I don'tbelievegimmick offenses work in the long run, it's all about what type of players you have on your current roster. For example, there is no way this year's team could run up and down the floor like VCU, or play 40 minutes of hell like Mike Anderson tried to implement. So, will Shaka's system fit ourpersonnelor will it take him 3-5 years to recruit and findplayersthat fit hissystem? I would like to hire someone who will implement fundamentally sound basketball like Bulter and Duke play...I have no idea whatavailablecoach fits that mold.
Concerns about Shaka...
- Thread starter BogeyGolfer.sixpack
- Start date
And I think your concern is a good one about the players................... http://sixpackspeak.yuku.com?topic=85398/Shaka-Smart-s-style-of-basketball
I overlooked that thread...watching games and posting on here at the same time is very distracting. No doubt Shaka would make and big impact as a hire it's kind of like Mullen's first year at State, he worked with what he had and made the best of it.
Somebody like Smart would more easily succeed with MS talent versus somebody with a Butler system. If we are going to compete, we are going to have to "out athlete" the opposition with smothering defense and transition basketball. My preference is fundamentally sound Butler-like basketball teams, but I don't think the local talent (for a variety of reasons) meshes well with that approach. We might as well throw that out the window unless we plan on being able to recruit nationally.
If it takes a few years for a coach with the Shaka Smart approach to find the the athletes and build depth for that to work, so be it. That said, our current roster and incoming guys seem athletic enough for that type of system to succeed. Stans has always had rosters full of players athletic enough to play tenacious defense and run the floor.
If it takes a few years for a coach with the Shaka Smart approach to find the the athletes and build depth for that to work, so be it. That said, our current roster and incoming guys seem athletic enough for that type of system to succeed. Stans has always had rosters full of players athletic enough to play tenacious defense and run the floor.
and I'm not so sure they can recruit nationally. However, I dobelievethat we have local talent that will fit his system, I'm just not sure they are on our current roster or have those type of players coming in. VCU is very long, strong and athletic, I would love to have that type of team at MSU as long as we are fundamentally sound.
To get the "fundamentally sound" basketball players, you'll likely have to go out of the South. That's not to suggest there aren't any here, but the numbers just aren't there. Many of our athletes are rural based kids that spend their time playing multiple sports. Once you get out of the South and head up north, you have more metropolitan areas and cooler climates. Their athletes spend more time in the gym than ours do. They end up being fundamentally better basketball players than our talent does. I have no facts to back this up, just huge assumptions based on the way I think people prioritize things here versus there. It's basically the same argument as to why Southern baseball programs are better (we play all year round) - just reversed.
you're right almost all big time football players played either basketball or baseball or the opposite. If we are going to run the floor, we must have a better strength and conditioning program thanwe've had in the past. I'manxiousto see how it all plays out.
What could you possibly see in the "local talent pool" that makes you think they can play fundamentally sound basketball? <div>BogeyGolfer said:
</div><div>Are you suggesting that the new coach fill his roster with a bunch of slow as stink on **** academy kids?</div>
When I speak of the "local talent pool" I mean areas in which wehaverecruited, the states of TN, LA, AL and of course MS. I don't consider that to be recruiting nationally, and I probably should have said regionally. However, our next coach should be able to recruit these areas and findfundamentallysound players. Not just players who shoot and play poor defense. For example, I feel like Hood isfundamentallysound and canprobably run the floor, but he needs to work on his strength and conditioning. But I as stated earlier, he may be the only one on our roster at this point.
Would you rather have a very strong, opportunistic defensive/rebounding/transition team... much like Arkansas or UMass... and struggle some in the half court... or would you rather have a team that dominated the half court with creative sets (Bruce Pearl, Bo Ryan), but struggled to find defensive rhythm and transition?<div>
</div><div>Very seldom do you have teams with both half court dominance AND strong opportunistic transition abilities along with stifling, aggressive defense... Kentucky is the only team I can think of off the top of my head that can literally dominate in every single phase of the game. Most teams are built for aggression or shot making. I think ultimately, I'd rather have an opportunistic team that plays great defense, simply because it keeps the intensity up and aggressive teams have a much easier time controlling the pace of games. Defensive intensity can set offensive rhythm, as well. Also, strong defense and transition abilities dominate creative offensive sets... because even if you have an off night shooting, you can still play good defense and create easy shots for yourself in transition... that's a constant. When you need a stop in the worst way, you feel confident you can go get one. </div><div>
</div><div>On another note, that's where I think this is where Rick went wrong... Rick built his identity on defense and rebounding... he used to use some killer zone presses that were almost sure to work every single time... and his teams were fairly opportunistic in transition, as well as inbounding the ball, but his teams have always struggled to find consistency in the half court game. Rick lost his way... and his edge... and decided to go with shooters as opposed to guys that fit the formula that got him where he was. </div>
</div><div>Very seldom do you have teams with both half court dominance AND strong opportunistic transition abilities along with stifling, aggressive defense... Kentucky is the only team I can think of off the top of my head that can literally dominate in every single phase of the game. Most teams are built for aggression or shot making. I think ultimately, I'd rather have an opportunistic team that plays great defense, simply because it keeps the intensity up and aggressive teams have a much easier time controlling the pace of games. Defensive intensity can set offensive rhythm, as well. Also, strong defense and transition abilities dominate creative offensive sets... because even if you have an off night shooting, you can still play good defense and create easy shots for yourself in transition... that's a constant. When you need a stop in the worst way, you feel confident you can go get one. </div><div>
</div><div>On another note, that's where I think this is where Rick went wrong... Rick built his identity on defense and rebounding... he used to use some killer zone presses that were almost sure to work every single time... and his teams were fairly opportunistic in transition, as well as inbounding the ball, but his teams have always struggled to find consistency in the half court game. Rick lost his way... and his edge... and decided to go with shooters as opposed to guys that fit the formula that got him where he was. </div>
If you watch Brad Brownell at Clemson and turned Purnell's run and gun, lazy press defense (out athleting teams) into one of the most fundamentally sound teams in the ACC. And SC's talent pool is similar to MSU. His problem is bringing in enough talent. So yes, a fundamentals coach can work at MSU, it just has to be the right guy.
and I remember he used to be a wizard at drawing upin boundsplays, which resulted in many dunks..... That's a tough questionbecausewhen a creative/slashing offense is working with the all of the cuts, it is a thing of beauty but good defense/transition can win a team a lot of games. No doubt, watching your team play poordefenseis a helpless feeling. I would rather us play solid defense with a good half court game. Very few teams can play like the old Loyla Maramount and Nolan Richardson type teams, they have off nights as well.
Would he accept our offer? He would/should be an upgrade over Stans and if we can get him, the coachingsearch should be concluded.
If you can get Shaka Smart, you get Shaka Smart. You never know if he will be successful at MSU or not until you get him here, but you do know he is the best candidate out there right now and we do not have a coach. He is young, energetic, and seems to fit the current mold of Stricklin hires (in men's sports). I would be more than thrilled if we were able to get him to come here.
