by Spiderbymarriage:
Originally posted by SpiderFan:
I would say this year's Spiders remind of the 2006 Super Bowl Losing Bears--all defense no offense.
Click to expand...
Except UR's good defense is a bit of a fallacy (as discussed in a thread last week). Opponent scoring in total points is relatively low because UR holds the ball a long time and both teams get few possessions. If you look at scoring allowed per possession (a truer measure of defense), UR is very average.
Click to expand...
Agree. Its a good defense, but it isn't awesome
 
Good question for Mooney........do you have stats that prove your "theory" that you give up less points by retreating in a prevent defense instead of rebounding. Good rebounding teams also practice fast break outlet passes and I would guess that we give up more points to fast breaks and second chance points than we prevent by retreating. Good example was the GW game with their 18 points off of put backs. If we had just gotten half of those rebounds that's 10 points prevented.
I know it's hopeless and I'm preaching to the choir but it is therapeutic to vent.
 
Originally posted by 8legs:
SpiderGuy,
Agree with what you say and would just point out you don't have to be 6'7" to be a good rebounder.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed your prior post re: rebounding.

I also agree with the above quoted post. I was just using the 6'7" size to basically imply sending the big guys to the board and letting the guards hang back. But that's not going to happen. We send 6'10" inch guys back instead of...just maybe...taking the chance to get an offensive rebounding and actually scoring. Just think - one more offensive rebound in regulation with a put back would have won the game for us at GW.

I just checked ESPN, and that site has us overall at 348 rating for rebounds per game. I can't see any rationalization that in the short term, intermediate term, nor long term that can produce a winning strategy and that is acceptable. With that performance, a team has to more than make up for it in other categories. Does it happen for us - sometimes, but not enough to consistently overcome the downside.
 
I think our identity to the rest of the world is as a methodical, disciplined team that takes care of the ball, and plays defense better than average (but not great like UVA), but plays pretty mediocre offense, and doesn't rebound worth a damn.

At least that's how we seem to appear to my friends and family who follow college hoops.
 
Originally posted by 64Spider:
Good question for Mooney........do you have stats that prove your "theory" that you give up less points by retreating in a prevent defense instead of rebounding. Good rebounding teams also practice fast break outlet passes and I would guess that we give up more points to fast breaks and second chance points than we prevent by retreating. Good example was the GW game with their 18 points off of put backs. If we had just gotten half of those rebounds that's 10 points prevented.
I know it's hopeless and I'm preaching to the choir but it is therapeutic to vent.
Click to expand...
You are asking the right question, and it's a very difficult hypothesis to prove or disprove statistically.

Richmond averages 6.5 ORB per game. The 175th ranked team (NCAA median) in offensive rebounds per game is Troy, with 11.0 per game. West Virginia is tops with 18.0 ORB per game. If you assume Richmond would be an AVERAGE rebounding team under a different system, we'd get 4.5 additional offensive rebounds per game. I'd definitely accept the risk of fewer guys back in exchange for those rebounds. (And as others have pointed out, rebounding is a mentality, so more offensive rebounding could also yield improvements on the defensive end.)

This "no offensive rebounding" system probably makes sense if your team has inferior athletes (e.g. Princeton). Our guys are athletic enough to get back, so I once again it seems like the system is misfit to the players. (By the way, there are 5 teams that rank worse than Richmond in offensive rebounds per game D1 bball -- and one of them is Princeton.)
 
What's more embarrassing to a team, 1 or 2 breakaway dunks or 10 or 12 easy stick backs a game because you don't rebound?
 
64, this is what I have wondered too. We seem to be one of the few teams in the nation that employs this strategy of getting back at all costs to defend the fast break. But other teams don't seem to give up a ton of fast-break points, do they? I don't understand the fear of us giving those up. There really aren't even a ton of teams that look to push it up the court that quickly all the time.

