i know this team has flaws and i should have recruited better, but i still don't think i should be quite this bad. . . can anyone tell me what i'm doing wrong?  sm or here would be fine and any help at all would be appreciated.

 

 

Name	Yr.	Pos.	A	SPD	REB	DE	BLK	LP	PE	BH	P	WE	ST	DU	FT	TOT
Jon White	Sr.	SG	55	65	10	44	2	26	95	84	61	57	90	83	B-	672
Michael Kelley	Sr.	C	34	23	82	39	68	52	11	24	13	45	70	86	C-	547
Bernard Jackson	Jr.	SF	52	51	54	48	31	28	49	28	26	53	74	50	B	544
Robert Warren	Jr.	PG	9	70	3	12	2	19	59	51	81	82	82	66	B+	536
Steve Hughes	Jr.	SG	11	48	14	18	12	49	65	57	56	44	73	78	B-	525
Toby Jacobsen	So.	C	22	22	76	29	83	36	20	9	30	74	62	55	C+	518
Daniel Cofer	So.	SG	50	58	8	33	2	12	39	51	51	54	78	76	B-	512
Guy Pasternak	Fr.	C	38	11	62	51	56	20	1	13	36	68	70	59	D-	485
Paul Sanders	Sr.	SF	50	47	29	74	39	23	33	29	24	23	64	49	C-	484
Robert McLilly	So.	PF	22	29	40	13	32	71	42	22	15	70	70	52	C-	478
Max Vonbraunsberg	Fr.	PG	44	55	1	30	1	1	31	62	47	42	75	63	C	452
David Denham	Fr.	PF	20	20	40	19	46	43	1	9	24	67	51	85	C	425
Averages	-	-	34	42	35	34	31	32	37	37	39	57	72	67	-	515

this is why they have the mentor list above. look through the list and contact a mentor.

Posted by uglyskunk3 on 1/17/2011 10:06:00 AM (view original):
this is why they have the mentor list above. look through the list and contact a mentor.

Hey uglyskunk, why don't you try not being an a-hole about it?

uconn, you're not playing too badly on offense. Obviously White is carrying an enormous amount of your scoring load. I'm not in favor of having one guy do that (makes you easy to gameplan for, if he has an off night you're sunk, etc.), but on your team it may be called for, and his scoring efficiency is still good, so I suppose I'd still roll with it. Jackson has been very inefficient, I might scale his distro back. (But part of that may be sample size, no way to know.)

You seem to have played a tough schedule so far (6 of the 8 have postseason-caliber rpi's, although it's early so who knows). The first clear problem is defense. You're more or less getting torched (giving up about 50% fg overall and 43% from 3pt range). You have a lot of guys with poor def ratings, and all of your bigs are poor in sp/ath as all. Plus you have two guards with just awful ath. So it makes sense that you're struggling defensively with big holes in those three categories.

Rebounding is also a problem. You have two bigs w. 40 reb, which is hurting you. You've also started your sf half the time at pf. His 54 reb is good for a sf and not good for a big man.

One of the nice things about playing zone is that it allows you to give more court time to your better players. I think if you're playing zone and running an 11-12 man rotation, that's a mistake and you're wasting one of the real advantages of zone.

You are getting torched on defense, that's probably why you are losing. Girt is right, your entire team needs higher ath and even though you are playing zone, I wouldn't completely disregard def like you have in your recruiting. 

so would you start playing slowdown offense with the zone?  I also tried jackson at sf with kelley at pf and jacobsen at c.. . .would that lineup be a better one?  i was trying the lineup with jackson at pf in order to get sanders higher defensive rating into the lineup to see if it could help with the torching, as you put it.

i also tried moving kelley to a backup with white and cofer at pg and sg for the same reason - to get the better def ratings into the lineup, but it seemed to have no impact at all.

also on def, a number of players that seemed to have higher potential in ath and defense failed to. . ah. . manifest it, unfortunately.  i guess i rolled the bad number on those.  just right now trying to figure out how to make it through this season and hopefully ameliorate those deficits in my next recruiting.

'failed to manifest"......"ameliorate those deficits"...

Great word choices!  You're getting good advice from top coaches.  You'll be fine.

Posted by uconnut on 1/17/2011 11:40:00 AM (view original):
so would you start playing slowdown offense with the zone?  I also tried jackson at sf with kelley at pf and jacobsen at c.. . .would that lineup be a better one?  i was trying the lineup with jackson at pf in order to get sanders higher defensive rating into the lineup to see if it could help with the torching, as you put it.

i also tried moving kelley to a backup with white and cofer at pg and sg for the same reason - to get the better def ratings into the lineup, but it seemed to have no impact at all.

Well, Kelley's you're only really legit big man, I wouldn't move him out of the lineup. And his def/ath/sp isn't worse than your other bigs. Remember, when looking at defensive ability, you need to look at a lot more than just def (sp/ath/iq and bl for bigs).

As for your comment on potential ... if a guy is listed as high potential, he is 100% guaranteed to improve a minimum of 20-21 pts over the course of his career. So if you have guys that were high potential and haven't hit that improvement, they will, you just need to practice more.

i said kelley when I meant warren.  kelley has always been in the lineup, just depends on if he is at pf or c.  it was warren i demoted.

You are getting murdered on the board as well. I would maybe up jacobson and kelly's minutes for 3 games and see how that goes. Idk if they can handle more minutes with the 70 and 62 stamina, but you are currently losing both the def (fg%) and reb battle. Have to try winning one of those and I think the def battle is a lost cause, so have to go for reb. 

i was wondering if pasternak could team with kelley for a larger ath/def combo and perhaps put sanders in at sg with no distribution and jackson back at sf.  then the starters would have def of 44/74/48/39/51 and a reb of 10/29/54/62/82 and an ath of 55/50/52/38/34.  

Posted by girt25 on 1/17/2011 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by uglyskunk3 on 1/17/2011 10:06:00 AM (view original):
this is why they have the mentor list above. look through the list and contact a mentor.

Hey uglyskunk, why don't you try not being an a-hole about it?

uconn, you're not playing too badly on offense. Obviously White is carrying an enormous amount of your scoring load. I'm not in favor of having one guy do that (makes you easy to gameplan for, if he has an off night you're sunk, etc.), but on your team it may be called for, and his scoring efficiency is still good, so I suppose I'd still roll with it. Jackson has been very inefficient, I might scale his distro back. (But part of that may be sample size, no way to know.)

You seem to have played a tough schedule so far (6 of the 8 have postseason-caliber rpi's, although it's early so who knows). The first clear problem is defense. You're more or less getting torched (giving up about 50% fg overall and 43% from 3pt range). You have a lot of guys with poor def ratings, and all of your bigs are poor in sp/ath as all. Plus you have two guards with just awful ath. So it makes sense that you're struggling defensively with big holes in those three categories.

Rebounding is also a problem. You have two bigs w. 40 reb, which is hurting you. You've also started your sf half the time at pf. His 54 reb is good for a sf and not good for a big man.

One of the nice things about playing zone is that it allows you to give more court time to your better players. I think if you're playing zone and running an 11-12 man rotation, that's a mistake and you're wasting one of the real advantages of zone.

how is telling someone to use the mentor list a bad thing? you are officially blocked. 

Using the mentor list isn't a bad thing. But your statement was misleading ..  "They" (WIS) didn't form the mentor list,  nor did they define it's purpose. .  The mentors are a group of volunteer coaches. At no time was that group intended to be a replacement for the public forum.

I enjoy the questions here. I almost always learn something that I didn't know before.  If every coaching question was only answered through the mentor list,  I'd miss out on that information. 

Posted by alblack56 on 1/17/2011 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Using the mentor list isn't a bad thing. But your statement was misleading ..  "They" (WIS) didn't form the mentor list,  nor did they define it's purpose. .  The mentors are a group of volunteer coaches. At no time was that group intended to be a replacement for the public forum.

I enjoy the questions here. I almost always learn something that I didn't know before.  If every coaching question was only answered through the mentor list,  I'd miss out on that information. 

And maybe he didn't mean it that way, but it came across with a nasty tone. Plenty of coaches here who are more than happy to reply to a question and give advice. His post had a "go fly a kite" feel to it, intended or not, and I'm sick of that kind of thing around here.

Posted by alblack56 on 1/17/2011 1:53:00 PM (view original):
Using the mentor list isn't a bad thing. But your statement was misleading ..  "They" (WIS) didn't form the mentor list,  nor did they define it's purpose. .  The mentors are a group of volunteer coaches. At no time was that group intended to be a replacement for the public forum.

I enjoy the questions here. I almost always learn something that I didn't know before.  If every coaching question was only answered through the mentor list,  I'd miss out on that information. 

i'm one of the mentors and i have a bunch of coaches who ask me these types of questions all the time, so i don't think my comments were "misleading." i understand that the forum has benefits, but they also have negatives. i see a lot of advice on the forums that are just plain wrong. i'm not sure if coaches are trying to put out wrong information on purpose, which i'm sure happens, but most of the bad info comes from coaches who have never had good results but like to give out advice that is mediocre at best.

most of the best coaches don't want to publicly give out all of their best advice, thus go contact a mentor.