Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Tad in 2015-16 -- get back to basics or major changes?

What should be Tad's focus for next year?

  • Get back to basics - defense & rebounding

    Votes: 36 76.6%

  • It's broke, so fix it with new concepts & emphasis

    Votes: 11 23.4%
  • Total voters
    47
Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
There seems to be some difference of opinion on #Tadball and a lot of calls for zone defense, emphasizing shooting over length/athleticism in recruiting, installing a better offense with more focus on it, etc.

That's not what I want. I want Tad to get this team back to the fundamentals of why he has been successful at CU. There is a formula that works. I think the challenge this year was all the talk and time spent on the new offense. The team lost sight of its core strengths. I don't want to scrap it and go back to the old offense (it needed to change and the new concepts are better). But basketball at CU under Tad is about rebounding and defending.

Here's a Howell point that illustrates CU's success when the team actually plays #Tadball:

[tweet]570639700790128640[/tweet]
 
Do we have the right roster for tadball? I can't see most of those guys committing to defense and rebound, with a few guys without the physical ability to do so.
 
Defense and rebounding are musts. But so is some semblance of a half court offense. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
 
Can someone run opponent shooting percentage from 3, 2 and at the basket over the tad years?
 
tante said:
Do we have the right roster for tadball? I can't see most of those guys committing to defense and rebound, with a few guys without the physical ability to do so.
Click to expand...

If someone on the team holds them accountable, they can turn that corner. Physically our team has all the tools. Just need to get over that mental hump.
 
tante said:
Do we have the right roster for tadball? I can't see most of those guys committing to defense and rebound, with a few guys without the physical ability to do so.
Click to expand...

Physically, there's no question. Josh is probably the least explosive guy who would be counted on, but his timing is so damn good that he blocks a lot of shots. We've also seen him fight his ass off on the defensive end (and for rebounds), so we know what he can do.

Other guys: no doubt that the length and athleticism are there, highlighted by guys like Wes, Fletch and J-Hop.

Fortune comes in with a rep as a great perimeter defender in the Big East.

Other guys are clearly tough enough and have the will to d up, like XT, Dustin and Miller.

This is a "want to" thing, not a question of whether they are capable.
 
WSU and Stanford games displayed defensive effort, offensive ball movement and rotation, abundant assists, and a team having fun. Albeit at home, but its gotta start somewhere.

There is some confusion out on the court, and a lack of chemistry for whatever reason? The PG/floor general equation needs fixing, but effort is effort. Confidence is missing for a couple of folks, but its part of the same fix.

There are some very talented players on this team, but they bond on the court like Italian dressing pre-shake most of the time.
 
I don't see the great lateral quickness from XT to be a good perimeter defender and I just can't tell from Dustin. He is usually guarding guys bigger then him so it is a mismatch. Maybe if he guarded the 3.
 
[MENTION=1979]tante[/MENTION]

3Pt%
'10/'11: 36.5%, D1 Avg: 34.4%
'11/'12: 33.1%, D1 Avg: 34.3%
'12/'13: 32.0%, D1 Avg: 33.9%
'13/'14: 35.6%, D1 Avg: 34.5%
'14/'15: 34.1%, D1 Avg: 34.2%
Above Avg: 2010/2011, 2013/2014
Below Avg: 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2014/2015

2Pt%
'10/'11: 48.7%, D1 Avg: 47.8%
'11/'12: 45.3%, D1 Avg: 47.8%
'12/'13: 44.7%, D1 Avg: 47.5%
'13/'14: 47.3%, D1 Avg: 48.5%
'14/'15: 45.1%, D1 Avg: 47.8%
Above Avg: 2010/2011
Below Avg: 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2014/2015

FG% at Rim
'10/'11: N/A
'11/'12: 53.2%
'12/'13: 57.4%
'13/'14: 56.6%
'14/'15: 55.2%

I don't have averages for FG% at Rim, so not sure how we compared to the rest of the country there.
 
It seems like we've been asking for him to figure something on offense for years now. It is fairly clear that if we have a whole team of guys playing good defense along with a freak athlete or baller we can win a lot of games, but I can't help but think we need Tad to figure out the offensive game better to get over the hump and make a tournament run.
 
It all has to start with defending and rebounding. Back to basics. Yes, there is a lot to be desired on the offensive end, but I get the feeling the people shouting fix the offense don't watch a lot of college basketball. There's a lot of bad offense in college basketball now. Even the most dominant team in the country, Kentucky, has looked inept on offense for long stretches. They're just so damn good defensively it doesn't matter. No one will ever beat Kentucky if they're clicking offensively, but they've probably won a couple games solely on elite defense.
 
TimmyDUBs said:
It seems like we've been asking for him to figure something on offense for years now. It is fairly clear that if we have a whole team of guys playing good defense along with a freak athlete or baller we can win a lot of games, but I can't help but think we need Tad to figure out the offensive game better to get over the hump and make a tournament run.
Click to expand...

They had flashes of good offense in most games. It just didn't seem to stay consistent. Something changed, often in the second half, that brought down the effectiveness. I don't know whether CU out-smarted itself regularly, lost intensity, or couldn't deal with adjustments from the opposing teams defense. If they could just figure out how to keep it rolling consistently they easily could have won 4-6 more games this year.

An example, if I remember correctly, is the Washington game. They played very well in the first half, but then everything stopped working in the second.
 
So the the numbers show that the defense is not as big of a problem as we would expect. Could it be that the blueprint to beat Tad is out. Limit transitions opportunities and play zone or at least mix it in and walk out with a win?
 
tante said:
So the the numbers show that the defense is not as big of a problem as we would expect. Could it be that the blueprint to beat Tad is out. Limit transitions opportunities and play zone or at least mix it in and walk out with a win?
Click to expand...
Limiting transition and zone defense seems to have been the goal of most opposing coaches his whole tenure.
 
'Tini said:
Limiting transition and zone defense seems to have been the goal of most opposing coaches his whole tenure.
Click to expand...

Why is it so much more effective this year? I bet these are our worst transition numbers
 
Defense: back to basics
Offense: We've got to make some changes, IMO. Doesn't have to be a complete overhaul. I'm well aware college offense doesn't need to be a glamour show to be effective, but this offense is brutal regardless of whether we pull a few stats out of our rear that suggest otherwise.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Defense: back to basics
Offense: We've got to make some changes, IMO. Doesn't have to be a complete overhaul. I'm well aware college offense doesn't need to be a glamour show to be effective, but this offense is brutal regardless of whether we pull a few stats out of our rear that suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...

I mostly agree, but we have to fix the defense first. And I wouldn't even bother touching the offense for another year or so. **** it, run the 3 man weave at halfcourt again that we did the last few years. AS long as the team buys in on D, we'll win more than we'll lose.
 
Tadball is easy. It is a system that gets wins. It is a system that doesn't require elite offensive talent.

Find bulldogs in high school, get them here, and put them in the NBA ala Roberson.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Tadball is easy. It is a system that gets wins. It is a system that doesn't require elite offensive talent.

Find bulldogs in high school, get them here, and put them in the NBA ala Roberson.
Click to expand...

Because 6'7" guys who can defend every position on the court and can finish in the top 10 in Defensive rebounding percentage while putting up 10+ ppg are easy to find.
 
Shldr2Shldr said:
Tadball is easy. It is a system that gets wins. It is a system that doesn't require elite offensive talent.

Find bulldogs in high school, get them here, and put them in the NBA ala Roberson.
Click to expand...

Is it a system that leads to blow out losses in the tournement?

Sorry I couldn't help it.
 
Goose said:
Because 6'7" guys who can defend every position on the court and can finish in the top 10 in Defensive rebounding percentage while putting up 10+ ppg are easy to find.
Click to expand...

Was more referencing put a guy in the NBA because of defense like Dre, not finding another guy like him. But Tory Miller is a bull dog that plays tough in the post and grabs a fair amount of boards when is in.

There are those guys out there that we can get.


TimmyDUBs said:
Is it a system that leads to blow out losses in the tournement?

Sorry I couldn't help it.
Click to expand...

Was UNLV a blowout loss?
Baylor was only a "blowout" because of that stupid Canadian.
Ill. was an 8pt loss
Pitt was a blowout. No two ways about that one. I blame two of the current players for that one though. There are guys currently who do not take this whole NCAA basketball thing seriously it would seem.
 
J.R. Ewing said:
This season felt a lot more like a personnel and injury problem than a scheme problem.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that. Josh Scott spends an awful lot of time at the top of the key for that to not be part of the game plan. He's supposed to be there. That annoys the living sh*t out of me.
 
sackman said:
I don't know about that. Josh Scott spends an awful lot of time at the top of the key for that to not be part of the game plan. He's supposed to be there. That annoys the living sh*t out of me.
Click to expand...
Yeah but he can't do anything right now with his injury. Before his injury he was still putting up numbers sans against CSU. Injuries have killed Scott's production on both ends, XJ to an extent, and Hopkins to an extent.
 
Buffnik said:
There seems to be some difference of opinion on #Tadball and a lot of calls for zone defense, emphasizing shooting over length/athleticism in recruiting, installing a better offense with more focus on it, etc.

That's not what I want. I want Tad to get this team back to the fundamentals of why he has been successful at CU. There is a formula that works. I think the challenge this year was all the talk and time spent on the new offense. The team lost sight of its core strengths. I don't want to scrap it and go back to the old offense (it needed to change and the new concepts are better). But basketball at CU under Tad is about rebounding and defending.

Here's a Howell point that illustrates CU's success when the team actually plays #Tadball:

[tweet]570639700790128640[/tweet]
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely on the face of this. I think your point is well taken. There's one angle of this though that I struggle with: Using the above numbers, it means our record for being able to achieve the 40%/out-rebound goal is just 49-118. That's a pretty low percentage of the time we hit the goal. And that factors in the glory years.

When viewed that way, it's little bit like me saying that all I need to do to drop 20 pounds is stop drinking and eat better. Trouble is I have a long track record that suggests this is not likely to happen.

Hopefully someone that understands statistical analysis will point out the fallacy of my argument so I can get that stupid notion out of my head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top