@ Boston College 2/28/2024

It’s funny how sometimes a re-watch can change your perspective on the same outcome. At the end of that game I felt thankful that we won, but also very frustrated that we rode about 1/4th of the game with some pretty fragile lineups; risking the season with some of them. Also that we didn’t go back to working Elijah Gertrude into the mix after his spark against UNC.

I still feel that way. After re-watching, however, I do feel like we’re getting closer to where we need to be because the other 3/4ths of the game was a significant step in the right direction. The lineups during that window of time were thoughtful. Our defense with our starting five on the floor was quite good and playing Dunn at the 3 unlocked a lot of things. We looked purposeful and unafraid on offense (which was the most refreshing element of all of it), and we implemented quite a few things from new actions to designed looks, to tactics within our base sets.

Altogether, it was a good number of adjustments and additions, most of which worked out quite well. We really just need to find a better solution for the time Beekman is out of the game. So, while I will dedicate some time to discussing that ulcer many of us got over certain stretches, we’ll spend most of our time talking about the positive changes implemented. I’ll be tackling the adaptation and execution within the Big 3-5 lineup, as well as the non-Dunn lineup that closed the game on the back of its offensive explosion. Let’s get into it!

A New Starting Five

If you’ve read my stuff recently, you’ll probably know that the thing I’ve talked about the most is advocating for us to see this lineup more often. While not starting, it was a big part of our winning streak and we got away from it during our recent difficult stretch of games. In fact, the only time we used this lineup as our starting 5 was for the first Wake Forest game when Jordan Minor first cracked the starting lineup. That feels like eons ago, though, and a lot has changed since in the comfort level of the group playing together as well as the strategy around how we implement it. So, it’s possible that this group was just in anticipation of playing against Quintin Post, but utilizing it as our starting five was notable. Additionally, CTB commented in his post-game remarks that he liked how Rohde responded off of the bench, so it’s possible he’s signaling that to be more of his role moving forward as a 6th man-type (or 7th if Buchanan is 6th).

I discussed in my UNC review how we trotted this lineup out during our scoreless stretch but how it also held UNC scoreless during the same stretch (with Buchanan instead of Minor, although it was Buchanan who struggled when paired with this group on Wednesday and Minor who played well). Despite that, I discussed how with some tweaks to our approach, I thought that there was some opportunity for improved offense with the lineup while still keeping a high-level of defense. Interestingly, a lot of these recommendations were implemented! So… that’s pretty cool. Let’s first take a quick reminder at some of the defensive benefits of the group and then back up to how the offense functioned.

BIG 3-5 Defense

Just four clips from this section because I’ve spent much of the time previously talking up the defense of this unit. A lot of focus went into the offense about the lineup that closed the game, but this unit went on a 9-2 run to start the game and then picked up another two points on B.C. out of the half for a 9-point total margin over the game. Normally, I don’t differentiate between Jordan Minor and Blake Buchanan when playing with this group, but on Wednesday Buchanan struggled as the defensive anchor with this group and then was fine with a smaller lineup around him. That was likely just timing and him learning from his mistakes after the lineups had changed, but the consistency of him having defensive breakdowns while paired with this group is something to keep an eye on. Still, the starters themselves put us out to an almost 10-point margin over their collective run together.

The thing that immediately flew off of the paper was Ryan Dunn’s rebounding. He had a season high 13 in the game despite sitting out the last 9 minutes (except for the final defensive possession). The reason was because, by having him play the SF, he could crash down and attack the defensive (and, to a lesser extent, offensive) glass from the perimeter while Minor and Groves handled boxing out around the hoop.

Two clips to illustrate this point. In this first one, you’ll see him starting off guarding the 6’4″ Mason Madsen (#45), B.C.’s 43% three-point shooter. Madsen was 1-10 shooting from three, mostly due to Dunn’s outrageously intrusive contests, and got most of his offense going (10pts on 4-14 shooting) when Dunn was on the bench. But, after Dunn defends over the ball screen Madsen passes it over to the opposite wing. Minor gets too deep while defending Quinten Post (#12) (who is great – he scored 24 points and it felt like we did a pretty decent job on him!) on the pick and roll, and concedes a mid-range jumper in the process. Post misses, but look under the basket as the 6’7″ Devin McGlockton (#21) pushes Groves under the hoop and has good rebounding position. Normally, that would be Dunn attempting to hold McGlockton off. Instead, Dunn’s man, Madsen, backs out from the perimeter for floor balance, leaving Dunn free to crash down for the rebound. With McGlockton jockeying with Groves, watch how easily Dunn is able to swoop in and secure the board.

That’s a huge deal.

Let’s look at it one more time. This time, B.C. gets into transition and finds an open look for three from the corner, and this time it’s the 7’0″ Post keeping Jordan Minor pinned under the hoop for a rebound that would have surely been his… if not for Ryan Dunn flying down from the perimeter having picked up his man, the perimeter oriented Madsen. Dunn gives post no chance because he’s got a running start with his all-world athleticism and Post, despite being much bigger, is stationary trying to keep Minor at bay.

This is why our rebounding is so good with this unit (and we rebounded B.C. 37-30 despite the presence of Post and his 10) and why it’s such a stark juxtaposition from earlier in the season when Groves and Dunn were trying to hold this down at the 4-5. Minor and Groves do a solid job of holding their men at bay, and Dunn can just roam and go get it. And, really, any time you can find ways to unleash his mobility and range, you’re going to be better for it.

Two defensive sets from this group. This first one starts out with a double team by Groves with Minor in the post against… Post. We didn’t go to the double often in this game, instead often preferring to try to play straight up, but we were able to here and look at who are your 2-on-3 pieces on the back end. Ryan Dunn (who doesn’t have to double) and Reece Beekman. Are there any two you’d rather have in these roles, honestly? Dunn covers up Groves’s man on the dive and Post has to dribble out of the double team. We recover as the ball goes back out to the point and Jaeden Zackery (#3) feeds the ball into McGlockton quickly. Groves almost deflects the entry pass but does a good job holding firm and riding him baseline for a pass back to Post. Now he hands the ball off and attempts to slip another screen, taking a return pass, but Minor is able to get back into position on the catch with Groves, this time, lingering in the lane. Post attempts to whip a pass quickly to the corner and is off target through collecting himself and rushing.

The luxury of having Ryan Dunn on the back side while we double team is legitimate as he’s a mobile condor back there. Yet another defensive perk of the lineup.

Finally, this defensive set is from the second half. You’ve got a good flat hedge up front from Minor on a screen close to the logo. Not overly aggressive or pulled much farther past the three-point line, which is definitely an adjustment from the Pitt game and good to see. Both Groves and Dunn are there on the back side, so good size to contend with Post’s roll. B.C. swings it over to Madsen and Dunn recovers easily, and by this time Minor is back fronting Post. B.C. decides to reset everything and passes it around the perimeter some before getting it to post, this time near the three-point line. As he starts to drive, Groves bothers his dribble following his man, he passes out to Madsen who misses a three with a great Dunn contest in his face and then Groves, working to box McGlockton on the dive to the hoop on the shot, gets help from Beekman tipping the board over to McKneely.

It’s good positioning and team defense throughout, again, augmented by the collective length 3-5, Beekman being Beekman, and Dunn being a nightmare on their outside shooter.

Big 3-5 Defense

Okay, so we know this group defends well, but it really struggled to score against UNC. Here’s a look at some of the subtle adjustments that we made within the execution to improve our looks.

This was the first thing I clipped and was a focus that jumped out early. We played through Ryan Dunn as the ball handler more on the perimeter. Teams still give him some space out there, but his man does have to focus on him when he has the ball as opposed to being able to sag off of him, clog the lane, and entirely play help defense. Here we’re running Sides, and Beekman makes a priority of skip passing the ball to Dunn so that he can bring it to the point, balance the floor with Beekman cutting through, and find him in the corner for an open three.

