Tulane

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

We have lost 3 games this year where we have held our opponent to 50 or less in regulation. How is that even possible?
 
WAITE HOYT 2 said:
Jacob we play that style because the make up of the team gives us the best chance to win. I have been very out spoken about our need for better point guard play. You want to run uptempo but who do you think consistently can deliver the ball. TC is not a PG. When he is at his best is when he is at the 2. Same is true of Cobb. Heck we have had a problem delivering the ball to the post all year. Ellis could have scored all day yesterday. We are very inconsistent from the wing and lately we have missed foul shots and been out rebounded. Speeding up the game is not the answer for this group. If we hit FT,out rebound the opposition and play our strong D we can win out the regular season. Speeding up our tempo with the turn over issues this team has had all year is not the answer. Again speeding up the game with the issues we have turning over the Basketball would be playing into the hands of the opponent.

Also I have concerns about your theory that a slow down offense enables teams who have less talent to stay in the game. What allows teams to stay in games is TO's,giving up offensive rebounds and shooting 38 percent from FT line. Another bad approach would be trying to change what you do well and have won with because it allows others teams less talented to stay in game. What wins games is being consistent in what you do well. Changing your approach from game to game depending on the talent of the opposition is not a good idea.
Click to expand...

Not having good PG play as a coach in your 9th year with a team is 100% completely unacceptable. Not to mention how bad we have been at the 2 and the 3 most of the time as well. Jenifer and Evans better be great players.

All I know Waite is that elite programs don't have to grind out games in the 40s against Tulane, ECU, UCF, etc...
 
Last edited:
jacobkdoyle said:
Not having good PG play as a coach in your 9th year with a team is 100% completely unacceptable. Not to mention how bad we have been at the 2 and the 3 most of the time as well. Jenifer and Evans better be great players.
Click to expand...
Cash was a very good PG. Injuries impacted his effectiveness greatly.

Also I refuse to fall into the debate that Mick has failed because he hasn't recruited a PG. This is a good program heading in the right direction and has been under his leadership. This years team needs some one who can penetrate and deliver the ball consistently. TC while being a good developing player is not a PG. Sadly we are not yet a program who's coach can get any player he wants. What we are is a program trending up who has over achieved on many levels. we also find ways to compete. Hopefully we finish strong and make the Dance.
 
jacobkdoyle said:
Not having good PG play as a coach in your 9th year with a team is 100% completely unacceptable. Not to mention how bad we have been at the 2 and the 3 most of the time as well. Jenifer and Evans better be great players.

All I know Waite is that elite programs don't have to grind out games in the 40s against Tulane, ECU, UCF, etc...
Click to expand...
They would if they were out rebounded, shot 38 percent from FT line and were ofer from 3.
 
Jacob you may want to wrap your head around this as well. We are not a elite program at this time. We haven't been for quite some time. Just curious but what is your definition of a elite program?
 
WAITE HOYT 2 said:
Are you implying elite teams get out rebounded by bad teams,shoot ofer from 3 and below 40 percent from FT line and blow people out because they play uptempo.
Click to expand...

I'm implying that they don't EVER go 0fer from 3. They don't EVER shoot 38% FT. They don't EVER get out rebounded by 12 against Tulane. And they don't EVER score 49 at home against Tulane. And it just so happens that they all play at a faster tempo than we do.
 
jacobkdoyle said:
I don't get how you can so casually explain that game away with these abysmal stats.
Click to expand...
What!!!! We were 0 for many from 3. We shot 38 percent from FT line. They killed us on the glass and converting second chance points. How can I not understand why we lost. Your trying to tell me if are approach was different we would of won. Here's a thought you show me those facts.

Conversation over Jacob. have a nce Sunday.
 
WAITE HOYT 2 said:
Cash was a very good PG. Injuries impacted his effectiveness greatly.

