Teams
Forum List
Toggle sidebar

Statistically what went wrong last night

kg-cyclone said:
That was by design...difference between defensive and offensive rebounding...Plus we were concerned with Clemente getting out in transition and rightfully so..
Click to expand...

So it took the whole team to guard Clemente? Sad. That probably just points to the fact that since we cannot score, we must play defense the whole game. Sad.
 
yoteforever said:
There is a very fine line between winning and losing. There are times when that line looks like it is miles away, and there are times when it looks like we are ready to cross it.

I am going to cite observations and not statistics, although going 1-16 last night in a key portion of the game was a killer. Starting with guard play, I think DG honestly gives it all he has. But DG is so much slower than the average Big12 or D-I guards. Many times when he attempts to dribble penetrate, the hands of those guarding him and those giving ball side help swat it away, and he loses possession. I will give him kudo's for many times he is capable of setting up his opponent and getting by him for a layup, but the risk/reward with that seems to be awfully high.

That being said, DG is the best guard we have. We desperately need another point guard, and a shooting guard as well. Petie plays hard, no one can fault him for that, but he just doesn't have the physical tools it takes to compete in the Big 12 night after night.

Brackens is one heck of a player, and getting better. Craig not only is good, he plays hard night after night. Maybe his stats don't always show his talent, but boy is he good. He is in my opinion the most improved player and maybe the MVP of the BIg 12. He hustles, and he wants to win. He isn't out there for himself, that is seen in his face. We are very fortunate to have Craig.

Hamilton is getting better, but I would venture to guess, and I hope I am wrong, that he will get to a certain point and probably level off. He isn't very quick, and his vertical is somewhat limited. Saturday in the game against OU, twice I saw a ball come off the rim towards him high, and he jumped for it, but Griffin was behind him and literally was a foot higher than him. Hamilton had him boxed out, he just physically can't jump as high.

Lucca is a good kid. He just can't find that shooting touch, and I think an awful lot of that has to do with hands in his face or defenders bodying up against him. Not very often does he have a free range to fire. When he does, I like his odds. But rarely is he uncontested.

We just don't have any difference makers. I feel bad for Mac because of all the circumstances that have happened since he came, and I won't discuss that because it has been bantered around before in here. But it is too bad. But the bottom line is this group of kids collectively right now don't think they can win. I feel if they could get a couple of wins in a row, and steal one on the road somewhere, it might cause the mental turnaround it is going to take to get back in this thing. Confidence is a huge thing. When you have it, you are almost invincible. When you don't, you start believing the worst is going to happen to you.

In closing, I will say this. I rarely post because I don't offer much else to discuss, but I would implore the true Cyclone fans not to give up on this team. I would rather have Coach Mac then Frank Martin any day of the week. If that's what it takes to win, then give me average teams. I am offended by that guys way of coaching, and I sure as heck wouldn't want to take my 10 year old son to a game and sit behind him, or alot of other coaches in this league. Mac is a good man. He has won before, and he will win again. He needs to ctach a break, and he needs to recruit a couple of impact players. The thing about basketball, unlike football, is 2-3 kids can change the entire aura of a team.

I will back this team no matter what. If you are on here and being critical but never have played college sports, step back and ask yourself if you personally could do what you are asking others to do, even if God gave you the talent. It's easy to complain, but it's another to find resolve and fix it.

Good luck Mac and this years Clones.
Click to expand...
Seriously, wish I had the time to read this.
 
GeronimusClone said:
If I ddin't know the difference i would let you beat me to death. The fact that it is by design to not get offensive rebounds is why I think the offense is a joke. I assumed by my post you'd know I was referring to offensive boards alone.
Click to expand...

kg-cyclone said:
I've said from the start of the season that we are not a good rebounding team...If we are not a good rebounding team on defense; what makes people think that sending more guys for an offensive rebound is a good idea against a transition team? I don't mind the talk of getting out coached, but I would like to see reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...
 
Wesley said:
So it took the whole team to guard Clemente? Sad. That probably just points to the fact that since we cannot score, we must play defense the whole game. Sad.
Click to expand...

Clemente and the guys trailing him...Yes

Sad or not that's what we were dealing with.
 
kg-cyclone said:
True, but I thought they were aggressive mistakes though...Which I can live with from a freshman with few minutes.
Click to expand...

Me too. I've been openly campaigning for Buck to get more minutes all season. Our offense is extremely tough to watch and I'd welcome any change that could add some versatility.
 
