We could see three guards rotated in and out in different combinations this year. It would not surprise me to see III playing a lot of point if Bozeman is as shoot-oriented as he appears to be.

Nothing wrong with a point guard that can score.

(11-10-2009 08:48 AM)Scotto Wrote:  Nothing wrong with a point guard that can score.

I agree. But he should be the last option, not the first. You want a point guard who sees the floor and distributes the ball around. But if they start playing four on five and letting him stand unguarded, then he needs to be able to shoot the ball. Nothing wrong with scoring, but if that's his first option, then he's not a point guard, he's a shooting guard.

(11-10-2009 08:30 AM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  We could see three guards rotated in and out in different combinations this year. It would not surprise me to see III playing a lot of point if Bozeman is as shoot-oriented as he appears to be.

III's temperament would allow him to play the point. He is an unselfish player, who would probably do better if he wasn't so unselfish. Whether he could handle all the duties of a point guard, like breaking the press, etc., I don't know, but I have a feeling he will be playing up on top of the circle some this year. You need both he and Solo in the lineup most of the time.

Lionel isn't ready for prime time yet. Not that he isn't improving, but he'll never be a great scorer like Solo and III have the potential to be. His strengths are probably his floor awareness and ability to play some defense, but you need at least two shooters on the floor at all times. We saw last year what happened when III was our only shooter. He had a target on his chest, and there was nobody else to take that pressure off of him.

With both Solo and III in the lineup, they can't gang up on either one. Not to say Lionel's shooting hasn't improved, but that's just not his strong suit. I really think that if Ricky Davison learns the system, he could possibly be the best back up for Solo. He has similar attributes, and is a good on ball defender. And I would like to see Nick coming in to spell III. But Lionel is improving, and obviously the coaches see something in practice they like.

(11-10-2009 08:59 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  Nothing wrong with scoring, but if that's his first option, then he's not a point guard, he's a shooting guard.

A point guard that passes the ball just to be passing the ball is not nearly as effective as a point guard that can score when the opportunity arises.

(11-10-2009 10:25 AM)Scotto Wrote:  

(11-10-2009 08:59 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  Nothing wrong with scoring, but if that's his first option, then he's not a point guard, he's a shooting guard.

A point guard that passes the ball just to be passing the ball is not nearly as effective as a point guard that can score when the opportunity arises.

Obviously. But from what I've read on this board in the past, you guys prefer a Zach Graber, who never shoots the ball, unless it's a last option. In our offense, and probably most, the point guard is the quarterback and runs the offense. If he gets a good shot, great, but he should be trying to set up an easier shot by another player. I loved Zach, but it frustrated me when he never would shoot. I would like to see a happy medium. Point guard taking five or six shots a game, and setting up the shooting guard and inside players for easier shots. That always seemed to be our coaches philosophy, but with Stevie and now Solo, all of a sudden they seemed to allow a different type of philosophy.
As long as it works, I don't really care what we do.

(11-10-2009 10:31 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  As long as it works, I don't really care what we do.

Even if it means III not getting the ball?

(11-10-2009 10:39 AM)Scotto Wrote:  

(11-10-2009 10:31 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  As long as it works, I don't really care what we do.

Even if it means III not getting the ball?

I'll get back to you on that one!

Let's see how things look a few more times before declaring it is broken.

(11-10-2009 11:27 AM)insideualr Wrote:  Let's see how things look a few more times before declaring it is broken.

There's nothing broken, IMO. We just haven't put the pieces together yet. We're still in the building process. The blocks will start to fall into place after a couple of game, which we could definitely lose, but that's allright. I have confidence we have enough talent to compete in the conference again this year, and our tough early schedule should prepare us for the league race.

(11-10-2009 11:30 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  Let's see how things look a few more times before declaring it is broken.

There's nothing broken, IMO. We just haven't put the pieces together yet. We're still in the building process.

I hope you are right, Doc. But I remember how they never did fall into place during JJ's years here. I think our talent is better now, however.

(11-10-2009 12:43 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  

(11-10-2009 11:30 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  Let's see how things look a few more times before declaring it is broken.

There's nothing broken, IMO. We just haven't put the pieces together yet. We're still in the building process.

I hope you are right, Doc. But I remember how they never did fall into place during JJ's years here. I think our talent is better now, however.

We still don't have that really tall inside player with ball skills who can dominate inside. Our guys are good blue collar workers, and Mike will have a good year, but like some of you have mentioned, we're not structuring our offense to fit the players we have, and can recruit. Until that changes, we're not going to be a prominent player in the league. Best in the West sometimes, but put Western, Middle and USA in the West with us, and we'd normally be in fourth place in our division.
I do think our talent is improving, but we've still got a ways to go. What's the answer? There are three solutions to the problem. 1. Recruit dominating inside players. 2. Change to a guard oriented up tempo offense. or 3. I won't comment on the third solution. I leave that to LRTrojan. Personally I prefer Option #2.

(11-10-2009 08:48 AM)Scotto Wrote:  Nothing wrong with a point guard that can score.

