|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 28, 2022 6:18:33 GMT -6
I just think it's more realistic to hope the new coach maximizes an existing, known skill set, rather than hope he conjures up a new, unseen skill set from a player we've seen start three years.
But everyone is welcome to their own expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2022 6:45:35 GMT -6
I just think it's more realistic to hope the new coach maximizes an existing, known skill set, rather than hope he conjures up a new, unseen skill set from a player we've seen start three years. It's more a case of using skills that we didn't see used enough than developing some new skill set out of thin air. With Bumb we saw him lose his shot last year. I thought much of it was defense that could anticipate what he was doing, much of it fatigue. I'm suggesting using him different ways to prevent both reasons. What else does changing coach mean except doing things differently? |
|
|
|
Post by cardfan on Oct 28, 2022 7:08:04 GMT -6
No clue how any of these guys are going to play, but, I'm hopeful that with a new coach who has a TOTALLY different mindset and methodology and philosophy from Whitford that our players will actually begin playing cohesive, effective basketball.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2022 8:24:53 GMT -6
No clue how any of these guys are going to play, but, I'm hopeful that with a new coach who has a TOTALLY different mindset and methodology and philosophy from Whitford that our players will actually begin playing cohesive, effective basketball. That mindset is most significant on the defensive side. Whitford wanted everyone to play D, but his scheme was based on clogging the paint, making post play hard, and funneling drives into the crowd, a zone in the lane more. Too often the opponent could find a player wide open outside and get the ball to them.
We never were able to create turnovers and get out and take advantage of that with quick offense.
My guess is that Lewis will contest the ball, still help on the drive but also try to extend the defense and make passes harder to complete and generally be more aggressive. Could hurt us in the lane, but we have some decent sized guards who are athletic and we should be able to help and still recover outside. I hope.
On offense I hope to see more movement of the ball passing and quicker movement, less reliance on P&R since still probably don't have a great guard to attack off the ball screen. Might see those athletic players get to the basket more 1 on 1, move more without the ball, and fewer people just hanging outside the arc to provide spacing. I hope.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 28, 2022 9:41:43 GMT -6
I heard earlier in the summer that Windham was looking good and playing a lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 28, 2022 10:48:10 GMT -6
I heard earlier in the summer that Windham was looking good and playing a lot. He was potentially a great catch and shoot guy with Whitford, but never played D and maybe for that was in the dog house permanently.
If he only became a microwave scorer off the bench for us he'd add a lot. If the vibe was good in the summer on his game my bet is he is actually playing D, a very good sign. It would take a lot of pressure of Bumbalough to hit those outside shots and a lot more reason for Bumbalough to look to pass the ball. Get an extra pass, better shot.
Sellers was a pretty accurate shooter, too. We know Coleman likes to have the ball a lot, but if the emphasis is on moving the ball quickly with the pass we'd have 4 kids who can shoot. None were great in using the Whitford P&R scheme. A lot of ball movement by passing and with luck more driving to the basket would give guys more chances to shoot outside or catch defenses running out at them after it forced help. That creates chance to drive for them those outside shooters. Even Pearson and Jihad could benefit.
I know we tried to use shooters on the outside to space the floor and get shots in the lane, but I just didn't like the P&R on every play when the players weren't really good at using it. Persons could make that offense work pretty well, can't say we had anyone else really good at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 29, 2022 8:39:24 GMT -6
A smart rule of thumb to use for your expectations is that after you see a player for two years in college, you know what you have. This rule of thumb is ignored CONSTANTLY on fan boards...not just this one. Fans perceive a need for their team, see no obvious player to fill it, and then start engaging in wishful thinking about some returning player. Significant improvement from freshman to sophomore year is quite common...even typical. But significant improvement after that is rare. I'm not saying it NEVER happens, and you will usually see marginal improvement. But I think if you look back over the years here for such cases, you will quickly see what I mean.
