Post subject: Is too much credit/blame put on athleticism??
diacanthus eGrizzer in Training
Joined: 12 Aug 2006 Posts: 176
176 eGriz Bucks
Just sharing some of my thoughts with the board..
The disappointment last two years has many grasping for answers. I fear that trying to find a simple answer to a complex question may leave us still looking for answers in the years to come. Watching Davidson beat Wisconsin reaffirmed my concerns. Wisconsin was the more athletic team, but the Davidson team prevailed. Athleticism is definitely a big plus in the advantage side, but is only one piece of a large puzzle.
Thanks to Dr. J, I grew up a huge 76er's fan. I can't even begin to describe the hatred I had for the Celtics, especially Larry Bird. Now I look back at them in awe. McCale, Bird, Parrish, Walton, and company had to be one of the most unathletic teams ever, still they dominated the NBA for years. Did Wooden's UCLA teams win all their championships due to solely to their superior athletes. Athletically, were the Cardiac Kids from NC State even close to Drexlers Houston team. Even closer to home , think how John Stockton's athletism stacked up to other guards in the NBA.
If I was a coach in CBB, I would probably be fired after one year. But just in case I stuck around, I would recruit mostly great shooters first and foremost. I would try to have at least three 40% 3PT guys on the floor at all times. Most of our set plays would be aimed at getting wide open looks from behind the arc. When GU made runs about a decade ago, they shot a lot more threes than they do now. Davidson is knocking off giants using this approach now. Duke had a good year before the tournament doing this.
I think very athletic teams only work well when everyone on the floor is very athletic. See Memphis. For teams like UM, that probably aren't going to have five very athletic people on the floor at once, I think shooting threes is the only way to upset people.
If I was a coach in CBB, I would probably be fired after one year. But just in case I stuck around, I would recruit mostly great shooters first and foremost. I would try to have at least three 40% 3PT guys on the floor at all times. Most of our set plays would be aimed at getting wide open looks from behind the arc. When GU made runs about a decade ago, they shot a lot more threes than they do now. Davidson is knocking off giants using this approach now. Duke had a good year before the tournament doing this.
I think very athletic teams only work well when everyone on the floor is very athletic. See Memphis. For teams like UM, that probably aren't going to have five very athletic people on the floor at once, I think shooting threes is the only way to upset people.
I think all one has to do is look to Duke to see having a team relying on 3 pt shooting doesn't work. Duke has more McDonald's All American's on their team that anyone in the country this season and look where that got them. Balance is the key. You have to have an inside/outside game to succeed. Davidson is on a roll right now, but I think their run is about over.
Offensively, athleticism helps in penetrating and offensive rebounding. However, is not a huge factor on offense.
Defensively, athleticism is HUGE. It gives your team the quickness to get back defensively, shut down lanes, and get to open 3 shooters. It also gives the coach the luxury of changing defenses to keep the opponent guessing and off guard.
Athleticism becomes much more evident when it gets to the Sweet 16, elite 8, and Final 4. Wazzu plays argueably the best team ball on both ends of the court with discipline and knowing roles in the nation. However, when they matched up against a very Athletic Tar Heel team they could not do things as they normally do on either end of the court.
Can a team win with limited athelticism? Yes
Does athleticism make winning easier? YES
Can a team win a championship with limited athleticism? Yes, but not as often. Execution is much more key when the athleticism is not there. Athletic teams win championships more often, especially in basketball.
Visit my online music download store at www.burnlounge.com/Montunes
Have fun, why get online music elsewhere? Just check it out and enjoy. Legal services or id theft protection. let me know. Thank you!
If I was a coach in CBB, I would probably be fired after one year. But just in case I stuck around, I would recruit mostly great shooters first and foremost. I would try to have at least three 40% 3PT guys on the floor at all times. Most of our set plays would be aimed at getting wide open looks from behind the arc. When GU made runs about a decade ago, they shot a lot more threes than they do now. Davidson is knocking off giants using this approach now. Duke had a good year before the tournament doing this.
I think very athletic teams only work well when everyone on the floor is very athletic. See Memphis. For teams like UM, that probably aren't going to have five very athletic people on the floor at once, I think shooting threes is the only way to upset people.
True but the LG couldn't even get their shots off because of the hustle of Vandy's zone. You have to step up your game and hustle to compete with the big programs. You can't stand there and wait for a pass as the SEC type teams are flying around and will cause a lot of turnovers and then your start throwing up desperation 3's to stay in the game
If you don't think very good, Don't think very much!!
