Mercer Post Game

[FoundationEagle 637]

9 minutes ago, Tiger said:

Our O can be frustrating, I understand where some people are coming from when we are stuck passing the ball around a zone with no cutting action going on. But I can assure you it's not Bruce. He was yelling all game for someone to flash to the soft spot and middle of the zone. And I swear it's the simplest thing to attack this area of the zone. If I were to suggest something (lol) it would be to have an actual set that we run almost every damn time against 2-3 which attacks this area EVERY TIME. We may very well do that but sometimes it seems like our guys are just passing the ball around and are content with just shooting it over the zone from time to time -- which is not generally a trusted way to beat zone teams.

If we did what Bruce was screaming for all game -- just somebody simply cut into the middle, the short corner opens up and once you're attacking a zone from inside out it causes all kinds or problems for the D, especially if you're making the smart/right pass. The reason I'd force this issue is that IMO there are not too many players in the SEC, and probably only a handful in the nation (ok this may be the homer in me talking for once) that can stick with Heron or Purifoy if they get to that spot when teams go zone against us (where the SEC logo is right beneath the FT line). We were successful with DP and Heron flashing to these areas but it should've been happening much more -- think how Cliff Ellis utilized Marquis Daniels in our game vs Syracuse in like 2003 NCAA tournament when Quisey went off for 27 pts. I know Bruce is yelling his face off for someone to flash there but for some reason these guys aren't doing it and it's the most basic of concepts vs a zone. 

I hope this post didn't read as me complaining about the game, our team, our staff, or anything like that, I'm just enjoying the watching these guys grow and loving where our program is headed, and hopefully as this year goes on our guys will feel more comfortable out there because now with Wiley coming on alot of our on-court chemistry building will have to start from scratch since Wiley is poised to be a big part of our team.

Agreed with most of the above. Some very basic concepts would help a lot. It is a new challenge with Wiley to rebuild the chemistry as well as the game plan as we figure where he fits best in the scheme. One thing is for sure, we are certainly more exciting than any team of ours I've seen since '01. 

[Tiger 8,821]

6 minutes ago, FoundationEagle said:

Agreed with most of the above. Some very basic concepts would help a lot. It is a new challenge with Wiley to rebuild the chemistry as well as the game plan as we figure where he fits best in the scheme. One thing is for sure, we are certainly more exciting than any team of ours I've seen since '01. 

I don't think we are lacking these concepts but I think sometimes our young players get stuck ball watching -- on offense. Seemed you could hear Bruce yell "flash!" or "cut!" tons of times throughout the game and at one point he had to tell Danjel directly where to cut to. I, personally, think he should already know this but Bruce can and should use that as a teaching moment to show the kids how to really bust up a 2-3 considering the talent we have do it with. And we can really force teams out of a zone if we get DP or Heron down there right around the FT line because in a 13-14 foot box it will be very hard for the bottom of the zone to prevent either of those guys from attacking the basket and getting a layup, fouled, or kick to one of our shooters once the zone starts collapsing in reaction.

 

I'm actually super pumped about the possibilities of our team. Not saying we are NCAA tournament type but the fact that we are actively growing as a program in front of our eyes makes me so happy.

[Tiger 8,821]

1 minute ago, AU64 said:

Absolutely don't want to do any of that.....that will get you hammered. 

I've been big on patience with this program because of where it was prior to Bruce coming to AU. My mindset hasn't changed and just wanted to reiterate that since I was really only touching on a negative in that particular post

[cole256 17,050]

31 minutes ago, Tiger said:

I've been big on patience with this program because of where it was prior to Bruce coming to AU. My mindset hasn't changed and just wanted to reiterate that since I was really only touching on a negative in that particular post

It's funny how some people change day to night from basketball to football on here. Get mad if you criticize football then it's all good for basketball...I don't see how that works. Well actually I do, I guess I should say it's funny when you don't like a coach what you are ok with and when you do like a coach what you will defend

[AU64 10,122]

11 minutes ago, cole256 said:

It's funny how some people change day to night from basketball to football on here. Get mad if you criticize football then it's all good for basketball...I don't see how that works. Well actually I do, I guess I should say it's funny when you don't like a coach what you are ok with and when you do like a coach what you will defend

So true...and seems to work both ways.....and for other sports too...not just limited to F and BB.  Folks seem to have their coaches (and sports) with different expectations.

[boomstick 1,315]

1 hour ago, Tiger said:

What do you guys think of an eventual starting 5 of:

Harper

Heron

Purifoy

Spencer

Wiley

 

We could use this to combat teams that deploy 2 post players, and then go back to our lineup of Purifoy at the 4 and Brown back in at 2 for small-ball matchups. One major thing to think about is if Spencer can play 4 effectively. He brings a lot to the table as a havoc-wreaking 5 man in our "create chaos" small ball style, so I wonder if he can still do that as a 4 man next to wiley. I like the idea of Wiley altering shots with sheer size and Spencer becoming a better weakside help defender with the blocks. What I like even better is that, with this proposed lineup above, that if Spencer goes flying out to contest an opposing driver's shot is that we are not all of a sudden SOL on the rebounding front with Wiley still in there to fight for a rebound. On the flip side does having Horace and Wiley, both who need to be close to the basket offensively, on the court together mess with our ability to slash to the basket by muddying up the interior?

 

Or as an alternative, we can stick with our same lineup just swap Spencer for Wiley. I really like Horace's skill set and wonder if he can be a critical spark plug for us off the bench. But it's a huge boost for us if he's all of a sudden not called upon to be the strongest rebounder on the team. The development of our team and how our roster is managed is going to be very interesting to me to watch as we move ahead in the schedule and I am very much looking forward to it.

JMO, but I think Spencer is too much of a liability on offense to play the 4, and I'm not sure he can handle the defensive matchup on the other end at that position. I'd rather start Dunans at the 3 and leave Purifoy at the 4. 

[cole256 17,050]

3 minutes ago, boomstick said:

JMO, but I think Spencer is too much of a liability on offense to play the 4, and I'm not sure he can handle the defensive matchup on the other end at that position. I'd rather start Dunans at the 3 and leave Purifoy at the 4. 

Dunans comes off the bench because without him the 2nd team wouldn't have any play maker at all. Dunnans is decent at everything. Ball handler, passer, finisher, and defense. As far as Spencer. He's our best defender. He's a much better match up and defender at the 4 than Purifoy is.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

3 minutes ago, cole256 said:

It's funny how some people change day to night from basketball to football on here. Get mad if you criticize football then it's all good for basketball...I don't see how that works. Well actually I do, I guess I should say it's funny when you don't like a coach what you are ok with and when you do like a coach what you will defend

In football everybody expects Auburn to be a good team so some of the fans are more critical. In basketball we have been bad for a long time with a few exceptions that there is more patience.  In basketball right now we are in a quandary we have a great coach and more talent then we have had for years so we have some fans with an unrealistic expectation for this team.  I think you have summed up the team very well in your analyses as have some posters who have been negative. One who called a player an idiot but more power to him apologized and admitted it was during the moment and should have said it was an idiotic play and not the player.

While we have talent we are very young across the board none of our starters are Juniors or Seniors bringing in 1 or 2 talented freshmen into an established team is not that difficult as you can spend a little extra time with the newcomers staring an all freshman and sophomore team and you don't have as much time to work with individual players because they all need extra time. Then add in lack of size and you have what we have seen on the floor.

Now you add in a very talented big man who has literally only been with the team for a couple of practices right out of HS 1/3 of the way through the season  and you add to the complexity and making this into a cohesive well oiled unit.

We have won 8 games with this unit we have only been out of one game at the end of the game and we were doing well in that game until the second half.  We are 8-2 we could just as easily be 9-1 or 7-3. 

I hope people listen to you and don't expect miracles from this team this year. I hope they will be able to overlook a really bad game where we get blown out, I hope they will be willing to expect incremental improvements throughout the year. We have a young talented team that just got younger and even more talented but that will show their youth at times but will also play hard every game. The games where we did not play well it wasn't effort that hurt us it was not playing as a unit and not talking enough especially on defense. Open threes because two people went to one guy. We will get better and I am tickled to be able to watch this team grow.

[boomstick 1,315]

3 minutes ago, cole256 said:

Dunans comes off the bench because without him the 2nd team wouldn't have any play maker at all. Dunnans is decent at everything. Ball handler, passer, finisher, and defense. As far as Spencer. He's our best defender. He's a much better match up and defender at the 4 than Purifoy is.

Yeah, I agree. I was just altering the quoted lineup if Heron and Purifoy are playing the 2 and 3 since I don't think Horace can play the 4. IMO, the ideal lineup is Harper, Brown at the 2, Heron, Purifoy, and Wiley. I think that's the most talented starting 5. But Bryce has to get going on both ends. Maybe this break will help him find his shot and his intensity on the defensive end. That gives you Lang and Dunans as scoring options off the bench.

[cole256 17,050]

8 minutes ago, AU64 said:

So true...and seems to work both ways.....and for other sports too...not just limited to F and BB.  Folks seem to have their coaches (and sports) with different expectations.

Yeah so I would think a person that understands that wouldn't be so partial one way or the other. Seems like what they would do with one coach they would do for another. If they understand not having a qb hurts a team they could see the same for not having a pg in basketball.  The same for players, if they say a guy is young and will get better one way seems like they would say the same for the other

[cole256 17,050]

2 minutes ago, boomstick said:

Yeah, I agree. I was just altering the quoted lineup if Heron and Purifoy are playing the 2 and 3 since I don't think Horace can play the 4. IMO, the ideal lineup is Harper, Brown at the 2, Heron, Purifoy, and Wiley. I think that's the most talented starting 5. But Bryce has to get going on both ends. Maybe this break will help him find his shot and his intensity on the defensive end. 

I see what you're saying, and we will all have different opinions. I think the best line up is what tiger named. Harper because he's the floor general, Herron and Purifoy at wing, Wiley and Spencer at the post. It's just going to be very very very hard to win the rebounding war with two undersized players at their position. That's hard to make up. IMO. 

[boomstick 1,315]

47 minutes ago, cole256 said:

I see what you're saying, and we will all have different opinions. I think the best line up is what tiger named. Harper because he's the floor general, Herron and Purifoy at wing, Wiley and Spencer at the post. It's just going to be very very very hard to win the rebounding war with two undersized players at their position. That's hard to make up. IMO. 

I just can't see Horace playing the 4. To my knowledge, he's never played there before, and his game doesn't really line up with what we typically see from that 4 spot. I think there's a better chance of seeing McLemore and Wiley on the court together because McLemore has played more 4 before he was forced into that 5 spot by Spencer's suspension. 

[Tiger 8,821]

16 minutes ago, boomstick said:

I just can't see Horace playing the 4. To my knowledge, he's never played there before, and his game doesn't really line up with what we typically see from that 4 spot. I think there's a better chance of seeing McLemore and Wiley on the court together because McLemore has played more 4 before he was forced into that 5 spot by Spencer's suspension. 

I totally understand your issues with Horace at the 4. That is precisely why I also asked the question of whether or not Spencer at PF with Wiley at C would work. The positives, as Cole is mentioning, is the dramatic boost we get in rebounds, among other things I mentioned. But from an offensive flow standpoint, there could be issues with spacing and how Bruce likes to have his 4 have some sort of creator skills. There's only one real way to find out though.

[mustache eagle 2,398]

i mentioned a few games ago that spencer seemed to be putting the ball on the floor and showing some self created offense.  I think he is "good enough" offensively to play the 4 for some minutes a game.  the way cbp rotates personnel, i think we will see spencer at the 4 along with mclemore for a handful of minutes a game.  i think smith stays solely at the 5.  wiley seemed pretty gassed a couple of times so i dont see him getting more than 15-16 minutes a game until his conditioning is SEC caliber.  after that ... who knows.

i went to the first game of the season.  i think dunnans needs to come off the bench.  he seems to be more controlled after a few minutes.  nothing about his ability, but more about his personality.  i perceive the energy to go up the instant he comes in the game.  he creates positives for the team.  sometimes he is a touch out of control, but i have not problem with that due to the much higher positives.

i wondered how lang would fair ... his shots seem to be falling so an inside out game may benefit him tremendously.  brown is going to be interesting.  i love his athleticism.  he has blocks on D this year that his hops have allowed.  he plays bigger than his height and it isnt because of his length ... its quickness and elevation.

honestly, just about every player in the first 11 have some great value to the team.  fitting the pieces together in the right moments is going to be a challenge for CBP.  With the inclusion of wiley, we can now do a large combo of things.  unfortunately, the chemistry is gonna take a few minutes.  

i worry that Okie and UConn may set us back a little bit.

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

Spencer doesn't fit in CBP's system as a 4 man. How much will CBP alter what he wants to do to accommodate the players he has?  I think a lot will depend on Wiley, can he shoot a jump shot from the short corner or extended elbow, can he and/or Spencer make a high/low pass from the high post? At this point we have several options, it will be interesting to see what CBP does. 

We won't have a 4 and a 5 on the floor at the same time for very long, if neither one of them can shoot a jump shot.

[Charhair 345]

1 hour ago, JwgreDeux said:

Spencer doesn't fit in CBP's system as a 4 man. How much will CBP alter what he wants to do to accommodate the players he has?  I think a lot will depend on Wiley, can he shoot a jump shot from the short corner or extended elbow, can he and/or Spencer make a high/low pass from the high post? At this point we have several options, it will be interesting to see what CBP does. 

We won't have a 4 and a 5 on the floor at the same time for very long, if neither one of them can shoot a jump shot.

As mentioned before, I'm not sure if in this thread, CBP had molded one of his UTk teams around a big. While there's no way Wiley is good enough for us to mold our team around yet I do believe CBP is a good enough coach that he should be able to assess where Wiley will help our team the most this year. Whether that's moving him around, moving Spencer, splitting time with Spencer, etc. I'm assuming we will see more and more time split with Spencer. For CBP to switch Spencer to a four and start him and Wiley I would imagine the coaches would have to see a big improvement in our play. Because as you said that's against his normal system but it also forces Spencer into a new role and starts an extremely new player, which could throw off chemistry. Wiley of course does have crazy potential and if he seems to be adjusting fast, it may be necessary to shift stuff around to get him on the court more. That's what I'm seeing with my orange and blue glasses anyway.

[gravejd 3,270]

The Harper, Heron, Purifoy, Spencer, Wiley lineup is the one that I think has the highest ceiling as well. The only question i have is does Spencer have the tools/knowledge to play the 4 in a Bruce Pearl system? Spencer will certainly not bring to the 4 spot what Purifoy does but that does not mean he can't be successful there. I totally disagree with the poster above that he doesn't have the D skills to play the 4. Spencer moves great for his size has a high motor and long arms so I think he would do much better on D playing the 4 versus playing the 5 spot. Now Leron Smith will likely stay at the 5 cause he can't move like Spencer but I see nothing holding Spencer back from a D perspective. Now offense is another story. So far Spencer hasn't really shown much as far as jump shooting skills so I don't know if that will keep him from playing this spot but i don't think it will. I could see Spencer making a nice living on offense crashing the boards for offensive rebounds and doing back door cuts to the basket. But some might say "Spencer can't rebound". I disagree with that as well. I think people look at our poor rebounding and come to that easy conclusion. But if you look deeper at it i think the problem is 2 fold 1. Spencer is rarely in proper rebounding position because he is trying to block shots and 2. he is always matched up against someone bigger than he is so that hurts him as well. 

Outside of Spencer this lineup would also open things up to the rest of the guys as well. It instantly takes us from a height disadvantage to a height advantage at pretty much every spot. This creates opportunities for our team and matchup problems for the other team. Purifoy and Heron will be matched up to smaller guys so they will have better chance to get shots off, easy time driving to the basket, and an easier go of things on the D side as well. When teams went zone you could also plug in Brown and Lang and gets some nice open looks by playing a good inside out game. Really the possibilities that this lineup creates are just limitless. 

