Three point shooting killed us last night!

[AdaSooner]

Iowa State drained nearly half as many 3-pointers Saturday night in a 77-70 win as Oklahoma has drained in 10 Big 12 Conference games.

In conference play, OU junior guard Steven Pledger has accounted for 26 of the Sooners' 34 baskets beyond the arc.

In 10 league games, Carl Blair has four 3-pointers, Romero Osby three and Tyler Neal one.

The quote above was taken from the Oklahoman article pinned to the top. It points to the primary reason OU has lost three games they should have won this season, two in conference play.

ISU is not a better team than OU. They simply have players who can make shots from behind the arc, and more of them. We saw that last night when OU was hit with a barrage of 30 three, 15 of them finding their mark.

Here are a few cold, hard facts:

*** ISU has seven players in their rotation who can burn you at any point of the game from three point range.

*** Six of those players hit shots in last night's game.

***Those seven players average between 33% and 50% from three. The worst three point shooter on the team, Melvin Ejim, shoots only 22% from deep. He was 2 of 4 in last night's game.

You can point to any number of reasons why OU lost, among them turnovers in the last four minutes when the game was still well in reach. You could also argue that OU did a poor job at defending the three, and you would be right. But it's a lot easier to defend one player who is a legitimate threat to score from deep than to find a way to stop three to four players (depending on which players are on the floor) who can actually make those shots.

I don't know why it has been so difficult for OU to sign really good perimeter shooters the past few years? We always seem to have one or two who are at least capable of being consistent from behind the arc. But, seven, with six of them making threes in one game? That's a luxury I hope to see one day, but can only dream about for now.

 

[thebigabd]

Well, they could have signed Tyrus Mcgee if they wanted to, but they chose to ignore the best shooter in juco basketball for some reason. He is from Stringtown, had a great juco career, and never got a look from OU.

Plus, Calvin Newell was a very capable shooter and they were counting on him being here.

 

[bocabull]

ISU did a great job of moving the ball to get a wide open look. This team could make a run in the tournament.

Looks like the mayor is going to have a long strong run as coach there. He clearly out coached Kruger yesterday. We were not prepared for their rapid ball movement.

We also clearly lack perimeter shooters too. Hopefully the 3 additions next year can all shoot the rock.

 

[Riseandfire10]

Iowa St is a better team than OU, if OU would have hit a bunch of three pointers in Ames everyone on this board would be saying OU was a better team. Iowa St has has more talented players and OU needs better guards to be in the top half of the big 12.

 

[AdaSooner]

Iowa St is a better team than OU, if OU would have hit a bunch of three pointers in Ames everyone on this board would be saying OU was a better team. Iowa St has has more talented players and OU needs better guards to be in the top half of the big 12.

That's just it. I'm saying OU IS the best team. The difference is that our opponents have perimeter shooters who can make shots and we don't. That was a major reason we lost at Cincy and at A&M.

It's the same ol' story every year! :facepalm

 

[Dr Sleep]

"You live by the3 and you die by the 3."

 

[opsooner]

......... You could also argue that OU did a poor job at defending the three, and you would be right. But it's a lot easier to defend one player who is a legitimate threat to score from deep than to find a way to stop three to four players (depending on which players are on the floor) who can actually make those shots...................

OU played a defense most of the game that was not designed to stop the 3-pt shooter. We were often doubling and tripling inside. Any team with skill can create an open 3 point shot out of that. If we knew they had 3 or 4 players who could score from out there why would we do that?

Also, OU does not have the speed or quickness to defend all over the court. We do not have the speed to sag in the lane and then get back outside to stop the 3s - so I ask the same question. I said it in the game thread, I would have taken the chance at letting their guards beat us off the dribble and tailed them closely into indecision and letting Fitz or Osby help pick up the slack. I don't think their guards ever wanted to take the ball to the rim. They just waited for us to sag in so they could kick out. They have a good inside player but we treated him like he was Chamberlain or Alcindor.

You are right that we have some guys who are always on the floor and cannot score from beyond the arc (nor inside it). We also don't have guards that can beat anyone off the dribble in a half-court offense. That makes it tough to get open shots and average shooters need to be open.

So, while OU does have some strengths over ISU, ISU is the better team.

 

[Sawyer]

ISU is not a better team than OU. They simply have players who can make shots from behind the arc, and more of them. We saw that last night when OU was hit with a barrage of 30 three, 15 of them finding their mark.

Don't really understand this one.

Having several good shooters is part of being a good team, and it's helped Iowa State beat teams all year. This wasnt an aberration for them. They've been playing well all year.

 

[Krugerfan52]

OU played a defense most of the game that was not designed to stop the 3-pt shooter. We were often doubling and tripling inside. Any team with skill can create an open 3 point shot out of that. If we knew they had 3 or 4 players who could score from out there why would we do that?

Also, OU does not have the speed or quickness to defend all over the court. We do not have the speed to sag in the lane and then get back outside to stop the 3s - so I ask the same question. I said it in the game thread, I would have taken the chance at letting their guards beat us off the dribble and tailed them closely into indecision and letting Fitz or Osby help pick up the slack. I don't think their guards ever wanted to take the ball to the rim. They just waited for us to sag in so they could kick out. They have a good inside player but we treated him like he was Chamberlain or Alcindor.

You are right that we have some guys who are always on the floor and cannot score from beyond the arc (nor inside it). We also don't have guards that can beat anyone off the dribble in a half-court offense. That makes it tough to get open shots and average shooters need to be open.

So, while OU does have some strengths over ISU, ISU is the better team.

I agree. Had we been playing an unstoppable post player that couldnt pass and would score 40 if we didn't double team him, I could understand the strategy. But Royce White is a poor free-throw shooter and a good passer. We played right into his hands. He is totally content to just pass to the open guy. He would rather do that than drive and possibly be sent to the FT line.

We gave them wide open threes all night. If we had stayed out on the 3-pt shooters White might have scored 15-20 pts, but ISU wouldn't have scored 77 off 15 3-pointers.

This game reminded me of one of Kelvin's last NCAA games when we got upset by Utah and he double-teamed Andrew Bogut all game. Bogut hit open guys for layups, dunks and 3-pointers and we never made an adjustment. We made our strategy clear early just like yesterday, they adjusted quickly and we never did.

That was probably Royce White's easiest game last night. He wasn't the least bit frustrated in not scoring because his teammates were getting easy shots all game.

 

[WTSooner]

I agree. Had we been playing an unstoppable post player that couldnt pass and would score 40 if we didn't double team him, I could understand the strategy. But Royce White is a poor free-throw shooter and a good passer. We played right into his hands. He is totally content to just pass to the open guy. He would rather do that than drive and possibly be sent to the FT line.

We gave them wide open threes all night. If we had stayed out on the 3-pt shooters White might have scored 15-20 pts, but ISU wouldn't have scored 77 off 15 3-pointers.

This game reminded me of one of Kelvin's last NCAA games when we got upset by Utah and he double-teamed Andrew Bogut all game. Bogut hit open guys for layups, dunks and 3-pointers and we never made an adjustment. We made our strategy clear early just like yesterday, they adjusted quickly and we never did.

That was probably Royce White's easiest game last night. He wasn't the least bit frustrated in not scoring because his teammates were getting easy shots all game.

I understand what you are saying, but we don't have the horses inside to give fouls to White all night long. We need Osby and Fitz on the floor as much as possible. Playing a defense that pretty much encourages us to simply hack White when he gets in the paint, wasn't really an option.

That said, at some point in the second half, I probably would have helped less, and tried to control the three pointers. I guess LK figured they'd go cold at some point, and they did for awhile, just not long enough, I guess.

 

[WTSooner]

I don't know why it has been so difficult for OU to sign really good perimeter shooters the past few years?

Not to turn this into a Capel bashing thread, but the answer to your question is simple. Kelvin, for the most part, recruited skill and character above athleticism. Capel came in and recruited athletes over skilled players, and while not on purpose, recruited some pretty low character guys in the process.

Seriously, what kids did Capel recruit that were suppose to be good shooters at this level? Pledger. TMG (if he was able to get his shot off). I can't think of anybody else. Cam was an athlete. Willie had a decent shot, but certainly wasn't a "shooter". Willis was an athlete. Newell wasn't a great shooter. Davis wasn't, but turned himself into a decent one. I just don't think Capel placed an emphasis on recruiting shooters.

 

[AdaSooner]

I understand what you are saying, but we don't have the horses inside to give fouls to White all night long. We need Osby and Fitz on the floor as much as possible. Playing a defense that pretty much encourages us to simply hack White when he gets in the paint, wasn't really an option.

That said, at some point in the second half, I probably would have helped less, and tried to control the three pointers. I guess LK figured they'd go cold at some point, and they did for awhile, just not long enough, I guess.

I agree with this. Clearly OU's game plan was to keep White in check, and it worked. I'm sure Kruger didn't expect six of his teammates to shoot a combined 50% from three the entire game. One of the points I made earlier is that with seven very capable long range shooters on ISU's roster, you can't gear your defense to stop one or two players, the way OU's opponents do in every game we play. You have to "pick your poison" and hope their shooters cool off. That didn't happen and it cost us.

But, what everyone seems to be missing in focusing on our failure to defend the three point line, is that OU had no answer to ISU's barrage of three pointers. As the headline in the DOK articles says, "Pledger is the Sooners' only three point threat." Every team we play knows that if they design their defense around stopping him, no one else on the team can beat them from deep. That leaves Fitz and Osby to do their usual good job to keep us in the game. It just wasn't enough on Saturday.

 

[AdaSooner]

Not to turn this into a Capel bashing thread, but the answer to your question is simple. Kelvin, for the most part, recruited skill and character above athleticism. Capel came in and recruited athletes over skilled players, and while not on purpose, recruited some pretty low character guys in the process.

Seriously, what kids did Capel recruit that were suppose to be good shooters at this level? Pledger. TMG (if he was able to get his shot off). I can't think of anybody else. Cam was an athlete. Willie had a decent shot, but certainly wasn't a "shooter". Willis was an athlete. Newell wasn't a great shooter. Davis wasn't, but turned himself into a decent one. I just don't think Capel placed an emphasis on recruiting shooters.

Very good point! In thinking about the players Capel brought in, none, except Pledger, were known for their perimeter shooting. Some were very good athletes who could score in other ways. But knocking down shots with any consistency was not a strength for the majority of players he signed.

 

[Sawyer]

Clearly OU's game plan was to keep White in check, and it worked.

White is a great passer and Iowa State has multiple dangerous three point shooters.

The plan to double White inside and give up outside shots clearly did not work. He had 7 assists and OU was lit up from three, and you lost.

 

[WTSooner]

White is a great passer and Iowa State has multiple dangerous three point shooters.

The plan to double White inside and give up outside shots clearly did not work. He had 7 assists and OU was lit up from three, and you lost.

That in and of itself, doesn't mean it was a bad strategy. We might have lost worse if we didn't double him. He gets Fitz in foul trouble, that kills our offense, and then ISU does what they want.

 

[AdaSooner]

White is a great passer and Iowa State has multiple dangerous three point shooters.

The plan to double White inside and give up outside shots clearly did not work. He had 7 assists and OU was lit up from three, and you lost.

Isn't that pretty much what I said? Our defense worked to stop White, but it failed miserably in stopping their perimeter shooters. The plan backfired and added another game to our loss column.

 

[Sawyer]

That in and of itself, doesn't mean it was a bad strategy. We might have lost worse if we didn't double him. He gets Fitz in foul trouble, that kills our offense, and then ISU does what they want.

I could see that, except the same guy also claims OU is the better team. If you're a better team AND implement a strategy that "works," you shouldn't lose by 7 at home. If you're talking about a narrow loss in Lawrence or something like that, I can buy it. But a home loss to a supposedly inferior team... not so much.

Isn't that pretty much what I said? Our defense worked to stop White, but it failed miserably in stopping their perimeter shooters. The plan backfired and added another game to our loss column.

When he's able to easily create shots for other people, you aren't stopping him. You're keeping him from scoring, but his impact on the game is still profound. Kruger's strategy against White didn't neutralize him at all IMO.

I guess you could say it worked, but if that was the goal it was a poor strategy.

 

[AdaSooner]

When he's able to easily create shots for other people, you aren't stopping him. You're keeping him from scoring, but his impact on the game is still profound. Kruger's strategy against White didn't neutralize him at all IMO.

I guess you could say it worked, but if that was the goal it was a poor strategy.

Oh, I agree with you now that we know the final score. But it's easier to say that when you have the benefit of hindsight.

 

[Sawyer]

Oh, I agree with you now that we know the final score. But it's easier to say that when you have the benefit of hindsight.

It's not like ISU randomly hit shots they rarely make. That strategy played into what ISU does well (it's also a strategy that would be pretty unwise against Missouri; it'll be interesting to see what Kruger does there).

 

[StatGeek]

I could see that, except the same guy also claims OU is the better team. If you're a better team AND implement a strategy that "works," you shouldn't lose by 7 at home. If you're talking about a narrow loss in Lawrence or something like that, I can buy it. But a home loss to a supposedly inferior team... not so much.



When he's able to easily create shots for other people, you aren't stopping him. You're keeping him from scoring, but his impact on the game is still profound. Kruger's strategy against White didn't neutralize him at all IMO.

I guess you could say it worked, but if that was the goal it was a poor strategy.

So in conference play White averages 14.0 ppg, 5.5 asts, & 9.7 boards.
We hold him to 3/7/4 and we didn't neutralize him at all? If anyone wants to suggest that we should have altered our approach sooner than we did I'll listen, but your statement is absurd.