TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5678
Age: 61
Reg: 07-07-09
|
11-16-24 12:53 PM - Post#374323
Solid 1st half. We have a deep team.
Offensive is lethal after early turnovers. Defense, while active, needs to close faster on the shooter - it has been a team wide issue.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5678
Age: 61
Reg: 07-07-09
|
11-16-24 01:54 PM - Post#374326
In response to TheLine
Convincing victory. Game never in doubt. Will report sometime after getting home.
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 3030
Reg: 03-02-08
|
11-16-24 05:41 PM - Post#374334
In response to TheLine
Why did we play this game?
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1552
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-16-24 10:40 PM - Post#374340
In response to Chet Forte
Why did you ask that question?
|
Chet Forte
Postdoc
Posts: 3030
Reg: 03-02-08
|
11-17-24 12:09 PM - Post#374344
In response to Dr. V
Because what value does it bring to our development as a team to play a team like Mercyhurst? Why play a laugher?
|
Dr. V
PhD Student
Posts: 1552
Reg: 11-21-04
|
11-17-24 03:21 PM - Post#374354
In response to Chet Forte
Actually, it was not a laugher. M is well coached, plays good D and two of its starters are grad transfers, so are experienced. It doesn't have anyone taller than 6'8", so we had a definite size advantage. Overall it was a good exercise for us.
Although I had never heard of Mercyhurst, it turns out that this is its first year playing D1 BB and it is in the NEC, which has various schools we have played in BB and FB, such as LIU, Central CT and FDU.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5678
Age: 61
Reg: 07-07-09
|
11-17-24 07:39 PM - Post#374361
In response to Dr. V
I agree they were well coached, but still would rather we play more games against NYC area teams that play more physically.
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5678
Age: 61
Reg: 07-07-09
|
11-17-24 08:06 PM - Post#374362
In response to TheLine
It was a hard game to draw conclusions from. While Columbia played well overall, Mercyhurst is a team they should beat easily. While Mercyhurst could hit 3s and was well organized on both ends of the court, they are unathletic and had no presence in the paint, making them easy pickings.
Columbia started out slow, with a slew of sloppy turnovers, after which Engels started substituting early. Columbia then sprinted out to a double digit lead. While Mercyhurst whittled it down to 4 points early in the third, the game never felt close.
Columbia had no problem scoring once out of turnover mode. Multiple players shot well from outside. RDLR and Thompson drove hard to the rim. The centers, Bedri in particular, were good at the catch-and-shoot from the block.
Turnovers continued to be an issue. The D could have been tighter against the Mercyhurst shooters - it wasn't like they were capable of driving to the hoop so it made no sense to give them room.
On to the players.
RDLR - Columbia will go as far as he can carry them. Needs very little space to get off his shot. His ability to read the floor is the best on the team - he had a couple of very nice assists.
Thompson - Imposed himself inside. Cleaned the boards, Had a couple of good drives. Got himself in foul trouble, which he can't afford to do because the drop-off to Robledo is steep.
Noland - The good is that he buried open shots when Mercyhurst was too preoccupied with RDLR. The not so good is that he forced things too much, leading to too many TOs.
Johnson - had a quiet game. Started out real slow, causing him to get yanked early.
Bedri - I continue to like what I see from him, even if Engles doesn't give him a lot of minutes. In this game I get it - the team tends to feed him down low when he's out there and that wasn't working early.
Tavroff - Was a positive defensive and rebounding presence. His lack of mobility may not play well against a more physical team. We'll see. That said, it's great to have 3 playable centers, that is going to help a lot during the Ivy Friday-Saturday schedule.
Ritter - Got long run-outs in both halves and delivered on both ends. No turnovers - he generally kept the ball high after receiving it and kept it there until releasing. He has the mobility Jake lacks with a similar defensive presence. Plays like he has a chip on his shoulder.
Robledo - Was ok but wasn't tasked with much. Only played as much as he did because of Thompson's foul trouble.
Romanelli - Got a long runout after a series of bad offensive sets by the starters. He did seem to have a calming influence on the offensive end. I worry he's too slight on the defensive end - not a problem in this game but could be against a better team.
O'Keefe - Didn't do anything particularly memorable good or bad. Presumably he's getting play because he's less likely than Romanelli and Cunningham to get pushed around against a physical team.
Cunningham - Cameo.
Coaching - I like that Engels responded quickly when the team came out flat at the beginning of both halves - but why were they so flat?. Engels was generally good at drawing up plays after timeouts with one glaring exception - the final play of the 1st half. Having Tavroff on the court for a final shot seemed questionable enough, running a play to Tavroff was even worse. This was the type of game to try out a better play than that.
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2267
Reg: 10-09-09
|
11-18-24 07:52 AM - Post#374364
In response to TheLine
Thanks--good stuff!
|
TheLine
Professor
Posts: 5678
Age: 61
Reg: 07-07-09
|
11-18-24 10:52 AM - Post#374376
In response to cc66
I looked over the advanced stats and I'm underrating Robledo. He's an excellent FT shooter and doesn't turn the ball over. Those two skills are amplified on a team that could be better at both.
|
roarlionroar
Freshman
Posts: 63
Age: 28
Reg: 02-05-14
|
11-19-24 10:45 AM - Post#374416
In response to TheLine
Where has Cooper been?
|
cc66
Postdoc
Posts: 2267
Reg: 10-09-09
|
11-19-24 11:36 AM - Post#374420
In response to roarlionroar
Engles said he is away for personal reasons, but they hope he will be back.
|