At least we made them last night, I don't think it would have mattered against lowly Depaul. We need Sidney and Riek in there for some more beef on the inside. Hopefuly after UCLA we will have Sidney and Riek on the floor.
Back to living and dying by the 3 pointer?
- Thread starter fishwater99
- Start date
At least we made them last night, I don't think it would have mattered against lowly Depaul. We need Sidney and Riek in there for some more beef on the inside. Hopefuly after UCLA we will have Sidney and Riek on the floor.
Riek will help talk the pressure off the threes.... I'm of the mindset now though that Sidney may never play with us... ever.
Why wouldn't we shoot the three pointers. They were triple teaming Vanardo all night long. That leaves TWO other players unguarded. You people are idiots.
http://www.mstateathletics.com//ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=16800&ATCLID=204847081
article says that we didnt make a 2 point basket until jarvis scored with about 1 minute remaing in the first half. to me that sounds a little alarming, but i guess if thats what is open and the shots are falling, then no problem.
article says that we didnt make a 2 point basket until jarvis scored with about 1 minute remaing in the first half. to me that sounds a little alarming, but i guess if thats what is open and the shots are falling, then no problem.
I would have been upset if we hand't taken the threes we were taking last night. They were WIDE OPEN.
You don't think it's a little worrisome that we couldn't get a shot of a all inside the arc for almost an entire half against a mediocre team? I don't care if they had 5 guys standing under the rim, there's many more ways to get an inside shot without banging it inside to Varnado. You saw in the 2nd half the effect of taking all those 3s. Some of the shots thrown up by Osby, Turner, and Stewart were barely nicking the front of the rim.
also i dont know if it was the defense last night but depaul was taking some terrible shots. i mean if they weren't shooting airballs they were laying some bricks.
OEMDawg said:
If there are 5 guys standing under the rim then WHY would you want to try to get shots around the rim. It is called taking what the defense gives you. Damn, I used to think some of you critics had a clue about basketball but now I just don't know. I would have been pissed if Rick told them to stop shooting the threes last night. By hitting all those threes in the first half we opened up the inside for Varnado, Osby, and Augustus in the second half.
of the 1st half and the whole 2nd half. Offensively, we were just standing around. Most of the time we weren't looking to get it inside. Just ball screens everytime the floor + drive and dish. To be the better teams, you have to have a little better offensive philosophy.
you get 50% more production on the scoreboard on a made 3 pointer than you do from a made 2 pointer. If we have good 3 point shooters, and we do, and they are leaving us wide open why would we not take them.
So were we standing around or were we screening, driving, and dishing? Big difference.rugbdawg said:
It looked like we were trying some dribble drive. You know, that offense everyone ragged Calipari about at Memphis, but now it's awesome because he does it at Kentucky. We made some baseline drives and drives to the top of the paint. They sank all five in there, so we kicked it out until we were wide *** open with a good shooter. Seemed damn effective and we beat the **** out of them.
It really has almost become unbearable around here now. Apparently, whatever offense Stansbury isn't running is the one we should be doing.
Or the outside guys should just switch places for the hell of it?
There aren't off ball screens in what it looked like we were doing. It's designed to draw defenders in, kick, drive quick if you can or wait for ball screen then drive, kick, repeat... If the defense doesn't stop you or comes off the low post, it's a layup. If they sink in, it's a wide *** open three.
Why in the hell would you move if your defender runs away from you? Kind of pointless.
There aren't off ball screens in what it looked like we were doing. It's designed to draw defenders in, kick, drive quick if you can or wait for ball screen then drive, kick, repeat... If the defense doesn't stop you or comes off the low post, it's a layup. If they sink in, it's a wide *** open three.
Why in the hell would you move if your defender runs away from you? Kind of pointless.
Seshomoru said:
We should move needlessly on the opposite side of the court to keep the Pack happy. If you look around at today's game, most teams are taking alot of threes. Teams that can't hit the threes are screwed because it gets hard to match a team 2 for 3. MSU does not exist in a bubble but some of our fans are far too critical about things that every team in the country does. They just don't follow them and critique it.
Quite honestly, I feel better about our offense when we don't pass it around too much because we are not a good passing team. I would rather take a quick open three than try to force it inside with the guys that we have.
Oh I watched the game, and Depaul was horrible. We did hit some wide open 3 pointers, which is great... I am not saying that we should not shoot them when they are open looks, but we can not go the whole season shooting that hot from behind the arc. All I am saying is that we need some balance on offense.
Some of you guys are so stupid it's amazing.
They weren't just doubling Varnado, they had 4 guys surround him, leaving the entire team open on the perimeter. I'll take a wide open 3 every trip, most of the guys now can hit a wide open 3 more easily than a free throw.
If we miss 70% of wide open looks, that's not a coaching issue, it's just that our players suck.
Also, we kept doing it b/c it was working. We were dribble driving and kicking it out, there's not a whole lot of movement involved when doing that from your perimeter guys, watch some more basketball.
They weren't just doubling Varnado, they had 4 guys surround him, leaving the entire team open on the perimeter. I'll take a wide open 3 every trip, most of the guys now can hit a wide open 3 more easily than a free throw.
If we miss 70% of wide open looks, that's not a coaching issue, it's just that our players suck.
Also, we kept doing it b/c it was working. We were dribble driving and kicking it out, there's not a whole lot of movement involved when doing that from your perimeter guys, watch some more basketball.
Osby had a two pointer before Jarvis did. I don't remember the exact time but it was less than two minutes. He, not JV, got the first two pointer of the game for us.
Bdog9090 said:
And that's on both sides of the Stans argument.
To the Stans haters, why complain about wide open three pointers when we are shooting well? If we shoot like that we won't lose. Period. Sometimes you do have to take what the defense gives you, especially when, as a team, you are hot and it is working.
To the supporters, please don't try and tell me that the guards are supposed to be standing in one place simply b/c we are driving and kicking it out. And please don't try and tell me that off-ball screens are unnecessary. And I'll take a layup off of a dribble drive that draws a defender and leaves the rim open for a back-door cut over a decent look from the three point line any day. There is a reason it is called a MOTION offense after all.
From what I saw we are still running that perimeter weave offense that we reverted to most of last season. The problem with standing on the perimeter and waiting on someone to create is that players get comfortable staying out on the perimeter and then you have mental lapses where no one cuts to the goal at all and no one sets off-the-ball screens to free up a shooter for an open shot.
Last night was the first time I've seen us play though, so I cannot pass judgment. DePaul was giving us the open looks, which led to the standing around. If you are open and knocking down the shots, I see no problems with taking them. Hopefully when we get into games against teams that play more aggressive defense we will utilize a more fluid motion type of offense.
I'm looking forward to watching us play some better teams. I think we will still end up with a pretty damn good team.
The problem with Stans motion offense is that it only works against teams that play man defense. A good zone defense kills our motion offense and Stans has no clue how to run anything else. That is one of my major problems with our coach. I have no problem shooting open 3 pointers, but we to have some other options on offense or we will be living and dying by the 3 again this year.
I think it's pretty obvious a team that starts basically 4 guards is going to live & die by the three.
Stansbury has about 6 players who can sink threes almost at will once they get hot.
But I guess the sixpack experts would prefer Stewart, Johnson, Turner, Benock, etc. drive the lane every time they have the ball.
Kodi Augustus is sort of a guard/forward, but when he's hot, he's the best 3 point shooter on the team.
Stansbury has about 6 players who can sink threes almost at will once they get hot.
But I guess the sixpack experts would prefer Stewart, Johnson, Turner, Benock, etc. drive the lane every time they have the ball.
Kodi Augustus is sort of a guard/forward, but when he's hot, he's the best 3 point shooter on the team.
But we weren't exactly moving with ball well or moving without the ball at all on the offensive end. We aren't going to be able to outathlete everyone we play. We aren't going to be able to just run ball screens against everyone we play. We aren't going to be able to just drive and dish everyone we play. We have to mix it up and be able to attack all types of defenses with all types of athletes.
Could've fooled me. Anytime we win you, Peaches, and Fishwater get on here and complain nonstop. It would be one thing for you guys to be happy with wins and then complain about losses, but you complain about everything basketball wise. We could be undefeated right now and ranked and you guys would complain. That's why your opinion doesn't carry any weight. While I thought Croom was out of his league as SEC head coach and wanted him fired in 2006, I still had enough sense to be pleased with winning 8 games, including the bowl game, in 2007. I still wanted him to be successful in 2008. It's called being fair, pulling for MSU, and wanting to win more than wanting to be right. You guys lack these things. Ya'll are clearly biased against Stansbury.
We've won our last two games by 52 points and 31 points, yet there is more complaining from the usual suspects. DePaul basically let us shoot open 3s the entire first half and we made most of them. They then changed their defense in the second half and we were able to get inside much more. Jarvis finished with a double double and I believe three or four players were in double figures. (Too lazy to check the stats) That's what you're supposed to do, take what the defense gives you. DePaul is not as horrible as some of you Stans bashers want to make them out to be. No, they're not a tourney team, but they're not JUCO either. I guess we'll have to go undefeated from here on out and win the national championship to make some of you people happy.