Yikes. How #1 Gonzaga scored at will against Iowa, a video thread:
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
Generally agree. Its the same defense they always play. Because the offense is so potent its good enough to win most nights.
But it looks really bad when you break the video down like that and see so many easily fixed problems. So much of it is just bad communication.
Not that Iowa or anyone else can really keep the zags from scoring.
Iowa will have off nights shooting. That is to be expected.
What they can't have? Off nights in effort on the defensive side.
* It takes effort to box out & rebound (GU had 16 offensive rebounds).
* It takes effort to get back on D (how many layups & dunks did we give up?).
* It takes effort to get to those 50/50 balls (Gonzaga get them all?)
Last edited:
I think that this is an excellent point. Fran talks a lot about giving players the green light on offense to build confidence. He wants them to be aggressive and not be afraid to pull the trigger. I agree with that. On the other hand, pulling a guy after a second foul probably has the opposite affect and makes players reluctant to be aggressive on the defensive end. Who wants to chance missing a third of the game because of a foul? Does anyone ever foul out on this team?
Just watched the game again.
The biggest problems with our defense were,
A. Rebounding. Not boxing out. We played man more than usual and it wasn't a total disaster until it was time to rebound.
B. Getting back in transition. Bohannon is especially egregious at jogging back. That was a problem all game. And one that there is no excuse for.
C Matching up out of the 3/4 pressure.
I said going into the game that was a bad idea and it was. Zags really used it to their benefit.
There was really nothing you could do differently about Suggs shooting. Most of his 3s were 3 or 4 steps behind the nba line. You'd take those every time vs him driving.
Overall though, offense was the reason for the loss IMO. More convinced of that after watching a 2nd time.
Iowa left a bunch of easy points off the board in that first half.
The biggest problems with our defense were,
A. Rebounding. Not boxing out. We played man more than usual and it wasn't a total disaster until it was time to rebound.
B. Getting back in transition. Bohannon is especially egregious at jogging back. That was a problem all game. And one that there is no excuse for.
C Matching up out of the 3/4 pressure.
I said going into the game that was a bad idea and it was. Zags really used it to their benefit.
There was really nothing you could do differently about Suggs shooting. Most of his 3s were 3 or 4 steps behind the nba line. You'd take those every time vs him driving.
Overall though, offense was the reason for the loss IMO. More convinced of that after watching a 2nd time.
Iowa left a bunch of easy points off the board in that first half.
No point complaining about the non-existent defense because it is what it's always been and will very likely continue to be,.. Given that, the defense was still good enough to win this game with an average to good shooting display...
The easiest thing thing could try is boxing out, especially when its a 4 on 1 advantage....
Fortunately you are not the coach.
Bring in Keegan and JoeT and Iowa can play adequate man.
You can't rebound defensively at even mediocre level out of zone. If your zone is getting torched for 50% shooting AND you are only getting 60% of your defensive rebounds you are letting your opponent score 70% of the time.
Man-to-man is better alternative when teams are shooting as well as Gonzaga did.
Iowa is going to run into a lot of teams that will light them up from 3pt line and they will blow out Iowa in 1st half and just hang on in 2nd half just like Gonzaga did. Purdue did it Iowa last year at their place. It is not hard for a 30% 3pt shooter to get into a groove if they don't have someone in their jersey and they get a some easy open looks.
Agree. At IOWA after 1 1h foul, you are ‘in foul trouble‘ and in danger of a 1H automatic disqualification if you pick up #2, which in my view will result in passive defensive play, or then poorer defensive results.
Which i posit is a contributing factor in the consistently poor defensive h we see.
Like I responded to the tweet that shared all these videos, I could have wasted a lot of time showing clips of good defensive plays by Iowa. But why? I was too busy enjoying 2 terrific teams go at it. Gonzaga is not a great defensive team either. If Suggs hadn't been so hot, our free throw shooting had been better, and Bohannon and Nunge shot better, this game would have been a different story.
Iowa is not a defensive-specialized team. And they can get better at their defense, like we say every year under Fran...blah blah blah.
My uncle is a huge Kansas fan, and has had season tickets for many years. He was telling me how good their defense is this year. Guess what? They gave up more points to Gonzaga than Iowa.
Iowa is not a defensive-specialized team. And they can get better at their defense, like we say every year under Fran...blah blah blah.
My uncle is a huge Kansas fan, and has had season tickets for many years. He was telling me how good their defense is this year. Guess what? They gave up more points to Gonzaga than Iowa.
On fewer FG attempts and free throw attempts for Kansas too. We also forced 18 turnovers which nobody is talking about. Bob Huggins’ defensive specialists over at WV “held” Gonzaga to 87, only 12 points less than Iowa (and the result of a low-scoring first half where neither team could hit the broad side of a barn).
Iowa’s defense did what it needed to to win. The only area that needs to show substantial improvement on that end of the floor is our ability to grab defensive rebounds so teams don’t get a second look. Otherwise, we just need to make more shots
The defense is what it is. Iowa was never winning that game with CJ and JBo having the games they did. Obviously the 2nd chance points for the Zags were a huge issue as well.
