Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TimSmiles

who will be the starting 2 guard on opening night?

who will be the starting 2 guard on opening night?  

93 members have voted

  1. 1. who will be the starting 2 guard on opening night?

    • Evan Taylor
      36
    • James Palmer
      42
    • Thomas Allen
      11
    • Other-Nana,Jack,Gill,Thorir
      4


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Shooters score, and scorers shoot. It's not one or the other, in my opinion.

 

14 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Shooters score, and scorers shoot. It's not one or the other, in my opinion.

Petteway was a scorer but not a shooter. It's a thing. Lots of guys are scorers without being a consistent outside threat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

Shooters score, and scorers shoot. It's not one or the other, in my opinion.

In theory. But it's not always true. Nobody on the roster gets the other team to say "oh, $#!%" when they take a shot. I think we've got a couple guys who can score, not sure we've got a dead-eye shooter, not that's done it on this level, at least. We need shooters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allen will swing between the PG and SG positions.  Despite that lack of size, there will be instances where Glynn and Allen will share the floor.  That said, I have been leaning towards Palmer being the starting SG.  Much will depend on Anton.  As I mentioned, I simply do not know whether health will allow Anton to play major minutes.  I hope I am wrong, but I'm hoping for the best.  We do not hear much about Palmer, but he is kind of like a silent fart, you don't hear it, but you know it is there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, uneblinstu said:

In theory. But it's not always true. Nobody on the roster gets the other team to say "oh, $#!%" when they take a shot. I think we've got a couple guys who can score, not sure we've got a dead-eye shooter, not that's done it on this level, at least. We need shooters.

 

Sure. But I think it matters not how the ball goes in... as long as NU scores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AuroranHusker said:

 

Sure. But I think it matters not how the ball goes in... as long as NU scores.

Again, in theory. For NU to give itself the best chance, they need a diversity of options. If you don't have guys that can fill it up from outside, it becomes much more difficult for your "scorers". I think they've got those guys. I'm not yet sure they have the guys on the perimeter. We've struggled every which way to put the ball in the hoop the past three years. We need more of both, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, uneblinstu said:

Again, in theory. For NU to give itself the best chance, they need a diversity of options. If you don't have guys that can fill it up from outside, it becomes much more difficult for your "scorers". I think they've got those guys. I'm not yet sure they have the guys on the perimeter. We've struggled every which way to put the ball in the hoop the past three years. We need more of both, really.

 

I understand how it works having played the game for a long time, but I don't tend to get overly concerned with the distinction between shooter & scorer as long as the "team concept" allows for good blend of scoring & defensive proficiency in totality. I'm not one to be too caught up in analytics of a long two versus a three as some might be (for instance). I want the ball to go in the hoop. Build momentum. Get a stop. Keep it going. That's the game of basketball. Swings of emotion followed by execution on the court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

I understand how it works having played the game for a long time, but I don't tend to get overly concerned with the distinction between shooter & scorer as long as the "team concept" allows for good blend of scoring & defensive proficiency in totality. I'm not one to be too caught up in analytics of a long two versus a three as some might be (for instance). I want the ball to go in the hoop. Build momentum. Get a stop. Keep it going. That's the game of basketball. Swings of emotion followed by execution on the court.

But there is a huge difference between shooters and scorers. If scorers settle for jump shots then they probably aren't scoring as much as you would like. Too many long two's lead to a lower percentage shooting and fewer balls in the basket and no reward of an extra point when they do go in. The details do matter. It makes the difference between being consistently good or hit and miss. It's the difference between a poor season and a good season or the difference between a good season and  great season.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dean Smith said:

But there is a huge difference between shooters and scorers. If scorers settle for jump shots then they probably aren't scoring as much as you would like. Too many long two's lead to a lower percentage shooting and fewer balls in the basket and no reward of an extra point when they do go in. The details do matter. It makes the difference between being consistently good or hit and miss. It's the difference between a poor season and a good season or the difference between a good season and  great season.  

 

That's fine. I didn't say that the details didn't matter. I said that the totality of the game is what matters. Offensive plus defensive proficiency.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2017 at 11:20 PM, AuroranHusker said:

 

That's fine. I didn't say that the details didn't matter. I said that the totality of the game is what matters. Offensive plus defensive proficiency.

 

 

But you did say, "I don't tend to get overly concerned with the distinction between shooter & scorer as long as the "team concept" allows for good blend of scoring & defensive proficiency in totality. I'm not one to be too caught up in analytics of a long two versus a three as some might be (for instance)."

 

My point is you need to be concerned about the distinction. What you say you are concerned about (Offensive plus defensive proficiency) doesn't happen on it's own. If you aren't concerned about the details, then the big picture falls apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dean Smith said:

But you did say, "I don't tend to get overly concerned with the distinction between shooter & scorer as long as the "team concept" allows for good blend of scoring & defensive proficiency in totality. I'm not one to be too caught up in analytics of a long two versus a three as some might be (for instance)."

