sportstalent
Well-Known Member
I didn't get to watch the WSU game, had an emergency, but I am going to base this off the other games I have watched, but focus on the last game VT.
When you look at the VT game, VT is the best shooting team in the ACC, granted they hadn't played the best competition. That said, Iowa had played a poor schedule as well and struggled to shoot the ball against those lesser opponents.
When I think about the VT game and some others is I found myself asking this question a lot: "Why did (insert name) take that (profanity) shot, when you can get it anytime during the shot clock?"
Iowa's shot selection seems to be poor resulting in the overall poor percentages against bad teams and struggling against decent teams. Poor shot selection leads to rebounders not being in the right positions and can lead to easy baskets in transition.
When Iowa has played zone with the quicker backcourts on the floor, it has been very effective. When they made the comeback with Woodbury/White down low and in the 2 - 3, they played really aggressive and forced VT into long shots and bad shots. VT did find a few holes before Woodbury came out with fouls, but you aren't going to hold a team down for much longer than what Iowa did to VT. Iowa actually did to VT what teams have done to Iowa.
Another thing, Iowa has people that can block shots and affect shots, guards are not doing enough to put pressure on the guy with the ball. Iowa crashing the defensive boards when a player is beaten off the dribble can help stop easy putbacks when guys do rotate over to block shots.
I really don't think this is a bad defensive team, it still comes back to Fran matching the right defense to the guys on the floor, there are times Iowa can go man to man, but a lot of situations may dictate Iowa to play more zone. Playing zone is not all bad, if the players don't stand around and play aggressive.
Is one or the other, or both?
When you look at the VT game, VT is the best shooting team in the ACC, granted they hadn't played the best competition. That said, Iowa had played a poor schedule as well and struggled to shoot the ball against those lesser opponents.
When I think about the VT game and some others is I found myself asking this question a lot: "Why did (insert name) take that (profanity) shot, when you can get it anytime during the shot clock?"
Iowa's shot selection seems to be poor resulting in the overall poor percentages against bad teams and struggling against decent teams. Poor shot selection leads to rebounders not being in the right positions and can lead to easy baskets in transition.
When Iowa has played zone with the quicker backcourts on the floor, it has been very effective. When they made the comeback with Woodbury/White down low and in the 2 - 3, they played really aggressive and forced VT into long shots and bad shots. VT did find a few holes before Woodbury came out with fouls, but you aren't going to hold a team down for much longer than what Iowa did to VT. Iowa actually did to VT what teams have done to Iowa.
Another thing, Iowa has people that can block shots and affect shots, guards are not doing enough to put pressure on the guy with the ball. Iowa crashing the defensive boards when a player is beaten off the dribble can help stop easy putbacks when guys do rotate over to block shots.
I really don't think this is a bad defensive team, it still comes back to Fran matching the right defense to the guys on the floor, there are times Iowa can go man to man, but a lot of situations may dictate Iowa to play more zone. Playing zone is not all bad, if the players don't stand around and play aggressive.
Is one or the other, or both?
Last edited:
