[81alum]

I don't want to overreact to one meaningless game, but that first half made our offense look like it was ASU or OSU defending us back in their glory days.

In trying to get a clue as to what this transition is supposed to be doing--I've heard or read "Warriorization" several times.  Some of you who are Warriors fans can probably educate me, but I take that to mean excellent ball movement and launching the three point shot at any time it is open, also starting fast breaks and scoring in transition whenever possible.  A lot of fast break and three point shooting teams have poor rebounding, no?  Could the new offense be hurting our rebounding?

Something else I don't fully understand, and a hard core  Warriors fan could enlighten me.  In our first half we were trying to get the open shot by passing the ball--and failing miserably.  In the second half we had players moving and cutting a lot more.  Were we just lazy in the first half--or was there a conscious change of strategy to go back to a movement offense after the pure passing offense flopped?  I wonder if the 1st half represented the "new" offense and the second half Tara went back to something else, or whether we were simply executing the new offense better in the 2nd half.  It would make a difference to my pessimism level.

[81alum]

I don't want to overreact to one meaningless game, but that first half made our offense look like it was ASU or OSU defending us back in their glory days.

In trying to get a clue as to what this transition is supposed to be doing--I've heard or read "Warriorization" several times.  Some of you who are Warriors fans can probably educate me, but I take that to mean excellent ball movement and launching the three point shot at any time it is open, also starting fast breaks and scoring in transition whenever possible.  A lot of fast break and three point shooting teams have poor rebounding, no?  Could the new offense be hurting our rebounding?

Something else I don't fully understand, and a hard core  Warriors fan could enlighten me.  In our first half we were trying to get the open shot by passing the ball--and failing miserably.  In the second half we had players moving and cutting a lot more.  Were we just lazy in the first half--or was there a conscious change of strategy to go back to a movement offense after the pure passing offense flopped?  I wonder if the 1st half represented the "new" offense and the second half Tara went back to something else, or whether we were simply executing the new offense better in the 2nd half.  It would make a difference to my pessimism level.