slu72 Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Wow, rebounding was awful last night 53 to 31. Great to get a roadie against a B team, but our board work needs a lot of work. Watching the stream I wanted to chuck my iPad mini into the pond behind my condo. Couldn't believe how many second chances we gave them. You won't win many games where you're almost doubled up on rebounds. What happened to: To win- rebound and defend? RA travelled back. Sure hope it's not concussion, but am sure he's got a bad headache this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Rebounding absolutely cost us the WSU game, as well. No matter how tough DE or GG are inside, they're just not long or tall enough to get to everything. Serious Achilles heel for the Bills. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted December 8, 2013 Author Share Posted December 8, 2013 Time for RL, JM, TL, and RA to step it up and get a little more aggressive on the boards. Manning must have small hand he had at least three taken away from him last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Time for RL, JM, TL, and RA to step it up and get a little more aggressive on the boards. Manning must have small hand he had at least three taken away from him last night. Whether his hands or small or not - he does have hands of stone. He would drop a handshake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUBillsFan Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 11/20/11 SLU beats Washington 77 to 64. Washington out rebounds SLU 40 to 26. http://www.slubillikens.com//ViewContent.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=27200&CONTENT_ID=172192 If you play great defense and cause the other team to miss a lot of shots, they will likely get more rebounds because they will have a lot more opportunities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 11/20/11 SLU beats Washington 77 to 64. Washington out rebounds SLU 40 to 26. http://www.slubillikens.com//ViewContent.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=27200&CONTENT_ID=172192 If you play great defense and cause the other team to miss a lot of shots, they will likely get more rebounds because they will have a lot more opportunities. That's not a good philosophy as if they were missing a lot of shots, we should be getting more rebounds as they would be offensive rebounds for them. There is a reason for these 2 words ......... Defense, Rebound Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Whether his hands or small or not - he does have hands of stone. He would drop a handshake. I se more value in JM than most on the board. But he does have a problem getting the ball knocked away from him. I've noticed that he doesn't really seem to use his body to clear the space around him, just holding the ball out there for an extra half second. Sometimes it looks like he's almost timid to be agressive with the ball for fear of getting a foul called on him. He gets called for a lot of nit picky fouls. Along with the new charge rule, the NCAA has implemented a new John Manning rule which says if a play happens within 8 feet of John it's a foul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zink Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 That's not a good philosophy as if they were missing a lot of shots, we should be getting more rebounds as they would be offensive rebounds for them. There is a reason for these 2 words ......... Defense, Rebound Another excuse to use for our rebounding totals would be the number of TOs we force - this causes us to not have tremendous rebounding advantages even against smaller, athletically inferior teams. Also, we have only had two bad games with respect to rebounding (WSU and Valpo), and the WSU game wasn't even terrible, it was just not good. I don't think that rebounding is crippling the team this year. In years past, our numbers on the glass have been pretty similar, yet our team was much better. I believe that our troubles this year have come on the offensive end, especially due to poor shot selection, and poor shooting. I will try and back this up with data... In order to talk about our rebounding, we need to look at rebound %, not just total rebounds. On the defensive glass, we haul in 71.3% of rebounds, ranked 88 in the country. On the offensive glass, we get 31.6% of the rebounds, which puts us at 197 in that category. We are a slightly above average rebounding team (51.5% of total rebounds, 138th in the country), even though we don't hit the offensive glass, or only have one guy doing it (which is an intentional part of our defensive strategy). We have never been an elite rebounding team (and were actually worse last year - 70.9/27.9/49.4; and almost exactly the same the year prior - 71.3/31.6/51.4), but we don't need to be for this team to win games. That being said, we can't get owned on the glass like what happened last night and expect things to go well. If I were to pick out a complaint for this team, it is shot selection, particularly by the guards. We have been settling for long 2's early in the shot clock far too often. We are getting a much lower percentage of our points from the line (19.7% this year which is 272nd in the country, compared to 23.5% and 20.1% the last two years - our free throw rate this year is an abysmal 306th in the nation), and from 3pt land (21.1% of our points this year, ranked 274th in the country, compared to 26.4% and 30.6% the previous two years) than we have the past two years. We need to take (and make) those more efficient shots. Last night we looked more patient, especially in the first half when we tore apart their zone with good passing that lead to a bunch of layups for Glaze and Evans. Once Jett, McCall and even Evans started taking 18-footers, that is when we gave up our hard earned lead. KenPom currently has us rated 131st in offensive efficiency, while being 4th defensively. In past years, those numbers have been 75/6 (2013), 29/11 (2012). In order to move from being a top 30ish team to the top 15ish team we expected, we need to figure things out on offense. - Sorry for the long post with lots of data, I have just gotten a little tired of people complaining about our rebounding when it isn't a glaring weakness, even if it isn't a strength either. We have other issues that need attention. I wish we had SportVu data like they have in the NBA so I could backup the mid-range shooting hypothesis, but the FT and 3pt data seems to support the idea that we aren't attacking the basket or taking threes in the ways we used to... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlarry Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Time for RL, JM, TL, and RA to step it up and get a little more aggressive on the boards. Manning must have small hand he had at least three taken away from him last night. You know what they say about guys with small hands. Maybe thats also why it seems he doesnt have a lot of confidence. On the otherhand, South Park claims having "small hands" makes you angry. It would be nice to see an angry side of Manning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NextYearBill Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 Manning is the worst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Another excuse to use for our rebounding totals would be the number of TOs we force - this causes us to not have tremendous rebounding advantages even against smaller, athletically inferior teams. Also, we have only had two bad games with respect to rebounding (WSU and Valpo), and the WSU game wasn't even terrible, it was just not good. I don't think that rebounding is crippling the team this year. In years past, our numbers on the glass have been pretty similar, yet our team was much better. I believe that our troubles this year have come on the offensive end, especially due to poor shot selection, and poor shooting. I will try and back this up with data... In order to talk about our rebounding, we need to look at rebound %, not just total rebounds. On the defensive glass, we haul in 71.3% of rebounds, ranked 88 in the country. On the offensive glass, we get 31.6% of the rebounds, which puts us at 197 in that category. We are a slightly above average rebounding team (51.5% of total rebounds, 138th in the country), even though we don't hit the offensive glass, or only have one guy doing it (which is an intentional part of our defensive strategy). We have never been an elite rebounding team (and were actually worse last year - 70.9/27.9/49.4; and almost exactly the same the year prior - 71.3/31.6/51.4), but we don't need to be for this team to win games. That being said, we can't get owned on the glass like what happened last night and expect things to go well. If I were to pick out a complaint for this team, it is shot selection, particularly by the guards. We have been settling for long 2's early in the shot clock far too often. We are getting a much lower percentage of our points from the line (19.7% this year which is 272nd in the country, compared to 23.5% and 20.1% the last two years - our free throw rate this year is an abysmal 306th in the nation), and from 3pt land (21.1% of our points this year, ranked 274th in the country, compared to 26.4% and 30.6% the previous two years) than we have the past two years. We need to take (and make) those more efficient shots. Last night we looked more patient, especially in the first half when we tore apart their zone with good passing that lead to a bunch of layups for Glaze and Evans. Once Jett, McCall and even Evans started taking 18-footers, that is when we gave up our hard earned lead. KenPom currently has us rated 131st in offensive efficiency, while being 4th defensively. In past years, those numbers have been 75/6 (2013), 29/11 (2012). In order to move from being a top 30ish team to the top 15ish team we expected, we need to figure things out on offense. - Sorry for the long post with lots of data, I have just gotten a little tired of people complaining about our rebounding when it isn't a glaring weakness, even if it isn't a strength either. We have other issues that need attention. I wish we had SportVu data like they have in the NBA so I could backup the mid-range shooting hypothesis, but the FT and 3pt data seems to support the idea that we aren't attacking the basket or taking threes in the ways we used to... Great post. The thing that worries me about boards, is it seems (or maybe it was just the WSU game which is still hard to forget) other teams are always grabbing the crucial ones late in the game. Suppose it didn't help that Loe and Manning had fouled out. I think our numbers should also dip a little once conference play starts. Agree on the mid-range jumpers as well, but our offense has been so stagnant at times these shots are almost necessary -- definitely need to show some major improvement here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doowop Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Agbeko can't rebound while he is sitting on the bench. When he gets more playing time, I believe he will be a big help on the boards. I don't think Loe will ever be a strong rebounder. We need more bangers, regardless of height. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Another excuse to use for our rebounding totals would be the number of TOs we force - this causes us to not have tremendous rebounding advantages even against smaller, athletically inferior teams. Also, we have only had two bad games with respect to rebounding (WSU and Valpo), and the WSU game wasn't even terrible, it was just not good. I don't think that rebounding is crippling the team this year. In years past, our numbers on the glass have been pretty similar, yet our team was much better. I believe that our troubles this year have come on the offensive end, especially due to poor shot selection, and poor shooting. I will try and back this up with data... In order to talk about our rebounding, we need to look at rebound %, not just total rebounds. On the defensive glass, we haul in 71.3% of rebounds, ranked 88 in the country. On the offensive glass, we get 31.6% of the rebounds, which puts us at 197 in that category. We are a slightly above average rebounding team (51.5% of total rebounds, 138th in the country), even though we don't hit the offensive glass, or only have one guy doing it (which is an intentional part of our defensive strategy). We have never been an elite rebounding team (and were actually worse last year - 70.9/27.9/49.4; and almost exactly the same the year prior - 71.3/31.6/51.4), but we don't need to be for this team to win games. That being said, we can't get owned on the glass like what happened last night and expect things to go well. If I were to pick out a complaint for this team, it is shot selection, particularly by the guards. We have been settling for long 2's early in the shot clock far too often. We are getting a much lower percentage of our points from