Phase VII: NCAA Tourney First Weekend

[Troublemaker]

As is typical for me, I'll add to the Phase thread in piecemeal fashion as the week progresses and topics come to mind. The goal of a Phase post is just to generate discussion, not necessarily in a non-controversial way. With that in mind...


Health
Hopefully Trevon and Wendell are back to full-strength by Thursday. Hopefully no other injuries occur.


How can the offense improve?

Right now we're running an offense that's too high-risk, imo, by feeding the bigs inside a crowded lane despite having a team that isn't good at making entry passes and/or bigs that don't hold position well and/or a coach whose main strength and experience isn't to run postup offense through two bigs. We can lower the turnovers by running less risky play-types.

Imagine, if you will, that we brainwash all the players and the coaches into thinking that Marvin, Wendell, Marques, and Javin are Zoubek, Thomas, Miles & Mason Plumlee from 2010. The most frequent play-type we run from here on out is for the bigs to set down screens (also commonly referred to as pindowns) for Grayson and Gary to pop open for threes. The bigs focus on setting the down screen and then going hard to the glass for offensive rebounding (OReb) opportunities. All of our bigs are talented offensive rebounders. How much more effective would they be at it if they focused most of their energies on screening and offensive rebounding? Would we get the OReb% up to 42%? 45%? Meanwhile, making perimeter passes is low-risk. I'd rather feed Grayson and Gary for threes backed up by great offensive rebounding than feed Marvin and Wendell and Marques for twos in a crowded lane. Interceptions by the defense would go down.

Now, supplement the down screen offense with the following plays or play-types, listed in order of suggested frequency:



Spread pick-n-roll (PNR). When we run PNR, the one thing we haven't been doing is using one of the bigs to screen while parking the other big outside the 3-pt line, e.g. in the corner, or on the wing while a guard goes to the corner. Marvin shoots 37% from three (on only 54 attempts) and Wendell shoots 46% from three (on only 41 attempts). It's not an awful shot for them. The two bigs can alternate between being the screener and being the shooter, but basically we need one big to screen for Trevon while one big and two guards are outside the 3-pt line. The big who screens should re-screen as necessary to free Trevon going towards the basket and then roll hard for offensive rebounding opportunities. Trevon, for his part, should only throw the roll pass if it's wide open. Otherwise, focus on getting to the rim and putting up a layup attempt. The roll man has a great shot at dunking it if it misses. This play is lower-risk than feeding the bigs inside a crowded lane.




Clear out a side for Marvin to go 1-on-1, something we already do. Marvin's a very talented offensive player to whom we want to get the ball. But we don't need to feed him inside a crowded lane. I mean, even when we throw a successful lob, for example, where he outjumps three pairs of hands to catch it, doesn't that strike you as too risky? Inevitably we'll throw another lob, and it'll get intercepted this time. Let's just clear out a side, get him the ball at the elbow, and have him go to work like we did against Notre Dame. This play is once again low-risk for turnovers, gets a shot up on the rim, and Marvin is great at rebounding his own misses.




Spread out for Trevon to go 1-on-1. Put Grayson and Gary in the corners, and put Marvin and Wendell outside the 3-pt line on the wings. Have Trevon go 1-on-1 at the top of the key. The reason to position it this way is because the bigs guarding Marvin and Wendell will not be as adept as a guard would be at pinching down to help on Trevon's drive (i.e. draw a charge or strip the ball from the side) and recovering to an open 3-pt shooter. And once Trevon gets past that first line of defense, the opposing guards will be hesitant to leave Grayson or Gary open in the corner. Trevon has struggled on offense for sure, but a large part of his struggles is that his game doesn't mix well with a crowded lane. Here, we're clearing out for him and allowing him to use his dribble skills to beat his man 1-on-1. It's again low-risk for turnovers, but it should be the least frequent play we run because there's not a good chance at an offensive rebound like there would be with the previous 3 plays or play-types. (Unless Trevon thrives and makes layups galore, in which case you up the frequency).


If we run the offense like I suggest, I'm confident that we'll lower turnovers and get back to consistently posting 115+ offensive efficiencies (top 40 offense) at least. And frankly, I think we'll post 120+ offensive efficiencies (top 10 offense).

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Forcing the inside game has been making me crazy, especially early in the clock. Errant passes or ill-placed lobs seem to lead to tons of turnovers that simply aren't necessary.

Sometimes it seems we would be better served to just find open threes and get Carter/Bags to crash the boards. A chance of three points, decent shot at the offensive rebound and put back.

Awkward telegraphed overhead passes across the court are killers.

Also, getting choosy here, but I want Grayson's intensity and aggression, but none of his sketchiness. I know it is a delicate line to walk, but he will be our leader if we get to the Final Four, and we can't do it with him wakerizing or with him playing passive.

[left_hook_lacey]

On a side note, I just printed my bracket from the NCAA website. If you look down underneath the logos of the stations that will be carrying the games, there is a logo that reads "Don't bet on it" with a caption that reads, "The NCAA opposes all forms of sports wagering." Really NCAA?

The tournament is so popular because of the brackets and the office pools that go along with that. If no one bet on the brackets, viewership would definitely drop. I don't know by how much, but it would.

I just thought that was a hilarious, high-horse, and obviously fake statement by the NCAA. But what else is new? They also say they care about education.

[CDu]

The key to this entire tournament is going to be our guard play. Right now, our guards just aren't making good decisions with the basketball. Allen (16) and Duval (14) have committed a combined 30 turnovers in the past 4 games. Not surprisingly, we lost two of them and had to come back from a double-digit deficit in another. We can't do that and expect to win 6 games in the tournament, presumably 5 of which would come against top-50 teams.

[Spanarkel]

As is typical for me, I'll add to the Phase thread in piecemeal fashion as the week progresses and topics come to mind. The goal of a Phase post is just to generate discussion, not necessarily in a non-controversial way. With that in mind...


Health
Hopefully Trevon and Wendell are back to full-strength by Thursday. Hopefully no other injuries occur.


How can the offense improve?

Right now we're running an offense that's too high-risk, imo, by feeding the bigs inside a crowded lane despite having a team that isn't good at making entry passes and/or bigs that don't hold position well and/or a coach whose main strength and experience isn't to run postup offense through two bigs. We can lower the turnovers by running less risky play-types.

Imagine, if you will, that we brainwash all the players and the coaches into thinking that Marvin, Wendell, Marques, and Javin are Zoubek, Thomas, Miles & Mason Plumlee from 2010. The most frequent play-type we run from here on out is for the bigs to set down screens (also commonly referred to as pindowns) for Grayson and Gary to pop open for threes. The bigs focus on setting the down screen and then going hard to the glass for offensive rebounding (OReb) opportunities. All of our bigs are talented offensive rebounders. How much more effective would they be at it if they focused most of their energies on screening and offensive rebounding? Would we get the OReb% up to 42%? 45%? Meanwhile, making perimeter passes is low-risk. I'd rather feed Grayson and Gary for threes backed up by great offensive rebounding than feed Marvin and Wendell and Marques for twos in a crowded lane. Interceptions by the defense would go down.

Now, supplement the down screen offense with the following plays or play-types, listed in order of suggested frequency:



Spread pick-n-roll (PNR). When we run PNR, the one thing we haven't been doing is using one of the bigs to screen while parking the other big outside the 3-pt line, e.g. in the corner, or on the wing while a guard goes to the corner. Marvin shoots 37% from three (on only 54 attempts) and Wendell shoots 46% from three (on only 41 attempts). It's not an awful shot for them. The two bigs can alternate between being the screener and being the shooter, but basically we need one big to screen for Trevon while one big and two guards are outside the 3-pt line. The big who screens should re-screen as necessary to free Trevon going towards the basket and then roll hard for offensive rebounding opportunities. Trevon, for his part, should only throw the roll pass if it's wide open. Otherwise, focus on getting to the rim and putting up a layup attempt. The roll man has a great shot at dunking it if it misses. This play is lower-risk than feeding the bigs inside a crowded lane.




Clear out a side for Marvin to go 1-on-1, something we already do. Marvin's a very talented offensive player to whom we want to get the ball. But we don't need to feed him inside a crowded lane. I mean, even when we throw a successful lob, for example, where he outjumps three pairs of hands to catch it, doesn't that strike you as too risky? Inevitably we'll throw another lob, and it'll get intercepted this time. Let's just clear out a side, get him the ball at the elbow, and have him go to work like we did against Notre Dame. This play is once again low-risk for turnovers, gets a shot up on the rim, and Marvin is great at rebounding his own misses.




Spread out for Trevon to go 1-on-1. Put Grayson and Gary in the corners, and put Marvin and Wendell outside the 3-pt line on the wings. Have Trevon go 1-on-1 at the top of the key. The reason to position it this way is because the bigs guarding Marvin and Wendell will not be as adept as a guard would be at pinching down to help on Trevon's drive (i.e. draw a charge or strip the ball from the side) and recovering to an open 3-pt shooter. And once Trevon gets past that first line of defense, the opposing guards will be hesitant to leave Grayson or Gary open in the corner. Trevon has struggled on offense for sure, but a large part of his struggles is that his game doesn't mix well with a crowded lane. Here, we're clearing out for him and allowing him to use his dribble skills to beat his man 1-on-1. It's again low-risk for turnovers, but it should be the least frequent play we run because there's not a good chance at an offensive rebound like there would be with the previous 3 plays or play-types. (Unless Trevon thrives and makes layups galore, in which case you up the frequency).


If we run the offense like I suggest, I'm confident that we'll lower turnovers and get back to consistently posting 115+ offensive efficiencies (top 40 offense) at least. And frankly, I think we'll post 120+ offensive efficiencies (top 10 offense).

Excellent summary. I think that Marques has developed to the point where he is a very viable option in the paint for a jump hook, and he seems to be getting the ball down low more often, and his percentage on this shot seems quite high. Let's go, Duke!

[Kedsy]

How can the offense improve?

Right now we're running an offense that's too high-risk, imo, by feeding the bigs inside a crowded lane despite having a team that isn't good at making entry passes and/or bigs that don't hold position well and/or a coach whose main strength and experience isn't to run postup offense through two bigs. We can lower the turnovers by running less risky play-types.

