Bear Down Wildcats

Fuckkk my final four tickets.

Not in my lifetime. Nearly 15 years of fandom and still waiting.

Ran into Bobby Hurley walking out of the bathrooms before the games on Saturday. Also walked up on Miles talking about out '97 team. Heading back to Phx right now!







You can almost spot Johnny G!



Last seat in the house with a view 77,600 people. 2nd most attended Final Four in history



Watch until the end, kind of satisfying:

Was there and not in the upper deck and all I can say is that unless the cats were in the FF that there is no way I would spend money to watch a bball game in a dome again. The view is so far away that you are almost forced to watch it on the video board and i I have to o that I my as well get the best view of a TV from my couch at home.

Lots of electricity though which makes it a blast this was a bucket list experience for me that has not lived up to epectations

azcat49 wrote:Was there and not in the upper deck and all I can say is that unless the cats were in the FF that there is no way I would spend money to watch a bball game in a dome again. The view is so far away that you are almost forced to watch it on the video board and i I have to o that I my as well get the best view of a TV from my couch at home.

I went to the Final 4 in the early 90's when it was at the Hoosier Dome, Metrodome, and Superdome. I had decent seats at the Hoosier Dome, about row 5 in the upper deck and pretty close to the court, that I got in the lottery. But the other two times, the seats sucked. Upper deck in the Metrodome and directly behind the basket at the Superdome (the year that Chris Webber called time out, and it was on our end). Too bad it seemed like we were about 1/2 mile away behind the basket.

I'll never go to a dome to watch the games again unless Arizona goes, and even then I might have to pay a fortune to get semi-decent seats.

killervibe wrote:Probably no surprise to anyone here.. but I refuse to get my hopes up. On paper, we have the best match-up of the weekend. The only double digit seed left in the tourney. However, this team struggles with the zone and Xavier has been effective with few different zones that could give the team fits if they can't make shots from behind the arch. So we could definitely lose the first game.

+1
wow kv nailed this one. 29% three shooting and lots of three attempts against Xavier's zone was ballgame.

As an alternative to jacking 3s Miller could have elected to attempt to run more and use transition to get easy scores (common tactic against a zone -source:Google). alas, we finished with one fast break. back to the drawing board!

crafting an email to the AD and Sean right now about this new discovery you say is called "google". i expect a hefty finders fee.

scumdevils86 wrote:crafting an email to the AD and Sean right now about this new discovery you say is called "google". i expect a hefty finders fee.

That's one of the better facets of his posts. He says things like "we should use an offensive game plan that gives us a lot of open fast break dunks."

Valid point. I also think we should use an offense that allows us to get uncontested dunks. I would like if we could have dunks be the end result of at least 90% of our offensive possessions.

It sounds like a great plan.

Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

RiseAndFire wrote:Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

And yet Sean Miller and his antiquated, stubborn coaching style still managed to back-in to a 16-2 Pac 12 record and Conference Tournament crown.

If Riseandfire coached we would've been to the final four every year

Coaching is so easy anybody can do it, even armchair quarterback trolls.

Well I am sure R&F stays in a Holiday Inn Express before he posts his thoughts about coaching

The amount of lucky shots and calls you need to advance that far is amazing. I think I am the only one who would like a baseball format. One and done doesnt produce a true national champion imho. But I guess it will never change with that many teams.

RiseAndFire wrote:Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

If you're not getting paid for this, your posts are definitely amateurish. If you are getting paid to do this, someone isn't getting their money's worth.

Why I laugh at your takes is because they're one note Miller criticisms. Then, you proffer solutions like fast break points. Great point, right up until you completely lack a plan for executing it.

It's like a politician vowing to get the economy going. Great idea that is utterly meaningless without a plan to execute.

Chris Mack is a good coach who won't just lie down and let you dictate pace to him. Most teams preach transition D from day 1. It is not close to as simple as saying we should push tempo.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

RiseAndFire wrote:Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

If you're not getting paid for this, your posts are definitely amateurish. If you are getting paid to do this, someone isn't getting their money's worth.

Why I laugh at your takes is because they're one note Miller criticisms. Then, you proffer solutions like fast break points. Great point, right up until you completely lack a plan for executing it.

It's like a politician vowing to get the economy going. Great idea that is utterly meaningless without a plan to execute.

Chris Mack is a good coach who won't just lie down and let you dictate pace to him. Most teams preach transition D from day 1. It is not close to as simple as saying we should push tempo.