Beekman doesn’t make this shot, but shifting Dunn to the passer up top while his man backs off and gives him easy passing lanes is a good adjustment. Now, with McKneely and Beekman on the wings in Sides, it’s easier to get a look like this, or drive. When Dunn is the blocker, his man is normally in much better positions within the paint to deter that. Just a subtle change in who is doing what that opens up some space.

Later in the game, when he had the ball on the perimeter like this, his man stayed off of him, so rather than shooting this three (he took a couple in the game that missed poorly), he takes up the space with his dribble, gets into the lane, and finishes the shot.

He had another one that I didn’t clip because it came out of a different lineup where he flew down the lane, almost scored over Post, and then tipped the ball back in himself. This is what we need to see from him; not accepting that his man won’t guard him, but forcing the issue and taking the opportunity that comes from it.

Just to reiterate, the issue here that we’re trying to solve is that when you play one of the Centers with Dunn, you have two non-shooting threats on the floor, which is problematic for spacing. But that’s also true for our previous starting lineup with Minor, Dunn, and Rohde. What Groves brings to the table that Rohde doesn’t is much better length and shooting, so it changes the calculus of the defense and allows for some mismatches.

For example, in this clip below, just like in the clip above, B.C. is putting McGlockton on Dunn and then matching the 6’4″ Madsen on the 6’9″ Groves. This means that Groves needs even less space to get his shot off because he’s not as worried about the contest. It also means that if Dunn ends up taking a three-pointer, like he does here because of all of the space, it’s still hard for B.C. to secure the glass. Now, you’ll see that we once again try Dunn at the point to facilitate and pull his man, but McGlockton has gotten more savvy and aggressive about sagging from there, this time he disrupts Beekman’s curl, knowing where to be in Sides, and dislodges the ball. Now, he has forever to recover to Dunn from where he cheated off of him, and he doesn’t recover worried about the shot, just to cut off a driving angle; so Dunn shoots it. Theoretically, this is exactly how B.C. would have wanted this possession to go, but Jake Groves crashes the glass and Madsen really doesn’t have much of a chance to keep him off of it, nor is he able to bother the easy put back attempt with Post having had to box out Minor.

It helped, actually, that Dunn missed SO badly; but it’s a great example of the mismatches that this lineup creates such that, even when something goes poorly, we have a chance to make something positive out of it.

Okay, here’s another way we adjusted with Minor and Dunn in and that’s when someone gets into the lane on a drive, both dive to the rim. This forces Dunn’s sagging defender to commit to him and pressures any potential rebounds. Watch this clip unfold, below. This is early in the game again and Madsen is on Dunn with McGlockton out on Groves. Minor sets a ball screen for Beekman with McKneely lingering under the hoop and Madsen sagging for help. At first, this isn’t ideal. Beekman uses his dribble to weave into the lane and keep Zackery behind him, but there really isn’t anywhere to go at first. But he’s patient. Minor moves down the top side of the lane and Dunn crashes in from the bottom. This forces both Post and Madsen to keep having to retreat, eventually allowing Beekman to get in close enough for a comfortable shot.

Note, Beekman makes this shot but, in waiting for Minor and Dunn to be around the rim, even if he doesn’t Dunn is in great shape for a tip in.

We pretty consistently had Dunn push inside toward the rim on these kinds of drives when his man tried to sag. This clip, below, shows some of the congestion issues with Madsen lingering in the lane throughout – but Minor keeps Post home by staying on the block, Beekman does a good job of working his way in for a good look, but if he missed the shot – Dunn is screaming toward the rim from the wing and likely would have had another opportunity at a put back.

This next one, below, might be one of the better examples of the intention behind this. McGlockton is on Dunn, and Minor sets a ball screen for Beekman. There’s really nowhere for them to go because McGlockton is sagging off of Dunn again, so Beekman passes back out to Dunn who resets the ball to the point. They isolate Beekman on Zackery in the mid-post, and Dunn cuts through now, taking McGlockton with him under the hoop. Not Beekman has room to work even though the area is congested because his side is cleared out and both post defenders hav their men right around the rim and have to stay close. Quinten Post does come over at the end, but he can’t get there in time and is lucky the foul was called on Zackery.

This is certainly not ideal spacing, but it does go to show that space can be created in a variety of ways and one of those ways is pressuring the rim with your players who the opposition is trying to sag off of. If they’re close enough to just catch a lob or easily get a defensive rebound, you really can’t leave them. It might not make a layup viable, but it gives Reece space to operate in that 3-7 foot range where he loves to work.

There’s still the ability to shoot out of these sets with McKneely and Groves (and Beekman if he’s open) and this was a cool look this group created by exploiting Minor screens. If you watch the beginning of the play, Minor attempts a ball screen for Beekman at the point, but that lane looks unwelcoming. Madsen has sagged off of Dunn and McGlockton, a pass away, has a pretty healthy buffer off of Groves as well. Instead, Beekman passes over to Dunn who gets it to Minor in the post. This is one thing I talked about last week – post up the players who are sagging, so I like this thought. Post actually deflects the ball, though, so Minor passes back out to Dunn who resets to McKneely and then to Beekman again. Beekman draws a switch with McGlockton but there’s still not really much space to work, so Dunn clears through to the other side and Minor sets a flare screen for McKneely, but then turns around and immediately sets it the other way. McKneely runs off of it well, takes the return pass, and nails the three.

I really like exploiting the flare screen action with McKneely and Minor here. For one, the desire for Madsen and Post to sag the lane does nothing to help it. In fact, Post playing so far off basically means that McKneely’s man is stuck having to play peek-a-boo on either side of Minor. Theoretically, McKneely and Minor could just keep setting up this action until it caught his man on one side or the other. Really great way to punish a sagging Center.

And, just the last thing I wanted to show out of this group was another benefit of having Madsen have to take Groves after they switched. There’s nothing open on this Beekman curl with McGlockton lingering from Dunn trying to clear out, but he holds the dribble and Groves rotates over to present himself for a three. Madsen’s close out is ineffective.

The story of the lineup that closed the game was the spacing and the shooting, but the story of this unit which was collectively most successful, was the defense and the matchup problems that it created for B.C.’s Small Forward.

Dante Harris and Questionable Lineup Decisions

So, there’s a lot going on here, but the reason that I call out Harris specifically in the title, though, is threefold. Firstly, he offers no shooting, compounding the issue we already face when Dunn and a Center are on the floor. In this case, Dunn and Beekman left the floor for rest. Rohde came in for Dunn and Harris came in for Beekman. So, even though we took a non-shooter off the floor in done, we replaced him with another, just at the PG position. Secondly, while offense is normally the issue with Harris (the team actually scored decently when he was in the game), defense hasn’t been amazing either, and B.C. continually looked to exploit the matchup as we’ll see shortly. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he pairs so poorly with our best player, Reece Beekman. Minutes when they’re both on the floor together represent the single worst efficiency minutes of any two-player combination on the entire team. So, for Dante, this means that his time either represents time that our best player isn’t on the floor OR it represents the worst minutes we can possibly get if they play together. Not a good combination.

The team was -7 for the 10 minutes Harris was in the game on Wednesday and +11 when he was out. Furthermore, not a single player other player who got time finished negative in BP/M. So, those who were on the floor with him during that -7 stretch were all in the positive while he wsa off. There were really no conflicting variables in this one as to when B.C. made most of their hay. Harris had 2 points, 1 rebound, and 3 personal fouls with no assists during his run.

Potentially compounding the issue was Rohde coming off of the bench at the same time that Harris did. Rohde played pretty well later in the game when we had our non-Dunn lineup on the floor, which we’ll get to, but aligning him with Harris (and, at times, Murray as well!) but many of our worst defenders on the floor together at the same time. You could see it on the very first inbound play when they got in.

On this one, Rohde is guarding Madsen who has to be thrilled after having Dunn in his face for the first 8 minutes of the game. He loses him wrapping around a bunch of curl screens to the corner and gets caught trailing. Harris is in position to help but can’t get an effective contest on the shot as Madsen just elevates and pulls up over him.

Not long later, B.C. started intentionally targeting Harris in the post, first with the 6’3″ Claudell Harris Jr. (#1), here:

This is why he was getting in foul trouble because he was being intentionally targeted back-to-the-basket, by guards that aren’t big by ACC Standards.

And later with the 6’2″ Zackery, here:

He was also beaten one-on-one off of the dribble and elevated over, here, where Zackery was clearly isolating him to use his size to finish over him:

That one came later in the game to give B.C. a one-point lead as he was playing alongside of Reece.

And, lastly, here he is miscommunicating about a screen with Dunn and giving up the three.

It’s possible that one was Dunn’s fault but it seems very unlikely because he was guarding a 4 so they wouldn’t have naturally wanted to switch that one, and he opts not to.

It was the defense that was very poor when Dante was in the game in no small part because of Dante. And so that brings me to a couple of thoughts – for one, he’s supposed to be in the game because he’s a phenomenal on-ball defender. He’s definitely playing still hurt as we’ve heard that he’s been practicing lighter and has been icing the ankle. But his on-ball defense was rough in that one and B.C. regularly exploited him while he was in. He also missed assignments which also cost us points… so why aren’t we playing Elijah Gertrude? He also missed an assignment against UNC but was pretty dominant defensively otherwise. He wouldn’t have been posted up. He offered more ability to create in a congested lane even if he doesn’t offer more shooting. He offers more on the glass. He pairs fine with Beekman when you need to go that route. B.C. wasn’t pressuring so it’s not like ball handlers were being harassed, and we literally just used him for 19 minutes against the #10 team in the nation where he performed well but not once in a must-win at the Conte Forum.

The answer is likely comfort. CTB is more comfortable with Harris handling the ball when Beekman is out of the game, and is still willing to try some overlap otherwise. But why were we comfortable running for 1/4th of the game with someone who scored one basket on a broken play, created zero assists for others, and was a liability on defense? Especially if he’s still playing hurt, why force him in there if the output is consistently (and it’s been consistent for a while now) not good? I can’t imagine it sends a good message to a kid that we don’t play him meaningful minutes for almost two months, then play him almost half a game against our toughest opponent of the season, and then not play you at all the following game, especially when considering how Harris is playing.

So, yes, I’m advocating strongly that we give Eli at least 5 meaningful minutes per game to see if he has the same positive impact that he did against UNC and then scale as appropriate. But, even if you’re determined that he’s only a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency situation (which I don’t agree with), even if it’s just time to tighten the rotation as we head into pressure game situations, you could play Rohde at the point while Reece is sitting… and in must-win games you can certainly afford to play Reece more than 32 minutes.

We had stretches of this game (and, again, the most important part to stress here is that this game should have been treated like an elimination game, it was that important) like in this clip, below, where we had Harris, Rohde, Murray, Dunn, and Minor on the court together.

Which, this unit has only played 6 off and def possessions together all season so some of the clunkiness is to be expected! This stretch actually wasn’t that bad offensively, it was the defense that struggled, as seen above. I’m just making a broader point about trying a group so head-scratching in conceit and under-utilized throughout the year during such a big game.

With about 8 minutes to go in the game, tied and losing, we had a lineup with Harris, Beekman, and Rohde at the 1-3!

Some of it has to be from Rohde coming off of the bench as opposed to starting. The players he was paired with were a little abnormal and we ended up with a good chunk of time where our three best players (Beekman, IMK, Dunn) were all out of the game; but that (the starting five) was a positive change, so we’ll need to find a way to better stagger the subs. Personally, given a season’s worth of tape and data now, I think it’s time to scale back on Dante. Play Reece a little more, play Rohde as the backup PG, give Eli a little run… all options that I think could/would be good.

Thankfully, we were not punished for the two successive stretches because of the…

Spacing Lineup

After the game, CTB said it wasn’t overly intentional that they kept Ryan Dunn out of the game for most of the final quarter of the game, but that he liked what he saw from the group that was in. This group was Reece Beekman, Isaac McKneely, Andrew Rohde, Jake Groves, and Blake Buchanan. This is where the visible increase in aggression had the most impact in this game, as players were willing to take their open shots without hesitation, just like we’d seen earlier in the game, but this group offered the most combined spacing. But, the lineup was so on fire that we scored at least one point on ELEVEN straight possessions. This from a team that hadn’t cracked 50 in the previous three games. So, it’s no wonder CTB locked in here!

So, when this group entered, we were down 3-points with the Harris second-half stretch just ending. We got a stop, and this was a designed play for the first possession. It looks like Sides, but as Beekman takes the ball at the point and McKneely goes down to the block, instead of he and Rohde going out to different wings off of pin down screens as we’d normally see, McKneely sets a screen for Rohde who then runs a curl off of a Buchanan pin down. McKneely then follows the action, running off of the Buchanan screen himself and using the spacing to get an open look (for him, at least) from outside.

That was a pretty sweet, designed variant from Sides, but then here’s another, cool look out of it below. Beekman’s initial drive after the ball screen gets stymied, so he pulls it back out and gives it to Rohde before running that similar flare and return screen with Groves that we saw IMK run with Minor earlier. He gets the ball on the wing but doesn’t shoot, but this time, positioned all the way out on the wing, Groves sets a screen from a different angle for McKneely, springing him into the corner. It doesn’t take much space, and iMac buries it again.

After executing those two shots out of Sides variants, we changed our offense to a “roll and replace” action and ran a clinic on it. Normally, when we’ve run our “Flow” style ball screen offenses, it primarily ends up being a two-man game and our support players are more static, either in both corners and on the opposite wing, or around the opposite perimeter of a cleared out side. Here, however, we leveraged McKneely as the “replacer” as the screen and roll between Beekman and Buchanan takes place. What this means is that McKneely starts low, under the hoop or in the paint, and then as Buchanan sets a ball screen for Beekman, he runs to the top of the three-point line to draw his defender with him and occupy and potential help defense.

Let’s take a first look at it, below. We start this clip with Rohde and Groves in the two corners and Buchanan setting a ball screen for Beekman. McKneely’s at the ACC logo. The advantage set by the screen leaves Madsen (no guarding Reece) chasing the play, with Post having to slide over to help stop the drive. As Buchanan rolls, McKneely passes him on his way out to the three-point line, which his man has to chase because of what a good shooter he is. This would mean that Buchanan would be open at the basket, but McGlockton helps off of Groves to keep that from happening. Beekman, reading this, takes the drive deep and whips a baseline pass out to Groves for the open three, which he sinks.

Now, as you can see, we don’t often have spacing like this. That’s because Dunn would have to be in either corner and B.C. could just making helping off of him the priority. For example, McGlockton helping off of Dunn there wouldn’t have been an issue and if it was Dunn in Rohde’s corner, that man could have sagged in to help on the drive without worry about the kick out (and Post could have played farther back as a result). This play really doesn’t work with Dunn on the floor unless he’s the ball screener which defeats the defensive benefit we’ve gained from playing a true center.

Don’t worry, I’m about to show a bunch more of these; it was almost like they were doing drills to show the varying ways to run this play and every time B.C. did something differently, we’d counter. Here’s the next possession down. This time Beekman angles a little wider, taking Post even farther away from the hoop, and this time McGlockton is slower to rotate because of what happened on the previous play. Reece is able to throw a beautiful lob to Buchanan at the rim who gets fouled from behind.

How often do we generate this quality of spacing? It’s rare. It’s reminiscent of watching N.C. State and Pitt attack us with their ball screen actions.

So here we go again, same set up with McKneely low, Groves and Rohde in the corners, Buchanan ball screen. B.C. is trying to switch defenders, too, placing Claudell Harris Jr. on Beekman. Watch this timing, Buchanan sets up the screen one way then pivots to set it the other, catching Harris Jr.. McKneely is a little late to replace on the play leaving Zackery right there with Beekman driving after the screen from Buchanan. But Zackery is obviously so keyed into not leaving Beekman, he runs away from Beekman with a wide-open path to the basket! Post tries to get back into the play and Beekman is mad at himself for hesitating on the finish and just drawing the foul – but it’s still a great look at the rim and a trip to the FT line!

If you ever wonder to yourself how extreme an opponent’s scouting report must be with regard to McKneely, just picture Zack

ery just abandoning the lane in a panic to chase McKneely to the three-point line while Beekman is completely clear moving toward the hoop.

Okay, this next one was super exciting, not only because the pass, left-handed, cross-court, was incredibly, but also because it was Rohde on the receiving end and he was able to knock down the opportunity. They’ve got Zackery on Beekman now (you can’t say B.C. wasn’t trying to find solutions!) and this time Madsen drops down from the opposite corner off of Rohde to help on Buchanan being open near the hoop. The rest is Beekman being insane and Rohde capitalizing.

Now, this time B.C. attempts to defend by putting Post on Groves in the corner and the 6’7″ Prince Aligbe (#10) on Buchanan. When Buchanan sets the ball screen on Zackery, Aligbe switches with him, taking Beekman and with Zackery attempting to defend the roll. But this leaves the 6’2″ Zackery on the 6’11” Buchanan and Aligbe on Beekman. In an ideal world you probably just throw the ball into Buchanan and let him go to work on the smaller player, but this works too, and Reece isolates and blows by Aligbe on the way to drawing a foul.

Okay, so that didn’t work, now B.C. puts Post back on Buchanan but attempts to switch the ball screen again… and that goes about as you’d expect. Beekman absolutely roasts him and it’s was really pretty!

Finally, after all of that just carving up the B.C. defense, we went BACK to Sides to close the game. Beekman does his action where he fakes coming out to the wing and fades into the corner, Rohde hits him with a good pass, both of the B.C. defenders are drawn to his baseline drive, and Buchanan hits his nice little floater to get the margin to 7 with under 1:30 to play!

We talk about the message of playing with confidence and aggression on offense seeming to have clicked coming into this game – that shot by Blake is a great example of it!

Defensively, there were some tradeoffs, like hedging too hard and this group struggling to recover on the back side, here:

And Rohde, again, kind of losing Madsen on an inbound play, here:

And B.C. got some bail-out calls for Post down the stretch as well; so we needed every bit of that offensive efficiency down the stretch to close the game out; but man was it refreshing to see the floor open up again!

Now, a few notes from the author here. I think you could just as easily put Taine Murray in that top side corner where Rohde was in this set and, given their shooting percentages, possibly should – but Rohde was able to cash his lone look during this stint and had some good defensive moments as well, like this board which I really liked, pinning Quinten Post:

Given how much CTB loves to play Rohde, it’s good to see him have some positive moments down the stretch and hopefully that will carry some momentum with him.

In Conclusion

I do think that this “spacing lineup” created one of those flashbulb moments that CTB will remember and call upon again. Likely when we’re trailing or in a situation where we need some explosive offense, he’ll look to that unit with these sets. I wouldn’t question Dunn’s importance and/or efficacy as a lesson-learned, though, just because it was his absence that opened the offensive floor up. Let’s keep in mind that the starting lineup was the most effective over the whole game and built a good lead on the back of their defense, AND that our defense wasn’t elite during this stretch, it’s just that our offense outpaced it. A little colder shooting or a better defense and it likely won’t be worth the tradeoffs. It’s something we’re going to have to play by ear, but it’s good to have another weapon that had such a positive moment, AND it’s exciting to see us having clearly put some effort into the offensive side of the ball, trying to come up with some new options after the UNC game. It’s good to see the responses work well!

This game tomorrow isn’t as important as the B.C. game in the sense that a loss shouldn’t change our tournament potential – but a win would almost assuredly get us into the tournament. I like that we’re still clearly trying new things both in lineups and in tactics (offensively and defensively). It feels like we’re getting closer to having a final product that will make whatever our ceiling is more attainable… but there’s still some significant tweaking left to do!