Next Year

[pie n eye]

That team disappointed a bit come March, considering it was a senior dominated team, something WSU hasn't had close to since then.

And the last we saw of that team, against Marshall in the dance, they lost the points off turnovers battle TWENTY SEVEN TO SEVEN (ouch). Guess who led the team in turnovers? And truly, my only memory of that game is watching Landry get his pocket picked just walking the ball up the floor. Marshall's point whipped his butt all over the floor (but he was pretty good). Remember that?

Before that, remember when Charlie Hustle, in his senior season, R. Baker (who I like by the way), bombed (meaning the team bombed) at his chance to play the point? Remember how much better the team played when our other, true, point returned?

One of these days (sooner rather than later hopefully) WSU's gonna get another true point, and that's probably right around the same time they'll make a good March run. You'll know one when you see one, indisputably. I haven't given up on Porter yet. Maybe Qua?

I’m not going to ignore a seasons worth of results because of one game. Basing an entire opinion on one result is not wise.

You’re leaving out several important factors regarding when Baker “bombed” at PG. Landry Shamet (who started as a freshman) got injured the game before the Orlando tourney. Conner Frankamp was not eligible until 2nd semester. Anton Grady suffered a spinal concussion during the Alabama game. Our second best player was freshman Marcus McDuffie who was playing in his 5th D1 game ever.

Despite all that we barely lost to both USC (69-72) and Alabama (60-64). Baker averaged 16 points, 4 Assists that tourney. Yeah, we got drilled by a ranked, NCAA 7 seed that finished third in the Big 10. He had very little help and their teammate just got paralyzed the day before.

I don’t agree at all that he bombed.

[Dan]

A true PG can break down a defender, get in the paint and make smart decisions with the bball, with a score or assist. Fred is the high bar we will compare all other PGs around here.

[ShockingButTrue]

A true PG can break down a defender, get in the paint and make smart decisions with the bball, with a score or assist. Fred is the high bar we will compare all other PGs around here.

WSU had pretty good success under another point guard named Malcom Armstrong too. I'd take another one like him. He was quick. Brauer was a pretty clever point who didn't turn it over a lot during his time on the court at the Round House, and had success in March. Would love to have seen what WSU could have done during GGG's inaugural season if Matt hadn't been done for the season early.

[ShockingButTrue]

The issue, in my opinion, is not pure point vs scoring point. The issue is impatience with players who need time to develop and, in the past, learn a very complex offense. I think we will see a much more simple offense from HCIB that leans more to stretch 4s where players can lean on athleticism instead of the point where they are expected to be a floor general. That takes the pressure off of having a cerebral point and makes it easier to plug and play guards in a era were rangy athleticism is valued higher and easier to find.

Your opinion is a minority one; point guards are secondary to a team's success? Or there's just no such thing as a Point Guard these days?

As far as athleticism being the new normal, even if that were true, I don't think anyone confuses WSU with Kentucky, as far as having 6'9 fowards (or even 6'6 for that matter) who can hit the 3, so therefore guard play isn't that important. Those athletes that can stroke it are in the NBA (after one year).

I happen to agree with college analyst Grant Hill who said "If you go back and look at the last 25 to 30 years, it's evident that you don't win a lot of championships without good guard play. Guards dictate the style of play." Shock, I'm assuming if you're a member of this forum that you've watched a ton of March basketball just like myself, and have seen with your own 2 eyes what a heady, smart and disciplined point guard can bring to a team. That is the same today as it was 50 years ago. How'd Kentucky do this year with all of their future NBA bigs'?

[shock]

Your opinion is a minority one; point guards are secondary to a team's success? Or there's just no such thing as a Point Guard these days?

As far as athleticism being the new normal, even if that were true, I don't think anyone confuses WSU with Kentucky, as far as having 6'9 fowards (or even 6'6 for that matter) who can hit the 3, so therefore guard play isn't that important. Those athletes that can stroke it are in the NBA (after one year).

I happen to agree with college analyst Grant Hill who said "If you go back and look at the last 25 to 30 years, it's evident that you don't win a lot of championships without good guard play. Guards dictate the style of play." Shock, I'm assuming if you're a member of this forum that you've watched a ton of March basketball just like myself, and have seen with your own 2 eyes what a heady, smart and disciplined point guard can bring to a team. That is the same today as it was 50 years ago. How'd Kentucky do this year with all of their future NBA bigs'?

I'm not saying a good pure point isn't valuable. I'm saying that changing the offense from a point guard focused offense to one that focuses on exploiting an athletic mismatch at the 3 and 4 and taking the onus off the point guard makes it more flexible and easier to fudge the line-up.

I agree with you about having (and preferring) a cerebral PG focused offense like we had with Clevin/Rags/Fred. I prefer the sound technical college game to the athletic mismatching the is frequently seen in the NBA. However, the upper crust of the AAC (Houston, Memphis) trends to schemes that exploit the athletic mismatches at the forward positions so I expect HCIB to implement a scheme that reflects that. Plus, it doesnt hurt to have RC4 and Chaunce in a scheme like that.

[ShockingButTrue]

I don't want to see another converted 2/3 playing the point for WSU like we saw before Gilbert arrived. The evidence speaks for itself. But, yes, a team must play to its strengths.

And no matter the team, or scheme, a team must have a primary ball-handler that runs, and sets up, an offense (whatever type of offense it may be). Nobody. Would. Dispute. That. Ideally, that guy would be a really good ball handler, and history shows that the longer one has played that position (like since the 8th grade) the better they will be at having the ball in their hands vs. a converted 2/3 man.

