Maybe UB knows something

[slu72]

Think that was the thrust of the SI article. These new evaluation methods let you know whose making the plays. Not just baskets, but screens, setting picks, critical rebounds, etc.

[3star_recruit]

"In 2003-4, the Bills proved you don't have to score in the 70's to win 19 games."

But you do have to be able to score in the 60s because on in a typical game our opponents will score 60. Scoring 30 points or more in the first half would be a lot easier means of achieving that end. There were about 15 games last year where the 17 foot jump shot offense resulted in 25 points or less in the first half.

[cheeseman]

72 - the problem with just isolating the stats of one player to determine if he should be on the floor or not is as follows: 1. If he is not a scoring threat, then the other team doubles up on our other players so they can not get good shots. I would rather have our scores out there as much as possible so pressure is kept on the other team's offense to keep up thus creating more miss shots or turnovers. Overall, I really think setting up a strategy that has us play good defense but scoring in the 70s or high 60s will win more games.

[3star_recruit]

64-65 ppg would be sufficient to produce a good record, provided the defense only gives up another 2 ppg. That's all Dayton and Georgetown averaged last year.

[Major Majerus]

From here, it didn't translate into a better stroke...yet.

[tseugnekillib]

Somebody help my aging memory....did H Waldman, Claggett (sp?) and Highmark make 17 footers or were they closer to the basket?

[3star_recruit]

If you've got shooters like those three, you can shoot jumpers all day. We didn't have the shooters last year and we don't have them this year. I hope the 17 ft jump shot offense as a tactic we employ for 95% of the game is dead and buried.

[tseugnekillib]

.

[3star_recruit]

Not really. The "17 foot jump shot offense" is just my nickname for Brad's version of the motion offense.