Mikey Dixon

[quote="Monte" post=301471][quote="Logen" post=301468][quote="Monte" post=301443]Seeing as Dixon is the closest thing we have to a true point guard, and seeing how this offense still looks lost much of the time, how about giving him a shot at runnning the point in the hopes that maybe he can bringing a semblance of cohesiveness to the offense? Still plenty of minutes to go around for everyone else.[/quote]

Curious, we scored 84 points, and I thought played pretty good offense after the early 2nd half TO by Mullin.[/quote]

We look out of sorts on offense far to often: ill advised shots, lack of passing(Spanarkel mentioned that a couple of times), to much one on one. As far as I concerned, this looks like more of the same things we saw under Lavin: very little offensive structure. Don’t confuse putting up points against far inferior opponents, to actually running good offensive sets. And if Sham doesn’t get hot in the 2nd half, we loose this game. 19 point favorites. No excuse for a nail bitter against BG.[/quote]

To be honest, since I've been a fan of the team I can't say we've had a coach who was a great in game coach and has the team running a crisp offense. Would anyone call Jarvis, Norm, Lavin or Mullin advanced in that regard?
 
[quote="Monte" post=301483][quote="Paul Massell" post=301473][quote="Monte" post=301443]Seeing as Dixon is the closest thing we have to a true point guard, and seeing how this offense still looks lost much of the time, how about giving him a shot at runnning the point in the hopes that maybe he can bringing a semblance of cohesiveness to the offense? Still plenty of minutes to go around for everyone else.

Other than being shorter than everyone else, I haven't seen a lot of true point guard from Dixon. To me I've seen a scorer. But regardless Mullin isn't playing a true point guard offense. More often than not they start in more of a point forward. You'll note that typically in the half court Ponds and Dixon will pass off to the top (Clark, Maybe Simon) and go off to a wing. Everyone is supposed to have a handle and everyone is supposed to know how to pass. I'd say we are pretty good with that and the low turnovers bear it out so far.

Personally I'd rather see a traditional offense with a quality pass first PG and some bigs, but with the personnel we have we pretty much only have the "positionless basketball" option.[/quote]

Having Clark at the top serves one purposes, but defeats another: having our biggest guy down low. But it is what it is. As for our low turnover rate, our lack of passing probably has something to do with that also. As for Dixon, wasn’t he a PG at Quinipiac? Agree that he hasn’t shown us any real PG skills so far, but then again who would have ever thought that David Cain, Dwight Hardy or Marcus Hatten, due to lack of other options, could have taken over as floor generals? Granted the last 2 were more combo guards, but both ran their respective teams very effectively. I was hoping that maybe Sham could have assumed that type of combo role, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.[/quote]
Dixon played mostly off the ball at Quinnipiac, but has adequate handle imo to play some PG.
 
[quote="Monte" post=301483]
Having Clark at the top serves one purposes, but defeats another: having our biggest guy down low. But it is what it is. As for our low turnover rate, our lack of passing probably has something to do with that also. As for Dixon, wasn’t he a PG at Quinipiac? Agree that he hasn’t shown us any real PG skills so far, but then again who would have ever thought that David Cain, Dwight Hardy or Marcus Hatten, due to lack of other options, could have taken over as floor generals? Granted the last 2 were more combo guards, but both ran their respective teams very effectively. I was hoping that maybe Sham could have assumed that type of combo role, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.[/quote]

I'm with you but Mullin isn't so it is pointless. Also Clark is getting better but I'd say he's maybe our 5th most effective guy inside on offense. He is just not the answer there.
 
Ponds had better learn how to run a team if he wants to be a pro. He will have to be a point guard & is certainly not one now!
 
We scored over 80 and missed a bunch of free throws down the stretch.
D was the problem and Dixon looked disinterested in the area last game.
 
[quote="we are sju" post=301497]We scored over 80 and missed a bunch of free throws down the stretch.
D was the problem and Dixon looked disinterested in the area last game.[/quote]

When you play very little D, like we did, and you allow the other team to score quickly and often, that gives your offense the opportunity to score a lot of points. Those 80+ points hold very little significance to me
 
[quote="Paul Massell" post=301473][quote="Monte" post=301443]Seeing as Dixon is the closest thing we have to a true point guard, and seeing how this offense still looks lost much of the time, how about giving him a shot at runnning the point in the hopes that maybe he can bringing a semblance of cohesiveness to the offense? Still plenty of minutes to go around for everyone else.[/quote]

Other than being shorter than everyone else, I haven't seen a lot of true point guard from Dixon. To me I've seen a scorer. But regardless Mullin isn't playing a true point guard offense. More often than not they start in more of a point forward. You'll note that typically in the half court Ponds and Dixon will pass off to the top (Clark, Maybe Simon) and go off to a wing. Everyone is supposed to have a handle and everyone is supposed to know how to pass. I'd say we are pretty good with that and the low turnovers bear it out so far.

