A couple thoughts after last night’s game at Lafayette:

I am really starting to think that Harrison Gaines is the most important player on the Quakers. Grandieri might know the offense inside and out, but Gaines is the spark that gets everything going. Moreover, he practically cannot be subbed out — at least not until Kevin Egee and Aron Cohen prove they can play defense and control the offense without turning it over. It seems that Gaines’ play — more than that of any other player — is very closely correlated with the Quakers’ success.

Last night, Lafayette tough perimeter defense and good interior help gave Gaines a lot of trouble. He wasn’t able to pass the ball inside with ease and he wasn’t able to use his quickness to get inside. He had an awful game — got beat on defense a few times and made some very poor decisions on offense — but experience is a good teacher.

Just look at Mike Kach. The senior had to face the same perimeter defense that Gaines did and is probably just a little more athletic. But he made the right decisions and was crafty enough to have a great game. He had to create his own shot all game, and when he wasn’t able to, he found the open man and crashed the boards. A great all-around game from him.

Here are the +/- numbers from last night. Minutes played are in parentheses, and the season total is the last number:

Grandieri: -13 (35) -22

Kach: -3 (25) -31

Votel: 0 (3) -4

Eggleston: -8 (31) -10

Reilly: -4 (13) -7

Gaines: -6 (28) +22

Cohen: -3 (15) -31

Schreiber: -2 (6) +6

Bernardini: -4 (25) +6

Lewis: -4 (5) +3

Cofield: -6 (6) -10

Egee: -5 (8) -28

What a rough game to watch, as Penn loses its third game in as many tries. After the overtime loss to Drexel, you had to be pretty confident in the Quakers’ chances of not seeing to drastic dropoff from last season as well as being the favorite in the Ivy League. But two games later, this squad is reeling.

What was most troubling was the defensive effort from Penn.

For a team that allows 29 points per game and 48 percent shooting from the three point line, I can’t imagine how a 1-3-1 defense was the best option defensively.

The Red and Blue played that set - with the point guard up top, big man in the middle with someone on either side of him and an athletic guard or swingman patrolling the back line - almost the whole game. And as a result, the defense allowed Howard to shoot 22 threes, making 12 of them. Many of these came from the corner, the area of the court that is traditionally most succeptible to threes in the 1-3-1 scheme.

Still, some execution would have prevented the onslaught that ensued. The Bison put up 80 points on Penn after averaging 56 in their first two losses to Duquesne (129-59) and Virginia (92-53).

Howard shot 57 percent not only by hitting wide open threes, but also beating Penn defenders off of the dribble. Quakers forwards seemed a step to slow against the small Bison side, and they conversely couldn’t use their size to their advantage. Penn inside was not particularly strong or intimidating, and recorded no blocks (after altering nine shots in the first two games).

And yet what was even more disturbing was the lack of communication.

Howard players were left wide open, and not just for three, but often under the basket. Whenever players screened, or crossed each other, Penn defenders struggled to cope, for example two defenders heading to the same offensive player on an off-the-ball screen.

This miscommuncation manifested itself on the offensive side as well. The Quakers had 14 turnovers from eight different guys - Grandieri was the only player who played over five minutes that didn’t give one away (Howard had four such players). Many of these were not so much bad passes, but bad decisions - throwing a pass into heavy traffic or to a place that a cutter wasn’t heading.

Key stats:

Read Monday’s paper to hear captain Brian Grandieri’s strong words following the surprising loss.

Penn had its chances down the stretch to win the game, but in the end, Drexel just made more big shots. A lot of that was due to the fact that the Quakers were not getting the ball to the right guys in the right spots. When they most needed shooters on the floor, there were none to be found.

Tyler Bernardini, tentatively labeled “maybe the best shooter” on the team, played four minutes total. Aron Cohen, who had the hot hand in the game, didn’t even attempt a shot in overtime. But six of the final nine treys the Quakers attempted were from big men Jack Eggleston and Brennan Votel (and of those six, they made only one). Not having Darren Smith out late definitely hurt the Quakers’ versatility, but it was still hard to swallow watching five guys stand on the perimeter and the center taking the shot.

I thought Harrison Gaines was the Quakers’ third-best player out there. He was very patient in the half-court, showed some deft passing and a nice handle, and was solid in man defense. Three dimes and a steal in 13 minutes is more than enough for a first outing. While I thought he made a premature exit, it was probably the right move if Miller took him out in favor of experience.

Speaking of experience, Brian Grandieri stepped up when he had to. At first, things looked shaky and Miller even sat him for a long stretch in the first half. But around midway into the second, he seemed to shift a few gears up, and grabbed some big offensive boards, got in the lane, and got to the line. Before the game, Miller said that he wasn’t sure if Grandieri “would have to score 18 to 20 a game or if he was even capable of that.” Well, he scored 23 (8-14 FG, 7-12 FT) and was the main reason Penn got back into the game.

On the bright side, the Quakers’ defense looked very sharp in the second half. The team did a good job of sealing off the leaks from the first half. While in zone, they rotated better to cover the corners and rebounded well, and in man they were generally tight and disciplined. Nonetheless, it’s hard to win a game shooting 31/22/50 (FG/3PT/FT). The right guys need to be able to get the right looks, and someone is going to have to emerge as a viable isolation threat.