This team is really good. This board is still filled with basement dwelling negative wackos. Yikes. Who lives like that.
Basketball Rutgers Basketball defeats Monmouth 98-81
- Thread starter Richie O
- Start date
Meh, I’m not sure the team is really good at the current moment. They are really talented. They have a lot of potential. We definitely could be really good. Are we really good RIGHT NOW? I’m not so sure.
Never agree with Floux and he is my excel guy! BUT you’re wrong here!
When facing a team with a dominant scorer you go in with a decision take everyone else away and play that scorer straight up.
Or, double and triple team the scorer taking them away but giving the other players open looks. Pike choose to play him straight up and not let the others beat him. Ru won big !
They nake this decision every night in the NBA. Jmike and crew just couldn’t slow Bashit down enough but still a Win.
He might say that, but he knows it’s a tradeoff. Offensive effort sacrifices at the other end. Dylan often didn’t get back onto the D end last game against St. Peter’s on some of its possessions.
Basketball fact.
He didn’t play him straight up though, he let his defense double other players and free lance, and left Bashir open. He just needed to have one guy shadow Bashir and just refuses to do it. Speaking of NBA, the Knicks are playing the Nets tonight. Cam Thomas scored 27 points in the first half. Tom Thibodeau threw the kitchen sink at Thomas in the 3rd quarter to make sure he didn’t beat them.
This is a philosophical difference though, and Pike’s philosophy sure seems to work pretty well in the long run in college basketball.
And teams that move the ball well like Iowa regularly handle us pretty easily because we give up lots of open 3s, and teams like Notre Dame spread us out and ran layup drills on us because we leave players open. Pike needs to make in game adjustments based on what is happening, and to date he hasn’t done it.
I don’t think the second part of your statement follows from the first. Pike already knows how these teams play, to the extent he would or should change his game plan against them he should do it before the game.
If someone hits four threes in a row, that’s not actually valuable new information. If our game plan against that guy from Monmouth was good at the beginning of the game, it was still good at the end (and vice versa).
I am pretty sure Pike understands where his defense can be beaten in general and lives with it for various reasons. Again, you can nitpick but we’ve consistently been a great defensive team.
Maybe if it was a close game, but this wasn’t so there is no need to change anything. Btw this kid was 7-29 from three in the three games he played before tonight. Sometimes you just need to tip your cap and move forward.
The best coaches all make in game adjustments to try to win based on what they are seeing. Many college coaches are system coaches, and are reluctant to change anything even when it isn’t working, but the best college coaches adapt to what it happening on the court. In the NBA, every coach adapts every game to what is happening on the court, if they don’t, they get fired.
What is happening on the court from a strategic standpoint? Absolutely.
What is happening on the court from a “zomg that guy is so HOT!1!1!1!!!!!!” standpoint? I don’t doubt that many coaches do but I dispute that it’s a good idea at all and to the extent that some of the best coaches do it, that is not what makes them the best. The best NFL coaches used to punt on 4th and 2 from the opponents 45 too. They were wrong.
Though, as a caveat, if the opposing coach is going to adjust (incorrectly) to “zomg that guy is so hot” by forcing him the ball all the time then it does make sense to counter that adjustment. But at its core that is a reaction to strategy not to the “hotness” or lack thereof.
I have no ide what you were watching, but the effort level on D was atrocious for much of the second half. And you haven’t the faintest idea what Pike decided or what he wanted the team to do. Given the total loss of focus and intensity, nobody was clamping down on anybody.
You seem to have hyper-focused on one thing and missed everything else. And you talk like you think coaching is like being a puppet master where the players always exactly execute what the coach wants. That’s wildly unrepresentative of the realities of coaching.
I will make this very simple. All I wanted to see was Pike have one guy cover Bashir whenever they were on offense. The guy scored almost half of their points, almost all from open 3s. Pike did not do this because no one was shadowing Bashir.
There is nothing complicated in all this and no need to simplify anything. We are not failing to understand what you are speculating about. It’s you that is failing to understand why some of us disagree with your opinion about the problem with how the team defended in the second half.
And I’m curious what D1 coaching credentials you have that would persuade us to value your opinion about how to coach over Pike’s? And, once again, you are confusing what you saw from the players with what Pike did or did not ask of the players.
An opposing player scores almost half of the 81 points his team scores!…. why do you have an issue with a fan questioning our defensive plan to stop him?
This question has ZERO to do with Pike’s coaching philosophy or his ability to coach defense.
It’s a simple in game, in the moment question.
The fans level of coaching prowess is also of ZERO relevance
It’s a simple question, assign one of your B1G Ten level, D1 players to get in his grill and do your best to eliminate him from getting wide open shots.
We don’t know what Pike wanted to do, we do know what he didn’t do.
The puppet master equivalent is pure ridiculousness
Nice strawman there zap. Where did I say I have a problem with him? My problem is that I disagree with most of what he's saying.
I disagree with you that this debate you've entered has zero to do with Pike's coaching since the poster you're defending specifically mentioned Pike and his coaching. I also disagree with you that a fan's level of coaching experience isn't relevant to discussions where a fan attacks the coaching. 99.9% of fans who attacking coaching in any sports are entirely unqualified to do so. Just because everybody does a thing doesn't make that thing right.
So basically, in your post, you are putting words in my mouth I never said, and filtering out words the other guy did say. I'm thinking, if you want to enter in the middle of a debate, at least take the time to read through the entire debate and make sure you understand who is saying what in the debate.
Why I should bother paying any attention to what you have to say if you were too lazy to read and understand the debate prior to you entering it. Your comment about my analogy (it wasn't an "equivalent") being ridiculous is either lazy, dumb, or both.
Try going back, rereading the whole exchange between me and the other forum member, thinking for a while and maybe asking some questions if there's something you don't understand. Then I'd be happy to explain it to you. I'll even draw you a picture, if that helps.
Similar threads
