cincyguy13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,633
I have no idea why he came in the last two minutes. The play wasn’t even designed for him. It was odd
@SMU
- Thread starter sedziobs
- Start date
Help Support BearcatTalk:
I have no idea why he came in the last two minutes. The play wasn’t even designed for him. It was odd
cincyguy13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,633
We should be used to ugly wins by now.
This game was different from the start. Even with turnovers it looked like a different team. The effort was 40 minutes. Williams and Dejulius struggled shooting most of game.
Davenport earned his starting role. Eason affects the game with his hands in many ways. MAW showed up. Harvey looked good. Mason was fun to watch.
Vogt. Awful! Dou...not very good. Mikey not much.
Davenport earned his starting role. Eason affects the game with his hands in many ways. MAW showed up. Harvey looked good. Mason was fun to watch.
Vogt. Awful! Dou...not very good. Mikey not much.
I liked some things about this game, especially the spacing and passing. Davenport continues to play well. The shooting masked a lot though. SMU missed a ton of wide open threes, and we actually shot well for a change. Our turnover and defense problems didn't go anywhere. Even without Vogt, we still allowed lots of dunks and layups. The 7 blocks were nice to see though.
The offense looked more like the 5 out motion that we saw the first few games last year. I'm sure that's what Brannen wants to run all the time. A rim protecting big who is a good passer would really help this team. Eason had a couple of assists, and Vogt's turnover was a back door attempt from the top. We posted Williams a few times. DeJulius, Williams, and Harvey are effective slashers with the middle vacated, and if Davenport and MAW are hitting threes we can really score with that style.
Good to see Mason get in for a bit. Saunders with 3 turnovers in 6 minutes. He's talented but way out of control right now and a poor shooter. I'm optimistic about him turning into a Jenifer type though.
I still don't really like DeJulius pulling down 9 defensive rebounds. We were much better pushing the pace tonight without Vogt out there, but I would much rather see a big or Williams (who can really use his athleticism on the glass) grab the board and immediately pass to DeJulius at half court. Eason, Vogt, Diarra, and Williams had 9 combined defensive rebounds in 78 minutes. DeJulius matched that in 34. To really become an elite transition team, which I'm sure Brannen wants, we've got to embrace the outlet pass.
The offense looked more like the 5 out motion that we saw the first few games last year. I'm sure that's what Brannen wants to run all the time. A rim protecting big who is a good passer would really help this team. Eason had a couple of assists, and Vogt's turnover was a back door attempt from the top. We posted Williams a few times. DeJulius, Williams, and Harvey are effective slashers with the middle vacated, and if Davenport and MAW are hitting threes we can really score with that style.
Good to see Mason get in for a bit. Saunders with 3 turnovers in 6 minutes. He's talented but way out of control right now and a poor shooter. I'm optimistic about him turning into a Jenifer type though.
I still don't really like DeJulius pulling down 9 defensive rebounds. We were much better pushing the pace tonight without Vogt out there, but I would much rather see a big or Williams (who can really use his athleticism on the glass) grab the board and immediately pass to DeJulius at half court. Eason, Vogt, Diarra, and Williams had 9 combined defensive rebounds in 78 minutes. DeJulius matched that in 34. To really become an elite transition team, which I'm sure Brannen wants, we've got to embrace the outlet pass.
He had two fouls and a turnover
TheRealMick
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2018
- Messages
- 1,016
bro we haven’t embraced outlet pass since Satterfield. That’s a skill I’m starting to see only best of best gets. Now guys just so in hurry get the ball, they don’t think about court spacing and where to be at all times.
cincyguy13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,633
There is still going to be issues with this roster. It far from a finished product. That takes years. I think it took mick till the last couple years when he was here, to truly get to where he wanted to get. But you can at least see a glimpse of what he’s trying to do. And see some of of talent he’s brought in a short period of time,
I actually thought Diarra had a pretty good game. He played defense, rebounded and didn't turn the ball over. He didn't really do anything on offense, but he doesn't need to in order to impact the game. He is our best big at cutting off drives and rim protection.
Even though our bigs didn't put up great rebounding numbers, I think they still deserve some of the credit for rebounding. When you play undersized, the big may not get the ball, but if they get a tip that gets the ball on the ground and gives the guards the chance to rebound (and guards have the advantage once the ball is on the floor), they should get some credit. I thought Eason, Diarra and even Vogt all did pretty well at getting tips on rebounds.
