Here is the reality on "running an offense ".....

[NewJerseyHawk]

I hate to be the facts only person on the message boards, instead of generic catch phrases, but sometimes until you see something on paper, it doesn't register.

First of all.....for fans.....you simply cannot put ANY guards or wings onto the floor against elite, SEC, B1G competition and make blind or dumb statements like "Pike has to bring in new assistant coaches to run an offense"....players recruited actually do matter.

Why does this matter in terms of guards?? Because guards who can play offense AND defense with an ability to make individual plays, allows you to win or compete in games. And I have to assume that every guard recruited in the B1G or SEC, can dribble, pass, shoot and score from 3 point range BUT not always.........what's most alarming is not the 3 point %, percentages ONLY matter if there are enough attempts AND can that player taking the attempts, play defense, rebound, playmake....

Here are the number of 3s made by B1G team guards....not every guard, but the primary 3 to 4 players on each B1G roster who play meaningful games or minutes.....

Here are the total 3 pointers made by the primary guards (3 to 4 guards of all 18 teams)

Maryland 162
Wisconsin 161
OSU 152
Illinois 136*
Purdue 132
Nebraska 122
Michigan 120
Washington 119
Oregon 109
USC 106
Indiana 104
Iowa 104
PSU 102
MSU 97
UCLA 95
NW 95
Minnesota 94
RU 92

These are 3 pointers made by our primary guards ( which excludes PJ Hayes 16-48, since 9 of his 3s were in the 1st 5 games and he has not played a lot of minutes in games).

Harper 34-104
Acuff 27-69
JMike 13-38
Derkack 10-40
JWill 8-34

If you consider playing most of 5 B1G games without Dylan Harper and some games where Acuff barely played at all, the 92 3s or a threat of a 3 is impossible with JWill, JMike (whos percentage is good, but not a ton of attempts), and Derkack.....

Same limitations 2 years ago, Spencer carried the workload and very little from Mag, Mulcahy or Caleb from 3....Hyatt shot and made some but hes technically a forward and Simpson were not good either but better than Caleb and Mag.......both low volume and low percentage shooters, but very good on defense.

The notion that you can "run an offense" with sub 25 to 30% 3 point shooters like Caleb, Mag, Simpson 2 years ago and now JWill, Derkack and JMike is literally impossible.

As a comparison, the 3 primary guards at Maryland....

Gillespie 59-145 (40.6%)
Miguel 52-120 (43.33%)
Rice 51-139 (36.7%)

I can coach Maryland, Wisconsin others from my recliner at home.....but if you think playing PJ Hayes and Acuff solves the problem, if they cannot playmake on offense OR play good 1 on 1 defense, the number of 3s allowed and the shooting percentages of our opponents, goes up.

To recap, if Harper missed 1/2 PSU, MSU, Indiana etc, what offense are you running and how can you play good defense, if the players don't do both offense and defense at a B1G level??

Comes down to guards and complete guard recruiting.....which usually means $$$, NIL etc.....and having Adidas as an anchor instead of Nike, 100% kills you in recruiting the better players.....

Nike is solved and why 2024 and 2025 recruiting is getting cleaned up, but for this season, 13, 10 and 8 made 3 pointers from 3 of your 5 primary guards with 80% of the season complete, is a LOT to coach around.

 

[dbegleiter]

Too many words, but yes we have bad guards, and yes we run no offense. Both can be true

 

[NickRU714]

You are missing an incredibly important point.
The offense isn't designed and players weren't recruited to take and make enough 3s to.be a threat.

If the offense was designed to utilize guards who are a threat from 3 - then you don't recruit JWill, Derkakc and Davis in the first place.

This repeated concept of "we just need guys who fit the role. JWill, Derkack and Davis are just had fits" is wrong.
That presumes the role is 3pt threat guard.

But if that is the role then they never end up here in the first place.
The role is "guard who can create their own shot going to the rim. Outside shooting threat isn't a priority."