Folks just have to keep in mind that it is going to take time for all this to get figured out by our young team and remember that Wiley is 17. So all this awesome stuff I posted above isn't going to happen overnight. I bet by EOS though teams are not going to look forward to playing AU. 

[AU64 10,122]

Seeing talk about AU not matching up well against opponents...but seems that opponents also have to worry about matching up with AU.   I've seen a number of instances where teams using a 4 guard line-up or generally smaller line-up have forced big teams to adjust to their style of play.   Being small is not an advantage of course but not being "big" does not have to be a fatal disadvantage either.

On a given night we have some good outside shooters and guys like Dunans and Heron who are good slashers and can take advantage of a size miss-match.   Just suggesting that not having a lot of size does not automatically mean the team can't be competitive.   Wiley and Spencer give us some good enough size now and both can run the floor.

[gravejd 3,270]

35 minutes ago, AU64 said:

Seeing talk about AU not matching up well against opponents...but seems that opponents also have to worry about matching up with AU.   I've seen a number of instances where teams using a 4 guard line-up or generally smaller line-up have forced big teams to adjust to their style of play.   Being small is not an advantage of course but not being "big" does not have to be a fatal disadvantage either.

On a given night we have some good outside shooters and guys like Dunans and Heron who are good slashers and can take advantage of a size miss-match.   Just suggesting that not having a lot of size does not automatically mean the team can't be competitive.   Wiley and Spencer give us some good enough size now and both can run the floor.

It doesn't have to be a disadvantage and some times it isn't. Take the CC game. We were hot and we ran them out of the gym. Against Mercer we were not hot and they played very sound basketball. Last year against Kentucky we managed a win and were grossly undersized. So having the ability to be multiple allows a team to go small when they want and big when they want. It helps with a team being consistently good which i think is the next step our team needs to make. We can beat anybody on any given night now....but also have games like BC and Mercer where we can still struggle. 

[AU64 10,122]

9 minutes ago, gravejd said:

It doesn't have to be a disadvantage and some times it isn't. Take the CC game. We were hot and we ran them out of the gym. Against Mercer we were not hot and they played very sound basketball. Last year against Kentucky we managed a win and were grossly undersized. So having the ability to be multiple allows a team to go small when they want and big when they want. It helps with a team being consistently good which i think is the next step our team needs to make. We can beat anybody on any given night now....but also have games like BC and Mercer where we can still struggle. 

Big, small or otherwise, when a team shoots  +/-40% from the field they are going to have a hard time winning...but nice to see the FT percentage toward 70% and the two most frequent FT shooters are averaging 80%+ together. .  

 

[cole256 17,050]

21 hours ago, JwgreDeux said:

Spencer doesn't fit in CBP's system as a 4 man. How much will CBP alter what he wants to do to accommodate the players he has?  I think a lot will depend on Wiley, can he shoot a jump shot from the short corner or extended elbow, can he and/or Spencer make a high/low pass from the high post? At this point we have several options, it will be interesting to see what CBP does. 

We won't have a 4 and a 5 on the floor at the same time for very long, if neither one of them can shoot a jump shot.

What other team did cbp have that he used a non traditional 4 man?

[cole256 17,050]

You have to have guys with a particular skill set for a small line up to work. You can't just say yes throw four guards out and they can dictate the game. Size more so you can without exceptional players....

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

23 minutes ago, cole256 said:

What other team did cbp have that he used a non traditional 4 man?

Dane Bradshaw played 4 most of the time and started for Pearl and UT for a couple season. He was like 6-4 or so. If I remember correctly he was on one of their sweet sixteen teams. 

[JwgreDeux 1,279]

4 minutes ago, JwgreDeux said:

Dane Bradshaw played 4 most of the time and started for Pearl and UT for a couple season. He was like 6-4 or so. If I remember correctly he was on one of their sweet sixteen teams. 

And Tyler Smith also, similar to Purifoy in size, played more like Dunans does. 

[cole256 17,050]

1 hour ago, JwgreDeux said:

And Tyler Smith also, similar to Purifoy in size, played more like Dunans does. 

Both of those guys played the 3. I've actually worked with Bradshaw, he's in the nuclear industry. 

He would use Smith to run the point at times.