That's what I was thinking. When I hear Solo compared to Stevee Moore or Zach Wright or Nick Zachary, all of whom got crossways with the coaches because of poor decision-making while trying be point guards, I believe it's not valid. A good penetraing point guard makes the defense stop HIM FIRST, and THEN, IF they collapse to make shooting a bad decision, he, instead makes the good decision to pass it to the best option. If the defense doens't play good defense and doesn't collapse, he simply takes the rock low and scores it; if they collapse, but too late, he draws fouls. If he is a good finisher, he can be a terrific point guard and a terrific scorer at the same time. You don't have to be a 5-point-a-game typle guy to be a great point guard. I've been waiting for years to have someone who is both, and I hope Solo might be the guy.

(11-10-2009 05:05 PM)Ynocpirt Wrote:  I've been waiting for years to have someone who is both, and I hope Solo might be the guy.

He sure looks like the real deal. Hard to stop, good free throw shooter, unselfish.

Add Medium Mike and Mr. Jackson and we've got a nice 3-pack.

I loved Zach, but it frustrated me when he never would shoot.

I don't remember a Zach who would never shoot. Who was that? I remember a Zach who, like Stevee Moore, would take it in amongst the trees and shoot and shoot and shoot BAD shots.

(11-10-2009 05:12 PM)Ynocpirt Wrote:  I loved Zach, but it frustrated me when he never would shoot.

I don't remember a Zach who would never shoot. Who was that? I remember a Zach who, like Stevee Moore, would take it in amongst the trees and shoot and shoot and shoot BAD shots.

Looks like we're getting our Zachs or Zacks mixed up. Zach Graber hardly ever shot. Zach Wright got tangled up in the trees and crossways with the coach. As did Stevie. But it looks like Solo could be the real deal. Let's hope so anyway.

(11-10-2009 05:16 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-10-2009 05:12 PM)Ynocpirt Wrote:  I loved Zach, but it frustrated me when he never would shoot.

I don't remember a Zach who would never shoot. Who was that? I remember a Zach who, like Stevee Moore, would take it in amongst the trees and shoot and shoot and shoot BAD shots.

Looks like we're getting our Zachs or Zacks mixed up. Zach Graber hardly ever shot. Zach Wright got tangled up in the trees and crossways with the coach. As did Stevie. But it looks like Solo could be the real deal. Let's hope so anyway.

Make that Zack Graber and Zach Wright. Zach Wright was not a point guard, but they had him playing there his junior year, that possibly could have been the reason for whatever happened that caused him to leave before his senior year. I never did think he was happy playing the point.

(11-10-2009 05:38 PM)LRTrojan Wrote:  

(11-10-2009 05:16 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  

(11-10-2009 05:12 PM)Ynocpirt Wrote:  I loved Zach, but it frustrated me when he never would shoot.

I don't remember a Zach who would never shoot. Who was that? I remember a Zach who, like Stevee Moore, would take it in amongst the trees and shoot and shoot and shoot BAD shots.

Looks like we're getting our Zachs or Zacks mixed up. Zach Graber hardly ever shot. Zach Wright got tangled up in the trees and crossways with the coach. As did Stevie. But it looks like Solo could be the real deal. Let's hope so anyway.

Make that Zack Graber and Zach Wright. Zach Wright was not a point guard, but they had him playing there his junior year, that possibly could have been the reason for whatever happened that caused him to leave before his senior year. I never did think he was happy playing the point.

I don't think that was why he left. I think there were things similar to Stevie Moore that caused the coach to help him find another place to play. I think it had to do with the example he wasn't setting for the other players, especially the younger ones. Like Stevie, I don't think he did anything especially bad, but just didn't fit into the coach's plan.

Bang inside, rebound and make put backs when our guards miss shots.
Obviously play defense and block shots inside without getting into early foul trouble. If they can do that, our perimeter players can carry the offense.

(11-10-2009 05:05 PM)Ynocpirt Wrote:  

(11-10-2009 08:48 AM)Scotto Wrote:  Nothing wrong with a point guard that can score.

That's what I was thinking. When I hear Solo compared to Stevee Moore or Zach Wright or Nick Zachary, all of whom got crossways with the coaches because of poor decision-making while trying be point guards, I believe it's not valid. A good penetraing point guard makes the defense stop HIM FIRST, and THEN, IF they collapse to make shooting a bad decision, he, instead makes the good decision to pass it to the best option. If the defense doens't play good defense and doesn't collapse, he simply takes the rock low and scores it; if they collapse, but too late, he draws fouls. If he is a good finisher, he can be a terrific point guard and a terrific scorer at the same time. You don't have to be a 5-point-a-game typle guy to be a great point guard. I've been waiting for years to have someone who is both, and I hope Solo might be the guy.

From what I'm reading from the posts on the board and what Vint said on the air confirms that we maybe running some dribble drive. When Rose was playing for Memphis he would penetrate and score or get foul until someone was able to stop him then he would pass it to the open men when they finally try to lock him down. It look like Harding could not stop him so he kept calling his own number...that is not selfish but playing to the game plan. I guess we will find out if Solo is selfish if he is being shutdown and he doesn't pass the ball.