The low turnover% and steal% on defense led to us being a poor transition team, in addition to the poor execution against the zone leading to the slow Offensive APL (299th). This team carried over the defensive issues it possessed last year while being worse in some areas (2P% defense and block%). This was also a pretty selfish team, with guards that were willing to walk the ball up the court even after a stop. I also can't remember seeing so many mismanaged 2v1's and 3v2's on the break as an Arizona fan. We Ranked 7th in assists in the weak Pac-12 and 75th nationally. Again we had the same issue last year, 98th in assists nationally. Other notable teams ranked in this category this season: UCLA(#1) Oregon (#5) UNC (#2) Gonzaga (#11). With TJ, we were ranked 9th and 23rd respectively in his two seasons here. Miller's two best teams here had a great floor general leading the show. I don't think that's a coincidence and that's why getting Duval is critical.

loomer wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

RiseAndFire wrote:Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

If you're not getting paid for this, your posts are definitely amateurish. If you are getting paid to do this, someone isn't getting their money's worth.

Why I laugh at your takes is because they're one note Miller criticisms. Then, you proffer solutions like fast break points. Great point, right up until you completely lack a plan for executing it.

It's like a politician vowing to get the economy going. Great idea that is utterly meaningless without a plan to execute.

Chris Mack is a good coach who won't just lie down and let you dictate pace to him. Most teams preach transition D from day 1. It is not close to as simple as saying we should push tempo.

The low turnover% and steal% on defense led to us being a poor transition team, in addition to the poor execution against the zone leading to the slow Offensive APL (299th). This team carried over the defensive issues it possessed last year while being worse in some areas (2P% defense and block%). This was also a pretty selfish team, with guards that were willing to walk the ball up the court even after a stop. I also can't remember seeing so many mismanaged 2v1's and 3v2's on the break as an Arizona fan. We Ranked 7th in assists in the weak Pac-12 and 75th nationally. Again we had the same issue last year, 98th in assists nationally. Other notable teams ranked in this category this season: UCLA(#1) Oregon (#5) UNC (#2) Gonzaga (#11). With TJ, we were ranked 9th and 23rd respectively in his two seasons here. Miller's two best teams here had a great floor general leading the show. I don't think that's a coincidence and that's why getting Duval is critical.

Part of that is pack line. It is not predicated on caring about turnovers on D. It is structured to trigger difficult shots and control penetration, then rebound the ball.

I would agree that we lack a great PG. That's why I can't fault the Xavier plan. Should you pump the tempo when you don't really have the personnel to execute? Can you even push tempo without players built to do it?

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

loomer wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

RiseAndFire wrote:Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

If you're not getting paid for this, your posts are definitely amateurish. If you are getting paid to do this, someone isn't getting their money's worth.

Why I laugh at your takes is because they're one note Miller criticisms. Then, you proffer solutions like fast break points. Great point, right up until you completely lack a plan for executing it.

It's like a politician vowing to get the economy going. Great idea that is utterly meaningless without a plan to execute.

Chris Mack is a good coach who won't just lie down and let you dictate pace to him. Most teams preach transition D from day 1. It is not close to as simple as saying we should push tempo.

The low turnover% and steal% on defense led to us being a poor transition team, in addition to the poor execution against the zone leading to the slow Offensive APL (299th). This team carried over the defensive issues it possessed last year while being worse in some areas (2P% defense and block%). This was also a pretty selfish team, with guards that were willing to walk the ball up the court even after a stop. I also can't remember seeing so many mismanaged 2v1's and 3v2's on the break as an Arizona fan. We Ranked 7th in assists in the weak Pac-12 and 75th nationally. Again we had the same issue last year, 98th in assists nationally. Other notable teams ranked in this category this season: UCLA(#1) Oregon (#5) UNC (#2) Gonzaga (#11). With TJ, we were ranked 9th and 23rd respectively in his two seasons here. Miller's two best teams here had a great floor general leading the show. I don't think that's a coincidence and that's why getting Duval is critical.

Part of that is pack line. It is not predicated on caring about turnovers on D. It is structured to trigger difficult shots and control penetration, then rebound the ball.

I would agree that we lack a great PG. That's why I can't fault the Xavier plan. Should you pump the tempo when you don't really have the personnel to execute? Can you even push tempo without players built to do it?

Oh, absolutely. But even in spite of the packline in 2015 we were ranked 55th in steal% mainly due to TJ and Stanley. The higher steal numbers led to us being a better transition and offensive team when compared to the 2014 team, even if we still had some of the same shooting issues. I often wonder if we're winning in spite of the packline with some of the personnel Miller's brought in. How many packline teams have won a title?

loomer wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

loomer wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

RiseAndFire wrote:Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

If you're not getting paid for this, your posts are definitely amateurish. If you are getting paid to do this, someone isn't getting their money's worth.

Why I laugh at your takes is because they're one note Miller criticisms. Then, you proffer solutions like fast break points. Great point, right up until you completely lack a plan for executing it.

It's like a politician vowing to get the economy going. Great idea that is utterly meaningless without a plan to execute.

Chris Mack is a good coach who won't just lie down and let you dictate pace to him. Most teams preach transition D from day 1. It is not close to as simple as saying we should push tempo.

The low turnover% and steal% on defense led to us being a poor transition team, in addition to the poor execution against the zone leading to the slow Offensive APL (299th). This team carried over the defensive issues it possessed last year while being worse in some areas (2P% defense and block%). This was also a pretty selfish team, with guards that were willing to walk the ball up the court even after a stop. I also can't remember seeing so many mismanaged 2v1's and 3v2's on the break as an Arizona fan. We Ranked 7th in assists in the weak Pac-12 and 75th nationally. Again we had the same issue last year, 98th in assists nationally. Other notable teams ranked in this category this season: UCLA(#1) Oregon (#5) UNC (#2) Gonzaga (#11). With TJ, we were ranked 9th and 23rd respectively in his two seasons here. Miller's two best teams here had a great floor general leading the show. I don't think that's a coincidence and that's why getting Duval is critical.

Part of that is pack line. It is not predicated on caring about turnovers on D. It is structured to trigger difficult shots and control penetration, then rebound the ball.

I would agree that we lack a great PG. That's why I can't fault the Xavier plan. Should you pump the tempo when you don't really have the personnel to execute? Can you even push tempo without players built to do it?

Oh, absolutely. But even in spite of the packline in 2015 we were ranked 55th in steal% mainly due to TJ and Stanley. The higher steal numbers led to us being a better transition and offensive team when compared to the 2014 team, even if we still had some of the same shooting issues. I often wonder if we're winning in spite of the packline with some of the personnel Miller's brought in. How many packline teams have won a title?

I don't know much about basketball strategy, but pack line sounds like mid major ball.

Dick Bennett only got to 1 final four so it's not like it has huge success in the past. Even the motion offense is antiquated.

Arizona is winning in spite of this, not because of them.

NYCat wrote:Dick Bennett only got to 1 final four so it's not like it has huge success in the past. Even the motion offense is antiquated.

Arizona is winning in spite of this, not because of them.

I imagine if Lute had this consistency in talent with his system.

Let the thoroughbreds run.

NYCat wrote:Dick Bennett only got to 1 final four so it's not like it has huge success in the past. Even the motion offense is antiquated.

Arizona is winning in spite of this, not because of them.

I've heard criticisms like this before, but they never point to any actual specific issue.

Motion and pack line both, a lot of people criticize them but rarely actually hit any specific issue. It does crack me up when people hate on pack line and talk positively about zone.

Motion is funny too bc our actual system isn't too far off from a lot of systems that people love. Kentucky's system is fairly similar in a lot of ways to ours.

I know it's the eyeball test, it then why does kentucky's seem more fluid and open? A lot of times it looks like we are just stuck in 2 gear.

Is Arizona good because of the packline & motion or is Arizona good because they have talent?

Could Arizona be just as successful as now with a straight man defense and an advanced offense where the players create.

With a team like Virginia who doesn't recruit on the same level as Arizona thats clearly more the system.

A team with RHJ, Gordon, NJ, TJ, Zeus would've​ been good defensively no matter the scheme. Kentucky always has great defensive teams, it's because of talent not because a particular system.

To answer my own question, yes Arizona would be just as good without the packline and motion because they have talent.

Arizona isn't winning because of the packline, winning in spite of it.

CalStateTempe wrote:I know it's the eyeball test, it then why does kentucky's seem more fluid and open? A lot of times it looks like we are just stuck in 2 gear.

Because we have very, very poor point guards.

NYCat wrote:Is Arizona good because of the packline & motion or is Arizona good because they have talent?

Could Arizona be just as successful as now with a straight man defense and an advanced offense where the players create.

With a team like Virginia who doesn't recruit on the same level as Arizona thats clearly more the system.
I'm

A team with RHJ, Gordon, NJ, TJ, Zeus would've been good defensively no matter the scheme. Kentucky always has great defensive teams, it's because of talent not because a particular system.

To answer my own question, yes Arizona would've be just as good without the packline and motion because they have talent.

Arizona isn't winning because of the packline, winning in spite of it.

My issue is with the vague idea that there's some other system that will do better all of a sudden. When you say winning in spite of it, that implies something better is out there.

I don't see it. Different systems have different benefits and shortcomings. It's largely true that the best system is one that has really talented players in it.

I'll put it directly: what offensive and defensive systems would yield better results?

CalStateTempe wrote:I know it's the eyeball test, it then why does kentucky's seem more fluid and open? A lot of times it looks like we are just stuck in 2 gear.

We create more action from screening, where KY runs a motion where the greater focus is on creating space for 1 on 1 attacks to the rim.

Which one is better? The downside of Kentucky's system is that when they can't physically overwhelm someone, it can bog down into hero ball. LK's opinion on point guard play is fair too. This year, Fox and Briscoe were both better creators and distributors than anyone we had.

I personally think we would have looked worse in a KY style system bc Kobi and Allonzo already have tendencies to 1 on 1 it too much and we didn't have an effective distributor. Plus, the spread out look makes it harder to get it to a big guy, and it would have deemphasized Lauri. Kentucky's bigs generally function best if they can float away from the basket (Towns) and even then, tend to have less offensive impact than you think they can (Davis).

Davis, Cousins and KAT all were at 15 ppg and under at Kentucky. There are upsides and downsides to their approach.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

CalStateTempe wrote:I know it's the eyeball test, it then why does kentucky's seem more fluid and open? A lot of times it looks like we are just stuck in 2 gear.

We create more action from screening, where KY runs a motion where the greater focus is on creating space for 1 on 1 attacks to the rim.

Which one is better? The downside of Kentucky's system is that when they can't physically overwhelm someone, it can bog down into hero ball. LK's opinion on point guard play is fair too. This year, Fox and Briscoe were both better creators and distributors than anyone we had.

I personally think we would have looked worse in a KY style system bc Kobi and Allonzo already have tendencies to 1 on 1 it too much and we didn't have an effective distributor. Plus, the spread out look makes it harder to get it to a big guy, and it would have deemphasized Lauri. Kentucky's bigs generally function best if they can float away from the basket (Towns) and even then, tend to have less offensive impact than you think they can (Davis).

Davis, Cousins and KAT all were at 15 ppg and under at Kentucky. There are upsides and downsides to their approach.

Fantastic post Spiff.

Thanks spiff. Really like how you laid that out.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: My issue is with the vague idea that there's some other system that will do better all of a sudden. When you say winning in spite of it, that implies something better is out there.

I don't see it. Different systems have different benefits and shortcomings. It's largely true that the best system is one that has really talented players in it.

I'll put it directly: what offensive and defensive systems would yield better results?

There's clearly something better out there when there's only 1 total final four out there for packline teams.

If argue with the talent Arizona gets, it could run almost any system and win. Pitino's press, Huggins press, man to man, dribble drive offense, high screen offense etc

Let the talent do the work, throw an adjustment or tweak if you can't out talent everyone. Packline didn't make the RHJ, Gordon, Zeus, TJ team great defensively - they were talented defenders.

But we're obviously going to disagree, so I'll drop it. I don't think Arizona's success is due to the packline, inferior teams win with schemes like UVA. Arizona wins with talent, they just happen to play a packline & motion offense.

If Tony Bennett got years of consecutive top 5 classes he might very well be in the same position.

NYCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: My issue is with the vague idea that there's some other system that will do better all of a sudden. When you say winning in spite of it, that implies something better is out there.

I don't see it. Different systems have different benefits and shortcomings. It's largely true that the best system is one that has really talented players in it.

I'll put it directly: what offensive and defensive systems would yield better results?

There's clearly something better out there when there's only 1 total final four out there for packline teams.

If argue with the talent Arizona gets, it could run almost any system and win. Pitino's press, Huggins press, man to man, dribble drive offense, high screen offense etc

Let the talent do the work, throw an adjustment or tweak if you can't out talent everyone. Packline didn't make the RHJ, Gordon, Zeus, TJ team great defensively - they were talented defenders.

But we're obviously going to disagree, so I'll drop it. I don't think Arizona's success is due to the packline, inferior teams win with schemes like UVA. Arizona wins with talent, they just happen to play a packline & motion offense.

If Tony Bennett got years of consecutive top 5 classes he might very well be in the same position.

Don't drop it yet. How many non-midmajor packline teams are there? I ask because the infrequency of the type itself, rather than just the infrequency of the type's success, could be a control issue for the conclusion drawn. If 100 flies are black, and only 4 flies are red, can I conclude that only black flies are attracted to egg salad? just don't know either way.

