Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
As a rule, absolutely right.
Last night, however, against a team that couldn't hang with them underneath at all and was giving up 6-8 inches per player, they could've (would've) won that game by 20 without shooting a single 3.
Shooters shoot - I get it. Robertson was bound and determine to shoot his way out of that slump, as was Barnett. But it damn near cost them what amounted to a glorified scrimmage.
They just didn't know how to deal with that zone. Harris seemed to have an idea, but he was the only one. He was constantly pushing it on a miss and trying to get down there before Emporia could get into their zone, but invariably he'd have nobody underneath before they could get back. If he had anyone running with him (Barnett and Puryear would've been the obvious choices), he'd have been able to get it to them underneath quickly and set up for easy buckets.
If you can't hit a jumper against a zone, you're gonna struggle. So you have to push to get them out of whack; too many guys on that squad last night seemed to have little interest in pushing the tempo.
Eh, like I said, I think the 'suckage' last night was a little overblown. They continued to turn the ball over WAY too much, but if their top 2 scorers could've done anything at all to actually score the ball, that game is as lopsided as it should've been. It's hard to win games when the 2 guys you most depend on for buckets can't buy one. Barnett could've helped things a little more by moving without the ball better; he seemed content to just stand in the corner and wait for a 3-ball.
|
I actually think we're arguing a similar point. Part of pete's post was also saying that we needed to slow down on offense. Setting up in half court and playing a deliberate pace allows a less athletic team to set up on defense, the counter to which, as you argue correctly, is pushing the pace.