GeronimusClone said:
If I ddin't know the difference i would let you beat me to death. The fact that it is by design to not get offensive rebounds is why I think the offense is a joke. I assumed by my post you'd know I was referring to offensive boards alone.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But it's also a joke if you design a scheme that sends all 5 players to the glass to attempt to get the rebounded and you end up getting outrebounded anyway, leaving the court wide open for the transition. Always a dangerous proposition, but especially dangerous against a team like K-State that is so strong in the running game. If you know throwing more bodies at the glass isn't going to significantly change the outcome, better to defend something you can affect - in this case, K-State's transition game. We did a good job of that for about 35 minutes last night.
 
jdoggivjc said:
Maybe. But it's also a joke if you design a scheme that sends all 5 players to the glass to attempt to get the rebounded and you end up getting outrebounded anyway, leaving the court wide open for the transition. Always a dangerous proposition, but especially dangerous against a team like K-State that is so strong in the running game. If you know throwing more bodies at the glass isn't going to significantly change the outcome, better to defend something you can affect - in this case, K-State's transition game. We did a good job of that for about 35 minutes last night.
Click to expand...

Exactly...If we could make a damn shot that would also help.
 
kg-cyclone said:
I've said from the start of the season that we are not a good rebounding team...If we are not a good rebounding team on defense; what makes people think that sending more guys for an offense rebound is a good idea against a transition team? I don't mind the talk of getting out coached, but I would like to see reasoning behind it.
Click to expand...

Because when a team doesn't get offensive rebounds, they miss out on easy points, which results in poor shooting %, which results in 50-point games in the Big-12, which results in losses.

ISU had 11 offensive rebounds and 14 second chance points against OU, the #2 team in the country, and OU didn't run ISU out of the gym. According to the box score, OU had zero fast break points (maybe that's an error). Then, because ISU is apparently afraid of the transition game of an unranked team, ISU goes to KSU and can manage only 5 offensive rebounds and 0 second chance points.

If you do something and it works out well against the #2 team in the country, maybe you should give it a try against and unranked team, instead of just assuming it won't work. Try crashing the offensive boards for a few minutes. If it doesn't work, you can always make a gametime adjustment and stop. Or try it in spots...keep the opposition guessing, instead of being completely predictable.

It's not unheard of to have several different strategies for a game. Whatever happened to "prove it to me"? Make KSU prove that they have an awesome transition game. If they show, then go to plan B.
 
Last edited:
jbhtexas said:
Because when a team doesn't get offensive rebounds, they miss out on easy points, which results in poor shooting %, which results in 50-point games in the Big-12, which results in losses.

ISU had 11 offensive rebounds and 14 second chance points against OU, the #2 team in the country, and OU didn't run ISU out of the gym. Then, because ISU is apparently afraid of the transition game of an unranked team, ISU goes to KSU and can manage only 5 offensive rebounds and 0 second chance points.

If you do something and it works out well against the #2 team in the country, maybe you should give it a try against and unranked team, instead of just assuming it won't work. Try crashing the boards for a few minutes. If it doesn't work, you can always make a gametime adjustment and stop. Or try it in spots...keep the opposition guessing, instead of being completely predictable.
Click to expand...

Different team...OU pounds it inside and kicks out for the three.
 
I just can't imagine a situation in where you need to send four guys as soon as the shot is launched. Even two/three guys should be able to slow it enough if the other guys are hustling back as soon as the rebound is secured. I guess we just weren't confindent enough in our hustle.
 
cybsball20 said:
I just can't imagine a situation in where you need to send four guys as soon as the shot is launched. Even two/three guys should be able to slow it enough if the other guys are hustling back as soon as the rebound is secured. I guess we just weren't confindent enough in our hustle.
Click to expand...

Might have an argument there...but it comes back to being slow and how much difference is it going to make sending two guys to rebound instead of one?
 
jdoggivjc said:
Maybe. But it's also a joke if you design a scheme that sends all 5 players to the glass to attempt to get the rebounded and you end up getting outrebounded anyway, leaving the court wide open for the transition. Always a dangerous proposition, but especially dangerous against a team like K-State that is so strong in the running game. If you know throwing more bodies at the glass isn't going to significantly change the outcome, better to defend something you can affect - in this case, K-State's transition game. We did a good job of that for about 35 minutes last night.
Click to expand...
So send zero? Two extremes here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Help Support Us

Become a patron
Top Bottom
Back