Author Topic: Just a quick question . . . (Read 11474 times)

chum1 · « **Reply #25 on:** January 04, 2011, 12:14:27 PM »

Quote from: kougar24 on January 04, 2011, 11:45:22 AM

Quote from: chum1 on January 04, 2011, 10:29:06 AM
well, if your offense sucks against most of the quality opponents you play, getting better on defense might be a good idea.

We held Florida and UNLV to 57 and 63 points, respectively. Expecting the D to be significantly better than that is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) at best.

If you're bound and determined to bitch about our D, focus on our guards getting destroyed off the dribble. That's our real problem defensively.

where was i bitching about the d? the people who would perfer to ignore a fixable problem are far more interesting. but 57 and 63 are apparently not always good enough.

kougar24 · « **Reply #26 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:06:42 PM »

Quote from: chum1 on January 04, 2011, 12:14:27 PM

Quote from: kougar24 on January 04, 2011, 11:45:22 AM
Quote from: chum1 on January 04, 2011, 10:29:06 AM
well, if your offense sucks against most of the quality opponents you play, getting better on defense might be a good idea.

We held Florida and UNLV to 57 and 63 points, respectively. Expecting the D to be significantly better than that is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) at best.

If you're bound and determined to bitch about our D, focus on our guards getting destroyed off the dribble. That's our real problem defensively.

where was i bitching about the d? the people who would perfer to ignore a fixable problem are far more interesting. but 57 and 63 are apparently not always good enough.

Resources for improvement (time, focus, practice) are finite; you have to pick and choose where you improve. And the greatest opportunity for improvement was on offense, which is why Frank started focusing almost exclusively on offense the last two weeks. If our offense continues to move as well as it has the past few games, turn it over less, etc., and we continue to give up 1-3 backdoors per game, we're going to win plenty.

But dax will still be pissed.

nicname · « **Reply #27 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:08:54 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on January 04, 2011, 08:37:38 AM

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 04, 2011, 07:54:12 AM
LOL at people who don't recognize the fact that in the 3 losses this year K-State gave up multiple easy buckets on the most basic offensive play in basketball.

But hey, giving up numerous easy buckets on the most basic play in the game are all part of the JYC philosophy. Nothing says JYC like 10 easy points for the other team in a nip-tuck ball game.

Nothing better than defending the perimeter hard . . . but wait a simple baseline cut results in yet another layup, oh well.

I'll give you Duke, but UNLV and Florida were our worst two offensive games of the year, and it really isn't even close. Poor defense contributed on backdoor cuts and the like, but if you don't make shots, don't get oboards, don't get to the FT line, and turn the ball over a lot it doesn't matter.

Duke 110.8 ..... 122.5
FLA 98.2 ........ 112.6
UNLV 88.7 ....... 110.1

First is Orating vs Cats. Second is Orating this season. Notice a trend? Duke still had a lot of success offensively though.

chum1 · « **Reply #28 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:22:04 PM »

love how the frankpologists turn this place into gpc bball ed.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #29 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:33:36 PM »

Quote from: chum1 on January 04, 2011, 01:22:04 PM

love how the frankpologists turn this place into gpc bball ed.

Have you read gpc bball discussion?

pissclams · « **Reply #30 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:42:45 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on January 04, 2011, 01:33:36 PM

Quote from: chum1 on January 04, 2011, 01:22:04 PM
love how the frankpologists turn this place into gpc bball ed.

Have you read gpc bball discussion?

at times it's equally as bad

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #31 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:45:26 PM »

Who is pissed . . .

kso_FAN · « **Reply #32 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:45:43 PM »

Quote from: pissclams on January 04, 2011, 01:42:45 PM

Quote from: ksu_FAN on January 04, 2011, 01:33:36 PM
Quote from: chum1 on January 04, 2011, 01:22:04 PM
love how the frankpologists turn this place into gpc bball ed.

Have you read gpc bball discussion?
at times it's equally as bad

Nicely done.

wetwillie · « **Reply #33 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:46:26 PM »

Quote from: chum1 on January 04, 2011, 01:22:04 PM

love how the frankpologists turn this place into gpc bball ed.

