EagleOutsider.com

I have watched the 4 games thus far very closely. I coached basketball at the high school level for 21 years, 17 as a head coach at the Millbrook School, Avon Old Farms, Rivers School, Arlington High School and Foxborough High School. During that time I got to know Jim O'Brien fairly well through my association and friendship with his assistant coach and ex-head coach at Bates, Rick Boyages. I also worked for Jim Calhoun at his team camp for a couple of summers and coaches two coaches' sons Matt Perno (Dom Perno, Calhoun's predecessor) and Mike Jarvis Jr. (Mike Jarvis---Cambridge Ringe, BU, St, John's, etc.).

After seeing all the games last year and watching all 4 games this year, a number of thoughts seem clear to me, although it would be helpful to hear what you think. Here are my thoughts:

1. This group is not athletic enough to play a consistent dose of man to man defense and be able to win. Their on the ball defense is decent, but not great, but it's away from the ball that sets this group at a disadvantage because they do not help and recover fast enough to make the man defense effective. Case in point---yesterday when the undersized center for Charleston spun around Dennis Clifford and was able to score on an easy wrap around because Eddie Odio was too slow to react.

The other key thing is this---in order to play man-to-man effectively these players have to run their tails off---which means that they are less inclined to do so down the other end in their motion offense. If you noticed throughout the COC Tourney, they players did not move well without the ball---they stay camped and stationery on the 3 point line, which also accounts for how few offensive rebounds the team gets.

2. BC showed some 2-3 zone toward the end of the COC game yesterday and it was effective, save for the dagger three the kid Hamilton hit when Lonnie Jackson got caught napping. It was surprising to me that Coach Donohue didn't play COC zone seeing as they were stymied by Auburn's zone. In the second halfs of all three tourney games, BC's man defense was atrocious, as players drove the middle at ease, no one stepped up to stop the ball, and the BC players turned into hackers providing the other team with easy trips to the FT line.

I strongly believe that BC could be a very good 2-3 matchup zone team---it not only fits the personnel, it would allow the players to conserve some energy for the offensive end and it would enable the team to fast break more. ironically, I think it would also help the team improve on one of its most glaring weaknesses---defending the 3 point line---because the slides are more compact and uniform (each player knows his part of the 3 point line to defend.

It will also help the team double down on some of the tough big men they will see this year.

3. The starting unit that I think works best for BC at this point---on both ends of the floor and especially if they play the matchup 2-3 zone is a back line of Van Nest---Clifford---Anderson with the tandem of Hanlan---Rahon at the top.

4. Another reason why the zone can help this team win is it should but down on foul trouble and better still maybe the team can finally get some much needed continuity on the floor. Coach Donohue's substitutions are dizzying just to watch as a spectator---imagine being a player on the floor. Large scale substitutions are only effective if you are a full court press team that wants to play up tempo and run all game.

BC often has no idea where its scoring is going to come from because of all the makeshift units that are on the floor.

5. This team, having lost Matt Humphrey and Jordan Daniels (two of its better athletes and penetrators), is not very deep. I think that at most it should be an 8 man rotation (3 guards at the top with Hanlan, Rahon and Jackson) and 4 forwards with Van Nest, Anderson Odio and Heckman. When Clifford goes out, Van Nest slides into the center, Anderson plays the left block and Odio or Heckmann plays the right block.

6. So the 8 man rotation is: (1) F Anderson; (2) C Clifford; (3) F/C Van Nest; (4) G Hanlan; (5) G Rahon; (6) G Jackson; (7) F Heckmann; (8) F Odio.

7. I think Donohue can play Van Nest in a similar inside/out role as in how he played Joe Trapani. To me, Van Nest and the skills of the two freshman guards have been the best surprises thus far. Hanlan is very gifted physically and skill-wise, but needs to start attacking the basket and when he incorporates a floater, man, is he going to be good. This kid Rahon's BBIQ is tremendous. When he gets settled in enough to start shooting the three with confidence, he is going to be solid. Plus with Clifford and Van nest in the game at the same time, Donohue can play a lot of the high-low post game---as he did with his bigs at Cornell. With Jackson and Heckmann we've got good scoring punch off the bench---especially if Jackson starts finding a way to get to the foul line and Heckmann stops forcing his passes into contested passing lanes. Odio has been a very pleasant surprise as well...and could really be a huge help on the offensive boards, an area we really need to improve.

8. I think it would be great too of Donohue added in the 2-2-1 (3/4 court zone press) when he needs to dictate tempo---this press can either slow the other team down or speed the tempo up depending on how quickly and hard you want to trap. It's made to order for the 2-3...because you go 2-2-1 back into the 2-3.

9. Lastly it has looked like last year and this year Donohue has been more concerned with personnel development than trying to win close games (which is understandable)---but now he really needs to get these kids in a mindset to win. Stronger continuity on the floor and a smaller rotation (8 man) could help that cause a great deal---that, and catering the defense to the players' strengths.

While this post is long---I hope it was worth your time.

I agree with your last point, other than the part about it being fine. Other than that, not really.

Thanks for the writeup was going to do a similar (though not nearly as indepth) look at 4 games as 1) it's a starting point for conversation and 2) I'm with the realignment garbage.

Regarding scheme: the depth is a huge concern that permeates every facet of the game. Channeling my inner epstein here, there aren't enough ACC quality players yet for Donahue

Agree that until Jackson gets his shooting touch back, it's going to be tough to start /play him the 30 min he's been getting. The two things that might make this irrelevant: 1) who else do you give the minutes to? 2) hopefully after the Charleston game he's shooting his way out of it (5-11 and 4-9 from 3)

Agreed that the biggest surprises have been Van Nest & how advanced the FR are. I expected Van Nest to play about 5/10 minutes a game, grab a couple of rebounds and that's it, he's been much more valuable. The h00ps weirdos were right on Hanlan. I hope Rahon gets that shooting touch down. My concern is the FR are playing 32+ MPG, they're going to wear down.

I want to say we're at the stage that we should be beating College of Charleston no matter what but without our best player and our 2nd best clearly less than 100% we're clearly not there.

I strongly agree with your rotation on #6 and I definitely agree with your analysis of the zone, especially when we are playing more athletic teams (which will often be the case).

Good writeup Mitch.

Two things I notice that frustrate me to no end...

1. On D - our weekside help is unbelievably slow to react. In a day and age when everyone is doing the "Duke" flop from the weak side on drives to the basket, it seems that we are never, i emphasize, NEVER in position to do so.

2. On O - recognition seems terribly slow. Knowing where the double team is coming from and recognizing where the open man is needs improvement. As well as recognition of a teammate's cut to the hoop or to a spot on the floor.

My analysis.

They might suck. You guys are impatient regardless of whether you end up being right. The Baylor game caused idiots to raise their expectations, the Dayton game cause bigger idiots to freak out unreasonably. I'm not talking about looking at specific problems, although sometimes extrapolating things like Lonnie Jackson's 4 game outside shooting performance into a weakness is pretty dumb. There is very little positive to point to 4 games in. There might be later.

Jordan Daniels was an OK point guard who lost his job to a pretty good true freshman. I still wish he was on the team but don't think that is in the top 5 of problems with this team, nor do I think it will be even the problem it is now, next year. Donahue may have done something stupid to cause him to leave or maybe not. You can argue either conclusion based on what you'd like to believe.

I don't know whether I think the defense is going to be a fatal liability. It'd be crazy to think its not a weakness, but while I won't play the "their sophomores and freshmen" card much because it is last year's card, I do think its pretty reasonable to consider that the back to back games caused an unusually bad defensive performance against Dayton even though Dayton was playing in back-to-back games also, couple it with a letdown (from an expectation caused by playing pretty well) against Baylor. Against COC, Clifford did some dumb stuff to get into foul trouble, some of which appeared to be attempting to overcompensate for Anderson's absence. When he got into foul trouble, that was it. A Van Nest/Odio lineup, nevermind Caudill can't be relied on for long stretches.

My assessment. Hoops Weirdos will always be hoops weirdos and are even more prone to overstated knee-jerk reactions and assessment than football weirdos; yet less so to conference secession weirdos.

I am a hoop weirdo. Things look a hell of a lot worse than I expected them to look.

A. Van Nest is a nice addition, but the law of diminishing returns applies here. If he starts or if you try to turn him into a Trapani-style wing player, he will go from productive role player to bad starter. Same goes for Odio - you get what you can from them and never try to get too much.

2. You can't play 40 minutes of 2-3 zone in today's college game unless you are super long, super athletic and super aggressive. You mix some in, as the Don does, or you can play zone principles on weak side D, or you can play gimmick zones, but you can't sustain 40 minutes of 2-3 unless you are Syracuse.

c. I hate the Don's substitution patterns, so I amend my previous comment to agree with you there.

ii. The zone press is a terrible idea with this team.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I am a hoop weirdo. Things look a hell of a lot worse than I expected them to look.

A. Van Nest is a nice addition, but the law of diminishing returns applies here. If he starts or if you try to turn him into a Trapani-style wing player, he will go from productive role player to bad starter. Same goes for Odio - you get what you can from them and never try to get too much.

2. You can't play 40 minutes of 2-3 zone in today's college game unless you are super long, super athletic and super aggressive. You mix some in, as the Don does, or you can play zone principles on weak side D, or you can play gimmick zones, but you can't sustain 40 minutes of 2-3 unless you are Syracuse.

c. I hate the Don's substitution patterns, so I amend my previous comment to agree with you there.

ii. The zone press is a terrible idea with this team.

I agree with all 4 of these.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:I am a hoop weirdo. Things look a hell of a lot worse than I expected them to look.

A. Van Nest is a nice addition, but the law of diminishing returns applies here. If he starts or if you try to turn him into a Trapani-style wing player, he will go from productive role player to bad starter. Same goes for Odio - you get what you can from them and never try to get too much.

2. You can't play 40 minutes of 2-3 zone in today's college game unless you are super long, super athletic and super aggressive. You mix some in, as the Don does, or you can play zone principles on weak side D, or you can play gimmick zones, but you can't sustain 40 minutes of 2-3 unless you are Syracuse.

c. I hate the Don's substitution patterns, so I amend my previous comment to agree with you there.

ii. The zone press is a terrible idea with this team.

I agree with all 4 of these.

Don't you need a 5th about recruiting and retaining ACC talent to make it a true EEPSTEIN POST?

Ask Claver. This team team is still lacking some serious players. The 2 freshman are good plus the two inside guys.

20 minutes of a 2-3 zone a game would be a very smart move for Steve.

I agree on a lot of your points and it was well -thought...I also am a coach with and I am so frustrated with the players lack of ability to defend guard to guard screens and a basic pick and roll...I like to play a lot of 3 v 3 to start practice with the sole intent to work on hedging on pick and rolls or if its a guard to guard screen, switching. Obviously also working on communication and weak side help. Its like this team hasnt been coached to defend and they certainly don't play with any sence of urgency on the defensive end. I agree with their limitations athletically but there's more to it...I agree with your points about the 2-3 zone and how it could really befefit them for long stretches...As far as a zone press, again with their limitations physically, i think it would be difficult. I do think its a mindset though and Donahue saying before the season that his team would be best suited winning games in the 70's was a stupid thing to say and it only further cements his lack of coaching on the defensive end. I can't stand his substitution patterns either...as a player it would drive me nuts..

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:20 minutes of a 2-3 zone a game would be a very smart move for Steve.

No

gamer5252 {l Wrote}:I agree on a lot of your points and it was well -thought...I also am a coach with and I am so frustrated with the players lack of ability to defend guard to guard screens and a basic pick and roll...I like to play a lot of 3 v 3 to start practice with the sole intent to work on hedging on pick and rolls or if its a guard to guard screen, switching. Obviously also working on communication and weak side help. Its like this team hasnt been coached to defend and they certainly don't play with any sence of urgency on the defensive end. I agree with their limitations athletically but there's more to it...I agree with your points about the 2-3 zone and how it could really befefit them for long stretches...As far as a zone press, again with their limitations physically, i think it would be difficult. I do think its a mindset though and Donahue saying before the season that his team would be best suited winning games in the 70's was a stupid thing to say and it only further cements his lack of coaching on the defensive end. I can't stand his substitution patterns either...as a player it would drive me nuts..

Donohue himself just mentioned how concerned he is at the instant dribble penetration other teams are getting versus his man to man. Thank goodness at least he sees it. It would be pretty hard not to. Even in their one win versus FIU, FIU erased at 16 point half-time deficit in a matter of six minutes---and BC's defensive efforts in the second half of all three of the COC Tourney games was atrocious. No one attacks the dribbler---on dribble penetration no one stops the ball, no one rotates to help, and to compound matters no one boxes out.

In the Baylor game they never even hedged on the top screen so their best scorer Jackson was splashing threes near the top of the key time and time again. Two days later against COC they are hedging only they hedge too late and Clifford gets called for two fouls 30 feet from the basket---so did Caudill when he hedged.

I think your 3 on 3's is a very smart way to begin practice---

About the 2-2-1 zone press---what I meant was the slow down version where you play the passing lanes as you are falling back into a 2-3---because it slows the tempo down and forces the other team to run its zone offense with a shortened shot clock.

