Great athletes vs. Great shooters

A

Absolutfan

Member
 Would you rather have a team with great shooters or great athletes. Ideally having both would be great but when you think about it, our better teams in the past had better shooters. It's nice that we have several kids that are great leapers but my experience has always been the better teams can put the ball in the basket. I also think that a great shooter usually comes with a better basketball work ethic. I would be interested to see what others on here think.

Remember Mullin and Bootsey?
 
 Would you rather have a team with great shooters or great athletes. Ideally having both would be great but when you think about it, our better teams in the past had better shooters. It's nice that we have several kids that are great leapers but my experience has always been the better teams can put the ball in the basket. I also think that a great shooter usually comes with a better basketball work ethic. I would be interested to see what others on here think.

Remember Mullin and Bootsey?
Click to expand...
 

Uk has great athletes. St. Mary's has great shooters. Which you think?
 
 Would you rather have a team with great shooters or great athletes. Ideally having both would be great but when you think about it, our better teams in the past had better shooters. It's nice that we have several kids that are great leapers but my experience has always been the better teams can put the ball in the basket. I also think that a great shooter usually comes with a better basketball work ethic. I would be interested to see what others on here think.

Remember Mullin and Bootsey?
Click to expand...
 

Uk has great athletes. St. Mary's has great shooters. Which you think?
Click to expand...
 

UKs guys are far from just great athletes. Is St. Mary's better then us?
 
 Would you rather have a team with great shooters or great athletes. Ideally having both would be great but when you think about it, our better teams in the past had better shooters. It's nice that we have several kids that are great leapers but my experience has always been the better teams can put the ball in the basket. I also think that a great shooter usually comes with a better basketball work ethic. I would be interested to see what others on here think.

Remember Mullin and Bootsey?
Click to expand...
 

Uk has great athletes. St. Mary's has great shooters. Which you think?
Click to expand...
 

UKs guys are far from just great athletes. Is St. Mary's better then us?
Click to expand...
 

Lots of great shooting teams out there that don't go too far. I think overall great athletes allow your to defend and run. That said, even those athletes must include some guys that are decent shooters. I'd love to add 2 more dynamic scorers to what we have.
 
I'd prefer great basketball players. Bill Bradley was more than a great shooter. Bill Russell was more than a great athlete. 
Click to expand...
 

The teams that win the tourney each year usually have a dead eye shooter.
 
I'd prefer great basketball players. Bill Bradley was more than a great shooter. Bill Russell was more than a great athlete. 
Click to expand...
 

The teams that win the tourney each year usually have a dead eye shooter.
Click to expand...
 

Actually in Charles Barkley's book he addresses this subject. He says that a lot of NBA players disrespect the European players as inferior since they can't jump through the roof, or run like gazelles. Barkley dismisses this train of thought, stating that basketball is a game that rewards many talents - like shooting, passing, moving without the ball, and dribbling. You don't have to be a great athlete to do any of those things well, and as we continue to see, highly skilled players who aren't great athletes have done pretty well in this league.
 
I'd prefer great basketball players. Bill Bradley was more than a great shooter. Bill Russell was more than a great athlete. 
Click to expand...
 

The teams that win the tourney each year usually have a dead eye shooter.
Click to expand...
 

Actually in Charles Barkley's book he addresses this subject. He says that a lot of NBA players disrespect the European players as inferior since they can't jump through the roof, or run like gazelles. Barkley dismisses this train of thought, stating that basketball is a game that rewards many talents - like shooting, passing, moving without the ball, and dribbling. You don't have to be a great athlete to do any of those things well, and as we continue to see, highly skilled players who aren't great athletes have done pretty well in this league.
Click to expand...
 

I totally agree. I think a mix is nice. I just think Lavin likes kids who are long and real good athletes because it suits the style of play that we want to play. A guy like Harrison isn't our best athlete, but he's arguably our best player. Mo Harkless is a solid athlete, but much more, he's a really skilled kid. Mix that with some real good athletes like Pointer and Amir who provide defense, rebounding and hopefully will develop their skill set. I don't think Lavin has tried to recruit solely athletes. I just think that our team only has about 7 guys and our youth and deficiencies are magnifies greatly. 

