HawkGold
Well-Known Member
It's overwhelming to do that.
It'll be about Connor
- Thread starter oregonhawkeye
- Start date
It's overwhelming to do that.
RobHowe
Administrator
I agree
Are you saying there’s someone else on the team better at getting the ball to Garza where he can score, particularly in the post?
1980HAWKFAN
Well-Known Member
I think Connor has done a good job this year at filling a role for the Hawks. I see him as a guy you can now count on not to be turnover machine. He is really good at getting the entry pass into Garza. You can count on him to make a high percentage of his free throws. He's been pretty solid for the most part. However, he's not the guy who is going to make the winning shot or the winning drive when things are going sideways. Would I trade Connor for McCowan, Winston, Carr, Trice, Dusunmu, Simpson, Baker. Probably not, because I like his style. That being said I think the Hawks will never be an elite big 10 team until they have an elite point guard who can do everything Connor can plus burn you off the bounce and kill you from 3.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
No, I think CM is really good at it. He naturally makes tough passes inside. He does get some passing turnovers, but he's really good at it.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
If the lineup is the same of course the defensive positions can be interchanged. Joe Wieskamp doesn’t have the ability to defend 4s at this stage. So yes the good news Connor can handle playing the PG on offense at times.
The reality is if Connor stayed at the PG spot it would be Kriener in the lineup and then the whole positional breakdown gets a lot tougher to do.
Yes this is similar to the Jbo debate. We knew his defense was a negative but he made up for it with very high level offense. Does Connor provide that high level offense? Maybe, it depends who you ask.
My point of this entire argument is why would you shuffle defensive positions if you don’t need to? Again you can interchange defensive positions if you have the right players, but that’s not always the case. I think in his current role defending 3s and 4s Connor is one of our better defenders, if he had to guard more 3s and 2s and Wieskamp had to guard more 2s and Fredrick had to guard more 1s I think that’s a net negative for our team. So yes you CAN do it, but there better be a really darn good reason for it. When Jbo was shut down it would have been very easy to move Connor back to the point but Fran didn’t do that, and I think there is a reason for that.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
To add to this @PCHawk and parallel with the Jbo argument his issue was that he wasn’t quick enough to defend 1s but he wasn’t big enough to defend big guards. So you gave up a little for his elite offensive ability and hoped that another guard can cover for him. But it wasn’t an IDEAL situation on defense, certainly one you would like to avoid if at all possible, so with Connor he has the size to guard 3s and sometimes 4s but he can still utilize his offensive strength not being the primary PG. So it’s the perfect situation for Iowa and Connor. He can defend positions he’s better suited to, he can still post feed and set up his teammates, and he doesn’t have to deal with quicker guards pressuring him for 30 minutes. A great spot for him.
D
DDThompson
Guest
Thanks for the laughs
D
DDThompson
Guest
This all sounds like an arguement not to play two bigs more than one to not play Connor at the 1. I still stand by my opinion that in D1 basketball, the players are smart enough to guard whoever the coach tells them too. When Connor plays the 4, or the 1, or the 2, he guards who Fran thinks makes the most sense, not whoever happens to be playing the same position. If the defense is better off when Connor is guarding the 4, but Fran wants the ball in his hands late in games, Fran doesn't make Connor start guarding someone else. At least I assume he doesn't because that would be dumb.
WindsorHawk
Well-Known Member
You’re right PC and wasting your time with this argument. Nike occasionally goes through a stretch of trying to tell everyone how things work because so many of us can’t understand. When this happens I just don’t acknowledge Nike’s nonsense. It’s a waste of time to talk to someone that won’t listen and thinks they know everything.
Good to hear because I was starting to second guess myself. I just couldn't understand how Fran would match up his defense based on where his guys played on offense instead of based on how they would be most successful.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
Well to be honest we could play Connor more at the 3 with Kriener at the 4 the way Wieskamp has been playing lately. That would give us some good defensive matchups, and wouldn’t really hurt our offense at this point the way Joe is shooting the ball.
I understood where you were coming from with the anyone can guard anyone argument and that is true. We discussed that a lot with Jbo. My point which maybe I did a poor job of explaining is that all things equal I don’t think you want to be doing that. You basically have to have the absolute correct personnel and I’m not certain we do. IMO it’s something you want to avoid if you can.
Last edited:
I can't believe I let his comment slide. People "switch defenders" all the time in basketball. Every time someone new subs into the game.
But teams do it all the time. They go big. They go small. They bring in a 2 to sub out a 4. They bring in a 3 to sub out a 2. Every time they do those things, they figure out who they should man up against based on what makes the most sense. Sometimes even, a opponent will get hot and they will change the person guarding him without even subbing out. For instance, maybe their point guard gets hot while Jbo is on him so they have him guard the 2 and Moss guard their hot point guard (no homo). Everything is constantly changing at that level of play. If Fran wants Connor to move to the one at the end of a close game, it's not going to affect or defense one bit. He's still going to guard who he was guarding before he switched.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
Again I understand where you are coming from that you CAN do those things. Yes you are going to match your 5 players with the opposing 5 in the best way you can.
My point is still that I don’t think you WANT to be doing that all things equal. If Connor is best at defending opponents 3s and he’s playing the 1, that likely means you’re going to ask your 3 man to defend the opponents 2 and your 2 man to defend the 1. But is that ideal? Is Joe Wieskamp better at defending 2s or 3s? I would argue 3s. Is CJF better at guarding 2s or 1s? I would argue he’s better suited to defend 2s. So by playing your PG who struggles defending his spot, you are potentially hurting your defense at the other spots IMO. Can you mitigate or overcome that if you really want that player to play the PG spot? Yes, absolutely. If you think what they bring in other areas outweighs two other guys having to defend somewhat out of position than yes you can do it.
So to summarize, you are 100% correct in saying anyone can matchup with anyone and that Fran is going to matchup his 5 guys as best he can with the other 5. My point and my opinion is that I feel you are giving up something on defense when Connor plays PG, all things equal.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
PC and I have agreed on far more than we have disagreed on. It’s a message board, sometimes there are arguments. I was a little frustrated because I didn’t feel like he read my first response.
I said “If he’s playing point guard it’s more likely he has to guard a point guard or quicker player all things equal.”
PC said “Why does he have to guard a point guard if he plays point guard? That's not true at all”
I didn’t say he had to guard a PG I said it’s more likely he would have to guard a PG or a quicker guard. I honestly thought PC was trolling me at first but it’s likely he just read my post a little too quick based on the discussion we’ve had now.
You're frustrated with me because I called you out on what I thought was a pretty ridiculous statement you made yesterday that Iowa is not good at defense because Fran doesn’t teach the grabbing mugging style like all other teams. I maintain that’s a pretty ridiculous statement, and there’s levels to where that discussion could go.
In the situation you layed out, I don't think you give up any more on defense there than you give up on rebounding having Connor at the 4. I don't think either option is better or worse than the other.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
Back in the mid 1980's and thru the 80's when they started the 3 pt line, .300 was a very good %. If a player shot around .300 they were viewed as a sharp shooter. Of course this evolved over time with young kids growing up shooting 3's and now the % is up in the .400.
I wonder what the metric or analytics state is the minimal % for a gain when shooting 3 pt shots. Obviously .400 or .300 is very good and if a player shot .200 probably not and hurting the team. Where is the bottom of the % but still benefiting the team shooting a 3 over a 2? Anybody know the magic %?
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
That’s a fair counterpoint, but aside from the start of the game I wondered how much time Connor played at the 4 spot. I looked at the minutes played for the last three games of Garza, Kriener, Pemsl (and Till). Assuming there are 80 minutes total between the 4 and 5 spots. What I found is that Connor averaged about 13.5 minutes of play time at the 4 spot out of his over 28 minutes a game. So he’s spending less than half of his time there, probably in part for that reason you just mentioned.
I think his natural spot is the 3 spot, but he’s had to spend a little time at the 4 this year due to injuries.
I don’t think he’s the main culprit in the rebounding struggles to be quite honest. I think zone defense is a problem and lack of any interest in boxing out by several Iowa players is an issue. I also think Garza gets pushed way underneath the basket at times.
ArvadaHawk
Well-Known Member
re: the returning players, one of the more critical things for next season is that both CM and JT become reliable shot takers and shot makers. if they can do that, then defenses literally won't be able to double team luka without giving up an open 3-ball from a guy that can knock it down, reliably. pemsl would be the only guy you could double off of.