That's who you end up with some non shooting threats at guard year over year.

 

[NickRU714]

Breaking News: Career sub 25% 3pt shooters aren't a threat from 3

If HC Pike and staff wanted shooters then he would recruited them.

This is why it's a system and staff problem first - then a player problem second.

 

[fluoxetine]

(1) threes that are made by players who don’t play a lot of minutes are still worth 3 points - excluding Hayes’ threes for example makes no sense

(2) threes that are made by players not listed as “G” are still worth three points - excluding Bailey for example is insane

Rutgers is not good from three but the data here is tortured in order to make it look worse than it is

 

[fluoxetine]

Breaking News: Career sub 25% 3pt shooters aren't a threat from 3

If HC Pike and staff wanted shooters then he would recruited them.

This is why it's a system and staff problem first - then a player problem second.

But this is what everyone who says it’s a player problem means. This is what a player problem is. No one thinks the players just gathered here by themselves lol, obviously a player problem implies a recruiting problem

Though also: Pike did attempt to recruit 3 point threats i.e. Hayes, Martini, Acuff to some extent but those players and the roster have other flaws that make them less useful

 

[RUChoppin]

(1) threes that are made by players who don’t play a lot of minutes are still worth 3 points - excluding Hayes’ threes for example makes no sense

(2) threes that are made by players not listed as “G” are still worth three points - excluding Bailey for example is insane

Rutgers is not good from three but the data here is tortured in order to make it look worse than it is

Especially when Mag and McConnell are then mentioned as not contributing enough threes. Neither of those guys were primary guards for us.

 

[JayDogSmooth]

Cliffs = no B1G level guards, poor 3 point shooting & horrific defense = sub 500 record and missing the tourney, which, with two top 5 draft pics, is entirely unacceptable on every measureable level

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

(1) threes that are made by players who don’t play a lot of minutes are still worth 3 points - excluding Hayes’ threes for example makes no sense

(2) threes that are made by players not listed as “G” are still worth three points - excluding Bailey for example is insane

Rutgers is not good from three but the data here is tortured in order to make it look worse than it is

The Iowa Sandfort brothers have over 100 made 3s to Bailey's 40 or so 3s and the 30 combined by Martini and Grant.....if I include the wings, would it make you feel better???

I excluded the wings from Illinois like Riley and others but the bottom line is, MOST threes come from the guards on the rosters.

In Nick's response above......it comes down to recruiting the right guards and I feel pretty confident that Lino Mark and Kaden Powers are better from 3 than JWill and Derkack by a lot....but Powers has to be able to play reasonable defense at this level on the ball, against the better guards in the B1G.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

Especially when Mag and McConnell are then mentioned as not contributing enough threes. Neither of those guys were primary guards for us.

They played the bulk of the minutes 2 years ago, the only other player who played reasonable minutes beyond Spencer and Mulcahy was Simpson. Unless you count Jalen Miller.

The defense was very high level 2 years ago, but we also finished games with point totals at 45 or in the 50s, hoping to hold teams under 60 or 65 points. Then the fans complained we didn't have enough shooters, when in reality, we just didn't have complete guards who can do everything (Geo Baker, Jacob Young prototypes).

 

[fluoxetine]

The Iowa Sandfort brothers have over 100 made 3s to Bailey's 40 or so 3s and the 30 combined by Martini and Grant.....if I include the wings, would it make you feel better???

Why not just count the # of made threes per game period?

I think your broader point is good.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

(1) threes that are made by players who don’t play a lot of minutes are still worth 3 points - excluding Hayes’ threes for example makes no sense

(2) threes that are made by players not listed as “G” are still worth three points - excluding Bailey for example is insane

Rutgers is not good from three but the data here is tortured in order to make it look worse than it is

The numbers are not better anyway you look at RUs 5th guard to Iowa, Maryland or Wisconsin.....and most schools play 3 guards while MSU and UCLA have a more traditional SF and PF....

