Bradley Observations

[mwitt]

If this is the first game you saw, I don't know how you concluded Brackins is a stud. I think he's a stud too, but he didn't get a chance to show that tonight. We had a really rough time feeding the ball to the post, and most the time when we did, Jiri turned it over. He hasn't been the same player so far.

Garrett can really drive, and that will be huge if he can finish his shots. Somehow, he failed to hit the rim on a wide open layup tonight. And he really should not shoot the ball outside 15 feet in a game ever.

I thought Vette looked pretty good. Rahshon was the player of the game, in my opinion.

We're not going to win many games when we get zero points from our starting two guard. I wish he'd just hit a three, so he can stop thinking about it so much.

The game could have been worse if they were hitting more of their wide open looks from three, but I don't think a game like this was all that surprising. Bradley has excellent ball movement. I was a little surprised with how little success we had getting the ball into the paint, though. You could tell their gameplan was to try to take advantage of our young guards.

 

[mwitt]

I just don't think Wesley would have made a big difference unless he could have hit a bunch of 3s. Our problem this year is guard play.

Wesley would have started at the two guard....

 

[mwitt]

I hope were working on some zone D. We won't be able to stop dribble penetration. I thought we had too many substituions as well. We never were able to get into any kind of groove offensively. Without Diante's play, we would have been blown out.

Our starting point guard hitting 4 three pointers kind of kept us around, too. He hit a big three in the second half to cut a 7 point deficit to 4.

 

[jbhtexas]

Time to apply the "Chizik Test", i.e. was there any improvment from the games last weekend? ISU is very sloppy passing and handling the ball. That is one thing to track as far as game to game improvement, and this area didn't seem much better tonight.

Another issue for me is that ISU is still seems to be weak in the post/power forward position. I hate to say it, but Jiri still looks soft to me. ISU will sink to the bottom of the Big 12 without improved post play and rebounding. This is another thing to track as far as game to game improvement, and I think there might have been regression in this area tonight...

 

[BryceC]

I don't know why they didn't just let Brackins shoot that 17-19 footer all night, he was money with that shot.

Let's end the Peterson/Hollway comparisons now and forever please.

As for what Lucca could do, I think he could play better defense than Haluska and perhaps make a shot. He would certainly be a contributor at this point.

I don't know if we win with Wesley, but we didn't do all that terribly on the road, totally undermanned. I honestly feel better about the rest of the year after this game than I did before it.

And I agree with others that Vette was very solid tonight. He's going to be up and down this year (3A Iowa basketball is a lot different than college basketball) but he definitly makes smart plays and rebounds well. I was impressed with his defense as well, he's more athletic than I thought he was.

 

[cstrunk]

One thing I didn't like seeing was us getting killed in the paint. I thought this was going to be our strong point? Every time we got the ball down low, we got double or triple teamed and we turned the ball over or got stuffed. We've got to be able to kick out and find the open man. How can no one be open when there are three guys on one person? This just goes to show that Bradley is a good team. They've got good defense, great speed, and play-makers at guard that are experienced.

Right now I don't really know what the strength of our team is, but I agree that it SHOULD be post play, but we sure haven't seen that so far.

 

[Wesley]

Wesley would have started at the two guard....

Now you know why he will be our #2 guard.


The boxscore was surprising the same for the two teams except they had 12 steals to our 6. That is more of the guard problem.

 

[BryceC]

Right now I don't really know what the strength of our team is, but I agree that it SHOULD be post play, but we sure haven't seen that so far.

I think this is because our backcourt is so suspect. Haluska isn't making shots, and Garrett can't shoot, so they are zoning us and collapsing on the guys down low. Peterson has provided some great shooting but he's short enough guys can usually get back out on him and defend a pass out of the post.

Wesley could really help at this point.

 

[ISUFan22]

Give it a week or two, the comparisons will creep up again.

The big reason we're getting doubled the second the ball goes inside is no one respects our guards and right now - they have no reason to.

 

[Iastfan112]

I still doubt all these folks who say Peterson and Haluska are worlds better than Dunson and McIntosh

 

[Rickybaby]

One thing I didn't like seeing was us getting killed in the paint. I thought this was going to be our strong point? Every time we got the ball down low, we got double or triple teamed and we turned the ball over or got stuffed./quote]

I agree completely. You and I and it appears opposing coaches know that our strength is in the post. If the ball doesn't get into the paint or you double/triple team the ball when it does and there is no one to make you pay; you take away our best (only?) weapon and the game is yours. If we don't get this fixed pronto it may be a very long season. We either need to 1) feed the post better 2) when it gets into the post, finish strong or 3) pass it out of the paint and someone needs to make a perimeter shot.