 

My point is you need to be concerned about the distinction. What you say you are concerned about (Offensive plus defensive proficiency) doesn't happen on it's own. If you aren't concerned about the details, then the big picture falls apart.

 

I said I don't get too concerned with the long two vs. three as much as *some might be*. By the way, I do understand the difference. I specifically stated that I'm not as concerned as some... it's way too difficult to convey all my thoughts in this forum when the discussion goes on over several days. I stated my thoughts. I'm not as worried about that 'distinction' when you look at all of the details of the offense, defense, and transition. That's my opinion.

Edited by AuroranHusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess to put this discussion into terms we all understand, when the baker has all the proper ingredients for an apple pie, if the apples are a bit on the tart side, he will add a bit more sugar to the recipe or a tad more cinnamon if the apples seem too bland. What I am getting at is ...uhmmm, apple pie. Does anyone else like theirs with a scoop of vanilla bean ice cream and a nice wedge of sharp cheddar? And would you stand or kneel if the baker plays the national anthem before serving your piece?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2017 at 9:35 PM, AuroranHusker said:

 

My point is the ball needs to go in the hoop. Doesn't matter to me how.

The difference beteeen a scorer and a shooter is gravity. What you say is true if you are only looking at this from an individual level.  But from a team perspective, a good shooter can make it easier for the other 4 players on the floor to score simply by being on the floor, whether he is scoring or not. That is not always true of a scorer.

Edited by NUdiehard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2017 at 9:42 PM, AuroranHusker said:

 

I understand how it works having played the game for a long time, but I don't tend to get overly concerned with the distinction between shooter & scorer as long as the "team concept" allows for good blend of scoring & defensive proficiency in totality. I'm not one to be too caught up in analytics of a long two versus a three as some might be (for instance). I want the ball to go in the hoop. Build momentum. Get a stop. Keep it going. That's the game of basketball. Swings of emotion followed by execution on the court.

The analytics should not be ignored. The historical stats show that the long two is the most inefficient shot in the game.  Very very few players can shoot it at any better than a 40% clip. Most are more in the 30%-35% clip. Since this is true, the only logical conclusion is to take the two steps back and shoot the 3 which is worth 50% more than the 2 and yet only a few % less likely to go in (if that, many players today are better 3 point shooters than long 2 because practice 3 point shot so much more)

Edited by NUdiehard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NUdiehard said:

The difference beteeen a scorer and a shooter is gravity. What you say is true if you are only looking at this from an individual level.  But from a team perspective, a good shooter can make it easier for the other 4 players on the floor to score simply by being on the floor, whether he is scoring or not. That is not always true of a scorer.

 

Yes, of course. I was looking at it from an individual perspective. The total team performance is most important, that's my main thought on the matter. How the form takes to get a win is less important in my book. I'm happy with proficient offense, defense, and transition, and less concerned with involving the analytics in certain situations throughout a contest. Momentum is a big key in basketball, and that gets lost at times...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NUdiehard said:

The analytics should not be ignored. The historical stats show that the long two is the most inefficient shot in the game.  Very very few players can shoot it at any better than a 40% clip. Most are more in the 30%-35% clip. Since this is true, the only logical conclusion is to take the two steps back and shoot the 3 which is worth 50% more than the 2 and yet only a few % less likely to go in (if that, many players today are better 3 point shooters than long 2 because practice 3 point shot so much more)

 

When did I say to "ignore" analytics? I did say that I'm less concerned with that long two vs. three than *some might be* as I'd rather be concerned being an efficient team in each facet of the game to get positive results.

 

And, I realize that a 3 is worth 1 more point than a 2. Some players can make 19' shots at a fairly high rate but are less able to make 21' shots. That fact seems to get lost... and that's something I wanted to call attention. I honestly didn't think it was such a big deal. I have stated this opinion quite often over the course of many years on this forum.

Edited by AuroranHusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AuroranHusker said:

 

When did I say to "ignore" analytics? I did say that I'm less concerned with that long two vs. three than *some might be* as I'd rather be concerned being an efficient team in each facet of the game to get positive results.

 

And, I realize that a 3 is worth 1 more point than a 2. Some players can make 19' shots at a fairly high rate but are less able to make 21' shots. That fact seems to get lost... and that's something I wanted to call attention. I honestly didn't think it was such a big deal. I have stated this opinion quite often over the course of many years on this forum.

Players exist who still shoot enough 19' shots to know if they're any good at it?

 

Who knew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, atskooc said:

Players exist who still shoot enough 19' shots to know if they're any good at it?

 

Who knew?

 

That does seem to be valid... in a vacuum. Teams want other teams to shoot somewhat more-open 19' jumpers but will then contest 21' shots (gross generalization alert!).

 

Max range varies for some guys, as well.

 

 

Edited by AuroranHusker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Handy Johnson said:

Does Perkins still have Pie of the Month?

 

Is Perkins still in business?  Ever since their best customer Tiger Woods disappeared, their locations have been closing left and right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×