[teejers1]

I don't understand the philosophy of passing the ball to Keefe at the top of the key and having him wait for someone to break free on the wing or near mid-court.  On rare occasions he passes (hands off) while setting a screen and breaks to the basket for a dunk.  Very rare.  Mostly this play just eats up time on the shot clock and forces us to make a wild drive to the basket and throw up a prayer (ala Delaire).  If Keefe could shoot the mid-range shot (like Haley) I could understand this approach.  But Keefe would never shoot unless he was right under the basket.

We have failed this season to implement an offense that gave Jones good looks at 3 point shots.  That was one of our major offensive strengths and we squandered it.  We allowed Silva and Delaire to play 1-on-5 "I'm the hero" basketball for too many minutes.  We had a PG in MOC that could have been extremely effective in running a motion offense and we wasted his talent.

Our two wins against USC prove that this team had the talent to play good team basketball.  With good coaching a team should improve in their offensive cohesiveness as the season progresses.  Our offensive cohesiveness decreased as the season progressed.

I hope Mr. Muir reads the Cardboard.  Hey Bernard . . .

It's laughable to continually see references to "we aren't getting Jones good enough looks for three."  In this day and age, everybody switches on screens, so it's not easy to say "we need to screen more for Jones."  That is a product of a long bygone era.

And the Duke "offense" is a perfect example of what Stanford is missing - and has been missing for years and years - players who can beat their man off the bounce.  You have to have that.  THAT is how you get open threes, by forcing defensive help or rotations and finding the open guy.  Stanford has NO ONE who can beat his man off the bounce; hence, very few open threes.

It's not that complicated, really.

What is much harder is remedying it.  The one guy who gave us some glimmer of hope, Terry, bounced prematurely.  The other guy bounced expectedly after one year, while giving Stanford pretty much nothing in the process.

I'm fine critiquing Haase for results - not enough Ws and too many late-season collapses.  But to think there will be some magic coaching elixir to drum up open shots and a good offense with this roster . . . well, I think that's a bit of a pipedream.  Maybe you run Princeton O and hope to get some backdoor cuts/layups; but really, a Princeton O with this roster would just lead to a lot of what we're already seeing:  forced shots at the end of the shot clock.

[teejers1]

I don't understand the philosophy of passing the ball to Keefe at the top of the key and having him wait for someone to break free on the wing or near mid-court.  On rare occasions he passes (hands off) while setting a screen and breaks to the basket for a dunk.  Very rare.  Mostly this play just eats up time on the shot clock and forces us to make a wild drive to the basket and throw up a prayer (ala Delaire).  If Keefe could shoot the mid-range shot (like Haley) I could understand this approach.  But Keefe would never shoot unless he was right under the basket.

We have failed this season to implement an offense that gave Jones good looks at 3 point shots.  That was one of our major offensive strengths and we squandered it.  We allowed Silva and Delaire to play 1-on-5 "I'm the hero" basketball for too many minutes.  We had a PG in MOC that could have been extremely effective in running a motion offense and we wasted his talent.

Our two wins against USC prove that this team had the talent to play good team basketball.  With good coaching a team should improve in their offensive cohesiveness as the season progresses.  Our offensive cohesiveness decreased as the season progressed.

I hope Mr. Muir reads the Cardboard.  Hey Bernard . . .

It's laughable to continually see references to "we aren't getting Jones good enough looks for three."  In this day and age, everybody switches on screens, so it's not easy to say "we need to screen more for Jones."  That is a product of a long bygone era.

And the Duke "offense" is a perfect example of what Stanford is missing - and has been missing for years and years - players who can beat their man off the bounce.  You have to have that.  THAT is how you get open threes, by forcing defensive help or rotations and finding the open guy.  Stanford has NO ONE who can beat his man off the bounce; hence, very few open threes.

It's not that complicated, really.

What is much harder is remedying it.  The one guy who gave us some glimmer of hope, Terry, bounced prematurely.  The other guy bounced expectedly after one year, while giving Stanford pretty much nothing in the process.

I'm fine critiquing Haase for results - not enough Ws and too many late-season collapses.  But to think there will be some magic coaching elixir to drum up open shots and a good offense with this roster . . . well, I think that's a bit of a pipedream.  Maybe you run Princeton O and hope to get some backdoor cuts/layups; but really, a Princeton O with this roster would just lead to a lot of what we're already seeing:  forced shots at the end of the shot clock.