2 for 1's

[shockmonster]

This is a message board. Message boards are where fans express their opinions and other fans express their agreement, disagreement, disgust, and contempt for those opinions.

Posts like the one I've quoted tend to stifle discussion. Once the "trust Marshall" card is played, that pretty much ends the conversation. There's not much that can be said following that, that's not going to be interpreted as not trusting Marshall.

"What if" scenarios can be great for discussion, but if the "what if" is anything other than what some posters feel is Marshall's strategy, those posters play the "you don't trust Marshall" card, and the discussion ends.

Let me give an example. I don't like 6' shooting guards. I'm not fond of 6' PG's unless they are blazing quick or have other skills that elevate them above typical players at their height. 6' guards typically struggle on defense because opponents just shoot over the top of them. Turgeon even mentioned that as a problem for Brauer, and I loved Brauer's game. He had intangibles, but he could be exploited on D by taller players.

I watched every AAU game FVV played the summer after his Jr year in HS. FVV is not blazing quick, but his "other skills" category was off the charts.

Next year there will be three 6' guards on the roster. My lack of enthusiasm for 6' guards has been construed as I don't trust Marshall, because if I trusted him, I'd love 6' guards.

I trust that Marshall recruits the best available talent he can get to WSU.

Yeti is stating his opinion. Isn't he allowed to his opinion too? You aren't enthusiastic about FVV (who happens to be a 6' guard) or am I not understanding your statement/opinion? I think FVV is one of our best recruits in the Marshall era (I guess I should say all eras). Actually, Fred is one of the best PG's ever at WSU.

[shockmonster]

Sorry Aargh. I re-read your post and found this regarding FVV. You obviously were not including FVV into your blanket statement regarding 6' guards at WSU.

"I watched every AAU game FVV played the summer after his Jr year in HS. FVV is not blazing quick, but his "other skills" category was off the charts."

I should add that I have a strong hunch that Conner will also have some shooting skills that will be as you say "off the charts". Reports also say that he is a very good athlete to go along with his offensive skills. In the end we will be happy he is a Shocker.

[The 'hut]

I always yell that we should go 3 for 1. It's way better than 2 for 1.

What??? Did I miss the announcements? Carlos and Wong's and Magic Machine re opened? Rock me some 7-8pm 3 for 1s! Where's my leisure suit?

[im4wsu]

Originally Posted by TheYeti

No thoughts from me on this. WSU has a highly paid guy who makes these decisions.

I'm sorry, but I do not see any opinion in this statement. There are only facts. (1) Yeti has no thoughts ... on this subject. (2) WSU indeed pays a guy mucho bucks to make these decisions. Can someone please 'splain the opinion in this.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Just to clarify, it has been clear throughout HCGM's tenure that he likes 2 for 1s. The suggestion in my original post is that our press defense after the "made" basket is preventing us from getting the second shot.

Sorry for somewhat going away from your original post. The time spent on an inbounds pass is an interesting concept.

I know what Marshall has said, but my observation has been that his teams do not attempt 2-for-1s as often as they should.

[Dave Stalwart]

What about "wells" and "you-call-its?"

[molly jabali]

I always yell that we should go 3 for 1. It's way better than 2 for 1.

Thank you for the chuckle!:)

[jazztrane]

I have thought the same thing on a couple of occasions, where it seemed like pushing for a quicker shot would get us two possessions to one, and why didn't we do it. I would think an assistant could be assigned to that, or have a quick reference of "if x much time left, do this" to maximize possessions. But I could see them saying one good possession is what they prefer.

I can't remember what game I was watching but it was a close game and one team had the ball with around 1:10, and the other team had two fouls to give. When the clock ran down to :55 or so I was thinking "they should give a foul here and take away the 2 for 1" but they didn't do it. Made me wonder how much coaches watch for that? You would think with every possession being critical that's something you would strategize to maximize your chances in the end game.

[SHOXAAC]

Tracking 2-1 is nearly impossible because "intent" would have to be undeniable for it to be accurate.

I don't buy in due to these reasons. Why hurry up a possession in leu of a potential good possession that might take 30-35 seconds and result in points. It's a recipe for a bad shot IMO. And how many times have we seen a last possession before halftime turn in to a forced bad shot solely predicated on the time element? There are so many possessions in a game. If the team does there job reasonably well and values those possessions, let the results fall where fall. 2-1 thinking has more flaws than benefit IMO.

[ShockBand]

Aside from the youth/inexperience factor, might another reason we see it so much more at the NBA level is the fact they wind the clock to zero four times a game instead of just two? Also, jacking up a quick 3 is a much more common offensive "scheme" in the NBA, at least it seems so to me!