 

[RUChoppin]

They played the bulk of the minutes 2 years ago, the only other player who played reasonable minutes beyond Spencer and Mulcahy was Simpson. Unless you count Jalen Miller.

The defense was very high level 2 years ago, but we also finished games with point totals at 45 or in the 50s, hoping to hold teams under 60 or 65 points. Then the fans complained we didn't have enough shooters, when in reality, we just didn't have complete guards who can do everything (Geo Baker, Jacob Young prototypes).

I don't even disagree with your main point - we do need better, more complete guards. You just have a habit of torturing data until it shows what you want, which undermines your argument.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

Why not just count the # of made threes per game period?

I think your broader point is good.

Because it's not really helpful if the guards can't defend and Harper missed parts of 5 B1G games.

My comment is asking what offense or plays can be run over 30 to 35 games, if 3 of the primary guards play an average of almost 20 minutes per game. Is there an offense where the guards are not high volume 3 point shooters or playmakers??

We have 3 guards who can play very good defense on the ball in JWill, JMike and Derkack and they have a combined 112 3 point attempts in 25 games...

I have 31 made 3s in 25 games from 3 of the 5 primary guards, all who have to play because there has to be defense player as well.......what offense or system should be run for this??.....thats an average of just over 1 made 3 per game. Other backcourt are averaging 3 to 4 per game from the same position.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

I don't even disagree with your main point - we do need better, more complete guards. You just have a habit of torturing data until it shows what you want, which undermines your argument.

The data is just what it is...how else should I show it?? Do you think it is dramatically better if I exclude the 5 easy games ....every team has easy or difficult OOC matchups.

Do you think Acuff has played significantly more minutes than the other 4 guards (Harper etc).....he has and has 27 3s....the trio of JMike,Derkack and JWill combined for 31 in with 43 more attempts.....but all 3 are much better on defense.

 

[NickRU714]

Because it's not really helpful if the guards can't defend and Harper missed parts of 5 B1G games.

My comment is asking what offense or plays can be run over 30 to 35 games, if 3 of the primary guards play an average of almost 20 minutes per game. Is there an offense where the guards are not high volume 3 point shooters or playmakers??

We have 3 guards who can play very good defense on the ball in JWill, JMike and Derkack and they have a combined 112 3 point attempts in 25 games...

I have 31 made 3s in 25 games from 3 of the 5 primary guards, all who have to play because there has to be defense player as well.......what offense or system should be run for this??.....thats an average of just over 1 made 3 per game. Other backcourt are averaging 3 to 4 per game from the same position.

Does HC Pike want to run an offense that has the backcourt making 3-4 3s per game?
I would argue that isn't a high priority for his offense.

You seem to be assuming Derkack, JWill and Davis are holding back the "ideal HC Pike offense" with their lack of shooting ability.

That's the wrong assumption.
I would argue they actually fit the "HC Pike offense" (unfortunately) and aren't holding it back at all. They are doing exactly what HC Pike wants - prioritizing drives to the basket and creating their own shot at the rim.
It isnt a priority to move off ball and work for an open 3.

If getting 3-4 3s from your guards - you wouldn't recruit those 3.

Would Marylan or Wisconsin ever recruit sub 25% 3pt shooters as transfers?

 

[RUChoppin]

The data is just what it is...how else should I show it??

Honestly? Without cherry picking?

 

[zebnatto]

I hate to be the facts only person on the message boards, instead of generic catch phrases, but sometimes until you see something on paper, it doesn't register.

First of all.....for fans.....you simply cannot put ANY guards or wings onto the floor against elite, SEC, B1G competition and make blind or dumb statements like "Pike has to bring in new assistant coaches to run an offense"....players recruited actually do matter.