I'll add that Lavin wants those types too hence the recruitment of kids like Reinhardt, Wood, Galan, Sina etc...
 
Unfortunately most HS players are not good shooters; look at shooting percentages in HS games, even between top teams. Many players who are not good shooters as college freshmen become very good shooters later in their college careers. And good shooters as freshmen, sometimes become great shooters later. We don't need two guys who shoot 50% from three, we need most of our top 7 or 8 players to be able to hit an open look when they get it and shoot a reasonable percentage inside 20 feet. Because we have so many freshman we don't have that now and we are paying the price. These guys will become better shooters and with reinforcements in the paint that will help open up the perimeter more they'll be even better. We'll be fine with our terrific athletes who will be good shooters.
 
I'd prefer great basketball players. Bill Bradley was more than a great shooter. Bill Russell was more than a great athlete. 
Click to expand...
 

Yeah, I'd love two of the greatest college basketball players of all time too. Just point me to the tree they grow on....
 
 Would you rather have a team with great shooters or great athletes. Ideally having both would be great but when you think about it, our better teams in the past had better shooters. It's nice that we have several kids that are great leapers but my experience has always been the better teams can put the ball in the basket. I also think that a great shooter usually comes with a better basketball work ethic. I would be interested to see what others on here think.

Remember Mullin and Bootsey?
Click to expand...
 

Uk has great athletes. St. Mary's has great shooters. Which you think?
Click to expand...
 

UKs guys are far from just great athletes. Is St. Mary's better then us?
Click to expand...
 

Well, I recall St Mary's beating us last year with one guy hitting seven threes. We were probably a better team but threes are the big equalizer and we're one of the worst in the country in that category. Until that changes we aren't going to be a real threat to anyone good. Allowing threes and not having anyone who can make them reflects on coaching and recruiting. I sure hope Lavin is aware of this stuff and fills this need.
 
Great athletes can become great shooters, Great shooters can not become great athletes  
Click to expand...
 

One of the best posts these boards have seen in some time. Shooters are a great asset, but if you live by the three, you die by the three. A shooter can lose his shot any given day...but defense is always there.
Physical talent is always there.

I think this roster has some good shooters on it. Look at the shooting stats most of the good seniors had as freshman...chances are they've climbed drastically over the years. Greene and Garret will be around 33% next season and I think both Harkless and Harrison will be over 35%. Harrison could be much higher if he wasn't such a volume shooter taking that many difficult shots. Branch was 33% at A&M. I could actually see Harrison climb to over 40% next year ala Kevin Jones' soph campaign, if he can get 2-3 open looks. 

Give me 10 tough, long athletes committed to playing hellacious defense any day of the week.
 
To win at this level, you need shooters and athletes. There is no either/or. There are a lot of 6'5 guys in college basketball that are quick and can jump out of the building. It's the teams with 6'10 guys that can jump out of the building, combined with athletes than have skill sets to go with their athleticism, that make it to the top. As one poster said, you can't improve your athleticism, but your shot can improve. So when you can't recruit the super athletes with a high level of skill sets, you go for the athletes and hope they develop those skill sets. Before they develop, you end up in the bottom half of any major conference. If they don't develop, you end up in the bottom half of any major conference. Or you add recruits with superior skill sets, which is not that easy to do, because then you have to slug it out with the Duke, Syracuse U Conn and North Carolinas of the world.
 
I'd prefer great basketball players. Bill Bradley was more than a great shooter. Bill Russell was more than a great athlete. 
Click to expand...
 

Yeah, I'd love two of the greatest college basketball players of all time too. Just point me to the tree they grow on....
Click to expand...
 

The point is that basketball is a skill game. It favors height primarily, and speed and athleticism. Shooting is a skill. Athelticism is a gift. Either gets you only so far.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top