Yeah this is my problem with the lazy “we just don’t have shooters” analysis. In Hilton Adams and TTU showed that you defend ISU as if we do have shooters until you pay the price for extending. It still hasn’t happened consistently, and ISU has been easy to defend. It’s true that this team doesn’t have shooters and will not be a consistently good offensive team. But it does not need to be a historically bad offense.
I think Tech’s über-athletic, #1 ranked packline defense isn’t exactly the benchmark we should use for how teams guard us, but we’ve definitely been scouted.
Teams know that Kunc and Grill won’t take them off the dribble and know that our drivers struggle against interior length and athleticism and they don’t respect the dump off because athletic bigs can recover and contest against George and Jones and neither is a threat at the second or third level. Everyone except Brockington is only dangerous at one, maybe two levels, so it’s not hard to know where to be. And even if you get beat you can foul because our most fouled players have struggled at the line.
I have no idea what the offense could be doing differently schematically, but I wonder if shortening the rotation was a mistake. I feel like if there’s not much of a production difference you play all of Walker, Enaruna and Jackson based on matchups and production and you force the other team to scout everyone and be disciplined against a variety of threats.