Bear Down Wildcats

Seems like our lack of one could be a major reason why we take a step back this season. We've had AG, RHJ, NJ, SJ, and TJM over the last two seasons. These are elite defensive players, guys who Miller could trust to disrupt the other team's offensive killer. For Saturday, as an example, who guards Wiltjer? Last season, our elite wing defenders swarmed and frustrated Wiltjer, and he only shot 6 of 16, and more importantly, we got the win. This year, who guards this guy? He's a 6'10 lights-out long range shooter. Anderson? Sorta doubt it. They've also got Karnowski and Sabonis to throw at us.

We already got burned by one elite offensive player (Dunn), and I'm concerned that other dangerous offensive players are going to have a field day against this AZ team.

Maybe this is where we miss Smith most of all. Even as a freshman, he'd likely have been our best guy to put on Wiltjer, Dunn, and elite Pac wings.

Our team defense is not good, regardless of if we had a defensive stopper or not.

Boise St Game 2 was a good step forward though.

None of Zeus (if healthy), Ristic, Tollefson can cover Wiltjer outside, and a gimpy Anderson can't either, so I imagine Miller will put a wing on him. Pitts seems to be the designated defensive specialist, so the likely candidate. Hopefully Zeus will be back to protect the basket down low.

Merkin wrote:None of Zeus (if healthy), Ristic, Tollefson can cover Wiltjer outside, and a gimpy Anderson can't either, so I imagine Miller will put a wing on him. Pitts seems to be the designated defensive specialist, so the likely candidate. Hopefully Zeus will be back to protect the basket down low.

If Pitts is our only hope to slow down Wiltjer, can anyone see us staying within single digits on Saturday? Could get ugly.

The other thing that's killing us is that we're not a good 3 point shooting team this year, which I think has taken some of us (me at least) by surprise. I was expecting Gabe, PJC, and Trier to be very consistent from out there. Missing those long shots puts a lot of pressure on our defense.

Nothing makes me more sick than Elliott Pitts being our "defensive specialist."

ChooChooCat wrote:Nothing makes me more sick than Elliott Pitts being our "defensive specialist."

That is the surprise of the season.

TucsonClip wrote:Our team defense is not good, regardless of if we had a defensive stopper or not.

Boise St Game 2 was a good step forward though.

This. Plus, we didn't lose a stopper. We lost two stoppers and two solid defenders.

Again, what we need most is for our team D to improve game to game. Look, we may well lose to Gonzaga, even if we play a good defensive game. They are a good team. At the half against Providence, Miller used the term "work in progress." Continuing the progress matters more than whether we win or lose to Gonzaga.

Stoppers are overrated. Rondae was a stopper, and how did that go against Dekker in the Elite Eight? Being a solid, consistent team overall is what we need to strive for.

I think Allen & Trier have the makings of good defensive players. Maybe not necessarily stoppers, but certainly athletic, strong and quick enough to check just about anyone on the floor no bigger than 6'6". In fact, the more I watch Allen, the more I'm reminded of Kevin Parrot. Allen is a bit smaller but also quicker and more athletic. I like the way he digs out loose balls.

We already know what we have in Tarc, Anderson & (unfortunately) Tollefsen. York is York and we simply can't ask or expect of him more than he is capable. If this team is ultimately going to go far, it's gonna be because of Trier and Allen really stepping up and emerging. I've seen glimpses....over time hopefully it will become more consistent.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:Our team defense is not good, regardless of if we had a defensive stopper or not.

Boise St Game 2 was a good step forward though.

This. Plus, we didn't lose a stopper. We lost two stoppers and two solid defenders.

Again, what we need most is for our team D to improve game to game. Look, we may well lose to Gonzaga, even if we play a good defensive game. They are a good team. At the half against Providence, Miller used the term "work in progress." Continuing the progress matters more than whether we win or lose to Gonzaga.

Stoppers are overrated. Rondae was a stopper, and how did that go against Dekker in the Elite Eight? Being a solid, consistent team overall is what we need to strive for.

Miller had Rondae on Kaminsky in the second half of the game and not on Dekker. We didn't have a stopper on Dekker when he started going insane. They're not the tell all be all of any game, but stoppers sure do matter and are not overrated.

Wisconsin was just better. They freaking beat UK in the FF. I've let that one go. Dekker and Kaminsky were playing on another level.

And I'm not really thinking about the tourney in this thread. I'm just thinking about where this team is currently and where it can go. Defense has been AZ's strength the past few seasons, and it's strange to see a team with no lock-down defenders. Maybe Miller thought Tollefesen could be a great defensive player. Not sure. Again, not having Smith is really impacting us. Smith may not have guarded Dunn straight up, but he definitely would've made the lane more intimidating. And Smith would be guarding Wiltjer.

I've liked watching us shut down teams the last two years (save for Wisconsin), and hope we can get back to that. I just don't see it happening this season. I think we finish 3rd or 4th in the Pac, end up getting a tourney seed between 6 and 9 (depending on how we're playing in March), and get knocked out the first weekend. I'll enjoy this season because I like Tarc and want to see him get some nice senior year memories. But there'd have to be some dramatic and unexpected improvement with this team to go beyond the achievements I've just described.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:Our team defense is not good, regardless of if we had a defensive stopper or not.

Boise St Game 2 was a good step forward though.

This. Plus, we didn't lose a stopper. We lost two stoppers and two solid defenders.

Again, what we need most is for our team D to improve game to game. Look, we may well lose to Gonzaga, even if we play a good defensive game. They are a good team. At the half against Providence, Miller used the term "work in progress." Continuing the progress matters more than whether we win or lose to Gonzaga.

Stoppers are overrated. Rondae was a stopper, and how did that go against Dekker in the Elite Eight? Being a solid, consistent team overall is what we need to strive for.

Miller had Rondae on Kaminsky in the second half of the game and not on Dekker. We didn't have a stopper on Dekker when he started going insane. They're not the tell all be all of any game, but stoppers sure do matter and are not overrated.

Kaminsky had 29 points, Dekker 27. Rondae is a great defender, but good offense is gonna beat a stopper.

Throw it back to the D'Antoni Suns for a great example of how team D is more than stoppers. Marion and Bell were stoppers and the team was overall a below average defensive team. The mean is what matters, not having standouts.

Beachcat97 wrote:Wisconsin was just better. They freaking beat UK in the FF. I've let that one go. Dekker and Kaminsky were playing on another level.

And I'm not really thinking about the tourney in this thread. I'm just thinking about where this team is currently and where it can go. Defense has been AZ's strength the past few seasons, and it's strange to see a team with no lock-down defenders. Maybe Miller thought Tollefesen could be a great defensive player. Not sure. Again, not having Smith is really impacting us. Smith may not have guarded Dunn straight up, but he definitely would've made the lane more intimidating. And Smith would be guarding Wiltjer.

I've liked watching us shut down teams the last two years (save for Wisconsin), and hope we can get back to that. I just don't see it happening this season. I think we finish 3rd or 4th in the Pac, end up getting a tourney seed between 6 and 9 (depending on how we're playing in March), and get knocked out the first weekend. I'll enjoy this season because I like Tarc and want to see him get some nice senior year memories. But there'd have to be some dramatic and unexpected improvement with this team to go beyond the achievements I've just described.

13-5 in the PAC and 1st place. 3/4 seed.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:Our team defense is not good, regardless of if we had a defensive stopper or not.

Boise St Game 2 was a good step forward though.

This. Plus, we didn't lose a stopper. We lost two stoppers and two solid defenders.

Again, what we need most is for our team D to improve game to game. Look, we may well lose to Gonzaga, even if we play a good defensive game. They are a good team. At the half against Providence, Miller used the term "work in progress." Continuing the progress matters more than whether we win or lose to Gonzaga.

Stoppers are overrated. Rondae was a stopper, and how did that go against Dekker in the Elite Eight? Being a solid, consistent team overall is what we need to strive for.

Miller had Rondae on Kaminsky in the second half of the game and not on Dekker. We didn't have a stopper on Dekker when he started going insane. They're not the tell all be all of any game, but stoppers sure do matter and are not overrated.

Kaminsky had 29 points, Dekker 27. Rondae is a great defender, but good offense is gonna beat a stopper.

Throw it back to the D'Antoni Suns for a great example of how team D is more than stoppers. Marion and Bell were stoppers and the team was overall a below average defensive team. The mean is what matters, not having standouts.

Kaminsky had already scored over 20 points before Miller switched Rondae on to him. Dekker then went on to be ridiculous. Context would sure be nice. I do agree that the mean is what matters however. It's hard to have a complete defensive team though, especially in college, so having a stopper or two sure helps the cause.

Let's all hope Simon develops quick.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

ChooChooCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:

TucsonClip wrote:Our team defense is not good, regardless of if we had a defensive stopper or not.

Boise St Game 2 was a good step forward though.

This. Plus, we didn't lose a stopper. We lost two stoppers and two solid defenders.

Again, what we need most is for our team D to improve game to game. Look, we may well lose to Gonzaga, even if we play a good defensive game. They are a good team. At the half against Providence, Miller used the term "work in progress." Continuing the progress matters more than whether we win or lose to Gonzaga.

Stoppers are overrated. Rondae was a stopper, and how did that go against Dekker in the Elite Eight? Being a solid, consistent team overall is what we need to strive for.

Miller had Rondae on Kaminsky in the second half of the game and not on Dekker. We didn't have a stopper on Dekker when he started going insane. They're not the tell all be all of any game, but stoppers sure do matter and are not overrated.

Kaminsky had 29 points, Dekker 27. Rondae is a great defender, but good offense is gonna beat a stopper.

Throw it back to the D'Antoni Suns for a great example of how team D is more than stoppers. Marion and Bell were stoppers and the team was overall a below average defensive team. The mean is what matters, not having standouts.

Kaminsky had already scored over 20 points before Miller switched Rondae on to him. Dekker then went on to be ridiculous. Context would sure be nice. I do agree that the mean is what matters however. It's hard to have a complete defensive team though, especially in college, so having a stopper or two sure helps the cause.

Provide some proof. Here's an ESPN breakdown.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketba ... a-wildcats" target="_blank

Note how Rondae was switched on Kaminsky as early as the first half, when he had 13 points, and then continued on in the second half, when Kaminsky had 16.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Provide some proof. Here's an ESPN breakdown.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketba ... a-wildcats" target="_blank

Note how Rondae was switched on Kaminsky as early as the first half, when he had 13 points, and then continued on in the second half, when Kaminsky had 16.

There's that context I was talking about! He switched on him early, but when Ashley went back in the game guess who was primarily on him until the majority of the second half? I mean I wish I could provide internet proof for you, but I watched the game, so all I can tell you is what I witnessed (in horror). Either way he did a ridiculous amounts better on Frank than Ashley or Zeus did and once he took over on him that's when you saw the Sam Dekker show. I think it's funny how you're being critical of a 6'7 wing stopper's defense against a 7 footer who was the NPOY. If that's the route you want to take then go for it. Can you provide internet proof on how well he defended Dekker when he was on him? I shudder to think just how much Frank would've scored if Rondae was not put on him at all. At least Dekker could've been neutralized a little.

ChooChooCat wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Provide some proof. Here's an ESPN breakdown.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketba ... a-wildcats" target="_blank

Note how Rondae was switched on Kaminsky as early as the first half, when he had 13 points, and then continued on in the second half, when Kaminsky had 16.

There's that context I was talking about! He switched on him early, but when Ashley went back in the game guess who was primarily on him until the majority of the second half? I mean I wish I could provide internet proof for you, but I watched the game, so all I can tell you is what I witnessed (in horror). Either way he did a ridiculous amounts better on Frank than Ashley or Zeus did and once he took over on him that's when you saw the Sam Dekker show. I think it's funny how you're being critical of a 6'7 wing stopper's defense against a 7 footer who was the NPOY. If that's the route you want to take then go for it. Can you provide internet proof on how well he defended Dekker when he was on him? I shudder to think just how much Frank would've scored if Rondae was not put on him at all. At least Dekker could've been neutralized a little.

You've got me pegged wrong. I'm not criticizing Rondae, just making the point that a single stopper cannot stop a really good offense or a really good player. At higher levels, a stopper is of limited use against really good offensive players.

A good team can stop a really good player. See us against D'Angelo Russell where we choked him out. Wiscy, that didn't work because their role players and Dekker went nuts in the second half. The point I was driving at is that having solid team D is far more important than a standout.

Every stopper needs help. As you reference, Kaminsky would have killed Rondae in the post. Ball pressure on the entry passer and help on doubles are the assists a stopper needs there.

Last year's Wisconsin-Arizona game was an aberration. Wisky shot 10-12 3 pointers in the second half. 10 of 12!!!!!
That's insane. You don't make that percentage during warmups. Everyone on Wisky who took at least one three, made at least one three. Nobody on the team shot worse than 1 of 2 from three.

Look at Wisky's three point stats:

Dekker: 5-6
Kaminsky: 1-2
Hayes: 2-4
Gasser: 2-3
Koenig: 1-1
Dukan: 1-2

The best time for a team to get hot from outside is in the second half, and that's exactly what Wisconsin did. Arizona led at the break at then the wave of threes started. Dekker was a decent shooter who had an amazing game, probably the best game he'll ever have in his college or professional career.

You can't point fingers at Arizona's defense for the loss. It was a once in a lifetime performance against Wisconsin where everything they shot went in from outside. All you can do is tip your hat to them.

The year before is a different story. Arizona was clearly the better team and it showed throughout the first half. Poor officiating after the "T" on Ryan completely changed the flow of the game. Still, Arizona can only blame themselves with piss poor FT shooting by Gordon & Co. And oh yeah, a brutal offensive foul call with two seconds didn't help either.

look at where dekker was scoring from. our guys did a very nice job limiting his offense inside the packline to just two buckets. our defenders were playing our system and dekker busted it from outside, defying all odds. besides, i seem to remember pitts defending dekker for a solid stretch in the second half after stanley was sitting bc of his eye.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
This. Plus, we didn't lose a stopper. We lost two stoppers and two solid defenders.

Stoppers are overrated. Rondae was a stopper, and how did that go against Dekker in the Elite Eight? Being a solid, consistent team overall is what we need to strive for.

Yes on part 1; dont agree with part 2. We've seen our stoppers shut down or tremendously slow down a lot of great players the last three years. There are just some nights where nobody is going to stop someone or even slow them down. There is nobody in the college game slowing down Dekker that second half, and I dont remember him being on him much of that 2nd anyways. So I don't think stoppers are overrated and I would be more than happy to take one right now. Put him on the best perimeter player, and that is one guy you know is going to do their job. In many cases, he wont need much help either, and it's just one guy rather than all four being out of wack. When Pitts loses a step, typically there is a gaping hole (we have gone on and on about the team D), but when that is not the case, all four of the others are completely out of sync and out of position. Again, that is a team D problem, but having a Rondae at the 3 would lessen the problem quite a bit.

rgdeuce wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
This. Plus, we didn't lose a stopper. We lost two stoppers and two solid defenders.

Stoppers are overrated. Rondae was a stopper, and how did that go against Dekker in the Elite Eight? Being a solid, consistent team overall is what we need to strive for.

Yes on part 1; dont agree with part 2. We've seen our stoppers shut down or tremendously slow down a lot of great players the last three years. There are just some nights where nobody is going to stop someone or even slow them down. There is nobody in the college game slowing down Dekker that second half, and I dont remember him being on him much of that 2nd anyways. So I don't think stoppers are overrated and I would be more than happy to take one right now. Put him on the best perimeter player, and that is one guy you know is going to do their job. In many cases, he wont need much help either, and it's just one guy rather than all four being out of wack. When Pitts loses a step, typically there is a gaping hole (we have gone on and on about the team D), but when that is not the case, all four of the others are completely out of sync and out of position. Again, that is a team D problem, but having a Rondae at the 3 would lessen the problem quite a bit.

Where you and I would disagree is that I see our ability to slow really good players as an outgrowth of good team D, not necessarily having a stopper. Look at guys like Russell, Jabari Parker and Delon Wright. We did not rely on a single defender even in cases where we could have.

It was the packline help D that we lack right now that was instrumental in stopping those guys, at least in my opinion, moreso than any particular player's 1 on 1 matchup.

I also prefer that idea as it relates to this year's team. A stopper is unlikely to emerge. A vastly improved team D could definitely emerge.

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Where you and I would disagree is that I see our ability to slow really good players as an outgrowth of good team D, not necessarily having a stopper. Look at guys like Russell, Jabari Parker and Delon Wright. We did not rely on a single defender even in cases where we could have.

It was the packline help D that we lack right now that was instrumental in stopping those guys, at least in my opinion, moreso than any particular player's 1 on 1 matchup.

I also prefer that idea as it relates to this year's team. A stopper is unlikely to emerge. A vastly improved team D could definitely emerge.

We are just arguing about two different things then, because I don't disagree with any of the above. We didn't have to use one guy for those guys, all elite college players w NBA talent, two of whom could be NBA stars, because we had the luxury of great team defense, and elite guys on them and plenty of elite to great defenders who can switch. We obviously do not have any of that this year, I don't see an elite stopper on this roster, nor a guy who will become one by year's end. So again, I agree that team D improvement is the only thing that is going to happen, and obviously I am taking good to great team D over an elite stopper and average to poor D any day.

I guess what I was trying to say is, a stopper isnt the fix-all and wouldnt cure our problems, but it would make things easier for us, it would make the improvement on team D easier, and it would make the transition time from now until then a little bit easier. A blatantly obvious example would be if we had Rondae, ignoring any offense or rebounding, do we lose to Providence and struggle with Santa Clara and let that dude go off for 44? That's all I am trying to say here and why I did not agree that a stopper is overrated. Now that I see a little more of what you were getting at, I don't disagree as strongly.

rgdeuce wrote:

Spaceman Spiff wrote:
Where you and I would disagree is that I see our ability to slow really good players as an outgrowth of good team D, not necessarily having a stopper. Look at guys like Russell, Jabari Parker and Delon Wright. We did not rely on a single defender even in cases where we could have.

It was the packline help D that we lack right now that was instrumental in stopping those guys, at least in my opinion, moreso than any particular player's 1 on 1 matchup.

I also prefer that idea as it relates to this year's team. A stopper is unlikely to emerge. A vastly improved team D could definitely emerge.

We are just arguing about two different things then, because I don't disagree with any of the above. We didn't have to use one guy for those guys, all elite college players w NBA talent, two of whom could be NBA stars, because we had the luxury of great team defense, and elite guys on them and plenty of elite to great defenders who can switch. We obviously do not have any of that this year, I don't see an elite stopper on this roster, nor a guy who will become one by year's end. So again, I agree that team D improvement is the only thing that is going to happen, and obviously I am taking good to great team D over an elite stopper and average to poor D any day.

I guess what I was trying to say is, a stopper isnt the fix-all and wouldnt cure our problems, but it would make things easier for us, it would make the improvement on team D easier, and it would make the transition time from now until then a little bit easier. A blatantly obvious example would be if we had Rondae, ignoring any offense or rebounding, do we lose to Providence and struggle with Santa Clara and let that dude go off for 44? That's all I am trying to say here and why I did not agree that a stopper is overrated. Now that I see a little more of what you were getting at, I don't disagree as strongly.