There was a reason why everyone was scratching their head at Memphis's lack of success this year. It was pretty obvious what their short-coming was, even to the uninformed. Now I'm talking strictly on the court.

[pie n eye]

I don't want to see another converted 2/3 playing the point for WSU like we saw before Gilbert arrived. The evidence speaks for itself. But, yes, a team must play to its strengths.

And no matter the team, or scheme, a team must have a primary ball-handler that runs, and sets up, an offense (whatever type of offense it may be). Nobody. Would. Dispute. That. Ideally, that guy would be a really good ball handler, and history shows that the longer one has played that position (like since the 8th grade) the better they will be at having the ball in their hands vs. a converted 2/3 man.

There was a reason why everyone was scratching their head at Memphis's lack of success this year. It was pretty obvious what their short-coming was, even to the uninformed. Now I'm talking strictly on the court.

The evidence doesn’t speak for itself but whatever. You just ignore anything that doesn’t align with your opinion that was formed on the tiniest of anecdotes.

Memphis had two point guards for the early portion of the season when they went 4-3. After Deandre Williams became eligible they were 16-5. They won the NIT (such lack of success) without Lomax, their true point guard.

I don't follow Memphis as closely as I do WSU and I doubt you do either. So, let’s not pretend we understand and can diagnose the ups and downs of their season with much accuracy.

[ShockingButTrue]

The evidence doesn’t speak for itself but whatever. You just ignore anything that doesn’t align with your opinion that was formed on the tiniest of anecdotes.

Memphis had two point guards for the early portion of the season when they went 4-3. After Deandre Williams became eligible they were 16-5. They won the NIT (such lack of success) without Lomax, their true point guard.

I don't follow Memphis as closely as I do WSU and I doubt you do either. So, let’s not pretend we understand and can diagnose the ups and downs of their season with much accuracy.

Anecdotal (unicorns anybody)? Point guards aren't important? Does 2+2= 5 now? Oh, wait...

Maybe I just watch more college basketball than you. That's probably why you thought WSU could destroy lowly Drake and Loyola? But, actually, you did try to compare the AAC to the ACC as I recall, in a reply you made to me recently. I kinda' got a clue then.

Lomax was benched because of "Coaches Decision" several times this year, and every time I watched them play I thought great decision Penney (because I wanted WSU to win the conference). As far as Memphis success goes the pundits were wrong and you were right, Memphis didn't have a disappointing season, considering all of their 4 and 5 * players? That is in the least anecdotal.

So avoiding any further inaccurate presumption's how about we agree to disagree? I like 1's playing the point and you like 2/3's playing the point.

NAMASTE (that's for kel)

[pie n eye]

Anecdotal (unicorns anybody)? Point guards aren't important? Does 2+2= 5 now? Oh, wait...

Maybe I just watch more college basketball than you. That's probably why you thought WSU could destroy lowly Drake and Loyola? But, actually, you did try to compare the AAC to the ACC as I recall, in a reply you made to me recently. I kinda' got a clue then.

Lomax was benched because of "Coaches Decision" several times this year, and every time I watched them play I thought great decision Penney (because I wanted WSU to win the conference). As far as Memphis success goes the pundits were wrong and you were right, Memphis didn't have a disappointing season, considering all of their 4 and 5 * players? That is in the least anecdotal.

So avoiding any further inaccurate presumption's how about we agree to disagree? I like 1's playing the point and you like 2/3's playing the point.

NAMASTE (that's for kel)

No idea what you’re talking about with AAC/ACC comparison, you’ll have to jog my memory. I definitely never said WSU would destroy Drake/Loyola.

Lowly Drake and Loyola? Huh? Drake gave USC its best challenge until Gonzaga. Loyola team that went to the sweet 16. They were two very good teams.

I like good players at all positions. I’m not concerned with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 designations.

Fred plays a lot of 2 in the NBA so I guess he’s not a true point anymore.

Landry led his team to a top 10 ranking and a 4 seed in the NCAA but they got beat by Marshall so he must not have been a true point guard. Hey, Chris Paul’s Wake Forest team didn’t make it out of the first round in his final year so I guess he’s not a PG either.

[WuTheOne]

NM

[WuTheOne]

bored_v2.png

[pie n eye]

bored_v2.png

What a great post, thanks for your vital addition to the discussion.

[shock]

No idea what you’re talking about with AAC/ACC comparison, you’ll have to jog my memory. I definitely never said WSU would destroy Drake/Loyola.

Lowly Drake and Loyola? Huh? Drake gave USC its best challenge until Gonzaga. Loyola team that went to the sweet 16. They were two very good teams.

I like good players at all positions. I’m not concerned with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 designations.

Fred plays a lot of 2 in the NBA so I guess he’s not a true point anymore.

Landry led his team to a top 10 ranking and a 4 seed in the NCAA but they got beat by Marshall so he must not have been a true point guard. Hey, Chris Paul’s Wake Forest team didn’t make it out of the first round in his final year so I guess he’s not a PG either.

Yeah Landry and Austin running point were definitely not the reason that team went down.

[Dan]

Landry was an NBA caliber guard. Just because he could handle the point, does not mean we want regular 2 guards switching over to run our point. The offense stalled when Conner he tried to play point, which is why Landry was moved over. All that said, I do think Tyson is another 2 guard type that could be an effective PG here.

[ShockingButTrue]

Yeah Landry and Austin running point were definitely not the reason that team went down.

Well stated shock.

That team went down because the turnover battle was won by Marshall bigly. As in 27-7, for the other guys.

Now, back to the conversation; who's WSU's #1 going to be next year? We pretty much know who the 2, 3, 4 and 5 are going to be.

NAMASTE