Colvin and Heide yikes

[tjreese]

You "think" CMP prefers a good low post player? What made you think that

All good TJ, you obviously prefer the pre-shot clock era and I don't. Nothing wrong with that.

Back to the original discussion, what has had a bigger impact on the game? Shot clock or 3 point? Just for a reference, I just went to YouTube and watched the 1st half of the 76 IU championship. Considered the best team of their era, of course pre shot clock and 3 point. What was striking was how compact the game was. It wasn't the pace, I didn't put a stop watch to it, but neither team was holding the ball. They were taking shots fairly quickly. What was obvious though was how much "smaller" the court was on offense because of no 3 point shot. Made for a completely different looking game.

Just my opinion, but I think the 3 point shot has had a much bigger influence on the change in the game than the shot clock has.

no question it was more compact and that Michigan team was a small quick team that got up and down the court. Losing Wilkerson in that game and they still beat Michigan. I personally think most people do think the 3 pt shot has a bigger effect on the game. I just know that before the 3 ball there were still shots taken at that distance. It's purpose was to 1) spread the players since there were a lot of big bodies and that took place by awarding more points when a basket was made...that also enhanced the smaller players which due to population would also increase more teams being competitive since there are a lot more 6'2" players than 6'10" players and the big schools couldn't hoard all the good 6'2" players as we have seen some guards play against Purdue that were small school guards that were good.

I just take a view that before the shot clock the winner was not declared until the clock ran out and so however many points were scored it did not matter until the clock expired and then the game was decided. Many teams would have different results if the clock expired 7 minutes earlier or 7 minutes later and so the clock was when the scores were important. Had there been no clock and teams just played to a score, then the clock wouldn't be a major factor. Inside the clock is the shot clock a secondary clock of importance and one that tries to force any element of basketball into a few seconds of critical mass. I see this quicker action moving more to individual play, less low post play, altering D a bit due to the clock and either going to more individual efforts to score than before the clock . The shot clock was to space the floor due to big bodies and physical play and level the playing field between more teams...and most fans like it. I just happen to be on that doesn't like all the teams to be so similar and a more one dimensional in style, but that is me the unicorn today.

 

[tjreese]

In my opinion, this is in a large part related to Painters offensive scheme. His decision he’s going to focus on his top 2-3 players to do the majority of the work the majority of the time. His third player is usually the other scoring option based on scheme. Yes he has a ton of plays/sets but our offense is run mostly through Smith and TKR. Pick and roll variations … the problem is teams are well aware and have found a game plan to limit the effectiveness. Aggressive D on Braden and push him away from the 3point line, the pick now is coming not near the elbows but several feet outside the 3 point line. Hard hedge brief double team Then drop off on TKR. Smith struggling to drive off of hedge and the short drop pass coming way to far out limiting TKR effectiveness and causing turnovers. Loyer is next option but this team is not setting good screens (damn I miss Zach) . Loyer has played pretty well most games but his funky drives to the basket have been harder and less effective. That leaves us with the two other players… Colvin and Heide are afterthoughts. They aren’t involved except setting picks and posting up outside the arc. I even think I’ve noticed Smith ignoring them on passes when open (I think that’s a different story). Paint has stated those guys can shoot when open but they shouldn’t be hunting shots. There’s no motion creating looks for guys. The ball tends to stagnate at times and then a forced pass … I truly believe the entire team would be more aggressive and engaged if we moved the ball quickly ran more motion and created plays for all 5 guys on the court. Harder to guard and creates more pressure on the D. It appears to me the guys are hesitant to shoot or drive being that’s not in the plays and the hesitation then makes it more difficult to score. Anyone else come away feeling like they are seeing what I’m describing? And no I’m not saying I’m a better coach than Painter. I’m saying there have been games where what the team is trying to force isn’t working and maybe changing it up some and getting all 5 guys on the floor actively trying to score might be worth a shot?

I can agree with where I think you are going. I have a few minutes before I have to get ready to discuss motion and sets that may touch on where your interests like. At one end there is motion offense (and this is not just constant moving). This is relatively not scout able. From the beginning the alignment is more flexible (not leaving a position for press break to go to the location for a set ) and is a read offense reactionary to what the defense allows and what it makes most difficult. Within the roles of players, there is more flexibility for players in that they don't have to run to point A and then run to do something at point B. Being reactionary, the more time to accomplish the desired outcomes increases the optimum results.

Not having as much time as years ago, teams have moved more to dribble drive and individual play. Matt has even discussed that so many players work with trainers on their individual skills, but don't really enhance the team setting for play. Matt even specified in the past that few players today know how to feed a post player. Matt hasn't went to a dribble drive type offense in that he is still old school in using other elements of the game, but he may not have time to run offense as successful as desired and so quick hitters or sets that define more of what a player must do to score quicker have been Matt's approach. This starts out with player location and movements of the players...all easily scouted. Matt counters by including many sets and of course there are "reads" inside each set providing there is time to accomplish such. The closest to motion was the high ball screen with Zach were Braden made the reads and if nothing worked always had Zach to be the closer as the shot clock was about to expire. With "sets" there is a priority of reads that may not get past a couple of people in a given set as you questioned...and being scoutable teams can focus where they want. I read elsewhere...maybe you thinking Braden is "ignoring" certain players which I hope is not the case...unless those players are not located in a scoring position.

I think Matt does a good job and have always been a supporter of his coaching. That said, I have always wanted 1) more back cuts when pressured or back screens 2)always wondered if it was a "good" thing to have so many sets/plays as have been stated...in that thought can be a hindrance at times. Gotta go and not sure I addressed specifically from my opinion any of your thoughts, but think I may have hit on some.