So what your saying is "let the talent play"

Great thread from tos.

NYCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: My issue is with the vague idea that there's some other system that will do better all of a sudden. When you say winning in spite of it, that implies something better is out there.

I don't see it. Different systems have different benefits and shortcomings. It's largely true that the best system is one that has really talented players in it.

I'll put it directly: what offensive and defensive systems would yield better results?

There's clearly something better out there when there's only 1 total final four out there for packline teams.

If argue with the talent Arizona gets, it could run almost any system and win. Pitino's press, Huggins press, man to man, dribble drive offense, high screen offense etc

Let the talent do the work, throw an adjustment or tweak if you can't out talent everyone. Packline didn't make the RHJ, Gordon, Zeus, TJ team great defensively - they were talented defenders.

But we're obviously going to disagree, so I'll drop it. I don't think Arizona's success is due to the packline, inferior teams win with schemes like UVA. Arizona wins with talent, they just happen to play a packline & motion offense.

If Tony Bennett got years of consecutive top 5 classes he might very well be in the same position.

I won't push and keep arguing. I think we just disagree on this.

Pack line has pros and cons. Other defensive systems do too. Same with motion offense. There are variants, and the real test I see is Adj O and Adj D stats. If we produce consistent results there, that speaks a lot.

3 of the last 5 years, we've had a better Adj D than UNC, who I picked due to the large amount of talent. We've never been lower than 31st nationally in those years in Adj D, despite some pretty meh groups of individual defenders.

Sorry, I said I wouldn't argue, then I tried to argue.

God dammit

Look the packline would be fine with players who stay for a while. The problem is Arizona gets top classes and players only stay 1 or 2 years. Not really enough time to properly learn it. Arizona also doesn't get multiple elite one and done talent every year to win on talent alone.

That's a difference between UNC and Duke/KU/UK.

Allen, TJ sat out a year and learned the system better. Whereas Gordon, RHJ were talented defenders in any scheme. Seems like he gets top talent instead of guys who fit his system. Could probably say that a lot of talent he's brought in since and including the NJ class didn't fit the system.

Guys like Randolph are a better fit than Terrance Ferguson/Kobi Simmons etc. But that brings up my only real problem with Miller, which is roster building. Not a big fan.

Longhorned wrote:

NYCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: My issue is with the vague idea that there's some other system that will do better all of a sudden. When you say winning in spite of it, that implies something better is out there.

I don't see it. Different systems have different benefits and shortcomings. It's largely true that the best system is one that has really talented players in it.

I'll put it directly: what offensive and defensive systems would yield better results?

There's clearly something better out there when there's only 1 total final four out there for packline teams.

If argue with the talent Arizona gets, it could run almost any system and win. Pitino's press, Huggins press, man to man, dribble drive offense, high screen offense etc

Let the talent do the work, throw an adjustment or tweak if you can't out talent everyone. Packline didn't make the RHJ, Gordon, Zeus, TJ team great defensively - they were talented defenders.

But we're obviously going to disagree, so I'll drop it. I don't think Arizona's success is due to the packline, inferior teams win with schemes like UVA. Arizona wins with talent, they just happen to play a packline & motion offense.

If Tony Bennett got years of consecutive top 5 classes he might very well be in the same position.

Don't drop it yet. How many non-midmajor packline teams are there? I ask because the infrequency of the type itself, rather than just the infrequency of the type's success, could be a control issue for the conclusion drawn. If 100 flies are black, and only 4 flies are red, can I conclude that only black flies are attracted to egg salad? just don't know either way.

Arizona and Virginia. I literally can't find more.

That's one too many. I say we try the 3-3-5.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

NYCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: My issue is with the vague idea that there's some other system that will do better all of a sudden. When you say winning in spite of it, that implies something better is out there.

I don't see it. Different systems have different benefits and shortcomings. It's largely true that the best system is one that has really talented players in it.

I'll put it directly: what offensive and defensive systems would yield better results?

There's clearly something better out there when there's only 1 total final four out there for packline teams.

If argue with the talent Arizona gets, it could run almost any system and win. Pitino's press, Huggins press, man to man, dribble drive offense, high screen offense etc

Let the talent do the work, throw an adjustment or tweak if you can't out talent everyone. Packline didn't make the RHJ, Gordon, Zeus, TJ team great defensively - they were talented defenders.

But we're obviously going to disagree, so I'll drop it. I don't think Arizona's success is due to the packline, inferior teams win with schemes like UVA. Arizona wins with talent, they just happen to play a packline & motion offense.

If Tony Bennett got years of consecutive top 5 classes he might very well be in the same position.

Don't drop it yet. How many non-midmajor packline teams are there? I ask because the infrequency of the type itself, rather than just the infrequency of the type's success, could be a control issue for the conclusion drawn. If 100 flies are black, and only 4 flies are red, can I conclude that only black flies are attracted to egg salad? just don't know either way.

Arizona and Virginia. I literally can't find more.

Did Wisconsin finally stop running it post-Ryan?

ChooChooCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

Longhorned wrote:

NYCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote: My issue is with the vague idea that there's some other system that will do better all of a sudden. When you say winning in spite of it, that implies something better is out there.

I don't see it. Different systems have different benefits and shortcomings. It's largely true that the best system is one that has really talented players in it.

I'll put it directly: what offensive and defensive systems would yield better results?

There's clearly something better out there when there's only 1 total final four out there for packline teams.

If argue with the talent Arizona gets, it could run almost any system and win. Pitino's press, Huggins press, man to man, dribble drive offense, high screen offense etc

Let the talent do the work, throw an adjustment or tweak if you can't out talent everyone. Packline didn't make the RHJ, Gordon, Zeus, TJ team great defensively - they were talented defenders.

But we're obviously going to disagree, so I'll drop it. I don't think Arizona's success is due to the packline, inferior teams win with schemes like UVA. Arizona wins with talent, they just happen to play a packline & motion offense.

If Tony Bennett got years of consecutive top 5 classes he might very well be in the same position.

Don't drop it yet. How many non-midmajor packline teams are there? I ask because the infrequency of the type itself, rather than just the infrequency of the type's success, could be a control issue for the conclusion drawn. If 100 flies are black, and only 4 flies are red, can I conclude that only black flies are attracted to egg salad? just don't know either way.

Arizona and Virginia. I literally can't find more.

Did Wisconsin finally stop running it post-Ryan?

Nah, Wiscy still ran it this past season. The 14-15 FInal Four teams ran it too but it wasn't prototypical packline because they didn't pressure the ball all that much. Either way, that team went far because of their insanely efficient offense, not their defense.

it isn't the defensive philosophy...jeez

It was a team with an undersized 1 half the game, and a wing that is NOT good off the dribble at all (Trier). Mix that with a 7 footer on the perimeter at times this season (he is very good on the perimeter...for a 7 footer) and a center that has ZERO foot speed and less than zero anticipation (Ristic), and you have a less than great defensive team.

The only way the packline itself would materialize as a defensive mistake is if teams killed us from 3 (rarely happened). Secondarily, it can limit steals, thought Miller has been way relaxed with overplaying passing lanes since TJ. We pick and choose, but PJC and Kadeem had step-through steals this year.

It isn't the packline. No one in the history of basketball ever maybe ran the packline and won even a YMCA title, but that isn't because of the defense itself. You can look at the principles of the defense...they aren't in a vault. Pack down, almost like a....zone...in some ways (not in player movement) in that we cram bodies under the line, then depend on length and timing to challenge 3's. None of the X and O seams of the packline have been our issue. Our issue has actually been something the packline is supposed to be created to slow...dribble penetration. Coming out of a packline to a more conventional man to man (please don't with the zone talk) would NOT help our dribble penetration issues. Maybe a couple more steals??? And wide open lanes to the hoop

EVCat wrote:it isn't the defensive philosophy...jeez

It was a team with an undersized 1 half the game, and a wing that is NOT good off the dribble at all (Trier). Mix that with a 7 footer on the perimeter at times this season (he is very good on the perimeter...for a 7 footer) and a center that has ZERO foot speed and less than zero anticipation (Ristic), and you have a less than great defensive team.

The only way the packline itself would materialize as a defensive mistake is if teams killed us from 3 (rarely happened). Secondarily, it can limit steals, thought Miller has been way relaxed with overplaying passing lanes since TJ. We pick and choose, but PJC and Kadeem had step-through steals this year.

It isn't the packline. No one in the history of basketball ever maybe ran the packline and won even a YMCA title, but that isn't because of the defense itself. You can look at the principles of the defense...they aren't in a vault. Pack down, almost like a....zone...in some ways (not in player movement) in that we cram bodies under the line, then depend on length and timing to challenge 3's. None of the X and O seams of the packline have been our issue. Our issue has actually been something the packline is supposed to be created to slow...dribble penetration. Coming out of a packline to a more conventional man to man (please don't with the zone talk) would NOT help our dribble penetration issues. Maybe a couple more steals??? And wide open lanes to the hoop

This guy gets it, IMO. Pack line is designed to clog lanes of penetration, keep the ball on the perimeter and force contested jumpers. It is not designed to create ball pressure, steals and turnovers. Guys like TJ, Aaron and Rondae will get more steals, but that's because they are freak defenders, not due to the design of the system.

