Mon Jan 01, 2024 8:54 pm
Jaybird wrote:...
I think the real question isn't what any of us think about our PG, and when, or if, he'll start to consistently put the "point" in point guard. The real question is whether Mac has any confidence in him in high leverage situations after nearly half a season and, if he doesn't (and there are troubling signs that that's the case), then where are we?
Mon Jan 01, 2024 9:21 pm
Chicagojayfan wrote: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
Mon Jan 01, 2024 11:41 pm
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
Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:27 am
Tue Jan 02, 2024 10:40 am
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.
Tue Jan 02, 2024 12:46 pm
Tue Jan 02, 2024 2:17 pm
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.
Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:48 pm
Chicagojayfan 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.
How do you explain the 15 and 16 turnovers last year (and much worse shooting performance) against Marquette when we had a more established reliable ballhandler. Sometimes matchups are just tough and teams can't stack enough good players to match up to every team they face
That said, I think you are right that we're still working through the ways in which we want to ball to flow on offense, and while I understand Mac playing Bello as much as he has (he's gone conservative like that that before when introducing new players to a lineup) I think the next 8 games will tell us a lot about where he thinks the offense should go this year and I think we'll work it out
Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:56 pm
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.
Tue Jan 02, 2024 4:59 pm
McKinney's Neighbor wrote:You're not going to draw fouls if no one on the team can drive the ball (or frankly - dribble at all). Most of our players will dribble a few times and pick up their dribble. Fouls are most frequently called at the rim and we don't have anyone - other than Baylor - that regularly attacks the rim.
This roster doesn't make a lick of sense. Zero ball handling, play-making, wing defense, or general athleticism. An over abundance of guys whose primary skill is set shooting...on a team with probably the worst PG play we've had since the MVC days. Mac showed up to the vegan festival with a cooler full of ribeyes. I don't get it at all.