There's no mandate stating our comments have to contribute to the discussion. If that were the case, most of us would be screwed. There's also no rule against being critical of Tony. As a matter of fact, our very first thread on this forum was about getting rid of Shaver.

So, you have the right to criticize Tony and exile has the right to poke fun at your rant. Your response to exile, as funny as it may have been, would've certainly led to something we need to avoid. Had a visitor directed a comment like that toward a Tribe poster, I would've immediately banned him.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Tribe was fortunate to beat Hofstra last year, with Marcus, in the tourney.

Wasn't Hofstra the pre-season #1 this year?

Team spent an extra day on the road and played an early game.

Game is already in the rear window for me.

Need to break the Delaware curse this week.

(01-24-2016 09:28 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  I simply disagreed. My intent was not to shut down the discussion. I would like to know what scheme we should have gone to.

I drink the Shaver Kool-aid, I admit. He does not run set plays. He hoards his timeouts. He is a program-builder, not a coach-for-one-game guy. He is from the Dean Smith school. I personally have no problem with that.

I think it is disingenuous to take all the good that Shaver has done for granted and then blame our shortfalls on coaching and schemes, especially when we don't identify what the proper schemes should have been.

This is a particularly classy response after what I said. You're a good dude exile.

(01-24-2016 09:28 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  I drink the Shaver Kool-aid, I admit. He does not run set plays. He hoards his timeouts. He is a program-builder, not a coach-for-one-game guy. He is from the Dean Smith school. I personally have no problem with that.

I think it is disingenuous to take all the good that Shaver has done for granted and then blame our shortfalls on coaching and schemes, especially when we don't identify what the proper schemes should have been.

I agree with the first part, but I don't think the second part follows. What I would like to see is an assistant that was focused on matchups and where we can gain advantages.

As far as the "proper schemes" go... it's hard to say what would be the right one if we never try different ones. I think it's part of the coach's job to find the proper schemes. For Coach Shaver, that's always going to be in the preparation for the game instead of during the game.

In my experience, it's hard even coaching kids' games and doing anything other than trying to fix what's happening on the floor. That's one of the reasons I'm on board with Coach Shaver's substitution gameplan; we're significantly more likely to keep players' minutes appropriate if there's a schedule in place because it's one less thing to think about during the game. That's why I think having an assistant focus on matchups is the way to go. Everybody on the staff should have an assigned job. FWIW, I think every coaching staff already does this, but I also don't know if matchups and advantages are anything we focus on.

Also being lost in all this is that in between turnovers our offense generated some pretty good shot attempts in the second half but we missed. That's bad luck (right Rocco?) rather than bad play.

We'll get Hofstra at Kaplan. They had lost four in a row to Tony, including three last year, and this time
they had the hot hand.

Let's beat Delaware on the road Thursday and JMU next Sunday and this game will be long forgotten.

(01-24-2016 09:28 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  I simply disagreed. My intent was not to shut down the discussion. I would like to know what scheme we should have gone to.

I drink the Shaver Kool-aid, I admit. He does not run set plays. He hoards his timeouts. He is a program-builder, not a coach-for-one-game guy. He is from the Dean Smith school. I personally have no problem with that.

I think it is disingenuous to take all the good that Shaver has done for granted and then blame our shortfalls on coaching and schemes, especially when we don't identify what the proper schemes should have been.

We are all human and have shortfalls. Tony is the perfect coach for the Tribe BB and as such we have to live with his shortfalls. We have a deep bench which they do not have so the scheme that we should consider is a full court press that has consistently been productive this season on the infrequent occasions that it did get use with Tarpey at the point.

in the preseason open scrimmage that Shaver did for the fans he even mentioned that with the shorter shot clock that this would be even more effective as it would limit the time a team can run their O.

(01-25-2016 08:24 AM)wmmii Wrote:  

(01-24-2016 09:28 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  I simply disagreed. My intent was not to shut down the discussion. I would like to know what scheme we should have gone to.

I drink the Shaver Kool-aid, I admit. He does not run set plays. He hoards his timeouts. He is a program-builder, not a coach-for-one-game guy. He is from the Dean Smith school. I personally have no problem with that.

