|
Post by tpk3 on Mar 11, 2009 14:44:52 GMT -5
if vee can handle the ball well enough to attack the rim consistently then he will be an asset. right now only chris can do that consistently--with his right. and greg when he wants to can attack from the high post. really no one else on the current team can be relied upon to consistently attack the rim. most reports from respected scouts say vee is a "scorer" who can "attack the rim". we need that. he does need to work on strength but most kids do.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 11, 2009 14:47:17 GMT -5
Isn't this the same kid that was being compared to Stephen Curry earlier in this thread? Now he doesn't have a jump shot because he went 11-29 in one game?
My guess... yes, GUESS... is that he has a decent shot but not as good as Stephen Curry. And, we don't seem to have a lot of alternatives right now. But we sure as heck need another guard next season as Jessie is definitely not coming back.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,744
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 11, 2009 14:57:36 GMT -5
Shooters like Curry, Lofton, Redick, Salim Stoudemire, etc., come along once every couple years. For that reason, its simply unlikely he's that good.
On our team, that doesn't mean he isn't instantly our best 3 pt shooter.
I like what I hear. The only highlights I saw were of weak comp -- but if the staff likes him, and most of the gurus on here like him... sounds good to me!
|
|
|
Post by tpk3 on Mar 11, 2009 15:15:30 GMT -5
i think the Guyn kid guarding Vee is a junior. he does sound like a good defender. he wasn't guarding Vee all night. sounds like he locked him down in the 4th quarter. it also sounds like Vee has length which is important for our defensive systems. i think strong BE guards would be too much for him right now. But he could be very effective in the right sets where we could use his length.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,306
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 11, 2009 15:17:44 GMT -5
So, has he narrowed his list of 15 schools???
|
|
|
Post by hoyajake on Mar 11, 2009 15:55:38 GMT -5
Hollis is definitely not a 4. He is realistically 6'6", and doesn't have the body-type that would allow him to bulk-up enough to play the 4. There is realistically more of a chance of Nikita bulking up and giving us some minutes there, but thats unrealistic as well. With Dajuan returning, that isn't as big of an issue anyway, so realistically I feel like any Top 150 recruit we can sign is a great signing at this point- regardless of what position they play.
|
|
richfame
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,266
|
Post by richfame on Mar 11, 2009 16:02:19 GMT -5
I was reading another thread and one of the posters said that vee was not a dynamic guard and is another lacklucker no thrills player... I have no idea who vee is and could not pick him out of a lineup.. Please tell me this otehr poster does not know what hes talking about.. Any guard we get has to be able to stroke the 3 right? !!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by vthoya on Mar 11, 2009 17:28:11 GMT -5
I asked Reggie Rankin, ESPN recruiting expert, about Vee, and this was his analysis: "Sanford is a skilled wing who's an excellent shooter off the dribble. He's got great range and a scorer's mentality. He's also big enough to play the two or three. I really like him. He's an excellent scoring wing. He played really well at the Marshall County Hoop Fest in the fall." proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=25404
|
|
IDenj
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,527
|
Post by IDenj on Mar 11, 2009 18:49:35 GMT -5
well we better lock him up cause we def have a need for someone in the backcourt for next season.
|
|
idhoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,177
|
Post by idhoya on Mar 12, 2009 9:06:27 GMT -5
I didn't say he was Steph Curry, I said his game sounded similar to Steph's in that he can stroke it, has similar size and build, but Steph's handle would seem to be better; while Vee's defensive ability could ultimately be better. I later brought up Chris Lofton as well. Loften's situation is a little closer to home in that he was Kentucky's Mr. Hoops, but wasn't offered by UK. He then proceeded to light the SEC up for 3+ years. Loften was a better shooter off the dribble than he was off the pass, although he was really good at both. Sanford is bigger and longer than Loften, but his path seems similar. Both kids are scorers. GU needs scorers and ball handlers. Lock him up.
|
|
CaliHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,184
|
Post by CaliHoya on Mar 12, 2009 9:23:46 GMT -5
judging from the youtube videos, Vee has a midrange game that was sorely missing from this year's squad. I liked what I saw, but I didn't see too many long-range bombs.
Still, character-wise, it seems like he's a great guy who will work hard and only continue the upward trajectory. And you gotta love how he was the only senior (situation sounds familiar) and led his team to the regional championship!
|
|
|
Post by hoyalawyer on Mar 13, 2009 19:30:44 GMT -5
FWIW the staff actively discourages the midrange jump shot. Austin Freeman has the best midrange shot I;ve seen in years, and wattad had a really nice one from what I saw of him in AAU and Capitol Classic. The philosophy, if I understand the rationale as it was explained to me, is why take a long two?, you might as well step back and shoot a 3 or get it closer to the cup. basically IF you take the midrange shot, you'd better hit it or your a$$ is getting benched. I disagree with this philosophy because it discourages guys from taking a shot they might be better at making than the 3 ball, due to fear of the potential reprecussions of missing the shot. I know its crazy, but that's the way it is.
-Lawyer
|
|
royski
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,293
|
Post by royski on Mar 13, 2009 19:41:18 GMT -5
FWIW the staff actively discourages the midrange jump shot. Austin Freeman has the best midrange shot I;ve seen in years, and wattad had a really nice one from what I saw of him in AAU and Capitol Classic. The philosophy, if I understand the rationale as it was explained to me, is why take a long two?, you might as well step back and shoot a 3 or get it closer to the cup. basically IF you take the midrange shot, you'd better hit it or your a$$ is getting benched. I disagree with this philosophy because it discourages guys from taking a shot they might be better at making than the 3 ball, due to fear of the potential reprecussions of missing the shot. I know its crazy, but that's the way it is. -Lawyer Thanks a lot for that Lawyer, that explains a lot. It falls in with the general philosophy of the Princeton offense, that the two highest "yield" shots per se are a 3 pointer or a lay-up. I also disagree with the philosophy because I think it's too simplistic and doesn't take into account that basketball is a dynamic game where different methods of scoring make other methods more effective. For example, if you have a great scoring big man in the post, the defense has to double him when he gets the ball, creating easier opportunities for teammates when he passes it back out. I feel the same way about the midrange jump shot against the zone, ESPECIALLY for a team that's struggling from 3. If you show the ability to pull up for a mid range jumper, it forces the defender to play you for the shot at all times. Under this apparent offensive philosophy, as long as your inside the arc, the defender should sag in order to defend the drive. This is an even bigger problem then it would normally be because the back door relies on a defender coming out to meet his man, opening up the pass to the guy a step ahead. I hadn't thought that the Big East had actually caught up to the offense, but this comment makes me think that's definitely possible. I hope we add a mid-range aspect to the offense next season, otherwise I'm not sure this changes. There are other benefits to this as well. A guy shooting a mid range jumper is closer to the basket than one shooting a 3. This puts him in better rebounding position, should he choose to crash the boards on a miss. The mid range jumper is also an easier shot to make than a 3, obviously. For a team that often goes through long scoring droughts that kill our confidence, I'd love to see us utilize this option more often to help break those up. You don't win basketball games by over time scoring more points than you let up, you win by in a single game scoring more than your opponent. Sometimes within a single game, the math changes and a "lower yield" shot is really the best option. I hope III and staff change their approach this off season to this aspect of the O, especially given how many guys we have on the roster who have shown the ability to excel in the mid range game in HS.
|
|
|
Post by tpk3 on Mar 13, 2009 19:41:28 GMT -5
hoyalawyer- i agree the staff wants guys to take 3s over shots just a foot or two inside the 3 pt line. and that is a philosophy--and one shared by alot of other coaches--especially in the league. i think it is a percentage thing. but i would not broaden that to the "staff actively discourages the midrange jump shot". they have no problem with austin's game and when dajuan displays his pull up. i guess i would characterize that more as a player's midrange game. if a player has a midrange game then the staff loves that. But yes from a philosophical standpoint they would rather a guy take a 3 then a shot that is 1-2 feet inside the line.
Regarding Vee, i am sure JT3 does not mind his running floater. it's his best move. and that is technically a midrange jump shot.
FWIW- i am not sure i agree 100% with the staff's philosophy either. but i know where they are coming from.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,212
|
Post by hoyarooter on Mar 13, 2009 19:51:16 GMT -5
FWIW the staff actively discourages the midrange jump shot. Austin Freeman has the best midrange shot I;ve seen in years, and wattad had a really nice one from what I saw of him in AAU and Capitol Classic. The philosophy, if I understand the rationale as it was explained to me, is why take a long two?, you might as well step back and shoot a 3 or get it closer to the cup. basically IF you take the midrange shot, you'd better hit it or your a$$ is getting benched. I disagree with this philosophy because it discourages guys from taking a shot they might be better at making than the 3 ball, due to fear of the potential reprecussions of missing the shot. I know its crazy, but that's the way it is. -Lawyer Hmm. To me, a mid-range jumper is in the 10-15 foot range. This is well inside the three point line, and it's a shot that is often wide open against a zone. If the staff is truly "actively discouraging" these shots, that is probably the single dumbest thing I have heard in the time III has been the coach here. If we are only talking about 18-19 foot shots, then I would agree.
|
|
|
Post by jkhoya12 on Mar 13, 2009 20:01:53 GMT -5
I will say that against a zone when we're struggling with the 3 I would like to see Austin and Greg try and break the zone with the 15-18 foot jumper that Dante Cunningham has on lockdown.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Mar 13, 2009 23:17:04 GMT -5
Pardon me if I find the story that "the staff actively discourages the mid-range shot and penalizes kids who take it".... utterly unconvincing.
What is up with this board? JT3 wins two consecutive BIG EAST Titles, has one of the top ranked offenses and defenses in the country over a period of years, then runs into trouble over the second half of this season and all of a sudden everything he and the staff do is wrong, dump the Princeton, change the team's philosophy on O and D, get better recruits, "learn how to coach", get down off the pedestal... it never ends.
Are there areas that need improvement? Of course. But this stuff is just getting entirely out of hand.
There is nothing wrong with pointing out that a shot just inside the 3 pt. line is... statistically... the worst shot in basketball. The farther away from the hoop, the lower the shooting percentage -- for basketball players as a whole... not for individuals.
So the farther away you are, the less likely you are to hit your shot and score. But, once you reach the 3 pt. line, the benefit of hitting the shot increases by 50%, so the slight drop off in shooting percentage from just inside the line is more than offset by the increase in points for hitting it.
What the heck is so difficult to understand about that? Seems perfectly obvious to me.
That does NOT translate into forbidding kids from taking mid-range shots.
|
|
3xhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,171
|
Post by 3xhoya on Mar 14, 2009 0:08:54 GMT -5
Graeagle, or anyone who would know, what is the time line for Vee or Latavious to commit?
|
|
|
Post by jkhoya12 on Mar 14, 2009 9:19:36 GMT -5
Saxa, I completely agree that mathematically 3's are better than almost 3's. However, I would like to see our coaches and players go by how they feel more than just mathematics. For example, if Chris is bricking every single 3 he takes, I'd like to see an emphasis put on the free throw line jumper(which granted we probably can't hit since we can't hit free throws but hey). It's just a matter of balancing how you feel with straight logic.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Mar 14, 2009 11:16:44 GMT -5
A shot you make is always better than one you dont make regardless of the high percentage of the shot you missed.
|
|