If I remember right I'm pretty sure he's the one that said we needed a harder schedule. So hey whatever it takes to get a positive post from you fcmc:yes:
I dont knoww if I would call Gilstrap and Singler equal quiite yet...
I can't get over how much Krzyzewski looks like the Duke Logo.
If we beat Duke Harrison comes to ISU!!!!!
It is a win-win situation for ISU. I really can't come up with any negatives here. So what if we get beat........it's Duke! If it's a close game.........hey......we kept up with Duke! If we win, well that is obvious how good that would be, so there is no downside to this that I can see.
I can certainly question the fundamentals; the glaring stat to look at with ISU is free throw attempts. In 16 conference games, we attempted a beyond pathetic total of 232 free throws, by far the lowest in the conference.
Any coach will tell you FTA's are a critical, critical clue as to how you are dictating the game. We made no effort, other than Brackins, to break down the opponent and make the ref blow the whistle. We did not want to "work," and settled for an ungodly number of outside jumpers. I'm sorry, that's not fundamental basketball. Tom Izzo "ranks" his players based on what % of their points come from FT's - the higher the percentage, the better. It's an indication of how hard they're working.
Duke had a similar problem like us in that they had no true center, yet they attempted 372 free throws in 16 conference games. They also beat Texas in the NCAA's last year. Duke is not the Duke of old, but they still want to get to the FT line, as all good teams try to do.
First, I point out the difference in what is considered coachable fundamentals versus natural ability. Is it possible this is the foundation of our differing views? I have no contention that ISU's ability in some aspects of the game were not lacking. I would argue overall superior fundamentals gave ISU a chance to overcome this.
Second I find it interesting, you base your conclusion off one statistic- seems fundamentally unsound. Izzo may feel like this stat is good indicator of fundamentals, but surely not singular. I would also say the numerous defensive statistics show ISU was working as hard as anyone. It would be more defective to have players attempt something that is futile given their abilities.
No doubt any coach will tell you FTA are vital to dictating a game, and like I mentioned, ISU's greatest weakness is the backcourt's ability to dictate the game. Is this due to ability or fundamentals? Given how poor the FTA's were, the fundamentals in all other aspects must have been sound.
Great coaches adjust the play to the strength of the team. It is understandable you are unhappy with the results, but was there an indication another way was feasible? It is widely accepted that Coach K is great at fundamentals. Perhaps he, like McD, realized his team's strength was not to place emphasis on attacking the bucket. They had no true center, but they did have a NBA slashing wing, not to mention guards more apt to drive. ISU is not the ISU of 2000, but they still wanted to get to the line, as all good teams do, but did not have the personnel to do so. Coach McD mentioned this numerous times last year. He is as aware as you are that this number needs to increase.
"They also beat Texas last year"- Duke beating Texas indicates ISU does not play fundamental basketball?
If you can shoot but lack quickness and footspeed, and so have trouble getting open (like say, Staiger), you have a number of weapons at your disposal to reduce defensive pressure:
1. Shot fakes to get a defender up in the air and then ducking hunder to draw a foul. Also, he will play further back from you next time.
2. Putting the ball on the floor and drive to the basket, forcing the defense to foul or bring a double-team, then dishing off to a teammate.
3. Staying in constant movement and motion, setting screens and also getting lost in traffic and congestion. The likelihood that you will ultimately get open for a great shot (10-footers, not 20) or even a layup, go up dramatically when you are always moving.
Staiger does none of those things; few of his teammates do either. The fact that several of our players were so poor in dribbling the basketball was alarming. These are basic fundamentals I learned in middle school. They have nothing to do with talent.
Watch other teams - when a player is double-teamed, a teammate (or two) will cut to the basket to make the defense pay. More often than not, our players would just watch on the perimeter as Brackins was doubled. He had no one to pass to, and therefore put it up. Announcers on TV pointed out our lack of moverment.
Finally, fundamental baskeball is not "settling" simply for "open looks." There are open shots, good shots, and great shots. How often I heard GMac say "we had good looks, they just didn't fall." If we had worked harder to get higher-percentage great shots (like using a simple shot fake and drive to turn a 20-footer into a 12-footer), more shots would've fallen.