Our Defense on the last play in reg vs Nova

Thanks for checking Irwin.

I didnt want to get into a what to do with the guy defending the inbounder but this has kind of led to it - if in fact we were applying token pressure (which I would suggest it was more of an aggressive pressure than token pressure but will go with you on this as I have no way of watching the replay), then why are we guarding the inbounder? Who cares about him? Let the ball go back to him all day long. Use the inbounder's defender as a center fielder to cut off a guy in case one of our's gets blown by. Was DW really 15 feet off of him? Wow, I didn't remember it like that - an indictment on DW's defense then - yeesh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WindyCityGoldenEagle

Thanks for checking Irwin.

I didnt want to get into a what to do with the guy defending the inbounder but this has kind of led to it - if in fact we were applying token pressure (which I would suggest it was more of an aggressive pressure than token pressure but will go with you on this as I have no way of watching the replay), then why are we guarding the inbounder? Who cares about him? Let the ball go back to him all day long. Use the inbounder's defender as a center fielder to cut off a guy in case one of our's gets blown by. Was DW really 15 feet off of him? Wow, I didn't remember it like that - an indictment on DW's defense then - yeesh.

---

I think that happens mostly due to the Christian Laettner play. Kentucky didn't cover the inbounder which allowed a perfect baseball toss to Laettner, who buried the 18-footer. If you don't cover the inbounder, you allow a free pass, and with 4 seconds left, that's an eternity for a player to catch, make a move, and shoot. The ball won't come back to the inbounder, but you still want someone trying to disrupt the inbounds pass. Every time I see someone leave the inbounder unguarded all I can think is that it opens up the baseball throw. If you cover the inbounder, that really isn't an option, or if they attempt it, it's a blind pass.

I saw it as Irwin had and commented in the game thread at the time. I faulted Derrick, not the defense called. He was slow to react and out of position. Should have cost the game right there.

Yep definitely depends on the situation as far as when to play a guy on the inbounder and what defense you're running.

The whole sequence was just odd to me and it seemed like it was either a poor selection on buzzs part (which I still think) or really bad execution by our guys or maybe a lil of both.

Watch the Laetner play if you want to see defenders playing scared-they literally stepped away from him when he caught the ball-actually kind of funny on replay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brewcity77

I really think the plan on that play was to not foul. Hopefully delay them a bit getting upcourt, but don't send them to the line with the ability to win it with the clock stopped. It didn't work out. Derrick got blown by in iso and frankly that should have been the end of things. 4.8 seconds is not a lot of time and outside of Tyus Edney, not too many guys go coast-to-coast in that span of time. I think they were playing the odds and lost, but got saved by the ref's call.

---

Actually, the general rule is every dribble takes a second. You are able to go baseline to baseline in five dribbles. 4.8 seconds is plenty of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mucrisco

Actually, the general rule is every dribble takes a second. You are able to go baseline to baseline in five dribbles. 4.8 seconds is plenty of time.

---

It was definitely enough time, but if Derrick stays with Chennault, he should be able to slow him a bit. It looked like a completely botched defensive assignment, but I think the mindset was to slow him down and force 'Nova to have to beat us with a potential off-balance Rotnei Clarke type miracle heave rather than risking putting them on the line. Under the circumstances it didn't work, but if every dribble takes a second as you mention and you can go from baseline to baseline in five dribbles, the thought process of slowing them down a bit makes sense. Didn't work even remotely, but makes sense.

Mistake was giving a right handed dribbler the sideline. Should have wing dammed him into the center channel to slow him down and run him into traffic where there is no time for a pass.

DWilson failed to get the dribbler to turn his hips which would have forced the dribbler to change directions. Get in front of the dribbler, force him to move left or right and it takes time off the clock. As many have noted, it likely was fear of fouling that caused DWilson to defend the play this way.

Questions - did Buzz intend for the other defenders to help the way they did? Taylor rotates to take the charge while someone else (forget who) left his man and almost blocked the shot. Was it a case where Buzz wanted the help defense even if it meant leaving someone open on the perimeter? Better to have help defense on a layup and lose on a jumper than lose on a foul or layup?

Still an awful charge call by Mike Stephens, as os Gato calls him, the Eddie Hightower wannabe.

No Mayor. He is Teddy Valentine's mini-me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gato78

No Mayor. He is Teddy Valentine's mini-me.

---

Mayor culpa. Mayor culpa. Mayor maxima culpa.