First of all it's great fun to try and summarize what happened after the game. Lots of good comments here and some that make sense and some don't. I believe that we could put together some quick short clip videos where the Hawks scored at will over Gonzaga. Or any other game for that matter win or lose. So, I went back and looked at North Carolina's stats as it was a 13 point game. NC had 47 rebounds to Iowa's 36 One would tend to think Iowa shot the ball so well that game but in reality 44% FG on 2's and 45% on 3's 57% FT's Now 45% is quite good imo! If we shot that good in the Zags game I really think all this conversation would be totally different. Against the #1 team in the nation. But it didn't turn out that way.
Our Hawks are a fun team to cheer for and I believe they will learn from this particular game..........but to think they will totally turn around and be a Defensive team now isn't gonna happen.
Our Hawks are a fun team to cheer for and I believe they will learn from this particular game..........but to think they will totally turn around and be a Defensive team now isn't gonna happen.
Iowa and good defense will rarely, if ever, be used in the same sentence. The clips are painful to watch, but you could run an equal number of clips showing poor Gonzaga defense. The difference was Suggs was on fire and when he didn't shoot he got easy dribble penetration and broke the defense down so others got easy baskets.
When Iowa isn't making 3's the lack of a dribble drive threat at the guard spot becomes very obvious. Had Fran not stuck with Jbo so long in the first half and put Joe T. maybe we don't get down 20 or whatever it was. Gonzaga getting out on shooters had guys rushing shots without getting Garza a touch. It's a learning opportunity (hopefully) on both ends.
When Iowa isn't making 3's the lack of a dribble drive threat at the guard spot becomes very obvious. Had Fran not stuck with Jbo so long in the first half and put Joe T. maybe we don't get down 20 or whatever it was. Gonzaga getting out on shooters had guys rushing shots without getting Garza a touch. It's a learning opportunity (hopefully) on both ends.
I liked Mikey and Sapp, but I also appreciated Woody. But, on occasion he got caught with his fingers in the pie.
Thank the Lord you aren’t either, but we should keep this simple. If you can’t take 2 steps to your right or left you should not play man.
Lol. Let’s switch to a match up zone. Kind of a hybrid of both. Because man or zone didn’t work.
Some good comments in this thread and some not so good. Here are a few more:
"effort can't be taught" I disagree. Lute's teams weren't great on defense, but not bad. I remember
several of his player saying it was a "culture shock" to find out how hard they were REQUIRED to
play on defense. There have to be expectation set and enforced.
"coaches want to win more than anyone" That's usually accepted as an axiom and I don't believe it.
The coach will usually be around for several years and then probably more years elsewhere. His
pay and lifestyle will follow a comfortable path. But the players have only 2 / 3 years toaccomplish
things that will be remembered and cherished for the rest of their lives. Or not.
Fran has proven that he either doesn't understand the importance of defense/rebounding or isn't willing to invest the effort, intellectual energy, or resources to solve the problem.
So if the coach isn't going to demand good defense from the players, it's up to the players to demand good defense from the coach. These players aren't kids anymore. Others their age are platoon leaders in combat. If they REALLY want to get to the final 4, they have to be the drivers. Two or three of the strongest leaders need to go to Fran and say "we want to commit to quickly become a much better defensive team. Can we start by all reviewing film (maybe the film in this thread) to see and then implement necessary schematic changes. We are also committed to a new level of energy and will hold each other accountable for that but need for you to also hold us accountable and to pull any of us out
of games if we are lagging. Will you do that?"
This approach won't fix things overnight, but will lead to improvement. How much do the players want it? Can someone get this idea to the players?
"effort can't be taught" I disagree. Lute's teams weren't great on defense, but not bad. I remember
several of his player saying it was a "culture shock" to find out how hard they were REQUIRED to
play on defense. There have to be expectation set and enforced.
"coaches want to win more than anyone" That's usually accepted as an axiom and I don't believe it.
The coach will usually be around for several years and then probably more years elsewhere. His
pay and lifestyle will follow a comfortable path. But the players have only 2 / 3 years toaccomplish
things that will be remembered and cherished for the rest of their lives. Or not.
Fran has proven that he either doesn't understand the importance of defense/rebounding or isn't willing to invest the effort, intellectual energy, or resources to solve the problem.
So if the coach isn't going to demand good defense from the players, it's up to the players to demand good defense from the coach. These players aren't kids anymore. Others their age are platoon leaders in combat. If they REALLY want to get to the final 4, they have to be the drivers. Two or three of the strongest leaders need to go to Fran and say "we want to commit to quickly become a much better defensive team. Can we start by all reviewing film (maybe the film in this thread) to see and then implement necessary schematic changes. We are also committed to a new level of energy and will hold each other accountable for that but need for you to also hold us accountable and to pull any of us out
of games if we are lagging. Will you do that?"
This approach won't fix things overnight, but will lead to improvement. How much do the players want it? Can someone get this idea to the players?
the idea that teams don’t have off nights in certain parts of the game is completely made up fantasy land bullshit. So it’s unsurprising that you mentioned it.
I think you might have stumbled upon something here. We need some eye poking and nut punching on this team.
giving up 99 points is not a good defensive performance, imo
the obvious problem? when you give up 99 you have to score 100 or more to win. that's asking a lot and come NCAA tourney time, if we make it to the Sweet 16, I hope we are still not giving up 90 plus on defense & expecting our offense to make up for it because we are gonna have off shooting nights and when we do, we are gonna lose if our D does not improve.
A direct result of more missed Iowa threes/shots, long rebounds, and more transition opportunities for Gonzaga. Which is another argument that the best defense for Iowa is a good offense
its unsurprising that you show everyone that you are not only a dick head but completely clueless
I can be an even bigger dickhead if it gets you to post less.
responding to yourself is not a positive. You’ve basically reincarnated the TKC.
True story. That also translates to a Guard securing 18 rebounds, and some of those Guards can get down the court in a hurry with good handles and some desire to do so. (and 4-22 leaves 18 rebounds to be had, coincidence or conspiracy..........dah, dah, dah music in background!)
Put the biscuit in the basket and we're having a discussion about why Baylor is still ranked ahead of us.
It starts at the beginning ... recruiting. Iowa's current staff does not recruit players with a defensive mentality. They recruit offensively minded players. They believe they can coach the defensive part or instill the pride it takes to play defense. It is not happening at this point - and probably won't.
A change (defensive assistant or change in practice habits/routines) is needed. However, the current staff believes (as most coaching staffs do) that their approach is the best approach with their current team. And most coaches at the highest level do not swallow their own pride and embrace the change, unless forced to.
There have been examples (like Bielien at Michigan) where they are convinced to bring someone in from outside the program to change the approach. The change in defense did not change their approach to offense (and doesn't need to, if done correctly).
Let's enjoy this highly ranked, fun, entertaining team from an offensive standpoint and just know that the defense is what it is. This may be Luka Garza's final season at Iowa ... not sure I want to spend it worrying about how Iowa is trying to learn defense at this point.
A change (defensive assistant or change in practice habits/routines) is needed. However, the current staff believes (as most coaching staffs do) that their approach is the best approach with their current team. And most coaches at the highest level do not swallow their own pride and embrace the change, unless forced to.
There have been examples (like Bielien at Michigan) where they are convinced to bring someone in from outside the program to change the approach. The change in defense did not change their approach to offense (and doesn't need to, if done correctly).
Let's enjoy this highly ranked, fun, entertaining team from an offensive standpoint and just know that the defense is what it is. This may be Luka Garza's final season at Iowa ... not sure I want to spend it worrying about how Iowa is trying to learn defense at this point.
No they don't,.. Iowa believes that 90% of the time they can out run their opponent on offense...
I don't see where fran was saying you don't have nights off in certain parts of your game from night to night. What he said is that you can't have games where you don't put in the effort. Like all teams, even as good as Iowa is on the offensive side of the ball, they're going to have off shooting days. Iowa seldom has an on day defensively and frequently has games where they just appear slow or lazy during stretches getting beat for easy baskets over and over. That's what they can't do and win a championship regardless of the offensive firepower.
What does “better effort” look like from a statistical standpoint? Does Iowa need to be holding its opponents to 65 points a game? How do we do that without sacrificing offensive possessions? Why would we sacrifice offensive (our strength) possessions to focus on defense (our weakness)?
Teams get a lot of open looks against Iowa, but frequently, it is by design to keep the pace of the game moving at one which favors Iowa’s offensive firepower. For example, when Iowa misses a shot and another team gets out in transition, it’s likely that they are going to get a wide open look. Iowa isn’t likely going to get a stop in transition anyways, so they cut their loss on that one possession so they can get the ball back, try to answer, and then set up their defense. This mentality leads to a lot of runs, both by Iowa and by the opposition, but favors Iowa over the course of a game because they typically have the better offense.
By trying to play “in your face” defense for 30 seconds every time down the court you 1) slow the game down so there are fewer possessions across the board - to Iowa’s disadvantage and 2) tire out your players, which typically leads to sloppier offensive play - Iowa’s disadvantage. If do a better job of crashing the defensive glass and continue to force turnovers, we won’t lose
I'm not sure how to respond to this suggestion that it's to Iowa's advantage to allow easy baskets in transition in order to speed up the game. Good defense doesn't mean holding an opponent below xx points per game. It has to do with holding an opponent below x points per possession. Allowing an opponent easy baskets in transition or otherwise is never to your advantage if that's what you're suggesting.
Good defense also doesn’t mean going balls to the wall for thirty seconds for every one of your opponents’ 100 possessions if it comes at the expense of doing what you do best.
