I was at the game with some folks I haven't seen for a long time, so I couldn't really check on the board too much, follow the stats closely, or comment. But basically what I thought (and others with me agreed), was that we do look better than last year.... quicker, longer, more energetic. Turnovers seemed like they were mostly from lack of familiarity with each other, and gambling a bit against a really good team. Yes, Florida Atlantic is very, very good.

FAU center Vladislav Goldin took a step up in his defense since last year. His 5 blocks and 4 steals were both career highs, and his 19 points tied a career high. His 10 rebounds were his fourth best of his career, so he appears ready to take a step up in competitiveness from CUSA to AAC. Also, every single member of our group agreed that he had one of the best tans we've ever seen from a Loyola opposing player. It was a perfect November tan-- not ostentatiously dark, not weakish from lack of effort or uneven from negligence-- it was strong, confident, glowing, perfectly even, and as self-assured as the Owls were on the court.

Loyola turnout was another plus. But the biggest plus is that we will likely only face a team this good once more this year, when we face Creighton in less than two weeks. We've got three full games and many practices between now and then to figure out some strategies, refine roles and rotations, and figure out some go-to options. We should win those three games in the interim, and hopefully we can learn from this game against top opposition. We'll have another game against either Colorado State or Boston College 20 hours after the Creighton game, and I feel like winning THAT game, the 2nd game in Kansas City should be a top goal and a very good test of this team.

I can't say I was happy about our performance. We looked nervous, some players looked very unconfident, and the passing was off too much. The 18 turnovers was 3-4 too many even for a game like this, but FAU had 13 turnovers also-- part of the first week of the season for every team, I guess. We're going to be better than last year, by quite a bit. I don't think we're going to be as good as Dayton, but most of the other top A-10 teams struggled a bit out of the gate this year-- Duquesne won by 2 points at home vs. Cleveland State, Fordham went to OT at home against Wagner, St. Bonaventure won by 4 at home against mightly Longwood, and VCU lost by double-digits at home to McNeese State.

I thought we looked good enough to challenge for a top 5 spot in the A-10, especially considering all the new faces, butterflies, unfamiliar rotations, etc. So in that respect, I was a bit encouraged overall...

Custer and Norris are similar in terms of size and athleticism. Through movement and crisp passing Custer was able to be open looks., Norris was one of the best three point shooters in the NCAA through 2021 but it seems that we don't run plays to spring him open...or anyone for that matter. During the start of the 2H it looked like Drew told them to drive and force contact which was an interesting approach. I agree with everyone who has commented on the fact that we don't have or can't execute the offensive plan.

Drew was hired with the promise of continuing the culture that Porter built. To this point, I don't see it.

Agree. If The Loyola University can play a game against UICC with single digit turnovers, then that will give me belief there is hope. If the double digit turnover monster persists against a team that will play defense at a lower level of intensity than FAU, then I am going to be very concerned about this team and whether it can progress out of the persistent TO problem that absolutely has been killing them.

I will absolutely take a 10 TO performance against UIC, but your point stands.

Well, I went to game with high hopes and now I am kinda in limbo. My thoughts:

1. The game was there to be had. FAU may get better as they work the off season rust off, but they were not great Wednesday night.

2. The same old issues surfaced once again for LU. Turnovers, poor FT shooting, poor shot selection, inconsistent body movement. Our offense for most of the night was stagnant. We passed the ball around the perimeter with what looked to be no real purpose. We made it easy on FAU to guard us since our players were rooted in their spots. This was especially true in the first half. With the amount of guys shuffling in and out of the game, we should have been able to run sets requiring player movement, back screens, back cuts. This action is what frees up guys to shoot. I know it’s early, but saw a lot of things we saw last year and I wonder where the accountability is. Lots of new faces but same issues. Does not add up. Love Drew, great guy, but he needs to figure out why we continue to do the same silly things over and over again. Drew also allowed the game to get away from us in the first half. He called a time out about 2 possessions late when FAU built the lead to 15 or 16 points. We are not really built to come back from that kind of a deficit.

3. Got it to 8 despite all of the poor play in the second half, but then we would fall apart again. We missed 2 free throws that would have cut it to 6. One possession later we foul FAU on a breakaway, they score, make a free throw, and score again on the out of bounds. (This actually happed once or twice last year too!). So, instead of down 6, we’re down 13. Got to 8 again and threw up some looong, crazy 3 pt shots that had no chance. Poor shot selection.

4. Alston. Good energy as usual, but misdirected at times. He must have drove into the lane, not to dunk, but to be cute. He got blocked several times. He’s not tall enough to drive with a 7 footer down there. I did not think he played that well.

5. Braden is our “leader” but he was tentative. He had several opportunities when the FAU defender went underneath the screen to stop and pop and did not look to shoot it. Aside from this, many of our guys were not ready to catch and shoot. FAU is quick and close out pretty good, but there were chances to shoot that we passed on. It looked like no one wanted to shoot.

6. We struggled to score most of the night. At times with the lineups you had to wonder where the offense was coming from. Strange that Ben and Sheldon got no minutes until mop up time. They both are capable of scoring in bunches and giving you some minutes. It’s clear Drew is going out of his way to keep Jaylen, Jaden, Miles happy.

7. The transfer portal may not be the answer for us. How about going out and looking at some high level JC kids. Worked pretty good with CLemons.

8. Dame looked odd at times but he was actually pretty effective. Best way to describe him is he has an “old man game”.

9. It’s early, we learned some stuff about this group. The question can they get it together and clean up this year plus litany of issues we have? We will find out. Anyway, let’s see if this group. Settles down a bit. They have some ability, they are just not playing to their capabilities. I think the main issue is they do not understand their limitations and how they have to play to win games. We will find out if they can figure this out.

The turnovers are simply awful. The Ramblers are literally giving games away. The lack of improvement is concerning. The Ben Schwieger ghosting is strange. A returning member of the A10 all rookie team. Seriously?

_________________
Loyola '86
St. Bona '83

And if talking about strange usage........ Sheldon Edwards.

This guy should be first or second off the bench every game for instant offense.

Did not complain whatsoever at all last year. Earned his minutes and trust later in the year despite the defensive deficiencies. This is a unique offensive skill and piece whose shot creation is direly needed. It was obviously in need the other night.

I know, broken record here.

We will see how things play out, but it seems like Drew thinks the defensive contributions from Watson outweigh the offensive contributions from Ben & Sheldon. Not sure I agree with that, with the limited sample size we have of Watson.

I don't envy Drew having to deal with this rotation. As I said earlier, it seems we have 10-12 'good' players, but only one or two (Alston, for sure; maybe Braden, but he has been shaky) who are "must play" guys. The rest are all kind of average-to-good type players, at this point. In other words, none are surefire bench warmers. But none are must-start and play 25+ minute guys. That leads to a lot of headache and the potential for upset players when it comes to figuring out rotations.

Again, ridiculously early, but given the lack of bench enthusiasm (it's the first game and against a top 10 opponent--Coach shouldn't have to tell them to make some noise) and the fact that two contributors from last season are buried deep on the bench, I foresee some team chemistry issues (again). Hoping I am wrong.

I think everyone would be a bit surprised if you take a look at the Plus/Minus scores from Wednesday night's game. Some of the players we thought were good or OK were not, and some we thought were not so good were actually very positive in the box score. Some of it has to do with rotations and defensive assignments, but this was eye-opening to me....

For those unfamiliar, here's how the Plus/Minus is calculated (please excuse the copy and paste from https://www.masterclass.com/articles/ho ... -box-score )

"The total point differential for the time that a specific player is on the court. This statistic measures a player's impact on the game. To calculate +/-, subtract the difference between a player’s team's total points and their opponent's total points when that player is in the game. For example, if a player's team outscored their opponents by eight points when the player is on the court, the player will receive a +8 point differential. If a player's team is outscored by five points when that player is on the court, the player will receive a -5 point differential."

Ok, before I click, my guesses are that Goldin was something ridiculous like +25, and Dame was our best... playing when Goldin was on the bench.

_________________
MBB Scholarship Chart