Hoops Recruiting
- Thread starter 5150
- Start date
What in the "hell" is up with the odd "use" of quotes?
to some extent. He has developed tremendously over the past year. He has totally reshaped his body. There is nobody, with the exception of West and Taylor, that hustles as much as he does on the floor
There is no way anybody can play with Dan D'Antoni and not improve their shooting. Absolutely every player we have has improved their shooting. We take more shots in a practice than any team I have ever seen. I ask Scott, Mark and Corny if they ever coached anywhere that took as many shots in practice. All three had told that no team they have ever been with is anywhere close to the shots we take in a week.
Take a vacation day sometime during the season and watch one of our practices. You will be amazed at how hoard they go and the shots that are taken.
Unless Jeremy has improved his shot dramatically, he's nowhere near Loop's level as a shooter. He's much more of a complete player, but he's not a "shooter."
~
Loop was definitely not a complete player. When he was hot....he was hot.....but he was often just warm as a shooter.
Loop was a career 41% shooter from three-point range. He's 6th all-time in C-USA history at 41% (714 attempts - 7th all-time in C-USA). By no means was he "often just a warm shooter." He's arguably the best shooter in Marshall's history.
Keith Veney says hello.....
Keith Veney G Lamar / Marshall 111 1993-1997 409 made 1014 attempted 40.3% rate
Yep.
And he was such a difference maker in ways that went unnoticed too. Teams had to adjust their traditional defensive rules when facing us because of him. A pass to Loop off dribble penetration could crush a defense, so his man was often in a "no help" situation. Running PnR opposite of him was sweet, because his man was hardly ever there in help position. This is why MTSU played us zone, because you couldn't guard it with man defense. We have more guys who can shoot now, but we have yet to recruit a shooter like Loop.
I love Veney. I enjoyed watching him play more so than any other player in Marshall history (my lifetime). I think his game would translate really well into today's style of basketball, but I think you could argue Loop's career was every bit just as good "at Marshall."
Veney - 241/564 = 42.7%
Loop - 293/714 = 41.0%
Could have/should have had one in Luke Frampton.
Veney would probably have shot between 45-50% from 3-pt range in today's college basketball as the perimeter defense played by most teams is crap in comparison to those days. Veney was also a much better all-around player than Loop. I liked Loop but there is no comparison in terms of talent and impact.
Keith has some videos on YouTube of his playing days with MU. Take a look at them. I remember Chris Gray telling me that Keith used to wear work gloves at practice with weights on them to improve his ball handling. Keith was quick enough with this crossover that he just froze guys, then splashed a 25 ft bomb in their face....
Bunny Gibson. Greatest pure shooter ever in MU history. Jmo
The three-point line was a foot deeper for Loop than Veney.
Veney shot better from three-point range than he did from two-point range. He shot less than 68% from the free-throw line as a senior. Sorry, that's not a great shooter.
The length and athleticism of today's players kind of offsets your argument here.
Bunny Gibson was unconscious as a shooter. More than once, Stu Aberdeen stopped shoot-till-you miss shooting drills because Bunny had passed 100 in a row from the corner. His foul line percentage was something like 95%.
Bunny was by FAR a better pure shooter than anyone who has ever suited up for Marshall I personally witnessed him hit 100 in a row from the corner and I'm not sure any actually hit the rim. He wasn't a great basketball player but he could shoot
Let em ask Chattanooga, I believe it was, about Bunny's ability to shoot. I believe that they were the ones he poured 50+ against at the old Field House, in the days before the 3 pt. shot, to boot!!!
You're not saying, are you, that the previous Herd players mentioned, unlike very recent players, did not play at MU under any pressure, stress or intense scrutiny?
As, uh, what, or more properly, whom today, Josh? I guess that a 6-8" Randy Noll or a 6-8" John Brannen or a 6'7" George Stone in their MU primes just couldn't play versus today's "athletic" Herd, right? Sorry, but the 1 foot different 3 point line change would not have phased Stone, whom I personally saw play for 3 seasons, or a Bunny Gibson, for that matter. Sorry to burst your delusional bubble, Josh, but in his Herd days playing shape, Russell Lee would have "abused" Danny's teams of the last couple of years!!
I think you kind of missed the point here. Go back, re-read, and get back to me. I don’t feel like making my point for the 2nd time.
~
George Stone, Russell Lee, Mike D'Antoni, Randy Noll, Joe Taylor, Blaine Henry, Tyrone Collins would have ABSOLUTELY THRIVED in the system that is now ran by Danny or Mike. They would have set many more records. You younger ones can just not appreciate the type of ball MU played at that time.
What point, exactly? Seems that your remark about today's "length and athleticism" appears to infer that there wasn't much of that back in Veney's days,
As for those wanting to make such a "big deal" about the change in the 3 point line, remember this fact also: those players in the 60's and at least a portion of the 70s played while wearing nothing more than those old canvas Chuck Taylor TENNIS Shoes, or something similar by Converse, etc., and not the several hundred $$$$ built up, custom made athletic shoes that add an inch or so in height and some spring in the jump of all of today's "athletic" players!!!
Also: from eye witness accounts, George Stone had deeper range on his jump shots than Elmore, and that is saying something! Duke, olde - care to weigh in?
In my memory Stone's best shot was coming off a low screen by Bob Allen up to the right of the foul lane, about a 15 footer. But he could drill them from anywhere....vs. Nebraska in the Garden.
Before the days of the 3-point line, people shot better from distance. That's because they took their shot from their range, regardless of where it was, with no efforts at extending their range for a bonus point.
Similar threads
