***Official 2019-2020 Transfer Thread***
- Thread starter ruflosn
- Start date
The D was terrible and I don't think a 5-9 guard is going to help that issue if he starts for ISU next season as many have projected.
PG height isn’t a prerequisite for a good defense nor is one player. Nice to have but if there is a position that height maters the least is at PG.
Agree. The defenders I always had the most problems with were players who were quicker and were able to stay in front.
For example, Muggsy Bogues (5'3"), Spud Webb (5'7"), and Nate Robinson (5'9") played in the NBA because of their quickness/athleticism, with the last 2 winning the NBA Slam Dunk Comp. Keep in mind that the average height of PG's in the NBA is also greater than in college, so the difference in height was even more extreme.
So, 5'9" for a PG in college is not automatically prohibitive as some posters assert. The bigger question for me is whether he has the skills, vision, and passing ability to play PG considering those skills were not on exhibited in 2 years of playing college ball.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that unless Jaden Walker is Haliburton 2.0 from day 1, it will likely be a PG by committee deal
What do you have to say regarding the offensive data, however?
I believe your point was something like, if I summarizing it fairly, that the offense might degrade without a formal distribution-first PG. You rightfully pointed out that Prohm has a head coach in Murray and Ames has had an impressive run in the pedigree of his PGs, and it might be a problem if he lacks elite production there.
I brought up, and backed up with numbers, that the offense last year was fine (if not slightly superior) once Tyrese went down for the year. That Prohm was able to keep the offense humming through Bolton and Young instead.
What have you to say about that relative to your disappointment and demand that we need a formal PG, even if a mediocre guy from a low-major conference?
Not what your mother said.
If Harris is going to be a passive on-ball defender he could be a liability on D. Opposing guards can easily pass over him.
But if he is aggressive, defends closely he can make opponent ball handlers uncomfortable. He's a good leaper, so he should be able to contest jump shots.
Being 5'9" is not a big liability 18" from the basket. The key is he can't auto switch most screens and end up guarding opponent posts.
Having someone athletic enough to defend multiple positions alone is going to make a big upgrade on defense over Jacobson.
We also have more athleticism replacing Nixon.
Oh and more depth.
We also have more athleticism replacing Nixon.
Oh and more depth.
I think people are putting to much stock into the while 5'9 thing. For one he has the quickness and the athleticism to stay in front of his man. He also has another thing and that's fire. I will take a 5'9 guy who wants to grind the guy they are guarding into the court over a 6'5 dude that does not care to play defense. Harris said in his interview with CW that he does not care who he is guarding they are gonna know who he is by the end of the game. He is not the kind of player to back down on defense and will take on anyone. He is a dawg and we need more like him on the team.
I already stated in a prior post that the offense was far from humming with TH and without him, certainly not a level for a NCAA tourney team
Several B12 teams will attempt to take advantage of him in PnR by ISU not being able to switch him onto bigs and there will be matchups where opposing guards attempt to post him down low with regularity. It was an issue at Memphis that reduced his PT there.
We lost a great PG.
...but did not suffer for it. We were not good beforehand, like you note, but we were marginally better when that PG went down.
So why are you so worried about having the right titular PG?
Maybe the problem was something else -- like guards that can shoot more efficiently, turning the ball over less, or generating more steals on defense for full-court breaks and/or generating extra possessions on the offensive boards?
I would argue we need a lot more of my set of possibilities above than merely having a better titular PG. We had an awesome one, but losing him did not matter. I think that argues that there were other factors holding the offense back.
That is why the present roster upgrades are more important than just getting a guy who says "PG" on the box regardless of his level of talent or production. We will be fine with Bolton at PG and/or by committee with all the guards. I worry more we have guys that can handle all the other missing roles and productivity on the offense.
I’m hoping Harris can at least play at a Donavon Jackson Jr year level. I think he can give us 25 minutes of pesky D and quality offense. Especially if he ends up 3rd or 4th on the opponents scouting report.
Our flaws on offense weren’t from point with or without Halliburton, our problem was all the threes we jacked up and didn’t make.
The main problem with our team(others than playing guys at positions they shouldn’t be playing), was defense.
We upgraded all of the above.
The main problem with our team(others than playing guys at positions they shouldn’t be playing), was defense.
We upgraded all of the above.
But if they can somewhat make it work by committee and get into the NCAA Tournament, even as a higher seed, it makes for an inviting spot for a high profile PG like Hunter in 2021.
What do you have to say regarding the offensive data, however?
I believe your point was something like, if I summarizing it fairly, that the offense might degrade without a formal distribution-first PG. You rightfully pointed out that Prohm has a head coach in Murray and Ames has had an impressive run in the pedigree of his PGs, and it might be a problem if he lacks elite production there.
I brought up, and backed up with numbers, that the offense last year was fine (if not slightly superior) once Tyrese went down for the year. That Prohm was able to keep the offense humming through Bolton and Young instead.
What have you to say about that relative to your disappointment and demand that we need a formal PG, even if a mediocre guy from a low-major conference?
Not what your mother said.
If I’m correct our points per possession was .98 in the last 9 games (post Halliburton). It drops to .95 if you remove the Texas game at home. I’m not sure that I would define that type of offensive production as “humming.” But I definitely agree that the problem was giving up 1.11 points per possession in the last 9 games. The defense was beyond atrocious although I think poor shot selection contributed to that number certainly the inexplicable inability to guard the PNR was an issue.
I do not see why you can arbitrarily drop the Texas game.
I could say you should arbitrarily drop the worst game without Haliburton, which was the Florida A&M game. They were clearly out of sorts without their floor general out there on short notice, and the level of effort was just awful the whole day.
I could also argue you should drop the last few games without Bolton.
The point is -- we were not incredible on offense last year, but we did not regress when we lost a point god. We were steady or even slightly improved. The point is you can rely on Bolton and Young as the foundation of your offense. There is no evidence we need a very strict distributional PG, especially one with mediocre numbers from a mediocre team in a low-major conference like Buggs, to somehow "keep things going" because "things went to heck without Tyrese... we need a PG! Even if not very talented!"
No, they did not, and no, we do not.
We need to hit shots, rebound, and play defense with more gusto than a pink lawn flamingo and four lawn chairs like we did last season.
Having a formal pass-first PG is like fifth on my list of improvements to make.