If Brannen would stop putting Vogt in the game, I'd be a lot happier with his coaching. Brannen basically spotted SMU 7 points the first time he put Vogt in, before he finally got Vogt back out. Then he still put him back in in the 2nd half. Vogt playing - especially against an athletic, driving team like SMU - is a baffling coaching decision.
Eason had a nice game at the 5 and we also had a nice run with Diarra at the 5 and Eason at the 4. Eason played better in the 2nd half, first half he tried to do too much on offense. Just defend, rebound and take easy dunks (and wide open shots).
Davenport is probably the team MVP at this point of the season. Does a little bit of everything and does it all pretty well.
Even though our bigs didn't put up great rebounding numbers, I think they still deserve some of the credit for rebounding. When you play undersized, the big may not get the ball, but if they get a tip that gets the ball on the ground and gives the guards the chance to rebound (and guards have the advantage once the ball is on the floor), they should get some credit. I thought Eason, Diarra and even Vogt all did pretty well at getting tips on rebounds.
If Brannen would stop putting Vogt in the game, I'd be a lot happier with his coaching. Brannen basically spotted SMU 7 points the first time he put Vogt in, before he finally got Vogt back out. Then he still put him back in in the 2nd half. Vogt playing - especially against an athletic, driving team like SMU - is a baffling coaching decision.
Eason had a nice game at the 5 and we also had a nice run with Diarra at the 5 and Eason at the 4. Eason played better in the 2nd half, first half he tried to do too much on offense. Just defend, rebound and take easy dunks (and wide open shots).
Davenport is probably the team MVP at this point of the season. Does a little bit of everything and does it all pretty well.
I feel bad for Vogt and Rap but it's pretty clear they don't fit the system. I am sure Brannen is questioning those decisions. Moreso Rap I guess as Vogt was not originally meant to be a starter.
That small lineup looked great. Our ball movement was much better. Quicker decisions on passing and some extra passes got us some great looks and set shots and I think that really helped our %. I hope it was not an anomaly and we built some confidence up. This game should be a catalyst
That small lineup looked great. Our ball movement was much better. Quicker decisions on passing and some extra passes got us some great looks and set shots and I think that really helped our %. I hope it was not an anomaly and we built some confidence up. This game should be a catalyst
cincyguy13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,633
I think Vogt was brought in as a backup originally. I don’t think he was ever a long term answer but when he played well the first half of last year, I think brannen might have thought he had something. But the teams have seemed to figure him out and he doesn’t really have other moves. Rap was a miss. I thought he’d be better than he was. He really struggled
The small lineup looks like a completely different team. Not perfect, but fun and we get the young guys experience. It opened up the floor a lot. We could run. How many break away layups did we have? A lot, you’d never see that with cronin. I’m not say either way is right or wrong, just there are other ways to win games. I understand it’s 1 game
Last edited:
cincyguy13
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 4,633
If we can win Sunday, we have some very winnable games coming up. Could build some confidence
I'm not knocking our bigs. Defensive rebounding is a team thing, and we did it well tonight. But the situation you're describing isn't that common. DeJulius didn't pick 9 rebounds off the floor. He got 9 rebounds because he sticks around looking for them. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, I'm just promoting a different philosophy.
I'd prefer our big athletes to stay in the paint for the rebound, and the point guard to get in position to receive a pass at half court. If the other team wants to crash the offensive glass, they will get torched in transition.
This is how most NBA teams that don't have Russell Westbrook operate.
TheRealMick
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2018
- Messages
- 1,016
It’s like coach decided he didn’t never like mick type of C’s so he had it programmed he wanted C with a little offense. Can’t blame him but you at least need to be able rebound or defend. If we can get 2 out of 3 from our bigs make lay ups/dunks, defend, or rebound we’ll be in good shape. I wish we get some real bigs next year because Davenport and Eason go be nightmares in wing when then get chance play their real positions!
TheRealMick
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2018
- Messages
- 1,016
It’s old school bball champ. It’s simple a lost art. Remember caupain and jenifer use run to paint get ball then look over at Mick for play, it totally opens court and changes game when you look for outlet passes. Lavar ball has this down to science and probably one of main reasons he had 2 top 3 nba draft picks at PG. His boys either throw outlet pass or receive outlet pass every time. It’s little simple things you can do overcome roster limitations.
I don't know that we have to use players of a certain height on the interior. Many teams are playing with lineups that top out around 6'8" or so. I mean Hicks was in the 6'6" range. I know Tari doesn't want to play the 5 for long otherwise I would just put some muscle weight on him and play him at the 5.
Either way this team is better with a small lineup on both sides of the ball so that makes it easy. We could get abused inside some days but the total product should be better.
I continue to have trouble believing that Vogt wasn't meant to be a starter (or at least get significant minutes). If that is true, why did Brannen recruit so many guys with the same body type (Vogt, Sorolla, Rap, Lakhin). I also have trouble believing that Nsoseme would have left had he been told he'd be the starter.
It also doesn't explain Brannen's dedication to playing Vogt. Diarra was outplaying Vogt at the end of last season, he outplayed Vogt last night. But who has been given every possible chance this season, was the first off the bench last night? Who played more second half minutes? Vogt. Look at how much longer of a leash Rap was given than Diarra.
To me it seems that Brannen has had trouble understanding the level of athleticism required from a big to play at this level and also in his system. It doesn't make much sense because guys like Vogt also don't seem to fit into his "94 feet both ways" philosophy. It does seem like he is slowly changing. But it also seems like Brannen being very slow to adjust is a theme.
The smaller lineup (and the Diarra + Eason lineup) did quite well, we may struggle against bigger teams (WSU being one of them). Hopefully Brannen has finally learned the lesson that Vogt doesn't belong on the floor.
It also doesn't explain Brannen's dedication to playing Vogt. Diarra was outplaying Vogt at the end of last season, he outplayed Vogt last night. But who has been given every possible chance this season, was the first off the bench last night? Who played more second half minutes? Vogt. Look at how much longer of a leash Rap was given than Diarra.
To me it seems that Brannen has had trouble understanding the level of athleticism required from a big to play at this level and also in his system. It doesn't make much sense because guys like Vogt also don't seem to fit into his "94 feet both ways" philosophy. It does seem like he is slowly changing. But it also seems like Brannen being very slow to adjust is a theme.
The smaller lineup (and the Diarra + Eason lineup) did quite well, we may struggle against bigger teams (WSU being one of them). Hopefully Brannen has finally learned the lesson that Vogt doesn't belong on the floor.
TheRealMick
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2018
- Messages
- 1,016
It’s basically a free year anyway! I want Davenport and Eason in post now against bigger guys. In 2/3 years hopefully they’ll be to strong handle on wings and too explosive for bigs. Get me 2 rim protectors and couple shooters to mix in with this group. It’s not hard to accomplish in one offseason.
TheRealMick
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2018
- Messages
- 1,016
Skyblade, I love dou also and you called out Brannen for playing Vogt last year EARLY! You get hella credit for seeing that. For love of all of us, PLEASE stop with promoting our boy as all conference. He just doesn’t get it brother and it’s time move on from him if he doesn’t progress as season goes along. 25+min his for taken right now let’s see if he takes them. I’m starting think he a scrub though.
I agree that the small lineup looked very good (maybe not great). Still somewhat worried about the possibility of this being an anomaly.
We had our best three point shooting game of the season. If we shot as well as we did in our second best three point shooting game, we have 2 fewer makes. If SMU shoots their average from three they'd have had 2/3 more makes.
That 12-15 point swing would be enough for SMU to have won comfortably and have UC fans up in arms. Though to be fair 12-15 points would have meant it was close if Brannen didn't spot them 7 points by playing Vogt early. The question is, did we finally just get lucky (or not unlucky) with our three point shooting, or did the offense/defense actually change something. Did MAW shoot 80% (4-5) because he got better looks, or just law of averages.
To my mind we did get better looks offensively, but SMU also missed open looks that we gave up on defense. We probably aren't as good as we looked on defense (or even on offense) last night, but we probably aren't as bad as we've looked in the past either.
Getting Vogt out of the lineup is definitely going to help us. I still expect a lot of close games, but maybe a few more of them will go our way.