Did Jok complicate things?

BonanzaHawk

Well-Known Member
http://daily-iowan.com/2016/03/21/hawks-wonder-where-did-the-wonder-go/
There was nothing overtly different in terms of schematics on either end of the court, and the team never identified any chemistry issues, despite a players-only meeting late in the season.
However, perhaps the best explanation for what happened is that the Hawkeyes got thrown off when they found themselves with one too many star scorers than they knew how to deal with.
Overly concerned with getting their top two scorers enough shots, bench production plummeted, and even the other starters seemed relatively hesitant to attack or take shots of their own.
Interesting theory...curious do you guys give this any validity? Jok was supposed to be a Robin, but played himself into a co-Batman. As they say, if you have two Batman's you don't have one.
 
Not buying it. Jok and Uthoff got as many shots as they wanted because they had 3 other guys on the floor with little interest in scoring.

My theory is simple... we didn't have enough scorers and teams started to play Jok and Uthoff differently. They wanted to force them to drive knowing 2 things... that if anything was their weakness it was ball handling and they also had help defenders because of the lack of other scorers surrounding these 2 guys.
 
Stupid idea, there are plenty of shots to go around. If the offense is humming and with offensive rebounds there should be 60 plus shots. That is easily 15 plus for both jok and JU.
 
It's not so much that having too many good scorers was a bad thing. That would be preposterous. They both were the only guys to carry us at times. But the idea that midway through the year they found themselves juggling the dynamic to a degree they weren't necessarily expecting, it might explain why everybody else started to struggle and the offense lost tempo, efficiency, and overall effectiveness.

I personally have had a conversation with a players girlfriend who said that McCaffery stressed in practices that only Uthoff, Jok, and Uhl had a real legitimate green light to take jumpers other than up-against-the-clock situations.

Nobody can pinpoint why this team collapsed. The idea that maybe they were all overthinking shot selection seems as compelling as anything proposed thus far.
 
Funny, I thought the school of thought was that the more scoring options you have, the better off you are.

I hope Jok doesn't turn into this season's fall guy. The blame was placed on Marble (by some folks) two years ago when the team collapsed. So I see a trend here: It falls apart, blame one of the GOOD players on the team.

I don't buy it.

2-3 top scorers, or 0-1.. I'll take my chances with a team that has some top players on it.

Doesn't seem to bother the Dukes & Kentuckys of the world...
 
Funny, I thought the school of thought was that the more scoring options you have, the better off you are.

I hope Jok doesn't turn into this season's fall guy. The blame was placed on Marble (by some folks) two years ago when the team collapsed.

I don't buy it.

2-3 top scorers, or 0-1.. I'll take my chances with a team that has some top players on it.

Doesn't seem to bother the Dukes & Kentuckys of the world...

Anybody who puts any blame on Jok for the season is a moron. Plain and simple. Marble shouldn't have been the fall guy either, but for some reason at the end of games, everyone like to stand around and watch the point guard dribble. Maybe that's what Fran can work on in the offseason. End of game situations.
 
Funny, I thought the school of thought was that the more scoring options you have, the better off you are.

I hope Jok doesn't turn into this season's fall guy. The blame was placed on Marble (by some folks) two years ago when the team collapsed. So I see a trend here: It falls apart, blame one of the GOOD players on the team.

I don't buy it.

2-3 top scorers, or 0-1.. I'll take my chances with a team that has some top players on it.

Doesn't seem to bother the Dukes & Kentuckys of the world...
I think that's the point though, you do always want more scorers, but Iowa hadn't been planning on having two that good that needed that many shots.

Duke and Kentucky counts on that every year, and Coach K and Calipari know how to use it.

Jok is not being made out to be a fall guy. Nobody has to take all the blame, but at some point there needs to be some explanation for what we saw in the last half of the year. I don't think it's crazy to think that Fran and the team started to focus too much on Jok and Uthoff, and as other teams adjusted, Iowa never countered to keep finding ways to get them space or to keep any of the other guys involved.

Just think about it. At the beginning it was Uthoff leading, but the offense was a flurry around him. Jok (and everybody else) was coming by his points organically, often in transition. Then all of a sudden they fell off on the fastbreak, and by the end of the year it was a lot of trying to let Uthoff and Jok make things happen in the half court. If they weren't hitting, the offense was doomed. Maybe you say "none of the other guys wanted to score," but that's too simplified. Clemmons is aggressive, Gesell is aggressive and willing in spurts, and even Woodbury insisted from time to time on trying be a mid-range shooter. They didn't not want to score. They were just deferring.

Again, it's not that having two scorers as good as them was a bad thing. And nobody's blaming Jok for Iowa's collapse because he got too good. But the offense stalled, bad, and until someone comes up with a better theory, I give a little credence to the idea that -- maybe you put it on Fran -- the Hawkeyes simply didn't know how to effectively intertwine two dominant scorers into a great offense previously predicated on only having one.

I don't mean to seem like I think this is absolutely right, and I know I don't post often, but I desperately want to identify what happened to this team. This is at the least an interesting theory that shouldn't be discounted so quickly, at least not without alternative proposals.

Talent is only as good as how you know to use it.
 
I can just imagine Jay Wright's pre game plan: ok guys get up in Jok's face same with that Uthoff dude lets not worry about anyone else. Pretty much sums up the late season collapse in my opinion.
 
I've been saying this since the Maryland game. Our losing streak started when Jok started scoring a lot. We used to share the ball extremely well and now when you have two players chucking up 3s it disrupts the offense. Trying to get players engaged on the defensive end when they aren't engaged on the offensive end is also extremely difficult. This is ad hoc, but I know when I score on offense I get fired up and confident for when I get back on D. Jok and Uthoff shooting so often just really threw things off.
 
I can just imagine Jay Wright's pre game plan: ok guys get up in Jok's face same with that Uthoff dude lets not worry about anyone else. Pretty much sums up the late season collapse in my opinion.

I would only add: "And reach and stab at the red-headed kid running point, we'll get some TO's and points there. Oh, and don't worry about their coach calling timeout until we're way far ahead and there's no way they can grab any momentum."
 
I've been saying this since the Maryland game. Our losing streak started when Jok started scoring a lot. We used to share the ball extremely well and now when you have two players chucking up 3s it disrupts the offense. Trying to get players engaged on the defensive end when they aren't engaged on the offensive end is also extremely difficult. This is ad hoc, but I know when I score on offense I get fired up and confident for when I get back on D. Jok and Uthoff shooting so often just really threw things off.

Disagree here. My midway through the conference opposing coaches realized Iowa had only two real threats to score, so they could either extend or sag and pinch those players defensively. On the opposite ends of the floor, one of those scorers was a shot-blocker but the other didn't play much defense.
 
Top