Imagine, if you will, that we brainwash all the players and the coaches into thinking that Marvin, Wendell, Marques, and Javin are Zoubek, Thomas, Miles & Mason Plumlee from 2010. The most frequent play-type we run from here on out is for the bigs to set down screens (also commonly referred to as pindowns) for Grayson and Gary to pop open for threes. The bigs focus on setting the down screen and then going hard to the glass for offensive rebounding (OReb) opportunities. All of our bigs are talented offensive rebounders. How much more effective would they be at it if they focused most of their energies on screening and offensive rebounding? Would we get the OReb% up to 42%? 45%? Meanwhile, making perimeter passes is low-risk. I'd rather feed Grayson and Gary for threes backed up by great offensive rebounding than feed Marvin and Wendell and Marques for twos in a crowded lane. Interceptions by the defense would go down.

Now, supplement the down screen offense with the following plays or play-types, listed in order of suggested frequency...

Interesting. My kneejerk reaction was, "that's silly," but the more I read of your ideas, the more it made sense. I would add that we can switch it up, too. Run your five-out, none-in schemes until the defense believes it, then send the bigs back into post-ups in a now-less-crowded lane. When they start clogging the middle again, go back to the outside-in sets. The more unpredictable we can be and the more off-balance we can make opposing defenses, the better our offense will perform.

[COYS]

As is typical for me, I'll add to the Phase thread in piecemeal fashion as the week progresses and topics come to mind. The goal of a Phase post is just to generate discussion, not necessarily in a non-controversial way. With that in mind...


Health
Hopefully Trevon and Wendell are back to full-strength by Thursday. Hopefully no other injuries occur.


How can the offense improve?

Right now we're running an offense that's too high-risk, imo, by feeding the bigs inside a crowded lane despite having a team that isn't good at making entry passes and/or bigs that don't hold position well and/or a coach whose main strength and experience isn't to run postup offense through two bigs. We can lower the turnovers by running less risky play-types.

Imagine, if you will, that we brainwash all the players and the coaches into thinking that Marvin, Wendell, Marques, and Javin are Zoubek, Thomas, Miles & Mason Plumlee from 2010. The most frequent play-type we run from here on out is for the bigs to set down screens (also commonly referred to as pindowns) for Grayson and Gary to pop open for threes. The bigs focus on setting the down screen and then going hard to the glass for offensive rebounding (OReb) opportunities. All of our bigs are talented offensive rebounders. How much more effective would they be at it if they focused most of their energies on screening and offensive rebounding? Would we get the OReb% up to 42%? 45%? Meanwhile, making perimeter passes is low-risk. I'd rather feed Grayson and Gary for threes backed up by great offensive rebounding than feed Marvin and Wendell and Marques for twos in a crowded lane. Interceptions by the defense would go down.

Now, supplement the down screen offense with the following plays or play-types, listed in order of suggested frequency:



Spread pick-n-roll (PNR). When we run PNR, the one thing we haven't been doing is using one of the bigs to screen while parking the other big outside the 3-pt line, e.g. in the corner, or on the wing while a guard goes to the corner. Marvin shoots 37% from three (on only 54 attempts) and Wendell shoots 46% from three (on only 41 attempts). It's not an awful shot for them. The two bigs can alternate between being the screener and being the shooter, but basically we need one big to screen for Trevon while one big and two guards are outside the 3-pt line. The big who screens should re-screen as necessary to free Trevon going towards the basket and then roll hard for offensive rebounding opportunities. Trevon, for his part, should only throw the roll pass if it's wide open. Otherwise, focus on getting to the rim and putting up a layup attempt. The roll man has a great shot at dunking it if it misses. This play is lower-risk than feeding the bigs inside a crowded lane.




Clear out a side for Marvin to go 1-on-1, something we already do. Marvin's a very talented offensive player to whom we want to get the ball. But we don't need to feed him inside a crowded lane. I mean, even when we throw a successful lob, for example, where he outjumps three pairs of hands to catch it, doesn't that strike you as too risky? Inevitably we'll throw another lob, and it'll get intercepted this time. Let's just clear out a side, get him the ball at the elbow, and have him go to work like we did against Notre Dame. This play is once again low-risk for turnovers, gets a shot up on the rim, and Marvin is great at rebounding his own misses.




Spread out for Trevon to go 1-on-1. Put Grayson and Gary in the corners, and put Marvin and Wendell outside the 3-pt line on the wings. Have Trevon go 1-on-1 at the top of the key. The reason to position it this way is because the bigs guarding Marvin and Wendell will not be as adept as a guard would be at pinching down to help on Trevon's drive (i.e. draw a charge or strip the ball from the side) and recovering to an open 3-pt shooter. And once Trevon gets past that first line of defense, the opposing guards will be hesitant to leave Grayson or Gary open in the corner. Trevon has struggled on offense for sure, but a large part of his struggles is that his game doesn't mix well with a crowded lane. Here, we're clearing out for him and allowing him to use his dribble skills to beat his man 1-on-1. It's again low-risk for turnovers, but it should be the least frequent play we run because there's not a good chance at an offensive rebound like there would be with the previous 3 plays or play-types. (Unless Trevon thrives and makes layups galore, in which case you up the frequency).


If we run the offense like I suggest, I'm confident that we'll lower turnovers and get back to consistently posting 115+ offensive efficiencies (top 40 offense) at least. And frankly, I think we'll post 120+ offensive efficiencies (top 10 offense).

Fantastic post. Can't spork you, but wanted to give credit where credit is due.

The idea of running our offense like the 2010 team is very appealing. While neither Marvin nor Wendell quite reaches Zoubek-ian levels of offensive rebounding percentages, their combined ability to rebound probably outstrips the 2010 team's combined offensive rebounding ability if it becomes their primary focus. Also, white the 2010 team needed Zoubek to kick the ball back out for second (or third) attempts at three point shots from Kyle, Nolan, and Jon, Marvin and Wendell will simply dunk a lot of those misses. If the turnover percentage from forcing entry passes is going to be as high as it's been recently, it makes FAR more sense to make a three point attempt from Grayson, Gary, and (occasionally) AOC a de facto entry pass because a) there's a good chance it goes in for three points, b) even if they miss Wendell and Marvin are ready to gobble up and stuff the o-board, and c) there is a much lower chance of a turnover on those perimeter passes so the range of good outcomes (a made three, an o-board and a put-pack, or an o-board and a new possession) are better than the most likely range of outcomes with an entry pass (a turnover or a two point make).

The other advantage of running our offense from the outside in is that it will shake up our opponent's game plan. Most of our opponents will spend all of their practice time figuring out ways to prevent open entry passes, clogging the lane, and generally knocking Wendell and Marvin out of their preferred spots in the paint. Building our offense around Gary and Grayson as the first option would force opponents to throw their game plan out of the window. Plus, Gary and Grayson are extremely efficient options off of catch and shoot opportunities . . . especially if Wendell and Marvin are able to focus on gobbling up offensive boards. Also, Trevon is a completely different player when he's running downhill against defenders with room to make a move. I have no doubt that opening up the paint for Trevon would ultimately lead to more opportunities for Wendell and (especially) Marvin to capitalize on defenders collapsing on Trevon by cutting the basket along the baseline for highlight-reel slams.

[CDu]

So I stuck the Iona scouting report in the Iona game thread. Here, I'll talk about potential Saturday matchups if we are fortunate enough to beat Iona as expected. First, Rhode Island:

The Rams are... probably a bit overseeded. They are #49 in KenPom and #55 in T-Rank. Their general profile is more similar to that of San Diego State (an 11 seed) or OK State, Miss St, Nebraska, and Boise St (who all missed the tourney). So they are perhaps a bit fortunate to be seeded as high as they were. Not a bad team, but probably not a team that should be seeded on the 7 line (or even 8 or 9 line). Probably a 10 or 11 seed. The Rams don't play terribly fast, but they play tenacious defense in their man-to-man. What they do as well as basically anyone in the country is force turnovers. They aren't big, but they are very pesky. And turnovers fuel their offense. That said, they don't rebound great and they don't defend the 2 very well, and they foul a lot (as expected of a team that forces turnovers). And offensively, they don't do anything particularly well except for avoid turnovers. They did beat Seton Hall (neutral site) and Providence (home), and lost close at Alabama. But they more or less built their resume by beating the teams that they should beat in the A10 rather than anything truly impressive out of conference.

Center: Andre Berry (6'8", 275lb senior) is the man in the middle. Berry has developed into a useful post scorer for the Rams this year after being a rarely-used backup the previous two years. He's a BIG body inside. Not a terrible rebounder, but not as good as his size would suggest either. Berry is very foul prone, which is why he plays just 18 mpg. The other big is Cyril Langevine (6'8", 225lb sophomore). Langevine is the team's best rebounder and shotblocker, and pretty good at both. Unfortunately, he is even more foul prone than Berry. Langevine isn't an explosive athlete, but he's a clever post player defensively. His offensive game is primarily putbacks and finishes at the rim, but he can occasionally hit a jumper. I would expect both of these guys to have trouble with our size on both ends of the floor, provided we can protect the ball and make this a half-court game. The "break in case of emergency" option is Ryan Preston (6'7", 230lb junior JuCo transfer). Preston is a rugged warm body who just steals minutes as needed. When in, he rebounds, blocks shots, and fouls. The backup emergency backup is Mike Layssard (6'8", 255lb sophomore). Layssard pounds the defensive glass... and fouls.

Forwards: Do not exist. Rhode Island is a four-guard/wing team, almost exclusively. Okay, technically they sometimes play one forward: Nicola Akele (6'8", 215lb junior from Italy). Akele doesn't play much, but when he does he plays the stretch 4 role. He's a career 39% 3pt shooter. He doesn't do much else though, besides foul.

Wings: The Rams have a ton of these guys. The team's star is Jared Terrell (6'3", 215lb senior). Offensively, Terrell reminds me a little of Grayson Allen now. He's a very strong, athletic scorer who doesn't wow you with nuance in his game. Mostly an in-your-face style of scorer. He was not a great shooter until this year, but he has really improved this year. He shoots 42% from 3 and 82% from the line. Defensively, he is a versatile, physical, athletic defender who can generate turnovers. If he was a couple of inches taller, I would say he had a nice NBA career ahead of him. But size will be his concern at the next level, and he isn't a good enough ballhandler or passer to play PG. Still, he's a fantastic college player. Beside Terrell on the wings is EC Matthews (6'5", 200lb redshirt senior). Matthews has been a remarkably consistent player at URI at the season level, averaging 13-14 ppg, shooting around 42% from the field, and getting about 4 rpg. Matthews is a lanky, rangy wing rather than an explosive athlete. But he's a capable scorer, especially in the pick-and-roll game. Despite his solid skills and physical profile, though, he's turnover prone and often loses discipline defensively. He is a streaky shooter, and when he's on he can be a dynamite scorer. The third wing is Stanford Robinson (6'4", 200lb senior transfer from Indiana). Robinson is a lanky, aggressive defender and rebounder from the wing. He leads the team in steals and rebounds. He's also a streaky shooter, but is capable from distance. He is a big part of URI's defensive toughness, and is a dangerous weapon lurking to make a steal at all times.

Guards: Jeff Dowtin (6'3", 170lb sophomore) is the starting PG. Dowtin is a terrific 3pt shooter and a solid playmaker leading the team in assists. Dowtin isn't an explosive athlete, but rangy and smooth. He's terrific with the ball in his hands though, and very capable off the dribble as well as shooting 3s. Dowtin isn't quite as proficient at steals as some of his teammates, but isn't a liability on that end of the floor given his size at PG. The Rams do include a couple of other PGs, Jarvis Garrett (6'0", 175lb senior) and Daron "Fatts" Russell (5'10", 165lb freshman). Garrett is lightning quick and a terrific ballhandler who has developed into a pretty good 3pt shooter while at URI. His role has diminished with the arrival of Dowtin, but he's a capable D1 starting PG who now comes off the bench. Behind Garrett is Russell, who is a classic playground PG from Philly. He's tiny, but lightning quick with terrific ballhandling skills. Offensively, he's fearless, for good and for bad. He can be a creative shotmaker, but he is undisciplined and sometimes his confidence exceeds his abilities. He was terrific in a win over Providence and the loss to Alabama. But at other times, he's been abysmal (1-10 against St Joes, 1-8 in a loss to Davidson, 0-8 against UMass, 0-6 against, etc.). Defensively, he personifies the identity of this team, with pesky full-court man pressure and opportunistic quick hands to get steals. If we face URI, he's a guy to keep an eye on, as he is quite capable of igniting that team.

URI would not be a fun game to watch for this Duke team that has trouble with turnovers. I think we'd win, because while we'd turn it over a lot, we'd also score fairly easily when we don't turn it over, and would give them fits in the half court defensively. Still, it'd be a stressful game watching our guards try to avoid turnovers and get the ball to our bigs, who would have a huge advantage down low.

[CDu]

Now for the Sooners. Oklahoma is, unlike Rhode Island, appropriately seeded as a 10/11. They have a really interesting resume, where (like URI) they mostly beat the teams they should beat and lost to the teams they should lose to. Mostly. They have some impressive scalps to their resume: winning at Wichita State and TCU, neutral site over USC, and at home against Kansas, TCU, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Kansas St. They went 6-9 in Q1 games and 3-3 in Q2 games, with one bad loss at Iowa State. It's not a bad team, but not a team that consistently wins. They lost 8 of their last 10 and 11 of their last 15, which had them sweating come Selection Sunday. They profile kind of the opposite of URI: okay defensively and pretty good offensively. They profile most similarly to FSU in terms of overall profile and pace.

The Sooners play REALLY fast. They look to score quickly, and interestingly they don't force turnovers but end defensive possessions quickly. They have the #4 adjusted tempo in the country. It's quite impressive. They don't rebound well on either end, and don't force turnovers. The thing they do best defensively is not foul, and they can block shots.

Center: Khadeem Lattin (6'9", 210lb senior) and Jamuni McNeace (6'10", 215lb junior) share the center position. Lattin has started most of the year, with McNeace getting a few starts. But the two play almost an even split of minutes. They are almost clones on the court, both terrific defensive rebounders and shotblockers whose offensive games are at/above the rim. They have gamechanging length and good athleticism, but little in the way of offensive polish. The pair combine for 13 ppg, 12 rpg, 3 bpg, and 5 fouls per game in 38 mpg. Hannes Polla (6'11", 265lb freshman from Finland) is the "break in case of emergency" center, who comes in and rebounds like crazy in very limited minutes.

Forwards: Oklahoma plays a fairly traditional frontcourt with two bigs most of the time. The starter at PF is Brady Manek (6'9", 215lb freshman). Manek is a terrific shooter in the Ryan Kelly mold. Unfortunately, he's also in the Ryan Kelly (the underclassman version) mold of not being quite physical enough in the post. Manek shoots 39% from 3 and is a great outlet for Trae Young on drives. The backup to Manek is Kristian Doolittle (6'7", 235lb sophomore). Doolittle is a rugged defender and role player who provides okay defensive rebounding but not a lot else. The "break in case of emergency" forward is Matt Freeman (6'10", 225lb sophomore from New Zealand). Freeman is another stretch 4, shooting 32% on 3s. But he really lacks the athleticism or physicality to play major minutes.

Wings: The Sooners have a trio of big, strong wings. The best of the bunch is Christian James (6'4", 215lb junior). James is a terrific athlete on the wing, with great leaping ability and strength. His shooting has improved this year, and he is at 36.5% from 3 and 76% from the line. James is a nice complement to the Sooners' star PG (more on him later). After James, Rashard Odomes (6'6", 210lb junior) is the next man up. Odomes is a big, physical lefty wing with an okay shooting touch (don't be fooled by the 46% 3s this year, it is just 15 attempts) and an unconventional game in general. He's not afraid to post up smaller players, though that attribute won't be on display if they play us of course. He's a strong finisher in traffic with good athleticism. The third wing (who sometimes starts as well) is Kameron McGusty (6'5", 190lb sophomore). McGusty is a solid but not great 3pt shooter, a solid ballhandler, and more smooth than explosive athletically not really an above-the-rim type of guy. He is a creative shooter in traffic in the midrange too.

Guards: The Sooners rotate around the axis of Trae Young (6'2", 180lb freshman). You all know who Young is: one of the best players in the country offensively. He's drawn comparisons to Steph Curry, although he's not as pure a shooter as Curry, and is a little more advanced as a passer at this stage. Young is a high-volume offensive player, and the ball is in his hands the vast majority of the time. No player consumes a higher percentage of his team's possessions, and that's ignoring his assists (usage rate doesn't include assists) where he leads the nation. He has unlimited range and can make extremely difficult, well-defended shots. He scores in traffic with floaters and change-of-pace dribbles. He isn't a great run/jump athlete, though, and thus often has to take long 3s or contested shots as he isn't going to blow by you. Containing Young is the key to managing Oklahoma offensively. If he isn't amazing, the Sooners will likely lose. Heck, even if he IS amazing, the Sooners often lose anyway, because they aren't great defensively and don't have a lot of other strong weapons offensively.

The danger with playing a team like Oklahoma is that they have the classic "puncher's chance". In any given game, Young could go for 35-40 and keep his team in it. It would be interesting to see how he would fare against the zone, as he can certainly shoot from 25ft. But he isn't as likely to get freed up off the dribble. Conversely, if he is contained, Oklahoma is far inferior elsewhere on the court, and we'd win comfortably in that scenario.

So if we win Thursday, it becomes a question of whether we want to face the balanced but very undersized Rams, who force a bunch of turnovers, or the bigger but largely one-dimensional Sooners, who have one of the best players in the country. In either case, we'd be heavily favored. But each has an attribute that would make things uncomfortable (URI's steals; Oklahoma's Young). I honestly don't know who I'd rather face.

[sagegrouse]

On a side note, I just printed my bracket from the NCAA website. If you look down underneath the logos of the stations that will be carrying the games, there is a logo that reads "Don't bet on it" with a caption that reads, "The NCAA opposes all forms of sports wagering." Really NCAA?

The tournament is so popular because of the brackets and the office pools that go along with that. If no one bet on the brackets, viewership would definitely drop. I don't know by how much, but it would.

I just thought that was a hilarious, high-horse, and obviously fake statement by the NCAA. But what else is new? They also say they care about education.

Fact is, it is almost un-American NOT to fill out an NCAA bracket for March Madness. And there can't be prize money from comparing one's picks to other folks?

[camion]

Fact is, it is almost un-American NOT to fill out an NCAA bracket for March Madness. And there can't be prize money from comparing one's picks to other folks?

A proper disclaimer: "The NCAA opposes all forms of sports wagering. ;)"

The NCAA should know that if they don't use emojis there could be the possibility of misunderstanding.

[devildeac]

A proper disclaimer: "The NCAA opposes all forms of sports wagering. ;)"

The NCAA should know that if they don't use emojis there could be the possibility of misunderstanding.

But what if this is made available to the general US population?

:rolleyes::mad:

[indy1duke]

Troublemaker is either a basketball coach or wants to be one. His suggestions to improve our offense are really interesting. I had the good fortune to sit in row 1 right behind the media for the cheater game. Sitting that close gave me a new perspective to the way the officials call college basketball games. Just forget that cleaning up post play was ever a point of emphasis. On every single play unc fouled our post players — grabbing, holding, pushing, arm bars, one or two hand shoves, using knees and hips to dislodge our post players. Troublemaker’s suggestions alleviate most of those defensive maneuvers while increasing our chances for offensive rebounds. The other thing that stood out from sitting up close was the amount of uncalled traveling. I saw extra steps and shuffling all over the place. Perhaps some is not called because of contact but much of it was unforced.

I am excited about our draw and going to Pittsburgh. All games are challenging but I love our chances to get to Omaha.

[Bob Green]

How can the offense improve?


I'd rather feed Grayson and Gary for threes backed up by great offensive rebounding than feed Marvin and Wendell and Marques for twos in a crowded lane. Interceptions by the defense would go down.



This sounds like a great strategy to me and it would be fairly straight-forward to implement. I'm all in on any strategy which results in more open shots and less turnovers.

[rasputin]

On a side note, I just printed my bracket from the NCAA website. If you look down underneath the logos of the stations that will be carrying the games, there is a logo that reads "Don't bet on it" with a caption that reads, "The NCAA opposes all forms of sports wagering." Really NCAA?

The tournament is so popular because of the brackets and the office pools that go along with that. If no one bet on the brackets, viewership would definitely drop. I don't know by how much, but it would.

I just thought that was a hilarious, high-horse, and obviously fake statement by the NCAA. But what else is new? They also say they care about education.

The NCAA has taken that high-horse stance for a number of years now. It ranks right up there with ignoring decades of cheating. And also with the fact that you can't buy a beer at an NCAA tournament game (unless you're in a high-rent box), but there are 8 zillion beer ads on TV during the tourney.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The NCAA has taken that high-horse stance for a number of years now. It ranks right up there with ignoring decades of cheating. And also with the fact that you can't buy a beer at an NCAA tournament game (unless you're in a high-rent box), but there are 8 zillion beer ads on TV during the tourney.

And let's not forget ESPN - where they constantly make fun of gambling (with a wink and a nod) - and sanctimoniously won't let the announcers on game day predict games they will be doing on TV as commentators. (what is that about, anyway?)

[Newton_14]

Interesting. My kneejerk reaction was, "that's silly," but the more I read of your ideas, the more it made sense. I would add that we can switch it up, too. Run your five-out, none-in schemes until the defense believes it, then send the bigs back into post-ups in a now-less-crowded lane. When they start clogging the middle again, go back to the outside-in sets. The more unpredictable we can be and the more off-balance we can make opposing defenses, the better our offense will perform.

This is basically what I was suggesting a couple weeks back but Trouble states it more eloquently than me. One of the other reasons the lobs over the top in the halfcourt offense are so risky is because Bagley gets undercut by the defender practically every time and he never ever gets that call. I bet we could put together a very long video clip showing nothing but each lob attempt where he has been undercut low by the defender riding him almost out of bounds.

I like the idea of either 1 in 4 out or 5 out, spreading the court as far out as possible. Duval would thrive in either set. UVA is really good at doing something that used to be Duke's bread and butter, going back to the Battier teams, which is drive the ball with the dribble to the middle of the lane and then kick it out to a shooter on the wing for 3. Duke always shot a high percentage on those specific 3 attempts. Somewhere thru the years we stopped doing that. There was also a set we ran with Mason and Andre where Mason catches it on the block spins to the middle as though he was going to attempt a jumphook, and instead he kicked it out to Andre who had rotated from the wing to just to the side of the top of the key. Andre made a lot of those attempts.

Like others have commented on, I too believe we spend too many possessions trying to force the ball into Bagley on the block with Carter or Bolden positioned too closely to him, making the lane incredibly clogged and passing lanes nonexistent. To me, turnovers are the number 1 reason we have lost the games we have lost, and the reason several of our wins have been closer than they should have been. Between our TO's and opponents offensive rebounds, teams are getting up far more FG attempts than we are, which is just a killer. Teams can shoot a low percentage from the field and still beat us because they got 10, 15, 20! more shot attempts than we did. The game in Chapel Hill I believe was the biggest delta in FG attempts yet we somehow were in the game with 5 minutes or so left.

I just think that Bagley is such an incredible talent, he is going to get his points regardless, and it is not necessary to pound it into him on the block every single possession. 1 or both of Allen/Trent should be right there with Marvin in total points each game, with all 3 or at least Marvin plus one of those two above 20 points more often than not. We are a better team when all 3 of those guys plus Carter are sharing the scoring load. We have to approach our offense in a manner that allows that though. Far too often in our losses we have become too one dimensional, working our tails off to get two points on a post up. Corner three corner three corner three! Is the most efficient shot in the game according to the analytics guru's. Anyway, balance on offense is our friend in my humble opinion. With that, I like all of the options Trouble tossed out in the original post.

[Troublemaker]

Troublemaker is either a basketball coach or wants to be one.

Haha, thanks for the kind words, but most definitely not. I've been a coach in a youth league, and that's as far as I want to take it. To coach at an NCAA or NBA level, it would require me to learn so much more than I now know, and I'd have to backburner my current career, which I enjoy.

No, I would prefer to remain as an amateur internet poster, posting about big-picture strategies and some tactics to implement that strategy.

The "big picture" for Duke right now is simple. All the hard work has already been done. Coach K, brilliant as he is, ever-learning as he is, used his time with Boeheim on the Olympic teams to learn the knowledge he needed to construct a great Syracuse-style zone at Duke this season. The zone that Coach K and the players have constructed is a top-3 defense in the country. The hard work has been done. Along those lines, Duke was able to recruit enough big man talent onto this team to become the #1 offensive rebounding team in the nation. The hard work has been done!

The only thing left to do is easy work. We need to make sure that we get a shot up on the rim almost every single offensive trip down the floor. The only thing that can waste a top-3 defense combined with 40% offensive rebounding is turnovers. If we run less risky offense and get shots up on the rim to activate our offensive rebounding, we will be a very tough out this tournament. It will still be a single-elimination tournament, but if we run less-risky offense, I guarantee that only a great team or a good team that happens to play its A+ game that day can beat Duke. The team needs to make itself a tough out. Don't allow turnovers to waste 40% offensive rebounding and a top-3 defense.