Also I refuse to fall into the debate that Mick has failed because he hasn't recruited a PG. This is a good program heading in the right direction and has been under his leadership. This years team needs some one who can penetrate and deliver the ball consistently. TC while being a good developing player is not a PG. Sadly we are not yet a program who's coach can get any player he wants. What we are is a program trending up who has over achieved on many levels. we also find ways to compete. Hopefully we finish strong and make the Dance.
Click to expand...

What hell cash have to do with this year? smh u guys are truly lost
 
jacobkdoyle said:
I'm implying that they don't EVER go 0fer from 3. They don't EVER shoot 38% FT. They don't EVER get out rebounded by 12 against Tulane. And they don't EVER score 49 at home against Tulane. And it just so happens that they all play at a faster tempo than we do.
Click to expand...
LD first started players were running having fun. Now that Mick back healthy the air is out of balloon. Looks to me Mick was scared of success LD was having with players.
 
WAITE HOYT 2 said:
Jacob you may want to wrap your head around this as well. We are not a elite program at this time. We haven't been for quite some time. Just curious but what is your definition of a elite program?
Click to expand...

I understand we aren't elite. That's why I'm not happy. I grew up my whole life watching an elite program. I want that back. And you don't become elite by playing the way we play. Period. Mick always talks about speeding up the tempo, yet somehow we are 338th this year in possessions per 40 minutes (I didn't even know there were 338 teams). What's the worst that would happen if we sped things up? We'd turn it over 20 times instead of 16? We give up 55 to Tulane instead of 50? At least we wouldn't score 49 in home games against RPI #175 teams. If you have a young team, you have to let them learn by making mistakes by doing too much instead of reigning these guys in and killing their aggressive nature. Morman is a perfect example. I want everyone on the team to play like him. He might screw up a bunch, but at least he makes things happen. But we have such a tight lid on things that a kid like that sits on the bench all year. Tentative play is rewarded. This is evidenced also by KJ's minutes per game. Look at Kansas...they lost games with a young team by 32 and 25 early and were throwing the ball all over the gym...but now 25 games in they are able to play at that level and speed with fewer mistakes.
 
Last edited:
jacobkdoyle said:
I understand we aren't elite. That's why I'm not happy. I grew up my whole life watching an elite program. I want that back. And you don't become elite by playing the way we play. Period. Mick always talks about speeding up the tempo, yet somehow we are 338th this year in possessions per 40 minutes (I didn't even know there were 338 teams). What's the worst that would happen if we sped things up? We'd turn it over 20 times instead of 16? We give up 55 to Tulane instead of 50? At least we wouldn't score 49 in home games against RPI #175 teams. If you have a young team, you have to let them learn by making mistakes by doing too much instead of reigning these guys in and killing their aggressive nature. Morman is a perfect example. I want everyone on the team to play like him. He might screw up a bunch, but at least he makes things happen. But we have such a tight lid on things that a kid like that sits on the bench all year. Tentative play is rewarded. This is evidenced also by KJ's minutes per game. Look at Kansas...they lost games with a young team by 32 and 25 early and were throwing the ball all over the gym...but now 25 games in they are able to play at that level and speed with fewer mistakes.
Click to expand...
First couple years Mick preached we had play this style because didn't have guard play or players to run his system. So every year now we hear about run and gun but it NEVER happens. When we get out and run we blow teams out. It looks like everybody on team wants to run besides troy. At times he simply looks scared
 
I would argue that a high percentage of our turnovers have come from playing tentatively and slow, not due to any attempts to speed up play.

It's not how fast the game is being played. It's how tentatively the game is being played. There are plenty of teams out there that have similar #s of possessions as UC that score more points. And # of FG attempts doesn't necessarily mean anything either. Duke is 117th in FG att/gm. Kansas is 132nd. Kentucky 150th. Dayton 332nd. And so on. Now, I can make a pretty good argument that there are very few good teams at #300 or worse on that list (UC is at 312 fyi), but we'll shelve that for the time being.

