What would you say is the team's biggest weakness?

#52
#52
zjcvols said:
We’ve gotten good looks. I just wish we designed or put in the effort to get more looks from 3.
Click to expand...
I think you play towards your teams strengths, bombing 3’s is down the list of strengths imo. It also creates tough scenarios for your defense off long rebounds and clearly this teams focus is defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Namorto1
#53
#53
zjcvols said:
Cause those are two hall of fame NBA players that can do whatever they want on the basketball court.
Click to expand...
You’re really gonna make me watch all 3 games and see how many mid range shots we make, aren’t you? Lol
 
#55
#55
I would say depth in the front court. Anosike has shown some flashes, but there is still a big drop-off when Fulky or Pons comes out. I think shooting will improve as the year goes on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PulaskiVolFan
#56
#56
bleedingTNorange said:
I think you play towards your teams strengths, bombing 3’s is down the list of strengths imo. It also creates tough scenarios for your defense off long rebounds and clearly this teams focus is defense.
Click to expand...

Bailey and Vescovi are excellent 3 point shooters: Keon and Springer have good looking shots and JJJ hits them on spot ups. And long rebounds actually benefit the offense because there is more variance on getting those rebounds.
 
#57
#57
Dallasbowlin said:
You’re really gonna make me watch all 3 games and see how many mid range shots we make, aren’t you? Lol
Click to expand...

That’s fine. I’m just telling you what the math says. I can post plenty of articles saying that mid range is bad.
 
#62
#62
Dallasbowlin said:
And they’d be wrong.
Click to expand...

But they’re not. You’re ignoring statistics and logic.

Look I’m not saying every shot has to be within 5 feet or a 3. That’s not going to happen. And I don’t have the numbers in front of me Tennessee’s shooting distances. But if you’re taking the same amount of mid range shots as 3 or more, you’re not running your offense right and limiting it.
 
#63
#63
zjcvols said:
But they’re not. You’re ignoring statistics and logic.

Look I’m not saying every shot has to be within 5 feet or a 3. That’s not going to happen. And I don’t have the numbers in front of me Tennessee’s shooting distances. But if you’re taking the same amount of mid range shots as 3 or more, you’re not running your offense right and limiting it.
Click to expand...
Nah I’m not, I’m saying if you shoot 20 percent from three on like 16-20 (not taking the time to do the math) shots, MAYBE you should take that one extra dribble and knock down the mid range.
 
#64
#64
Dallasbowlin said:
Nah I’m not, I’m saying if you shoot 20 percent from three on like 16-20 (not taking the time to do the math) shots, MAYBE you should take that one extra dribble and knock down the mid range.
Click to expand...

If you’re shooting 20% from 3 you probably shooting be shooting any jumpers at all period lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: DowntownVol
#65
#65
zjcvols said:
Bailey and Vescovi are excellent 3 point shooters: Keon and Springer have good looking shots and JJJ hits them on spot ups. And long rebounds actually benefit the offense because there is more variance on getting those rebounds.
Click to expand...
But Bailey shouldn’t be playing more than 10mpg so....

All seriousness though, yes ORB chances increase, but so do long DRB and transition opportunities, something this staff wants to limit. I think Bailey and Vescovi need to each take another shot or two from deep, maybe even a designed play, but I don’t think we need to be take 25 a game.
 
#66
#66
zjcvols said:
If you’d like, I’d be glad to find oodles of articles and videos I can post stating the value of taking a lot of 3 pointers.
Click to expand...
I’m well aware of what analyitcs say, I’m also aware that Auburn hasn’t exactly won jack bombing 3’s, different ways to skin a cat. Plenty of teams have won shooting lower than average number of 3’s, and plenty have won shooting more than average number of 3’s.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PulaskiVolFan
#67
#67
zjcvols said:
If you’re shooting 20% from 3 you probably shooting be shooting any jumpers at all period lol
Click to expand...
I see the benefit of more 3s, and I think there will be games where we will throw up a bunch. Right now though our strength is limiting other teams 3s and offensively right now Fulky and driving to the paint are the strengths. Barnes will play to those strengths early while adding extras on both ends as the season goes. Bottom line on this team is I just don't see teams beating us from the perimeter with 3s unless they have a crazy night. Teams are going to struggle to score 30 in a half vs this group, much less 60 on just 3 pointers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lankykong
#73
#73
walkenvol said:
I fail to understand how this supports your position concerning the mid range being an inefficient shot?
Click to expand...

Because they hit them extremely well. Paul is one of the best midrange shooters ever based on percentages we have (maybe the best) so he’s fine when taking those shots and Kyrie is insanely gifted.

The farther you get from the basket the lower the percentage of a shot going in declines...whether you shoot a 5 footer or a 20 footer the points are the same. Two points. Once you get past 15 feet, the reward is much higher for taking 3’s.

Let’s take aforementioned Chris Paul. Paul. an amazing mid range shooter, is a career 46.2% from 16-3P. Paul, a very good 3P shooter but not elite, is a career 37% from 3. If he takes a 100 shots from not ranges, that’s 111 points from 3 to 92 points from 2. The mid range isn’t worth it. Even if that percentage dropped to 33%, the 3 is still worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol49er
#74
#74
At this point I am somewhat concerned with following:

1) Consistent perimeter shooting. Like it or not the game has changed significantly over the past decade. Having someone like Chris Lofton rain contested jumpers would complete this team. While it won’t happen this year, Barnes wants Pember to be a stretch 4 and be an elite perimeter shooter. Pons needs to find his stroke even if just comparable to last year.

2) I think pressure defenses who picked us up full court could turn us over. We have decent ball handlers but Vescovi (while improved) still is weak going right, James gets passive at times with the ball (which you can’t do under pressure), Springer and Johnson are young so mistakes will occur, and Bailey is not a primary ball handler either. All decent but....

3) If Fulkerson gets in foul trouble we will lose a lot offensively, which already has struggled to score in 2 out of 3 games. I haven’t seen Barnes post Springer (strength) and Johnson (quickness) as much as I would have thought. We need both to be options on the block because simply....we don’t have a lot of other options. Pons has a nice turnaround jumper but no one is going to double team him. This is where I was hoping Anoskie would provide a lift but I’m not sure how he will do with length and athletes at this level after watching the first 3 games.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skullbone, PulaskiVolFan and Unconditional Surrender
#75
#75
The idea really begins with what you consider a midrange shot. The term is a little broad. Obviously an 8-10 ft jumper is more makeable than a 16-18 ft jumper. When you get to the 16-18 ft area, the risk is greater than the reward when the reward for taking another step or two further out increases by 50% (3 points vs 2 points).

If you shoot 35% from 3 at 21 feet, what is the likelihood that you are appreciably more accurate from 2 at 18 feet? I bet most aren't 50% more accurate 3 feet closer in. Risk vs reward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DowntownVol, zjcvols and Lankykong
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top