But I also thought of it because this team hasn't pressed much when it's behind and if they amped up the 2-2-1 to trap out of it late in games after using it to slow teams down previously, I think it would work to BC's advantage.

What I didn't like either when they were in their man press was they elected to play off the inbounder to try to double the best player, but the best player shook free anyway each time and the inbounds pass was uncontested and very easy. A gift, really.

What I always loved about using the 2-3 zone is that unlike with man defense where you have to prepare your team versus such a variety of offensive plays---in the 2-3 zone all you really see is a version of the 1-3-1 zone offense---it gets so predictable as to what the other team is going to do---that and I loved how well you can dictate where you want your players to be when the shot goes up, with you best rebounders in position to make the rebound.

Plus, running the fast break and our secondary break off of the rebound was made to order because you always know where the outlet pass to the guard (foul line extended) is going to be and what players would fill what lanes and which two would be the trailers.

Did you happen to see Donohue's X and O session with Jay Williams about how he starts the offense each time with a pick and roll option and then if that is stopped with a guard to guard back-screen fade?

That was good stuff right there---back-screen fades are extremely difficult to defend---which is why, unlike with Skinner's teams, Donohue's teams have no problem getting the entry pass into the offense---none. Good stuff on his part.

Mitch {l Wrote}:
Did you happen to see Donohue's X and O session with Jay Williams about how he starts the offense each time with a pick and roll option and then if that is stopped with a guard to guard back-screen fade?

That was good stuff right there---back-screen fades are extremely difficult to defend---which is why, unlike with Skinner's teams, Donohue's teams have no problem getting the entry pass into the offense---none. Good stuff on his part.

That is one play, called "2" I believe.

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:20 minutes of a 2-3 zone a game would be a very smart move for Steve.

No

How's our defense doing so far?

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:

twballgame9 {l Wrote}:

BCEagles25 {l Wrote}:20 minutes of a 2-3 zone a game would be a very smart move for Steve.

No

How's our defense doing so far?

Bad. That's why I don't support a stupid idea to make it worse.

I'm not generally prone to overreaction, but the teams performance in Charleston got my attention and has raised some concerns. I came into the season with expectation of a .500 season and a possible NIT berth, but I don't see a whole lot of improvement right now, especially on the defensive side. If the team loses to Auburn today (distinct possibility, maybe even likely), Don might have to lock things down and go back to the slow down pace he used last year just to keep the team in games. If that's the case and they throw up another 9-22 type year, the Don will need to start looking over his shoulder, particularly if recruiting remains what it is.

Slowing it down is not the answer. They need to run.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:Slowing it down is not the answer. They need to run.

Based on what we've seen thus far, if they run against talented teams, they get blown out by 80 every night. He's not going to have a choice unless this team magically figures out how to play defense.

EagleDave {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:Slowing it down is not the answer. They need to run.

Based on what we've seen thus far, if they run against talented teams, they get blown out by 80 every night. He's not going to have a choice unless this team magically figures out how to play defense.

To be fair, last game they didn't have Anderson. Also, Clifford is hurt and has shown a little trouble getting down the floor with the knee he has.

BCEaglesFan {l Wrote}:

EagleDave {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:Slowing it down is not the answer. They need to run.

Based on what we've seen thus far, if they run against talented teams, they get blown out by 80 every night. He's not going to have a choice unless this team magically figures out how to play defense.

To be fair, last game they didn't have Anderson. Also, Clifford is hurt and has shown a little trouble getting down the floor with the knee he has.

The guards are the problem on D. Rahon and Hanlan have some ability when they try. Jackson is a horrible defender.

Personnel comparisons first three years:

AL

1997:
Kenny Harley - "ACC/BigEast Talent"
Javier Rodriguez - Bust
Jonathan Beerbohm - "ACC/BigEast Talent"
Xavier Singletary (transfer) - "ACC/BigEast Talent"

1998:
Willie Deane - Bust
Brian Ross - Bust (although he was fun to root for)
Clinton Sims - Bust
Kenny Walls - "ACC/BigEast Talent"
Osei Millar - Bust

1999:
Troy Bell - Great
Andrew Dudley - Bust
Erik Witt - Bust
Uka Agbai - "ACC/BigEast Talent"

Donahue:
2010:
Gabe Moton - Bust
Mike Humphries (transfer) - Bust

2011:
Ryan Anderson - "ACC/BigEast Talent"
Dennis Clifford - ? looked like likely "ACC/BigEast Talent" no unclear
Lonnie Jackson - ?
Patrick Heckmann - ?
Jordan Daniels - Bust due to transfer out
Eddie Odio - ?
K.C. Caudill - Bust
Alex Dragicievich (transfer) - likely "ACC/BigEast Talent" based on time at ND

2012:
Hanlan - ?
Rahon - ?


Is it 1999 again? Is their a superstar on this roster? Nobody looks as good as Bell did then, certainly not right now. The purpose of this post was to show how all over the place Skinner's early recruiting was for those who only remember the good part of the 2000s.

It is certainly a detriment to the first class that Donahue came from a league where he couldn't bring over players he had been recruiting (due to lesser talent), whereas URI in the late 90s was not a big drop off. That meant 2 empty classes in a row. Looking at it together I think the Humphrey's bust is underrated in terms of the ugliness of the transition.

Hanlon is ACC talent. He's already proven he's the only offensive threat off the dribble and although he isn't a true point guard he's already got the speed and size to score and get fouled in traffic. In addition, his free throw and jumper look above average and will only improve. Rahon played alright in the Bryant game but Hanlon was the only one that remotely stepped up.

footer20 {l Wrote}:Hanlon is ACC talent. He's already proven he's the only offensive threat off the dribble and although he isn't a true point guard he's already got the speed and size to score and get fouled in traffic. In addition, his free throw and jumper look above average and will only improve. Rahon played alright in the Bryant game but Hanlon was the only one that remotely stepped up.

Hanlan and Rahon are def. not the problem. Lonnie Jackson is a big part of the problem.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

footer20 {l Wrote}:Hanlon is ACC talent. He's already proven he's the only offensive threat off the dribble and although he isn't a true point guard he's already got the speed and size to score and get fouled in traffic. In addition, his free throw and jumper look above average and will only improve. Rahon played alright in the Bryant game but Hanlon was the only one that remotely stepped up.

Hanlan and Rahon are def. not the problem. Lonnie Jackson is a big part of the problem.

Agreed here. Lonnie Jackson plays a Roche like role and nothing more on a tourney team.

When his jumper isn't falling, he doesn't offer much in the way of rebounding, playmaking, or defense.

gaelfu {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

footer20 {l Wrote}:Hanlon is ACC talent. He's already proven he's the only offensive threat off the dribble and although he isn't a true point guard he's already got the speed and size to score and get fouled in traffic. In addition, his free throw and jumper look above average and will only improve. Rahon played alright in the Bryant game but Hanlon was the only one that remotely stepped up.

Hanlan and Rahon are def. not the problem. Lonnie Jackson is a big part of the problem.

Agreed here. Lonnie Jackson plays a Roche like role and nothing more on a tourney team.

When his jumper isn't falling, he doesn't offer much in the way of rebounding, playmaking, or defense.

He offers nothing except shooting. His defense is awful. Donahue really hurt himself with his '11 guard recruiting.

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

gaelfu {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

footer20 {l Wrote}:Hanlon is ACC talent. He's already proven he's the only offensive threat off the dribble and although he isn't a true point guard he's already got the speed and size to score and get fouled in traffic. In addition, his free throw and jumper look above average and will only improve. Rahon played alright in the Bryant game but Hanlon was the only one that remotely stepped up.

Hanlan and Rahon are def. not the problem. Lonnie Jackson is a big part of the problem.

Agreed here. Lonnie Jackson plays a Roche like role and nothing more on a tourney team.

When his jumper isn't falling, he doesn't offer much in the way of rebounding, playmaking, or defense.

He offers nothing except shooting. His defense is awful. Donahue really hurt himself with his '11 guard recruiting.

He should be what Joe Rahon's brother James was in 2010 for San Diego State

Shaddix {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

gaelfu {l Wrote}:

eepstein0 {l Wrote}:

footer20 {l Wrote}:Hanlon is ACC talent. He's already proven he's the only offensive threat off the dribble and although he isn't a true point guard he's already got the speed and size to score and get fouled in traffic. In addition, his free throw and jumper look above average and will only improve. Rahon played alright in the Bryant game but Hanlon was the only one that remotely stepped up.

Hanlan and Rahon are def. not the problem. Lonnie Jackson is a big part of the problem.

Agreed here. Lonnie Jackson plays a Roche like role and nothing more on a tourney team.

When his jumper isn't falling, he doesn't offer much in the way of rebounding, playmaking, or defense.

He offers nothing except shooting. His defense is awful. Donahue really hurt himself with his '11 guard recruiting.

He should be what Joe Rahon's brother James was in 2010 for San Diego State

Jackson plays defense like a matador... ole
did you see him on tha missed dunk? all he needed was a red cape