If I was a coach in CBB, I would probably be fired after one year. But just in case I stuck around, I would recruit mostly great shooters first and foremost. I would try to have at least three 40% 3PT guys on the floor at all times. Most of our set plays would be aimed at getting wide open looks from behind the arc. When GU made runs about a decade ago, they shot a lot more threes than they do now. Davidson is knocking off giants using this approach now. Duke had a good year before the tournament doing this.
I think very athletic teams only work well when everyone on the floor is very athletic. See Memphis. For teams like UM, that probably aren't going to have five very athletic people on the floor at once, I think shooting threes is the only way to upset people.
I think all one has to do is look to Duke to see having a team relying on 3 pt shooting doesn't work. Duke has more McDonald's All American's on their team that anyone in the country this season and look where that got them. Balance is the key. You have to have an inside/outside game to succeed. Davidson is on a roll right now, but I think their run is about over.
I guess I meant more for the mid-major type teams. I still think shooting threes is the ONLY way a team like UM could knock off a team like Duke, Georgetown, Oregon, you get the point. Yes, you will probably not win the NCAA championship relying on threes, but if UM had a season like Duke or Davidson this year, nobody would be calling for Tinks's head.
Of course, Duke has better players overall, I know this. But I would never try to recruit guys to play "traditional" basketball if I coached UM. If I did, I wouldn't have a chance at a major upset: let's say all my guys are like all of Wisconsin's guys, but just a little worse. I have a couple decent inside guys, and a couple decent outside guys. They have a couple better inside guys and a couple better outside guys. I decide to go toe-to-toe with them. We have no chance. If our guys could compete in a straight up traditional bball game with their guys, they wouldn't be attending UM.
Now let's say I have my three 40% 3PT guys on the floor at all times. If we have a hot night, and play decent defense, we have a great shot at an upset (our only shot). If we go cold, we were supposed to lose anyway.
Of course, this approach would have to be altered slightly for conference play and games in which you are favored, but if UM wants to be the next team to emerge, the real season is OOC anyway. Besides, if (when) it worked for conference play, you would flat blow teams out; or perhaps lose. Not too much different from any other year (save for the blowouts and the potential for a huge OOC upset or two).
Shooters are out there, and some of them could surely be enticed to go to UM.
If I was a coach in CBB, I would probably be fired after one year. But just in case I stuck around, I would recruit mostly great shooters first and foremost. I would try to have at least three 40% 3PT guys on the floor at all times. Most of our set plays would be aimed at getting wide open looks from behind the arc. When GU made runs about a decade ago, they shot a lot more threes than they do now. Davidson is knocking off giants using this approach now. Duke had a good year before the tournament doing this.
I think very athletic teams only work well when everyone on the floor is very athletic. See Memphis. For teams like UM, that probably aren't going to have five very athletic people on the floor at once, I think shooting threes is the only way to upset people.
I think all one has to do is look to Duke to see having a team relying on 3 pt shooting doesn't work. Duke has more McDonald's All American's on their team that anyone in the country this season and look where that got them. Balance is the key. You have to have an inside/outside game to succeed. Davidson is on a roll right now, but I think their run is about over.
I guess I meant more for the mid-major type teams. I still think shooting threes is the ONLY way a team like UM could knock off a team like Duke, Georgetown, Oregon, you get the point. Yes, you will probably not win the NCAA championship relying on threes, but if UM had a season like Duke or Davidson this year, nobody would be calling for Tinks's head.
Of course, Duke has better players overall, I know this. But I would never try to recruit guys to play "traditional" basketball if I coached UM. If I did, I wouldn't have a chance at a major upset: let's say all my guys are like all of Wisconsin's guys, but just a little worse. I have a couple decent inside guys, and a couple decent outside guys. They have a couple better inside guys and a couple better outside guys. I decide to go toe-to-toe with them. We have no chance. If our guys could compete in a straight up traditional bball game with their guys, they wouldn't be attending UM.
Now let's say I have my three 40% 3PT guys on the floor at all times. If we have a hot night, and play decent defense, we have a great shot at an upset (our only shot). If we go cold, we were supposed to lose anyway.
Of course, this approach would have to be altered slightly for conference play and games in which you are favored, but if UM wants to be the next team to emerge, the real season is OOC anyway. Besides, if (when) it worked for conference play, you would flat blow teams out; or perhaps lose. Not too much different from any other year (save for the blowouts and the potential for a huge OOC upset or two).
Shooters are out there, and some of them could surely be enticed to go to UM.
There are few calling for Tinks head. I hear there are people in the Zag family unhappy with Few too, which is assinine if true.
Hey, you can talk shooters all you want - most every team has at least one. What IMHO separates the North Carolinas, UCLAs and a handful of others from the pack are their incredible transition games. When they rake down a defensive rebound they are off to the races. Few people in the country, and nobody in our neck of the woods, can come close in matching them for speed. And that usually turns into some pretty easy baskets, not from beyond the arc, but in the paint where shooting percentages are obviously greater.
Hey, you can talk shooters all you want - most every team has at least one. What IMHO separates the North Carolinas, UCLAs and a handful of others from the pack are their incredible transition games. When they rake down a defensive rebound they are off to the races. Few people in the country, and nobody in our neck of the woods, can come close in matching them for speed. And that usually turns into some pretty easy baskets, not from beyond the arc, but in the paint where shooting percentages are obviously greater.
Very, very, very true. But a team like UM cannot play that game; not yet anyway. So let's say UM is up against a team like that. Not UNC, but a decent running team. Let's say........Georgia. How can UM ever expect to come out ahead if they go straight up and try to beat the Bulldogs at conventional basketball? They can't. They would have to shoot lights out from behind the arc to even beat a middle of the pack major conference team. Again, if UM's players could play the run and gun game, they wouldn't be at UM. So, the best way to ensure shooting lights out threes is to have as many great shooters as possible and turn them loose. Chances are, one of them will have a good game. If not, UM loses. But they most assuredly would've lost had they tried to play conventional bball.
Just look at small schools that pull big upsets in the last 10 years. Most of them have done so using great perimeter shooting.
If UM wants to just win the BSC every four years or so, play a game in the tourney, and call it a great year, keep doing what you're doing. If UM ever wants to be considered a team to be reckoned with in the tourney, it will have to pull off some upsets in OOC and the tourney itself. Everyone on here talks about UM being the next GU (or something to that effect). UM needs to take the same steps. The only way to pull off upsets with worse athletes is to out-shoot the "better" team. UM doesn't have to be UNC or UCLA right now. They have to be like Davidson, or Butler, or GU eight years ago. I'm not talking about having No inside presence; just stop running the offense to try to get layins when it's a losing effort more than half the time.
To me, it's pretty simple: why play traditional bball against a team that has better traditional basketball players at every position? I'm not trying to be a dick, but Qvale can't play for a major conference team, so what makes you think he'll have any success against a center from a major conference team? Sure, he can have his way with a dude from Eastern once in awhile, but not against the big boys. Guards, on the other hand, can usually get open looks if the offense is designed to get them open looks.
People like my hair....don't mess my hair!
Last edited by CDAGRIZ on Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
Vanderbilt, which manhandled the LG last week, got manhandled by Maryland today. Shows how far UM needs to go to be competitive in women's basketball.
Its not just the size/strength factor. Its also skills and ability.
I went to the game, and man, Maryland is good! They had one girl who was unstoppable down low. Vandy was trying to play the same game as Maryland and had NO CHANCE. This game kind of helps my argument. Vandy's ONLY chance was to shoot threes, but they didn't really. Maybe personnel? IDK.
Hey, you can talk shooters all you want - most every team has at least one. What IMHO separates the North Carolinas, UCLAs and a handful of others from the pack are their incredible transition games. When they rake down a defensive rebound they are off to the races. Few people in the country, and nobody in our neck of the woods, can come close in matching them for speed. And that usually turns into some pretty easy baskets, not from beyond the arc, but in the paint where shooting percentages are obviously greater.
So the griz should try to play like UNC? Not going to end well, my friend. Like CDA said, if they could play like that, they would be playing somewhere else. You said it yourself, no team in our neck of the woods can play or defend that game. I agree, the only way to have a shot is to fire up the 3s. If Tiger Woods bets you $1 million that he can beat you at either golf or parcheesi, your choice, would you choose golf? No. You'd get as good at parcheesi as you could, because that's your only chance to win.
I think more teams should try to find the best shooters they can. Not all of them go to Duke/UNC.
Gonzaga football, undefeated since 1942!
People who think they know it all are especially annoying to those of us who do.
So the griz should try to play like UNC? Not going to end well, my friend. Like CDA said, if they could play like that, they would be playing somewhere else. You said it yourself, no team in our neck of the woods can play or defend that game. I agree, the only way to have a shot is to fire up the 3s. If Tiger Woods bets you $1 million that he can beat you at either golf or parcheesi, your choice, would you choose golf? No. You'd get as good at parcheesi as you could, because that's your only chance to win.
I think more teams should try to find the best shooters they can. Not all of them go to Duke/UNC.
Yeah, it's like if Mt Tech played The Griz in FB and the Tech coach said, "Alright boys, get out there and play some smashmouth football. Dives and Sweeps all the way. I think we can out muscle 'em."
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 2539 Location: The Zoo 2279 eGriz Bucks
I think you can potentially build a program around perimeter play/shooting but you need your jordan. You need the one guard all others defer to when their shots aren't falling. Your Curry or Mandy Morales. Without someone like that it's guys taking turns hucking up the long-ball while no one is out there to keep them humble.
Hey, you can talk shooters all you want - most every team has at least one. What IMHO separates the North Carolinas, UCLAs and a handful of others from the pack are their incredible transition games. When they rake down a defensive rebound they are off to the races. Few people in the country, and nobody in our neck of the woods, can come close in matching them for speed. And that usually turns into some pretty easy baskets, not from beyond the arc, but in the paint where shooting percentages are obviously greater.
So the griz should try to play like UNC? Not going to end well, my friend. Like CDA said, if they could play like that, they would be playing somewhere else. You said it yourself, no team in our neck of the woods can play or defend that game. I agree, the only way to have a shot is to fire up the 3s. If Tiger Woods bets you $1 million that he can beat you at either golf or parcheesi, your choice, would you choose golf? No. You'd get as good at parcheesi as you could, because that's your only chance to win.
I think more teams should try to find the best shooters they can. Not all of them go to Duke/UNC.
To follow the Woods analogy, if I have to play him, granted the odds are against me, at least I'd be sure I sure I didn't show up without pitching and a sand wedges in my bag. To those who say you still aren't going to challenge a UNC or a UCLA, I say a solid transition game also improves your chances against most of the rest of Division 1 immensely! You have to at least practice against the transition game in order to defend it and most teams - including everybody in an inferior BSC, don't do a very good job of it. With a fast paced transition game the Griz could annually mail in the league title in in December.
Similarly, Griz footballers usually look lost against option teams because their lucky to see it maybe once a year and only practice it on an nfrequent need basis. I'll take a full golf bag, thank you!
Hey, you can talk shooters all you want - most every team has at least one. What IMHO separates the North Carolinas, UCLAs and a handful of others from the pack are their incredible transition games. When they rake down a defensive rebound they are off to the races. Few people in the country, and nobody in our neck of the woods, can come close in matching them for speed. And that usually turns into some pretty easy baskets, not from beyond the arc, but in the paint where shooting percentages are obviously greater.
So the griz should try to play like UNC? Not going to end well, my friend. Like CDA said, if they could play like that, they would be playing somewhere else. You said it yourself, no team in our neck of the woods can play or defend that game. I agree, the only way to have a shot is to fire up the 3s. If Tiger Woods bets you $1 million that he can beat you at either golf or parcheesi, your choice, would you choose golf? No. You'd get as good at parcheesi as you could, because that's your only chance to win.
I think more teams should try to find the best shooters they can. Not all of them go to Duke/UNC.
To follow the Woods analogy, if I have to play him, granted the odds are against me, at least I'd be sure I sure I didn't show up without pitching and a sand wedges in my bag. To those who say you still aren't going to challenge a UNC or a UCLA, I say a solid transition game also improves your chances against most of the rest of Division 1 immensely! You have to at least practice against the transition game in order to defend it and most teams - including everybody in an inferior BSC, don't do a very good job of it. With a fast paced transition game the Griz could annually mail in the league title in in December.
Similarly, Griz footballers usually look lost against option teams because their lucky to see it maybe once a year and only practice it on an nfrequent need basis. I'll take a full golf bag, thank you!
But you will surely lose at golf; and you can possibly win at parcheesi. Why not play parcheesi?
Anyway, here's the way I see it: If your realistic goal is to win the nat'l championship, athleticism is very important. If you want to simply make the tourney and perhaps win a game here and there, you won't have much success trying to beat better teams at their own game. It may work great against Northern Colorado, but what about the 100 teams in the natuion with better athletes than UM? If you ever want a chance to beat these teams, you gotta play parcheesi, because they are much better golfers.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Yeah, it's like if Mt Tech played The Griz in FB and the Tech coach said, "Alright boys, get out there and play some smashmouth football. Dives and Sweeps all the way. I think we can out muscle 'em."
