2 Questions for NJ Hawk

[richthedentist]

First one from last nights game:
1. Would you have gone to a smaller lineup sooner?

2. I know its early but jumping ahead to next year with Young and Mulcahy in your lineup that means we move Baker back to shooting guard and I think that creates so many more mismatches and conservers his energy. Is that what you forsee next year? Baker looked exhausted at the end of the game last night

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

I definitely would have gone smaller but it would have removed the one potential advantage of rebounding with Doorson and Myles. But when you have 3 to 4 forwards and your opponent crosses to force a switch on defense, a good crisp passing team will make passes to players in space for shots.

The bottom line is as of today, SJUs starting 5 is better at all 5 positions than RUs current group of underclassmen. Or there isn't 1 RU player in November 2018 that would start on SJUs current group of 5 players they rolled out last night. That doesn't mean it should be a 20 point game but you have to be crisp and experienced if you are playing a hot shooting team with better athletes. SJU has had nights vs Duke and Nova where they've looked like last night....and others where they've lost at home to Depaul by 10+.

The Baker situation is truly not a concern IMO as far as minutes or functionality as a PG. The one item of note is the spacing of games this year is more traditional than last year. There's going to be a time after we play Wisconsin where we play 1 game a week on a Saturday, for 5 weeks in a row. That's a lot of time to get rested, adjusted and improved after film study, tape breakdown and getting things refreshed.

I won't speculate on next year until the Young and Mulcahy additions earn their minutes and trust....the pieces are there for this year with Mathis and Harper.

It's ironic that we threw Baker to the wolves last year and in his 1st 4 games last year, he looked very shaky and unsure. Fast forward to MSG and he suddenly got the confidence to play at a higher level. But we lived through those peaks and valleys.

Mathis and Harper have as much athleticism as Baker but we are bringing them along slower. If we force fed their development and let them fumble and stumble, maybe it would hurt their development OR it would accelerate their growth. In either case, i have less concerns than i did 10 days ago.

I think in 1 to 12 months, Mathis and Harper are ultimately even with Kiss and Thiam....when that happens really doesn't matter, i just want the next 1 to 14 months where i kinda know what to expect from both players most nights.

Those two players (Mathis and Harper) have more ability to lighten Bakers work load as a playmaker....not as a lead guard but someone to just generate a play, off script, when the play breaks down and teams know what you want to run....... I have a 45-50 game and roller coaster expectation or gradual approach to what we are watching vs being fixated on the results for 1 game or 1 week.

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

A blind man can see that Pikiell should have gone small much much sooner....and this is a game that Doorson should have played Zero minutes. He can not do anything against a team with a 6'7 guy as the tallest player.

Really bad coaching job by Pikiell.

 

[RUJMM78]

A blind man can see that Pikiell should have gone small much much sooner....and this is a game that Doorson should have played Zero minutes. He can not do anything against a team with a 6'7 guy as the tallest player.

Really bad coaching job by Pikiell.

I disagree with your comment regarding Doorsan He made a couple of dunks early in the game and that was the highlight of the Rutgers offense.This game wasn't lost by lineups but rather St.Johns made 3 point shots while Rutgers shot bricks from the foul line and the 3 point line.The talent disparity was readily apparent and that is the reason Rutgers has been mired in the basement of the B1G since joining the league.

 

[Scarlet Blind]

St John's starts 2 5 star guys 2 4 star guys and high 5th year senior 3 star guy, while we start #237, #394, #414 and 2 unranked players, there is a reason why Mathis and RHJ looked better in this game than our starters. Yes, we have gym rats that want to improve every day, but stars and natural talent matter more than even coaching

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

A blind man can see that Pikiell should have gone small much much sooner....and this is a game that Doorson should have played Zero minutes. He can not do anything against a team with a 6'7 guy as the tallest player.

Really bad coaching job by Pikiell.

I would agree if you provided details on what your matchups would have been and what advantage (offensive rebounds, avoiding 2nd shots & who plays the 5 if you go small.

It's very easy to say go smaller to avoid them from shooting 3s, but sometimes players make shots and you tip your hat and move forward.

I rewatched the game and the only possible lineup could have been Eugene at the 5, Issa and or Harper at 4, Kiss at the 3 and Mathis Baker as guards. 3 games into a season, maybe we develop a smaller lineup but the recruiting classes and roster is built around competition for B1G 20 to 22 games a year.

Sometimes if you have success with Myles and Doorson on offense and others make shots, you don't notice matchup gaps.....i dont think going small was a fix, maybe a mix of zone, man and other lineups. Team and roles aren't yet there.

 

[RU-Choppin-Ohio]

I think the small lineup at the end was Eugene, Issa, Harper, Geo, Kiss (or Mathis). Rutgers cut the lead to 14 before St. Johns closed it out

If you decide to go big with Johson or Doorson your advantage is on the offensive end if they can score in the low post and dominate on the glass. Doorson will.never be a low post scorer.and there were very few successful attempts to feed Johnson in the low post to take advantage of his offensive skillset.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

I think the small lineup at the end was Eugene, Issa, Harper, Geo, Kiss (or Mathis). Rutgers cut the lead to 14 before St. Johns closed it out

If you decide to go big with Johson or Doorson your advantage is on the offensive end if they can score in the low post and dominate on the glass. Doorson will.never be a low post scorer.and there were very few successful attempts to feed Johnson in the low post to take advantage of his offensive skillset.

The game was essentially decided at that point we took the center out of the game......you also cant ignore a pass from Johnson to Issa from outside to inside for a couple of layups because the 5 man was able to see over the defender and made a good pass......and Doorson did have some impact on glass....what hurt RU was Doorson at times tried to make passes like Myles can....he's not built to feed passes...those turnovers were more of an impact in that we got no shot off to stop those runs from being extended.

It's really just OK to understand that a faster more talented lineup is going to create problems if your 5 man isn't a very good athlete or isn't a player that can dribble, shoot and pass. Myles is a good passer.

The low post player is a reduced value because every defense immediately doubles anyone who posts up and gets the ball....and if that player cannot dribble, face the defensive player, pass and shoot, the post players best case scenario is a quick shot for 2....most defending teams will live with giving up a couple of 2s, if they get a turnover or missed 2 pointer mixed in.

 

[richthedentist]

The thing about using the bigs would have been to pound the ball in down low but we never did that and the few points that Doorson and Johnson had were actually on putbacks and not on low post moves where they used their height advantage. I know they did have a few blocks but the defensive mismatch really hurt but like Hawk said St. Johns was just so hot that I don't think anything we did would have won us the game.
On a second note I though Mathis was much more in control last night did miss that one shot where he made a great move to the basket and tried to jam the ball and missed instead of going for an easy layup but if he is going to use his ability to get to the basket he BETTER improve his foul shooting because it is awful. He can't be shooting more than 25% from the line and the one he made in the first half was negated by a Thiam lane violation. The other thing is boy Mathis can sky he was in there for a few rebounds where he was really up there

 

[Shell21]

Their regular lineup is still much better than the small lineup we woulda put out there . Our advantage was using a big to crush then inside and on the boards . It didn’t work . It happens

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Let's be fair.

1. SJU went on their big run with us having a small lineup
2. SJU beat us on the perimeter with guys (non bigs!) giving too much space....nothing to do with size
3. I believe our possessions with Doorson on Ponds actually resulted in fewer points scored by possession
4. When we had time early in the game we had the ability to score inside
5. Eugene's foul trouble took away a lot of the aggressiveness offensively

A fair point to raise.....why didn't we try to attack the 3/4 court zone press. SJU knew that in a 30 second possession they were at a disadvantage with us going inside. We allowed SJU without penalty to shorten the possession with the 3/4 zone press.

Coaches and players look better than they are when shots fall. Coaches and players look worse than they are when shots fall.

Having said all of this the debate is a good one and I can see both sides. I tend to agree more with the one I am arguing against.

 

[Mr Magoo]

A blind man can see that Pikiell should have gone small much much sooner....and this is a game that Doorson should have played Zero minutes. He can not do anything against a team with a 6'7 guy as the tallest player.

Really bad coaching job by Pikiell.

Totally agree about Doorson. He watched three pointers launch over him for fear they would drive around him. I don’t care that he had a few points and a block. He gave up way more than that.

 

[dollarbill]

Is there any scenario where Doorson and Johnson play at the same time? Thanks. $$$$

 

[RUChoppin]

They came into the game with a speed/talent advantage at guard. We came into the game with an advantage in size.

I think we played to their advantages, instead of playing to ours.

If we went all small, we were outclassed at every position and eliminated any real size advantage that we came in with. As many have said, their starting 5 were better than our starting - including when we went small.

With four smaller players and one big, we weren't able to take advantage of our size and were getting burned on defense. If we were getting burned that badly, I felt we should have gone even bigger to try to muscle them more on offense. We were never going to beat them by putting our guards up against theirs - we needed to have a power inside game feeding outside shooters, and that never got established.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

Is there any scenario where Doorson and Johnson play at the same time? Thanks. $$$$

Not during any out of conference games that i can see.