[jv001]

Haha, thanks for the kind words, but most definitely not. I've been a coach in a youth league, and that's as far as I want to take it. To coach at an NCAA or NBA level, it would require me to learn so much more than I now know, and I'd have to backburner my current career, which I enjoy.

No, I would prefer to remain as an amateur internet poster, posting about big-picture strategies and some tactics to implement that strategy.

The "big picture" for Duke right now is simple. All the hard work has already been done. Coach K, brilliant as he is, ever-learning as he is, used his time with Boeheim on the Olympic teams to learn the knowledge he needed to construct a great Syracuse-style zone at Duke this season. The zone that Coach K and the players have constructed is a top-3 defense in the country. The hard work has been done. Along those lines, Duke was able to recruit enough big man talent onto this team to become the #1 offensive rebounding team in the nation. The hard work has been done!

The only thing left to do is easy work. We need to make sure that we get a shot up on the rim almost every single offensive trip down the floor. The only thing that can waste a top-3 defense combined with 40% offensive rebounding is turnovers. If we run less risky offense and get shots up on the rim to activate our offensive rebounding, we will be a very tough out this tournament. It will still be a single-elimination tournament, but if we run less-risky offense, I guarantee that only a great team or a good team that happens to play its A+ game that day can beat Duke. The team needs to make itself a tough out. Don't allow turnovers to waste 40% offensive rebounding and a top-3 defense.

I couldn't agree more about the risky offense leading to turnovers. I'm also hoping Trevon and Grayson play every possession intelligently. No hero passes that lead to run outs the other way. We have seen glimpses of how good Duke can be both on offense and defense. One of the things that bothers me most is the silent offense for 4-10 minutes. We have had so many games that we just fail to score for long periods of time, which leads back to the turnovers. That and sometimes failing to block out and allowing second chance points for our opponent. One good thing that we can hold on to is that we have not peaked/reached our ceiling. That should be scary for other teams. GoDuke!

[Bob Green]

The interior players rotation seems to have one specific different trait this season: extra fouls. With Bolden playing well in recent games and DeLaurier seemingly over his midseason hamstring issue, the 2018 Blue Devils are deep inside. While I'm not advocating silly fouls, depth does provide the option to be aggressive and make opponents "earn points" from the foul line rather than give up an easy 2 PT FG.

The late Al McGuire used to always tout teams with depth by saying they have, "extra fouls to give." Most ACC fans were not fans of McGuire so I might have been better off leaving his name out of this post but I always found McGuire to have a fresh perspective on things.

[jv001]

The interior players rotation seems to have one specific different trait this season: extra fouls. With Bolden playing well in recent games and DeLaurier seemingly over his midseason hamstring issue, the 2018 Blue Devils are deep inside. While I'm not advocating silly fouls, depth does provide the option to be aggressive and make opponents "earn points" from the foul line rather than give up an easy 2 PT FG.

The late Al McGuire used to always tout teams with depth by saying they have, "extra fouls to give." Most ACC fans were not fans of McGuire so I might have been better off leaving his name out of this post but I always found McGuire to have a fresh perspective on things.

But didn't one of his teams beat the Cheats in the FF? That counts for something. :cool: I'm for Javin and Bolden giving extra fouls but not so much for Marvin and Wendell. GoDuke!

[HereBeforeCoachK]

But didn't one of his teams beat the Cheats in the FF? That counts for something. :cool: I'm for Javin and Bolden giving extra fouls but not so much for Marvin and Wendell. GoDuke!

Beat UNC Charlotte in the semifinals on a miracle play, length of the court, at the buzzer kind of a thing...and then beat the cheats (aka Chapel college) in the title game. Phil Ford on that team.

UPDATE: here is link to miracle play that beat UNCC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5u8JuNltiw

[TruBlu]

But according to many cheat fans, Dean LET McQuire win, because he felt sorry for him. Because, you know, Dean never lost a game unless he did it on purpose (again according to many cheat fans).

[HereBeforeCoachK]

But according to many cheat fans, Dean LET McQuire win, because he felt sorry for him. Because, you know, Dean never lost a game unless he did it on purpose (again according to many cheat fans).

...same thing with Roy Williams and Kansas in 91, right? Or was that because he couldn't stand the idea of a Duke Carolina finals?

[superdave]

I dont recall seeing any new offensive wrinkles as discussed in this thread. It does seem that Duval is trying to get into the lane more than previously.

On the defensive end, we have seen a few wrinkles. In the Iona game they switched from a 2-3 zone to a 3-2, right? I also saw Bagley at the head of a full court press, which could be interesting, and Duval at mid court hunting the longer passes like a free safety. In the RI game, I noticed Allen dipping back to the free throw line a bunch trying to close out that area. RI was successful in getting the ball in the middle or to the blocks at times, but missed a lot of contested shots close in.

The defensive effort has been tremendous this week. That gives me a lot of confidence going forward.

On to Omaha!

[CDu]

FYI: Phase VIII post is coming today!

[Bob Green]

FYI: Phase VIII post is coming today!

Looking forward to reading it as your previews have been wonderful! It is fantastic that we have a Phase VIII this year. :cool: