Tweet
Reynolds: story on the saga of fouls by WE......
-
-
I agree that it does seem once you get the reputation for fouling, the refs watch you a little bit more.Some see a hopeless end, while others see an endless hope.Comment
-
This statement has some truth but, usually the people you keep an eye on is because of their reputation and because they are nasty players. WE is not that in what I have observed. Most of his fouls are just plain stupid period. The number of fouls would be cut if we would learn how to set legal screens but, thats a different story.Originally posted by bigdaddystuck View PostComment
-
All screening the ball seems to do is change a one-on-one opportunity into a more difficult and congested 1 on 2 :/Originally posted by wily coyote View PostComment
-
Bradley has been HORRIBLE at setting high screens with a 5 since Les started using the offense. My solution to the fouls...Originally posted by wily coyote View Post
Stop moving the 5 from the baseline to the key to set the screen. Either start with the 5 high at the key and only move after contact with the defender or STOP using the 5 position as high screeners. I personally hate using 5's as screeners unless it is used to get the ball to the screener on a roll to the basket.
We love to screen then continue to dribble and not use the screener as a viable scoring option.
Also Eglof has been playing college basketball for what 3 years? and he still leaves his feet when defending someone on a shot fake. Stop leaving your feet. Get set, close out but stop jumping to try and block a jump shot. If the guy shoots it and makes it fine but giving the foul on a shot fake is something that should be eliminate by Varsity High School level.Comment
-
It is usually the dirty guys that the refs keep a eye on. But as others have said, our screening leaves much to be desired and I think opposing coaches (especially MVC) ask refs to keep an eye on that. I know as a coach that I ask refs to watch for certain things that other teams do that are questionable.
IMO some of our foul problems can be fixed by fixing our screens. I like the idea of having our screener start high. Why not use a high 1-4 where you could really open up the lane and have screeners on the ball and than back cuts, give and go.....Some see a hopeless end, while others see an endless hope.Comment
-
Hypothetically I agree. It is hypothetical because I don't think you could actually shut her up to know for sure.Originally posted by SFP View PostTake politics aside Sarah Palin is not ugly. IMO if you shut her up she would be quite attractive. Librarian type.
Comment
-
Egolf has been frustrating me all season long. He has a lot of potential, and could be a big key to this team. He showed that he can be a huge scoring threat against UNI. The problem is he doesn't know how to defend without fouling. He makes me so angry sometimes.
Here's an idea, it may or may not work, but I'm just throwing it out there. Every time Will fouls out, he doesn't start the next game. Put Lemon in and play small. Maybe being benched like that would get through to him although I doubt it.Comment
-
My question has always been... why does Jim Les use his 5 to set high screens?Originally posted by bigdaddystuck View Post
Is it to open the screener for a roll to the basket and a hopefully easy lay up?
Is it to help the ball handler lose his defender to open up a shot or to drive the lane and make uncontested decisions?
Is it a way to open the lane and bring the screeners defender out of the lane and give better spacing in the paint of easier interior passing/scoring?
I honestly have no idea what the point of the high screen is with Bradley.
My problem with the 1-4 set is we have very little interest in moving without the ball and we also have a lot of issues setting screens let alone a back screen. A 1-4 doesnt it need movement/screening to open up scoring lanes both to the basket, on open shots and to hopefully layups off of back cuts?
Personally maybe just spreading the floor in a 1-4 and letting Warren go one on one and make decisions is best... atleast it would likely keep moving screens from being called.Comment
-
1-4 is terrible IMO for the type of players we have...we'd be better off with a motion offense or a UCLA post with Will up high and JP down low and the guards spread across the wings...Originally posted by houstontxbrave View Post
Also, the problem with the set we run now is we don't know how to set a screen to begin with and Will doesn't have the skill set to screen at the arc and roll back and pop a 3 like the set is designed for or roll quick to the basket, which requires:
A) Will being a good ball screener
B) Will being able to shoot the 3 and well
C) A good PG for the pick and roll off the screen
D) A good PG who can pop the 3 if they decide to keep after the pick n roll
E) Multiple guys to crash the glass if Will decides to shoot
As of now, I can only see C being likely with Dyricus...the rest we just don't have, thus making this system very flawed and risky...
I believe a 2 out 3 in motion offense would be a great thing to implement with what we have leaving AW and DSE on the perimeter with JE or DD in the lane and JP and Will down in the post.
But what do I know...I've only watched complete collapses and 6-8 game offensive breakdowns for 9 years now...and even longer if you count the previous regime, which was even worse at putting the ball in the hoop.Comment
-
I thought the same thing at the beginning of the season when SM and TB went down. It would be a good opportunity to work on his PG skills and I really think he'd do a credible job. Use him the way OSU used Evan Turner.Originally posted by houstontxbrave View PostComment
-
Anybody see WE's latest tweet? You tell em Will!Comment
-
Looks like the board provided this topic.
Can we start winning soon?Comment
-
a little disingenuous...although in no way am I trying to say BU is playing as well as Indiana State...but here's the actual facts...
You can believe as you want or think like Dave Reynolds, but you will not be able to refute these simple facts...
BU has been without two of their best 3 players pretty much all season, forcing several players to play out of position...
BU's two injured guys have missed 26 games combined.
and although I agree SM played 6 games -- it was obvious how valuable he is because we won most of them...and lost the ones he could not play due to pain...
Indiana State by contrast...was without Lathan for ONLY 3 games...and fortunately in that 3-game stretch - they played 3 of the weakest MVC teams whose combined Valley record is just 4-11..
and Kelly has missed just 5 games...so the TOTAL their two players missed is just EIGHT games!!!
So is Dave Reynolds saying the Sycamores guys being out for 8 games is the same as the BU guys being out for 26 games?
BTW -- two other BU starters, Lemon & DSE have missed an additional 3 games...
So as usual, this idea that Indiana State is forced to play under the same circumstances as Bradley is just total baloney...nowhere even close!!
Here's one other comparison..the two teams have NOT faced the same toughness of scheduling!!
-Indiana State in their five Valley games so far have played 3 at home and the only two road games were at bottom dwellers (road opponents 3-7)
AND not one of their five opponents yet has a winning record!!!!!!
-Bradley has had only 2 home games, 3 on the road (road opponents 8-7), and 3 of five BU opponents have winning records while the other two are only one game from a winning record!Last edited by tornado; 01-12-2011, 03:10 PM.Comment
-
[QUOTE=SaintLouBrave22;208184]
I believe a 2 out 3 in motion offense would be a great thing to implement with what we have leaving AW and DSE on the perimeter with JE or DD in the lane and JP and Will down in the post.
QUOTE]
God could you imagine the number of moving screen fouls this program would have if we ran a motion offense requiring screening all over the floor?
Comment
Comment