MBB question for those more informed than myself

**Omaha Cy** · 01-02-2008, 02:27 PM

I mainly follow football so I couldnt honestly answer a question posed to me by a buddy(non-ISU supporter) concerning MBB.

He was told by someone, and therefore decided to ask me if I thought Greg McDermott had been recruiting/bringing in guys who were too good of atheletes for this system of a halfcourt offense?(im probably semi-paraphrasing this since he asked about a week ago)

Considering that I attend a game on occasion and half-*** watch some on TV I really couldnt give him a proper answer(which i cant).

What say ye minions of BB followers? Anyways, it wasnt my friends observation, but i'll have him read the replys and he can make heads or tails of it from there.

**snowcraig2.0** · 01-02-2008, 02:31 PM

The problem isn't being too athletic, the problem is not being good enough shooters. If we have Mike Taylor and Lucca Staiger, that problem doesn't exist.

**wartknight** · 01-02-2008, 02:31 PM

No such thing. Athletes are athletes and can play in a lot of systems. Clark maybe doesn't score as many points in the half-court game because of the steals he used to get in the press, but is a valuble asset on the defensive end of the floor. What GMacs system lacks right now is one, maybe 2 dependable outside shooters. That being said, considering the injury bug that hit earlier this season, I am pretty happy with the record and would like to think we can play spoiler and fit somewhere in the middle 1/3 of the conference.

**wartknight** · 01-02-2008, 02:32 PM

Wow snowcraig-great minds think alike.

**brianhos** · 01-02-2008, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

The problem isn't being too athletic, the problem is not being good enough shooters. If we have Mike Taylor and Lucca Staiger, that problem doesn't exist.

I will give you Taylor, but Lucca is a complete unknown. I remember before the season started people were hyping up Haluska, he has missed what 422 3 pointers in a row?

**Knownothing** · 01-02-2008, 02:37 PM

Clark's style of play does not fit his system but, Gmac did not bring him in. Clark would be great in Nolan Richardsons 40 minutes of he11 system. Not so much in GMac. Other than that it's a shooting problem. Not an athletic problem.

**snowcraig2.0** · 01-02-2008, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by brianhos

I will give you Taylor, but Lucca is a complete unknown. I remember before the season started people were hyping up Haluska, he has missed what 422 3 pointers in a row?

Ask anyone who has seen him play, Lucca is a great, great shooter. There is no question he would be helping us in that area right now.

Lucca is a better shooter that Haluska. That being said, what Haluska is going through is really, really crazy. How many 3's has he had go in and out? I think he will knock the lid off in the near future, and once he does he will help our shooting as well. It is really all in his head right now.

**ISU_phoria** · 01-02-2008, 02:53 PM

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone criticize/question the value of brining in the best athletes possible. I actually think our ball handling (or lack thereof) is more of a problem than our shooting. If we had a PG who could consistently penetrate and dish, (even for more open 3's with our current players) most of our problems would be solved.

I'm really glad we have Peterson, but I sure would like someone who does more dribble penetration (& distribution) than our current backcourt.

**timc243** · 01-02-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by ISU_phoria

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone criticize/question the value of brining in the best athletes possible. I actually think our ball handling (or lack thereof) is more of a problem than our shooting. If we had a PG who could consistently penetrate and dish, (even for more open 3's with our current players) most of our problems would be solved.

I'm really glad we have Peterson, but I sure would like someone who does more dribble penetration (& distribution) than our current backcourt.

I didn't get to watch him a lot, but I think Brister could have helped with penetration. It is too bad he didn't have the right attitude for McD.

**kingcy** · 01-02-2008, 03:17 PM

I agree there is no such thing as too good of athletes. This staff is smart enough to use the players they have well. They just lack some pieces right now.

Haluska isnt all we thought he would be. If Taylor were on this team I think it would hurt the development of the team. This team is getting used to one another and getting healthy what this team needs is a bit more time playing and that will cure a lot of issues. With no real star or go to guy right now they have to find ways to score and work at it and that will pay off down the road. Heck this team struggled to get 60 pts aginst weak teams earily and they now are getting into the 70s. Their D has struggled a bit but scoring points and shooting well will help that. They D will come back around as this team grows

**kingcy** · 01-02-2008, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by timc243

I didn't get to watch him a lot, but I think Brister could have helped with penetration. It is too bad he didn't have the right attitude for McD.

Its funny how players that dont get much PT could have helped the team. Not every player is going to work out or live up to what they were suppose to be. There is a reason some of these guys dont see the court very much. The coaching staff wants to win more than anyone and will play the players that will make that happen.

**Cyfan13** · 01-02-2008, 04:10 PM

First of all, Brister would have helped out...A LOT!!! People want to hate on him just because he left, but he was a penetrator and the best passer of all our guards. Plus he had the size to play against the PG's we'll face in the big 12. Brister was HUGE loss, and anyone who says he wasn't doesn't know anything! The reason he didn't play wasn't because he wasn't good, it was because he was never following team rules (always late for practice/games, not going to class, not showing up for weights). If he would have acted right and followed coach Mac's rules, he would have been in the mix for the starting spot.

On another note, I think the original question was asked in a weird way. There is never anything wrong with recruiting good atheletes, but after you recruit them, you need to use them to your best ability and that is what I think Mac is doing wrong. He does have a very atheletic team, but insists on still running a slow paced half court offensive and a half court defense. He needs to use the players he has better and let them run the floor more, since that is the advantage they have over other teams. It is obvious we're not a good shooting team, but we are a fast and athletic team and need to use that. We should also be pressing other teams more. With Wes, Rahshon, and Craig we could be doing a lot more than we are.

**tim_redd** · 01-02-2008, 04:18 PM

IMHO the system should adapt to the players, not the other way around.

**Cyclonepride** · 01-02-2008, 04:22 PM

The key requirement is discipline. Kids with discipline will excel under McDermott. Better athletes, with discipline, will lead to better teams. With that said, we still haven't been able to see a fully experienced team hit the floor yet.