the line (19.7% this year which is 272nd in the country, compared to 23.5% and 20.1% the last two years - our free throw rate this year is an abysmal 306th in the nation), and from 3pt land (21.1% of our points this year, ranked 274th in the country, compared to 26.4% and 30.6% the previous two years) than we have the past two years. We need to take (and make) those more efficient shots. Last night we looked more patient, especially in the first half when we tore apart their zone with good passing that lead to a bunch of layups for Glaze and Evans. Once Jett, McCall and even Evans started taking 18-footers, that is when we gave up our hard earned lead. KenPom currently has us rated 131st in offensive efficiency, while being 4th defensively. In past years, those numbers have been 75/6 (2013), 29/11 (2012). In order to move from being a top 30ish team to the top 15ish team we expected, we need to figure things out on offense. - Sorry for the long post with lots of data, I have just gotten a little tired of people complaining about our rebounding when it isn't a glaring weakness, even if it isn't a strength either. We have other issues that need attention. I wish we had SportVu data like they have in the NBA so I could backup the mid-range shooting hypothesis, but the FT and 3pt data seems to support the idea that we aren't attacking the basket or taking threes in the ways we used to... Have people really complained that much? I see them complaining in this thread about the game where the rebouunding was poor. You picked my post to respond to when I just correctly disputed a post on why rebounding would be off. However, regarding your post. When you aspire to be a top 20 team, 88/197 is a weakness. Just because you did well last year while having the same weakness doesn't make it acceptable and a reason we need to improve. Majerus made it a point to write it on the board every game so that we would concentrate and focus on being better. I believe many people have been talking about our poor shot selection for many games. So you could have saved the long post and just said, I agree that shot selection has been bad and here are some numbers to back it up. I also agree rebounding was bad in this game, but though not good overall hasn't been any worse than last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 So you could have saved the long post and just said, I agree that shot selection has been bad and here are some numbers to back it up. I also agree rebounding was bad in this game, but though not good overall hasn't been any worse than last year. Skip, I disagree about complaining about this long post. A good number of the long posts on this board are just ramblings with very little factual accuracy and inconsistent messages. Zink took the time to have some actual facts and made good points that most of us don't typically think about when it comes to rebounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Skip, I disagree about complaining about this long post. A good number of the long posts on this board are just ramblings with very little factual accuracy and inconsistent messages. Zink took the time to have some actual facts and made good points that most of us don't typically think about when it comes to rebounding. I was being sarcastic ... a little. He responded to my post as if I was complaining about the rebounding when really I just said another posters assumption on why ours was not good was because we were holding opponents to a low shooting %, when actually that should get us bigger defensive numbers. The post was fine. It gave us info that said rebounding as a whole isn't worse than last year and he was tired of people complaining about it. When really except for this game, in which it was terrible, people haven't been complaining that much. Appreciate the stats that back up what most people already know ... we're a mediocre rebounding team. He also wanted to tell us what the real problem was ... shot selection. That's nice and exactly what the majority of posters have already been saying. I also disagree with his premise (unless I'm misunderstanding) that rebounding is not that big of a problem since we did well last year and we were just as bad last year. Regardless of what we did last year. A huge factor in winning games is limiting your opponents possessions, to do that you rebound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zink Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I was being sarcastic ... a little. He responded to my post as if I was complaining about the rebounding when really I just said another posters assumption on why ours was not good was because we were holding opponents to a low shooting %, when actually that should get us bigger defensive numbers. The post was fine. It gave us info that said rebounding as a whole isn't worse than last year and he was tired of people complaining about it. When really except for this game, in which it was terrible, people haven't been complaining that much. Appreciate the stats that back up what most people already know ... we're a mediocre rebounding team. He also wanted to tell us what the real problem was ... shot selection. That's nice and exactly what the majority of posters have already been saying. I also disagree with his premise (unless I'm misunderstanding) that rebounding is not that big of a problem since we did well last year and we were just as bad last year. Regardless of what we did last year. A huge factor in winning games is limiting your opponents possessions, to do that you rebound. Skip - I wasn't trying to single you out. I honestly can't remember why I picked yours to respond to. It just seems like in every thread, someone ends up mentioning how bad we are at rebounding, and then all of a sudden there was an ENTIRE thread devoted to the subject! Many have complained about shot selection as well, and basically I posted in an attempt to show that any regression from years past was due to a change in that aspect of our team, not due to our "board game". I wish we were better on the boards too, I just don't think we NEED to be to reach the heights we aspire to. All teams have strengths and weaknesses, and I am fine if we are merely a top-90 rebounding team, especially when considering our emphasis on transition defense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Skip - I wasn't trying to single you out. I honestly can't remember why I picked yours to respond to. It just seems like in every