Williams Blog: Cyclones lack a closer

**Tornado man** · 03-03-2010, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by cycloneworld

As for the DG-bashers, I see him a lot like Lucca.

Whoa - I know your point may have been different, but DG plays A LOT harder, and leaves it on the floor a ton more than Lucca ever did...

**Clones85'** · 03-03-2010, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by Clonegrad07

How drunk are you? you're comparing North Dakota State to Oklahoma or what? I mean come on dude, we had a cupcake non-conference schedule and the ones who weren't complete cupcakes or had some talent (california, UNI, etc.) we lost to.

Lucca would not have made a damn bit of a difference in the conference. We need someone who wants the ball in crunch time. Lucca was just as scared as the rest of the team is to score a bucket with pressure on them.

Learn how to read the part that you actually bolded. I said that we are playing some teams now so those numbers aren't realistic. So essentially you are just arguing with me over nothing.

To think that Lucca wouldn't have made a difference is naive. A 3 point shooter stretches the defense. We had no 3 point shooters and Brackins suffered because of it. We couldn't get him the ball in the post without the whole team collapsing on him. Lucca was a smart player that could hit the 3, pass the ball to the post, and played better defense than a lot of people on here (whom don't really understand basketball) give him credit for

**ChrisMWilliams** · 03-03-2010, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

Learn how to read the part that you actually bolded. I said that we are playing some teams now so those numbers aren't realistic. So essentially you are just arguing with me over nothing.

To think that Lucca wouldn't have made a difference is naive. A 3 point shooter stretches the defense. We had no 3 point shooters and Brackins suffered because of it. We couldn't get him the ball in the post without the whole team collapsing on him. Lucca was a smart player that could hit the 3, pass the ball to the post, and played better defense than a lot of people on here (whom don't really understand basketball) give him credit for

I couldn't agree with this post more.

**snowcraig2.0** · 03-03-2010, 01:44 PM

The funny thing is people here were clamoring for Scott to start over Lucca all year. Scott was and is much better suited to being a spark off the bench than a starter.

**Clones85'** · 03-03-2010, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

The funny thing is people here were clamoring for Scott to start over Lucca all year. Scott was and is much better suited to being a spark off the bench than a starter.

Agreed. And there is nothing wrong with that. Some players are stars, some players are starters, and some players are role players. Scott C is a nice player that should come off the bench and provide his role of hustle and knocking down the occasional 3

**Tornado man** · 03-03-2010, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

To think that Lucca wouldn't have made a difference is naive. A 3 point shooter stretches the defense. We had no 3 point shooters and Brackins suffered because of it. We couldn't get him the ball in the post without the whole team collapsing on him. Lucca was a smart player that could hit the 3, pass the ball to the post, and played better defense than a lot of people on here (whom don't really understand basketball) give him credit for

No, Lucca played awful defense, if you really knew what to look for. Instead of crowding up close to his man to disrupt passes or discourage shots, he would play well off them and basically accomplish nothing except waving his arms. Instead of in a crouch-type stance, whereby he could move laterally at any time, he would just bend forward at the waist, making him even slower than he naturally was.
He would not fight through screens, as he hated any physical contact. Instead, would avoid them and give screens such a wide berth that he would lose his man.
Lucca played awful defense.

**snowcraig2.0** · 03-03-2010, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Tornado man

No, Lucca played awful defense, if you really knew what to look for. Instead of crowding up close to his man to disrupt passes or discourage shots, he would play well off them and basically accomplish nothing except waving his arms. Instead of in a crouch-type stance, whereby he could move laterally at any time, he would just bend forward at the waist, making him even slower than he naturally was.
He would not fight through screens, as he hated any physical contact. Instead, would avoid them and give screens such a wide berth that he would lose his man.
Lucca played awful defense.

Agree to disagree.

**Palmer** · 03-03-2010, 02:11 PM

Lucca...Scotty..

Matters not.

This coaching staff needs to be out the door yesterday.

**Clones85'** · 03-03-2010, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Tornado man

No, Lucca played awful defense, if you really knew what to look for. Instead of crowding up close to his man to disrupt passes or discourage shots, he would play well off them and basically accomplish nothing except waving his arms. Instead of in a crouch-type stance, whereby he could move laterally at any time, he would just bend forward at the waist, making him even slower than he naturally was.
He would not fight through screens, as he hated any physical contact. Instead, would avoid them and give screens such a wide berth that he would lose his man.
Lucca played awful defense.

Last year, yes. He was hurt and struggled defensively. This year, no. He worked hard on defense and was getting better at it every single game. But it is hard for people to see improvements in players when they already are so use to saying how awful they are at something.

