I am likely to do a post mortem on most RU games, time permitting. This one may be shorter than most (which some will laugh at given my tendency for lengthy posts).
So ... Here goes, with a high level summary:
1) To begin with, this game comes with a major caveat. Yes, Wagner went to the NCAA last year after winning the NEC tourney. And, yes, Wagner is favored, along with Central Connecticut St, as pre-season co-champions. But ... Last season, Wagner was 14-15 going into the NEC tourney (a losing record) ... and lost its top 3 players from last year. This year's starting line-up was made up of entirely of last season's next 5 top players (#4-8). I say all this because, though I thought RU played very good defense (other than its defensive rebounding), and was relatively efficient offensively (50% FG, though just 30% 3-point FG), and made Wagner look really bad for most of the game, I wonder ... Wagner did not LOOK like a pre-season co-champion favorite, even from a bad conference. Of course, this game, the 1st game, against a low level conference team, and without Bailey, does not mean much (unless RU really struggled) ... but maybe it means even less, if Wagner is actually NOT a good team.
2) RU had a real rebounding problem: both weak defensive rebounding (especially in the 2nd half), AND offensive rebounding. I do not know the answer. Does the coaching staff have an answer? Maybe the only answer is for the team to achieve in other areas to offset this weakness ... like scoring more, and more efficiently. Still ... a team with a strong scoring and rebounding frontcourt could cause real damage to RTU that cannot be offset, unless Pikiell and staff can figure out how to help the team be a better rebounding team.
3) RU won easily, even with flaws ... always a good sign. Here are the flaws RU overcame to win going away (by 23, but with 1 minute left it was a 29 point margin): a) RU was missing its #1 or #2 player; b) Very poor defensive rebounding, allowing WAY too many offensive rebounds, especially in the 2nd half; c) Very poor offensive rebounding - only 4, 2 of which were team rebounds; d) Poor FT shooting - though Harper was 1-6 FT, which would seem like an extreme anomaly, unlikely to repeat itself. Surely there were other team flaws, but those come to mind. Yet, it is a good sign, IMO, when a team can win easily without playing its "A" game, and missing its expected top scorer.. I am sure RU will struggle in some games, not even playing as well as they did vs Wagner ... AND ... I am sure RU will ALSO play better in other games, even against better teams.
Players (mostly quick comments):
Harper: Oddly enough, in my opinion, it is a GREAT sign that everyone (announcers, commentators post game, fans etc.) was "wowed" with his control, his ability to get to the rim at will, his ability to finish at the rim (make his at-rim shots) through contact, his improved defense (vs the St. John's game), his vision and passing ... all in a game in which I felt Harper did not even have his "A" game. Yes, he was good, and yes he of course keyed the game and was RU's best player in the game (as he often will). Still, I felt he forced things a little more than he should (more so than in the St. John's exhibition game),leading to his 4 TO ... and he was just 1-6 FT. Well, maybe I am nitpicking ... but I just felt while watching the game that we are going to see Harper play many games better ... which, IS very exciting.
Ogbole: Very poor game. Not just the fouls ... his few minutes were not because of fouls, but because he played poorly. His biggest issue in THIS game was a complete lack of good defensive footwork, and a lack of sound defensive fundamentals. That does not mean he will play like this in all games, but in THIS game he was very poor. His major defensive problem in THIS game was he played entirely behind Wagner's post player, and let him establish position way too close to the hoop, and never tried to reposition the offensive player by either his strength, partial fronting, or by moving his feet. Ogbole played much better defense against a better post player versus St. Johns - but was notably poor vs Wagner. He earned only getting 5 minutes of time.
Sommerville: Terrific start to his career. The offensive moves were obviously highly skilled, with excellent footwork and excellent body control. He was solid with defensive rebounding, as well. And his defense, even against a lesser player than he faced in the exhibition vs St. Johns, was vastly improved, with solid fundamentals and excellent defensive footwork. And what a passer, eh? Sommerville will struggle, surely, in some games. But he also showed some real potential. Maybe ... RU will get more games than not from Sommerville like this ... and maybe a few games of better than what he did in this game from Ogbole? One can hope, eh?
Williams: Excellent, solid game. Even with the shoulder, he was controlled, played terrific defense, occasionally explosive offensively, and an important part of breaking down the Wagner defense, as well as pushing the pace in transition.
Derkack: He is going to be an important part of the rotation. His athleticism is evident, his defense is very strong, he can rebound a bit ... his offense is still a work in progress, especially against better teams. he will make some frustrating decisions and moves (especially in the half-court offense), and some electrifying ones (especially on defense and in transition). But he will play.
Davis: I thought he was excellent vs Wagner. His on-ball and recovery defense were simply outstanding - as I expect it will be in most games. And his decision-making was really good offensively this game. I did not see any forced shots. When he drove into the lane, he looked to pass out to open teammates. He kept the ball moving, passing - it did not stick to his hands ... including giving up several open shots to pass to better shooters on his team for better shots. Yes, he was 0-3 from 3-point range. But all were wide open, unforced, shots (I think 2 or all 3 were from Harper, costing Harper a couple of assists). He and Derkack will lose minutes when Bailey is available, but Davis was excellent, IMO ... oh yeah, 5 assists, 0 turnovers and 3-4 FT, plus a few rebounds.
Hayes and Martini: Did what they were brought in to do: Hit their open 3's. Hayes also was at least OK on defense (and certainly showed great willingness on D), and made several really good cuts to the basket. Martini his his 1st 3's and was solid on defense (not great but solid).
Acuff: I though he played a solid offensive floor game (though he did not hit many shots), though still not quite in full GAME shape ... my son felt the ball stuck to his hands too much in the half court, unlike with Davis or Williams, thus reducing the flow of RU's offense when he had the ball. Regardless, his defense was ... poor. Many times in his just 14 minutes he was unable to cover his man, fooled, beaten or out of position ... this would be a problem. Richie O thinks Acuff is RU's 6th man. Pre-season and injury I thought Acuff would likely be RU's offensive spark off the bench. My son thinks Acuff should be RU's TENTH (10th) man, behind the normal starters - Bailey, Harper, Williams, Martini and the Center - as well as Derkack, Hayes and Davis and the 2nd center. We shall; see. My early read currently is that Hayes should get minutes over Acuff, if that is the choice ... and that Davis and Derkack do things needed off the bench that Acuff cannot do (play-making and defense).
On Acuff, vs let's say Williams (not that the comparison is between those 2): Williams is the FAR better player - and during his full college career has ALWAYS been the better prospect and better player, last season's scoring explosion by Acuff notwithstanding. Derkack may also be better - other than 3-point FG% ... and Davis fills a totally different role.
Grant/Dortch: Glad Grant got a couple of minutes - and hope he does so in the next couple of game also. But he is clearly thw 11th man, and a prime candidate for a redshirt ... no judgment on his 2 missed shots ... but he did alos get 2 nice rebounds. Dortch si almost certainly going to be redshirted - and hopefully will return next year (rather than transfer) with another year of learning, physical strength improvement, etc.
So ... Here goes, with a high level summary:
1) To begin with, this game comes with a major caveat. Yes, Wagner went to the NCAA last year after winning the NEC tourney. And, yes, Wagner is favored, along with Central Connecticut St, as pre-season co-champions. But ... Last season, Wagner was 14-15 going into the NEC tourney (a losing record) ... and lost its top 3 players from last year. This year's starting line-up was made up of entirely of last season's next 5 top players (#4-8). I say all this because, though I thought RU played very good defense (other than its defensive rebounding), and was relatively efficient offensively (50% FG, though just 30% 3-point FG), and made Wagner look really bad for most of the game, I wonder ... Wagner did not LOOK like a pre-season co-champion favorite, even from a bad conference. Of course, this game, the 1st game, against a low level conference team, and without Bailey, does not mean much (unless RU really struggled) ... but maybe it means even less, if Wagner is actually NOT a good team.
2) RU had a real rebounding problem: both weak defensive rebounding (especially in the 2nd half), AND offensive rebounding. I do not know the answer. Does the coaching staff have an answer? Maybe the only answer is for the team to achieve in other areas to offset this weakness ... like scoring more, and more efficiently. Still ... a team with a strong scoring and rebounding frontcourt could cause real damage to RTU that cannot be offset, unless Pikiell and staff can figure out how to help the team be a better rebounding team.
3) RU won easily, even with flaws ... always a good sign. Here are the flaws RU overcame to win going away (by 23, but with 1 minute left it was a 29 point margin): a) RU was missing its #1 or #2 player; b) Very poor defensive rebounding, allowing WAY too many offensive rebounds, especially in the 2nd half; c) Very poor offensive rebounding - only 4, 2 of which were team rebounds; d) Poor FT shooting - though Harper was 1-6 FT, which would seem like an extreme anomaly, unlikely to repeat itself. Surely there were other team flaws, but those come to mind. Yet, it is a good sign, IMO, when a team can win easily without playing its "A" game, and missing its expected top scorer.. I am sure RU will struggle in some games, not even playing as well as they did vs Wagner ... AND ... I am sure RU will ALSO play better in other games, even against better teams.
Players (mostly quick comments):
Harper: Oddly enough, in my opinion, it is a GREAT sign that everyone (announcers, commentators post game, fans etc.) was "wowed" with his control, his ability to get to the rim at will, his ability to finish at the rim (make his at-rim shots) through contact, his improved defense (vs the St. John's game), his vision and passing ... all in a game in which I felt Harper did not even have his "A" game. Yes, he was good, and yes he of course keyed the game and was RU's best player in the game (as he often will). Still, I felt he forced things a little more than he should (more so than in the St. John's exhibition game),leading to his 4 TO ... and he was just 1-6 FT. Well, maybe I am nitpicking ... but I just felt while watching the game that we are going to see Harper play many games better ... which, IS very exciting.
Ogbole: Very poor game. Not just the fouls ... his few minutes were not because of fouls, but because he played poorly. His biggest issue in THIS game was a complete lack of good defensive footwork, and a lack of sound defensive fundamentals. That does not mean he will play like this in all games, but in THIS game he was very poor. His major defensive problem in THIS game was he played entirely behind Wagner's post player, and let him establish position way too close to the hoop, and never tried to reposition the offensive player by either his strength, partial fronting, or by moving his feet. Ogbole played much better defense against a better post player versus St. Johns - but was notably poor vs Wagner. He earned only getting 5 minutes of time.
Sommerville: Terrific start to his career. The offensive moves were obviously highly skilled, with excellent footwork and excellent body control. He was solid with defensive rebounding, as well. And his defense, even against a lesser player than he faced in the exhibition vs St. Johns, was vastly improved, with solid fundamentals and excellent defensive footwork. And what a passer, eh? Sommerville will struggle, surely, in some games. But he also showed some real potential. Maybe ... RU will get more games than not from Sommerville like this ... and maybe a few games of better than what he did in this game from Ogbole? One can hope, eh?
Williams: Excellent, solid game. Even with the shoulder, he was controlled, played terrific defense, occasionally explosive offensively, and an important part of breaking down the Wagner defense, as well as pushing the pace in transition.
Derkack: He is going to be an important part of the rotation. His athleticism is evident, his defense is very strong, he can rebound a bit ... his offense is still a work in progress, especially against better teams. he will make some frustrating decisions and moves (especially in the half-court offense), and some electrifying ones (especially on defense and in transition). But he will play.
Davis: I thought he was excellent vs Wagner. His on-ball and recovery defense were simply outstanding - as I expect it will be in most games. And his decision-making was really good offensively this game. I did not see any forced shots. When he drove into the lane, he looked to pass out to open teammates. He kept the ball moving, passing - it did not stick to his hands ... including giving up several open shots to pass to better shooters on his team for better shots. Yes, he was 0-3 from 3-point range. But all were wide open, unforced, shots (I think 2 or all 3 were from Harper, costing Harper a couple of assists). He and Derkack will lose minutes when Bailey is available, but Davis was excellent, IMO ... oh yeah, 5 assists, 0 turnovers and 3-4 FT, plus a few rebounds.
Hayes and Martini: Did what they were brought in to do: Hit their open 3's. Hayes also was at least OK on defense (and certainly showed great willingness on D), and made several really good cuts to the basket. Martini his his 1st 3's and was solid on defense (not great but solid).
Acuff: I though he played a solid offensive floor game (though he did not hit many shots), though still not quite in full GAME shape ... my son felt the ball stuck to his hands too much in the half court, unlike with Davis or Williams, thus reducing the flow of RU's offense when he had the ball. Regardless, his defense was ... poor. Many times in his just 14 minutes he was unable to cover his man, fooled, beaten or out of position ... this would be a problem. Richie O thinks Acuff is RU's 6th man. Pre-season and injury I thought Acuff would likely be RU's offensive spark off the bench. My son thinks Acuff should be RU's TENTH (10th) man, behind the normal starters - Bailey, Harper, Williams, Martini and the Center - as well as Derkack, Hayes and Davis and the 2nd center. We shall; see. My early read currently is that Hayes should get minutes over Acuff, if that is the choice ... and that Davis and Derkack do things needed off the bench that Acuff cannot do (play-making and defense).
On Acuff, vs let's say Williams (not that the comparison is between those 2): Williams is the FAR better player - and during his full college career has ALWAYS been the better prospect and better player, last season's scoring explosion by Acuff notwithstanding. Derkack may also be better - other than 3-point FG% ... and Davis fills a totally different role.
Grant/Dortch: Glad Grant got a couple of minutes - and hope he does so in the next couple of game also. But he is clearly thw 11th man, and a prime candidate for a redshirt ... no judgment on his 2 missed shots ... but he did alos get 2 nice rebounds. Dortch si almost certainly going to be redshirted - and hopefully will return next year (rather than transfer) with another year of learning, physical strength improvement, etc.