Personally I'd rather see a traditional offense with a quality pass first PG and some bigs, but with the personnel we have we pretty much only have the "positionless basketball" option.[/quote]
DAVID Cain would make this team go. He was not concerned with getting his shot. True pass first guard.
 
[quote="Monte" post=301443]Seeing as Dixon is the closest thing we have to a true point guard, and seeing how this offense still looks lost much of the time, how about giving him a shot at runnning the point in the hopes that maybe he can bringing a semblance of cohesiveness to the offense? Still plenty of minutes to go around for everyone else.[/quote]

I kind of like Simon at the point
 
[quote="Section3" post=301511][quote="Paul Massell" post=301473][quote="Monte" post=301443]Seeing as Dixon is the closest thing we have to a true point guard, and seeing how this offense still looks lost much of the time, how about giving him a shot at runnning the point in the hopes that maybe he can bringing a semblance of cohesiveness to the offense? Still plenty of minutes to go around for everyone else.[/quote]

Other than being shorter than everyone else, I haven't seen a lot of true point guard from Dixon. To me I've seen a scorer. But regardless Mullin isn't playing a true point guard offense. More often than not they start in more of a point forward. You'll note that typically in the half court Ponds and Dixon will pass off to the top (Clark, Maybe Simon) and go off to a wing. Everyone is supposed to have a handle and everyone is supposed to know how to pass. I'd say we are pretty good with that and the low turnovers bear it out so far.

Personally I'd rather see a traditional offense with a quality pass first PG and some bigs, but with the personnel we have we pretty much only have the "positionless basketball" option.[/quote]
DAVID Cain would make this team go. He was not concerned with getting his shot. True pass first guard.[/quote]
True, but he's almost 50.
 
[quote="redken" post=301530][quote="Section3" post=301511][quote="Paul Massell" post=301473][quote="Monte" post=301443]Seeing as Dixon is the closest thing we have to a true point guard, and seeing how this offense still looks lost much of the time, how about giving him a shot at runnning the point in the hopes that maybe he can bringing a semblance of cohesiveness to the offense? Still plenty of minutes to go around for everyone else.[/quote]

Other than being shorter than everyone else, I haven't seen a lot of true point guard from Dixon. To me I've seen a scorer. But regardless Mullin isn't playing a true point guard offense. More often than not they start in more of a point forward. You'll note that typically in the half court Ponds and Dixon will pass off to the top (Clark, Maybe Simon) and go off to a wing. Everyone is supposed to have a handle and everyone is supposed to know how to pass. I'd say we are pretty good with that and the low turnovers bear it out so far.

Personally I'd rather see a traditional offense with a quality pass first PG and some bigs, but with the personnel we have we pretty much only have the "positionless basketball" option.[/quote]
DAVID Cain would make this team go. He was not concerned with getting his shot. True pass first guard.[/quote]
True, but he's almost 50.[/quote]

From what I understand Dick McGuire could play a little
 
[quote="Monte" post=301471][quote="Logen" post=301468][quote="Monte" post=301443]Seeing as Dixon is the closest thing we have to a true point guard, and seeing how this offense still looks lost much of the time, how about giving him a shot at runnning the point in the hopes that maybe he can bringing a semblance of cohesiveness to the offense? Still plenty of minutes to go around for everyone else.[/quote]



Curious, we scored 84 points, and I thought played pretty good offense after the early 2nd half TO by Mullin.[/quote]

We look out of sorts on offense far to often: ill advised shots, lack of passing(Spanarkel mentioned that a couple of times), to much one on one. As far as I concerned, this looks like more of the same things we saw under Lavin: very little offensive structure. Don’t confuse putting up points against far inferior opponents, to actually running good offensive sets. And if Sham doesn’t get hot in the 2nd half, we loose this game. 19 point favorites. No excuse for a nail bitter against BG.[/quote]

See my other replies to you in the BG thread. We will see how it plays out but I couldn’t care less about point spreads or what you and others consider “inferior opponents” because of the name on the jersey. Decent team that played well is what I saw. Mullin plays the offense he plays and I have been fairly vocal that I don’t love it by any means. But Ponds SHOULD get hot at some point in a game and he did. So posting that the projected BE POY got hot like it was some stroke of good fortune seems a stretch to me. Ponds is a great scorer and does not run from the moment and he didn’t. If you think Dixon is the answer so be it, I don’t think so.
 
Promoting Dixon to the point? I have a better idea, and it's for every player. You don't play defense, you get yanked.. Plenty of depth at the guard and SF position with guys hungry for minutes. As for who plays the point, the answer, which is the same for PF and center, is bring in players that played that position since grade school. The fact that all of us are constantly inventing new positions and new roles for nearly everyone shows how difficult it has been for the staff to recruit a balanced roster. Still, we have an excellent combination of skilled players and athletes to create mismatches and make life difficult for our opponents on both ends of the court. The staff Should be able to figure that out.
 
[quote="Ray Morgan" post=301556]Promoting Dixon to the point? I have a better idea, and it's for every player. You don't play defense, you get yanked.. Plenty of depth at the guard and SF position with guys hungry for minutes. As for who plays the point, the answer, which is the same for PF and center, is bring in players that played that position since grade school. The fact that all of us are constantly inventing new positions and new roles for nearly everyone shows how difficult it has been for the staff to recruit a balanced roster. Still, we have an excellent combination of skilled players and athletes to create mismatches and make life difficult for our opponents on both ends of the court. The staff Should be able to figure that out.[/quote]

The game has widely evolved. The game has moved towards positionless basketball and the stats reflect that. Pure PG, Pure C, etc are a thing of the past. Look at the BE stats from last year. Simon and Ponds ranked 2nd and 4th in the league in assists!!! In fact, you can argue everyone in the top 10 in assists is a combo guard. So you want to place the blame on Mullin for recrutiing wrong, but who in our league is recruting right?

Brunson and DiVincenzo are both in the top 10 also and nobody is confusing those as a pure point guard either. Shame on Jay Wright.



http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba..._/id/4/stat/assists/sort/avgAssists/year/2018
 
[quote="Ray Morgan"
Still, we have an excellent combination of skilled players and athletes to create mismatches and make life difficult for our opponents on both ends of the court. The staff Should be able to figure that out.[/quote]

Thanks Ray -
Absolutely “ excellent combination of skilled players and athletes” = SJU

I like your focus - amazing how often posters, myself included, focus on the negative and what we don’t have as opposed to what we do have ( more talent and depth than the last three years combined )
And how we can make opponents lives miserable.
We are not the only school to have close games against “ inferior “ opponents or an occasional L to them.
I think we’ll win most games we should, lose a few to
Lesser teams, have a few surprising Ws. I’d be content with that and, of course, we shall see.
And I bet BG might be better than some believe.
Thanks.
 
[quote="Room112" post=301558][quote="Ray Morgan" post=301556]Promoting Dixon to the point? I have a better idea, and it's for every player. You don't play defense, you get yanked.. Plenty of depth at the guard and SF position with guys hungry for minutes. As for who plays the point, the answer, which is the same for PF and center, is bring in players that played that position since grade school. The fact that all of us are constantly inventing new positions and new roles for nearly everyone shows how difficult it has been for the staff to recruit a balanced roster. Still, we have an excellent combination of skilled players and athletes to create mismatches and make life difficult for our opponents on both ends of the court. The staff Should be able to figure that out.[/quote]

The game has widely evolved. The game has moved towards positionless basketball and the stats reflect that. Pure PG, Pure C, etc are a thing of the past. Look at the BE stats from last year. Simon and Ponds ranked 2nd and 4th in the league in assists!!! In fact, you can argue everyone in the top 10 in assists is a combo guard. So you want to place the blame on Mullin for recrutiing wrong, but who in our league is recruting right?

Brunson and DiVincenzo are both in the top 10 also and nobody is confusing those as a pure point guard either. Shame on Jay Wright.



http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba..._/id/4/stat/assists/sort/avgAssists/year/2018[/quote]

I don't disagree, My response is to some talk here that we need to have (fill in the blank) play the point. We don't have a traditional pg, or a traditional offense, which is fine. However, if we had Mark Jackson on this roster, don't you think he would have a role as a distributor that sets up the offense and runs the show? This team would look unstoppable with Mark on the roster.
Someone to play a traditional center position and PF is another story. You need both size and a willingness to mix it up for position to excel down low. What's off here is Heron guarding power forwards and Clark guarding players 6'10 and up, which will have to happen all season. Keita staying healthy and out of foul trouble is so important to avoid constant size and strength mismatches. That's if he has the desire to bang with the bangers. He seems to have the athleticism. I'm taking a wait and see approach on the rest.
 
[quote="Room112" post=301558][quote="Ray Morgan" post=301556]Promoting Dixon to the point? I have a better idea, and it's for every player. You don't play defense, you get yanked.. Plenty of depth at the guard and SF position with guys hungry for minutes. As for who plays the point, the answer, which is the same for PF and center, is bring in players that played that position since grade school. The fact that all of us are constantly inventing new positions and new roles for nearly everyone shows how difficult it has been for the staff to recruit a balanced roster. Still, we have an excellent combination of skilled players and athletes to create mismatches and make life difficult for our opponents on both ends of the court. The staff Should be able to figure that out.[/quote]

The game has widely evolved. The game has moved towards positionless basketball and the stats reflect that. Pure PG, Pure C, etc are a thing of the past. Look at the BE stats from last year. Simon and Ponds ranked 2nd and 4th in the league in assists!!! In fact, you can argue everyone in the top 10 in assists is a combo guard. So you want to place the blame on Mullin for recrutiing wrong, but who in our league is recruting right?

Brunson and DiVincenzo are both in the top 10 also and nobody is confusing those as a pure point guard either. Shame on Jay Wright.



http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba..._/id/4/stat/assists/sort/avgAssists/year/2018[/quote]

Jaylen Brunson not a pure point guard?
 
[quote="Ray Morgan" post=301568]
What's off here is Heron guarding power forwards and Clark guarding players 6'10 and up, which will have to happen all season. Keita staying healthy and out of foul trouble is so important to avoid constant size and strength mismatches. That's if he has the desire to bang with the bangers. He seems to have the athleticism. I'm taking a wait and see approach on the rest.[/quote]

The flip side of this is of course, how do these big guys guard faster, more athletic players on the other end? So it is a schema that can work in your favor if you can take advantage of your own positive mismatches and can leverage the advantages of speed over size. The X factor is efficiency and that is why you need smart players who are fully bought-in to win this way. That is what Nova preaches and has been doing so well.
 
Paul Massell wrote: The flip side of this is of course, how do these big guys guard faster, more athletic players on the other end? So it is a schema that can work in your favor if you can take advantage of your own positive mismatches and can leverage the advantages of speed over size. The X factor is efficiency and that is why you need smart players who are fully bought-in to win this way. That is what Nova preaches and has been doing so well.

Agree that Nova likes to go 4 guards/wings with one big but they always have at least one excellent big to balance things out. A few years ago it was Ochefu, last year it was Spellman & Paschall, this year it is Paschall, Cosby-Roundtree & Bey all of whom are 6'8 or 6'9 and not skinny. Our only real big this year is Keita and he needs to play well for us to avoid games where we are killed in the post.
 
[quote="Paul Massell" post=301572][quote="Ray Morgan" post=301568]
What's off here is Heron guarding power forwards and Clark guarding players 6'10 and up, which will have to happen all season. Keita staying healthy and out of foul trouble is so important to avoid constant size and strength mismatches. That's if he has the desire to bang with the bangers. He seems to have the athleticism. I'm taking a wait and see approach on the rest.[/quote]

The flip side of this is of course, how do these big guys guard faster, more athletic players on the other end? So it is a schema that can work in your favor if you can take advantage of your own positive mismatches and can leverage the advantages of speed over size. The X factor is efficiency and that is why you need smart players who are fully bought-in to win this way. That is what Nova preaches and has been doing so well.[/quote]

It worked for Nova because they have 6 players from their championship teams currently on NBA rosters. Including Arci and Brunson, who were both PGs that ran the team. Paschall will be next. Maybe Heron will end up in the NBA for our guys. If anything does us in, it will be lack of skill players in traditional roles.
 
[quote="Amaseinyourface" post=301570][quote="Room112" post=301558][quote="Ray Morgan" post=301556]Promoting Dixon to the point? I have a better idea, and it's for every player. You don't play defense, you get yanked.. Plenty of depth at the guard and SF position with guys hungry for minutes. As for who plays the point, the answer, which is the same for PF and center, is bring in players that played that position since grade school. The fact that all of us are constantly inventing new positions and new roles for nearly everyone shows how difficult it has been for the staff to recruit a balanced roster. Still, we have an excellent combination of skilled players and athletes to create mismatches and make life difficult for our opponents on both ends of the court. The staff Should be able to figure that out.[/quote]

The game has widely evolved. The game has moved towards positionless basketball and the stats reflect that. Pure PG, Pure C, etc are a thing of the past. Look at the BE stats from last year. Simon and Ponds ranked 2nd and 4th in the league in assists!!! In fact, you can argue everyone in the top 10 in assists is a combo guard. So you want to place the blame on Mullin for recrutiing wrong, but who in our league is recruting right?

Brunson and DiVincenzo are both in the top 10 also and nobody is confusing those as a pure point guard either. Shame on Jay Wright.



http://www.espn.com/mens-college-ba..._/id/4/stat/assists/sort/avgAssists/year/2018[/quote]

Jaylen Brunson not a pure point guard?[/quote]

Well he avergaed 4.7 assists last year. Same as Ponds and less than Simon. He looks to score.

The days of Mark Jackson are over. It's rare to find a point guard like that now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top