Damn good article from Leisitkow. Please read.

[thedukeofearl]

I seriously thought this "Championship Defense" video was a joke or dig at Fran but apparently not.

Wow, just mind-bending. So how many videos has the defensive coach they brought in this summer to coach em up made? He from Philly too? Have we paid him yet?

At least Philadelphia knows how to make a very fine sandwich.....

https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/10-best-hoagie-shops-philadelphia-0

They forgot Mama's in Bala Cynwyd near Narberth, where I used to live

And Chick"s Hoagies downtown Philadelphia was just across the street from Gimbel's Department Store where I worked in the advertising department. Not certain if Chick's is still around, probably not, because downtown real estate is astronomical in Philadelphia

https://www.yelp.com/biz/mamas-pizzeria-bala-cynwyd

If it wasn't such a long drive, I would dine at Mama's every day. Their Meatball sub and Philly Cheesesteak are the Goods

Raise your hand if you LOVE MAMA'S

 

[thedukeofearl]

And I'm certain when he "told them to play better defense or they'll sit down" he did it at high volume and with high intensity. It's like Bear Bryant said "Offense sells tickets, defense wins championships." Until the entire team is sold on defense and puts more effort into defense for all 40 minutes, we will continue to play as we have.

Bobby Knight had a bit to say about this also

 

[hawkdrummer1]

The complaint i was replying to was that after their first foul, they played tentativly for fear of going to the bench if they picked up a second. I would still rather have them available late in the second half when the game is decided. Of course, that may change if things go so badly with them on the bench in the first. You have to keep the game within reach.

You can't play in fear. If getting one foul puts a guy on edge, there's something wrong with the system. Which is largely Leistikow's point, and I think he's right.

 

[thedukeofearl]

I don:t personally see anything wrong with Moss having the ball at crunch time or Bo for that matter. I really want Bo to have the ball with the game within 2/3 points.....

We should be able to get the ball inside to Cook and Garza with the perimeter shooters we have in Bohannon, Moss and JoeW. Sometimes I wonder why we don't move the ball around the perimeter to our sharpshooters which should open the interior for our Bigs.....

Benching someone with 2 fouls in the first half is a tricky business. It could work both ways, take a chance of acquiring a third foul which would certainly hamper and impede the play of someone playing with three fouls to start the second half. However, sometimes we need the player in the game at particular times. It appears to be a gamble no matter what the decision.....

Roll them bones

And pay the price or reap the rewards

These guys beat Michigan their first season after a devastating loss at Purdue and took the Wolverines into overtime in the BTT losing to the team that played for the National Championship. I still wonder why Bohannon was reluctant to shoot in the closing minutes of the OT that game.....

We do have a strong possibility of playing a solid game against Michigan. If we lose while playing an acceptable game both halves, I will be pleased.....

 

[SidFarkas]

#8 nationally in offensive efficiency, and at or near top of B1G in scoring.

Iowa rarely has had late shot clock issues this year, not sure what games Chad watches.

The 2 foul thing - our games with OSU, Neb, and Ill had those coaches leaving players in with two and three fouls - got them to four quick. Had an impact on the Hawks winning those games. I can think of a couple times FM has put people back in with two. Again, not sure what Chad is watching. And, if he was coaching, his strategy would foul out people fast - real fast.


Defense, continue to debate away.

 

[Northside Hawk]

You can't play in fear. If getting one foul puts a guy on edge, there's something wrong with the system. Which is largely Leistikow's point, and I think he's right.

Other coaches in the league are masters at spreading fouls amongst several players to the point where the whole team seems to have or four of them.

John Thompson has pushed to go the NBA route and add a sixth personal foul as the disqualifying foul.

I don't know if it would work but it would put an end to coaches pulling a player for much of the first half if he gets two quickies, as well as pulling a player who picks up his third early in the second half. It could also turn games into grab fests as well.

 

[skinnykilmer17]

At least Philadelphia knows how to make a very fine sandwich.....

https://www.thedailymeal.com/eat/10-best-hoagie-shops-philadelphia-0

They forgot Mama's in Bala Cynwyd near Narberth, where I used to live

And Chick"s Hoagies downtown Philadelphia was just across the street from Gimbel's Department Store where I worked in the advertising department. Not certain if Chick's is still around, probably not, because downtown real estate is astronomical in Philadelphia

https://www.yelp.com/biz/mamas-pizzeria-bala-cynwyd

If it wasn't such a long drive, I would dine at Mama's every day. Their Meatball sub and Philly Cheesesteak are the Goods

Raise your hand if you LOVE MAMA'S

Damn you! Now I am hungry and Philly is a long drive on a miserably cold day.

 

[sioux34]

You can't play in fear. If getting one foul puts a guy on edge, there's something wrong with the system. Which is largely Leistikow's point, and I think he's right.

Agreeing with him just makes you both wrong. I can live with that .

 

[lightning1]

#8 nationally in offensive efficiency, and at or near top of B1G in scoring.

Iowa rarely has had late shot clock issues this year, not sure what games Chad watches.

The 2 foul thing - our games with OSU, Neb, and Ill had those coaches leaving players in with two and three fouls - got them to four quick. Had an impact on the Hawks winning those games. I can think of a couple times FM has put people back in with two. Again, not sure what Chad is watching. And, if he was coaching, his strategy would foul out people fast - real fast.


Defense, continue to debate away.

Pulling a player with 2 fouls, as a rule is not something I like. It would completely depend on the individual player. I've coached players that could play defense with their feet well enough to finish out a half and start the 2nd half with 2 fouls.

 

[JG10Hawk]

Pulling a player with 2 fouls, as a rule is not something I like. It would completely depend on the individual player. I've coached players that could play defense with their feet well enough to finish out a half and start the 2nd half with 2 fouls.

I agree. It should be a player by player and I'd also add situation by situation basis. If it's someone that rarely fouls, I'd be more willing to leave them in or take them out for quick breather to settle them down, then get them back in. If however it's someone that fouls at a much higher rate, I'd be less willing to let them play through it. I think the score also should play a factor. If it's a close game I'd be more willing to play them, while if you are up double digits, I'd be more reluctant to do so.

 

[1hawkeye1]

I've never understood the 2-foul-sit-down thing. By sitting the guy down, you have effectively fouled him out yourself thereby actualizing the very situation you are trying to avoid.

A couple times people have asked Fran to explain on his call in show. He gets all defensive and makes the caller out to be too stupid to understand it. Perhaps he has explained and I just missed it. But I'd love to hear his rationale.

 

[lightning1]

I agree. It should be a player by player and I'd also add situation by situation basis. If it's someone that rarely fouls, I'd be more willing to leave them in or take them out for quick breather to settle them down, then get them back in. If however it's someone that fouls at a much higher rate, I'd be less willing to let them play through it. I think the score also should play a factor. If it's a close game I'd be more willing to play them, while if you are up double digits, I'd be more reluctant to do so.

It also depends on who they are guarding that game. Some players attack more and are harder to guard than others.

 

[CP87]

I've never understood the 2-foul-sit-down thing. By sitting the guy down, you have effectively fouled him out yourself thereby actualizing the very situation you are trying to avoid.

A couple times people have asked Fran to explain on his call in show. He gets all defensive and makes the caller out to be too stupid to understand it. Perhaps he has explained and I just missed it. But I'd love to hear his rationale.

It is all based on the idea that points scored in the last 10 minutes of the game are magical and somehow count differently than points scored in the first half.

I suppose you could make the argument that teams try to get their best 5 on the floor at the end, whereas in the first half they will use their whole rotation and hence you might not be hurt as much by sitting a guy early vs. being forced to sit a guy late.

