ADVERTISEMENT

So, in your opinion how does our 2.15 meter frosh center compare to past 7 footers as freshmen at MU?

Well, as this stage of his career, pretty safe to say he's a "little ahead" of two recent HERD "Twin Towers", Milan M. and Yous Mbao!! :D
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TwolfHerdfan
I dont think he's where Whiteside was in terms of athleticism, but he has a nice game... Good fundamentals, plays with instincts on defense. His presence and Taylor cutting down the turnovers are the two biggest differences from last year to this year.

Last night's game was a nice step forward. First win over a team with some recent history of success... We moved up to 114 in RPI with the victory. Two spots behind upcoming opponent Duquesne.
 
I just wish our players would get better under this staff. We don’t really seem to show improvement from freshman on. Oak is no better than he was last year. Kinsey is no better than he was last year or the year before.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: horsrman
He is the real deal. So far ahead of previous big men MU has recruited. Not afraid to be aggresive on defense. Long arms that he uses effectively to get rebounds and block shots. The fact that he is starting as a true frosh says DD recognizes his talent. Once he gets stronger and more stamina, he will be the star of the team.
 
Kinsey is much better this year because he is healthy again and he is a leader on the floor.
I agree. Kinsey is doing a much better job of playing to his strengths. I truly believe last year he felt the pressure of being an NBA target and wanted to prove he was a capable three-point shooter. He took way too many and did not shoot well. This year he is driving to the basket and taking his patented fall away jump from 10-15 feet and shooting a much better percentage all around. His game has improved. Sometimes he can still scare you with his ball handling. He and Andy are both leaders!
 
I agree. Kinsey is doing a much better job of playing to his strengths. I truly believe last year he felt the pressure of being an NBA target and wanted to prove he was a capable three-point shooter. He took way too many and did not shoot well. This year he is driving to the basket and taking his patented fall away jump from 10-15 feet and shooting a much better percentage all around. His game has improved. Sometimes he can still scare you with his ball handling. He and Andy are both leaders!
This team could really be something if Obinna would find his game and develop some consistency. If he got his act together, from the caliber of our competition thus far, OAK, applying himself and accepting his role, could easily be a guy, IMO, who could contribute 10 to 12 points a game and about the same number of rebounds, in addition to being a strong defender in the interior!! He has to put that asinine mantra that D'Antoni has harped on for years regarding the 3-point shot: Essentially, "Anybody, at Any Time, from Any Where"! Too many players on his teams have seriously taken that attitude to heart, including players who have NO DAMN BUSINESS firing up three pointers, too often too quickly in our possessions and at inopportune times!!
 
This team could really be something if Obinna would find his game and develop some consistency. If he got his act together, from the caliber of our competition thus far, OAK, applying himself and accepting his role, could easily be a guy, IMO, who could contribute 10 to 12 points a game and about the same number of rebounds, in addition to being a strong defender in the interior!! He has to put that asinine mantra that D'Antoni has harped on for years regarding the 3-point shot: Essentially, "Anybody, at Any Time, from Any Where"! Too many players on his teams have seriously taken that attitude to heart, including players who have NO DAMN BUSINESS firing up three pointers, too often too quickly in our possessions and at inopportune times!!

In response to a similar post on another board, allow me to point out:

OAK has taken nine (9) three-point shots in seven (7) games. Averaging just over one three-point shot per game. He's had at least two threes rattle in and out -- those drop, he is shooting 33% for the season, consistent with past seasons, including last year when he shot 32% from three-point range (on 34 of 107, or about 1/3 each game). The three point shot is not a stretch for OAK.

Where OAK can truly see his contribution increase involves something (or two) on him to fix and something on his teammates to fix.

On him - play with a bit more defensive discipline and stop trying to block every shot. That is a bad habit that good to even great shot blockers get into that leads to being out of position and out of control and committing unnecessary fouls that reduce playing time and effectiveness. The fact that you develop and become a shot blocker is often enough to reduce the challenges at the hole without having to d-someone up. Also on him - set the screen and let the defender make contact, then spin/roll to the hole. Trying to move too quickly causes either poor screens or moving screen fouls - and both suck.

On them - esp. the primary ballhandlers, choose better angles to attack the defenders in the pick-and-roll so that when your screener (eg, OAK et al) sets a good screen and peels to the hole you have the appropriate angle to pass. Too many times of late our guards/ball handlers are seeing decent screens and rolls but do not have the right angle to drop the pass to the breaking screener.

Clean those issues up -- OAK becomes an important cog in the larger scheme, esp. on offense where he gets opportunities to hit layups and dunks. Probably leads to double digit scoring and forcing the defense to sag to try and protect against the action at the rim and opening up more uncontested three point shots for teammates.
 
Agree wholly with this last paragraph. If it comes to pass, then there certainly could be more open opportunities for the likes of Curfman, whom most would agree, even Coach D., would be a preferred choice for 3 point shots. In any event, OAK has no business shooting the number of 3s that he shot last season, especially when we have several better choices. One cited stat tells me all I need to know: one 3 pt. shot per game or so thus far, and from the above, hasn't hit one yet. Work on other part of his game and improvement in those areas will give him opportunities to score more in and around the goal, with the team benefitting overall.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W-S HerdFan
Agree wholly with this last paragraph. If it comes to pass, then there certainly could be more open opportunities for the likes of Curfman, whom most would agree, even Coach D., would be a preferred choice for 3 point shots. In any event, OAK has no business shooting the number of 3s that he shot last season, especially when we have several better choices. One cited stat tells me all I need to know: one 3 pt. shot per game or so thus far, and from the above, hasn't hit one yet. Work on other part of his game and improvement in those areas will give him opportunities to score more in and around the goal, with the team benefitting overall.
No - you are wrong and are trying to spin and rationalize, esp. since the stats do not bear out a preconceived notion of what a player (in this case OAK) should be doing according to convention.

