EricBear said:

---

I credit my Thursday morning text to him to "hang in there, man."

---

I credit my thread asking why he hadn't been playing and also my sort of calling out Sueing and Austin after last game. LOL, this win is on me and DAMMIT, I missed the game due to a family commitment. I'm sitting here gazing forlornly at my unused ticket.

I had to miss last night's game unfortunately so I'm watching it now. 2 biggest differences offensively I see. 1) we are actually passing the ball on the fast breaks. Before, the guy dribbling up the floor would take it himself, whether it was there or not. This lead to the bad body posture and selfishness which carried over to the half court offense. The ball last night moved really well. Love the drive and kick, which forces the defense to run at you, thereby making it easier to go by them or side step them for an open shot. 2) We are running the same sets offensively but guys are running much harder and there is WAY more off ball screening. In several sequences, I'm seeing TWO off ball screens happening at the same time. That will almost always lead to a defender having to run at a player with the ball, thereby opening up the drive and kick, an open shot and/or rotation of the ball that will skew the defense to our advantage.

Yeah, defensively, we need some work. Agree with all of the comments about playing man defense. Let's start learning how to do it now.

HoopDreams said:

---

I agree with 100% of Jays points

UrsaMajor said:

---

Had a conversation with Jay John at halftime. The problem with the 3-point defense is that the freshmen often get caught forgetting to rotate when there's an overload, so--as Jay put it--one forward winds up with no one to guard. We also talked about zone v. man, and he agreed that with young players, man is easier to play and teach, because there are subtleties to zone that aren't apparent. He said, though, that with Vanover in, zone is a must, because he doesn't yet have the strength to play man post defense, and he's foul out in 5 minutes.

---

---

As Jay put it so well: freshman can't count.

EricBear said:

---

---

I'm thinking we are finding a little identity a three point shooting team.

Rbears said:

---

I remember when these threads would get 500+ comments for every game. Interest has really fallen

---

Sorry. I'd normally be good for at least 50 of them, but I've been kidnapped by Trump and have lost my bearings of late.

It's good to come here and get caught up, however. I cannot recall a stretch of season I've missed like this one.
Yep, I'm blaming trump. The alternative is too depressing.

KoreAmBear said:

---

EricBear said:

---

---

I'm thinking we are finding a little identity a three point shooting team.

---

While I've been pulling for an identity for this team, three point shooting was probably near the bottom of my wish list. But you may be right and its better than nothing. It's also very exciting IMHO when it works (see W's with the best collection of shooters I've ever seen, coached by a great shooter).

KoreAmBear said:

---

EricBear said:

---

---

I'm thinking we are finding a little identity a three point shooting team.

---

Which is amazing considering last year we were something like #300 in 3 pt shooting

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

EricBear said:

---

---

I'm thinking we are finding a little identity a three point shooting team.

---

Which is amazing considering last year we were something like #300 in 3 pt shooting

---

Replacing a crappy volume shooter with two decent ones at the wings, and replacing interior only bigs with one who only shoots will do that.

We're not a GREAT 3 pt shooting team, but since every other aspect of our play isn't so hot, that's about as close as we can come to an "identity". Look what happened when Sueing stopped dribbling and started shooting.

The following guys, in order, just need to let it fly:
McNeill
Gordon
Bradley
Sueing
Anticevich
Vanover
Kelly

That's seven guys who can bury a three! Any time they're the least bit open and in their rhythm, just let it go (except for some strategic situations, of course).

Austin is actually a better shooter than I thought. He can hoist some, too.

Harris-Dyson gets to shoot twenty of the suckers, just so we can see how that's progressing.

It's twenty-freaking-eighteen (almost nineteen).

concernedparent said:

---

calumnus said:

---

KoreAmBear said:

---

EricBear said:

---

---

I'm thinking we are finding a little identity a three point shooting team.

---

Which is amazing considering last year we were something like #300 in 3 pt shooting

---

Replacing a crappy volume shooter with two decent ones at the wings, and replacing interior only bigs with one who only shoots will do that.

---

Does his name rhyme Ron Moleman?

Big C said:

---

We're not a GREAT 3 pt shooting team, but since every other aspect of our play isn't so hot, that's about as close as we can come to an "identity". Look what happened when Sueing stopped dribbling and started shooting.

The following guys, in order, just need to let it fly:
McNeill
Gordon
Bradley
Sueing
Anticevich
Vanover
Kelly

That's seven guys who can bury a three! Any time they're the least bit open and in their rhythm, just let it go (except for some strategic situations, of course).

Austin is actually a better shooter than I thought. He can hoist some, too.

Harris-Dyson gets to shoot twenty of the suckers, just so we can see how that's progressing.

It's twenty-freaking-eighteen (almost nineteen).

---

Vanover looks to me to be a better long range shooter than Anticevich. Grant bricked three 3s before you hit his last. I think Grant's biggest strength is his mid-range jumper. 10-16 footer.

Vanover is maybe a better shooter than Sueing when wide open, but Sueing is probably a better shooter when guarded.

Grant is a good three shooter. Give him time. He played one game. He joined the Tarwater. Big shot club when his three sunk the funds last year.

oskidunker said:

---

Grant is a good three shooter. Give him time. He played one game. He joined the Tarwater. Big shot club when his three sunk the funds last year.

---

Well, I totally forgot so had to look it up.
It was not a go ahead 3, and there was still over a minute left, so I think that's an exaggeration. But a nice nod nonetheless.

Maybe...not to belabor the many comments on SDSU, but the main reason they aren't as good is because Steve Fisher retired. He was a damn good coach, got more out of his players than anyone I've seen not named Monty. If you are looking for a reason Cuonzo couldn't beat SDSU, that's it. And when SDSU got talent, Fisher took a team without almost any history pretty deep into the tourneys (lost to National Champions UConn in 2011 when 34-3 with Kawhi). He had a lot of latitude his first few years, which is what you get when you come with a resume, they were pretty awful at the beginning of his tenure, 5-23 his first year, then 14-14...then right into the NCAA tourney. They've trended back to the mean now with lesser talent and clearly lesser coaching.

To direct it back to the Wyking discussion, Wyking doesn't have the luxury of a resume. He may know what he's doing, but the evidence isn't good so far. Hope for the best, plan for the worst, is my thought.