Why does this matter in terms of guards?? Because guards who can play offense AND defense with an ability to make individual plays, allows you to win or compete in games. And I have to assume that every guard recruited in the B1G or SEC, can dribble, pass, shoot and score from 3 point range BUT not always.........what's most alarming is not the 3 point %, percentages ONLY matter if there are enough attempts AND can that player taking the attempts, play defense, rebound, playmake....

Here are the number of 3s made by B1G team guards....not every guard, but the primary 3 to 4 players on each B1G roster who play meaningful games or minutes.....

Here are the total 3 pointers made by the primary guards (3 to 4 guards of all 18 teams)

Maryland 162
Wisconsin 161
OSU 152
Illinois 136*
Purdue 132
Nebraska 122
Michigan 120
Washington 119
Oregon 109
USC 106
Indiana 104
Iowa 104
PSU 102
MSU 97
UCLA 95
NW 95
Minnesota 94
RU 92

These are 3 pointers made by our primary guards ( which excludes PJ Hayes 16-48, since 9 of his 3s were in the 1st 5 games and he has not played a lot of minutes in games).

Harper 34-104
Acuff 27-69
JMike 13-38
Derkack 10-40
JWill 8-34

If you consider playing most of 5 B1G games without Dylan Harper and some games where Acuff barely played at all, the 92 3s or a threat of a 3 is impossible with JWill, JMike (whos percentage is good, but not a ton of attempts), and Derkack.....

Same limitations 2 years ago, Spencer carried the workload and very little from Mag, Mulcahy or Caleb from 3....Hyatt shot and made some but hes technically a forward and Simpson were not good either but better than Caleb and Mag.......both low volume and low percentage shooters, but very good on defense.

The notion that you can "run an offense" with sub 25 to 30% 3 point shooters like Caleb, Mag, Simpson 2 years ago and now JWill, Derkack and JMike is literally impossible.

As a comparison, the 3 primary guards at Maryland....

Gillespie 59-145 (40.6%)
Miguel 52-120 (43.33%)
Rice 51-139 (36.7%)

I can coach Maryland, Wisconsin others from my recliner at home.....but if you think playing PJ Hayes and Acuff solves the problem, if they cannot playmake on offense OR play good 1 on 1 defense, the number of 3s allowed and the shooting percentages of our opponents, goes up.

To recap, if Harper missed 1/2 PSU, MSU, Indiana etc, what offense are you running and how can you play good defense, if the players don't do both offense and defense at a B1G level??

Comes down to guards and complete guard recruiting.....which usually means $$$, NIL etc.....and having Adidas as an anchor instead of Nike, 100% kills you in recruiting the better players.....

Nike is solved and why 2024 and 2025 recruiting is getting cleaned up, but for this season, 13, 10 and 8 made 3 pointers from 3 of your 5 primary guards with 80% of the season complete, is a LOT to coach around.

I agree with much of what you say , the basic point of which is that we do not have good three-point shooters specifically ourguards. No argument from me. However your comment is that because we don’t have three point shooters that that is the reason we can’t run a solid offense. My disagreement is with the fact that because we don’t run a good offense with movement, solid screens, etc. we don’t get sufficient number of easy three-point shots. So I do think that each feeds into the other. A better run system type offense would lead to better threes, which would lead to a better percentage of made threes. I’m not disputing your fundamental point. Other teams have guards who can make difficult three-point shots. But I think the equation is more complex than you’ve made it seem. Better three point shooters would make our offense more effective and more difficult to defend. Better run offense, additionally, would give us better looks from three.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

The answer is somewhere in between.

1. We have filled the roster with guards that can't shoot
2. The staff is not offensive oriented. We do have plays, sets, concepts and we mostly use them but are they the right ones.
3. Too many players don't use screens, set screens properly, and make off ball cuts (or I call them jogs)

 

[fluoxetine]

The data is just what it is...how else should I show it??

Again, just adding up made threes would be better.

When you start excluding things you need a pretty good reason to do so, and “because it fits my narrative” is not a good reason.

To be clear I’m not accusing you of being dishonest or anything, what you are doing is a natural and common thing to do. But people really underestimate how much they start skewing things when they exclude stuff all willy nilly

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Would Marylan or Wisconsin ever recruit sub 25% 3pt shooters as transfers?

not to steal @rutgersal playbook.....they probably didn't have to.

The Derkack "signing" was the biggest head scratcher. Guy comes from a program that plays zone and has a big sample size of being a bad shooter. He is a terrible fit. He is a terrible defender AND he can't shoot.

 

[kt124]

the game is a lot easier when you have 2-3 guys who shoot over 35% from deep. unfortunately Pike doesn’t prioritize shooting when evaluating prospects, and when we do bring in shooters we misuse them

 

[Good-Knight]

JWill, Derkack, JMike, Acuff can't hit the 3 at 30%, can't hit the open 3 at 35%, can't convert on drives, no special talent for the down court pass, not great on D, few steals and not forcing turnover with pressure, below average rebounding for guards, below average in transition offense. If they weren't wearing the uniforms, they would not look like basketball players at all.

 

[KnightTerrors]

I think people are way overthinking what went wrong. We have a coach who was committed to defense and rebounding first. Offense came in distant second. It’s how he’s found success his entire career.

This year he went against his core principles trying to surround star freshman with transfer shooters at the cost of defense first mentality. He missed dramatically with every person he brought in and here are the results.

There is a reason that when we were winning games the “speed limit” was a thing.

 

[fluoxetine]

JWill, Derkack, JMike, Acuff can't hit the 3 at 30%, can't hit the open 3 at 35%, can't convert on drives, no special talent for the down court pass, not great on D, few steals and not forcing turnover with pressure, below average rebounding for guards, below average in transition offense. If they weren't wearing the uniforms, they would not look like basketball players at all.

Acuff is at 39% this year and 34% for his career.

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

Again, just adding up made threes would be better.

When you start excluding things you need a pretty good reason to do so, and “because it fits my narrative” is not a good reason.

To be clear I’m not accusing you of being dishonest or anything, what you are doing is a natural and common thing to do. But people really underestimate how much they start skewing things when they exclude stuff all willy nilly

I can add up the 3s per team, but just because a team has a certain number of 3s, doesn't mean it's an effective offense.....some teams force up a lot of 3s, like Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio State. Others have their best players as inside players like Maryland with Derek Queen and Julian Reese and neither are going to be 3 point shooters.

Running an effective offensive system requires 3 basic items.

A) Can the guards, dribble, pass and shoot (and obviously defend).

B) Does the offense have any post up options from the SF, PF or Center position, where that player can make a pass or playmake out of a trap or double team.

C) Can the players on the roster dribble-drive and finish plays at the basket with a layup/dunk or quality pass to another teammate??

If you chart players based on this description above, you will either have a lot of answers with YES, or MAYBE or NO, NOT REALLY.

Then when you flip to the defensive end of the court, can the individual players

A) Defend their man most possessions, without help or fouling??

B) Does the player offer weakside help with deflections, steals or altered/blocked shots??

C) is the player able to impact or bother shooters with their hands, quickness or length, so it's more difficult to pass around them, or shoot over them??

The goal is to have as many complete players on the court, checking off as many of these boxes as possible, so the rest of the lineup can hopefully overcome, whatever gaps are missing.

The "Running an offense", was the focus of the thread and how many players can shoot 3s, because many fans somehow believe that a player that cannot drive or playmake OR create their own offense to drive and score, can somehow have screens set for them and they're going to miraculously be open every possession, as if the opposing coaches doesn't know what the player does well and what he doesn't do well.......

 

[Degaz-RU]

Hawk’s basic premise is accurate (despite the mental gymnastics to make it appear even more accurate) — we lack guards who are COMPLETE players, who can defend, handle, drive, and shoot.

We only have one such guard — Dylan Harper.

All of our other guards/wings have severe flaws in some parts of their game that render them nearly unplayable in certain matchups … except they HAVE to play because they’re all we got.

Does anybody think that Derkack or Hayes would play on any other team, or that JMike and Acuff would be anything more than deep reserves? And JWill is nothing more than a backup PG on a good team, as he shoots 20% from deep.

That’s our 5-guard rotation behind Harper, and it’s ugly. Like, really ugly. A Frankenstein of a guard rotation.

Meanwhile, Kevin Willard hit the jackpot in the portal with three “2-way” guards who can do everything including shoot. Green with envy at what he’s been able to do down in College Park.

 

[fluoxetine]

I can add up the 3s per team, but just because a team has a certain number of 3s, doesn't mean it's an effective offense.....some teams force up a lot of 3s, like Penn State, Iowa, Wisconsin and Ohio State.

Well, yes, but the starting premise of your post is to count up made threes.. but only by guards that play a lot of minutes. So in your world it's not a problem if primary guards force up a lot of threes but it is a problem if other players force up a lot of threes? Why?

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

Well, yes, but the starting premise of your post is to count up made threes.. but only by guards that play a lot of minutes. So in your world it's not a problem if primary guards force up a lot of threes but it is a problem if other players force up a lot of threes? Why?

If a player plays 5 to 7 minutes a game and hits 7 threes for the season, is that an effective way to determine whether the offense he plays in, is effective??

The 3s are a measurement in terms of "running an offense", so it makes sense to focus on the players for the B1G teams, that play the most minutes.....Its not as if adding back PJ Hayes 16 3s from the guard position, is somehow different than a reserve guard on Iowa or Penn State who makes 10 to 12 for the season.

The players who play the most minutes, impact the offense we run. I'm not sure why this is deemed "mental gymnastics ", it's just focusing on the players who play 80% to 90% or more of the minutes over a 40 minute game.

If I broke the data down to "made 3s per minute played", that would not be determining if the offense is effective.....I could easily say Derkack generates offense because he is able to drive and draw fouls.

It is very difficult to run any offense unless the guards have the ability to dribble, pass, shoot from 3 and score at the basket AND that player has to be a willing defender on the other end of the court.

The JMike post I made a week or so ago, highlighted that he is 13 for his last 31 from 3 point range, since the Princeton game (about 12 to 13 game stretch)..

That is a very good 3 point percentage, but the %, only impacts the offense, if he can maintain close to that productivity, with double or triple to shot attempts. That allows him to become a complete guard, IF he plays solid defense and can knock down FTs.

 

[cm_13]

the game is a lot easier when you have 2-3 guys who shoot over 35% from deep. unfortunately Pike doesn’t prioritize shooting when evaluating prospects, and when we do bring in shooters we misuse them

I disagree with part of this premise. For starters, we do have 3 guys shooting above 35% from three (Acuff, Bailey, Martini). Pike doesn’t usually manage to land the shooters he wants, but that’s not the same thing as not prioritizing shooting. We can speculate all we want about why that is, but look at the guys he was going after before we eventually landed on Dercack and Hayes.

Matt Alocco was probably our biggest target early in the offseason. He’s a career 42% 3 point shooter and is currently shooting 47% on 3.5 attempts per game.

Jadon Jones was another guy we targeted this offseason. He hasn’t played at all this year because he hurt his back before Oklahoma’s season opener, but he’s a career 37% three point shooter.

Acuff is shooting 39% from 3 this year and has the best percentage on the team. Ideally I’d prefer if he were averaging more than 2.8 attempts per game.

Even Martini, he’s had a disappointing season for sure, but one thing he is at least doing is shooting the three decently well. At 36% he’s shooting the third highest percentage on the team behind Acuff and Bailey.

Your second point about misusing shooters is something that I think is valid. Acuff, Bailey and Martini should all be taking more attempts.

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Here is my question

Where is the recruiting evaluation in this process ? How did we not know that Jalen miller, Derek Simpson , Jwill, Jmike and Jordan Derkack coukd not shoot ???

And how did we get Jaden Jones, Antonio Chol, Gavin Griffths, PJ Hayes and Zach Martijni….players who really can not do much on either end other than shoot (and none really hit it well here )????

It’s a recruiting iaaue
It’s a talent evaluation issue
And
It’s very likely a lack of NIL issue

If you take Dylan and Ace OUT of the class of 2024 and 2025, we broke the bad recruiting trend …and have a nucleus to stert the build over again next year

But this only will work if we
-restrain the class of 2024 and 2025 (moat at least )
-continue to add pieces from the class of 2026 and 2027 …that continue to have 2-3 players in the top 150 each year
-and not miss on evaluation on players as often.


-it’s recruting , development and retention …

 

[RUBlackout]

It’s all coaching and getting players good looks

For his staff couldn’t do better with any talent—they have it now but it’s not utilized properly

 

[scottsdaleal]

Here is my question

Where is the recruiting evaluation in this process ? How did we not know that Jalen miller, Derek Simpson , Jwill, Jmike and Jordan Derkack coukd not shoot ???

And how did we get Jaden Jones, Antonio Chol, Gavin Griffths, PJ Hayes and Zach Martijni….players who really can not do much on either end other than shoot (and none really hit it well here )????

It’s a recruiting iaaue
It’s a talent evaluation issue
And
It’s very likely a lack of NIL issue

If you take Dylan and Ace OUT of the class of 2024 and 2025, we broke the bad recruiting trend …and have a nucleus to stert the build over again next year

But this only will work if we
-restrain the class of 2024 and 2025 (moat at least )
-continue to add pieces from the class of 2026 and 2027 …that continue to have 2-3 players in the top 150 each year
-and not miss on evaluation on players as often.


-it’s recruting , development and retention …

Exactly correct!

 

[RUJMM78]

not to steal @rutgersal playbook.....they probably didn't have to.

The Derkack "signing" was the biggest head scratcher. Guy comes from a program that plays zone and has a big sample size of being a bad shooter. He is a terrible fit. He is a terrible defender AND he can't shoot.

He might be the right fit if his more talented brother chooses Rutgers in 2026.

 

[kupuna133]

An offensive system is meant to give a schematic advantage over your competition. Look at the data you provided. The leaders of those stats all have easily identifiable offensive systems and schemes. Most of them have one thing in common. An offense built around motion offensive screening principles. You put our roster in any of those systems and I’m sure the data would improve for our players. ISO/horns/4 flat stationary set especially this year the way the roster is constructed was probably the least efficient set.

Would you say Iowa Wisconsin Purdue has an athletic advantage over the rest of the B1G? But they are always near the top of the standings because they run a defined system and recruit to their needs and expectations.

 

[linzalonic]

The answer is somewhere in between.

1. We have filled the roster with guards that can't shoot
2. The staff is not offensive oriented. We do have plays, sets, concepts and we mostly use them but are they the right ones.
3. Too many players don't use screens, set screens properly, and make off ball cuts (or I call them jogs)

You have been harping on screen-setting, and I applaud you for it. We are bad at setting screens, and bad at running our defender into screens, which is just as important, but often overlooked. I learned how to do both in middle school, for f*'s sake.

I sit above the visitor bench. In the 2nd half vs Iowa, I watched closely as Iowa's big set solid screens, while the guard coming around the screen would lead their man directly into the screener's body. Textbook. Harper looked visibly frustrated after his face planted into their big man's shoulder again.

Offensive sets don't have to be complex in order to be effective. It drives me nuts that we don't execute screens properly.

 

[kt124]

I disagree with part of this premise. For starters, we do have 3 guys shooting above 35% from three (Acuff, Bailey, Martini). Pike doesn’t usually manage to land the shooters he wants, but that’s not the same thing as not prioritizing shooting. We can speculate all we want about why that is, but look at the guys he was going after before we eventually landed on Dercack and Hayes.

Matt Alocco was probably our biggest target early in the offseason. He’s a career 42% 3 point shooter and is currently shooting 47% on 3.5 attempts per game.

Jadon Jones was another guy we targeted this offseason. He hasn’t played at all this year because he hurt his back before Oklahoma’s season opener, but he’s a career 37% three point shooter.

Acuff is shooting 39% from 3 this year and has the best percentage on the team. Ideally I’d prefer if he were averaging more than 2.8 attempts per game.

Even Martini, he’s had a disappointing season for sure, but one thing he is at least doing is shooting the three decently well. At 36% he’s shooting the third highest percentage on the team behind Acuff and Bailey.

Your second point about misusing shooters is something that I think is valid. Acuff, Bailey and Martini should all be taking more attempts.

You make some good points, Pike obviously does target shooters in recruiting but I don’t think it’s one of the key points he looks for in a player. We have gotten some talented offensive players under Pike, but the bigger issue is probably not getting enough looks for the shooters that we do have.

However, when it comes to guards particularly, we need to target and land better shooters. Perimeter players simply need to be legitimate threats from deep. Teams practically beg our guards to shoot, outside of Dylan.

 

[seansherm]

So much has been said I'm not 100% sure I remember the OP, but you have to lean that this is more a recruiting issue than an offensive coaching issue.
We are 8th in the conference in 3 pt attempts and 4th in the conference in FT attemps (top 8 in conference only), 3rd in offensive rebounds - those are recipes for success.
Guards that can't shoot and bigs/wings that can't defend all play a role in the results.

 

[RUDivision]

So much has been said I'm not 100% sure I remember the OP, but you have to lean that this is more a recruiting issue than an offensive coaching issue.
We are 8th in the conference in 3 pt attempts and 4th in the conference in FT attemps (top 8 in conference only), 3rd in offensive rebounds - those are recipes for success.
Guards that can't shoot and bigs/wings that can't defend all play a role in the results.

I am talking specifically about the stats and not to your point!

Here is why my KenPom, Bart, or analytical driven friends need to look under the covers at numbers.
3 pt attempts
Ft attempts
Offensive boards.

Does anyone who watched the season believe we excel at making 3’s or Ft? Are we a good rebounding team?

I realize Pike finally playing Grant and Dortch has helped.

 

[RU MAN]

An offensive system is meant to give a schematic advantage over your competition. Look at the data you provided. The leaders of those stats all have easily identifiable offensive systems and schemes. Most of them have one thing in common. An offense built around motion offensive screening principles. You put our roster in any of those systems and I’m sure the data would improve for our players. ISO/horns/4 flat stationary set especially this year the way the roster is constructed was probably the least efficient set.

Would you say Iowa Wisconsin Purdue has an athletic advantage over the rest of the B1G? But they are always near the top of the standings because they run a defined system and recruit to their needs and expectations.

Kapuna, I agree with everything you said except that our kids in a motion offense (which I want) would shoot better. Maybe, maybe not. They have proven too often that they cannot be relied on to knock down a three when it’s needed. That to me goes to recruiting. Pikiell has done a poor job at identifying “complete “ players on both sides of the ball. It’s okay to bring in a few defensive first players and have them grow in Pike’s system, but he must identify and recruit offensive minded players that can develop on the defensive side.

Pike’s inability to bring in pure shooting guards like Spencer or a Gillespie on Maryland is Pike’s fault. Couple that with bad offensive sets like we’ve seen since he got here nine years ago, and you have questionable or poor outcomes.

So, yes we need to recruit complete guards who can knock down threes at or near 40% but even they won’t hit their shots all of the time if they’re stuck in this pathetic resemblance of an offense he runs.