Where UT basketball needs improvement

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
74,594
Likes
44,100
#1
Saw a thread about the high expectations for the Vols team, which is understandable this year.

I was going to post my standard thought on this, which is that UT's problem last year was size on the front court. UT's guard play was fine, and when the shooters were on, you did well. It seemed to me last year however that when you went cold from the perimeter, you were in trouble.

So I did some checking and here are some stats that I think support my perception on it and ergo where UT needs to improve this year over last year.

Of the SEC's 12 teams, last year UT was first in scoring offense, averaging 80.9 points per game. But, you were dead last in scoring defense, allowing 75.1 points per game. That's a differential of just 5.8 points per game. Not much margin for error.

You were also last in field goal percentage defense.

This comes from rebounding, in my opinion. Offensive rebounding, UT finished eighth. Defensive rebounding you were last. In rebounding margin, you were tenth in the conference.

To me, the biggest area of need for improvement for UT in 2007-08 is underneath.

2006-07 SEC Men's Basketball - Leaders Here's a link to all the stats if you want to take a look.

What improvements down underneath the basket do you see for UT this year? Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
Very accurate. Good post. I do think we will be much improved on these fronts. Remember, our youth had alot to do with those defencencies. Also, Childress continues to evolve and we have a couple of new additions that will also give some depth and size.
 
#3
#3
Well we have a starting PF who is 4 inches taller and can jump just a little higher than Dane. We have a 6-10 freshman 5 who will see some PT. Wayne Chism has one more year of experience and conditioning, and more players to spell him. And, as much as I hate to say it, Childress can play for more than 10 min at a time and still be effective.

Crews, well he's a wild card because he hasn't practiced in about a month and a half. He also didn't look that great in the summer, besides his pickup game. So, we'll wait and see on Duke.
 
#6
#6
UTLCA said:
Well we have a starting PF who is 4 inches taller and can jump just a little higher than Dane. We have a 6-10 freshman 5 who will see some PT. Wayne Chism has one more year of experience and conditioning, and more players to spell him. And, as much as I hate to say it, Childress can play for more than 10 min at a time and still be effective.

Crews, well he's a wild card because he hasn't practiced in about a month and a half. He also didn't look that great in the summer, besides his pickup game. So, we'll wait and see on Duke.
Click to expand...
Duke Crews = Major Wingate....
 
#7
#7
Good post LG.

Part of the problem, obviously, is that when you shoot a lot of 3s, you have fewer people down low to get offense rebounds. Defensive rebounds is another issue.

Tyler replacing Dane, as well as adding Williams, will help our inside game, but we'll rely on our overall athleticism for more boards, particularly when guys like Tatum and Prince are playing one of the guard positions.
 
#9
#9
UTLCA said:
Minus 3 inches and a true post skill set.
Click to expand...

that's giving Wingate way too much credit. I think the comparison other than size is pretty accurate, although I'd say Crews is quicker around the basket than Wingate was.
 
#10
#10
Crews has no back to the basket game. He doesn't post up well because of his size, and relies on his speed and intensity to get around defenders. Not like Major at all.
 
#11
#11
TennNC said:
Good post LG.

Part of the problem, obviously, is that when you shoot a lot of 3s, you have fewer people down low to get offense rebounds. Defensive rebounds is another issue.

Tyler replacing Dane, as well as adding Williams, will help our inside game, but we'll rely on our overall athleticism for more boards, particularly when guys like Tatum and Prince are playing one of the guard positions.
Click to expand...


Yes, UT was at the top on 3 point shooting, but at the bottom on defensive rebounding. That right there tells you something about the nature of your offense and your defense last year.

There will be nights where you shoot the lights out and UT will cruise in those. Its where the rim is too tight and Lofton et al aren't hitting those jumpers that you have to be able to grind one out.

I also predict that Pearl slows down the offense a bit this year. That may seem counterinituitive given his particular style of coaching and it may seem like it doesn't suit transitional three's. But, if indeed you have more size underneath and you want to take advantage of a better inside-outside game than you had last year, you have to give the big men time to get down the floor and establish some space.
 
#12
#12
UTLCA said:
Crews has no back to the basket game. He doesn't post up well because of his size, and relies on his speed and intensity to get around defenders. Not like Major at all.
Click to expand...

then I think we're in agreement, b/c I don't think Major had any back to the basket game either.

Similarities - both athletic and strong and good leapers, both lacking skill, especially in the post.

Differences - size and a bit of quickness.
 
#14
#14
lawgator1 said:
Yes, UT was at the top on 3 point shooting, but at the bottom on defensive rebounding. That right there tells you something about the nature of your offense and your defense last year.

There will be nights where you shoot the lights out and UT will cruise in those. Its where the rim is too tight and Lofton et al aren't hitting those jumpers that you have to be able to grind one out.

I also predict that Pearl slows down the offense a bit this year. That may seem counterinituitive given his particular style of coaching and it may seem like it doesn't suit transitional three's. But, if indeed you have more size underneath and you want to take advantage of a better inside-outside game than you had last year, you have to give the big men time to get down the floor and establish some space.
Click to expand...

Last year, when Chism was out on the floor, he was pretty much the only post player down there. This year we'll have sets with Chism and Childress/Duke/Williams, which will allow Chism to exploit his matchups with either the 4 or 5 that is guarding him. It'll allow us to spread the floor and utilize a huge mismatch outside or go one on one in the paint.

When Tyler is in the game, we'll run that same up tempo ball screen offense and purely outrun the opponent ala last year- except with more options rather than Lofton and several secondary players. Now, we'll have about 5 good scoring options on the floor with our starters.
 
#15
#15
UTLCA said:
Last year, when Chism was out on the floor, he was pretty much the only post player down there. This year we'll have sets with Chism and Childress/Duke/Williams, which will allow Chism to exploit his matchups with either the 4 or 5 that is guarding him. It'll allow us to spread the floor and utilize a huge mismatch outside or go one on one in the paint.

When Tyler is in the game, we'll run that same up tempo ball screen offense and purely outrun the opponent ala last year- except with more options rather than Lofton and several secondary players. Now, we'll have about 5 good scoring options on the floor with out starters.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup: Pick your poison. A slow death or get run out of the gym, UT now has the guys to do both.
 
#16
#16
We will find out pretty early. We do have fine shooting team but I am concerned about rebounding,defense,etc. Hopefully our depth can help offset some of our weak areas. Good post and thank you for your concern. Now why are we talking basketball so much when in years past it's been football, oh never mind.:)
 
#17
#17
Yeah, I mean there's really no mismatch any more for UT basketball. We won't need to be afraid of frontcourt size, anything in the backcourt, or physicality. We have our specialty, which is a full court game, but now we have players with different skills and that allows us, with our 11 players, to change our style before, during, or at the end of games.

To me, that's why I like our chances so much this year. And, that's the sign of a good team. Depth provides teams a chance to adapt if a certain game plan isn't working out.
 
#18
#18
The FG % defense is very typical of uptempo pressing style basketball. Many layups and such. Tends to be offset by forced turnovers, which is the intent. Our halfcourt D has been atrocious, which is our most glaring need for improvement.

Rebounding, while an issue, was never at the root of the problem for this team. We could not half court D, make FTs and had no go to offensive machine to stop our own scoring droughts. I expect a couple of those areas to be improved this year. The go to scorer is a bit of a tough issue for us. I'd like to think Chism or one of the newcomers can take that role.
 
#19
#19
BigPapaVol said:
The FG % defense is very typical of uptempo pressing style basketball.
Click to expand...

BigPapaVol is correct on this one. Part of the reason we didn't look so great on the defensive boards and gave up a higher percentage of field goals is due to our full- and half-court pressure schemes. It's a risk/reward proposition -- sometimes we're able to create a turnover and get an easy bucket, and sometimes the opponent is able to get by us and pick up an easy one.

I think the key to making this style work is conditioning and depth. In the past, we've been well-conditioned ... but as the season wore on, our players would get tired near the end of games due to the lack of depth.

I guarantee we have fixed that problem this year. This team is an embarrassment of riches as far as depth is concerned. We are going to run most teams off the floor.
 
#20
#20
LG, good post, and i think if were not for the style of play, obviously those stats would be detrimental to a bball team.

but these stats kind of tell the other side of the story, and relay the point that the style that BP implements was done, probably specifically, to counter those deficiencies:

TN was also #1 in the league in steals and # 1 in the league in turnover ratio. those two helped counter the rebounding deficenices and gave us the extra chances we lost at the boards.

the point is still valid though, our area of opp. is underneath and f/t shooting. both of which i expect to be better this year with the 4 man rotation we should have at the 5 spot.
 
#24
#24
BigPapaVol said:
it is not a good post when it attributes our fg% defense to poor rebounding and makes the exceptionally obvious point that our weakness was under the hoop.
Click to expand...


With regard to the former, I think you are more correct than I am, though in theory if you on defense are not getting rebounds and people are in tight to the basket when they pull down a board and put it back up, their FG % is likely to go up, and your FG % defense likely to go down.

With regard to the latter, if you read my initial post I said that it had been my impression that last year you were weak there and I went and looked at the stats to see if I was right. I don't claim to be a genius for making the observation -- I was just ponying up some proof of what a lot of us thought, Vols fan or otherwise.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top