thread, someone ends up mentioning how bad we are at rebounding, and then all of a sudden there was an ENTIRE thread devoted to the subject! Many have complained about shot selection as well, and basically I posted in an attempt to show that any regression from years past was due to a change in that aspect of our team, not due to our "board game". I wish we were better on the boards too, I just don't think we NEED to be to reach the heights we aspire to. All teams have strengths and weaknesses, and I am fine if we are merely a top-90 rebounding team, especially when considering our emphasis on transition defense. Thanks. I partially agree with you. I don't think we absolutely need to rebound better. However, the better we rebound obviously, the fewer possessions our opponents get. As a whole if you give up more possessions than you have, you lose. I think our ability to get steals somewhat helps this, but I'd suggest without looking it up, so maybe I can be proven to be wrong ... 75% of the top 30 teams are in the top 50 in rebounding. So far this year, I haven't been pleased with our shooting or our shot selection. We do only have 2 losses, but really we haven't played anyone else that should have beaten us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deutschkind Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I came to this thread thinking that someone was making a Bills-themed Monopoly or planning a Billikens.com board game night. This is disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgeldmacher Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I se more value in JM than most on the board. But he does have a problem getting the ball knocked away from him. I've noticed that he doesn't really seem to use his body to clear the space around him, just holding the ball out there for an extra half second. Sometimes it looks like he's almost timid to be agressive with the ball for fear of getting a foul called on him. He gets called for a lot of nit picky fouls. Along with the new charge rule, the NCAA has implemented a new John Manning rule which says if a play happens within 8 feet of John it's a foul +1 We're not saying JM is a superstar, but I agree with this assessment. I think the refs are subconsciously trying to enforce the new rules and, at the same time, not foul out the star players on either team. The answer is to call the extra fouls on the big, somewhat awkward backup center. He knows he's getting fouls called on him left and right and it is making him more timid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUfan_42 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I came to this thread thinking that someone was making a Bills-themed Monopoly or planning a Billikens.com board game night. This is disappointing. +1 that makes two of us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zink Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 +1 We're not saying JM is a superstar, but I agree with this assessment. I think the refs are subconsciously trying to enforce the new rules and, at the same time, not foul out the star players on either team. The answer is to call the extra fouls on the big, somewhat awkward backup center. He knows he's getting fouls called on him left and right and it is making him more timid. I se more value in JM than most on the board. But he does have a problem getting the ball knocked away from him. I've noticed that he doesn't really seem to use his body to clear the space around him, just holding the ball out there for an extra half second. Sometimes it looks like he's almost timid to be agressive with the ball for fear of getting a foul called on him. He gets called for a lot of nit picky fouls. Along with the new charge rule, the NCAA has implemented a new John Manning rule which says if a play happens within 8 feet of John it's a foul The kid is averaging a monstrous 4.85 blocks/40min! I really like how he plays on defense, although (back to the thread's topic) he could be better on the glass. I felt bad for him when, in what might have been two straight possessions, he got absolutely mugged under the basket. His only two TOs of the game came on what looked to me like hack-jobs. Not to mention the fouls he gets called for when the other team jumps into his chest - contact can result in a no call, although refs have a hard time swallowing the whistle when a 6'0" guard hits the floor as a result of running into a JM-sized wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 +1 We're not saying JM is a superstar, but I agree with this assessment. I think the refs are subconsciously trying to enforce the new rules and, at the same time, not foul out the star players on either team. The answer is to call the extra fouls on the big, somewhat awkward backup center. He knows he's getting fouls called on him left and right and it is making him more timid. That seems rather fanciful. Probably John needs to internalize the notion of playing defense with his feet and try for blocked shots only when he's help side. Trying to block the shot of the player you're guarding will typically result in a foul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Here is a novel idea - adjust to the new rules and how the game is now being called - that is all about playing any sport, adjustments have to be made to accommodate how the game is being called. Guards do it all the time - is the refs calling hand checks or not - try it and if they are stop it - if not then keep pushing the envelop to see where the line is. I appreciate JM's skill of shot blocking but you have to do more then just block a shot now and then in a game - you have score and rebound if you are 6'11". Oh never mind - rebounding is not that important we have just learned. I agree with the shot selection statements but I still have to say we have to rebound better then giving our opponents 20 + more in a game to be successful against anybody of worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Pine Jim Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 +1 that makes two of us +1 that makes three of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Pelican Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 I came to this thread thinking that someone was making a Bills-themed Monopoly or planning a Billikens.com board game night. This is disappointing. Me too. I was a hoping there would be a Pelican game token. Very disappointing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.