Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
#UWiscy (not our kind) coming to town Wed 9:15 EST tip
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lv20gt" data-source="post: 849573" data-attributes="member: 2299"><p>I'm not saying we intentionally slowed it down. I think we knew that they want to slow it down and knew that we weren't likely to use our defense to try and push the pace to wear them out so we found a different way to try and punish them for their lack of depth which was with our half court sets. Also, yeah. He made a great play on the defensive end there. One play though. He also went 1-4 for 3 points in the second half. He was spending a lot of energy defensively, and not really stopping Devoe with it, and it showed with a lack lack of really being that involved offensively. He is to them what Devoe is to us. But he also serves the role of Moore for them. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We could have. That would just be a different approach and more than one approach could be effective. We weren't really looking for Howard to make the play from the high post like we would have been with Ush in the situation you described. Howard was basically being used in a similar way that bigs sometimes are when they just set screen after screen after screen. However instead of having a PG have the ball and wait while the off ball motion takes place, we just had the ball with Howard and the "screen" was the threat of the handoff into tight curl. It wouldn't have been effective with Ush because then you'd have Rodney being off ball and his man wouldn't have to respect him on the curl or the back door and so could help out allowing the other off ball defenders to worry less about the back door. The "creative part" wasn't the ball being in the high post. It was how the off ball action was used and the focal point of the set rather than the guy with the ball being the one to make the play. To put it a different way, a lot of the time it looked like how OOB plays are designed where the inbounder is more just waiting for the off ball movement to open something than really looking to make the play himself. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Some of what Devoe did was him making plays. No matter what offensive set you run that will always be the case. A lot of what he did came as a result of the sets we were running. Devoe is improved but he isn't super explosive going to the rim. Davis is the type of defender to be able to prevent that, but Mike was able to do it anywas often because Davis, and others, were expending a lot of energy guarding off ball. And Mike wasn't forcing bad shots, for the most part. And a team like Wisconsin doesn't let a player as good as Devoe get that many looks without the offensive set helping generate it. </p><p></p><p>And there is more than one way to try and tire the opponent. I'm not sure why you think that because one other approach we didn't take could have work that the one we did take was somehow wrong. There are always multiple ways to approach attacking a defense. What you are suggesting is more for targeting a specific defender. What we did was targeting all the off ball defenders. Running off screens would have been more if we wanted to get a certain match up trying to force switches. I don't think that was our goal, and based on performance I don't think we needed it. </p><p></p><p>Not sure the point about lacking big man depth. Having Roddy do what he did was a way to conserve him on the offensive end so he could play longer. And yeah, we lack play making from the high post. But like I said, we weren't looking for Roddy at the high post to do what Ben or Moses did with it. It was a different approach. Doesn't make it poorly designed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lv20gt, post: 849573, member: 2299"] I'm not saying we intentionally slowed it down. I think we knew that they want to slow it down and knew that we weren't likely to use our defense to try and push the pace to wear them out so we found a different way to try and punish them for their lack of depth which was with our half court sets. Also, yeah. He made a great play on the defensive end there. One play though. He also went 1-4 for 3 points in the second half. He was spending a lot of energy defensively, and not really stopping Devoe with it, and it showed with a lack lack of really being that involved offensively. He is to them what Devoe is to us. But he also serves the role of Moore for them. We could have. That would just be a different approach and more than one approach could be effective. We weren't really looking for Howard to make the play from the high post like we would have been with Ush in the situation you described. Howard was basically being used in a similar way that bigs sometimes are when they just set screen after screen after screen. However instead of having a PG have the ball and wait while the off ball motion takes place, we just had the ball with Howard and the "screen" was the threat of the handoff into tight curl. It wouldn't have been effective with Ush because then you'd have Rodney being off ball and his man wouldn't have to respect him on the curl or the back door and so could help out allowing the other off ball defenders to worry less about the back door. The "creative part" wasn't the ball being in the high post. It was how the off ball action was used and the focal point of the set rather than the guy with the ball being the one to make the play. To put it a different way, a lot of the time it looked like how OOB plays are designed where the inbounder is more just waiting for the off ball movement to open something than really looking to make the play himself. Some of what Devoe did was him making plays. No matter what offensive set you run that will always be the case. A lot of what he did came as a result of the sets we were running. Devoe is improved but he isn't super explosive going to the rim. Davis is the type of defender to be able to prevent that, but Mike was able to do it anywas often because Davis, and others, were expending a lot of energy guarding off ball. And Mike wasn't forcing bad shots, for the most part. And a team like Wisconsin doesn't let a player as good as Devoe get that many looks without the offensive set helping generate it. And there is more than one way to try and tire the opponent. I'm not sure why you think that because one other approach we didn't take could have work that the one we did take was somehow wrong. There are always multiple ways to approach attacking a defense. What you are suggesting is more for targeting a specific defender. What we did was targeting all the off ball defenders. Running off screens would have been more if we wanted to get a certain match up trying to force switches. I don't think that was our goal, and based on performance I don't think we needed it. Not sure the point about lacking big man depth. Having Roddy do what he did was a way to conserve him on the offensive end so he could play longer. And yeah, we lack play making from the high post. But like I said, we weren't looking for Roddy at the high post to do what Ben or Moses did with it. It was a different approach. Doesn't make it poorly designed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What's the good word?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Basketball
#UWiscy (not our kind) coming to town Wed 9:15 EST tip
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top