Our Bigs

I am one or two more "early foul trouble" games away from giving up on our bigs...



We needed Davies tonight, and he picked up stupid foul after stupid foul. He simply does not know how to play defense. He constantly gets behind his guy, then tries to block him from behind.



CSU dominated us inside, and they can't hold a candle to the 10 best "inside presences" we will see this year. I don't know if this is something not coached, or not "executed", but you simply CANNOT let your man establish himself on the low block. If he gets the ball w/in 5-8 feet of the hoop, it will be 2 points or a foul 80% of the time! You start pushing at the free throw line, and jockey for position. Most of the time the defender does this, the offensive player gets mad and gets called for a pushing foul anyways... There is a big difference between a 6 foot baby hook, and a 9 foot fade-away semi-baby hook. That extra 2 feet is killing us. Watch next game, or replay this one. 80% of the fouls on our bigs are within 6 feet of the basket, AFTER the opponent has gotten the ball.



We can get through the MWC with guard play only, but we might even drop a first rounder if these guys don't start playing better, for longer.

Size does matter, but BYU has enough to get through undefeated, our last real test is sds at home and the road, so hopefully all play well, but they don't have to play great, just well enough.

Teams with the bigs will pound it inside against us...if their smart. UNLV should have done it more but instead they tried to play our game.



Good news is, three pointers are worth more than two pointers. They'll pound it inside while Jimmer and Jackson sink rain down threes.



Still, Davies needs to watch the fouls. I think he tries for the steal too much. He needs to learn to just play big and use his body. Assert his dominance at all times.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
CSU dominated us inside, and they can't hold a candle to the 10 best "inside presences" we will see this year.

Please name those 10 teams with better "inside presences" than CSU. Were CSU world beaters? No. Were they awful? No. Are our bigs awful? No.



I thought they were good enough, which is what need them to be.

kitic77 wrote:

CSU dominated us inside, and they can't hold a candle to the 10 best "inside presences" we will see this year.

Please name those 10 teams with better "inside presences" than CSU. Were CSU world beaters? No. Were they awful? No. Are our bigs awful? No.



I thought they were good enough, which is what need them to be.

Utah State

St Marys

Arizona

UCLA

Buffalo

UNLV

Crieghton – possibly is - they are probably on the same level, but contribute more points to their team.





San Diego State will

UNM will

Tourney round #1 may have better bigs than CSU…

Tourney round #2 definitely will.



Our bigs weren't as good as they needed to be, because our bigs weren't in the game! Unless you are counting their intensity from the bench. The only reason we didn't get absolutely rolled over, is Abuou stepped up and played the defensive game of his life at the 4. Again, CSU's bigs probably aren't in the top 10 (but maybe sneak in just barely) of the bigs we will face, and they rolled over us, because we couldn't stay off the bench. We can get through the MWC with guard play and guard play only, but we might lose a first rounder if we get matched up with some bigs, and the team studies tapes beyond a Jimmer highlight real.

I actually liked out defensive strategy last night and I think it was effective. They scored more points than I would like, but they are one of the better offensive teams in the conference statistically.



Davies does have to improve and I wish he'd have learned more sooner than he has, but he's progressing and that was noted by the announcers on the mtn last night.



Playing teams with big talented post players will always make me cringe, but last night showed me even more than in any other game that BYU is a top 15 or better team. We are just very difficult to stop and we are in the leauge of the elite teams in the NCAA this season. It be interesting to see what our record would be if we played in the Big East. TCU is going to suffer for quite a few years going in and better hope their recruiting improves.

The refs last night also got asthma from blowing on their whistles as much as they did. Especially in the last five minutes there was a ticky-tack foul on every possession. Not all their fault.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Utah State

St Marys

Arizona

UCLA

Buffalo

UNLV

Crieghton – possibly is - they are probably on the same level, but contribute more points to their team.



San Diego State will

UNM will

Tourney round #1 may have better bigs than CSU…

Tourney round #2 definitely will.



Our bigs weren't as good as they needed to be, because our bigs weren't in the game! Unless you are counting their intensity from the bench. The only reason we didn't get absolutely rolled over, is Abuou stepped up and played the defensive game of his life at the 4. Again, CSU's bigs probably aren't in the top 10 (but maybe sneak in just barely) of the bigs we will face, and they rolled over us, because we couldn't stay off the bench. We can get through the MWC with guard play and guard play only, but we might lose a first rounder if we get matched up with some bigs, and the team studies tapes beyond a Jimmer highlight real.

Buffalo? Really? Come on? You're going Buffalo? And Creighton? Davies ABUSED the BlueJays.



Seriously, how can you argue that our bigs weren't good enough in ANY of those games - save the UCLA game, which we lost. By definition the fact that we WON those games is proof that they were good enough.



Take Arizona, we completely shut down Derrick Williams. He had 19 rebounds in a game last night. He had 6 against BYU. Tai Wesley was in foul trouble all night in the USU game.



And UNLV, the team that had post players so frustrated by our post guys that they were swinging wild elbows and getting technicals. The same UNLV post players that gave up 15 and 10 to Davies. The box scores shows 17 rebounds and 23 points by UNLV post guys, but also shows 25 rebs and 25 pts by BYU post guys.



Sorry, but our post guys HAVE been good enough. They've been good enough to the tune of a 19-1 record and #3 RPI and # 20 strength of schedule.

BlueIs, I love your sig quote. So true it scares me.



You're giving CSU too little credit. Their 2 frontliners are 16 8 and 15 5 guys. That's nothing to sniff at. I'd actually say that was top four for best post playing teams we've seen so far. SDSU will likely have better frontcourt play, but their style is very different. K. Leonard is a 3 at heart that has a great nose for the rebound, so often times he won't even be mixing it up with our bigs. I don't think UNM will have the post play that we saw against CSU, and I think CSU beats UNM comfortably at home. Rams came close in the Pit.



Give it some time. When all's said and done, we'll realize that @CSU was actually quite a decent win.



The really good news is that our straight-up post defense (and consequential foul trouble) IS our biggest liability this year, and their coach sold out scheming for that weakness specifically, and we STILL beat them. While I'm also trepidatious for our lack of depth there, I'm optimistic that we'll do well against even better post-playing teams.



Take UCLA for example, they are probably the best post-playing team we'll see this year (before the Tournament 2nd weekend or so), and they admittedly ate our lunch down low, but I'd point to the officiating inconsistencies as much as anything (no, not blaming the refs, they called it fair both ways, just not the same the first 30 minutes as the last 10), and despite all that, we STILL had a shot to beat them. Game is TOTALLY different if with about 5 minutes to go, they give the blocking foul to the fattie for his 5th, rather than the offensive foul to Jimmer for his 4th (and yes, he was still moving, oh well, can't blame a ref for missing that. They go either way all the time), and then completely swallow their whistles from there on out. Now take a macro-view of the situation. BYU was on day 25 of a 33 day road trip. Exhausting not playing at home for that long. They were playing in the John Wooden Classic, not a stone's throw from UCLA, in front of a large and partisan crowd, against a talented albeit poorly-coached and underachieving team, who OF COURSE will step up against a ranked opponent, oh, IN THE FIRST GAME OF THE CLASSIC AFTER THE NAMESAKE'S PASSING. Yeah, Bruins were UP for that game. And our bigs still kept us within a couple points with just a couple minutes to go. MORE than decent.



Bad news is that we take a HUGE step down on (team) offense when Anderson comes in.



Better news is that we don't take AS big a step down on defense. Yes, Brandon and Noah are better, but if either of them are gonna get a foul anyway (as evidenced by the fact that if they're on the bench and Anderson is playing, they've ALREADY gotten those fouls anyway), well, James has five of 'em to use on D, and he has his defensive moments (see Arizona - yes, referring only to the D aspect).



Best news is that we've got guards that can and DO step up even when we can't work it through the post to set up our offense (and I'm pleasantly surprised we're doing that a lot more this year. Davies OFTEN gets a touch to setup the inside-outside, and it usually gives us a 3, if Davies doesn't take it in). We weren't as potent an offensive threat after B and N went out, but we didn't drop off that much on D at least when James and Charles were in for them. If the worst that happens by James and Charles playing together is that Jimmer has to shoulder the burden, penetrate more and end up at the foul line, I'm MORE than comfortable with his freethrow shooting percentage.

I don't get the bagging on Davies last night AT ALL. He was one rebound awa from a double double and shot better than 50 percent. With Collinsworth out the pressure is greater on thebigs and last night Davies had a good game



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I actually like our bigs! They are still young and developing, we just don't have enough.



It's like my coach used to tell me, "6 inches taller and he'd be an all american" ;)



6'8" against 7 footers, they try to do more and end up in foul trouble. Both Davis and Hartsong will have good college careers and probably play in Europe if the desire.

KYCoug wrote:
Both Davis and Hartsong will have good college careers and probably play in Europe if the desire.

I don't know who those people are.

KYCoug wrote:
I actually like our bigs! They are still young and developing, we just don't have enough.



It's like my coach used to tell me, "6 inches taller and he'd be an all american" ;)



6'8" against 7 footers, they try to do more and end up in foul trouble. Both Davis and Hartsong will have good college careers and probably play in Europe if the desire.

Spelling aside - Davies and Hartsock - Plus 1. Our Bigs are just fine. We do not have enough of them. If we had gone after the fat guy at UCLA, and fouled him out, we would have won that game.



But even without that. We are a better team today than we were when we played UCLA due to healing of Jackson and Noah and improved outside shooting and free throw shooting of Kyle and outside shooting of Noah. We would kill UCLA in Pauley Pavillion with John Wooden's casket sitting at courtside right now.



And we should go right after their fat guy.

Buffalo scored more than 40 points in the paint.



Creighton scored over half their points in the paint (I admit Creighton was a stretch, but the rest are close to the level of play of CSU, if not far better.) And I wouldn't call scoring 24 points and giving up 20 destroying.



The guard play has been good enough to cover up for the lack of quality play.



I admit I am probably underplaying CSU's bigs, but that doesn't change my feeling that our bigs are very foul prone, and that is a glaring weakness that could - but hopefully doesn't - get exposed by anyone with the personnel.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
Buffalo scored more than 40 points in the paint.



Creighton scored over half their points in the paint (I admit Creighton was a stretch, but the rest are close to the level of play of CSU, if not far better.) And I wouldn't call scoring 24 points and giving up 20 destroying.



The guard play has been good enough to cover up for the lack of quality play.



I admit I am probably underplaying CSU's bigs, but that doesn't change my feeling that our bigs are very foul prone, and that is a glaring weakness that could - but hopefully doesn't - get exposed by anyone with the personnel.

Davies was efficient last night. He dropped 12 points in 23 minutes of play (a point every two min). His real problem is, as we've discussed multiple times, his habit of fouling. He overcomes that and given the way he's been playing lately he could be averaging 20 points a game. He just has to learn to play D with his body more than his hands. I love his intensity. He's definitely stepped it up a notch.



For all those complaining about Davies and our post-play, go back and look at what we did in the post last season:



Miles - 4 pts/game

JT - couldn't score in the post if his life depended on it. His 10 pts/game came from launching 3s all game long

Davies - 5.4 pts/game

Noah - 6.5 pts/game. Most of his come from 8 - 10 foot jumpers.



This season, Davies alone is averaging 11 pts/game and averaging 23 min/game. Davies alone is doing more damage in the paint than he, Miles and JT did in the key last season.



Do we have a Shaq on our team, no. Davies is getting there and IMO the criticism of him is unfounded. BYU is a guard heavy team, but as stated before Davies this season is doing twice the amount of damage in the paint we were doing last season.



Noah gets most his point outside the key, especially since he's developed that 3-point shot. So, our only in-the-paint threat is Davies.



We're probably going to get outscored in the paint in just about every game we play. TCU even had more points in the paint than us. Could it spell trouble in the tourney? Potentially. But our guards will spell more trouble for opponents in the tourney.

BYU had 43 rebounds and 44 points in the paint vs Creighton. Creighton had 33 boards and 30 points in the paint. BYU had more 2nd chance points 13 to 11 as well. Bigs edge: BYU



BYU had 40 and 28 vs Utah St. USU had 37 and 34. 2nd chance pts: 12-8 BYU. Bigs edge: push



BYU had 35 and 32 vs Buffalo. Buffalo had 32 and 46. 2nd chance: 9-9. Bigs edge: Buffalo.



BYU had 35 and 36 vs UCLA. UCLA had 33 and 34. 2nd chance: 10-17. Bigs edge: UCLA (although closer than you might think - we lost to UCLA because of turnovers 19 and missed threes (4-17), not because of our bigs).



