Who needs 3?

Lawyer= I thought about going to med school but realized I was too fucking stupid and anyone can get through law school.

 

I really didn't mean to start all this trouble, though it was an enjoyable read, just pointing out that anyone can get a stat sheet or things not on the stat sheet to try to defend the point they are making. Having been in the industry for many years I know how to manipulate it both ways to help my argument and did so many times.

All that being said, why are we trying to compare a point guard and shooting guard's stats? ... they are in the game to do different things. Both pose different problems to teams for different reasons. Mitchell will never be accused of being a shooter or an offensive threat while Plavich will never be accused of being a defensive stopper or press breaker. Plavich on the court helps our offense and gives the big guys more room to operate because other teams are absolutely hawking him on defense, he is not getting many open looks because the other teams knows he is a threat. Mitchell does not get that attention at all and that allows people to sag on our big men. But Plavich can't handle the press as well and gets beat more on defense because he is slow. But again, they both have two very different roles. It would be like comparing a running back and fullback's stats in football, it is meaningless.

 

Hey, when you're beaten as badly as you have been, all you have left is meaningless lashing out.

BTW, "PI", if it's so easy, where is your law degree? Still trying to pull up that 126 you got on the LSAT? :monkes:

 

Pi= I tried to convince somebody to hire me but they wouldn't so I had to start a business and hire myself just to claim I had a job.

 

It is lame enough to post under multiple usernames, but it becomes just sad when everyone is on to you and you continue to think you have everyone fooled.

 

Grendel! This is a Charlotte board, not an "I can call PI an asshole in 100 words or more" board. :flipgrin:

Save your wind for the sailboat, or whatever else occupies your time because your high-falutin' vocabulary sails over the heads of most.

 

1)
just on basic knowledge of the game, it'd seem like the sub of Mitchell for Plavich would be a defensive one - for matchup, for style differences. It doesn't preclude Demon having to play over, or even switch up style necessarily on offense.

2) the last meaningful point on the subject was made, convincingly IMO, by Powerbait. If any of you bitches would like to comment on the point rather than just posting dickwagging about having won some argument already, that'd be mildly interesting.

 

There seem to be two camps on Mitch, either you love him or hate him. People, like lefty, wont say that they hate mitch, but lefty just said that Mitch isn't the answer for PG at cusa-talk. now that is rediculous. Grad says Mitch isn't a PG (as I've read) and he isn't a 2G. I keep asking people who don't think mitch can be a weapon is what position is he? No one has an answer.

I think that it is interesting that niner fans have the mentality that a 2g on offense has to be able to shoot the 3.

Also, a strong defense creates a strong offense. Take the SIU game for example. We won that game because of the Mitch, Demon, Eddie, Curt and Martin lineup. Our best all around defensive and offensive lineup. We might not score as many points, but the other team will score a whole lot less. You have our best rebounders, our team leader and our top 4 defenders on the floor. You have 3 of the top 4 scorers on the floor. You have two unselfish players that out hustle the rest of the team.

Defense wins championships, and we play for offense. That is not the way to go about building a top flight program. Also, the 3-ball has been our weakness in a lot of the games we've played this year. We shoot the three too much and let the other team hang around. We don't pass the ball the Curt a lot (he seems to get over half his shots from O rebounds, or passes from Martin, not Demon), we rarely make lanes for Eddie or Mitch (hell even for Demon, but more for him than anyone else). When we get a guy like Demon or Brendan hot, we should let them shoot, but we should use that space to open up lanes for guys like Eddie and Mitch to score. If Mitch gets proper playing time next year, he and Eddie will be able to score 15-20 points a game. Curt also. We could do that now, but we can't ignore the offensive threat that is Demon.

I love to watch Demon play. I hate seeing brendan on the floor. Brendan doesn't do anything for us unless he is hot, he makes a couple of decent hustle plays, but mostly is just there waiting to fire up a bad three point shot. If he would just start passing the ball more, it wouldn't be a problem. But he doesn't. And all you brendan fans can keep ignoring me or telling me to essentially fuck myself for thinking Mitch is a better solution, but he is a true basketball player and he is smart. Brendan is selfish, or has been so far, takes stupid shots, and is a slow guy.

I don't care what all the insiders in the world say, I watch the game. I see that Mitch doesn't get the free reign on offense. I watch the offensive sets. We run sets to free up the 3-ball over 75% of the time. That is our main offensive weapon. Who is our leading scorer? That's right, Curtis Withers. We should run about 30% plays for the 3-ball, 30% for our wingmen and guards to attack the basket and 40% for Martin and Curt downlow.

We have a fucking artillery, but we use a rifle. When it hits, we're good to go, but if we're missing we're fucked and we let these tanks and rocket launchers rust, unless they fire themselves. Curt and Eddie get points because they create their own offense, watch the game, we don't design plays for them often. It makes me sick. I get so pissed off when we have wide open guys, clear lanes or position and we fire up a bad 3. Maybe it's just because Demon doesn't run the plays that Lutz draws up, if so we have a serious problem. More likely, Bobby sees the 3-ball as our most viable weapon. Curt should be averaging over 20 points a game. He could still get his 5 or so o-board for points and 5 more buckets from assists. Plus the points from the foul line.


So, to answer Yinzer's question, who needs the 3-ball? Not us. Memphis, yes, Charlotte no. It's a nice tool, but I wish it was just a piece of the puzzle and not the driving force. Of course, I keep hearing as long as Lutz is here, we will be a 3-ball team. Does anyone else see that as not only sad, but a frightening waste of personnel?

 

I've never thought that the 3 was that advantageous to the offense. Sure, they've played hustle defense very well, and that combines well with the 3 ball, but despite decent point guards, you just can't set it up well enough if it's the only damned thing you do. That's why when Price and Demarco were in there at one time, we could do a lot more offensively, it seemed, than at any other point. Might've scored more points, might've shot better, but shooting the 3 so much without having the rebounding on O, and without anyone to slash, drive, or post?