ISU

[mikechristoffer]

The zone didn't help. Murrell's midgets cannot defeat a decent team unless they shoot the lights out. Their inside play is not clicking and the team, at times, seems like it is just mailing it in. This team, which was picked to win the league, has to beat a mediocre Sac State team or may not make the 6 team tournament. After seeing PSU blow out ISU in the past, this game makes one wonder what is going on at PSU. The posts do not have a clue who is going to play and who is not. The basic line up of 4 guards and a small forward has problems guarding anyone with any size in the paint and loses the rebound battle time and time again. Look at the stats: blocks: 3 to 0, offensive rebounds: 15 to 8, defensive rebounds: 26 to 18, assists: 18-8. The team seems to stand around and watch Lanz shoot and drive to the basket. Stephanie plays 23 minutes and has one rebound. Lanz plays 25 with 2. Samms plays 8 minutes. This team really, really needs a post who will control the paint and they just cannot seem to find one.

 

[bbjunkie]

Gotta give credit to Idaho State for playing a tough, physical defense in this game and not giving PSU any easy shots or open looks throughout the entire game. I must point out that this game was one of the most poorly officiated games that I have seen at the collegiate level, and the inconsistency of foul calls seemed to favor the physical style of play that ISU employs. There was a lot of physical contact in this game, especially on drives to the hoop, that normally is whistled, but was ignored. Conversely, several seemingly phantom calls were made in the open court, which did not match the referee's established tone of play. I don't point out this poor officiating as an excuse, as ISU was the superior team on this night, but I do believe that the game would have been much closer if the refs had maintained tighter control in their allowance of physical play.
That being said, I do think that PSU's use of a zone defense helped limit the scoring opportunities by their opponent, especially in the first half. The breakdowns that occurred were due to slow post rotation, primarily along the baseline. ISU initially struggled against PSU's zone, but eventually figured out that they could get open looks with patient passing. To their credit, they knocked down a high percentage of these open shots. Considering that this was the first game of the season that PSU used a zone for any extensive time, I think it was OK. Like anything new it needs practice to get better. Slow player rotations within the zone limited it's effectiveness, but ISU passed the ball well and PSU was not as aggressive as they could be in getting out on their perimeter players and contesting these passes. PSU also gave up several offensive rebounds in the zone, which gave ISU a lot of second chance possessions. All these flaws can be addressed in practice and improved with repetition. But a zone defense by itself is not the only answer to PSU's defensive problems. It should only be one defensive weapon in a defense that should switch up defensive schemes often, to keep opponents off balance. Whether we have time to refine our defense this late in the season is debateable.
The season, and any chance of getting to the Big Sky Tournament is now probably dependent on our meetings with Sac. State. Today they upset Montana State in Bozeman and showed that they are eager to fight for the sixth and final seed. They are not a mediocre team and have shown steadily improved play as the season has progressed. Let's hope that Coach Murrell can rally the troops, and herself, with a large dose of positive motivation.

 

[mikechristoffer]

Sac State is not a good team. Although they beat Montana State, they were out rebounded 54 to 37. They are about the same size as PSU's starting lineup and average 5' 6". They lost to Northern Arizona by 38 although they seem to have improved lately. They are mediocre meaning that they are a "so-so" team. Their RPI rating is 300 out of 342 schools. If PSU cannot beat these folks twice, they had better hang it up. They will not have such an easy time with their other 3 league games against EWU, Montana State and NCU but they will make it as the 6th seed in the Big Sky Tourney.

 

[bbjunkie]

I don't think PSU can beat Sac. State and take the 6th seed in the Big Sky Tourney without digging deep and executing at a level that they haven't shown, except in the games against Weber and Northern Arizona, and in games much earlier in the season. Although we can debate whether Sac. State is a mediocre team or not, I think they will be a tough matchup for PSU and will have the psychological edge in playing us at home in the initial meeting between the teams. Their frontcourt of 2 forwards and a center have a height advantage over PSU's starting frontcourt, and their center, Kylie Kuhns, leads the nation in double doubles, averaging almost 12 rebounds a game. Their starting guards are small, at 5' 4" and 5' 3", but their point guard is second in the league in assists, and their shooting guard is second in the league in 3-pointers made/game. Also, Sac. State might have lost the rebounding battle in their win in Bozeman, but, PSU out-rebounded Montana State 43-35 in their game in Montana, and still lost by 20 points! Finally, Sac State's weak RPI rating is irrelevant when 2 teams are battling it out for one last playoff seeding - the team that wants it most, all else being equal, will have the edge. And the way PSU has been playing lately -unable to hold a lead, and unable to come back from a deficit, makes me question their desire to be a tournament team. Team confidence is low due to a persistant lack of positive reinforcement from you-know-who and a negative tone seems pervasive. Better circle that Feb. 25 game at the Stott on your calander. PSU can still pull it out, but that one will be a real gut-check game.