I think it is disingenuous to take all the good that Shaver has done for granted and then blame our shortfalls on coaching and schemes, especially when we don't identify what the proper schemes should have been.

We are all human and have shortfalls. Tony is the perfect coach for the Tribe BB and as such we have to live with his shortfalls. We have a deep bench which they do not have so the scheme that we should consider is a full court press that has consistently been productive this season on the infrequent occasions that it did get use with Tarpey at the point.

in the preseason open scrimmage that Shaver did for the fans he even mentioned that with the shorter shot clock that this would be even more effective as it would limit the time a team can run their O.

Agreed on the full court press. I wish we'd seen some press. Not only to take advantage of our bench, but the shorter shot clock and whatever fatigue they may have been feeling from the 3OT game and weather travel, etc. I thought that would've given us a nice advantage. Tony must have thought that our guys were just as fatigued from all of the travel.

Let's just focus in on a couple items.

Gustys brutalized our big men. Period. He didn't have a great game, but he was far superior to anyone we put in there. That's a problem that won't go away.

We can't stop hot shooting guards. Green, Jay Bird, Ingrahm, fill in the rest of the list. That's a problem that we should be able to fix. Not sure how other than to gut it out.

My biggest disappointment yesterday was how lazy our kids played. I don't care about the trip, the game time, or whatever. That team gave up in the second half in a gym with 250 fans (no chance that 894 people were there). That's on the team. Coaches included.

We are better than Hofstra, but maybe not as hungry.

(01-24-2016 10:36 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  Also being lost in all this is that in between turnovers our offense generated some pretty good shot attempts in the second half but we missed. That's bad luck (right Rocco?) rather than bad play.

To some degree yes. You don't expect Dixon and Prewitt to shoot that poorly. On the other hand you don't give yourself much margin for error when you're -10 in turnovers.

Malik Nichols out for the year for Hofstra. Tore MCL and ACL coming down on that dunk against us. Gave them great energy/hustle and helped spell Gustys in foul trouble. Maybe, maybe, now their depth will be an issue.

(01-25-2016 10:34 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Let's just focus in on a couple items.

Gustys brutalized our big men. Period. He didn't have a great game, but he was far superior to anyone we put in there. That's a problem that won't go away.

We can't stop hot shooting guards. Green, Jay Bird, Ingrahm, fill in the rest of the list. That's a problem that we should be able to fix. Not sure how other than to gut it out.

My biggest disappointment yesterday was how lazy our kids played. I don't care about the trip, the game time, or whatever. That team gave up in the second half in a gym with 250 fans (no chance that 894 people were there). That's on the team. Coaches included.

We are better than Hofstra, but maybe not as hungry.

Okay, I did not see us being lazy. The effort, particularly in the first half was fine. Start of the second half was fine. We were winning at the 15 minute mark of the second half and should have been up by more if not for missed FTs.

From the 15 minute point, a number of things changed. We got sped up a little too much and committed a lot of unforced errors. Gustys got on track after being in foul trouble. Their guards caught fire from 3-pt range. We went cold, despite some good looks. Snowballed quickly...

Some of that is on us and some of it is not. Not sure anybody in the country can stop Green when he's in the zone any more than anyone could MT when he was on.

We could have finished the game stronger, but nothing we did in the last five minutes was going to change the outcome.

I disagree that we are better than Hofstra. Hofstra was picked first for a reason. The have the best guard in the conference, the best big man, and the best starting five. They have multiple shooters and plenty of athleticism. The only clear advantage WM has is depth.

We need to finish near the top of the conference, so we avoid playing Hofstra until the championship game, where their lack of depth will hopefully catch with him. Not to say we couldn't beat Hofstra when they're rested, it would just be much harder IMO.

I agree with 91, people are making a little too much about 15 minutes of one road game.

Raise our defensive play and we'll be fine the rest of the way. We have the offense.

(01-26-2016 12:36 PM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  I disagree that we are better than Hofstra. Hofstra was picked first for a reason. The have the best guard in the conference, the best big man, and the best starting five. They have multiple shooters and plenty of athleticism. The only clear advantage WM has is depth.

We need to finish near the top of the conference, so we avoid playing Hofstra until the championship game, where their lack of depth will hopefully catch with him. Not to say we couldn't beat Hofstra when they're rested, it would just be much harder IMO.

I agree with 91, people are making a little too much about 15 minutes of one road game.

Raise our defensive play and we'll be fine the rest of the way. We have the offense.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with one of the seven hurt for Hofstra, but yeah, agree with most of this. Look back at preseason threads. The league was supposed to have at least 4 pretty evenly matched teams including us. We're right where average expectations would predict us to be, if not a little above that due to OOC success.

I don't care about preseason polls. They are meaningless.

I'll take our starting five over theirs any day. I do think we are a better team top to bottom.

I agree Allen is better than Cohn and Gustys is better than Sheldon, but I'll take our other three starters over Tankseley, Bernardi, and Koon. Plus our bench is better.

I do believe we were lazy/tired or whatever you want to call it. We got rolled over a ten minute period and it looked like after they got up by about 16 we just gave up. We have to have intensity the whole time. If not, put in the subs and call it what it is.

(01-26-2016 04:40 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  I agree Allen is better than Cohn and Gustys is better than Sheldon, but I'll take our other three starters over Tankseley, Bernardi, and Koon. Plus our bench is better.

By Allen, I'm guessing you mean Green. Tanksley is pretty good. But I agree, I'd take Daniel/Omar/Terry over that group.

Look at the minutes for the season for Hofstra.

Bernardi, Brian 20 731 36.6
Green, Juan'ya 20 728 36.4
Koon, Denton 20 699 35.0
Tanksley, Ameen 20 687 34.4
Gustys, Rokas 20 553 27.7
Nichols, Malik 20 361 18.1
Buie, Desure 20 244 12.2
Wright-Foreman, Justin 13 51 3.9
Walker, Andre 11 46 4.2

Losing Nichols, they only have 8 guys, 2 of which don't average any real minutes. In fact, their last two don't even play every game(13 and 11). If any of their starting five get in foul trouble, they are in real trouble. We had 2 of them with 3 fouls early in the second half and neither ever got a 4th while the outcome was in doubt. If anyone gets them in foul trouble, they have a good shot to be Hofstra. Plus, the concept of 4 of those guys logging 105-110 minutes in the 3 days should mean something. However, they played all those guys a ton last year and they never tired in the semis against us. Just amazing conditioning, I guess.

(01-26-2016 04:40 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  I don't care about preseason polls. They are meaningless.

I'll take our starting five over theirs any day. I do think we are a better team top to bottom.

I agree Allen is better than Cohn and Gustys is better than Sheldon, but I'll take our other three starters over Tankseley, Bernardi, and Koon. Plus our bench is better.

I do believe we were lazy/tired or whatever you want to call it. We got rolled over a ten minute period and it looked like after they got up by about 16 we just gave up. We have to have intensity the whole time. If not, put in the subs and call it what it is.

Not preseason polls, preseason threads here. Most people expected us to be top 4 in the conference along with Hofstra, NE, and various others. Some here thought we might drop back to 6-7 in the conference. We're one of the best teams in the conference and we lost a game on the road to one of the other best teams in the conference.

Also, when you go from tie game to down 16 because every possession is a good look that is missed or an ugly turnover, it's easy to lose focus. I want us to win all the games. It is unreasonable to expect us to win all the games.

(01-26-2016 12:10 PM)nyccaaguy Wrote:  Malik Nichols out for the year for Hofstra. Tore MCL and ACL coming down on that dunk against us. Gave them great energy/hustle and helped spell Gustys in foul trouble. Maybe, maybe, now their depth will be an issue.

If coaches have any intelligence, I tell my players to drive at Gustys every time now that Nichols is out. They have 0 big man depth behind Gustys now. Hofstra is a lot easier to defend against when you don't have to worry about doubling down on Gustys when he gets the ball near the hoop.

Yes, Green.

(01-26-2016 07:03 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:40 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  I agree Allen is better than Cohn and Gustys is better than Sheldon, but I'll take our other three starters over Tankseley, Bernardi, and Koon. Plus our bench is better.

By Allen, I'm guessing you mean Green. Tanksley is pretty good. But I agree, I'd take Daniel/Omar/Terry over that group.