 

[tufnel]

I still doubt all these folks who say Peterson and Haluska are worlds better than Dunson and McIntosh

Petersen and Haluska will get us by until the players who are worlds better can gain some experience and confidence. Frankly, none of the 4 players mentioned are really Big XII players. Garrett will be soon and Lucca hopefully will be when he gets on the court.

 

[rkthompson]

If Wesley would have played there would have been three major improvement areas. The first would have been less double teams inside. You can't double off Wesley's guy because he can shoot if he is open or dribble buy a defender that is running at him. The second would have been better rebounding on both sides of the ball. Most of Bradley's boards came on mid range rebounds due to their quickness. This is an area that Wesley would have made an impact. Third is entry passing, our wing players did not have good entry passes tonight and Wesley could have made good passes as defenders would have to respect his driving ability and could not pressure him as they did some of our other players. I think he would have made an impact tonight. Would we have won, I don't know, but we would have played better.

 

[GBC]

Dunson was better than haluska and peterson combined, would trade those two for him in a sec. On the other hand mcintosh talent is equivalent to peterson and haluska they are not d1 talent espically in a major conference.

When Garrett is in we look like a team with talent, when peterson and haluska is in we look like we have less talent than a missouri valley team

Our five best players are(in no order)

1. Diante Garret
2. Wesley Johnson
3. Rahshon Clark
4. Craig Brackins
5. Jiri Hubalek

I think that by the time the year is over Boozer and Vette will getting more playing time than peterson, haluska, and thompson. I am not sure where CJ will fit in.

 

[jbhtexas]

We either need to 1) feed the post better 2) when it gets into the post, finish strong or 3) pass it out of the paint and someone needs to make a perimeter shot.

Regarding (2), Hubalek is listed as 6'11" 240...that's plenty big enough to inflict a little Cato-style whoop-*** from the post. He needs to start inflicting. The little finesse scoop shots need to go. Take a couple of steps and initiate some contact.

I will agree that the double/triple teaming in the post is an issue, but it is not the sole problem for ISU's interior ineffectiveness.

 

[gocubs2118]

This is not the game to judge our inside post game on. Bradley guarded us down there as tough as we probably will be all year. Once Garrett gets worked into the rotation more and starts driving to the hoop. Our inside game will come back, just give it some time.

 

[shildreth]

I think that by the time the year is over Boozer and Vette will getting more playing time than peterson, haluska, and thompson. I am not sure where CJ will fit in.

My opinion, he won't.

 

[CyRocket]

Some fans need to get over it-Dunson and MacIntosh are gone. They are not coming back. To say that Bradley will improve as much as ISU this year is fooling themselves. We have so many new players we are going to improve immesurably this year. We played a good team, on the road, without our best player and people are saying we couldn't beat Bradley later in the year has no idea of the effect that seasoning and Wesley will have on every man on the floor. Get real people!!

 

[Prone2Clone]

I'll probably hear plenty of arguments for what I'm about to say, but from a 50,000 foot level, I am pissed to lose to a MO Valley team. In my opinion, a decent Big 12 team should rarely if ever lose to a MVC team whether home or away or on a neutral court. So this means we're not a decent Big 12 team and are going to probably have another mediocre season. Bradley lost their first game to UIC for cripes sake.

I just want us to get back to being an NCAA-caliber team quickly. I think that's where ISU hoops belongs year in and year out.

 

[Rickybaby]

Prone2Clone,

You need to read the prior messages and understand the nature of college hoops. The MVC is NOT a bad conference and Bradley is NOT a bad team. In fact, the Braves are actually a pretty darn good team and will likely make the big dance next spring. Also, we were playing on the road, playing lots of freshman who will be more seasoned by that end of the year, and we were playing without our best player in Wesley Johnson.

Even with all that, we still played a decent game, kept it close, and had our chances towards the end. This is not a disaster, is not a surprise, and actually I see it as a way for this team to grow and get better as a team. So, sorry, I disagree with your post. And I also disagree that you think this team is not an NCAA caliber team. I think they are close if the right things happen (like Diante maturing very quickly). What it comes down to is that I don't think things are as bad as you seem to think they are. Regards.