Rebounding
0
19
Much has been made of the Flyers rebounding deficiencies, and there is definitely room for improvement in that category.
Two things bear consideration, though, when looking at the numbers:
1 - The Flyers shoot the ball well, so there are not a lot of offensive rebounds to be had. The team is better off getting back on defense.
2 - At the other end of the court, lets look at this list:
Saint John's . . . . . 3
Houston . . . . . . . . 6
Cincinnati . . . . . . .9
Troy . . . . . . . . . . 10
Longwood . . . . . . 12
SMU . . . . . . . . . . 50
These are team offensive rebound rankings through January 1.
As you can see, half of the Flyers OOC opponents are in the top 50 in offensive rebounding (5 in the top 12).
In the A-10, only UMass (33), Fordham (35), and Duquesne (72) are in the top 100 on the offensive boards.
The perception of our poor rebounding is skewed by the vagaries of the schedule (small sample size).
_____________________
Whether your glass is half full or half empty, you still have more to drink
:beermug:
Two things bear consideration, though, when looking at the numbers:
1 - The Flyers shoot the ball well, so there are not a lot of offensive rebounds to be had. The team is better off getting back on defense.
2 - At the other end of the court, lets look at this list:
Saint John's . . . . . 3
Houston . . . . . . . . 6
Cincinnati . . . . . . .9
Troy . . . . . . . . . . 10
Longwood . . . . . . 12
SMU . . . . . . . . . . 50
These are team offensive rebound rankings through January 1.
As you can see, half of the Flyers OOC opponents are in the top 50 in offensive rebounding (5 in the top 12).
In the A-10, only UMass (33), Fordham (35), and Duquesne (72) are in the top 100 on the offensive boards.
The perception of our poor rebounding is skewed by the vagaries of the schedule (small sample size).
_____________________
Whether your glass is half full or half empty, you still have more to drink
:beermug: