CTG knew that we were and are and will be offensively challenged this season for the unavoidable truth that we are short on shooters. So he's been telling the guys to really push the ball to try and make up some of that lost scoring by easy points in transition. Another aspect of this is that our transition defense early in the season was bad. Really bad, and a big reason we lost a bunch of early games. It's pretty good right now. I don't see too many runouts on us anymore. Which is remarkable, because when you shoot from the perimeter as poorly as we do, you tend to see a lot of long rebounds and runouts.
Incredible athlete and a high ceiling, but makes poor decisions and doesn’t play within the system. Not sure if that makes it easier or harder to correct. If he could correct this we would have a huge contributor.
We’ve virtually stopped going after offensive boards. That prevents second chance opportunities, but it also lets us get back and get our defense set every time. I hate not crashing the boards, but I can’t argue that the decision hasn’t vastly improved our defense and almost completely eliminated transition points for our competitors.
Limited by the lack of consistent shooters, which means if we make the tournament, we will steal a game when two of them go off on the same night
If he was shooting better than 28.9% from three, he would be The Man this year, but he isn't, so he isn't. So much potential, but he just hasn't put it together yet. I hope he stays and improves, but we kind of have a logjam at his position so I can understand if he would rather transfer than do the work it takes to be The Man. I'm still pulling for him, when he is hot we win more. But at the same time, statistically, when he plays more minutes we win less. We are 6-1 when he shoots 40% or better from three. He has had 7 games where attempted three point shots and made zero, we are 4-3 in those games. We are 3-4 in games where he played 23 or more minutes. The four games where he played the fewest minutes (other than the games he didn't play at all), were all wins. But his good games are great, I hope he gets things figured out and becomes The Man for us next year.
Well it would help if he chose to take good shots and not every shot, especially when he first comes in. He averages somewhere close to 20 shots per 40 minutes in some the games I’ve checked. Just no comprehension that the shots he chucks up 8 seconds into the shot clock are the same ones he could get 25 seconds into the clock, after seeing if there’s something better.
What power forwards on this squad did you see that I didn't see? We have not had a legitimate power forward since Keyontae Johnson and he is 6'5" and was worn down from the extra effort of going against guys that were 4-5 inches taller and heavier than he was each game. You are generally a good offensive-rebounding team when you have players who have been recruited to rebound. This has not been the case at Florida for almost a decade. We have consistently put 2 guards and point guards on the opposing team's power forwards, and the disparate results in rebounding are a clear-cut metric (since we are into that in this era).
Wtf are you talking about? I didn’t say anything about a power forward. I said we stopped going after the offensive boards. I know you don’t watch the games, but I do, and that is what was happening when I posted that. Someone shoots, and everyone retreats. We were not crashing the offensive boards. We were getting back to get our defense set. This move meant we had very limited second chance opportunities, but it vastly improved our transition defense.
And my response is that we have not had a prototypical power forward in almost a decade. In order to “crash” the offensive boards with some modicum of success, wouldn’t a team fare better with legitimate bigs at the 4 position?
Sure. I made no argument to the contrary. I simply stated what was actually happening, which was that we were abandoning the offensive boards in order to improve our transition defense. The move worked well, and the move still could be made even if we had a big strong 4. Teams with big strong 4’s can still have issues with transition defense.
You are right Having a legitimate 4 is not the panacea to what ails this program, but it is an indispensable element to our getting back to our winning ways. When we were an annual top 25 program, we always had legitimate power forwards. There were times White played sub 6’5” guys at the position. I don’t see anything changing with this regime. Of all of the blue chip players at the 4 who hadn’t committed by the time TG took the helm, we did not get ONE to commit despite our history of putting power forwards in the league and our dire need for one. It should have been like selling ice water to someone stranded in the desert. That raised a significant red flag. The gross instability of player personnel is another. Other programs that rely less on transfers develop cohesiveness that carries over into the next year.. Every year here at Florida, we have four people who are just learning their new environment and worse are used to doing things a certain way.
Of course it does. You are just revealing to everyone that you know very little about the game. The minute the word rebounding is uttered, power forward comes after it. Playing 6’5” players on the floor is not conducive to effective board crashing. You crash the boards when you have height or overwhelming athleticism as advantages. WE HAVE NEITHER. Your comment as quiet as it is kept underscores how puerile your appreciation of the game is. Your contention that you hope that Bonham crashes the board when he is vying against a team that has a front line thst averages 6’8” and guards that are 3 inches taller than he is is inane.
More made up nonsense. I never said I wanted Bonham crashing the boards against 6’8” guards. If you actually watched the games, maybe you would understand my post and would be able to follow along with the conversation instead of going off the rails on a rant about a topic that has almost nothing to do with my post. Our transition d was greatly suffering. We were getting killed in transition. We made the move to stop going after offensive rebounds and immediately retreated after a shot. This decision helped our transition d. End of story. Could recruiting bigger power forwards help us get more offensive rebounds? Sure it could, I never made an argument that it wouldn’t. Making more shots would also help reduce transition points for our opponents. Recruiting better shooters would help with that. Again, I never made an argument to the contrary. Could we still have an issue with transition d even if we had a great rebounding big strong 4? Yes, we could still have a problem with transition d even with big strong 4’s. You continue to try to argue with me about things I never said.
