For The Fans, By The Fans
https://usufans.com/Forums/
Yes! The first half Queta was a little lackadaisical but then something clicked in the second half and he really started fighting for position and working hard in the post. Things really changed at that point. We had that big run and it was Queta and Merrill feeding off each other.hipsterdoofus21 wrote:Won the game to go to alternating zones. UNLV never looked comfortable after that. This team has to commit defensively every game. When we focus on defense and the GATA mentality the offense tends to take care of itself like last year. I did love all the post touches for Queta. Speaking of which, did Queta play the whole second half?
scotlandog wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 10:57 pmYes! The first half Queta was a little lackadaisical but then something clicked in the second half and he really started fighting for position and working hard in the post. Things really changed at that point. We had that big run and it was Queta and Merrill feeding off each other.hipsterdoofus21 wrote:Won the game to go to alternating zones. UNLV never looked comfortable after that. This team has to commit defensively every game. When we focus on defense and the GATA mentality the offense tends to take care of itself like last year. I did love all the post touches for Queta. Speaking of which, did Queta play the whole second half?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You've noticed too?hipsterdoofus21 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:20 pmUntil his three pointer, it felt like Porter was intent on making sure it would be a close finish. Turnover machine.
He actually only had two. The problem was that EVERY ONE of our starters had a pair of turnovers.hipsterdoofus21 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:20 pmUntil his three pointer, it felt like Porter was intent on making sure it would be a close finish. Turnover machine.
I just saw that I callTurtle wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:48 pmHe actually only had two. The problem was that EVERY ONE of our starters had a pair of turnovers.hipsterdoofus21 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:20 pmUntil his three pointer, it felt like Porter was intent on making sure it would be a close finish. Turnover machine.
No, he subbed out with 36 seconds left.hipsterdoofus21 wrote:Won the game to go to alternating zones. UNLV never looked comfortable after that. This team has to commit defensively every game. When we focus on defense and the GATA mentality the offense tends to take care of itself like last year. I did love all the post touches for Queta. Speaking of which, did Queta play the whole second half?
I just watched and he had two clear ones. The one with the bad pass to sam went against sam for possessing it then throwing it away trying to save it. Porter also caught an airball with a second left on a shot clock violation but guessing they gave it to miller for shooting it?hipsterdoofus21 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:57 pmI just saw that I callTurtle wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:48 pmHe actually only had two. The problem was that EVERY ONE of our starters had a pair of turnovers.hipsterdoofus21 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:20 pmUntil his three pointer, it felt like Porter was intent on making sure it would be a close finish. Turnover machine.
In just the last 12 minutes or so of the game I can think of at least 4. He had the one that led to a flagrant foul, the backcourt pass over Merrill’s head, one while he was facing up on the right elbow three, and another while dribbling at the top of the key.
With Queta only really being healthy in the latter half of January it is possible that his choices were limited.
The team has played a 1-3-1 quite a bit. Last night, however, they rotated between a 1-3-1, a 2-3, and man. The rotation between the three seemed to bother UNLV more than anything.FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:52 amThe announcers mentioned that Smith installed the 2-3 zone only in the past week. Now, perhaps they meant to say the 1-3-1 zone because 2-3 would seem to be pretty standard fare in my opinion.
Either way it worked very well last night and the players communicated and rotated very well not leaving gaps for open shots.
The zone against BYU really helped us get back into the game. The problem was we stayed with it too long. Once BYU figured it out, we should have switched out. Resulted in too many open threes toward the end of the game.
All starters for sure had turnover issues. Not all turnovers are the same. Getting called for a travel or throwing the ball out of bounds is different than getting the ball stolen right out of your hands and have them go the other way for a layup. Both of Poter's were huge, one was a layup and the other one he committed a flagrant 1 foul after the turnover. They did not capitalize on the flagrant 1, but you cannot have your point guard make those mistakes.Turtle wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:48 pmHe actually only had two. The problem was that EVERY ONE of our starters had a pair of turnovers.hipsterdoofus21 wrote: ↑February 5th, 2020, 11:20 pmUntil his three pointer, it felt like Porter was intent on making sure it would be a close finish. Turnover machine.
Couldn't have said it better MetsJetsAggies. There are a couple of games we could have won, if we would have used it more. This team is just not quick enough to guard fast teams man to man. Besides St Mary's, UNLV and SDSU, should have used it more of the byu game to slow their shooters down. Those could have all been wins.MetsJetsAggies wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 2:40 amJust wish it wouldn't have taken this long for him to ever adjust and switch to zone mid game
We could have used the zone in multiple games this season. Specifically UNLV the first time around, probably that Air Force game, SDSU when they went on the initial run to take the lead, a zone would've taken a bit of the wind from their run and prevented Mitchell from running over Bean every possession, etc.
It was great to see Smith implement it tonight, just think we should use it more often at different points in a given game, especially when teams are taking advantage of our lack of quickness on D...we are long but teams like St Mary's, UNLV and SDSU knew how to get by our long perimeter defense. A zone also gives Queta the chance to camp out in the paint without worrying about guarding his man on high picks, etc. Any a team that is taking advantage of pulling Queta out from the paint, we should switch to zone to counter it once in a while
100% agreed.BRuss804 wrote:The zone against BYU really helped us get back into the game. The problem was we stayed with it too long. Once BYU figured it out, we should have switched out. Resulted in too many open threes toward the end of the game.
The team looked pretty comfortable playing the 1-3-1 so perhaps the announcers were correct in saying the 2-3 is a relatively new installation from Smith.89Aggie wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 8:08 amThe team has played a 1-3-1 quite a bit. Last night, however, they rotated between a 1-3-1, a 2-3, and man. The rotation between the three seemed to bother UNLV more than anything.FloridaAggie13 wrote: ↑February 6th, 2020, 7:52 amThe announcers mentioned that Smith installed the 2-3 zone only in the past week. Now, perhaps they meant to say the 1-3-1 zone because 2-3 would seem to be pretty standard fare in my opinion.
Either way it worked very well last night and the players communicated and rotated very well not leaving gaps for open shots.
The 2-3 was worked on this week, the 1-3-1 we have deployed before but sparingly.FloridaAggie13 wrote:The announcers mentioned that Smith installed the 2-3 zone only in the past week. Now, perhaps they meant to say the 1-3-1 zone because 2-3 would seem to be pretty standard fare in my opinion.
Either way it worked very well last night and the players communicated and rotated very well not leaving gaps for open shots.