Coach Prohm emphasized that for them to be a good defensive team, they need to be getting rebounds from the guards as well as everyone else.
Matt Thomas vs. Chicago State
- Thread starter AMarner32
- Start date
Coach Prohm emphasized that for them to be a good defensive team, they need to be getting rebounds from the guards as well as everyone else.
A thread got started saying he had a nice game which he did? You wouldn't see any threads like this if posters like you wouldn't continiously trash a kid for not meeting unrealistic expectations.
I think what people are saying is that's a ways down the list of attributes you rank on a shooting guard when he gets recruited. It's nice if he gets them, and yes it's generally expected but guard rebounds are a little more fluky. Not saying some guards aren't really good at it....but not a huge reason you recruit a pure shooter.
"Best shooter in his class", and a top 55 recruit......yeah...I don't think expectations were unrealistic, he just hasn't met any of them.
And, miraculously, you show up in every thread to talk down a loyal Cyclone. It's predictable and sad.
So he hasn't lived up to the unfair expectations you set upon him before he stepped foot on campus? Got it.
As is this bizarre almost delusion some of you have watching him play.
Sorry if factual criticism ruffles you. I don't mind MT...some of us just had higher hopes for him.
So let me get this straight....I think it's fair to say he's struggled shooting the ball, he doesn't start, he's an above average rebounder and fairly average at everything else correct?
Given that.....explain to me how he's MET your expectations given what a high recruit he was, and how lauded by experts he was coming out.
Absolutely.
Let me put it this way: it is absolutely unrealistic to expect someone to be a better three point shooter than Jake Sullivan. Jake was one of, if not the best three-point shooters in Iowa State history (one could make an argument for Dederic or Scotty as well, from a statistical point of view). To expect someone to come in and be on-par with the best at something in school history is always going to be unreasonable. And make no mistake, except for his sophomore year, Jake Sullivan was a pure 3-point specialist shooting guard. Yeah, his junior and senior year he developed a dribble drive to about 15 feet for a pull up, but that only worked because of his 3-point shot: people would bite on a fake and he'd blow past them while they were in the air. But Jake wasn't a great (or even good...) defender, didn't rebound well, wasn't very good as a ball handler, and couldn't actually create his own shot until his Junior year.
But Fred Hoiberg wasn't a 3-point specialist. In fact, Fred was a worse 3-point shooter than Matt as a Freshman and Sophomore. Once he hit his junior year, he started to pour it on from behind the line, but up to that point? He was a 20% shooter who only hit 13 as a freshman. Matt hit 44 of them as a freshman, and shot 34%. That's actually just a hair worse than Fred's Junior season. But Fred... Fred was an excellent all-around player. He drove the ball extremely well, created his own shot, rebounded extremely well, and played very good defense.
So, there's only two conclusions we can actually reach from this.
The first is that when you say "I wasn't expecting Fred Hoiberg, but at least Jake Sullivan" you were making an actually intelligent comparison, and comparing their overall games. At which point, it's a decent point, but not to Matt's detriment, but rather it makes his case. Matt, while not being on par with Fred as an all-around player, is quite a bit better at every phase of the game that Fred was good at and Jake wasn't as good at than Jake was. That is to say: when comparing what Fred was better than Jake at, Matt is better than Jake as well.
The second conclusion we can draw is that you're kinda ignorant of your basketball history, and were comparing 3 point shooting. Jake was a much better 3-point shooter, from the day he walked into Iowa State until the day he left, than Matt has shown. But he was also better than Fred ever was, and especially when you compare like-samples of Jake/Fred/Matt as Freshmen and Sophomores. Matt isn't as good a shooter as Jake was, but just Matt's freshman season was better than Fred's entire first two years, in just terms of 3-point shooting.
I was, personally, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were talking the first rather than the second. Because it would be kind of foolish to not hope for a Fred-like shooter (who was not good) but rather settle for a Jake-like shooter (who was the best ever) if you had to. I mean, it'd be straight up silly to say that.
Which is why, when I replied to say that Matt was better at all phases of the game that weren't 3-point shooting, I took it at face value that you weren't being foolish or silly.
Were you?
I'm sorry if I gave you more benefit of the doubt than you deserved. My apologies.
Why wouldn't you? We are a team that shoots a lot of deep shots, which means we'll have a lot longer rebounds, which is what Matt excels at. We have a pretty decent rim-protector in McKay, and Georges isn't a slouch at rebounding either. Do we really want them releasing from the post to try to get long rebounds?
You're not honestly suggesting that guard rebounding is an irrelevant phase of the game, are you? Rebounding is a key to winning games. There were 53 total rebounds by the Cyclones tonight, do you think that all of them should come from just Georges and Jameel?
I hope not....
See, it's statements like that that make me think you're not actually comparing apples to apples. you say "Maybe he's not Fred, but at least he could try to be Jake!" and then talk about how both of their roles are to shoot 3 pointers. But as I've shown, Matt's already a better 3 point shooter than Fred was at like times in their careers. And to claim that Matt could at least try to be as good a shooter as the best 3-point shooter in the history of the school is pretty foolish.
So, which is it? Are you ignorant of your basketball history, or are you just being illogically negative because you had irrational expectations for a basketball player?
Exactly. And furthermore, I'm sick of Niang getting all these damn assists. We didn't recruit him to ******* pass the ball. That's what point guards are for!
Hopefully a jimlad isn't necessary.
Well considering he was statistically a decent but not great three point shooter all throughout high school, I think it's a you problem that you expected him to be as good as the best three point shooter in ISU history.
Gnome: I didn't compare them...it wasn't my line. I was responding to the people
i addressed the rebounding. Of course it's important but you don't recruit a kid like matt for his rebounding. And typically when you get out rebounded, guards are never blamed...so no it's not high on the list when you recruit a pure shooter to come in like matt.
and comparing Jake and Fred to matt is ridiculous. They were both far better players than matt. My comparison to Jake is in that their roles were similar.
i addressed the rebounding. Of course it's important but you don't recruit a kid like matt for his rebounding. And typically when you get out rebounded, guards are never blamed...so no it's not high on the list when you recruit a pure shooter to come in like matt.
and comparing Jake and Fred to matt is ridiculous. They were both far better players than matt. My comparison to Jake is in that their roles were similar.
So now he was just decent....
"[FONT=�Lucida Sans�]An outstanding scorer who is considered one of the best shooters in the class of 2013...considered one of the best players from Wisconsin in 2013...a consensus top-100 national recruit, Thomas is ranked No. 32"
[/FONT]
Thats his bio coming in.....what exactly has he done that has met those expectations? I'll wait.
One, it's not factual. It's your opinion.
Two, he's a Cyclone. If I were disappointed in how a Cyclone turned out I would never dream of getting online after a big winning and expressing how a Cyclone hasn't met my expectations. It's completely ridiculous.
Thomas will be a key player for this team to make real noise this season. He, Burton and Cooke appear to be the only bench this team has, so his play will be crucial.
Solid game out of him. I'll be cheering for him all season!
Solid game out of him. I'll be cheering for him all season!
You recruit a kid like Matt to be a basketball player and help out the team however he can. In Matt's case, he rebounds and defends well, and makes hustle plays when needed. What Matt could bring to the team included his rebounding, defense, and hustle. So, he was recruited, at least in part, for his rebounding.
And you CONTINUE to judge Matt based on your assessment of him when he came in (pure shooter) compared to the reality of what he is (solid all-around player). We've got 2 years and 3 games of Matt Thomas production that shows us he's not a pure shooter, why do you continue to judge him based on your assessment of what you wish he was, rather than what he's been for his career here? He's not a pure shooter, and has never been. Stop judging him based on whether he's actually a pure shooter.
I mean, Steph Curry is a terrible basketball player if you wanted him to play post, and judged his performance on how well he performed with his back to the basket.
"Shot 50.4 percent from the field, 82.9 percent from the charity strip and 35.8 percent (59-165 3FG) from beyond the arc"
Also from his bio. What about 35.8 percent from behind the arc leads you to think he'd be an amazing three point shooter in college?
As is your opinion.....mine just happens to be backed up by fancy numbers....
Good for you. I can't stop you from holding hands and singing kumbaya about every player we have. Some of us expected more from such a high recruit...if you are just happy with whatever you get...by all means.
He was running the point at times. I doubt he will be asked to do that come conference or close games.