I've seen some speculation of this sort here already about Windham, Bumbalough and even Hendriks. Odds are that this will end in disappointment. You would be on firmer ground looking for improvement from Sellers, Jihad or even Sparks.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmcalhoun on Oct 29, 2022 8:56:26 GMT -6
I don’t think they improve but I hope they are better used or in windhams case used at all
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 29, 2022 9:11:34 GMT -6
A smart rule of thumb to use for your expectations is that after you see a player for two years in college...I've seen some speculation of this sort here already about Windham, Bumbalough and even Hendriks. Odds are that this will end in disappointment. You would be on firmer ground looking for improvement from Sellers, Jihad or even Sparks. Everybody probably agrees. Any debate on the matter has a lot to do with change of offense and defense and different players in the mix that make players more effective.
It also boils down to the fact we did not see the latter two players much last year to judge what they can do, and a fresh start has revived players in a enough cases to make it worth speculation.
With Bumbalough, shooting really fell of by the end of last year, some regression to the mean is plausible.
Not only that but all things are not equal with a change in system where there is there some reason to think he can he can be a better player on a different team where he doesn't have to play as many minutes and is not so often the guy with the ball when the clock is running down. As far as finding more return from his existing ball handling skills, there might be a better fit with better results where the principle way they are used is not P&R where he wasn't much of a threat to drive to the basket and was not tall enough or quick enough to get great shots when there was a switch.
With Windham he showed shooting skill last year, we're not looking at discovering some new skill there, and a change of coach could mean a difference, especially if he simply played with more effort on defense. This is not development of skill as much as motivation and a defensive system change.
With Hendricks, I am a skeptic, but then we have no idea what his story was after his first year when he came back from a summer and was a big disappointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Oct 29, 2022 9:22:45 GMT -6
I don’t think they improve but I hope they are better used or in windhams case used at all Well said in a few words, not my strength...The "General" rule is actually that players do improve and are more productive as upper class players, but usually not a great deal, so I mostly agree they may not improve all that much other than how well they are able to use the skills they have. The premise of changing coaches is in large part that a different scheme might improve our play.
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Oct 29, 2022 17:18:10 GMT -6
A smart rule of thumb to use for your expectations is that after you see a player for two years in college, you know what you have. This rule of thumb is ignored CONSTANTLY on fan boards...not just this one. Fans perceive a need for their team, see no obvious player to fill it, and then start engaging in wishful thinking about some returning player. Significant improvement from freshman to sophomore year is quite common...even typical. But significant improvement after that is rare. I'm not saying it NEVER happens, and you will usually see marginal improvement. But I think if you look back over the years here for such cases, you will quickly see what I mean. I've seen some speculation of this sort here already about Windham, Bumbalough and even Hendriks. Odds are that this will end in disappointment. You would be on firmer ground looking for improvement from Sellers, Jihad or even Sparks. I agree on guards, but post players can be a different story. They tend to take longer to develop, like Chris Kaman for instance. However, I get what you're saying - even with those guys you could see the potential they had as underclassmen. |
|
|
|
Post by williamtsherman on Oct 30, 2022 12:25:45 GMT -6
Kaman's three years at Central went 9/5, 12/8, and 22/12. So, yes if you go back 20 years you can find a counter example in the form of a half-German 7 footer from a small Christian HS.
And my rule of thumb probably is somewhat less true for bigger player, but I'm sticking with it for its general usefulness in avoiding dumb expectations.
|
|
|
|
Post by CallingBS on Oct 30, 2022 12:46:34 GMT -6
Kaman's three years at Central went 9/5, 12/8, and 22/12. So, yes if you go back 20 years you can find a counter example in the form of a half-German 7 footer from a small Christian HS. And my rule of thumb probably is somewhat less true for bigger player, but I'm sticking with it for its general usefulness in avoiding dumb expectations. I wasn't really disagreeing with you. In fact, I mostly agree with you, but perhaps didn't word it the best. My point was that guards tend to be able to plug into the college game faster than post players. I don't have any hard data except decades of watching college basketball. |
|
