Getting it all out in the open.

bearcatrunner · 03-26-2013, 06:46 AM

I've always had an issue with the fact we are so low on pure shooters since Mick became coach. I don't understand this when the Creighton team was full of them. I mean how is it possible that we don't have just one? I believe Mick can teach almost any kid to play defense if he needed to. He understands this very well.

In the end you need a well balanced team and that is what was wrong with Creighton's team. They did not have the athletes to compete with the big time programs like Duke. We were good enough to hang with anyone in the country but could not score enough to win those big games. Just imagine how good this team could have been with just one pure shooter or if the whole team could hit free throws. Why is it so hard to hit Free Throws? Don't coaches understand what a difference those can make in a game.

BTW - I love Mick but I don't understand why he allows Rubles to shoot the three. I mean serioulsy he is shooting .09%. Driblle & Drive. That kid would be sitting on my bench when he did that. I can't believe he took that shot at the end of the game.

Okay I've gotten it all off my chest now.

JasonS · 03-26-2013, 07:23 AM

We were short on shooters most of the late 90s and early 2000s. The only real pure shooter during that span was Field Williams. Were people complaining then?

This isn't about shooters as much as it is about getting open looks. SK shoots a higher percentage if he is not taking contested threes or jumpers all the time. Same with Cash. Run good offense, get open looks, and you shoot a higher percentage.

All the people that complain about not having shooters would be complaining if Mick was signing these same players saying "Why can't we land the big time players." Sometimes Mick can't win. Period.

BearcatMick · 03-26-2013, 07:53 AM

Uc had plenty of shooters this year. Don't be ridiculous

bearcatfan1211 · 03-26-2013, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearcatrunner

I've always had an issue with the fact we are so low on pure shooters since Mick became coach. I don't understand this when the Creighton team was full of them. I mean how is it possible that we don't have just one? I believe Mick can teach almost any kid to play defense if he needed to. He understands this very well.

In the end you need a well balanced team and that is what was wrong with Creighton's team. They did not have the athletes to compete with the big time programs like Duke. We were good enough to hang with anyone in the country but could not score enough to win those big games. Just imagine how good this team could have been with just one pure shooter or if the whole team could hit free throws. Why is it so hard to hit Free Throws? Don't coaches understand what a difference those can make in a game.

BTW - I love Mick but I don't understand why he allows Rubles to shoot the three. I mean serioulsy he is shooting .09%. Driblle & Drive. That kid would be sitting on my bench when he did that. I can't believe he took that shot at the end of the game.

Okay I've gotten it all off my chest now.

This is something that has had me thinking. For those of you that watched the Kansas-UNC game on Sunday, Ben Mclemore was sat on the bench for 15 minutes in the second half because of his play and this guy is the likely #1 pick in the draft this year. Why doesn't Mick have the balls to sit guys that aren't performing and play other guys?

Cataclysmo · 03-26-2013, 09:48 AM

I agree, my biggest problem this season was Micks inability to get Rubles to stop shooting. Look, i get if a player is wide open 15 feet out that they will take the shot, that's okay. However, if Rubles is shooting a 3 when we absolutely need to hit one, then that is a huge problem. I don't know if Mick has told him not to shoot or what, but he needs to find out how to stop it.

Secondly, we don't have shooters. Shooters are guys that can take open threes and have it be a surprise should they not hit them. We have guys who can shoot, and they need to find confidence quickly before next year.

User Name: · 03-26-2013, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bearcatfan1211

This is something that has had me thinking. For those of you that watched the Kansas-UNC game on Sunday, Ben Mclemore was sat on the bench for 15 minutes in the second half because of his play and this guy is the likely #1 pick in the draft this year. Why doesn't Mick have the balls to sit guys that aren't performing and play other guys?

Comparing Kansas to UC is apples and oranges. Kansas is a National Championship contender. They have plenty of other top flight players. It's much easier to 'have the balls to sit guys that aren't performing' when your bench players are also top flight players and its not a complete detriment to the team

Calipari has 6 incoming top 20 players next year. If one of them is having a bad game or isn't playing Defense or being selfish, its easy for him to 'make a point' by benching him because, most likely, they are going to win easily anyways.

Cpaw · 03-26-2013, 10:07 AM

I agree with Rubles, but we don't know what happens in practice. We have always heard he is a good shooter and can make shots, so I can only go with the notion that you have to let these kids shoot through it, even though it has been majority of the season. I did comment against Creighton when the refs whistled a play dead, Rubles shot a great looking 3 and made it that was his first 3 in months!

L-T · 03-26-2013, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JasonS

We were short on shooters most of the late 90s and early 2000s. The only real pure shooter during that span was Field Williams. Were people complaining then?

This isn't about shooters as much as it is about getting open looks. SK shoots a higher percentage if he is not taking contested threes or jumpers all the time. Same with Cash. Run good offense, get open looks, and you shoot a higher percentage.

All the people that complain about not having shooters would be complaining if Mick was signing these same players saying "Why can't we land the big time players." Sometimes Mick can't win. Period.

Wow, you've forgotten a lot of Bearcat history. We had a lot more pure shooters than you remember. Just in the short period you mentioned above, we had Steve Logan, Demarr Johnson, among others. Logan was one of the greatest players to ever put on a Bearcat uniform and Johnson was a #3 pick in the NBA.

The difference is we had balance in those years. We had a strong inside game to go with our shooters. Now we have no inside game, and sub-standard shooters, Kilpatrick possibly, and I repeat..."possibly" the exception. His shooting this year left a lot to be desired.

bearcatfan1211 · 03-26-2013, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by User Name:

Comparing Kansas to UC is apples and oranges. Kansas is a National Championship contender. They have plenty of other top flight players. It's much easier to 'have the balls to sit guys that aren't performing' when your bench players are also top flight players and its not a complete detriment to the team

Calipari has 6 incoming top 20 players next year. If one of them is having a bad game or isn't playing Defense or being selfish, its easy for him to 'make a point' by benching him because, most likely, they are going to win easily anyways.

If the guys on the bench though are really a detriment to the team then why are they even here in the first place? especially if his coming off the court could mean Shaquille going on.

Hicks' Guns · 03-26-2013, 11:24 AM

I think SK is a pure shooter that's incorporating other elements into his game. He was great his freshman and sophomore year. He just shot poorly this year and I think a lot of that was due to failure for him to get open and better looks...and the lack of other options that allowed defenses to key on him. He turned into a volume shooter this year and a lot of that volume was poorer shots than he's taken in the previous two years..

I do think we need more than one though and I'd love the have at least one "crap...we forgot about him guy".

03-26-2013, 10:07 AM	#7
Cpaw Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 131	I agree with Rubles, but we don't know what happens in practice. We have always heard he is a good shooter and can make shots, so I can only go with the notion that you have to let these kids shoot through it, even though it has been majority of the season. I did comment against Creighton when the refs whistled a play dead, Rubles shot a great looking 3 and made it that was his first 3 in months! __________________ Cpaw Fortune Favors the Bold

03-26-2013, 06:46 AM	#1
bearcatrunner Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 92	Getting it all out in the open. I've always had an issue with the fact we are so low on pure shooters since Mick became coach. I don't understand this when the Creighton team was full of them. I mean how is it possible that we don't have just one? I believe Mick can teach almost any kid to play defense if he needed to. He understands this very well. In the end you need a well balanced team and that is what was wrong with Creighton's team. They did not have the athletes to compete with the big time programs like Duke. We were good enough to hang with anyone in the country but could not score enough to win those big games. Just imagine how good this team could have been with just one pure shooter or if the whole team could hit free throws. Why is it so hard to hit Free Throws? Don't coaches understand what a difference those can make in a game. BTW - I love Mick but I don't understand why he allows Rubles to shoot the three. I mean serioulsy he is shooting .09%. Driblle & Drive. That kid would be sitting on my bench when he did that. I can't believe he took that shot at the end of the game. Okay I've gotten it all off my chest now.

03-26-2013, 07:23 AM	#2
JasonS Football Moderator Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 5,181	We were short on shooters most of the late 90s and early 2000s. The only real pure shooter during that span was Field Williams. Were people complaining then? This isn't about shooters as much as it is about getting open looks. SK shoots a higher percentage if he is not taking contested threes or jumpers all the time. Same with Cash. Run good offense, get open looks, and you shoot a higher percentage. All the people that complain about not having shooters would be complaining if Mick was signing these same players saying "Why can't we land the big time players." Sometimes Mick can't win. Period.

03-26-2013, 07:53 AM	#3
BearcatMick Elite Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Cincinnati Posts: 1,192	Uc had plenty of shooters this year. Don't be ridiculous

03-26-2013, 09:48 AM	#5
Cataclysmo Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Posts: 270	I agree, my biggest problem this season was Micks inability to get Rubles to stop shooting. Look, i get if a player is wide open 15 feet out that they will take the shot, that's okay. However, if Rubles is shooting a 3 when we absolutely need to hit one, then that is a huge problem. I don't know if Mick has told him not to shoot or what, but he needs to find out how to stop it. Secondly, we don't have shooters. Shooters are guys that can take open threes and have it be a surprise should they not hit them. We have guys who can shoot, and they need to find confidence quickly before next year.

03-26-2013, 11:24 AM	#10
Hicks' Guns Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 374	I think SK is a pure shooter that's incorporating other elements into his game. He was great his freshman and sophomore year. He just shot poorly this year and I think a lot of that was due to failure for him to get open and better looks...and the lack of other options that allowed defenses to key on him. He turned into a volume shooter this year and a lot of that volume was poorer shots than he's taken in the previous two years.. I do think we need more than one though and I'd love the have at least one "crap...we forgot about him guy".