(Made a transparent edit on the opening portion of this response - wanted to tone down the rhetoric a bit.)

So far, he is 1/9 on threes this year, mainly because he has been limited by illness the first two weeks and foul issues since. Shooting 1 per game is down from shooting 3 per game last season. And last season he shot 32% from three-point range - you do not ask a 33% three point shooter to STOP shooting threes. If OAK was shooting 20% or below, then maybe you have that conversation because that percentage starts to hurt the team. But 33% is an acceptable three-point shooting rate. Although the three point was never a dominant part of his game, it was part of his game all the way back to 10th grade when he started to emerge. And you don't ask someone shooting at that clip to stop. THAT ask would be, in a word - asinine.
 
Last edited:
The idea that every player needs to be shooting threes is silly... That's not what he does well, and that's fine. Let him play to his strengths (rebounding, second chance opportunities around the rim, interior defense) and make the team better.

I don't have a problem with a guy taking 1 three pointer a night (we take plenty of quick shots), but if you are only taking 1 three pointer a night the question should be - Why are you taking any?

Let the kid play more like the real OAK (Charles Oakley) and help him become a force on both ends in the paint.
 
The idea that every player needs to be shooting threes is silly... That's not what he does well, and that's fine. Let him play to his strengths (rebounding, second chance opportunities around the rim, interior defense) and make the team better.

I don't have a problem with a guy taking 1 three pointer a night (we take plenty of quick shots), but if you are only taking 1 three pointer a night the question should be - Why are you taking any?

Let the kid play more like the real OAK (Charles Oakley) and help him become a force on both ends in the paint.

On a game-to-game basis, does every player (including subs) NEED to take threes - of course not and no one is suggesting such (the strawman -- erected and then knocked down). In fact, there are no doubt multiple games where the no. 5 takes no three point shots (Handlogten has attempted two three-point shots; the other offensive no. 5's have taken zero). But every player NEEDS to be capable of shooting and scoring from there, even if it is not a dominant part of that player's game (e.g., OAK, Handlogten). Not having that capability is like having a wide receiver that is only a short-route pass catcher -- not complicated to defend. And WHY does every player need to be capable -- because the offense is a spread offense that utilizes screens to create situations for read-and-react and trying to take advantage of uncontested options, whether that is an uncontested layup or dunk or an uncontested three -- the two highest option shots in this offensive scheme.

In particular for OAK (and any offensive player in the no. 4 position - such as Connor), often, the no. 4 is asked to set screens on either side of the elbow/foul line extended, and DEPENDING on what the defender(s) do(es), our players are generally trying to read and then react. If the defender on no. 4 sags anticipating the cut and pass moving to the hole, then the no. 4 is trying to read front or behind the sagging defender for a possible dump and drive and if not seeing either path then popping out to the three point line for a potential uncontested three point shot. If the defender clings tight, then the pop toward the hole becomes the better choice (and if ball handler has the angle for the pass). On a defensive switch, similar reads come into the mix along with a few others.

Importantly, the no. 4 HAS to be a threat to pop out, shoot, and score from three point range, otherwise the defense gets a leg up and starts to cheat with the sag, clogging up the lanes for not only the on-ball screener but for any other player hoping to see a space open because of the offensive spacing.

While this scheme is not completely devoid of back-to-the-basket post plays for the no. 4, that is not the dominant choice. When you see back-to-the-basket action, usually it is a concerted effort out of a timeout to exploit something noticed or to attack a player with foul trouble.

Until there is a coaching change and implementation of a different style, this scheme (to be successful) needs all five to be a threat, and esp. numbers one through four to be capable and consistent. At 32% on over 100 shot attempts last season, OAK is not only a threat to shoot but capable and consistent in scoring -- a shooting percentage you would never want to discourage or move away from. And, with that capability put to use, it makes the other aspects of not only his offense but the team's offense a bigger threat to the opposing defense. Arbitrarily shutting down his offensive options actually constrains the offense and makes him (and the other no. 4s) less dynamic and less effective.

So why advocate for that type of constraint? If OAK or Connor had a history of shooting in the teens or less percentage wise, then that is something that would have to be considered; but that isn't reality.

It seems posts of this type are influenced by the perception that OAK is struggling offensively because of shot selection or the like; it is more likely (after the early two week issue with the flu) that his offensive struggles such as they are depend more on flow/rhythm, mainly because he is playing undisciplined on the defensive side of the floor and getting hit with stupid fouls that are easily avoidable - but resulting in foul trouble and pine-time. Tack on the issue with the ball handlers maintaining bad angles at times on the pick-and-roll -- those are better areas of focus than the three-ball criticism(s).
 
Last edited:
Goodness. If anyone thinks TK or Taylor aren't better than when they first got here I don't know what to say. I'll also add at this level the players own a lot of the development...first how hard they will work and listen/learn and second how their gene pool lets them grow/develop etc
 
Well, Olen, if 32% or so 3-pt. shooting is necessary with all 5 players having a green light to shoot for our scheme to be successful, maybe we ought to look at "percentages" in another context in order to gauge "success". If after 8 seasons plus, is a winning percentage of 53 or 54 % enough to determine the success of a coaching staff's success, regardless of whatever "offensive system" that staff runs? I would say at most D1 programs serious about their basketball program such a percentage would not be a gauge of success after that many years!
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT