Who is to say that after he recovers from his illnesses he will be the same player he was coming out of high school. You never know how good a player is for sure coming out of high school unless maybe a can't miss five start. When you lose thirty pounds and are away from a sport for months on end it is likely you won't be the same player. I wonder how the career of Ellison would of turned out if he hadn't had his toe cut off during his redshirt year.
Playing out of position
- Thread starter NikeHawk21
- Start date
Who is to say that after he recovers from his illnesses he will be the same player he was coming out of high school. You never know how good a player is for sure coming out of high school unless maybe a can't miss five start. When you lose thirty pounds and are away from a sport for months on end it is likely you won't be the same player. I wonder how the career of Ellison would of turned out if he hadn't had his toe cut off during his redshirt year.
Dailey's turnover percentage was much lower than CW's the year prior. I never said Dailey was some great backup point guard I just said he's a better ball handler than Williams ever showed. You're the only person on here that thinks CW being on the roster gives the team a few more wins.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
I bet I'm not the only one who thinks another guard on this team might have garnered a few more wins. I also don't think CW was very good. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have at least helped in a position of dire need. You know if you spring a leak you can clog it with shit until you can get it fixed, it still leaks but it helps.
If I started a poll asking if CW gives this team a few more wins I don't think you would like the results.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
TL DR
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
trj
Well-Known Member
I forgot who I was listening to, but they were talking about how Shaq would fit into today’s game. Shaq is a hall of famer, but he would struggle in the way the game is played now.
Back to the subject matter at hand, you are correct the fact that Garza can play out on the perimeter allows you to play Cook at the 4. At least offensively anyway.
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
trj
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately, that guy is not on roster. The best you can hope for is that Garza can figure out how to hedge on screens.
lightning1
Well-Known Member
This is why I think CMac will be an upgrade. He's got a higher basketball IQ by playing within himself and the offensive framework. He's not going to dribble the tread off the ball and kill the flow of the offense.
He's a good enough ball handler and passer to play the PG or as a combo guard. I can live with a PG that wants to beat a defense with efficient offense through good passing and ball reversal. The only caveat is, that type of PG is only an asset if they can defend. If they can't or won't defend, they're a net minus.
I can't believe people don't understand how average our offense would have been if we played against teams that took us seriously or weren't kicking our ass for most of the game.
We have a 1 who can pass pretty good and hit 3s. We have a 2 that can catch fire every once in a while, but can't dribble, pass, or make a standard basketball play. We have a 3 that can hustle but can't shoot or dribble. We have a 4 that is a beast but a turnover machine. And we have a 5 that turned into a damn good offensive player by the end of the year. Those parts do not add up to top 20 offense. That is unless a majority of our minutes played were against teams up 15 points on us and coasting to the finish. The rest of our minutes played were against teams that didn't take us serious.
We have a 1 who can pass pretty good and hit 3s. We have a 2 that can catch fire every once in a while, but can't dribble, pass, or make a standard basketball play. We have a 3 that can hustle but can't shoot or dribble. We have a 4 that is a beast but a turnover machine. And we have a 5 that turned into a damn good offensive player by the end of the year. Those parts do not add up to top 20 offense. That is unless a majority of our minutes played were against teams up 15 points on us and coasting to the finish. The rest of our minutes played were against teams that didn't take us serious.
Turnover percentage can have just as much to do with how often a player tries to make a play. Dailey rarely had turnovers because he rarely tried to make a difficult play.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
You overblow that so much though. Do I believe there were times where Iowa was getting crushed and the other team gave up some easy ones? Absolutely, but Iowa was still a pretty good offensive team this year.
I’ll back it up.
-Scored 93 against MSU. Most points they allowed all year (next closest Duke 88)
-Scored 85 against UW. Most points they allowed all year (next closest Michigan 83)
-Scored 104 (OT) and 96 against Illinois. The two largest point totals allowed all year for ILL.
-Scored 94 against Minnesota, the second most points they allowed all year (Behind Ark 95)
-Scored 82 against Indiana (lost by 2), the second most points IU allowed in B1G play.
-Scored 77 against Northwestern, the second most points NW allowed in B1G play.
These were all games Iowa either won or went to the wire.
This Iowa team was solid offensively but atrocious defensively. Fixing the defense accounts for items A, B, and C on the to do list, then we can worry about offense.
You just said they were solid on offense. I agree with that. They were solid. They weren't top 20 good like their numbers suggest.
You're also right that defense was problem A,B, and C. But when your 2 and 3 are Moss and Baer, you need help on offense too. When your backup 1 can't even make a standard point guard play (like Connor can) you need help on offense. I don't think I'm over blowing this at all. I think you are making my post out to be more extreme than its meant to.
All I know is when it's time for a team to really clamp down on defense against us, we are in a world of hurt. If this exact same team played decent defense, they would have been a middle of the pack team that played in a lot of close games. They would have been the exact same team on offense, but due to the other teams taking us serious and trying hard for 40 minutes, we would have probably been between 40 and 50 on offensive efficiency.
NikeHawk21
Well-Known Member
I still think based on the games I listed above we’d be top 35 team offensively. The thing is we are bringing in Joe Weiskamp who will provide that punch that Baer didn’t. Assuming Cook returns, we bring back 4 double figure scorers and bring in Joe, I’m not worried about offense in the slightest going forward.
Well now we are splitting hairs. I either slightly overvalue how much it helped us to have an opponent who isn't worried about us at all, or you slightly undervalue it. Either way, we agree that it helped some, and hopefully next year we won't be getting that help from teams because we will be respectable.
I think we had 2 missing pieces to be a legit top 20 team on offense. I pretty good 1/2 for a backup, and a really good 2/3 for a starter. I'm pretty damn sure Wieskamp fills the one hole. We just need to fill that other. Either with Connor, with Dailey stepping up big time, or with an open scholorship. Or I guess there is the tiny chance that CJ could fill that role. But that's a huge long shot.
Good data here by the way.
I agree with you that Dailey was much smarter with the ball in his hands than Williams.
