SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6413
Reg: 11-22-04
|
02-14-21 10:09 PM - Post#320756
In response to pennsive
I agree there are stylistic differences between Dunphy and Donahue, including on the defensive end. However, I think one thing that has remained the same is that, more or less, both coaches play the guys who defend the best. Steve’s teams at Cornell and BC led to the assumption he would focus on offense at Penn. Howver, the opposite has been true — we’ve generally been better on defense than offense under Steve. That could be personnel— it could just be that AJ, Foreman, Woods, and Dev were all exceptional defenders. But they all became such under Steve.
I do agree that rebounding is less of an emphasis than it was with Fran. But I think some of that is that the way we defend under Steve gives up rebounding position for other things.
As to who/what would be more competitive, I think the game and the League have changed so much that it isn’t really comparable. We have matched up really well with Yale recently, and ok with Harvard, in part because Steve’s approach works better against teams that play their styles. We match up less well with Princeton type teams. What that seems to mean is that we do ok head to head with the top teams (at least if the Harvard games only lasted 35 minutes, and the Yale games 39), but we have been far more likely to lose games to the rest of the league than they are. Would Dunphy’s approach work better? I doubt it, and I doubt Dunphy would be using his old approach if we hired him tomorrow.
|
