Davison could be the surprise this season. He put up some nice numbers last year at Southern Union.

(09-02-2009 11:15 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Davison could be the surprise this season. He put up some nice numbers last year at Southern Union.

I've met him, and seen him play in scrimmages a couple of times. He's very quick. And a nice kid. I hope he does well. If he come through, we'll have a lot of depth at the guard spots with Bozeman, Foster, III, Alex, Ricky, Nick, and Kelson. That's covering the point, 2 and 3 spots.
I believe Ricky will be very good on defense, and should be able to draw fouls since he's a quick, agressive player who like to penetrate to the basket. However, it would not be a surprise to me if he has a good career. He did well in the Juco ranks. And yes he's 6'1" tall, not 6'4".

(09-02-2009 11:15 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  Davison could be the surprise this season. He put up some nice numbers last year at Southern Union.

Pappy what numbers are you referring? I just ask because if I remember correctly, his FG% and 3 pt FG% were not good. I believe he took a ton of shots to get his average. I can remember thinking as many shots he took he should be averaging in the high 20s. I will try to see if I can find the numbers again.

As you say, he did not appear to be a great shooter, but evidently on a given night, when he is "on," he is capable of putting up some big numbers. 40 points one game, if I remember. I was looking at his bio on the roster spot.

(09-02-2009 11:55 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  As you say, he did not appear to be a great shooter, but evidently on a given night, when he is "on," he is capable of putting up some big numbers. 40 points one game, if I remember. I was looking at his bio on the roster spot.

Ok this is what I found:
FG 37% FGA 141 FGM 377
3 pt FG 32% FGA 60 FGM 189

He did shoot alot of free throws which he shot 73%. Stat wise he appears to be a slasher than a shooter, which goes with the Docs observation.

(09-02-2009 12:00 PM)LR Alum Wrote:  

(09-02-2009 11:55 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  As you say, he did not appear to be a great shooter, but evidently on a given night, when he is "on," he is capable of putting up some big numbers. 40 points one game, if I remember. I was looking at his bio on the roster spot.

Ok this is what I found:
FG 37% FGA 141 FGM 377
3 pt FG 32% FGA 60 FGM 189

He did shoot alot of free throws which he shot 73%. Stat wise he appears to be a slasher than a shooter, which goes with the Docs observation.

If he buys into Steve's system, I feel he'll be more of a defensive stopper than a scoring threat, although I feel he can certainly score some. He reminds me of Rod Smith, who had a pretty good career here.
Rod was a high school football player, who chose basketball in college.
A hard nose player. Not a sensational scorer, although he could hit a shot on occasion.

(09-02-2009 12:00 PM)LR Alum Wrote:  Stat wise he appears to be a slasher than a shooter, which goes with the Docs observation.

Who was it at North Texas a few years back who scored a ton of points but wasn't that good a perimeter shooter?

I found it. Chris Davis. He couldn't hit beans from the arc, but he shot around 200 FT's a season.

(09-02-2009 12:35 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  I found it. Chris Davis. He couldn't hit beans from the arc, but he shot around 200 FT's a season.

Remember Bo McCaleb from UNO a few years ago. He wasn't a great three point shooter, but he could score inside, and if he didn't score, he drew a foul, and was a good free throw shooter. Maybe that's the type player Ricky can become. If they can get him to play to his strenths, he might really do well.

The difference between Davis and Bo was that Bo worked hard and improved to a pretty good 3-point shooter by the time he was through. But you are right, when he started out he couldn't hit them either.

(09-02-2009 11:55 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  As you say, he did not appear to be a great shooter, but evidently on a given night, when he is "on," he is capable of putting up some big numbers. 40 points one game, if I remember. I was looking at his bio on the roster spot.

I would be interested in how the team did, win or lose, in the games where Ricky scored 40 points, or in games where he had a nice scoring game while taking a lot of shots. If he shot 32% from the 3 point line, while taking a lot of shots, and his team won most of those games, it could be an interesting stat.

You can just mark it down, when teams have players who take an inordinate amount of 3-pt shots and don't shoot them well, the teams don't generally win a lot. I have seen too many stat sheets that bear that out.

(09-03-2009 11:03 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  You can just mark it down, when teams have players who take an inordinate amount of 3-pt shots and don't shoot them well, the teams don't generally win a lot. I have seen too many stat sheets that bear that out.

I don't keep up with those things, but, watching Sun Belt teams,Troy has been a good example of that. They can wear you out if they're on, and they usually lose when they're off.

(09-03-2009 11:07 AM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(09-03-2009 11:03 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  You can just mark it down, when teams have players who take an inordinate amount of 3-pt shots and don't shoot them well, the teams don't generally win a lot. I have seen too many stat sheets that bear that out.

I don't keep up with those things, but, watching Sun Belt teams,Troy has been a good example of that. They can wear you out if they're on, and they usually lose when they're off.

I think some of that would be what type of rebounders you had inside. If they are taught that their main responsibilities are to rebound shots from the perimeter, and they're good at it, it could mean a lot of put back points. If your outside shooters shoot, say 32%, that's nearly equal to 50% from the field, so if you're taking a lot of shots at that percentage, and getting some put backs inside, you could be pretty effective offensively. Troy's problem was, I believe, that they had four guys shooting from the outside, and maybe one guy rebounding, who wasn't that great a force. If you have two or three guys shooting and two or three rebounding, your odds of success could go up greatly. Just a theory.

(09-03-2009 01:20 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  If you have two or three guys shooting and two or three rebounding, your odds of success could go up greatly.

No doubt.

(09-03-2009 01:20 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(09-03-2009 11:07 AM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(09-03-2009 11:03 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  You can just mark it down, when teams have players who take an inordinate amount of 3-pt shots and don't shoot them well, the teams don't generally win a lot. I have seen too many stat sheets that bear that out.

I don't keep up with those things, but, watching Sun Belt teams,Troy has been a good example of that. They can wear you out if they're on, and they usually lose when they're off.

I think some of that would be what type of rebounders you had inside. If they are taught that their main responsibilities are to rebound shots from the perimeter, and they're good at it, it could mean a lot of put back points. If your outside shooters shoot, say 32%, that's nearly equal to 50% from the field, so if you're taking a lot of shots at that percentage, and getting some put backs inside, you could be pretty effective offensively. Troy's problem was, I believe, that they had four guys shooting from the outside, and maybe one guy rebounding, who wasn't that great a force. If you have two or three guys shooting and two or three rebounding, your odds of success could go up greatly. Just a theory.

Doc, I like your theory of three guys shooting and three guys rebounding. We might be tough playing six against five. Still don't know if could win the tournament or not.

(09-03-2009 02:52 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(09-03-2009 01:20 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(09-03-2009 11:07 AM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(09-03-2009 11:03 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  You can just mark it down, when teams have players who take an inordinate amount of 3-pt shots and don't shoot them well, the teams don't generally win a lot. I have seen too many stat sheets that bear that out.

I don't keep up with those things, but, watching Sun Belt teams,Troy has been a good example of that. They can wear you out if they're on, and they usually lose when they're off.

I think some of that would be what type of rebounders you had inside. If they are taught that their main responsibilities are to rebound shots from the perimeter, and they're good at it, it could mean a lot of put back points. If your outside shooters shoot, say 32%, that's nearly equal to 50% from the field, so if you're taking a lot of shots at that percentage, and getting some put backs inside, you could be pretty effective offensively. Troy's problem was, I believe, that they had four guys shooting from the outside, and maybe one guy rebounding, who wasn't that great a force. If you have two or three guys shooting and two or three rebounding, your odds of success could go up greatly. Just a theory.

Doc, I like your theory of three guys shooting and three guys rebounding. We might be tough playing six against five. Still don't know if could win the tournament or not.

Obviously when three are shooting, only two can rebound, however it's very seldom that all three shoot at the same time, unless they allow us to use more than one basketball on the court. But if we could get them to allow us to have three shooters and three rebounders on the court at the same time, we might just be able to get to the tournament finals. Whether we could win it, now that's another story.

3 shooters. 3 balls. Sweet.

Simple math. You want guys shooting who make shots. It amazes me when coaches allow guards to blast away from the arc 100+ times a season who are shooting 29%. If that is their best option, they are in real trouble.

A 29% shooter puts up 100 3-point shots, that's 87 points. It takes a 43% 2-point shooter to make the same 87 points. That's about what our starting 5 did last year, 43%. Just a different way to make 87 points, that's all.