High possessions for 40 minutes isn't a good indicator either. Of the top 20 teams in the NCAA in this category, Arkansas and West Virginia are top 10, while Iowa State and LSU are in the top 20. Kentucky is 283. Virginia is 4 from the bottom at 348. Wisconsin 338. UC is 344.

OK, so here's where we start to figure it out. Points scored per possession. Gonzaga 1st. Wisconsin 3rd. Duke 4th. Kentucky 15th. Virginia 21st. Of the teams in the Top 100 in offensive efficiency, only 10 have a .500 record or worse. West Virginia is only 117th but they get a ton of possessions so it works for them. UC is 198th. Very, very few teams ranked 150th or below that would be considered decent teams, and most of those teams - UC, Temple, Tulsa - are all in the AAC.

Turnover % (per 100 plays) - Wisconsin 1st (lowest). Virginia 5th. Pittsburgh 8th. Temple 9th. Duke 33. Kentucky 39. West Virginia 49. Louisville 51.

So what I see here is: Good points per possession + low turnover rate = elite. Do one or the other well and you're pretty good.

UC is tied for 299th in Turnover %, FYI.

So where has UC been elite? Well, they're top 5 in blocked shots per possession (defense), 36th in steals/possession (defense). Probably fairly high in more categories, but I'll save that for a later post. The one that jumped out for me was offensive rebounds - 25th in the nation, rebounding 37.1% of their misses. By comparison, Kentucky is 5th at 41.4%.
But in the Tulane game, that OReb # dropped to 21%. Against ECU? 31%, which is OK I guess but they only took 45 shots, which goes back to possessions/gm and turnover %. Given their low # of possessions and 12 turnovers, they needed to hit their average on the OReb side and didn't.

So using the numbers, some of what Waite said makes sense. If you're going have a low possession total, and be inefficient offensively, and turn the ball over at a catastrophic rate, you need to rebound the misses on the few shots you take. When UC doesn't rebound their misses at a roughly 37% clip, they get beat.

But honestly, I think they could be better offensively. SLOWER doesn't translate into BETTER for this team. Virginia has a fluidity about them on offense. Same with Princeton and others. You don't have to run up and down the floor to run an offense with purpose. I'd argue that our players pass up open looks, hesitate way too often for no reason, and when they do run set plays for a shooter, it's usually one of our worst shooters (Sanders).
Our turnovers are not turnovers of aggression, and I believe if the offense was more aggressive you'd see more/better shots, better offensive efficiency, fewer turnovers and better chances of rebounding the misses. All that means is take the ball to the rim more if you're Caupain, and when a big man actually does catch the ball on the block they simply a)turn and shoot; or b)QUICKLY make one hard dribble toward the hoop and make a strong push at the rim.

In the case of the big men, it always appears to me like they haven't really thought about what they're going to do with the ball before they catch it. The result is about 5 seconds of holding the ball with no idea what to do with it followed by a perfunctory, tentative dribble that quickly gets stolen...or my personal favorite - the catch at the foul line, turn and realize you're not being guarded, then travel with nobody around because you didn't have a f$cking plan.

More than anything, I'd just like to see them play aggressively. Forget everything about the #s I just posted and play offense with purpose and aggression, no matter what scheme you're in. It has nothing to do with who's playing what position or whether or not Troy is a true PG. He doesn't have to run point to take the ball at the rim. Is that too much to ask?
 
Last edited:
Anybody remember when we ran Missouri out gym in tournament? That's style play we need play. If troy scared to push pace I'll rather Mormon ran point. In LD first couple games he signaled from sideline for them to run. No idea why Mick switched it up.
 

Similar threads

Q
Tulane Part II
2
Replies
37
Views
50K
TheLongHaul
T
Q
Baylor
Replies
7
Views
27K
Queens_NYC
Q
Q
Kansas
Replies
11
Views
41K
sedziobs
S
Q
SMU Part II
Replies
5
Views
16K
Queens_NYC
Q
Q
TCU
Replies
10
Views
41K
sedziobs
S
Back
Top