I bet if we allowed 5 more opportunities for fast-break points a game by staying back to rebound better, the other team might take advantage and push it upcourt on 3 of them. The other two they might just get the ball to their point guard and set up their offense. (That's just my observation from watching college basketball and based on nothing statistically.)

An interesting exercise would be to note the times that we clearly send no one to rebound so that we can get back on D, then see how often the opponent ends up scoring on us anyway. I bet the percentage is not a great one for us.
 
Which strategy do we follow that makes us a bad defensive rebounding team too?
 
Fan 2 your upbeat attitude is positive and/or delusional. Unfortunately I think the coaching staff
shares your unbridled optimism. They are just going to continue to do the same things knowing that the miracle
is going to begin right after the next game.


Good effort by the guys Thursday. I hope we'll see the same tonight with a full
house watching.
 
Coach Mooney likes to be known as defense first. He gets a lot of press and praise by supposedly fielding "one of the best defensive teams in the country" on a year-by-year basis.

As others have said, the eye test says that the UR defense is not much better than any other. If a team truly was head and shoulders above it's competitors, lock down defenders, I strongly suspect that their won/lost percentage would exceed 55%.

It seems that the Richmond defensive philosophy revolves around several key pieces:
1) Methodical play - strategy clearly impacts how many opportunities the opposing team has to score
2) Low turnover ratio (which is a good thing) but again limits the opposing team's chances to score
3) Get back, prevent easy fast break buckets- this is where the no offensive rebounding component comes into play.
Everybody back 1st philosophy
4) Match up defense - Confuse the opponent. Lengthens the time that it takes the offense to score, therefore
again limiting possessions and opportunity.

One can interpret the results of this defensive strategy in any way that they choose. Seems like statistical manipulation; fools gold to some.

I do not care how it is done, just score 1 more point than your opponent each game and you get the "W"
 
Originally posted by 64Spider:
Good question for Mooney........do you have stats that prove your "theory" that you give up less points by retreating in a prevent defense instead of rebounding. Good rebounding teams also practice fast break outlet passes and I would guess that we give up more points to fast breaks and second chance points than we prevent by retreating. Good example was the GW game with their 18 points off of put backs. If we had just gotten half of those rebounds that's 10 points prevented.
I know it's hopeless and I'm preaching to the choir but it is therapeutic to vent.
Click to expand...
I just looked into this. It looks like 13% of our opponents possession are shots within 10s of them getting a rebound or us scoring. These are the possession we try to limit with our fall-back strategy. The average in the A10 is giving up 16% of these types of possessions, so we do reduce the number of easy fast break buckets. In the course of an average Richmond game of 60 possessions this means we give up 1 less fast break than the average A10 team would.

I haven't run the rebounding numbers but if rebounding on offense instead of falling back would lead to more than 2 points then it would probably be more beneficial to try to rebound.
 
I've learned to live with the lack of O rebounding from Spiders. It's the poor D rebounding that upsets all of us. Giving easy 2nd chance shots to opponents simply leads to losses, particularly when you've had so many close heartbreakers like we've had this season. Until this coaching staff starts believing that you're not playing good D UNLESS you rebound the ball the 1st time, we still won't see a lot of good boxing out and strong 2-hand grabs. We can dream, though!
 
Seabiscuit was born on 1/16. She does not finish running until late April!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S

Football to Patriot League. Should basketball and rest of sports be concerned?

Replies
39
Views
1K
UR Basketball Board
spiderstudent17
spiderstudent17
spider23

Last Spot?

Replies
9
Views
695
UR Basketball Board
spider23
spider23
spider23

Guards

Replies
17
Views
1K
UR Basketball Board
Eight Legger
Eight Legger
spider23

Around the A10 - SLU

Replies
2
Views
379
UR Basketball Board
spiderman
spiderman
mojo-spider

Richmond 79 VCU 76 - Spiders Avenge Loss...Outplay the Rams

Replies
3
Views
1K
UR Basketball Board
urfan1
urfan1
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back