Example. DG. People say he is an awful shooter. But when you look at stats he actually has a higher FG% than Brackins, SC, Gilstrap, Lucca. And his 3 point % has been fluctuating from 33 to 39% all year. Not terrible. But people remember how awful he was his first 2 years so they just keep saying how pathetic of a shooter he is. It's the exact same with people when talking about defense and Lucca

**Clonegrad07** · 03-03-2010, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

Learn how to read the part that you actually bolded. I said that we are playing some teams now so those numbers aren't realistic. So essentially you are just arguing with me over nothing.

To think that Lucca wouldn't have made a difference is naive. A 3 point shooter stretches the defense. We had no 3 point shooters and Brackins suffered because of it. We couldn't get him the ball in the post without the whole team collapsing on him. Lucca was a smart player that could hit the 3, pass the ball to the post, and played better defense than a lot of people on here (whom don't really understand basketball) give him credit for

I did red the part I bolded. My point was there was not reason to even put it up there because it's comparing apples to watermelon. COMPLETELY different. It'd be like me putting in a stat about how many more TDs Austin Arnaud threw this year then Jerome Tiller. It's completely irrelevant.

However, I will agree with you one thing. Despite how poor Lucca shot it sometimes, he shot the three damn well sometimes too and that did help out the inside game and the ability for Gilstrap to drive in the lane.

I don't think he makes much of a difference because we need a guy who wants to ball in crunch time. A "Closer" as Chris called him.

**Clones85'** · 03-03-2010, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Clonegrad07

I did red the part I bolded. My point was there was not reason to even put it up there because it's comparing apples to watermelon. COMPLETELY different. It'd be like me putting in a stat about how many more TDs Austin Arnaud threw this year then Jerome Tiller. It's completely irrelevant.

However, I will agree with you one thing. Despite how poor Lucca shot it sometimes, he shot the three damn well sometimes too and that did help out the inside game and the ability for Gilstrap to drive in the lane.

I don't think he makes much of a difference because we need a guy who wants to ball in crunch time. A "Closer" as Chris called him.

We do need a closer. No question. But what if Lucca helped us to get a lead by say...8 points. Then we win without the closer and win a couple more games. Instead of having close wins, maybe we are up enough at the end of the game that all we have to do is (gulp) make free throws

**cyatheart** · 03-03-2010, 02:36 PM

Lucca wasn't an all conference defener, but he was far from the gigantic liablility that some people paint him as. He was improving a lot on both ends of the floor when he left. It was a huge loss, how many wins it cost us I have no idea, but it would have been nice to have him especially since Scott had mono most of the conference season.

**Wesley** · 03-03-2010, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by snowcraig2.0

The funny thing is people here were clamoring for Scott to start over Lucca all year. Scott was and is much better suited to being a spark off the bench than a starter.

SC will look much more like a starter next year. he does need to bulk up and he needs to play better defense. he will get there. Yes, he was thrust into a roll when Booze went down.

Apparently we need more walk-ons as we lose a lot of players through the year.

**cy1010** · 03-03-2010, 03:13 PM

I think Lucca played defesne to the best of his limited ability. On the ball, he was pretty darn terrible. As a help defender he was out of position only to the extent that he wasn't quick enough to get where he needed to go. Basically, he tried hard, but how you can say he resembled anything close to a "good" defender is really beyond me.

**ISUFan22** · 03-03-2010, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Clones85'

Learn how to read the part that you actually bolded. I said that we are playing some teams now so those numbers aren't realistic. So essentially you are just arguing with me over nothing.

To think that Lucca wouldn't have made a difference is naive. A 3 point shooter stretches the defense. We had no 3 point shooters and Brackins suffered because of it. We couldn't get him the ball in the post without the whole team collapsing on him. Lucca was a smart player that could hit the 3, pass the ball to the post, and played better defense than a lot of people on here (whom don't really understand basketball) give him credit for

Much of this is accurate. But I'm tired of hearing "this hurt Brackins" and "that hurt Brackins".

The Craig Brackins issues were there before Lucca bolted. IMO, the people that hurt Craig are Craig Brackins and his coach - for not being a bit harder on him when Craig wasn't getting it done.

I would have had some respect for Greg had he sat down Brackins during those times he was more concerned about the refs than getting back on defense. Or when he camped out around the perimeter rather than posting up.

Tell me - how often - regardless of who is on the floor - do good things happen for Craig/ISU when he goes strong to the rim? I'd venture to guess it's over 80% of the time that the shot goes in and/or he gets fouled. Sadly, it's like 10-20% of his touches (at best) that he did that.

My "blame-o-meter" for this season is...

1. Greg
2. Craig
3. Lots of other stuff