bluejayfan00 wrote:go_jays wrote:Chicagojayfan wrote:As for the pace of the game, I don't think the pace bothered us as much as the problems we had protecting the offensive glass. Not only did we give up extra chances, we screwed our chances at getting transition. In 5 games that we've had with a pace of 70 factor or more, we've gone 4-1 including beating Alabama. Slow paces bother us a lot more, but in order for us to play with the kind of pace we want, we need to be effective in getting defensive rebounds
Some matchups are good and some are bad. In Marquette's case they turned us over 15 and 16 times last year as well. In particular the road game last year was an embarrassment for us. We turned it over 16 times, hit some 2 PT shots, but were 20% from 3 PT range, and had an offensive rating of 80.6 (2nd worst of the year last year with only that terrible NU game being worse). We struggled against their D last year and this year, but at least this year we shot the ball well, while also turning it over which made it a closer game
That road game last year was a complete embarrassment, but some seem to think Nembhard would have saved us right: Oh, yeah, last year on the road against Marquette Nembhard went 2/10, 1/6 from 3 PT Range, had 4 assists and 3 turnovers.. and for reference he shot better at home against them but had a 6/5 Assist/Turnover ratio in that game (Yay, but he would have saved us right????? /s
We'll agree to disagree then. Otherwise, how do you explain the 18 turnovers? And giving up offensive rebounds is an inability to adjust to, and make, the transition, IMO. Because making the transition actually begins when the ball goes up. Not after it is rebounded.
Also... a deeper dive into the PG situation...This thought just came to me. When we have Trey and Ashworth in at the same time... If Trey is assuming the PG position and Ashworth the off-guard/2. Then we have a natural off-guard playing the PG.
And a natural PG playing the off-guard. While some, and I think most of us, were looking at that as an abundance of riches. It might actually be hindering the flow of things.
He's not though. That's the entire issue.
Exactly, and that's my point. Neither one of them are really playing PG or Off-Guard when they play that way. They are playing something in-between... and I think it's because of all the mental switching they have to make all the time. And that's not a good thing.
If you think back to when Trey was playing Point for us at the end of his freshman year, he was playing PG and ONLY PG because R2 wasn't available. And he did it really well. But he wasn't having to make that switch. Last year, they may have played that way sometimes, but I don't think it was nearlyl as much as Trey and Ashworth are being asked to do it this year.
The problem is... the whole reason that Trey came back is because they wanted to see how he handled the Point as a defined role for him. Unfortunately, and I HATE to say this... BUT, so far, Id' have to say it has not looked good for him. I really HOPE that it gets worked out going forward... for both his sake and the team's sake.
I could be all wrong about this... and I hope that I am. But my gut tells me that it has been an issue. The added pressure on Trey and even Ashworth (because he's prolly not ever played the 2 before) has not be positive, I don't think.