PDA

View Full Version : Willie Warren scores 41!



Sooner24
6/8/2008, 04:59 PM
Willie Warren scored 41 in the Faith 7 game setting a new scoring record for the game.

http://newsok.com/oklahoma-texas-stars-light-up-scoreboard/article/3254645/?tm=1212899662

Curly Bill
6/8/2008, 05:01 PM
nice

Big Red Ron
6/8/2008, 05:41 PM
Warren (http://newsok.com/keysearch/?er=1&CANONICAL=Willie+Warren&CATEGORY=PERSON) scored 16 points in less than three minutes, pumping his fist near mid-court after his second consecutive 3-pointer

boomersooner28
6/8/2008, 07:06 PM
Yeah, we got a good one. We have one season to make a run with WW and BG.

ouradu
6/8/2008, 09:20 PM
Yeah, we got a good one. We have one season to make a run with WW and BG.BG is great, and a huge part of this team next year, but... don't count out success after BG leaves. I really think Capel is bringing in some talent and building something here that could lead to some continued and even greater success. BG/WW next year could be fantastic, but I don't anticipate BG leaving resulting in a huge dropoff.

soonerfan28
6/9/2008, 08:42 AM
Who is this Willie Warren kid? He seems pretty good. Maybe we can get him. Just kidding. I can't wait to see him in an OU uni next year. Does anybody think he'll play anything other then point? Is he a legit 6'4?

cheezyq
6/9/2008, 09:25 AM
One of the things I like about BG and WW is that they're both so explosive. We've had some very talented players in the last 20 years, but not too many that I would really describe as explosive. Seriously, two guys who've won dunk contests on the same team? When have we ever had that at OU? Not that dunk contests are how you measure greatness, of course. But I can't wait to see BG and/or WW drive the lane and hammer it down over oh....say, Damion James next year. :D

boomersooner28
6/9/2008, 01:47 PM
BG is great, and a huge part of this team next year, but... don't count out success after BG leaves. I really think Capel is bringing in some talent and building something here that could lead to some continued and even greater success. BG/WW next year could be fantastic, but I don't anticipate BG leaving resulting in a huge dropoff.


Yeah, BUT BG AND WW leaving is the issue. I know Capel is bringing in talent, but these guys are both legitimate lottery picks in the 09 draft. That will be hard to replace.

soonerfan28
6/9/2008, 03:54 PM
Any video of the 41 points?

stoopified
6/10/2008, 03:35 PM
Who is this Willie Warren kid? He seems pretty good. Maybe we can get him. Just kidding. I can't wait to see him in an OU uni next year. Does anybody think he'll play anything other then point? Is he a legit 6'4?
During the McDonalds game they said he was closer to 6'3.I am in the minority in that I expect to play the point in the upcoming season.AJ has had a 2+ -1 assist -turnover ratio the last two seasons which means (contrary to popular belief) HE TAKES CARE OF THE BALL.Secondly if you watch WW play,his strength is SCORING and then creating off the scoring threat.I say don't think Quamas White but more like Terell Everett(lots of assists AND turnovers)

.As a true frosh I just don't see Capel putting that load on WW's back.In fact I think the presence of a BIG TIME perimeter scorer will allow AJ to be able to concentrate on point without worrying about scoring.Simultaneously it will allow WW to do what he does best (SCORE),without trying to run the offense.

SoonerBOI
6/10/2008, 04:52 PM
Boonerzzzzzzzzz Logic: KP scores 37 pts in 25 min. WW scores 41 pts. in 30+ min. KP (obviously the savior of the Boonerzzzzzzzz) >>>>> WW.:D

soonerfan28
6/10/2008, 05:55 PM
During the McDonalds game they said he was closer to 6'3.I am in the minority in that I expect to play the point in the upcoming season.AJ has had a 2+ -1 assist -turnover ratio the last two seasons which means (contrary to popular belief) HE TAKES CARE OF THE BALL.Secondly if you watch WW play,his strength is SCORING and then creating off the scoring threat.I say don't think Quamas White but more like Terell Everett(lots of assists AND turnovers)

.As a true frosh I just don't see Capel putting that load on WW's back.In fact I think the presence of a BIG TIME perimeter scorer will allow AJ to be able to concentrate on point without worrying about scoring.Simultaneously it will allow WW to do what he does best (SCORE),without trying to run the offense.

I'm not sure that I think AJ will even start. I think it could be WW and TC. Just my opinion.

the_ouskull
6/18/2008, 09:08 PM
During the McDonalds game they said he was closer to 6'3.I am in the minority in that I expect to play the point in the upcoming season.AJ has had a 2+ -1 assist -turnover ratio the last two seasons which means (contrary to popular belief) HE TAKES CARE OF THE BALL.

This is a common misconception about AJ. He doesn't turn the ball over much, sure, but that's only because terrible shots from halfcourt count as FG attempts, not TO's. Also, when he throws an ill-advised pass to a post player that's being fronted and doubled, and the post player gets to the pass and then loses it... that's a TO on the post, not on AJ.

I hope that Warren can learn how to run the point, and, if he's going to play at the next level, he's going to have to learn how to do just that. I think that, given his ability, and his drive (to date) he's got that kind of chance... so, yeah, I think he'll be rather receptive to learning how to run a team, and Capel will be the guy to teach him. Fo' sho'.

the_ouskull

starrca23
6/19/2008, 07:33 AM
I am just not sure why WW wouldn't run the point. DJ Augustine and Scottie Reynolds did pretty good as freshman, and so did that TJ Ford guy. Warren is everything we don't have at the point position.
Think about this: Cade Davis, Tony Crocker, Blake Griffin, WW and any guy over 6 foot 9 on the floor. Who is gonna double down on Big Blake? The other big guys dive weakside to the rim, Cade floats strong side base line for a three, Crocker stretches the backside and Willie has a one on one from the top of the key. That is basic stuff.

Big Red Ron
6/19/2008, 10:10 AM
I am just not sure why WW wouldn't run the point. DJ Augustine and Scottie Reynolds did pretty good as freshman, and so did that TJ Ford guy. Warren is everything we don't have at the point position.
Think about this: Cade Davis, Tony Crocker, Blake Griffin, WW and any guy over 6 foot 9 on the floor. Who is gonna double down on Big Blake? The other big guys dive weakside to the rim, Cade floats strong side base line for a three, Crocker stretches the backside and Willie has a one on one from the top of the key. That is basic stuff.
:pop:

IronHorseSooner
6/19/2008, 11:11 AM
Think about this: Cade Davis, Tony Crocker, Blake Griffin, WW and any guy over 6 foot 9 on the floor.

I still think that Patillo will start at the SF. I really believe that Taylor will start opposite Blake down low, just because he's a senior and due to team chemistry (at least at the start of the year). By conference play, I wouldn't doubt that Wright starts. Coach must feels likes a kid in a candy store next year with the line-up combos, unlike his first two seasons.

soonerfan28
6/19/2008, 05:17 PM
Warren,Crocker,Patillo,Griffin,Griffin. With AJ, Davis, Wright and Cannon coming off of the bench. I think OU will have the luxury of going small if need be.

the_ouskull
6/19/2008, 07:10 PM
I am just not sure why WW wouldn't run the point. DJ Augustine and Scottie Reynolds did pretty good as freshman, and so did that TJ Ford guy. Warren is everything we don't have at the point position.
Think about this: Cade Davis, Tony Crocker, Blake Griffin, WW and any guy over 6 foot 9 on the floor. Who is gonna double down on Big Blake? The other big guys dive weakside to the rim, Cade floats strong side base line for a three, Crocker stretches the backside and Willie has a one on one from the top of the key. That is basic stuff.

Well, my first guess would be because Warren is a 2 and not a 1; natural position-wise, anyway. He's only a 1 in that he has a lot of off-the-dribble, breakdown-his-man kind of moves. He's not accustomed to running an offense, especially at the DI level. Augustine and Reynolds and Ford (oh my!) were all point guards coming into college. I'm sure that Warren has played some point, but he's not really a point... he's a 2.

I agree with you on saying he's everything that we don't have at the point position though. He can dribble and pass, and he's yet to take one single bad shot in a game in an OU uniform. As far as I'm concerned, he's already ahead of AJ for the starting spot.

the_ouskull

soonerfan28
6/19/2008, 09:32 PM
I think Taylor will also play some SF. It just depends on the lineup in at that time.

the_ouskull
6/20/2008, 02:17 AM
I'd rather see Taylor stick to playing the four, if for no other reason, Blake can play 3-5, and Taylor can really only play the four well, and the three defensively or the five defensively, depending on the match up.

My "fantasy" lineup for next season, thusly named because it would require everything good happening for all of our players' individual development:

1 - Willie Warren, Freshman
2 - Tony Crocker - Junior
3 - Blake Griffin - Sophomore
4 - Taylor Griffin - Senior
5 - Ryan Wright - transfer Junior

This allows us to bring Austin Johnson off of the bench, and it allows us to bring Juan Patillo off of the bench as well. Now, if Patillo comes in, and is the real deal, then we can bump Blake up to the 4, scratch Taylor down to a coming-off-of-the-bench role, and start Patillo at the 3. And don't forget about Cade Davis. Either way, we're going to have semi-experienced, but quality starters, and an experienced, and fairly talented bench. Couple that with good coaching, and some really hungry players (transfers and JUCO players; people who feel that they have to go all-out above and beyond the call of duty) and highly recruited players, looking to both lead a team, and add to their audition reel for "the next level" (Blake Griffin, Willie Warren) and we've got the makings of a team that can bring some ruckus next season. It's nice. :D

the_ouskull

starrca23
6/20/2008, 10:07 AM
I agree skull. I like your line up too. I still think Davis could end up starting, Warren will create a lot of open looks for him. He could put up some nice numbers.

Eielson
6/20/2008, 02:48 PM
1 - Willie Warren, Freshman
2 - Tony Crocker - Junior
3 - Blake Griffin - Sophomore
4 - Taylor Griffin - Senior
5 - Ryan Wright - transfer Junior


I don't like that lineup at all.

First of all, that most likely will throw every good big man we have out there on the floor right away with nobody to come off the bench. Cannon is our only hope to have a decent backup be able to come in and one is not going to be enough if you remember last year.

Second, and most importantly, that puts Blake Griffin out at the 3. Why would we put Blake out at the 3? He isn't a guard. His outside shot wasn't good at all and his dribbling is only considered good for a big man. That would be ridiculous to take him away from the basket.

the_ouskull
6/20/2008, 11:02 PM
Because, by playing Blake at the three, we'd be taking advantage of a few things... 1) the fact that he can post up almost every 3 in the world offensively, 2) the fact that, defensively, he can guard most of the 3's that he'll face in college, especially in the post, but also, thanks to his athleticism, on the perimeter as well. He won't have to shoot from the outside just because he's playing the three. Also, 3) it sets him up a bit further from the basket, giving him a chance to watch plays develop from the outside, and then take advantage of his outstanding (for a big man) passing ability.

As for throwing every good big man we have on the floor right away...

It's not like we have a dearth of big men patrolling the sidelines in Norman. This lineup allows us to compete, size-wise, with every team in the country. Sure, our bench would be (no pun intended) thin, but at the same time, if we''re on the wrong side of a 20-10 rebounding advantage when we go to the bench, how much can we really be expected to catch up.

Play your best players. Let the other team worry about the potential matchups. Also, with a bench mob of AJ, Patillo, and Cade Davis, there isn't going to be a huge need for size out of our big men, so much as the ability to run the floor, and set screens... which is good, 'cause that's all that most of our big men coming off of the bench are going to be capable of for a while, if not always.

4) Taylor is even more limited from the perimeter than Blake is, because Taylor can't guard 3's, he can't shoot as well from the outside as Blake, and he's a worse ball-handler and passer. Like I said in the original post... If Patillo develops into a starter, then we bump Blake to the 4 or 5, and either Taylor or Wright to the bench. This makes us deeper positionally without sacrificing any skill and / or experience in our starting unit.

But other than those things, yeah, it's probably a bad idea...

the_ouskull

Eielson
6/21/2008, 09:34 AM
Because, by playing Blake at the three, we'd be taking advantage of a few things... 1) the fact that he can post up almost every 3 in the world offensively, 2) the fact that, defensively, he can guard most of the 3's that he'll face in college, especially in the post, but also, thanks to his athleticism, on the perimeter as well. He won't have to shoot from the outside just because he's playing the three. Also, 3) it sets him up a bit further from the basket, giving him a chance to watch plays develop from the outside, and then take advantage of his outstanding (for a big man) passing ability.

He can post up every 3 but he could also post up any 4 or 5 in the country. It isn't like they would put a small guy on Blake if he was just going to post up everytime. Even if they did that would be 6 players all right around the lane and that would onl make it harder for Blake to score. Sure, we could have somebody leave the lane but that would mean that Blake was playing the 4 and whoever left would be playing the 3 so it would be pointless.


As for throwing every good big man we have on the floor right away...

It's not like we have a dearth of big men patrolling the sidelines in Norman. This lineup allows us to compete, size-wise, with every team in the country. Sure, our bench would be (no pun intended) thin, but at the same time, if we''re on the wrong side of a 20-10 rebounding advantage when we go to the bench, how much can we really be expected to catch up.

It isn't like we would be losing the rebounding 20-10 with Blake and Taylor/Wright in the lineup. Having very few big men is a reason to start some of them on the bench, not put more out there on the court.

Like you mentioned, if Patillo develops into a starter we should start him. If not, we should go with Cade Davis. If Davis is as good as he is supposed to be at shooting he would easily score 10-15 points a game. With Warren and Blake there is no way that the other team will be able to guard Crocker and Davis.

MojoRisen
6/21/2008, 10:18 AM
One of the things I like about BG and WW is that they're both so explosive. We've had some very talented players in the last 20 years, but not too many that I would really describe as explosive. Seriously, two guys who've won dunk contests on the same team? When have we ever had that at OU? Not that dunk contests are how you measure greatness, of course. But I can't wait to see BG and/or WW drive the lane and hammer it down over oh....say, Damion James next year. :D

I think that team with Skeeter Henry and several high flyers if I remember correctly. The Helicopter comes to mind - but it has been several years.

the_ouskull
6/21/2008, 05:35 PM
He can post up every 3 but he could also post up any 4 or 5 in the country. It isn't like they would put a small guy on Blake if he was just going to post up everytime. Even if they did that would be 6 players all right around the lane and that would onl make it harder for Blake to score. Sure, we could have somebody leave the lane but that would mean that Blake was playing the 4 and whoever left would be playing the 3 so it would be pointless.

Hardly worthless... Blake CAN post up just about anybody with whom he's matched up against. Now, not related to that, yet, is that the pick-and-roll is one of the easier plays to run in basketball. Now, picture THIS scenario... Blake at the 3, Taylor at the 4. Switch. Now, chances are Taylor's being guarded by a 3, someone that he can post fairly easily, and / or Blake's being guarded by a 4, someone that he can blow past off of the dribble fairly easily, or post up, if it's a "quick" 4.

Like I said, it gives us our most versatility, taking into account offense, defense, and player knowledge of one another's tendencies. I hope that nobody thinks it's a coincidence that Taylor's game has stepped up a notch since Blake got to campus.

T. Griffin, 2007: 6.3 ppg on 40% shooting, with 5.2 boards. 1.4 assists to 1.8 turnovers. (Lame.) Not quite a steal or a block (0.8, and 0.9, respectively) and 3.0 fouls per game. All of this in 23.4 mpg.

T. Griffin, 2008: 6.5 ppg on 43% shooting, with 4.9 boards. 0.9 assists to 1.2 turnovers. (Still lame, but not nearly as bad.) And, once again, not quite a steal or a block per game. (0.8 and 0.7) But, he averaged only 2.4 fouls per game, and he did it all in fewer minutes, albeit, it's not by much... 21.9.

BUT...

In Big 12 play, his averages went up to 7.5 ppg and 6.1 rpg. (20/6 vs. OSU) (12 and 15 in place of an injured Longar vs. Tejas) (16 and 12 vs. Tech in place of Blake.)

He's gotten exponentially more confident, and, therefore, better, playing alongside his brother. He's a senior. He's a bridge between the Sampson era, and the Capel era. He's got a chance to be a leader; and a leader that an otherwise young team needs. (He shoots 77% from the line, or 73% for his career, if you'd rather have those numbers...)

Blake's strong enough to guard anybody. Taylor's strong enough to guard 4's, and big enough to guard 3's. I think that, working them together on the wings is a good idea for a team that's had difficulty getting into offensive sets. I also think that, given Blake's ball-handling and passing, he makes a lot more sense being the one that's on the perimeter. Also, Blake will score, be it from the line, around the hoop, or those little 8-10 foot leaners he's getting so good with... and we're going to get boards this year, between Taylor, Wright, and, yes, even Blake. We just won't need to lean on Blake for boards the way that we did last year with Longar being the weak-side help.

I'm sure that both lineups, and any lineup in which Patillo starts, will be great lineups. I'm good with them. Whatev. But I also know that mine would work, and it's not like I just pulled it out of my magical *ss for your bemusement on a Sooner message board. I've been thinking about next year a lot lately... 'cause I have OCPD. It's what I do. :D I'm getting stoked... Hop on board, man.

It isn't like we would be losing the rebounding 20-10 with Blake and Taylor/Wright in the lineup. Having very few big men is a reason to start some of them on the bench, not put more out there on the court.

If any of them get themselves into foul trouble, they're going to have to come out anyway. We may as well try to get as many minutes out of all of them as possible. What's the point of starting an unproven guy in Cannon just to bring the more experienced Taylor off of the bench, for example. There are a number of ways our lineup could work out WELL, and an even larger number of ways in which it could not work out at all. We won't know, for sure, until we see some of these guys under the lights though...

Like you mentioned, if Patillo develops into a starter we should start him. If not, we should go with Cade Davis. If Davis is as good as he is supposed to be at shooting he would easily score 10-15 points a game. With Warren and Blake there is no way that the other team will be able to guard Crocker and Davis.

There will be if Davis hasn't learned how to put the ball on the floor. Crocker can drive, and he can shoot, but he's not too good at doing both... especially on the same play. Davis can shoot when he's got time to catch it in a rhythm, but he can't create his own shot for sh*t yet. I'd LOVE to see an Oklahoma guy get some more burn, but, until he can create and play more like a guard and less like a forward, he's going to pick splinters from time to time... especially against either bigger, or more athletic teams...


the_ouskull

NormanPride
6/23/2008, 09:54 AM
Is sacrificing Blake's interior defense a good idea to put him against a 3 that, usually, is just a rebound guy?

soonerfan28
6/23/2008, 10:34 AM
Is Cannon even big enough to play the 5. I think they might even try to get Allen in there. I know he has had weight issues before, but if his game is decent then I think he'll be the man at the 5. We don't truly have any other big man that can match up down there against guys that are close to 7'0 and around 250.

Eielson
6/23/2008, 10:54 AM
Is Cannon even big enough to play the 5. I think they might even try to get Allen in there. I know he has had weight issues before, but if his game is decent then I think he'll be the man at the 5. We don't truly have any other big man that can match up down there against guys that are close to 7'0 and around 250.

Most college kids that are around 7'0 are soft and uncoordinated. The only recent 7 foot guy that I can think of that wasn't one or the other is Ronny Turiaf.

I guess Greg Oden was pretty good but he went as the #1 pick in the draft and I don't know if he could hold Blake's jock. There aren't very many dominant college players that are over 6'7 or 6'8 and when they do come along they are gone after a year.

the_ouskull
6/23/2008, 07:24 PM
Most college kids that are around 7'0 are soft and uncoordinated. The only recent 7 foot guy that I can think of that wasn't one or the other is Ronny Turiaf.

Lopez, from Stanford. (Brook, not Robin, although both will likely be drafted..) Love, from UCLA. (He may be doughy, but "soft" and he are not close.) Joe Alexander, from West Virginia. (You heard it here first...) Kosta Koufos, from tOSU. Anthony Randolph, from LSU. (Who has "bust" written all over him, but still...) Robin Lopez, also from Stanford. (The "other" brother.) DeVon Hardin, from Cal. D.J. White, from Indiana. Sasha Kaun, from Kansas. (Although he probably won't get drafted... if he does, it'll be mid-late 2nd round...)

Those are just the guys off of the top of my head that are going to go in THIS year's draft. And THAT'S not even counting all of the foreign players that are going to be 1st-rounders... and aren't playing "foreign" games the way that you used to could count on them playing. (ie - soft, perimeter-oriented games...)

Turiaf, really? Do you WATCH basketball?

I guess Greg Oden was pretty good but he went as the #1 pick in the draft and I don't know if he could hold Blake's jock.

I love Blake's game and all, but, since nobody ever told you, please, allow ME to tell you... When you're smoking crack, you don't have to smoke the whole rock, man.

Oden as a 13th grader: 15.6 ppg on 61.6% shooting, 9.7 rpg, and 3.3 bpg, playing half of the season with a broken wrist. He also committed fewer than 3 (2.7) fouls per game, and only turned the ball over twice per game. Oh, and, even though he shot them with his left hand for a large portion of the season, he was a 63% FT shooter too. Oh, and there's that whole, "led his team to the national championship title game" thing too... finishing that game with 25, 12, and 4 against Horford and Noah, two 2007 1st-rounders...

Blake as a 13th grader: 14.7 ppg on 56.8%, 9.1 rpg, 0.8 bpg, (although Oden is more of a shot-blocker, not to mention about 2-3 inches taller at LEAST... Blake did out-assist Oden, 0.9 to 1.8 though) and he had very similar TO and PF numbers to Oden (2.3 and 2.5) as well. He also shot 58.9% from the line, and led his team to the round of 32, finishing his freshman year with 12, 4, and 4.

So, once again, put the pipe down... worry about whether or not Blake can hold Oden's jock in another year or two.

There aren't very many dominant college players that are over 6'7 or 6'8 and when they do come along they are gone after a year.

Wow. Just going with guys from this season...

Arthur, KU; Lopez, Stanford; Hibbert, Georgetown; Koufos, tOSU; Jackson, KU; Jordan, Texas A&M; Hendrix, Alabama; White, Indiana; Plaisted, BYU; Hardin, Cal; and, to hear smoe of the Cleti tell the tale, Longar, OU.

Now, granted, to call some of this last crew "dominant," isn't quite being accurate, or fair in any way... but, in many years past, Arthur, Lopez, Hibbert, Koufos, White, and Hardin would have all taken off for (literally) greener pastures long, long ago. We'll see this first-hand next year, when the draft's depth absolutely sucks. Look for a lot of marginal underclassmen to declare, as well as a flood of guys (more so than usual) from overseas, just trying to become the tired, poor, huddled masses that they've heard so much about for so long.

So, in conclusion, yes, there are a LOT of soft, uncoordinated tall guys out there, but those are the Longar's of the world, and they have no place in PROFESSIONAL basketball. Blake DOES have a place, but he's far from a unique snowflake. But, he is OUr unique snowflake, and I'm d*mn glad we have him. [Vince Vaughn] Let's shoot some f*ckin' birds. [/Vince Vaughn] :D

the_ouskull

Eielson
6/23/2008, 08:32 PM
Arthur, KU; Lopez, Stanford; Hibbert, Georgetown; Koufos, tOSU; Jackson, KU; Jordan, Texas A&M; Hendrix, Alabama; White, Indiana; Plaisted, BYU; Hardin, Cal

Arthur- Is this guy even 6'9? I was talking about 7 footers
Lopez- There is one.
Hibbert- I am not intimidated at all by this guy. He scored 2 points against Memphis?
Koufos- The guy at Ohio State that couldn't hit a layup?
Jackson- 6'8?
Jordan- He sucked! He didn't even start!
Hendrix- 6'9?
White- 6'9?
Plaisted- I had never even heard of this guy. I checked him out though and he is 6'10. He played at BYU and he had good stats but for BYU and their competition it isn't just amazing. I would give it to you if he were a 7 footer, though.
Hardin- 6'11! Almost! Of course, he averaged a little over 7 points and a 6 rebounds for his career.

So basically, you just proved that we don't have to worry about 7 footers. There was one good 7 footer last year...and we didn't even play him! I don't need some guy who thinks that arguably the best post player in the nation should be put on the perimeter to question if I know anything about basketball.

the_ouskull
6/23/2008, 11:45 PM
Arthur- Is this guy even 6'9? I was talking about 7 footers


Originally posted by you: There aren't very many dominant college players that are over 6'7 or 6'8 and when they do come along they are gone after a year.
That's a 4-5' swing there, sir. I don't know where you're from, but where I'm from, we like to call that "Byron Houston'ing." (And the funnier thing is, given his recent "legal issues," that works on even MORE levels...)

Lopez- There is one.

Uh, like, he's a twin, so that's automatically two. Duh.

Hibbert- I am not intimidated at all by this guy. He scored 2 points against Memphis?

...and 20 against UConn. ...and 21 against Notre Dame. ...and he averaged about 19 and 12 against West Virginia. ...and he had 14/9 and 4 blocks in an early win at Alabama. I can spout off random numbers to better my cause too. The bottom line is, the guy is a legit 7'2", and he's a legit 260+ pounds. He faced a lot more zone in college than he will in the NBA. I mean, if the worst that you can say about the guy is that he's a defensive-minded Eddie Curry, then there is (probably sadly, but still) GOING to be a spot for him in the league.

Koufos- The guy at Ohio State that couldn't hit a layup?

Couldn't hit a layup? He's 7'1", shot 51% from the field and shot 35% from the 3-point line! (22-63, I ask you again, sir, do you even WATCH basketball? He also almost 70% from the line. Good thing that he's a 7'1" guy that weighs 265 and has three-point range. So maybe he's a MUCH bigger, but less-mobile version of Utah's Okur? Yeah, most teams in the league will take that. Especially since he's only 19 freaking years old.

Jackson- 6'8?

Well, at least by not saying anything, you didn't manage to embarrass yourself...

Jordan- He sucked! He didn't even start!

He only played less than 20 minutes 12 times (out of 35) all season long, and that includes four straight games (probably the ones that you remember) at the end of the year when he put up a DNP, and then 5 minutes, 4 minutes, and 5 minutes, respectively, against ISU, KSU, KU, and BYU. But, he's a highly athletic 6'11", 250 who is only 20 years old and shoots 62% from the field. You say he sucked. NBA scouts say that the only thing keeping him out of the lottery is the fact that he DID suck during the second half of the season. He also had games of 11 and 8 in 26 minutes in a win AT tOSU, and 16 and 12 with 4 blocks in 20 minutes against Rice. It's flashes like that that will get scouts' attention. He's big, he's ridiculously athletic, and he's young.

Hendrix- 6'9?

Yes, he's 6'9". He's also 250, don't leave that out. ...and there's his 17 ppg, 10 rpg, 2 bpg on 60% shooting. Don't leave that out either. He's incredibly strong, he's got HUGE hands, and he's got long arms, which let him play taller than he actually is. (Hence 2 bpg, despite playing the 5 most of the time...) He had 19/12/3 at A&M, 17/9 vs. Georgetown, 24/16/3 against Florida, 20/12 vs. Tennessee, 19/17/3 vs. LSU, etc, etc, etc... He's a beast, and he's a legit 6'9". Imagine Carl Landry with an offensive game, more height, and more strength. I mean, if the worst we can say about him is Carl Landry, he's doing pretty well.

White- 6'9?

I'll retract White 'cause it's starting to come back that he's 6'7", which, if that's the case, he'll be a 3 if he ever even sticks in the NBA. Even though he's been a beast in the weight room since the off-season started, I think he's going to measure (pun TOTALLY intended) a little short. Also, he's had some injury problems, which, when coupled with a smaller-than-expected played, usually spells D, as in D-league, not Da-league.

Plaisted- I had never even heard of this guy. I checked him out though and he is 6'10. He played at BYU and he had good stats but for BYU and their competition it isn't just amazing. I would give it to you if he were a 7 footer, though.

I just want to interrupt this beatdown to laugh for a second. It's cute how you keep trying to throw in the whole (seven footer) thing here at the end, when you, and I, and anybody else still reading this crap, all know that you yourself (reflexive) said, There aren't very many dominant college players that are over 6'7 or 6'8 and when they do come along they are gone after a year. It's mind-bottling.

Hardin- 6'11! Almost! Of course, he averaged a little over 7 points and a 6 rebounds for his career.

Almost! It's actually 9.3 ppg, 7.4 rpg, and 1.2 bpg. NOT impressive numbers. But, in 06/07, he only played 12 games because of a stress fracture in his foot. A stress fracture that he probably shouldn't have played on as much as he did THIS season. But he's very, very raw offensively. He's got poor hands. He's also 6'11, 235, and he's only 21 years old. You think that the Mavs wouldn't trade Dampier for Hardin right this second? You sir, are loony. Other teams feel the same way. Get a guy that can be an athletic rebound machine with really good footwork (once again, it simply bottles my mind how he can have the footwork he does and not be a better offensive player) and teach him how to say "eight points per game on offensive rebound/putbacks." He's an upgrade, or a younger model, for seven NBA teams right now. If you put him in a come-off-of-the-bench role, he's got time to develop a little bit of an offensive game. With him, it's alllll about work ethic.

I don't need some guy who thinks that arguably the best post player in the nation should be put on the perimeter to question if I know anything about basketball.

So, what does the fact that you're walking around with three feet right now say about whether or not I "question your knowing anything about basketball?"

We've already firmly established that you don't watch basketball, or even read what you look up to use in your argument (see also, your version of Hardin's stats) but I thought for sure that you at least knew how to read. I said that Blake would make a better 3 than Taylor. I said that, by occasionally putting him on the perimeter, it would give us more, and better, options, offensively, without hurting us defensively. You took everything else and ran with it yourself, much like your 7-footer comment, because, in your hurry to try to prove how much you know about basketball, you failed to pick an opponent of your own skill level. So, in searching for someone to try to argue with, next time, instead of walking onto the rubber against Barry Bonds after he'd just had a 3-way with the cream and the clear, I'd recommend you start here:

http://www.worth1000.com/entries/105000/105195QwYU_w.jpg

the_ouskull

NormanPride
6/24/2008, 09:56 AM
Did you just say "mind-bottling"?

the_ouskull
6/24/2008, 11:28 AM
Yeah, twice... (Watch "Blades of Glory," especially if you're into stupid-mindless fun.. Frank the Tank and Napolean Dynamite team up to win ice skating gold.)

the_ouskull

Eielson
6/24/2008, 11:46 AM
I'm not even gonna mess with explaining why you are wrong with each and every one of those players. I basically stand by my original comments and don't feel the need to add anything to it.

I want to show you this-


Most college kids that are around 7'0 are soft and uncoordinated.

Yes, I said 7 footers. Eventually I did go on to say-


There aren't very many dominant college players that are over 6'7 or 6'8 and when they do come along they are gone after a year.

First of all, 6'7 or 6'8 wasn't exact. That is just a range. 6'9 isn't really any different than 6'8. Plus, their listed height isn't even their real height. They usually add shoes and then another inch or two to their heights. Drew Lavender was supposed to be 5'7?

Also, I don't exactly consider 5 or 6 people to be a lot when you you have over 300 teams or something like that in Division I.

Eielson
6/24/2008, 11:47 AM
Did you just say "mind-bottling"?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mind+Bottling

the_ouskull
6/24/2008, 12:12 PM
There may be 300 D1 teams, but there are only 32 NBA teams, so there are only 64 D1 players that "matter." When you consider hyper-underclassmen (freshmen and sophomores) and foreign players, that number gets MUCH smaller. Let's say 32. Now 5-6 is quite a percentage... no?

...and the NBA measures players in socked feet at the pre-draft camp, not in platform shoes. Colleges measure however they like, but pro teams do not.

You did one thing right though...


I'm not even gonna mess with explaining why you are wrong with each and every one of those players. I basically stand by my original comments and don't feel the need to add anything to it.
You (finally) laid down. I mean, sure, in an attempt to save face, you tried to guise it as a, "I'm right, and I don't need to prove it to you," comment, but we're smart folk here at Soonerfans. We can see things for what they really are... welcome to the board.

When you're ready to start trying to back up your comments on Blake v. Oden, or start talking about the fact that, of all of the players I listed, 6'9" is the shortest (except for Jackson... and DJ White, if speculation is correct...) one, and all of them are young enough to have another inch or two of growing left in them...

(I mean, if there's no difference between 6'8" and 6'9", then there's no difference between 6'11" and 7'0" either, is there? H*ll, Christian Laettner was a seven-footer than asked to be listed as 6'11".)

...then I'll be here, ready to educate. Until then, go on thinking that you've got the info to "prove me wrong," and you're just keeping it locked away in your noggin 'cause I'm not worth the time.

And, for the record, I don't think that all of the guys I listed are going to be great pros. I DO think that they'll be drafted, though. Many of them rather highly. I think that Lopez, Hendrix, Koufos (if he gets on the right team) and Hibbert will all be pretty good players this year, minutes permitting. I don't think that Hardin, Plaisted, or Jordan will be much to speak of for a year or two, although, in the right situation, they could be contributors off of the bench, and as for the rest of the guys... Jackson, White, et al... We'll have to wait and see.

the_ouskull

Eielson
6/24/2008, 12:42 PM
There may be 300 D1 teams, but there are only 32 NBA teams, so there are only 64 D1 players that "matter." When you consider hyper-underclassmen (freshmen and sophomores) and foreign players, that number gets MUCH smaller. Let's say 32. Now 5-6 is quite a percentage... no?

Wow, that has nothing to do with college basketball. Good job.

the_ouskull
6/24/2008, 03:41 PM
And, as expected, your reply has nothing to do with any of the questions that I've posed for you.

I asked you to justify your Blake vs. Oden comparison. I've asked you to expand on the mention of your "hidden knowledge" regarding this year's crop of big men that are coming out for the NBA draft. Now, I'm adding to those questions this one: How does the amateur draft have nothing to do with college basketball? How does the amateur draft, a draft that we're expecting our own talented sophomore-to-be, Blake Griffin, to enter either next year or the year after that, have nothing to do with basketball?

Whether or not your argument and your knowledge of basketball does, threads on message boards evolve, sir.

You know, when someone one-ups me, I'm able to admit it. It's how people learn; how they improve on their existing well of knowledge.

Your bucket is scraping the bottom of a dry, dry well, sir. I'm trying to offer you some help from my many flowing coffers, but you nip at the hand that feeds like so:

http://www.vegsoc.org/fish/fishonhook.jpg

Or, for those that are a bit more "in the know" as to what's going on here (other than a splendid arse-kicking) maybe this is a bit more accurate:

http://www.celticattic.com/scandinavian/images/trolls/fishing_troll.gif

You're new to basketball AND the internet, eh? Let me help...

- (1) Don't argue with people that a) know more than you do on the given topic, b) have enough free time on their hands to formulate a better, more well-written and thought-out argument, c) love proving points A and B publicly, and d) don't operate under the guidelines and standards of "if someone says something, I have to accept it as gospel."

- (2) If you find yourself in an argument with someone like myself, then a) back away slowly (the "slow" part you've got down pat judging from your reading comprehension... now you just need to back away) b) educate yourself on the topic beyond your current knowledge. If you're not sure about something, then look into it before you try to speak on it as if you were an expert.

You may have been able to win a few arguments in the past through persistence and b.s, but that won't fly against people that know their stuff. I know my stuff, and I know yours a heck of a lot better than you do too. Sorry.

And, since I know that this is one of the sites that you go to for your information, I'll offer you one more piece of note...

From UrbanDictionary.com: "One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument."

I gave you the answer... now find the question. Call me Trebek.

the_ouskull

soonerfan28
6/24/2008, 05:23 PM
Blake played the 5 last year when Longar went to the bench and yes I know that was because we had nobody else, but I can't see him not playing the 5 when we go big. I think it could depend on the development of Allen who has the actual size to play down there. I don't think I can ever see him playing the 3 because he doesn't have the outside range needed. It would take what he does best out of the game. If I'm wrong then that would have to mean that he developed a jumper and that would be great.

Eielson
6/24/2008, 06:30 PM
If you were half as good as you act you wouldn't have to keep telling everybody that. I said there weren't hardly any 7 foot big men that were dominant in college basketball. You responded by naming a bunch of 6'9 guys. This discussion is over.

the_ouskull
6/24/2008, 09:42 PM
ACTUALLY, I responded by naming a bunch of guys that disputed your claim in regards to seven-footers, which you, in fact, drug up the example of a pro player, in Greg Oden, to try to prove. Since you're the one that originally compared a college player (Blake) to a pro player (Oden) I went ahead and ran with it. I happen to be fond of using the NBA draft as a (one of many, actually) measure of a player's current skill balanced over his pro potential. You said, and I quote, that "I don't know if [Oden] could hold Blake's jock."

So, the college player compared to other college players who are about to turn pro began. This comparison, to be accurate, of course, relies on a few other premises... 1) That there isn't a negligible difference between 6'10" and 7'0". A premise which you have already ascribed to yourself, in saying:


First of all, 6'7 or 6'8 wasn't exact. That is just a range. 6'9 isn't really any different than 6'8. Plus, their listed height isn't even their real height. They usually add shoes and then another inch or two to their heights.

So, by your "logic," since a player that is listed at 6'7" could actually be as short as 6'4", then it stands to reason that, since no two college teams weight and measure their player's measurable attributes the same way every time, that the aforementioned player could ALSO be as TALL as 6'9". (See also, the 2nd selection of the 2008 NBA draft, Michael Beasley.)

So, by that logic, players as short as 6'9" (one or two inches, plus another inch for shoes... your words, not mine...) could actually be tossed into the discussion of seven-footers.

2) The premise that, if an NBA team drafts a player, he is as, if not more, talented than any of the other players of similar size, build, and experience that were also eligible for the draft. NBA General Managers, while wide and far morons, also know what does and does not make them money. Drafting the "next Robert Swift" every year? Does NOT make money. (And, in fact, could indirectly contribute to your team moving to a much more deserving city... :D) So, teams draft in what THEY FEEL is their best interest, no? If this, then, is true, then, while an individual team may occasionally find a nugget hidden under a rock somewhere, for the most part, ALL of the teams usually have very similar information about players. In other words, if a team has a player ranked as the 5th best player on their board, and the first four get drafted, AND that player fills an immediate need, and they're drafting 10th, then not only do they draft him, but they're happy to do so. Very rarely do you run into a Darko Milicic situation, where an already-very-good team had what basically amounted to a "pick to spare," and took a chance on a player (a seven-footer at that) that may or may not pan out. This, while having since been tempered, was a popular line of thought at the time. (roughly 2001-2006ish)

So, if that's the case, and you take those two premises into account, then the following players are my way of disputing your very blanket statement about seven-footers being soft and uncoordinated. ...and, even though they COULD count under your own system of logic, I'm going to leave out anybody that's under 6'10"...

- Brook and Robin Lopez, both from Stanford
- Kevin Love, UCLA
- Kosta Koufos, tOSU
- Anthony Randolph, LSU
- DeVon Hardin, Cal
- Sasha Kaun, KU
- Roy Hibbert, Georgetown
- Jason Thompson, Rider
- Joseph Jones, A&M
- JaVale McGee, Nevada
- Aleks Maric, Nebraska
- David Padgett, Louisville
- Ryan Anderson, Cal
- DeAndre Jordan, Texas A&M
- Trent Plaisted, BYU
- and even our own Longar Longar, just for giggles, and to prove a point that I have reiterated to you ad nauseum. Not all of these players are going to be drafted, and some of them DO fit your "slow and or soft" description... but all of them can play (except maybe Longar) and / or have the potential to develop into something at the next level. That's what the draft is all about, right?

So, having said that, I'll come back (waaaaaaaay back) to the original argument... You said that, based on his current level of post skills, Greg Oden, last year's #1 overall selection, and a once-in-a-lifetime prospect at the center position, couldn't hold Blake Griffin's jock.

...but I'm the one that "isn't half as good as I act?"

Blake is an NBA prospect, and, with another good season this year, a first-rounder and possible Lottery pick. Greg Oden is on another level.

In fact, there were a number of players in "that seven-foot range" that went last year as well...

- Oden
- Joakim Noah
- Al Horford
- Nick Fazekas
- Josh McRoberts
- Spencer Hawes
- Sean Williams
- Jason Smith

Also, keep this in mind... You probably watch a lot of OU basketball, some Top 25 games, and not much else. You probably don't, or won't, watch a lot of the NBA because "they don't play defense," or some such crap. The seven-foot tall players that you're used to see when you watch college ball? Yes, many of them get noticed by pro scouts because of their height. MANY of the players I named fall into that category...

...but they won't get DRAFTED unless they're the best available pick at the position that the team needs at that time, or unless that team can afford to "waste a pick" on a developmental project...

Kinda like I've wasted a LOT of my time trying to educate a rock. This discussion has BEEN over, sir. I just like trying to make water from whine. Call me stubborn...

the_ouskull

Eielson
6/24/2008, 10:28 PM
We don't truly have any other big man that can match up down there against guys that are close to 7'0 and around 250.

This is what I was responding to. I basically said that we don't have go worry about matching up with a 7'0 250 pounder.

I basically ignored your entire last post but I looked at that list you had and you still are mentioning people who are not 7 feet tall. Most of the ones who you did mention aren't good enough to even cause a problem trying to defend. Yeah, a few could cause some problems but do you think that we need to sign a 5'7 or shorter guard just to match up with Drew Lavender's quickness?

Unless you can come up with a good reason why we will have problems because we don't have a good 7 footer I'm not going to respond to you about this again. I'm not just talking about a little problem. There are a ton of things about every team that could cause a little problem.

the_ouskull
6/25/2008, 05:48 AM
You know, you sure are sticking to this whole "must be seven feet tall" thing pretty vehemently considering the fact that your initial example of a seven foot tall guy was Ronny Turiaf, who is 6'10"...

Why don't you consider THAT before you try to ignore the questions that I've been lobbing you to avoid pointing out the most obvious flaw in your argument and your "logic?"

the_ouskull

Ash
6/25/2008, 07:00 AM
Blake at the 3. Brilliant!

Big Red Ron
6/25/2008, 08:38 AM
Renzi Stone was listed as 6'10 and while he's one tall mofo, I'd say 6'8 1/2.

soonerfan28
6/25/2008, 10:36 AM
Blake won't play the 3 next year because it would take him out of his game. That wouldn't benefit the team at all.

NormanPride
6/25/2008, 10:41 AM
This is the most pathetic thread on soonerfans. Way to go!

the_ouskull
6/25/2008, 12:47 PM
Blake occasionally playing the 3 on offense would not only NOT take him out of his game, but, would, in fact, allow his, and other player's, games to show new dimensions. Considering his passing ability, and the inability of some of our guards to shoot from the outside, working a high-post cutting game between Blake and some of our guards would not be a bad wrinkle to throw into the offense at all.

Note: This is an idea primarily to counter-balance Austin Johnson's horrible shooting, (39% FG, 33% 3PT) which is, sadly, mostly due to his shot selection. If we're getting him going to the rim more, which he'd be able to do with a passer like Blake getting him the ball out of the high post, then it would help his percentages and his confidence... at the very least, it'd get him to the line more often, and, considering he's almost twice the FT shooter (73%) that he is a FG shooter, I fail to see the negatives in doing this from time to time...

Also, I'm not, nor have I EVER, said that Blake should try to play the 3 on defense... nor did I say that he should be a full-time 3 on offense... It's just a suggestion for a wrinkle to add to the our offense, especially when our guards are struggling...)

-- The 2007/2008 shooting percentages of players who will be seeing backcourt minutes this coming season:

- Austin Johnson: 39% FG, 33% 3PT, 73% FT
- Cade Davis: 32% FG, 28% 3PT, 100% FT (think we need to find ways to get him to the line more often? this is a way to do just that)
- Omar Leary: 39% FG, 38% 3PT, 84% FT

Also, by having our best player pass the ball around unselfishly, maybe it'll rub off on other players too. Our (current) players tend to play too much 1-on-1 basketball, usually leading to low-percentage shots and / or turnovers.

We had three players last year average more TO's per game than our 2nd place passers averaged assists per game. Crocker and Blake averaged 1.9 assists per game. AJ was our team leader in assists, averaging only 2.7 per game. That's about 1 assist every 12 minutes FOR OUR STARTING POINT GUARD! He only put up 10 assists one time all last season, and that was in a 77-49 loss to Texas.

In fact, we had NINE players average more turnovers than assists! NINE! We need to do SOMETHING to promote more ball movement...

Granted, losing Longar will help with that tremendously, but for those of you who think that we just need to park Blake in the post and ride him all year... sure, he's capable, but that's not a long-term winning solution. I don't want Blake to put up 30/15 every game in a losing effort. I'd rather see him putting up 15/10/5 in a win.

I don't think that he needs to start, and play significant minutes at the 3, out on the perimeter, nor have I ever said that he does... but, if he can slide out there occasionally, opening up the middle for cutters by 1) creating more space, and 2) drawing his man, usually a big man, out further from the basket, then, why, exactly, is that a bad idea?

And, NP, thank you for your contribution to this thread. It truly helped the quality... :rolleyes:

the_ouskull

NormanPride
6/25/2008, 01:47 PM
It was a hell of a lot more concise and helpful than the slapfest you two had going. I mean, you weren't even arguing about the same thing! And then you started arguing about the fact that you weren't arguing about the same thing! Fail.

You've got a neat idea for a wrinkle that we may never be able to implement (as you mentioned earlier), congrats. Care to explain how that offensive set would carry over to the defensive side? I mean, possibly getting a few points on a pick and roll with Blake to Johnson is great, but if it means that at the other end we have weaker guys defending the paint giving up easy buckets, then that doesn't really help much.

badger
6/25/2008, 02:06 PM
Um... move along. Nothing to see here. Oh look! Another Willie Warren thread :D I'll just hop on over to there :)

the_ouskull
6/25/2008, 05:50 PM
I'm pretty sure that I wasn't arguing so much as educating, but, I don't know how to reeeech theeeese keeeeds. (Sin, Mr. Cartmenez.) But, considering his whole seven-footer argument was kicked off with a passionate defense of the 6'10" Ronny Turiaf, the foundation for an "argument" was a bit shaky, to say the least. And, since he's not making an attempt to answer any of the other questions, I'll move on...


Care to explain how that offensive set would carry over to the defensive side?

I'd love to... (the following bold print wasn't there originally, it's just done now for emphasis)


Blake occasionally playing the 3 on offense...
I mean, you ARE aware that you can play one position on offense, and then another entirely different position on the defensive end of the court, right? It's as easy as, "hey, I got __," or just sliding into that spot in your zone. So, how it carries over is that it doesn't carry over, nor should it. Guarding someone other than the person guarding you is as common as elementary school kids that can't dribble with their left hand... or Texans that dribble a little when they try to speak using their big boy or big girl words...

Note to self: I'd love to know how many of these people trying to argue these points have ever played, and/or coached, basketball... if they only ran this wrinkle 3 or 4 times a game, it would make a significant difference. Why do people think that you have to completely scrap an offensive game plan, just to run a wrinkle into it...? When our football team was running a spread offense, we still threw in the occasional option play, just to give the defense another look. It's not like we changed our offense to the wishbone! Why is the concept of doing this in basketball something that is so difficult to grasp?

the_ouskull

Ash
6/25/2008, 10:14 PM
I'm pretty sure that I wasn't arguing so much as educating, but, I don't know how to reeeech theeeese keeeeds. (Sin, Mr. Cartmenez.) But, considering his whole seven-footer argument was kicked off with a passionate defense of the 6'10" Ronny Turiaf, the foundation for an "argument" was a bit shaky, to say the least. And, since he's not making an attempt to answer any of the other questions, I'll move on...



I'd love to... (the following bold print wasn't there originally, it's just done now for emphasis)


I mean, you ARE aware that you can play one position on offense, and then another entirely different position on the defensive end of the court, right? It's as easy as, "hey, I got __," or just sliding into that spot in your zone. So, how it carries over is that it doesn't carry over, nor should it. Guarding someone other than the person guarding you is as common as elementary school kids that can't dribble with their left hand... or Texans that dribble a little when they try to speak using their big boy or big girl words...

Note to self: I'd love to know how many of these people trying to argue these points have ever played, and/or coached, basketball... if they only ran this wrinkle 3 or 4 times a game, it would make a significant difference. Why do people think that you have to completely scrap an offensive game plan, just to run a wrinkle into it...? When our football team was running a spread offense, we still threw in the occasional option play, just to give the defense another look. It's not like we changed our offense to the wishbone! Why is the concept of doing this in basketball something that is so difficult to grasp?

the_ouskull

I've been wondering if you realize that players don't need to swap positions to get post players out from under the basket. There's actually quite a few ways to do that while still playing Blake at the post or PF. That's actually more of a "wrinkle" that would work because he's still playing to his strength, which as a PF or C but he can step out in any number of sets or schemes to set up other people.

soonerfan28
6/26/2008, 08:56 AM
Does it really matter what we think? Capel is a good coach and has an abundance of talent and finally some depth. He'll know where to put guys for the benefit of the team and if Blake develops a 3 over the summer then put him at the 3. I personally believe it will be Patillo and Cade for the most part, maybe Crocker some when AJ and WW are on the court. What is a fact is that we are going to be good and I can't wait to watch.

the_ouskull
6/26/2008, 09:54 AM
I like your answer.

the_ouskull

NormanPride
6/26/2008, 10:01 AM
I'm pretty sure that I wasn't arguing so much as educating, but, I don't know how to reeeech theeeese keeeeds. (Sin, Mr. Cartmenez.) But, considering his whole seven-footer argument was kicked off with a passionate defense of the 6'10" Ronny Turiaf, the foundation for an "argument" was a bit shaky, to say the least. And, since he's not making an attempt to answer any of the other questions, I'll move on...



I'd love to... (the following bold print wasn't there originally, it's just done now for emphasis)


I mean, you ARE aware that you can play one position on offense, and then another entirely different position on the defensive end of the court, right? It's as easy as, "hey, I got __," or just sliding into that spot in your zone. So, how it carries over is that it doesn't carry over, nor should it. Guarding someone other than the person guarding you is as common as elementary school kids that can't dribble with their left hand... or Texans that dribble a little when they try to speak using their big boy or big girl words...

Note to self: I'd love to know how many of these people trying to argue these points have ever played, and/or coached, basketball... if they only ran this wrinkle 3 or 4 times a game, it would make a significant difference. Why do people think that you have to completely scrap an offensive game plan, just to run a wrinkle into it...? When our football team was running a spread offense, we still threw in the occasional option play, just to give the defense another look. It's not like we changed our offense to the wishbone! Why is the concept of doing this in basketball something that is so difficult to grasp?

the_ouskull

Man, if you weren't so full of yourself, this would be fun. Why not cut the patronizing talk and just stick to x's and o's? All I asked was how it translated to the defensive side and you went all "poor guy must not have a brain" on me.

Now, for the discussion. You're assuming that Blake moves from the 3 on O to guarding the 4 or 5 on D, right? But that leaves someone much less athletic than him guarding a 3. Would you rather have Taylor there? Or Wright? If there was a team we encountered with a competent offensive 3 this would provide problems for us, unless we sacrificed matchups for running a pretty generic zone. While that may slow things down, I don't think it's a viable strategy to capitalize on potential mis-matches on Offense and then let the other team do the same on Defense.

I'm not totally debunking the idea (it's a good one) but I'm pointing out that for all the drool-worthy opportunities it creates on offense, it also creates some problems on D.

the_ouskull
6/28/2008, 12:45 AM
Taylor, based on his size, is, more or less, a 3 anyway. However, because of his strength, he can also play the 4, and he has, in fact, played both for us in the past. (He's probably played the 5 for us at times in the past, for that matter...) So, depending on the opponent, we wouldn't lose anything defensively. So, switching him to guard a 4 (his natural position) or a 3 (his common position) wouldn't be much of a reach anyway. I would be more concerned with having a 3 like Crocker or Patillo trying to guard a 4, but, since this switch is solely about the offensive end of the court and not the defensive end of the court, it hardly seems to matter. If we're putting Blake out on the perimeter offensively 4-5 times a game, then we're putting someone else on the block defensively... Taylor, who is going to be stronger than most 3's, and often plays the 3 anyway... or maybe Patillo, who is also a tall, athletic swingman-type player... the kind of guy who could more than capably pass out of a double-team, either to an open jump shooter or cutter, or make a move and finish it himself. Neither of those guys are bad options for us offensively either. And, if Blake winds up on the perimeter, depending on the defensive switches, being guarded by a smaller 3, or a larger (and likely much slower) 4, that doesn't really hurt us either.

Basically, is what you're saying, "Why don't we play Blake at the 3 all of the time?"


You're assuming that Blake moves from the 3 on O to guarding the 4 or 5 on D, right? But that leaves someone much less athletic than him guarding a 3. Would you rather have Taylor there? Or Wright? If there was a team we encountered with a competent offensive 3 this would provide problems for us, unless we sacrificed matchups for running a pretty generic zone.

All that I'm assuming is that Blake, a skilled offensive player who is also very athletic, and a quite capable passer, occasionally slide out of the post offensively to try to either a) draw a big man away from the basket, allowing easier post-up or penetration opportunities, depending... or b) get a smaller (and easier to pass over) guy guarding him on the perimeter, which could turn into either a clear-out, or a mismatch in the post with someone like maybe Patillo being guarded by a slower 4, who he can also draw away.

This is faaaar from exactly what I'm talking about, but maybe you can find a few ideas...

http://www.jes-basketball.com/animated/poffenseflexflex3.html

This isn't it either (it's hard to find simple 2-man games drawn up anywhere...) but it's another example of a way that the 4 can be used away from the basket. (Also, for anybody watching these plays, keep in mind that they're subjective. At any time, if the defense breaks down, or the player with the ball sees a better opportunity, they're usually taking it...)

http://www.jes-basketball.com/animated/poffensetriangl4slide.html

This one's a little bit closer to what I'm looking for... If the opposing defense is in a man-to-man, then Blake (ideally) would be at the top of the key 1-on-1 with another 4, with only a 1 coming over to help.

http://www.jes-basketball.com/animated/poffensetriangl5single.html

This one keeps the 4 moving, and gives him a couple of different chances to make plays...

http://www.jes-basketball.com/animated/poffense1-3-1indianahigh-post.html

But, like all of these plays, they only work when they're well-run. And, they're all just alternate suggestions from a basketball nerd (or elitist, if you prefer that... the shoe DOES fit...) who likes debating this sort of thing... If you're taking them overly seriously, then consider, for a moment, who you are. If I'm running the fantasy Sooners, as many of you enjoy doing as well, who are you to tell me what plays may or may not work. I think that putting Blake on the perimeter from time to time, gives us a very unique look due to his size, strength, athleticism, and passing ability. Call me crazy...

the_ouskull

starrca23
7/4/2008, 10:25 AM
You'll see more motion style offense out of OU this year. This is due to the athletisism they can put on the floor 1-4. Having said that, positions 2-4 are moving inside and out based on matchups. Will he be a 3 or 4 is really not that big of a deal.

the_ouskull
7/4/2008, 02:23 PM
CORRECT!

Assigning positions is a relatively new concept in basketball. It's basically about what you CAN'T do, not what you CAN do. Take the 1986 Celtics. Ainge and DJ were both just guards, man. Not a 1 and a 2. Just guards.

Look at the modern day. I mean, Kobe's a 2, but he can play 1-3 on offense, and guard 1-3 on defense, and, since most of the Lakers' plays run through him, wouldn't that make him a 1, but he also likes to start off plays in the post, which would make him a 3, but he takes a lot of 3's, so really he's more of a 2, and...

http://snarkerati.com/movie-news/files/2008/04/austin-powers.jpg

I've gone cross-eyed.

the_ouskull

starrca23
7/5/2008, 11:21 AM
Only MJ and Chuck Norris can play 1-5.

the_ouskull
7/5/2008, 08:56 PM
Jordan is retired. Chuck Norris could play the 1-5 AT THE SAME TIME, though.

I mean, honestly, would YOU drive the lane on him?

http://nicedeb.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/chuck_norris.jpg

Besides, like they teach us in Rex Kwon Do, "Do you want a roundhouse kick to the head from someone wearing those bad boys?"

the_ouskull

NormanPride
7/7/2008, 01:32 PM
Hmm... I guess Taylor does a good enough job guarding the 3. It's not something we could do against a small and quick team, but there aren't too many like that out there that would bank on their offense making up for their lack of size on the defensive end.

How do you think the change in the three point line affects play? I don't know if the difference is big enough, but if you see a large drop-off in fg% beyond the arc, could that pose problems to the inside game?

starrca23
7/8/2008, 11:39 AM
With Warren and Davis, I don't think it will have an effect on us at all.

the_ouskull
7/8/2008, 04:30 PM
The first year that the NBA instituted the 3pt line was the best year, percentage-wise, that the league has ever seen. It's because the 3 wasn't taken unless players were wide open. I think that, if Capel can keep our shooters disciplined to not take overly contested 3's, we'll get some clean, open looks between Blake, Wright, Taylor, et al.. in the post kicking the ball around. However, we don't really have the shooters right now, IMHO, to make teams "pay" without playing the inside-outside game. I don't know how the new line will play out yet. I haven't seen any practices yet this season. I just hope that Crocker and AJ can adjust to it. I think it'll really hurt Leary, who couldn't shoot that well anyway, and Warren needs to drive and pull up more than he needs to spot up... (They all do...)

If Davis can adjust WELL to the new line, expect to see him playing considerably more minutes this year, whether or not his defense is up to speed right away. I think that he'll be a lot more comfortable finding more open spots in the defense with more room with which to work too...

the_ouskull

starrca23
7/9/2008, 10:26 AM
You hit the nail on the head Skull. Even though Duke is known as a perimeter team they do a great job of playing inside-out and reversing the ball to the weakside to get OPEN looks at the three point line. You hardly ever see a Duke player go one-on-one to the rim especially early in the game. They make all 5 defenders play and that stretches the D and gives them a chance to win everytime they hit the floor.
I think that is what you will see from the Sooners this year. I don't think Davis needs to adjust his range one bit. I think having Warren and Blake on the floor will give him the looks he needs to be a leathal shooter.

Frozen Sooner
7/9/2008, 11:39 AM
Only MJ and Chuck Norris can play 1-5.

Er, you talking Michael Jordan or Magic Johnson? 'Cause your avatar would make me think you were talking Jordan, but Magic actually did it.

starrca23
7/9/2008, 12:30 PM
Jordan...Magic was great though, good point.

the_ouskull
7/9/2008, 02:28 PM
Is "leathal" even more deadly than "lethal?" Do I need to call in Mel Gibson? :D

Oh, and Mike... How's the fishing up that way? A buddy of mine from Norman is going to be in Frozen Country for the next seven days...

the_ouskull

Frozen Sooner
7/9/2008, 08:08 PM
Jordan...Magic was great though, good point.

See, that's why I was confused, because to my knowledge MJ never played the 4 or 5-positions that Magic actually did play in games. Played well, in fact-was MVP of a game in the finals where he played the 5.

Frozen Sooner
7/9/2008, 08:13 PM
Is "leathal" even more deadly than "lethal?" Do I need to call in Mel Gibson? :D

Oh, and Mike... How's the fishing up that way? A buddy of mine from Norman is going to be in Frozen Country for the next seven days...

the_ouskull

The Bristol Bay red run is ginormous this year-so much so that the processors can't handle it. The king run is late and small, though.

Don't think the silvers have started yet. Things are so crazy with work and campaign season that I haven't even made it out of Anchorage but for about 16 hours all summer.

starrca23
7/9/2008, 09:52 PM
Well the first post about MJ was intented to be funny hence the Chuck Norris reference; however, as you can tell by my avatar I will go to the grave knowing in my heart that Mike could do anything better than anybody on a basketball court. So yes, he could guard Shaq, Bill Russell, and Wilt the Stilt in their prime all at the same time. He is also the only man known to take a round house kick to the face from Chuck Norris and live to tell about it. Chuck was so impressed he now wears a special designed Michael Jordan boot.

the_ouskull
7/10/2008, 10:00 PM
I have two questions for you for when you t*ss #23's sal*d:

1) Jam or Syrup?
2) Does Ahmad Rashad get mad when you push him out of the way?

the_ouskull

starrca23
7/10/2008, 10:22 PM
Wow...I don't even know how to respond to that.

the_ouskull
7/11/2008, 06:11 PM
Sweet. Mission accomplished. :D

the_ouskull