|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 6, 2018 21:03:49 GMT -6
Why reject other paths?
|
|
|
Post by reevo on Mar 6, 2018 21:26:11 GMT -6
Name me one Mid Major program that has had sustained success playing this way. I can name a ton of Major programs that play and win that way. You can’t be successful trying to mimic the big programs by playing their own game. You want to win big and compete, you play a different style of game that you don’t prepare for everyday. Majerus and Hunsaker laid out the plan, Barry Collier created his own but with similar traits and Butler has had sustained success that has continued. We can’t get enough quality recruits to mimic the bigger programs. This has mediocrity written in big letters and tattooed all over our programs face.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 6, 2018 21:41:23 GMT -6
Butler does not play primarily smash mouth inside basketball.
They play tough, use the talents they have very well. Play defense.
They have succeeded recruiting a variety of players.
Now. Teams at every level are playing fast. Stevens in Boston is using Butler background. HS teams.
It's not just big schools.
That's different style in 2018 than 30 years ago. But even then Majerus brought big time Marquette basketball to the MAC, found players, taught them well. Not some innovative style. Same style that had often been successful at all levels. Still could be except damned hard to get those guys and that style is waning at all levels.
If we have those players I am all for it. But there are alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by reevo on Mar 6, 2018 21:49:20 GMT -6
When did I ever say smash mouth basketball? You have always used that term, not me. No, I said I want physical players inside and players who defend with toughness, control the tempo and the glass and impose their will on teams. You have to be able to go inside which opens up everything else. When I think smash mouth, I think of a team that only plays inside and I am not advocating that. We were not one dimensional in our most successful days. The most important trait is recruiting toughness and do the other things I mentioned above. Physical guards who are not afraid to defend.
|
|
|
Post by reevo on Mar 6, 2018 21:55:30 GMT -6
Yes, most teams are playing that why which is why we have to be a little bit different. I don’t want to be a program that is mediocre all of the time. The better athletic teams will destroy us playing that way; see Oklahoma and Oregon. It is not logical to try to recruit at our level and try to play fast against teams that play that way with far better skilled athletes. That is the definition of insanity and why you can’t find Mid Major programs who are successful long term playing that way.
|
|
|
Post by universityjim on Mar 7, 2018 8:22:17 GMT -6
I think it would be cool to be versatile enough to play either way and switch at will. We are probably just one or two monsters inside from being able to do that. That would keep opponents off balance. They plan for one style we switch to another. Like changing up your defenses but on a larger scale.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Mar 7, 2018 8:27:48 GMT -6
Agree UJ. We evolved a bit when we had to go with both bigs in the lineup but we’re still a bit too one dimensional. We can be too easy to guard at times and can’t adjust to different defenses thrown at us, especially pressure. We just don’t attack it well. Zones confound us as well.
Hitting layups would be good.
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Mar 7, 2018 8:45:10 GMT -6
When did I ever say smash mouth basketball? Ahh yes. The common refrain of everyone who tries to talk to 00. "When did I ever say that?
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Mar 7, 2018 9:26:43 GMT -6
My fear is what happens when trey and Taylor graduate. WHO is replacing them it's only a year away
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 7, 2018 13:22:50 GMT -6
Yes, most teams are playing that why which is why we have to be a little bit different. I don’t want to be a program that is mediocre all of the time. The better athletic teams will destroy us playing that way; see Oklahoma and Oregon. It is not logical to try to recruit at our level and try to play fast against teams that play that way with far better skilled athletes. That is the definition of insanity and why you can’t find Mid Major programs who are successful long term playing that way. Different is good. That's a good point. But using our players the best way we can is my point. Match style to personnel and long term match style to the type of good players we can most likely get. NOT pick a style and recruit the best players we can get for that particular style. Then we miss, and we lose...
Playing big we get killed by the good bigger programs most of the time, anyway. We are not beating the typical MSU or other B10 level school that plays based on tough inside play. PLUS. Even the big schools that are playing faster and smaller will have some good inside players too. Very hard to beat OU or Oregon inside, they are better recruiting big guys too. There are two things tell me we should play a versatile style, stress shooting and fast pace, gamble on shooting very well to beat good teams, and NOT primarily an inside out style and slow pace. 1. It a different recruiting world now than in the 80's. Few kids who are big and tough are under the radar. We can get "lesser" big players who are "relatively" big and tough, but we won't beat the better power teams then any way. The odds of going for shooting and speed are better in my mind than minding a miracle post man who could carry us. How players play in AAU and in HS also disfavors rugged inside play, and favor much less defense. The way big kids play now we see fewer of the good post players developed. They want to get out and shoot and run because they see how the pros play, and they just don't want to do the dirty work. So there are fewer targets to recruit and since coaches still want size and toughness, and just as many power teams recruiting against mid majors for fewer kids. As I said above we don't beat the power teams with second best big men. 2. Rules changes now favor the 3 point shot, and disfavor rough defense in the post and aggressive play on the boards. Being different in the direction of inside orientation goes against the rules too much unless you have a very great advantage in that area. See point one.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 7, 2018 13:48:03 GMT -6
When did I ever say smash mouth basketball? You have always used that term, not me. No, I said I want physical players inside and players who defend with toughness, control the tempo and the glass and impose their will on teams. You have to be able to go inside which opens up everything else. When I think smash mouth, I think of a team that only plays inside and I am not advocating that. We were not one dimensional in our most successful days. The most important trait is recruiting toughness and do the other things I mentioned above. Physical guards who are not afraid to defend. We agree on most of this. Except maybe game pace. I have said it in most posts, toughness and defense are desirable in any style. Well, except maybe extreme Loyola Marymount basketball... We were not entirely one dimensional but much more inside oriented back in the day. The way Paris McCurdy remembers it with Rick and Hunsaker is that it was inside, inside, get the rebound and go inside. I do not think physical inside play can control pace today nearly as easily as it could in Majerus day. When most offenses then went inside that toughness was essential to stifle that play and force poor outside shots. Now poor outside shots pay better. Teams have more shooters and they also run and shoot on the break. More "inside out" means more "out." Few play the grind it out slow style where they can control the game that way. There are reasons for that. The type of the players they get who play that style, and the rules. Imposing your will by force is a lot harder when a team playing fast can hit a few 3's and change the game quickly with a short clock.
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Mar 7, 2018 13:51:36 GMT -6
My fear is what happens when trey and Taylor graduate. WHO is replacing them it's only a year away I am worried about that and also that we will lack that firepower more than that we lack toughness and inside play. The good news is that the 3 red shirt players and the 2 freshmen recruited are all more oriented to tough defense. Huggins is strong, active. Walton a very good athlete. Hazen a good athlete and competitor. NONE play on the perimeter or avoid contact. Acree and Coleman are good athletes, long and good defenders. The bad news is now not just we should be getting a post player to replace Trey, but we probably still need more quickness on defense to run, and now need shooting, losing so many players who played well on the perimeter on offense. Long term there are shooters and quick kids out there, so we can more easily fill that need. I'll go long term with priority on size and toughness in any recruiting class. But right now, I would make a lights out shooter a top priority too.
|
|