Jeff Jones summed it up best when he said tonight, "That was a classic example of a good old-fashioned butt-kicking." That's about the long and the short of it.
Hi folks, sorry it's been so long since I've done a recap. I've got a list of excuses a mile long that you're not interested in. I'm here now, and that's what counts. Bobby will be putting up his own column in a little bit. For those of you who like (as I do) his excellent columns, stay tuned. For now you get my reflections on the game.
- AU was never really in this game. We had it tied at 4, but in the blink of an eye it was 10-4 and then 17-6. I don't think AU was ever within single digits for the rest of the game. Ryan Willman was the hot hand for Bucknell early and the Bison never looked back. Nick and Troy said repeatedly at the end of the game that the team, collectively, didn't show up for the game and weren't "prepared." That contrasts starkly with Coach Jones who said that the preparation for this game wasn't any different from the preparation for Lehigh, that the team was well-prepared, and that they were excited. Something apparently gave because this was as big a stinker as I've ever seen in Bender.
- It's a shame that this happened in front of a very, very spirited Blue Crew tonight. Students turned out in droves and did all they could to help the team. They maintained hope that AU would somehow pull it out long after I did (which was, to be honest, midway through the first half). Nice work, AU student body.
- Vlad went down hard twice in the second half. The first time it looked like he took an elbow or forearm to the back of the head. The second time was much scarier when he went down on his shoulder. Coach Jones said from his angle it looked really bad and that he grimaced and looked away. He said the trainers said Vlad could've gone back in but with the scoreboard situation the way it was they decided not to. Not a great game from Vlad tonight, who was double- and triple- teamed most of the night by a real team effort on Bucknell's part. He finished with just 7 points, a far cry from the Herculean effort he had on Saturday.
- Mike Muscala is a hell of a player and is going to be a real problem for the PL going forward. He's only a sophomore, and he looked absolutely tremendous tonight. He made Lump (6 points, 5 rebounds, 4 fouls) look just terrible down low. I single out Lump because at this point I think Lump should be competing for a 1st team all-PL team spot. He definitely didn't look it tonight.
- Way too many threes taken tonight for us. We shot 5-24 overall, which is especially bad when you consider that Muscala had 2 threes. We were just chucking up threes, often early in the possession. We got our looks early, wide open looks, that just didn't drop. If they had, it's an entirely different game. The lack of a perimeter game tonight made it so the Bucknell defense could collapse in the lane. If we could've stretched that defense out a little bit to open some space for Lump or Vlad to work. But I could if this to death, the bottom line is, Bucknell wiped the floor with us in every way possible.
- Kudos to Charles Hinkle tonight who shot 5-10 (2-5 from 3) and finished with 12 points. He tried his best to get something going on the offensive end (he also had 3 assists) and the defensive end (2 steals), but the rest of the team never clicked.
- Nice work by Jordan Borucki to get 4 points in mop-up time tonight. Yeah it comes in a loss, but he doesn't get a ton of minutes. He made the most of it. Nice work.
- Now let's get to what I really want to talk about. For a stretch of a couple of minutes tonight Hendra was playing the point. Yeah, he was the 1 on the floor with Vlad, Charles, Troy, and Tony. And you know how many turnovers he had over that stretch? 0. I'll look at the game recap later and see what his stats were for that period. He had two turnovers all game. I really, really hope that we see more of this. Hendra said tonight that he's capable of running the point and knows the offense backward and forward but that the decision is ultimately Coach Jones's. Well, I asked JJ about it and he said he can't be sure if we'll see more of that lineup or not. He said it makes the rotation at the wings a little more difficult (because you'd have to have Troy and Charles and no one really to back them up). What JJ did say though was that the team "needs to get more production out of the point guard position" and he doesn't necessarily mean statistically. AMEN. Here's to hoping we see more of this rotation, which I called for earlier this season repeatedly. My dreams have come true.
- Looking forward, we play Holy Cross in Worcester on Saturday. We should be very concerned about this game. Holy Cross is 2-0 in PL play and has Andrew Keister back. Don't let the 3-13 record fool you, this is a team with a lot of weapons. If AU comes out flat the way we did tonight, we will be a very surprising 1-2 in PL play. Hendra said in the press conference tonight that it's very hard to win in league play at home, and it's about twice as hard to do so on the road. Oof. Brutal.
Thoughts about tonight?
Pro deo et patria and GO EAGLES!
your a week off...@ Colgate this Saturday (@ HC is next Saturday).
ReplyDeleteI really hope that Hendra plays the point again. Luptak and Munoz are useless, have been useless since November, and will continue to be useless. We simply are not a good enough team to have literally no contribution in one position. Sure they play good defense (mainly Luptak) but so does Hendra. Plus, he leads the team in assists for a reason.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that hasn't really been discussed is how this affects the rest of the lineup. Brewer has been playing the 3 all year long and has consistently been matched up with bigger/more athletic players defending him (While I recognize this was the case mainly against the big-conference teams, it still applies in PL play to an extent). With Hendra at the 1, Brewer will play the traditional shooting guard, with significantly smaller, weaker players guarding him (especially in PL league). I see this as incredibly significant because it should give him a step-up in seeing more open shots (which he better start making).
Hinkle is one of our top-5 players and needs to play more minutes. He should be in the starting lineup.
To address the concern that nobody can back up Brewer/Hinkle, I think McCormick has done an excellent job coming off the bench, and with this lineup, could become an excellent 6th man.
This is how we are going to win against good teams. I just hope that Jeff Jones is (finally) starting to recognize it.
You could have put Steve Nash at the point and it wouldn't have mattered tonight. We are an inside-out team, and we got nothing from Lump inside tonight.
ReplyDeleteIt was obvious from the jump--and I've said this was inevitable, as hot as Vlad has been of late--that teams will start sending two and three guys at Vlad to get the ball out of his hands. That's why it's imperative that Lump plays big inside. When he does, defenses can't load up on Vlad, and he (and others) get better looks. But when Lump gets dominated as he was tonight by Muscala, we have no counter. He's got to make defenses pay for one on one coverage. Today he got his lunch money taken. That was brutal. I don't think you have to read too much between the lines of what Hendra said to realize he was talking about Lump when he talked about the team not being ready to play. The thing that scares me is I think Lump WAS ready to play. He just got dominated.
I hope you all now see what I've been talking about. Bucknell is FOR REAL for real. It will take our absolute best effort to beat them. Not just Lump and Vlad. Troy has to stop jacking up threes. Some of you keep telling me what a great three point shooter he is; I just see a lot of misses when he plays against real competition. He is a one-dribble guy who should be curl and drive to the basket, pull up from the foul line if there's congestion in the paint, and occasionally mix in a three.
I'm not gonna argue about Nick at the point anymore. Think what you want. Over 40 minutes, it would be disastrous. To think he should start there because he played decently in a game that was already well decided is fool's gold. No question, though, that Luptak and Danny regressed big time tonight.
It was a butt-kicking, as JJ said. But, it was just one game. We've got 12 left and we have to win at least 10 of them, in my view, to secure second. Forget about first. And forget about Bucknell, for now. Let's concentrate on dominating the rest of the conference and worry about them in March.
NJJ, I often disagree with what you say but let me take this opportunity to get behind everything you just said. Every. word.
ReplyDeleteJDF - Good point about McCormack, he could capably back up the wing.
ReplyDeleteNJJ - Lump was visibly frustrated during the game, but yes I think he was just dominated. Muscala just loomed large over Lump and didn't give him any clean looks at the basket. Muscala is so long that Lump couldn't evade him either.
Also, I eagerly await the "disaster" you're calling for with Nick at the point. If he turns into the turnover machine you've been describing, I'll be the first to eat crow. I just want to see him actually get a sustained legitimate chance at it before I belly up to the plate.
Sorry for HC-Colgate mix-up. I'll correct later. The hapless Colgate Kittens could be a shot in the arm for this team.
NJJ - I agree with just about everything you said except, of course, your views on Hendra at point. One thing I will point out: The job of a point guard is not just to bring the ball up and not turn it over. If that's all it took, then Munoz/Luptak have done excellent job. Point guards are supposed to be play-makers. Hendra leads the team in assists. If he can increase that by a few per game by having the ball in his hands more, and maybe increase his turnovers by 2 or 3, I'll take it.
ReplyDeleteIf he can put up 8 assists, and turn the ball over 3, 4, or 5 times, I'll take that too. If Hendra is able to create...we are better off. I know those turnovers sound high, but when you're creating 16 points (in this case), and cutting through the defense, this team will play better. While I DO NOT believe he will turnover the ball as much as some say, even if he does, I STILL think we are better off.
His ability to drive the lane is something we NEED. It's not an option anymore. If Vlad isn't going at 100% efficiency, we NEED a change-up. Right now we have Vlad getting doubled, Lump getting doubled (or just dominated), and the rest sitting on the wings doing NOTHING. Nobody can drive, nobody can create. We need a change. And the way I see it, the team has nothing to lose.
We're all disappointed about the outcome last night. It's important, though, for all of us, myself included, not to overreact to one bad game. We're still one of the top two teams in the league.
ReplyDeleteTo B^3 and JDF: I understand the frustration watching Luptak and Munoz. I share it. But I will try to respectfully explain again why I disagree re: Hendra at the point.
If AU was a fast-breaking, trapping and pressing kind of team, created a lot of turnovers, and scored 15-20 points a game in transition, I could live with Nick at the point. Because if you're expecting to play a game with 80 to 90 possessions, you can live w/giving a few away; you expect to outscore the opposition.
But we're not.
If we had a two like Carr who hit in the high 30s/low 40s on threes consistently, I could live with Nick at the point, because we'd make up for some of the turnovers with more threes.
But we don't.
AU is currently tied for 342nd in the country in steals per game (4.1). That's out of 346 ranked teams in Div. I. We are at the absolute bottom in ALL of college basketball when it comes to turning people over. We score 65 points per game (260th out of 346). Please don't be fooled by the 80 point-games of late. Vlad has been on fire. He will cool off. It's inevitable. We are a 60-70 point team most days.
What we're good at is protecting the basketball. We're 19th in the country in fewest turnovers per game (11.3), and we're 39th in assist-turnover ratio. That's outstanding. For the most part, we don't waste possessions. We get the ball to the right people in the right places. Sometimes, like last night, they miss. But the shots, especially in the first half, weren't bad shots.
The way we win is by executing in the halfcourt, and by defending. We're 60th in the country in points allowed. In the halfcourt, we're usually a pretty good defensive team, last night notwithstanding.
And that means every possession is precious. We have very little margin for error. Even in the Cable Car games, it's not like we were up by 30. Even at our absolute best, it's still hard for us to maintain a double-digit lead. We cannot--cannot--win games when we have high turnover numbers.
And we are an inside-out team. We score most when Vlad and/or Lump have the ball--Vlad at the elbow, mid-post or occasionally in the post, Lump in the post, or off the glass or on the weakside. That's what we do. Everything else stems from what those two guys produce.
With our personnel, the role of the point guard is NOT TO TURN THE BALL OVER. That's their primary job. Empty possessions kill us. Where we suffer with Steve and Danny is not that they won't drive; it's that they are often unwilling to take the open shots they have when the ball is reversed back to them. Those shots around the key have been open for two years. For some reason, they won't shoot. If Steve and/or Danny would just LOOK at the basket occasionally, we become a better team.
Nick is better, but he's proven over four years that he's a streaky at best perimeter shooter. He was feeling it against Delaware, but that's been the exception rather than the rule.
I say these things, again, not because I think Nick is without value. He's solid on D. He can get to the basket off the dribble. I do think he's trying to be a leader this year. And in specific points of the game, if we go small like last night, I can take him at the point. In small doses.
I just think he'd be miscast as a primary ballhandler. I think he'd turn the ball over too much for us to be able to survive. More assists from our point guards is not the issue. Ball security is the issue.
Our off the ball movement in this game was really bad through the first 13 minutes. A lot of standing around watching Lump or Vlad try to do something in isolation, which in the case of Vlad quickly turned into a crowd. Our offense became completely predictable, and that will kill you against any halfway decent D1 team.
ReplyDeleteJacking up deep 3s early in the possession. Bucknell loved this. They ate it up. Plus, some of those Brewer 3s were REALLY awkward, with his body still moving sideways, legs kicking out. Ugly. You can pretty much tell those are not going in.
I don't care who starts. Hendra sees the court well and has proved his value. The problem with Brewer as a guard is that he doesn't put the ball on the floor very well, so you'll never get the kind of movement that AU needs to run a motion offense, which AU has been excelling at the past four games. A Brewer/Hendra backcourt for an extended period of time is awkward, even in the PL. Now, if we oculd run some plays for Brewer or Hinkle the same way Gary Williams does at Maryland, with the big guard curling from behind the basket, and his man trailing, then I could see where they could do some damage. But for now, both Brewer and Hinkle seem far more comfortable shooting deep 3s on the perimieter than mixing it up down low.
Lump hanging around the basket too much will not pull a player like Muscala away. Muscala played a one-man zone, like the old Mike Gminski 'Monster' zone at Duke. I'd like to see us get the ball to Lump in the high post, preferably around the foul line. In 3 point land, the defense doesn't have to do a thing, but if you can get him the ball at the foul line, then the defense has a decision to make. Make them think. Make Muscala move.
It was only one game, but it was a depressing game.
Steve, you're on point. The one thing that I don't understand about our offense is the almost complete lack of weakside action. We never see the off guard dive to the basket off a post(Simon executed a nice strong-side give and go from Vlad in the second half), or a skip pass, or anything that puts the defense on its heels. We pass station to station, in hopes that an effective screen can free someone up, and sometimes it does. But we rarely get anything easy.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, though, that Lump would be effective in the high post. As he is almost no offensive threat from the foul line, why would any big guarding him come out of the paint? It's not like he's going to shot fake and blow by you. And I don't think he's a good enough passer for any high-low action with Vlad. He is what he is--a hard-working, but somewhat mechanical, big. Against most PL centers that's good enough. But not against Muscala.
Weak scoring from our guards, 2 assists last night while their point had 7 assists, speaks to why AU was never in the game. Penetrate and dish, Penetrate and dish- just watch the top teams on ESPN. It is not in the DNA of any of our starters. It's really not Hendra's game either unless there is a wide lane.
ReplyDeleteIf JJ thought someone on the bench was better then he would play them. The Bucknell coach was a consistently Ranked top 5 winner in D-3 at Williams. Now at Bucknell he is proving he can recruit smart kids who can play, and he can coach- so this problem is not going away and AU and our coaches must do better to counter.
Any player, no matter their shooting ability can disrupt a defense if they get the ball at the free throw line:
ReplyDeleteLump gets the ball, takes a step forward, Brewer (or others) curls around him and gets a shot from the free throw line.
It can't be stopped. The only way is for the opposing center to step forward and disrupt the play (which is the goal anyway, to pull Muscala out from under the basket).
I'm not saying it's the basis for an entire offense, but AU needs to be less predictable against Bucknell.
The beginning of the second half, AU did get some shots they wanted, and we did get some stops on Bucknell. Vlad missed a step back jumper and a fadeaway baseline shot, a shot that he has been able to make consistently this year.
Steve, I'm giving Troy all the foul line jumpers he wants. I could care less if he curls off the elbow if it means Lump is 15 feet from the basket. I will tell my guard to go under the screen every single time if AU runs that action, and leave Muscala right under the basket. Troy isn't going to beat me shooting jumpers; as we've all seen, he's not especially consistent at it. And I will be delighted if I'm the opponent if Lump starts pulling up for jumpers in the paint.
ReplyDeleteIf Lump had any kind of midrange game, it could be effective. We would kill in that set with a Gilmore, for example. But there's no reason for any opponent to honor Lump as a scoring and/or passing threat from out there. If that means Brewer scores 20, so be it. I guarantee you Lump won't put up his usual numbers, and neither will Vlad. And I will most likely win. You want to put Vlad there, fine. That could be effective, though it might also make it easier for guards to dig in on him. Lump has shown rather emphatically that he is a 6-to-8 foot range player.
I'm guessing you don't like my idea..... Brewer is a fine shooter, but he should not be shooting with floor space between him and the 3 pt line with plenty of time on the clock plus he should square himself to the basket. But if you think he (or anyone else on the team) can't sink a foul line jump shot well enough to beat Bucknell, then I guess there's no point discussing it.
ReplyDeleteLump could/should shoot the short mid range jumper to keep the Muscala/Mintz types from sinking in the paint. One problem. JJ needs to put that in his game plan and tell Lump we need some of that in our offense. JJ is very dogmatic in his approach and limits creativity in his players. You reap what u sow and AU ofense is a good example. You dont think Bucknell coach had to live with a lot of mid range misses from Muscala in short term to create what he got from him against AU. Not saying Lump or Tony could perform that way but a little more options from our players would ultimately pay big dividends.
ReplyDeleteA critical stat from the game was that we outscored Bucknell 30-22 in the paint with 22-10 in the second half (http://www.aueagles.com/sports/m-baskbl/2010-11/files/aumbb17.htm scroll down to the bottom)
ReplyDeleteWe had problems both on offense and on defense the other night but when we played the game we should be playing on offense (post play) we were efficient. We gave up to many possessions on bad outside shots. This team should not be a finesse team but out players want to play as one. Our team can score when we focus on the paint (either on an outlet or on a drive or cut) but we often don't.
Are there players that can shoot a 15 footer? Yes. Should we bring Lumpkins out of the post? I think that would be a bad idea. He got handled by Muscala last game but I think there is a better way to handle it. Our best scoring is in the paint and the best place for Moldoveanu to score is in the paint. Lumpkins needs to be scoring in the paint for anything else on offense to work and he's too good a rebounder to leave away from the basket too much.
Is the suggested strategy coherent? Yes but it should not be our primary strategy. It could make a good tertiary or lower strategy but our primary (and secondary) should focus on getting points in the paint with Lumpkins or Moldoveanu in the post or others off a drive or cut with occasionally shooting smart outside shots when the opportunity presents itself, when the opposition defense collapses too much, or when we can't get by a zone.
Our players are trying to play with an offensive identity and style of play that's unbecoming of them. I know different people have different tastes (I happen to really enjoy post play) but what's smart for this team isn't what our players like to do.
This is a clear attitude problem. One possibility is that Jeff Jones isn't drawing up good offenses for AU and the other is that he is and our players aren't executing the coaches game but, rather, they are playing their own. Either one isn't good.
Bison137 in the other post stated some very good facts that gets at exactly why we lost. We're a defensive team first and we played lousy defense. Bison137 is right, Bucknell executed very well for our primary defense and got the shots but we weren't smart enough to go to a secondary defense. I don't think it's a question of good offense or lousy defense but the interplay between the two.
I've seen a lot of basketball. I've been at around 200 games in my life not to mention the many more I've seen on the television. I'm not smart enough to be an expert but it was very clear to me that despite scoring half a point a minute at the start, our problem from the get go is that we weren't stopping Bucknell. At that point we panicked and started to play unbecoming offense.
AU needs to:
1) Keep to a solid and effective offensive game plan even if it's less entertaining or less flashy or whatever the issue is.
2) Adjust smartly when the opposition is beating us: going from primary to secondary to tertiary and so on (of course allowing for movement in strategies dependent on the situation).
I hate to be a downer but I don't see the commitment to victory on our team. The Bucknell game may spark it but I'm not holding my breath. We should still finish 1, 2, or 3 in the Patriot League but if we don't change out attitude, our chances of winning the League title is less then 50%. With a change in attitude it could be over 50%.
Bringing a player out to the high post does not give up the paint. If Muscala can be coaxed into taking a step further out, then a big guard (like a Hinkle or Brewer) can curl underneath the basket. If Muscala does not step out, then you might be able to curl a player for a foul line jumper by having Lumpkins take a step into Muscala and handing it off behind him. Lumpkins then becomes the screen. I'm not sure if any coach in D1 would pass on that.
ReplyDeleteAnyway using a player with the ball as a shield for a shooter is one of the oldest plays in the book, so it's not like I am suggesting something radical. It's just something we don't do.