Can you define frankpologist for me so I can make a self diagnosis

catzacker · « **Reply #34 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:47:59 PM »

the back door cut is a problem with the style of defense that frank plays. watch west virginia. it's part of pressuring the passing lanes. it's just freaking part of it. the cover 2 defense has its inherent problems as well. jfc, doesn't mean it's a bad defensive philosophy.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #35 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:49:37 PM »

Quote from: catzacker on January 04, 2011, 01:47:59 PM

the back door cut is a problem with the style of defense that frank plays. watch west virginia. it's part of pressuring the passing lanes. it's just freaking part of it. the cover 2 defense has its inherent problems as well. jfc, doesn't mean it's a bad defensive philosophy.

Another Frank-ite. Sheesh.

steve dave · « **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2011, 01:56:55 PM »

Quote from: catzacker on January 04, 2011, 01:47:59 PM

the back door cut is a problem with the style of defense that frank plays. watch west virginia. it's part of pressuring the passing lanes. it's just freaking part of it. the cover 2 defense has its inherent problems as well. jfc, doesn't mean it's a bad defensive philosophy.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:07:29 PM »

Getting burned by backdoor cuts by over playing the passing lane, in on court situations where the cutter/maker of the easy layup under normal circumstances would be considered 2 if not 3 passes away from the ball is outstanding, "textbook" defense!! Particularly when the defender many times as his back and head completely turned from the basketball . . . textbook!!

Other examples of "textbook" pressure defense is both guards and at least one forward (usually a 3) completely leaving their men to stop ball when the driver is headed into 2 defenders (usually the 4 and the 5) who are in the 6-9 to 6-10 range . . . thus leaving the other teams best 3 point shooters wide open. Love that version of our "textbook" defense as well.

kso_FAN · « **Reply #38 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:09:03 PM »

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 04, 2011, 02:07:29 PM

Getting burned by backdoor cuts by over playing the passing lane, in on court situations where the cutter/maker of the easy layup under normal circumstances would be considered 2 if not 3 passes away from the ball is outstanding, "textbook" defense!! Particularly when the defender many times as his back and head completely turned from the basketball . . . textbook!!

Other examples of "textbook" pressure defense is both guards and at least one forward (usually a 3) completely leaving their men to stop ball when the driver is headed into 2 defenders (usually the 4 and the 5) who are in the 6-9 to 6-10 range . . . thus leaving the other teams best 3 point shooters wide open. Love that version of our "textbook" defense as well.

More than one textbook for basketball defense?

kougar24 · « **Reply #39 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:11:54 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on January 04, 2011, 02:09:03 PM

Quote from: sonofdaxjones on January 04, 2011, 02:07:29 PM
Getting burned by backdoor cuts by over playing the passing lane, in on court situations where the cutter/maker of the easy layup under normal circumstances would be considered 2 if not 3 passes away from the ball is outstanding, "textbook" defense!! Particularly when the defender many times as his back and head completely turned from the basketball . . . textbook!!

Other examples of "textbook" pressure defense is both guards and at least one forward (usually a 3) completely leaving their men to stop ball when the driver is headed into 2 defenders (usually the 4 and the 5) who are in the 6-9 to 6-10 range . . . thus leaving the other teams best 3 point shooters wide open. Love that version of our "textbook" defense as well.

More than one textbook for basketball defense?

Impossible. There is only the daxtbook.

chum1 · « **Reply #40 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:15:09 PM »

Quote from: wetwillie on January 04, 2011, 01:46:26 PM

Quote from: chum1 on January 04, 2011, 01:22:04 PM
love how the frankpologists turn this place into gpc bball ed.

Can you define frankpologist for me so I can make a self diagnosis

see if you say things of the form "all part of the master plan" followed by endless justifacatory babble. like snyder apologists except for frank.

guys getting burned because they have their heads up their asses isn't part of the plan. even if they play for bob huggins.

catzacker · « **Reply #41 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:15:26 PM »

jfc, dax. every style of defense gives up something. a 1-3-1 is inherently weak on the baseline, a 3-2 inherently week at the FT line....and various styles of man2man have their limitations or weaknesses as well. it isn't like frank is teaching his kids to allow a backdoor cut, but when you pressure that much, it happens. I can't give you stats on how our wing pressure led to a turnover, all I can give you is our overall defensive effeciency (which is good) and say that overall, the defensive philosophy works, even given its inherent problems.

sys · « **Reply #42 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:23:20 PM »

weird to bitch about backdoor cuts re. generally excellent defense in the uf & unlv games (i disagree w. _fan on defense quality in uf game) while ignoring the right-in-goddamned-front-door-&-drive-through-the-whole-rough ridin'-house horrible d against unf and the inability to handle a simple ball screen in the 1st half of the sav st game.

catzacker · « **Reply #43 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:26:40 PM »

Quote from: sys on January 04, 2011, 02:23:20 PM

weird to bitch about backdoor cuts re. generally excellent defense in the uf & unlv games (i disagree w. _fan on defense quality in uf game) while ignoring the right-in-goddamned-front-door-&-drive-through-the-whole-effing-house horrible d against unf and the inability to handle a simple ball screen in the 1st half of the sav st game.

why were we going under screens? were we daring them to shoot the 3?

kougar24 · « **Reply #44 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:26:53 PM »

Quote from: sys on January 04, 2011, 02:23:20 PM

weird to bitch about backdoor cuts re. generally excellent defense in the uf & unlv games (i disagree w. _fan on defense quality in uf game) while ignoring the right-in-goddamned-front-door-&-drive-through-the-whole-effing-house horrible d against unf and the inability to handle a simple ball screen in the 1st half of the sav st game.

What, you mean you didn't like Henriquez's technique of helping the screener set the screen on his own guy, effectively setting a double screen instead of hedging like he was supposed to?

pissclams · « **Reply #45 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:27:00 PM »

Quote from: sys on January 04, 2011, 02:23:20 PM

weird to bitch about backdoor cuts re. generally excellent defense in the uf & unlv games (i disagree w. _fan on defense quality in uf game) while ignoring the right-in-goddamned-front-door-&-drive-through-the-whole-rough ridin'-house horrible d against unf and the inability to handle a simple ball screen in the 1st half of the sav st game.

it's almost like we have a lot of things wrong with this team, amirite? nope, not right, read it here, not right at all.

steve dave · « **Reply #46 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:29:19 PM »

the people doing the games talk about backdoor cuts a lot

kso_FAN · « **Reply #47 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:29:30 PM »

Quote from: sys on January 04, 2011, 02:23:20 PM

weird to bitch about backdoor cuts re. generally excellent defense in the uf & unlv games (i disagree w. _fan on defense quality in uf game) while ignoring the right-in-goddamned-front-door-&-drive-through-the-whole-effing-house horrible d against unf and the inability to handle a simple ball screen in the 1st half of the sav st game.

UF scored 37 points, (well over 1 PPP) and shot 60% in the 2nd half against us and only had 5 TOs. We also had 0 blocked shots in the 2nd half. Plus it was one of our worst rebounding games of the year.

Agreed on the problems vs SavSt and UNF.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #48 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:36:03 PM »

There are problems inherent in every defense for sure, weak points, open areas etc. etc. There's inherent issues and then there's bad fundamentals, and stupid play.

sys · « **Reply #49 on:** January 04, 2011, 02:36:40 PM »

Quote from: ksu_FAN on January 04, 2011, 02:29:30 PM

UF scored 37 points, (well over 1 PPP) and shot 60% in the 2nd half against us and only had 5 TOs. We also had 0 blocked shots in the 2nd half. Plus it was one of our worst rebounding games of the year.

yeah, i agree with the part about it being an average effort overall. not about the specific breakdown. i thought kstate was outstanding all through the 1st half, and pretty solid for the first several minutes (5?, 10?, i don't really recall) of the 2nd. rebounding was a weak spot.