Well, did not see THAT coming!
Prior to the game I felt that we could have some success defensively but that we would have to score more in transition to have a chance to win because they are so good in their half court defense that without Kris we would really struggle (hell, we struggled WITH Kris the last few games, especially TCU and Duke). However, it was our half court efficiency that really shined (along with our defense).
Interestingly, a few things I heard on the radio in the 24 hours prior to the game:
As mentioned, ISU always doubles in the post, on high screen and rolls, and in the corners. Iowa took advantage of this early by locating the open man and hitting him for wide open 3's. Not sure if others were supposed to rotate to the player left open but I'm mildly surprised other teams haven't hurt ISU this way. Here are 3 early examples:
Rebraca drives into a post, bringing a double from Perkins defender. He then hits Perkins for a 3:
Ulis uses a high pick and rol to hit Rebraca below the FT line. With nobody to take roller the wing defender has to rotate over and Rebraca hits Perkins for another 3:
Another example of how Iowa just shows high pick and roll and then the screener slips out of it and gets a pass, taking 1 dribble towards the rim to draw a help defender. Wherever that help defender comes from there is a wide open 3 point shot. In this case Connor skip passes to Sandfort who is fouled, but you can see Fran's game plan very clearly here:
Watch how ISU gets sucked in on dribble penetration. Patrick does a great job after his guy leaves him of moving to an open spot and Ulis kicks it out for an open 3:
These are WIDE OPEN, CATCH AND SHOOT three point shots which are the highest efficiency shots in basketball. I would guess 8 or 9 of our 12 made 3's against ISU were wide open, catch and shoot threes. This is A LOT different than contested 3's or 3's off the dribble. In prior games we were getting 3 point shots, but they were of the more contested variety. This is partially because without Garza or Keegan we don't have a player that requires a double team a lot. However, ISU's defensive scheme gave us what we needed and the players executed.
Connor is such a skilled passer, especially when feeding the post. This play is exceptional, because the defender is trying to defend Rebraca on the high side and Connor is quite a ways away for a post entry, especially with a bounce pass, and the angle is such that there is probably only about 18" where he can throw the pass and get it past the defender but still be catchable for Rebraca who is trying to hold the defender off. This is an absolute dime:
Great game plan by Fran and staff (and Gatens with the scout). The players and crowd brought the energy and ISU could never recover. Quite impressive without Kris. I'm not sure Wisconsin's packline defense will give us the same looks, however, so it could be a lot tougher.
No defensive clips, but we did a great job playing defensive positioning both on the ball and away from the ball especially staying in front of cutters and not trailing them. I saw some gaffes by Sandfort and Patrick in a few cases, but the rest of the team was pretty locked in. Patrick plays defense like he's back in 8th grade AAU where he can let guys drive past him and then block it from behind. That doesn't work often at this level - move your feet young man!
Prior to the game I felt that we could have some success defensively but that we would have to score more in transition to have a chance to win because they are so good in their half court defense that without Kris we would really struggle (hell, we struggled WITH Kris the last few games, especially TCU and Duke). However, it was our half court efficiency that really shined (along with our defense).
Interestingly, a few things I heard on the radio in the 24 hours prior to the game:
- Sports Betting guy (BetFred Sports I believe) on Sports Radio talking about the game and the 3 point spread yesterday around 4pm said that the casual fans looking at the matchup were likely going for ISU but that the "sharps" or professional guys were more on Iowa. He went on to explain that ISU didn't rebound well and with some other factors he thought Iowa would win by 9. That was quite the take as you can image, but he was off by double digits lol.
- ISU head coach was on the radio talking about how they ALWAYS double team in the post, on ball screens, and in the corners and that they will always create body contact on defense and are averaging a forced turnover every 3 possessions and 4 charges a game. However, as we will see below, this is what Iowa exploited.
