Everything evolves around making some open shots

#26
#26
cncchris33 said:
We have no one that can consistently take their man off the dribble and get to the basket and finish. We have no one that can back their man down into the paint and get an easy bucket. Nearly every shot we make is from outside 5 feet. Our "bigs" rely on fadeaways, jump-hooks, and mid-range jumpers. Our guards rely on outside jumpers and mid-range jumpers. I don't know that I've ever seen a team that just struggled to score around the basket as much as this bunch.

We heard all about how we were going to play fast and push tempo with this group, and we just refuse to do it. So, if that is the change our offense needs, it has needed it all year. We just are not going to outscore good teams in the halfcourt. We don't have a Grant Williams that owns the paint. We don't have an Admiral Schofield who can beat his man off the dribble. We don't have a Jordan Bone who can get to the rim at will. So our ability to score is almost entirely predicated on making difficult/low percentage shots. If we are shooting above our average, our defense is good enough to result in blowouts. If we shoot like we did, last night, our defense is good enough to stay in games with bad teams (Ole Miss), but not against more talented teams (Bama, Florida). Turnovers are also becoming a bigger issue.

So, I'm not sure our offense is broken. I just think our offensive philosophy that worked so well two years ago doesn't seem to mesh with the personnel we currently have. We seem to want to be a slow-paced, methodical, halfcourt offense, but our personnel doesn't seem like a fit for that.
Click to expand...
This is spot-on. Exactly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cncchris33
#27
#27
cncchris33 said:
Springer played his worst game as a Vol. Ole Miss got very physical with him, perhaps to the point of fouls occurring that weren't called, and it frustrated him. He will have to grow from that and not let it affect him. He was visibly frustrated.
Click to expand...
I think the Ole Miss game plan was to hound Springer in the paint. They had 2-3 guys collapsing every trip into the paint and he had no chance to get anything. There was once where he made a nice pass out, but otherwise they became empty possessions.
 
#28
#28
cardvolfan said:
I think the Ole Miss game plan was to hound Springer in the paint. They had 2-3 guys collapsing every trip into the paint and he had no chance to get anything. There was once where he made a nice pass out, but otherwise they became empty possessions.
Click to expand...
Dude they were mostly playing zone D and collapsed on every Vol that got in the lane which left us open looks on outside shots. We made those shots in the first half but not the second half.
 
#29
#29
walkenvol said:
Dude they were mostly playing zone D and collapsed on every Vol that got in the lane which left us open looks on outside shots. We made those shots in the first half but not the second half.
Click to expand...
You might take a look again.
 
#31
#31
bleedingTNorange said:
I’m not comparing what OM did, that has nothing to do with it...if we have 11 turnovers like our average and we hit our free throws you’re talking another 10-12 points. On the surface that’s not a great offensive showing with 60-62 points, but considering PPP that would be close to 1.0ppp which is solid.
Click to expand...

What OM did absolutely had something to do with it when your response was "take care of the ball and hit free throws and not only do we win but its a pretty respectable offensive showing". So now if we do all those things it's "not a great offensive showing" .Which one is it? You've backpedaled pretty quickly in a span of 3 posts.


It's easy to use the FTs and turnovers as an excuse until you realize we had one more point from the FT line than OM (on one more attempt) and we had one less turnover than OM. So all told it was pretty evenly played in those 2 areas, so you can't exactly blame those things. Using FTs and turnovers, while I agree are things we need to clean up, ignores the much larger problem here. Not to mention OM isn't a good team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zjcvols
#32
#32
walkenvol said:
You don’t think they played majority zone D?
Click to expand...
They did, but they had more collapsing on Springer than Pons. Go back and look. Pons took his paint shots with one man on him, while Springer had several anytime he touched the ball.
 
#33
#33
Vols8086 said:
What OM did absolutely had something to do with it when your response was "take care of the ball and hit free throws and not only do we win but its a pretty respectable offensive showing". So now if we do all those things it's "not a great offensive showing" .Which one is it? You've backpedaled pretty quickly in a span of 3 posts.


It's easy to use the FTs and turnovers as an excuse until you realize we had one more point from the FT line than OM (on one more attempt) and we had one less turnover than OM. So all told it was pretty evenly played in those 2 areas, so you can't exactly blame those things. Using FTs and turnovers, while I agree are things we need to clean up, ignores the much larger problem here. Not to mention OM isn't a good team.
Click to expand...

Rebounds were one of the most favorable stats for Ole Miss, but I really didn’t notice it that much during the game. Lots of missed shots by TN disguised it I suppose.
 
#34
#34
Our problem is we have a PG that can not get by people. If you can't drive the ball the interior is easy to defend. We pass the ball around the perimeter at about 30-35 feet and that puts no pressure on the defense. I would move Keon or Springer to the point, at least in the 1/2 court offense. Keon can get in the lane and is a good passer. Vescovi is only a good passer when he drives the ball, but he can't get by anyone.
 
#35
#35
BigOrangeNC said:
Our problem is we have a PG that can not get by people. If you can't drive the ball the interior is easy to defend. We pass the ball around the perimeter at about 30-35 feet and that puts no pressure on the defense. I would move Keon or Springer to the point, at least in the 1/2 court offense. Keon can get in the lane and is a good passer. Vescovi is only a good passer when he drives the ball, but he can't get by anyone.
Click to expand...

Springer and Keon frequently are the half court PGs. Ole Miss took Springer out of the game as an offensive threat.
 
#36
#36
cardvolfan said:
They did, but they had more collapsing on Springer than Pons. Go back and look. Pons took his paint shots with one man on him, while Springer had several anytime he touched the ball.
Click to expand...
What I recall seeing (and I’m not a professional bball analyst) was the Ole Miss wing didn’t consistently double down on inlet passes to our post players whereas when our wing players drove the lane they the Ole Miss wing followed with him and the Ole Miss bigs clogged things up the closer we got to the basket.

Maybe I don’t know a zone D well enough to know what I was seeing?
 
#38
#38
walkenvol said:
What I recall seeing (and I’m not a professional bball analyst) was the Ole Miss wing didn’t consistently double down on inlet passes to our post players whereas when our wing players drove the lane they the Ole Miss wing followed with him and the Ole Miss bigs clogged things up the closer we got to the basket.

Maybe I don’t know a zone D well enough to know what I was seeing?
Click to expand...
The delineation between a zone and man-to-man becomes less clear the closer to the basket you get.
 
#39
#39
cncchris33 said:
We have no one that can consistently take their man off the dribble and get to the basket and finish. We have no one that can back their man down into the paint and get an easy bucket. Nearly every shot we make is from outside 5 feet. Our "bigs" rely on fadeaways, jump-hooks, and mid-range jumpers. Our guards rely on outside jumpers and mid-range jumpers. I don't know that I've ever seen a team that just struggled to score around the basket as much as this bunch.

We heard all about how we were going to play fast and push tempo with this group, and we just refuse to do it. So, if that is the change our offense needs, it has needed it all year. We just are not going to outscore good teams in the halfcourt. We don't have a Grant Williams that owns the paint. We don't have an Admiral Schofield who can beat his man off the dribble. We don't have a Jordan Bone who can get to the rim at will. So our ability to score is almost entirely predicated on making difficult/low percentage shots. If we are shooting above our average, our defense is good enough to result in blowouts. If we shoot like we did, last night, our defense is good enough to stay in games with bad teams (Ole Miss), but not against more talented teams (Bama, Florida). Turnovers are also becoming a bigger issue.

So, I'm not sure our offense is broken. I just think our offensive philosophy that worked so well two years ago doesn't seem to mesh with the personnel we currently have. We seem to want to be a slow-paced, methodical, halfcourt offense, but our personnel doesn't seem like a fit for that.
Click to expand...

Great stuff here Chris.

The offense works great when you have an elite post creator like Grant. But without Grant the offense has been suspect in Barnes’ time here and he refuses to push the pace (which he says every freaking single year preseason we are going to do and then never do it). We need to get easier buckets and the offensive design isn’t doing that with the personnel right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol49er and cncchris33
#40
#40
bleedingTNorange said:
Again, as crappy as the offense might’ve looked, take care of the ball and hit free throws and not only do we win but it’s a pretty respectable offensive showing.

For some reason it seems in games we shoot poorly we also turn it over and can’t hit free throws, bad combo.
Click to expand...

See you’re not seeing the forest through the trees or however that goes. You keep making excuses “oh well if we hit free throws we win” or “a couple less turnovers and we win” and yes maybe that’s true but a team with this much talent shouldn’t be having trouble scoring 50 against a 8-8 team. We shouldn’t be in February and putting up bad offensive performances. The offense sucked last night. TGO posted we went 18 minutes in total without a field goal last night. How can you not see how much of a significant problem that is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol49er and Lurker
#41
#41
Thunder Good-Oil said:
Rebounds were one of the most favorable stats for Ole Miss, but I really didn’t notice it that much during the game. Lots of missed shots by TN disguised it I suppose.
Click to expand...
I noticed it during the game. They were killing us on the boards, predictably the offensive glass. They scored 30 points in the paint, 7 points on second chances, and their offensive reb% was 28.5%. By comparison, ours was 15.6%. Fulkerson, Pons, Nkamhoua and Anosike combined for 0 ORebs. We were actually more efficient with our second chance opportunities (8 points), but we just didn’t give ourselves near as many opportunities as Ole Miss gave themselves, and certainly not enough opportunities considering the number of shots we missed.

In a tight game, the team that gives itself more opportunities is likely going to win, and that’s what happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lurker
#42
#42
zjcvols said:
Great stuff here Chris.

The offense works great when you have an elite post creator like Grant. But without Grant the offense has been suspect in Barnes’ time here and he refuses to push the pace (which he says every freaking single year preseason we are going to do and then never do it). We need to get easier buckets and the offensive design isn’t doing that with the personnel right now.
Click to expand...
I bet you wouldn’t guess the number of points we’ve scored in transition during SEC play even if you intentionally low-balled it.

34 points. Less than 4 per game. And we had 0 against Kansas, to boot. 34 fast break points in 10 games. Man.........
 
  • Like
Reactions: cardvolfan
#43
#43
cncchris33 said:
I bet you wouldn’t guess the number of points we’ve scored in transition during SEC play even if you intentionally low-balled it.

34 points. Less than 4 per game. And we had 0 against Kansas, to boot. 34 fast break points in 10 games. Man.........
Click to expand...

That is just...man that is bad. I wouldn’t have guessed that low.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cncchris33
#44
#44
Man the offensive numbers in conference are...really bad.

FG%- 11th
2P%- 11th
3PA- 11th
3P%- 11th
FTA- 4th
FT%- 13th
ORB- 14th
 
#45
#45
cncchris33 said:
I bet you wouldn’t guess the number of points we’ve scored in transition during SEC play even if you intentionally low-balled it.

34 points. Less than 4 per game. And we had 0 against Kansas, to boot. 34 fast break points in 10 games. Man.........
Click to expand...
I mentioned this in another thread, but we had ZERO transition points last night and Ole Miss had 15. Ole Miss also scored 60% of their points in the paint and we were 20% in the paint. Very rarely is a game won there. As you said in another thread, that is our identity at this point. If we don’t change, we can look for more bad outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vols All Day and cncchris33
#46
#46
cardvolfan said:
I mentioned this in another thread, but we had ZERO transition points last night and Ole Miss had 15. Ole Miss also scored 60% of their points in the paint and we were 20% in the paint. Very rarely is a game won there. As you said in another thread, that is our identity at this point. If we don’t change, we can look for more bad outcomes.
Click to expand...
Yep, in a 52-50 game, when you give up 15 free points, and score 0, well...good luck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vols All Day, Lurker and cardvolfan
#47
#47
Vols8086 said:
What OM did absolutely had something to do with it when your response was "take care of the ball and hit free throws and not only do we win but its a pretty respectable offensive showing". So now if we do all those things it's "not a great offensive showing" .Which one is it? You've backpedaled pretty quickly in a span of 3 posts.


It's easy to use the FTs and turnovers as an excuse until you realize we had one more point from the FT line than OM (on one more attempt) and we had one less turnover than OM. So all told it was pretty evenly played in those 2 areas, so you can't exactly blame those things. Using FTs and turnovers, while I agree are things we need to clean up, ignores the much larger problem here. Not to mention OM isn't a good team.
Click to expand...
Once again, play to our averages, and we win and the offense doesn’t look like it did. Also how many point did OM get as a result of our turnovers and fast break? So not only did we shoot poorly from the FT line and turn it over more than normal, that then allowed OM to score more than they were against our defense. So not only would we have won and offensive numbers looked much better, OM would’ve scored quite a bit less and it wouldn’t have even been a close game.

Overall point being, the schematics and style of the offense would’ve been fine had Tennessee not turned it over MUCH MORE THAN THEIR AVERAGE, and also shot their average from the FT line.
 
#50
#50
zjcvols said:
See you’re not seeing the forest through the trees or however that goes. You keep making excuses “oh well if we hit free throws we win” or “a couple less turnovers and we win” and yes maybe that’s true but a team with this much talent shouldn’t be having trouble scoring 50 against a 8-8 team. We shouldn’t be in February and putting up bad offensive performances. The offense sucked last night. TGO posted we went 18 minutes in total without a field goal last night. How can you not see how much of a significant problem that is?
Click to expand...

I think it’s absolutely a problem, but not a scheme problem....when I watch the game tonight should I post every good look we had in that span that we missed?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top