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

I don't buy in due to these reasons. Why hurry up a possession in leu of a potential good possession that might take 30-35 seconds and result in points. It's a recipe for a bad shot IMO. And how many times have we seen a last possession before halftime turn in to a forced bad shot solely predicated on the time element? There are so many possessions in a game. If the team does there job reasonably well and values those possessions, let the results fall where fall. 2-1 thinking has more flaws than benefit IMO.

I don't think last possessions of a half are a good comparison. In that case, the defense knows you have to shoot quickly, and the offense intentionally waits until the last 5 seconds to do anything, leaving few options against a defense that knows what is coming (a quick shot). In the 2-for-1 scenario, the defense doesn't know if you are going to shoot quickly or not. Also, if no good shot is available, the team intending to 2-for-1 can always throw it back out and concede that a longer possession is necessary.

I'm absolutely convinced that a well coached 2-for-1 will lead to a shooting percentage greater than half of that of a standard, 35 second possession. As long as the shot has a success rate greater than half of what would occur in a standard, long possession, it is worth it in my opinion. With guys like Baker and FVV, I imagine that a decent shot could be obtained most of the time. Heck, I'll take Baker pulling up for 3 off the dribble, twice, over one standard possession, any day of the week.

Even if one disagrees with my assumed percentages above, can we at least all agree that it makes sense to give the players the green light to shoot early in the possession if a decent opportunity presents itself with 40-50 seconds remaining in the half? Nothing bugs me more in all this 2-for-1 talk than when a player passes up on a reasonable shot with 45 seconds remaining as if he were trying to protect an end-of-game lead and run some clock.

[ShockBand]

I agree, Jamar, that with our current shooters we might stand to gain from running a good 2-for-1, so long as it follows what sounds like a wordplay on a John Wooden mantra. The shot needs to be quick, but not hurried.

[Cdizzle]

I still say 3 for 1, or even 1 for none is better. 4 for 1 if you can get it, but that is getting more difficult.

[engrshock]

This is a message board. Message boards are where fans express their opinions and other fans express their agreement, disagreement, disgust, and contempt for those opinions.

Posts like the one I've quoted tend to stifle discussion. Once the "trust Marshall" card is played, that pretty much ends the conversation. There's not much that can be said following that, that's not going to be interpreted as not trusting Marshall.

"What if" scenarios can be great for discussion, but if the "what if" is anything other than what some posters feel is Marshall's strategy, those posters play the "you don't trust Marshall" card, and the discussion ends.

Let me give an example. I don't like 6' shooting guards. I'm not fond of 6' PG's unless they are blazing quick or have other skills that elevate them above typical players at their height. 6' guards typically struggle on defense because opponents just shoot over the top of them. Turgeon even mentioned that as a problem for Brauer, and I loved Brauer's game. He had intangibles, but he could be exploited on D by taller players.

I watched every AAU game FVV played the summer after his Jr year in HS. FVV is not blazing quick, but his "other skills" category was off the charts.

Next year there will be three 6' guards on the roster. My lack of enthusiasm for 6' guards has been construed as I don't trust Marshall, because if I trusted him, I'd love 6' guards.

I trust that Marshall recruits the best available talent he can get to WSU.

I do not understand your statement with respect to 6 ft. tall guards. Are you saying you would rather have an average 6' 3" point guard (Adam Liberty) or shooting guard as opposed to a good (Matt Brauer) or stand-out (FVV) 6' 0" tall point guard or shooting guard? Would you rather have a good 7' center or a good 6' 7" center? All things being equal I would think that in a sport like basketball that a taller player with similar skills would be better choice. That's a "duh" statement. That being said there are many more 6' tall players to choose from than 6' 3" players. The odds of finding a 6' tall player with "special skills" is much higher than finding a 6' 3" guard with those same skills. Power Conference schools are full of tall players on bad teams and I would not trade the teams that HCGM has put together over most of them. John Stockton was probably only 6' tall. I guess you would not want him because he was too short. If you would accept him then I would think that regardless of his height you are looking at the special skills as being more important.

[pie n eye]

I do not understand your statement with respect to 6 ft. tall guards. Are you saying you would rather have an average 6' 3" point guard (Adam Liberty) or shooting guard as opposed to a good (Matt Brauer) or stand-out (FVV) 6' 0" tall point guard or shooting guard? Would you rather have a good 7' center or a good 6' 7" center? All things being equal I would think that in a sport like basketball that a taller player with similar skills would be better choice. That's a "duh" statement. That being said there are many more 6' tall players to choose from than 6' 3" players. The odds of finding a 6' tall player with "special skills" is much higher than finding a 6' 3" guard with those same skills. Power Conference schools are full of tall players on bad teams and I would not trade the teams that HCGM has put together over most of them. John Stockton was probably only 6' tall. I guess you would not want him because he was too short. If you would accept him then I would think that regardless of his height you are looking at the special skills as being more important.

Charles Barkley would fit into this category I think.

Tall ain't all.