I totally don't understand how that is better than a system like West Virginia's, which is predicated on ball pressure, double teaming and creating a lot of turnovers and steals. It is very different, but different does not mean it is better or worse. Frankly, I think Dusan might die if someone tried to make him play in a WVA style system.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

loomer wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

RiseAndFire wrote:Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

If you're not getting paid for this, your posts are definitely amateurish. If you are getting paid to do this, someone isn't getting their money's worth.

Why I laugh at your takes is because they're one note Miller criticisms. Then, you proffer solutions like fast break points. Great point, right up until you completely lack a plan for executing it.

It's like a politician vowing to get the economy going. Great idea that is utterly meaningless without a plan to execute.

Chris Mack is a good coach who won't just lie down and let you dictate pace to him. Most teams preach transition D from day 1. It is not close to as simple as saying we should push tempo.

The low turnover% and steal% on defense led to us being a poor transition team, in addition to the poor execution against the zone leading to the slow Offensive APL (299th). This team carried over the defensive issues it possessed last year while being worse in some areas (2P% defense and block%). This was also a pretty selfish team, with guards that were willing to walk the ball up the court even after a stop. I also can't remember seeing so many mismanaged 2v1's and 3v2's on the break as an Arizona fan. We Ranked 7th in assists in the weak Pac-12 and 75th nationally. Again we had the same issue last year, 98th in assists nationally. Other notable teams ranked in this category this season: UCLA(#1) Oregon (#5) UNC (#2) Gonzaga (#11). With TJ, we were ranked 9th and 23rd respectively in his two seasons here. Miller's two best teams here had a great floor general leading the show. I don't think that's a coincidence and that's why getting Duval is critical.

Part of that is pack line. It is not predicated on caring about turnovers on D. It is structured to trigger difficult shots and control penetration, then rebound the ball.

I would agree that we lack a great PG. That's why I can't fault the Xavier plan. Should you pump the tempo when you don't really have the personnel to execute? Can you even push tempo without players built to do it?

Do you realize you just talked yourself around in a circle to the solution for increasing transition opportunities which is ...... the absence of pack line. I'm not sure if you've noticed (maybe I haven't been clear) but I'm not really a fan of pack-line and everyone knows that less of it would produce more transition opportunities. I figured this was implied in all my posts. Maybe I should put it in my sig for you?

But I'll even offer another super-secret plan for increasing transition points - tell your team to stop walking the ball up the court, have them run instead

Who knows, maybe with more transition game the players would actually have some fun playing, not be tight as a drum and not transfer or take the NBA leap at first chance like Kobi

RiseAndFire wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

loomer wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

RiseAndFire wrote:Link to the post, I never said something so amateurish.

I know you love Millers 4-corners #300 tempo offense but pushing tempo happens to be one of the many ways to beat a zone (aka miller kryptonite).

See I didn't need to get paid $8,000/day or play pg at Pitt and pass to a guy who dunked really hard once to know this, you could literally just google it!

If you're not getting paid for this, your posts are definitely amateurish. If you are getting paid to do this, someone isn't getting their money's worth.

Why I laugh at your takes is because they're one note Miller criticisms. Then, you proffer solutions like fast break points. Great point, right up until you completely lack a plan for executing it.

It's like a politician vowing to get the economy going. Great idea that is utterly meaningless without a plan to execute.

Chris Mack is a good coach who won't just lie down and let you dictate pace to him. Most teams preach transition D from day 1. It is not close to as simple as saying we should push tempo.

The low turnover% and steal% on defense led to us being a poor transition team, in addition to the poor execution against the zone leading to the slow Offensive APL (299th). This team carried over the defensive issues it possessed last year while being worse in some areas (2P% defense and block%). This was also a pretty selfish team, with guards that were willing to walk the ball up the court even after a stop. I also can't remember seeing so many mismanaged 2v1's and 3v2's on the break as an Arizona fan. We Ranked 7th in assists in the weak Pac-12 and 75th nationally. Again we had the same issue last year, 98th in assists nationally. Other notable teams ranked in this category this season: UCLA(#1) Oregon (#5) UNC (#2) Gonzaga (#11). With TJ, we were ranked 9th and 23rd respectively in his two seasons here. Miller's two best teams here had a great floor general leading the show. I don't think that's a coincidence and that's why getting Duval is critical.

Part of that is pack line. It is not predicated on caring about turnovers on D. It is structured to trigger difficult shots and control penetration, then rebound the ball.

I would agree that we lack a great PG. That's why I can't fault the Xavier plan. Should you pump the tempo when you don't really have the personnel to execute? Can you even push tempo without players built to do it?

Do you realize you just talked yourself around in a circle to the solution for increasing transition opportunities which is ...... the absence of pack line. I'm not sure if you've noticed (maybe I haven't been clear) but I'm not really a fan of pack-line and everyone knows that less of it would produce more transition opportunities. I figured this was implied in all my posts. Maybe I should put it in my sig for you?

But I'll even offer another super-secret plan for increasing transition points - tell your team to stop walking the ball up the court, have them run instead

Who knows, maybe with more transition game the players would actually have some fun playing, not be tight as a drum and not transfer or take the NBA leap at first chance like Kobi

Yes, standard man-to-man, turn the other team over, and run the other way. Instead of packing in the D and being behind the set defense going back the other way. Mix in some zone with that and take the other team out of its half-court offense on some possessions. Miller's teams will look better, play better, and recruiting and retention will improve.

There's an internal coherence, and that's good, but I think you might sincerely believe these things. Maybe I'm wrong about that and the joy is purely from trolling. I don't know if you have actual expertise in something and have to endure the suggestions of people who don't, but there's a limit to how much real conversation can come of these suggestions if you don't bring self-awareness about how little you understand of college basketball compared to a D1 head coach. Disagreements are healthy, but they're really about a willingness to show everyone what we don't understand so that others can give us some perspective to appreciate better what's happening with the program and with the game. If I'm wrong about you, I'm sorry, but my impression is that you're not here to engage, but instead to criticize Miller for not understanding what you understand.

All defenses work if you have the athletes and do it right. It's tempting to look at one game and say, "Why don't we do that?"

Had that very thought myself as UNC pushed Gonzaga's offense back, forcing them to initiative out farther by pressing up on the guards. It really threw them off, as Few said.

However, UNC didn't D-up like that with regularity this season. If you do press up, but don't give it 100 percent or one guy doesn't do it well, it yields straight-line drives to the rim. If you press up, and the bigs don't do their job, it doesn't work.

Then you're a Tar Heel fan saying, "Change the defense!"

Rise and Fire, rather than quoting into oblivion, yeah no ****. Pack line absolutely lends itself to a slower tempo. If you play man with more ball pressure and gambling, you play a faster tempo. You also give up easier lanes to the rim and more easy shots to the opposition.

That's why I think your argument lacks any depth. All offense and defensive systems offer pros and cons. There is no ideal system (defensive or offensive) that comes without downside. Your posts lack intelligent discussions of whether particular systems pros/cons fit our roster composition or program direction. You just pick a system Miller doesn't run, list the pros, ignore the cons and say he should implement it.

I think you have zero proof that players don't enjoy being here. In fact, Rondae stayed for a sophomore season despite a first round projection. Stanley almost did the same.

Then there's the issue of how many offensive people you send to the rim. When Bennett ran packline at WSU, it was two. Almost impossible to run on them, but they didn't get many offensive rebounds.

It's always a choice of what to give up in order to gain elsewhere.

gumby wrote:Then there's the issue of how many offensive people you send to the rim. When Bennett ran packline at WSU, it was two. Almost impossible to run on them, but they didn't get many offensive rebounds.

It's always a choice of what to give up in order to gain elsewhere.

Exactly. It also slays me that R+F loves zone and hates pack line, despite pack line being the man variant closest to zone principles.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

gumby wrote:Then there's the issue of how many offensive people you send to the rim. When Bennett ran packline at WSU, it was two. Almost impossible to run on them, but they didn't get many offensive rebounds.

It's always a choice of what to give up in order to gain elsewhere.

Exactly. It also slays me that R+F loves zone and hates pack line, despite pack line being the man variant closest to zone principles.

This slays the whole conversation. I am dying here.

Because you nailed it...

I've never seen one and beginning to set in that it'll never happen.

NYCat wrote:I've never seen one and beginning to set in that it'll never happen.

Same. Became a fan in 2002. I doubt I'll ever see one.

ASUHATER! wrote:

NYCat wrote:I've never seen one and beginning to set in that it'll never happen.

Same. Became a fan in 2002. I doubt I'll ever see one.

Me 3. Started in the Kevin O'Neil year.