Final thoughts on Memphis

by shaq on Apr 10, 2008 11:12 AM PDT Comment 7 comments

There have been many comments in various threads about the Memphis game. I'm starting to get over this loss, but it's hard - I'm probably still a week a way. I took parts of this from a comment I wrote previously.

We should not have gone zone! The main reason is that WE DON'T PRACTICE IT as far as I know. To institute a defense at that point when you don't practice it would not be wise. We are a man to man club and we double the post, we practice this and usually do it well. If CBH actually practiced zone or derivations of (box and one, triangle and 2, etc) then yes, consider it. USC used the triangle and 2 effectively on Memphis earlier in the year. I can explain the different zone defenses for anyone if you'd like. We shouldn't use what we don't practice so it really was not an option. Would you want a corporate lawyer to defend you in a criminal case. Would you want a pediatrician to treat your mother?
We are defensive club, and I firmly believe (from CBH philosophy) that our best defensive match-ups and team should be on the floor. DC was a matchup liability and he should have played limited minutes (unless Memphis had a sub in that DC could match up with). This defensive liability was clear early on. DC guarding Rose also forced another poor matchup with RW on CDR. RW gives up 4 inches in that battle and CDR easily took advantage of it. So really having DC out there gave us 2 poor match-ups and unfortunately they were on the only real scorers for Memphis.

We should have stuck with our traditional man defense, but changed our personell.

a. RW on Rose
b. Luc on CDR
c. JS on Anderson
d. KL on Dorsey
e. Other of 3 bigs on Dozier
f. could swap matchups on d and e.

Everyone prior to the game wanted a grind it out "unwatchable" game - that would give us the best chance to win. The only way to do this was to have the above match-ups and DC out. A lot of people seem to be worried about our offense with DC out, that is not our priority. The way I see it, JS would be forced to do more in this scenario and hopefully would have stepped up. With DC out, we would still have JS, RW, and KL to give us some offense. Also with the bigger line-up I'd hope for more garbage buckets. Regardless, limiting Rose and CDR should have been our main goal.

Bottom line - we needed a dirty, defensive game. Please comment either way.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 7 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agree for the most part

Absolutely correct about the zone defense issue. Having not played it all year, or any variation of it, there was no way that we should have broken it out for the first time against a team the caliber of Memphis. Additionally, I'm not so sure it would have been that effective given Rose's ability to penetrate and our frequent inability to stop pentration on the drive this season. I do think that we would be well served in the future, however, with occasionally showing a different defensive look to mix things up and perhaps flummox the opposition for a possession or two.

As for the matchups you discuss, I agree with the general point that this would have been the best defensive alignment we could put on the floor. But I think you too easily dismiss the impact this lineup would have had on our offense. Without our best shooter (by percentage) and best distributor, I think the offense would have struggled even more than it did. Perhaps that might have been offset by the corresponding drop in offensive puch from Memphis' backcourt, but considering just how successful DC had been in matching up with all comers, whether they were larger or smaller than he, I don't see Howland's decision to stay with him as necessarily wrong. Especially when DC had several games this year where he was not effective in the first half and then turned it around in the 2nd.

by ucladj89 on Apr 10, 2008 11:46 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Defense much more important

I love DC he is great, but Rose is a different animal. Rose dominated Augustine (also a smaller guard). The problem with DC in the line up against Rose was that Rose would see DC on him and just attack him immediately without even running the Memphis offense - and he would score over the top of him (almost at will). This quick (and easy) attacking forced an up tempo game (another negative for us). Calimari probably instructed Rose - if DC is on you, take it to the hole and score. This was evident early in the game - DC would play tough defense and even stay with Rose on his drives, but Rose was too strong and tall and easily got his shot off. Unless DC was going to score on many of the UCLA posessions we were going to lose that battle (badly).

Also, DC had problems with the length of the players guarding him which neutralized him offensively too. It's not DC's fault the matchup was just too difficult.

RW and DC were fairly even in terms of assists this year. RW did run the point also.

by shaq on Apr 10, 2008 12:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

DC

Could have guarded Anderson.

Hell, I could have guarded Anderson. That dude sucks.

I totally agree on your man to man point.

by Nars on Apr 10, 2008 12:05 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

They tried that

DC was matched on Anderson 6'6" - if you remember Anderson took him to the hole for an easy 2 footer - shot over him. I do agree though to keep DC in he probably needed to stay on Anderson and try that matchup a few times. If continued to be exploited though he needed to sit.

by shaq on Apr 10, 2008 12:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Best assessment I've read yet.

Good Job Shaq.

I also thought Collison should have sat. (the beauty of hindsight and all that) But I would never have blasphemed against our guys by saying out loud. I'm glad you said it.

A coach is someone who can give correction without causing resentment. John Wooden

by MexiBruin on Apr 10, 2008 4:26 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

thanks Mexi

Really though it was not hindsight. Several of us had mentioned potential match-ups in a few threads before the game. Many of us noticed that DC would have a tough time defending any of the Memphis starters. Also, RW on CDR was thought to be a poor one for us. A lot of liked the idea of RW on Rose and Luc on CDR.

I would have thought our initial game plan should try DC out there. However, I would have also thought we would have had a Plan B like the matchups I suggested because of the real possibility of DC getting exploited - we did predict this. CBH could have prepared something like - look team, we may need to take DC out if it looks like he's being beat defensively (since Rose has been beating small guards, even DJ Augustine). RW you need to prepare for running the point if we need the bigger line up. Remember guys we need our best defensive team out there.

CBH is still by far the best coach out there.

by shaq on Apr 11, 2008 12:41 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm with You

I'm still not over this loss, esp. after Memphis choked in the last 2 minutes of the championship game against Kansas. I cannot believe those same guys beat us and Calipari "beat" Coach Howland. I still run too many what-ifs in my head. If only we had kept the score close, Memphis probably would've unraveled in the last few minutes, as well. Oh man, I get depressed just thinking about it. And now the uncertainty of who's leaving and who's staying. It's sometimes too much to handle being a true blue Bruin...but I wouldn't have it any other way!

by bruininthelbc on Apr 10, 2008 10:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs