Recruit a Lock Down Defender??

[BigD]

We don't want to get anyone killed out there on a basketball court bro.

Except for when we play against the thuggery of Michigan State.

 

[Adam]

Except for when we play against the thuggery of Michigan State.

Ok. You found the exception.

 

[ArvadaHawk]

I’m pretty sure Joe Toussaint the guy who we literally just landed this weekend was known for his defensive mentality.

On the other hand that was all the hype when we landed Brandon Hutton out of Chicago and he never played a game for us and I don’t think at the D1 level either.

In all truthfulness defense is a team thing moreso than an individual player. Hopefully Toussaint is the guy you're looking for in your OP.

And Hutton RS and then transferred after red shirting. But you exactly right about what his role was going to be. Also, Toussaint is a guy who could become that player and, in my opinion, our defense has been weak because we haven't been able to stop dribble penetration and Toussaint could be what corrects that. This season will need a who lot of zone from Iowa because JT won't be here until '19.

 

[WindsorHawk]

Look at FT shooting in general. There are many players that don't shoot well anymore. Shaq was a horrible FT shooter. More importantly, the point is that this type of player could disrupt enough to really help the net gain in scoring by holding down the opposing player or disrupting enough. Screw the 3-5 Pts he might not get at the FT line when he could hold the opposing player down 10pts from his average. That kind of player will only get tot he FT line maybe 2-3 times a game. If goes 3 times a game, still getting 2-3 pts out of 6.

I wouldn't pass on what that player could provide defensively for an entire game worrying about the measly 4 pt's he might not get at the FT line.

People really need to look at the "net gain" in scoring difference instead of just the offensive output of some players.

Woodbury is a prime example and we are now realizing what he brought as we have missed this the past two years. He was not an offensive juggarnot but created havoc down low on defense. How many points was he worth, even though they didn't end up in the scoring book under his name. Net gain.

Shaq? Okay you win. I'll take Shaq. Woodbbury? Again you win. I'll take Woodbury. He had a North Carolina offer among others and was highly regarded.

I understand the concept of a net gain. I'm talking net gain as a team. Playing 4 on 5 means the other 4 players also have decreased production. In the end there is not going to be a net gain in the vast majority of cases. A defender that makes that kind of difference...Shaq or Woodbury...is not under the radar and likely being heavily recruited.

 

[WindsorHawk]

I want a lot of shit in life, perfect shit. But, I realize that is really hard to get. Of course we'd take the perfect player with no holes, but as we see in all team sports, that is very hard to accomplish. I am talking one specialized lock down defender in the game, not 2-3 of them. One guy to disrupt their best player or PG and flow of offense. I can't believe you can't understand the "net gain" a specialized defender brings.

Iowa clearly the past two years HAS NOT had a problem scoring points. The problem has always been on the defensive end, so Fran's theory that they will just outscore their opponents was not working.

Say you bring in a player that doesn't even score a point in the game but holds down an opposing player who averages 23 pts a game to 12 pts, It would be like that defensive specialist accounted for 11 pt's, hence, my "net gain" argument.You add in there a clean up basket and a few FT's made and that is up to 15 pt gain.

Dennis Rodman was this type of player. Provided the teams he played with defense and rebounding. Reggie Evans you could say was this type of player. Both had long NBA careers.

Again...I will take Rodman. We all understand net gain. You are insisting on making an argument that is not realistic. List 5 current college players at a program we can realistically compete with for recruits that fit your criteria.

Also, you want a player that can stop the opponent's star point guard? This defender won't be able to stop a 6'8" guy that can post up and shoot the 3. You want a defender to stop the 6'8" guy? He won't be able to stop the star point guard. And then there are the star big men.

The elite player on every team is not playing the same position. To do what you suggest we need 2 or 3 elite defenders...that can't score per your criteria/definition...taking up 2 or 3 roster spots. This is all so unrealistic it's not worth discussing any further. But I promise to check back for that list of 5 current players I requested.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Shaq? Okay you win. I'll take Shaq. Woodbbury? Again you win. I'll take Woodbury. He had a North Carolina offer among others and was highly regarded.

I understand the concept of a net gain. I'm talking net gain as a team. Playing 4 on 5 means the other 4 players also have decreased production. In the end there is not going to be a net gain in the vast majority of cases. A defender that makes that kind of difference...Shaq or Woodbury...is not under the radar and likely being heavily recruited.

I disagree. Not usually the case. Many teams have players playing that don't provide a lot offensively. I would take it further and state it is more common to have a team with only 3-4 scorers on the floor at once then all 5 expected to provide a high output offensively. Rarely is a coach gunna be lucky enough to have 5 scorers on the floor at a given time. If you have a team like Iowa who can spread the floor with the type of players they have with 3 who could shoot the 3 effectively along with a Cook down low, you can get buy with a guy who really specializes in defense and getting rebounds.

My "net gain" argument is relating to the team game.

Shaq or Woodbury is not the player we are talking about for Iowa, or who Iowa really needs. Shaq was a reference to my Free Throw argument. Woodbury played into my net gain argument.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Again...I will take Rodman. We all understand net gain. You are insisting on making an argument that is not realistic. List 5 current college players at a program we can realistically compete with for recruits that fit your criteria.

Also, you want a player that can stop the opponent's star point guard? This defender won't be able to stop a 6'8" guy that can post up and shoot the 3. You want a defender to stop the 6'8" guy? He won't be able to stop the star point guard. And then there are the star big men.

The elite player on every team is not playing the same position. To do what you suggest we need 2 or 3 elite defenders...that can't score per your criteria/definition...taking up 2 or 3 roster spots. This is all so unrealistic it's not worth discussing any further. But I promise to check back for that list of 5 current players I requested.

It certainly is realistic. I'm telling you these players are probably out there that never got a P5 scholarship offer, because they never stood out on the offensive end. There are not really individual stats to read and compare. I never limited to the PG position. In actuality, it could be PG or a wing (2 or 3). I just made reference to where a need could be filled for Iowa. But, I definitely would take a taller 2 or 3 who could guard that.

You are not getting it. I NEVER SAID THE SAID PLAYER OR THAT SPECIALIZED PLAYER WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE COURT THE ENTIRE GAME OR HAVE TO HAVE 3 ROSTER SPOTS OF THEM. I never stated the idea was to have one on the floor every single minute of the game. That is unrealistic. It's called game situation substitutions. The coach would sub as needed. You are really getting too literal with this.

As for your request, I'm not even sure what the hell you are requesting so I have nothing to fill as far as a request there.

It is not new to a team to have a defensive specialist on the roster, trust me.