If I get around to scouting Oregon, I'll have more on them later, but with regard to yesterday:
- I like how Iowa got out to a good start and then held them off all game. We didn't play perfectly, but we did play like an experienced team. Sure helped my anxiety at least
- Within 5 feet of the basket, Mitdgaard got the best of Garza on both ends. He does a nice job like Garza of using his size and relies simply on: Right handed hook, fake RH hook and step under, fake step under and back to the RH hook. While limited in his moves, the moves he has are very effective. He was able to push Garza underneath a bit and offensive rebound over him as well, and he walled up well on defense. We are probably lucky he had to sit a good part of the 1st half as their offense looks for him first on each trip before moving on to other options.
- Garza was very effective facing up, and if he doesn't have a good game there this would have been a close game. GCU bigs never liked to extend to the arc on film and so we knew this should be there and it was. If anything, Iowa could have gone to it more often but it looked like they wanted to work Garza in the post to get Mitdgaard in foul trouble. That worked a few times, but I'm not sure Garza ever scored inside when Mitdgaard was on him, and he really struggled overall. Having seen him now against 3 bigger players (Kofi, Dickenson, Mitdgaard) I'm afraid the NBA scout will say that he struggles to score against bigger players. It's like mentally he gives up on the hook, but then when his counter moves aren't there because he can't move the 270 lb bodies he gets stuck. This will hurt his draft stock because the NBA is full of 7'0" or taller players. I've said it before, but dude needs a REAL hook - if you can't get a hook off against someone only 1" taller than you than it isn't a real hook shot imo.
- Garza's rebounding wasn't there either, and he just didn't seem to have 100% energy yesterday. Only 6 rebounds in that type of game when you played 33 minutes is a pretty poor effort. I think nationally he was probably viewed as having a solid game, but to me he needs to get back to full rebounding energy and re-evaluate his approach to taller defenders. Luckily I don't think he'll face a taller AND heavier player until the Final 4.
- GCU's defensive scheme was to sag off of Murray and Connor (usually Lever) and give them the 3 point shot so they could help down low. Their bigs did not come out to hedge screens as we saw on film prior, and simply let the guard try to manage the screen themselves. Bohannon got a few 3's off of this action, but overall I don't think Iowa made them pay as much as they could have for this method. Conversely, Iowa should have adopted this method to handle Mitdgaard on the screen and roll (and Kofi, and Dickenson, et al) but we still had Garza hedge and paid for it when Mitdgaard scored on help defenders who are too small to defend that type of roller. This is the same thing we saw against those other 2 bigs so this is frustrating me as you can tell
- Iowa's defensive scheme was to double in the post on Mitdgaard (to reduce fouls on Garza) and Lever (mismatch with Connor). For the most part we did this well, but only when we went for the ball. A few times the double team came and just kept their hands up, allowing the post to turn and just look for an open teammate. If you challenge the ball by reaching for a jump ball - rather than trying to slap it loose and get a foul - then you force them to contort their body and it's much harder to see a teammate or throw it accurately. You don't actually have to GET a jump ball, or knock it loose, but you need to disrupt their passing vision and angle.
- If GCU could do it over again, I think they could have used Lever more effectively. Iowa did not handle the high screen and roll the way I thought they should, and Lever could have had 8-10 more 3 point attempts. They must have been looking for something else, but the high screen and roll with Mitgaard was a problem for Iowa, and the same with Lever who would flare to the 3 point line. If you watch again, I think there are a lot of times where Lever at 6'10" could have easily gotten 3's off if the had passed to him. There's a reason some B10 teams run that high pick and roll action to death - because we struggle with it. That' is what GCU should have done imo.
- Murray was the POTG for Iowa as he came in and was just active and our more dependable rebounder, especially with Garza (6) and Wieskamp (5) having sub-par rebounding days. I liked the fact that he kept after his jump shot after missing the first 2 and started to make GCU pay for their defensive strategy. His blocked shots, deflections and overall work was excellent. Will have to watch his leading shoulder on his dribble drives as he had a couple of near charges, but I like the fact he's initiating contact as he needs to be the initiator if he wants to be able to finish due to lack of bulk.
- The bench as a whole won this game as we had good showings from everyone. Patrick's decision making has been great the 2nd half of the season and he really likes that right handed drive off of a hesitation dribble where he can use his length to finish one handed over or around defenders. His lack of bulk hurt us with defensive rebounding, but he played a very good game. Joe T had his turnovers, but in between had some nice passes, and nice layup and some other action. Blacksher was still able to get around him fairly easily (note that athleticism does not equal defense) but the team extended the lead the first long stretch Joe was in there. Perkins certainly passes the eyeball test for me and watching him take the ball at the end of the half made him my favorite option for attacking off the dribble in low clock situations. He's not the best ball handler option, but given space he has the best combination of speed, ball handling, strength, and bucket making at the end.
- Clearly defensive rebounding was an issue. I compared McGlothan to Murray in the preview in terms of activity and he didn't disappoint. Our defensive rebounders did disappoint however. Kudo's to GCU's bigs for being physical and aggressive around the rim. They had an advantage at every position (MItdgaard vs Garza; Lever/McGlothan vs Murray/Connor) and they took advantage of it. Connor had 0 rebounds, Patrick 2, Wieskamp 5, Bohannon 4, Joe T 1 and CJF 2.
- GCU's zone was pretty crappy. I mentioned in my preview that I didn't think they'd run it as their rotations didn't look good enough for a team like Iowa. It should make other teams think twice about zoning us. Great work by the middle person in the zone in this case. Iowa's 1-3-1 zone was a bit of a surprise but effective in that 1 stop.
- Quick look at Oregon indicates a bunch of 6'5" to 6'7" guys who all shoot the 3 relatively well (37% as a team, most above 32%). This means that Garza will have an advantage on offense, but will be forced to play around the perimeter on defense. Their assist totals are very spread out among all players and that would indicate a more pure positionless offense type format. Duarte a 6'6" guard is their best player, but without even watching film my guess is that they run a 5 out, dribble drive offense and will kick for 3's if someone helps - similar to what Hoiberg ran at ISU. This makes me think we could see Iowa in a lot more zone in this game and will mix it up, but may try to keep Garza around the rim. May come down to the % that Oregon makes on those baseline 3's - a HR.com crowd favorite
- Quick look at film shows a either a 5 out or a 4 out 1 in type offense but with a high post so the low blocks are open for players to cut into and even post briefly, so they can identify mismatches and post up almost any player. Wisconsin uses this at times.
- Oregon is rated 28th on Kenpom, 14th on offense and 65th on defense. Their defense on film doesn't look super aggressive. I'm sure they have to double on big players. Their offense takes advantages of mismatches and having most players that shoot over 32% from 3 may make zones difficult as well.
- Oregon's personnel would make you think they play at a high pace, but their tempo only ranks 240th or so. They are coached by Dana Altman so my guess is their athletes and length at guard can turn you over and get into transition, but when they aren't in transition they run a more patient offense that moves the ball around the arc and looks for dribble penetration to create opportunities.
- Teams with Centers who can shoot the 3, combined with tall guards who can bother Bohannon and CJF, and an athlete who can hand with Wieskamp - these are all problems we will have to overcome. Not expecting much from CJF with a taller defender but at least they can't double off of him.
- Dana Altman is a good coach, so the 4 point spread seems appropriate. Hard to anticipate how the mismatches will play out but these two teams are constructed about as differently as you could imagine.
Last edited:
