Do you guys understand the incredible disadvantage of having absolutely no beef in the paint whatsoever (sorry, Hakeem and Collier just ain't gonna cut it)? There's no safety net for our guards -- chances are, if they miss the shot, its goin' back the other way -- talk about added pressure. In addition, because we lack a significant presence in the pain or a voracious rebounder/shot blocker, guys like Franchise and Mobes, guards, have to pick up slack, adding additional wear and tear and undoubtly shifting the focus from where it should be -- scoring. I'm not even gonna pretend I like Mobley. He has the shot selection of a four year old. Oftentimes he misses the good pass for the bad shot. He's not an exceptional defender --but the guy is clutch. He hits some of the most impossible shots. With an inside banger to mop up after him, pull down a few added offensive boards, provide with that additional safety, Mobley could become 3 to 5 times as effective. Anyways, I'm done rambling. Thoughts? ------------------ Hey now, Hey now, don't Dream it's over...
I like these productive critics. Thanks Stone Cold, it really makes us step back and think. here's my rambling response: Our fundamental offense is closest to being called a 4 out 1 flex. It's purpose is to flatten the defense by not letting them pack it in. It is all about taking advantage a 3 guards when you have little beef (or one big beef). For those who follow college basketball, the 4 out 1 flex is what Iowa St ran with Fizer and 3 guards last year. It is pretty much a system designed for teams with players like ours. It is an obvious choice for Rudy to make. We can bash Rudy, but I really think it shows lack of basketball knowledge for us to bash Rudy's choice of a 4 out 1 Flex system for these players. You'd find many, many coaches would choose the same thing. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited January 25, 2001).]