Yeah, fair enough. It's not like a stopper is a bad thing at all. It is good, but our team D issue is more devastating in my opinion. The packline is predicated on help D forcing low percentage shots and keeping people from getting easy looks off penetration. We have been bad at that this year, and it is so central to the success of our defensive scheme.

The replies in this thread are not inspiring greater confidence in our D. Wonder what that line on Saturday's gonna look like. Zags -6? -8?

With no Zeus I think we are looking at a double digit loss. 10-15

84Cat wrote:With no Zeus I think we are looking at a double digit loss. 10-15

Yeah. Even with him, there's no one to counter Wiltjer. Zags finally caught us in a down year.

Beachcat97 wrote:

84Cat wrote:With no Zeus I think we are looking at a double digit loss. 10-15

Yeah. Even with him, there's no one to counter Wiltjer. Zags finally caught us in a down year.

Without Zeus, we have no one who can physically match Karnowski and Sabonis. They're both physical, and Ristic just can't match their level there. Our chance is on the perimeter. If we do not win decisively there...

Sean Miller must release the hounds this weekend!!!!!

Nothing to lose (other than a non-conference road game). Lots to gain. Knowing we're shorthanded should take the pressure off. This is a great opportunity for Comanche, Simon, Trier & Allen. Ristic too. They're a talented bunch that need to be able to play aggressively through their mistakes and not worry about getting yanked. Miller needs a "fvck it" attitude in this one. Go play hard, attack, have fun. Gonzaga is good. But they've got their own issues that our athletes can exploit as well.

carolinacat wrote:Sean Miller must release the hounds this weekend!!!!!

Nothing to lose (other than a non-conference road game). Lots to gain. Knowing we're shorthanded should take the pressure off. This is a great opportunity for Comanche, Simon, Trier & Allen. Ristic too. They're a talented bunch that need to be able to play aggressively through their mistakes and not worry about getting yanked. Miller needs a "fvck it" attitude in this one. Go play hard, attack, have fun. Gonzaga is good. But they've got their own issues that our athletes can exploit as well.

Yep. Let our young guys get in there and learn a thing or two, even if it's the hard way. We really have nothing to lose. We're a heavy underdog. Saturday's outcome isn't as important as the opportunity it'll provide to our freshmen.

Beachcat97 wrote:The replies in this thread are not inspiring greater confidence in our D. Wonder what that line on Saturday's gonna look like. Zags -6? -8?

LOL, you needed this thread for that? It could be very ugly. I think it will be closer than most people think. And really, it is still a game we can still win if Trier and Gabe have great games and we start knocking down our outside shots. Sabonis has had a severe problem adjusting to the new officiating, we need to get him out of the game as soon as we can or they are going to completely destroy us on the interior and send Anderson and Tollefsen to the bench with their own foul trouble. I think Wiltjer gets his no matter what. I think we just got to find a way to keep him behind that three point line and force him into jumpers and cross our fingers that it is an off night. It's going to take a game from us we haven't seen yet, but we certainly are capable of doing it. Like Spaceman said, I think both teams are a push on the perimeter. if we win that battle, we have a shot.

Spaceman Spiff wrote: Without Zeus, we have no one who can physically match Karnowski and Sabonis. They're both physical, and Ristic just can't match their level there. Our chance is on the perimeter. If we do not win decisively there...

I could see Duece fouling out in about 8 minutes of action against those two. It's gonna be a bloodbath down low for him

Zags also have multiple guys back from last year's team that lost to us in OT, so they'll be up for this one.

Zags by a lot on Saturday.

This Arizona team does NOT have a stopper. At all. Pitts is not it.

The Butcher wrote:This Arizona team does NOT have a stopper. At all. Pitts is not it.

Simon has the potential i think