Jump to content

Roy Hibbert, De'ron Davis and the problem for old school bigs...


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 218
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 minutes ago, rico said:

No, just saying how the use of a big man has changed in the college game because of rules changes.

Absolutely, it's changed across the board because of rule changes. 

I feel bad that Btown and I got this thread so far off course, because the two of us have discussed the use of big men in the current game and we're absolutely on the same page as far as how the game has changed and the use of big men, etc, and especially as to how IU should use the big men on their roster (ie. Davis potentially not having a huge role). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, rico said:

No, just saying how the use of a big man has changed in the college game because of rules changes.

It is a guards game today for sure and they play more of an up tempo style that leads to the old fashion center to being obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

It is a guards game today for sure and they play more of an up tempo style that leads to the old fashion center to being obsolete.

Tempo is only part of it. It's the spacing that is a bigger issue for slow, plodding centers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a guy who was only 5'8 and could shoot the ball I love seeing great shooters but sometimes I think teams being so reliant of the 3 has hurt the game a little bit.  It seems like it has made the game less diverse where most teams play the same style.  I miss seeing guys who could score in the post or see guys shoot that 15 foot baseline shot.  IU has had some very good baseline shooters like Henderson, Cheaney and Anderson and that part of the game is totally wiped out with this style of offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

As a guy who was only 5'8 and could shoot the ball I love seeing great shooters but sometimes I think teams being so reliant of the 3 has hurt the game a little bit.  It seems like it has made the game less diverse where most teams play the same style.  I miss seeing guys who could score in the post or see guys shoot that 15 foot baseline shot.  IU has had some very good baseline shooters like Henderson, Cheaney and Anderson and that part of the game is totally wiped out with this style of offense.

That is totally wiped out because it isn't an efficient shot. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Tempo is only part of it. It's the spacing that is a bigger issue for slow, plodding centers. 

No doubt especially on the defensive end.  If teams could find a way to take advantage of that size in the post on the offensive end they could still be some what effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IU Scott said:

As a guy who was only 5'8 and could shoot the ball I love seeing great shooters but sometimes I think teams being so reliant of the 3 has hurt the game a little bit.  It seems like it has made the game less diverse where most teams play the same style.  I miss seeing guys who could score in the post or see guys shoot that 15 foot baseline shot.  IU has had some very good baseline shooters like Henderson, Cheaney and Anderson and that part of the game is totally wiped out with this style of offense.

Once again, rule changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, IU Scott said:

No doubt especially on the defensive end.  If teams could find a way to take advantage of that size in the post on the offensive end they could still be some what effective.

Yeah, but two-point shots are worth 50% less than 3 point shots. Patrick Ewing, a HOF center, only shot 50% from 2 for his career. That means you only need to shoot 33% from to match point for point. It's simple math. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

Fair point. Tom Coverdale and Mark Jackson would have a harder time today, too. 

Though there would be times where they would be our offensive post threat.. like Jalen Brunson was for Nova this year. You could not stop Nova when Jalen was in the post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KoB2011 said:

That is totally wiped out because it isn't an efficient shot. 

I would rather hit 6 out of 10 2 point shots than hit 4 out of 10 3's because that leads to 2 more miss shots that could lead to fast brakes for the other team.  Those shots were very effective in the day and nothing has changed that would make it less efficient.  People just rely on the metrics to much and just don't look how the game was actually played.  If you can score at all 3 levels, to me that would be the most effective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, btownqb said:

Though there would be times where they would be our offensive post threat.. like Jalen Brunson was for Nova this year. You could not stop Nova when Jalen was in the post. 

Yeah, I actually think they'd both be fine. I just was making fat jokes about them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I would rather hit 6 out of 10 2 point shots than hit 4 out of 10 3's because that leads to 2 more miss shots that could lead to fast brakes for the other team.  Those shots were very effective in the day and nothing has changed that would make it less efficient.  People just rely on the metrics to much and just don't look how the game was actually played.  If you can score at all 3 levels, to me that would be the most effective. 

Or it leads to two more offensive rebounding opportunities for your team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, btownqb said:

Or it leads to two more offensive rebounding opportunities for your team?

And since you're shooting from 3, they'll most likely be longer rebounds where you have a better shot at the o-board. 

I don't necessarily like that the game has moved to where the only good shots are 3 or layups, but I also get the metrics of it and why it needs to be done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

I would rather hit 6 out of 10 2 point shots than hit 4 out of 10 3's because that leads to 2 more miss shots that could lead to fast brakes for the other team.  Those shots were very effective in the day and nothing has changed that would make it less efficient.  People just rely on the metrics to much and just don't look how the game was actually played.  If you can score at all 3 levels, to me that would be the most effective. 

Not many guys shoot 60% on post-ups. It's borderline unheard of. 

I can look at how the game was actually played. Teams back in the golden age of Ronald Reagan, Trickle Down Economics and Larry Bird couldn't actually score at all three levels. They really couldn't score from three very well at all. 

Teams today can score at the rim and from three, they just score at the rim differently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, BGleas said:

 

I don't necessarily like that the game has moved to where the only good shots are 3 or layups, but I also get the metrics of it and why it needs to be done. 

 

That's just because you aren't the dead-eye shooter that Scott was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...