 

[PCHawk]

The point of sitting them down with fouls is to try to make sure you have them at the end of the game. The point of playing them with fouls would be to get them the most minutes possible. What's more important, your best players being available for the end of the game, or playing as many minutes as possible? To me it's obvious. Play them as many minutes as possible.

If the player is important enough to want for the end of the game, he's too important to cut his minutes. Leaving him in gives the team a better chance to pull away to the point where the game is decided before the last few minutes. He also gives you a better chance to keep a game close that might be a blowout had he sat a bunch of minutes earlier. Why save a player for the end of a game that you are down 20 in anyway? Why keep a player for the end of a close game that you had a chance to blow open earlier had that player not been sitting the whole first half? Also how often is a player that sits out the whole first half even effective in the second half? Normally they are mentally checked out at that point and never get into the flow of the game. One last question. How often do players sit for the last 10 minutes of the half with 2 fouls, then end the game with 3?

 

[sioux34]

If I was coaching against all of you sit after two fouls naysayers, rest assured my offense the rest of the first half would be directed through my player who is being guarded by your player with two fouls. Its like sharks attacking when they sense blood in the water. Your best player has already committed two fouls, why would i find it hard to get him tagged with more? Is he now suddenly going to play smarter, or will he play more tentatively so as not to get another foul, which is what you all say you dont want.

 

[kicker22]

Just my opinion but I think in theory it makes sense, but to apply it universally regardless of the situation makes absolutely no sense. Player "A" is playing lazy defense, continually letting his man get a step on him and gets called for two reaching fouls in the first 10 minutes, I have no problem with him sitting, but the fact his defense has been lacking plays a big factor. Player "B" has been playing great defense, but gets called for a charge early and then fouls to avoid giving up fast break points at the 10 minute mark. Sure he could pick up his 3rd foul, but he may not show anything that makes anyone concerned this guy is truly in "foul trouble" at this point in the game so why sit him.

In theory I get it, but every situation is different, to apply it in every situation IMO puts a coach in a position where he's deliberately taking his best player out of the game. If they pick up that 3rd foul in either scenario you tighten up the leash, but the player still has fouls left. I simply don't understand the risk of sitting a player to play it safe, when there's a good chance that he's going to take a bigger loss in minutes sitting to be safe than if he fouls out later.

 

[kicker22]

If I was coaching against all of you sit after two fouls naysayers, rest assured my offense the rest of the first half would be directed through my player who is being guarded by your player with two fouls. Its like sharks attacking when they sense blood in the water. Your best player has already committed two fouls, why would i find it hard to get him tagged with more? Is he now suddenly going to play smarter, or will he play more tentatively so as not to get another foul, which is what you all say you dont want.

In the case of a player probably picking up dumb fouls, probably a good chance they aren't going to play any smarter, but that's also saying that all fouls are "dumb" or careless fouls. And in that same scenario is your worst player on the court going to be able to attack him as well as your best player? Because there's ways to move a guy around on the defensive end to put him in a safer position where he's less likely to foul.

Like I said earlier, I'm not arguing the concept, but rather that I don't think it should be applied universally and should be addressed on a case by case basis.

 

[sioux34]

I agree that there may be scenarios that I play a guy with two fouls in the first half, but they are far less numerous than those that would make me sit that player.

 

[sioux34]

In your case of moving your foul prone best player away from my player who got him tagged with two early fouls, will my guy then start putting fouls on your next man in, or will my guy now score more easily on your lesser defender?

 

[MelroseHawkins]

This statement is rather glaring and alarming. "Iowa’s adjusted defensive efficiency is by far the worst in the Big Ten, at No. 126 nationally entering Tuesday, according to KenPom.com. (Illinois is next-worst, at No. 73."
This after Iowa has gotten much better on D. Ugh!

Completely agree with the Bohannon point. He needs more minutes and needs to be more involved in the game offensively. He was a player the last couple years that could help loosen up a D with his outside shots. Not happening this year as they are not getting him involved. No 3 pt shots against Minny. C'mon!!