BYU had 26 and 26 vs St. Mary's. St. Mary's had 29 and 30. 2nd chance: 12-6 SMC. Bigs edge: SMC.



BYU had 38 and 26 vs Arizona. Arizona had 34 and 18. 2nd chance: 11-8 AZ. Bigs edge: BYU.



BYU had 42 and 22 vs UNLV. UNLV had 40 and 32. 2nd chance: 13-8 BYU. Bigs edge: Push.



By my count that's 2 edges BYU, 3 the opponents and 2 pushes. Like I said, our Bigs aren't world beaters. But they can and are holding their own.

CSU, big time loss.



And points in the paint isn't very telling for us, because most our points in the paint come from (Jimmer) drives, not from posts...



but there isn't a way to differentiate that w/out going through every game play by play.



;)



Davies is doing fine, when he is in the game. That is only about 65% of the game on a night to night basis.

BlueIsBetter wrote:
CSU, big time loss.



And points in the paint isn't very telling for us, because most our points in the paint come from (Jimmer) drives, not from posts...



but there isn't a way to differentiate that w/out going through every game play by play.



;)



Davies is doing fine, when he is in the game. That is only about 65% of the game on a night to night basis.

Davies and Hartsock are both very effective by BYU Bigs standards when they are in the game and not in foul trouble. Not dominant other than with certain matchups, but too effective to ignore and slack off defending them. Others come in and play reasonable defense, but some of them can be ignored offensively. A healthy C Collinsworth, if in shape, may have solved our depth exposure better than others are. As a group, other than being 1 short, they are decent enough to let our guards take us pretty far - unless the guards all go cold at once.



I wonder if our style of play - up tempo - results in so many more exchanges and thus opportunities to defend, that the increased sets contributes to the foul totals.



SDSU has a reputation for defense and a slower tempo that ultimately would have fewer slashes to the hoop and maybe less BYU fouls. Maybe BYU should run a little clock before attacking the hoop other than when fast break layups or wide open shots occur. Maybe our guards could even press a little bit as SDSU comes up court just to run some clock between sets.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

kitic77 wrote:
BYU had 43 rebounds and 44 points in the paint vs Creighton. Creighton had 33 boards and 30 points in the paint. BYU had more 2nd chance points 13 to 11 as well. Bigs edge: BYU



BYU had 40 and 28 vs Utah St. USU had 37 and 34. 2nd chance pts: 12-8 BYU. Bigs edge: push



BYU had 35 and 32 vs Buffalo. Buffalo had 32 and 46. 2nd chance: 9-9. Bigs edge: Buffalo.



BYU had 35 and 36 vs UCLA. UCLA had 33 and 34. 2nd chance: 10-17. Bigs edge: UCLA (although closer than you might think - we lost to UCLA because of turnovers 19 and missed threes (4-17), not because of our bigs).



BYU had 26 and 26 vs St. Mary's. St. Mary's had 29 and 30. 2nd chance: 12-6 SMC. Bigs edge: SMC.



BYU had 38 and 26 vs Arizona. Arizona had 34 and 18. 2nd chance: 11-8 AZ. Bigs edge: BYU.



BYU had 42 and 22 vs UNLV. UNLV had 40 and 32. 2nd chance: 13-8 BYU. Bigs edge: Push.



By my count that's 2 edges BYU, 3 the opponents and 2 pushes. Like I said, our Bigs aren't world beaters. But they can and are holding their own.

beware the spreadsheet! Beware!!!!

Gunk wrote:

Buffalo scored more than 40 points in the paint.



Creighton scored over half their points in the paint (I admit Creighton was a stretch, but the rest are close to the level of play of CSU, if not far better.) And I wouldn't call scoring 24 points and giving up 20 destroying.



The guard play has been good enough to cover up for the lack of quality play.



I admit I am probably underplaying CSU's bigs, but that doesn't change my feeling that our bigs are very foul prone, and that is a glaring weakness that could - but hopefully doesn't - get exposed by anyone with the personnel.

JT - couldn't score in the post if his life depended on it. His 10 pts/game came from launching 3s all game long

I agree with everything you said Gunk and add one thing. I was at the hunstman center when JT was a freshman. He tore the SNOT up. And a good deal of his points were in the paint. With a little more effort he could have been GREAT in the paint. For whatever reason, it never happened though.