and I've gotta say that he does nothing to make Duke a better team (based on last night's game). He just hovered around the 3 pt line waiting to shoot. He seldom sniffed the paint. In 43 minutes of play, 1 assist and 4 rebounds. Of Duke's 18 offensive boards, he had zero. Maybe last night was an anomaly, but all I saw in him last night was a left-handed version of Ravern Johnson. No way is he a lottery pick or even a first round pick.
First time I saw Hood play last night
- Thread starter BonzoGoesToCollege
- Start date
He's bigger than Ravern. If Ravern were a little bigger, he would have had a shot at the NBA. I've always thought Hood was borderline first round. Depends on the rest of the draft.
If not for an uncalled foul, the guy would have made one of the most clutch slams you will ever see. And there are people who mention him and Ravern Johnson in the same sentence.
I can't say I'm surprised.
Hood is an above average player...
but against Sy he didn't contribute much. That guy saw what he saw.
But it was only one game.
but against Sy he didn't contribute much. That guy saw what he saw.
But it was only one game.
If Ravern cared, he would have had a shot at the NBA. He had an elite skill (his mid range jumper), which you generally need to make it. He just needed to make sure the rest of his game wasn't too big of a liability. Had he worked out hard, maybe his range would have extended and he could have played passable defense. You'd have to think his dribbling skills were just a matter of hard work to get them to adequate for a spot up shooter.
He's got a lot of skill for his size, so maybe he goes that high. I just don't watch enough college basketball to be fully familiar with the other players in the draft.
If Ravern had an elite skill, it was three point shooting. His career 3 point shooting percentage was .398 and he had over 200 attempts per year that he started. He shot more threes than twos, and at about the same percentage. He maybe could have been a shooting guard in the NBA or a designated outside shooter, but he was so slight its just hard to imagine him in the NBA. Ravern wasn't a perfect player, but I'd take Ravern on the team every year. He could flat out shoot.
He was an elite college 3-point shooter. I call anything that is not a short and not a 3-pointer mid-range, but I guess mid-range is really the 15 fter, not the long 2. And he may have had the range to shoot NBA 3 pointers; not really sure why I was assuming he didn't other than he didn't shoot them in college, but why would he.
As pretty as his shot was and as nice as it was knowing an open shot was likely going in, I would rather watch our current group of bricklayers than watch him play defense. Maybe he would have turned out differently if he had a different coach and s&c coach, but he was probably the most frustrating player to watch for me.
Wow
I must say, this is definitely the first I've ever seen this written about him. You may be on to something.
I must say, this is definitely the first I've ever seen this written about him. You may be on to something.
Different guys in the team are better or worse at defense, and I actually notice quite a few plays when we have guys not helping, not blockign out, etc. on defense. In any event, we do not play team defense nearly as well as we did in any of Ravern's three years as a major contributor. We were 22nd, 9th, and 75th in the nation in opponent's shooting percentage those three years. We are currently 175th in that stat.
I know this goes against the narrative, but our defense right now is very similar statistically to Stansbury's last year, although we create a lot more turnovers. Coincidentally, we finished Stansbury's last year ranked 175th in shooting percentage against.
I know this goes against the narrative, but our defense right now is very similar statistically to Stansbury's last year, although we create a lot more turnovers. Coincidentally, we finished Stansbury's last year ranked 175th in shooting percentage against.
No doubt he got hacked on that slam.. Great game vs Cuse. It's baffling that someone would even mention Ravern and Hood in the same sentence... Could Ravern even dribble?
Being better or worse at defense is fine. If Ravern had just put forth effort he could have sucked on D and I would have thought he was awesome.
As far as team defense, I would have said Stansbury was basically a defensive coach. Nothing he did wowed you, but his teams typically rebounded well and played solid if not high pressure defense. The d got worse as the character of our players got worse. The teams with Varnado and Stewart actually played relatively poor defense with the exception of Stewart playing close to lock down defense on the perimeter and Varnado cleaning up for a lot of laziness by others. Without them playing exceptional D, the decline would have been a lot more obvious.
In 2009-2010 we were ninth in the country in field goal percentage defense. That team had Vanardo, Stewart, and Ravern. The year before that we were 22nd in the country in field goal percentage defense, same players. Frankly, I do not believe its possible to hold people to 40% or less from the field with just two players playing defense. My personal opinion is that stat slipped the next year because of a lack of big men and being forced to play smaller players in three and four guard lineups.
During Stansbury's tenure, this is our ranking in the nation in field goal percentage defense: 29, 178, 97, 58, 15, 47, 43, 45, 23, 2, 22, 9, 75, and 175. If we were in the forties, we were in the top two or three in the conference. If we were in the twenties or above, we were usually first in the conference. That is pretty damn good.
During Stansbury's tenure, this is our ranking in the nation in field goal percentage defense: 29, 178, 97, 58, 15, 47, 43, 45, 23, 2, 22, 9, 75, and 175. If we were in the forties, we were in the top two or three in the conference. If we were in the twenties or above, we were usually first in the conference. That is pretty damn good.
That hack on the arm was the only thing between him and bona fide SPS wing-slasher status.
Some of you either don't watch games or don't understand what you're watching...
He's not the star of the team. He's not the first or even 2nd option, but he was one of five players in double figures. I'd say that's contributing. He's a reliable shooter who can't be left open. He has unlimited range and he can create off the dribble and pull up and make a jumper off his dribble (something most college players can't do). If Rodney Hood is your 4th or 5th best player, you've got a damn good team.
He's not the star of the team. He's not the first or even 2nd option, but he was one of five players in double figures. I'd say that's contributing. He's a reliable shooter who can't be left open. He has unlimited range and he can create off the dribble and pull up and make a jumper off his dribble (something most college players can't do). If Rodney Hood is your 4th or 5th best player, you've got a damn good team.
Parker is the star of the team, no disagreement.
But for criticizing posters for not watching or not knowing what they are watching, you are WAY off base.
Hood has stepped up multiple times when Parker wasnt scoring. Hood shouldered the scoring from the first conference game against ND thru their game against UVA. He was the go to much of the time in those games.
Also-
Hood is the 2nd leading scorer, by a lot.
Hood has taken the 2nd most shots and made the 2nd most.
Hood has taken the 2nd most FTs and made the 2nd most.
Hood has made the 2nd most 3ptrs.
Hood has the 3rd most rebounds.
Hood has played the 2nd most minutes.
Hood has the 2nd most assists.
Looks like he is often times the 1st option in situations and is quite firmly the overall 2nd 'star'/option.
We did it his sophomore and junior years, but not his senior year. You can't underestimate the importance of guards who can play defense. Barry Stewart was a good perimeter defender; Bryan Bryant and Riley Benock were not. Dee Bost was okay, but could be beaten off the dribble by top point guards. Mediocre perimeter defense was a big problem the next year as well.
Not 4th option.. but 4th most talented player. If you put a gun to my head, I'd take Parker, Sulamain, and probably Jefferson but that's not to take anything away from Hood at all. I was shaking my head at the idiots on this board saying he would go to Duke and ride the bench or not be a factor.
I don't disagree at all...
I don't think he has as much pure talent as Sulaiman or Parker (I think Sulaiman has some Russell Westbrook in him) but Hood is definitely in that same class of player. Great understanding of the game and how to play (underrated quality).
I don't think he has as much pure talent as Sulaiman or Parker (I think Sulaiman has some Russell Westbrook in him) but Hood is definitely in that same class of player. Great understanding of the game and how to play (underrated quality).