- ISU's offense, when they aren't shooting from the outside well (they have streaky outside shooting) does not create a lot of other opportunities for them outside of some basic post play. Iowa's defense was locked in on the cutters and did reasonable well in the post and with defensive boards and when ISU was cold from 3 and missing some shorter shots it snowballed on them early.
- ISU averaging a forced turnover every 3 possessions likely led to some of their offensive success against other teams, but Iowa does not turn the ball over very much at all. This may have been a factor in the professional better's trend to Iowa. Iowa did end up having 17 or 18 turnovers which was less than 1 in 3 but not by a lot. They just found good shots and made them in the half court, and ISU couldn't hit a 3 to save their life.
- Rebraca and Connor were the stories last night. This is the first time I've gotten some Chris Street like vibe from Rebraca - not that their games are exactly the same, but they were both kind of secondary offensive players in terms of points but did all kinds of things outside of that to impact the game. He's not as big as Street but his demeanor and effort and rebounding and leadership by action is just exemplary. Connor is similar but just is so cerebral with his decisions when the ball is in his hands and he never guesses before he throws - he confirms what he thinks and then has the skill to execute the pass. He dribbles not to dribble but dribbles to GO SOMEWHERE and usually that location is where he can find the best angle for a pass or move the defense to free guys up. Love his play, especially now that he's hitting the 3 ball.
- Ulis with 6 turnovers is a bad thing, most of them from trying to split defenders off the dribble or going too fast. I thought he shook this habit from last year, but that was the only real negative from the game other than Sandfort still being a bit cold. Sandfort's shot has always looked rushed, I just want him to be vertical when he shoots and not floating left or right or backwards.
As mentioned, ISU always doubles in the post, on high screen and rolls, and in the corners. Iowa took advantage of this early by locating the open man and hitting him for wide open 3's. Not sure if others were supposed to rotate to the player left open but I'm mildly surprised other teams haven't hurt ISU this way. Here are 3 early examples:
Rebraca drives into a post, bringing a double from Perkins defender. He then hits Perkins for a 3:
Ulis uses a high pick and rol to hit Rebraca below the FT line. With nobody to take roller the wing defender has to rotate over and Rebraca hits Perkins for another 3:
Another example of how Iowa just shows high pick and roll and then the screener slips out of it and gets a pass, taking 1 dribble towards the rim to draw a help defender. Wherever that help defender comes from there is a wide open 3 point shot. In this case Connor skip passes to Sandfort who is fouled, but you can see Fran's game plan very clearly here:
Watch how ISU gets sucked in on dribble penetration. Patrick does a great job after his guy leaves him of moving to an open spot and Ulis kicks it out for an open 3:
These are WIDE OPEN, CATCH AND SHOOT three point shots which are the highest efficiency shots in basketball. I would guess 8 or 9 of our 12 made 3's against ISU were wide open, catch and shoot threes. This is A LOT different than contested 3's or 3's off the dribble. In prior games we were getting 3 point shots, but they were of the more contested variety. This is partially because without Garza or Keegan we don't have a player that requires a double team a lot. However, ISU's defensive scheme gave us what we needed and the players executed.
Connor is such a skilled passer, especially when feeding the post. This play is exceptional, because the defender is trying to defend Rebraca on the high side and Connor is quite a ways away for a post entry, especially with a bounce pass, and the angle is such that there is probably only about 18" where he can throw the pass and get it past the defender but still be catchable for Rebraca who is trying to hold the defender off. This is an absolute dime:
Great game plan by Fran and staff (and Gatens with the scout). The players and crowd brought the energy and ISU could never recover. Quite impressive without Kris. I'm not sure Wisconsin's packline defense will give us the same looks, however, so it could be a lot tougher.
No defensive clips, but we did a great job playing defensive positioning both on the ball and away from the ball especially staying in front of cutters and not trailing them. I saw some gaffes by Sandfort and Patrick in a few cases, but the rest of the team was pretty locked in. Patrick plays defense like he's back in 8th grade AAU where he can let guys drive past him and then block it from behind. That doesn't work often at this level - move your feet young man!
Last edited:
