Brent vs Jim interview | Page 7 | Syracusefan.com

Brent vs Jim interview

Status
Not open for further replies.
GoCuse14 said:
What exactly is this thread even about? is this Joe Vs Gmac?
Expand...

Who knows anymore.

I implied that if GMac was a PG, then Joe is a PG. if GMac wasn’t a PG, then Joe isn’t a PG. Then all hell broke loose.
 
Cusefan0307 said:
Pretty sure Scoop either couldn’t or never dunked.
Expand...

He opted for finger rolls most of the time but could dunk. At least, I think I remember him dunking. Nothing emphatic.
 
Brooky03 said:
GMac, per the numbers, was as much a PG as Joe is. Both are/were SGs masquerading as PGs, which was sort of my point. Comparing GMac’s career numbers, which obviously includes his upperclassman numbers, to Joe’s numbers as a freshman and sophomore is obviously not apples to apples. Upperclassmen tend to be better than underclassmen.

GMac’s shooting is irrelevant to the argument of PG skills. Joe is considered not to be a PG because he supposedly lacks PG skills, not because he can’t shoot. In fact, the argument that he’s more of a SG is because of the idea that all he can do is catch and shoot.

Your move... butt head (am I a delinquent now for saying butt head?)
Expand...

Joe is considered not a PG, because Kadary is a way better PG.

Nobody with a clue was complaining about him playing PG last year - because he was the best we had.

On this team, he should mostly play off the ball.
 
OrangeDW said:
Joe is considered not a PG, because Kadary is a way better PG.

Nobody with a clue was complaining about him playing PG last year - because he was the best we had.

On this team, he should mostly play off the ball.
Expand...

He was good enough last year to play PG the entire game, but now he’s not good enough to play PG 1/4-1/3 of the game?
 
Brooky03 said:
Who knows anymore.

I implied that if GMac was a PG, then Joe is a PG. if GMac wasn’t a PG, then Joe isn’t a PG. Then all hell broke loose.
Expand...

Michael Edwards was a PG...until Adrian Autry showed up.
 
Cusefan0307 said:
It’s been a long time. Had to be his only dunk? I remember him mostly as a below the rim player.
Expand...

I think he was a guy who needed a full head of steam to dunk. In transition, he was usually smooth and under control, setting up other guys or stopping at the FT line for an easy floater/jumper. Half court, he was always looking to pass or pull-up if he beat his guy. So, yeah, he didn’t dunk much. Got the ball up quick when the the trees were around.
 
Brooky03 said:
What about against teams like Pitt who Kadary can’t beat off the bounce?
Expand...

Still Kadary because he’s better at almost everything. See the 20 PER vs. 13 PER.

JB is usually good at identifying and riding his horses.
 
OrangeDW said:
Still Kadary because he’s better at almost everything. See the 20 PER vs. 13 PER.

JB is usually good at identifying and riding his horses.
Expand...

*20 vs 15* ;)

Isn’t his PER based partly on his offensive efficiency which is contingent on his ability to penetrate so he can pass and score?
 
Brooky03 said:
*20 vs 15* ;)

Isn’t his PER based partly on his offensive efficiency which is contingent on his ability to penetrate so he can pass and score?
Expand...

13.6. Not 15.

Sorry, Buddy was the 13.0 guy
 
Brooky03 said:
GMac, per the numbers, was as much a PG as Joe is. Both are/were SGs masquerading as PGs, which was sort of my point. Comparing GMac’s career numbers, which obviously includes his upperclassman numbers, to Joe’s numbers as a freshman and sophomore is obviously not apples to apples. Upperclassmen tend to be better than underclassmen.

GMac’s shooting is irrelevant to the argument of PG skills. Joe is considered not to be a PG because he supposedly lacks PG skills, not because he can’t shoot. In fact, the argument that he’s more of a SG is because of the idea that all he can do is catch and shoot.

Your move... butt head (am I a delinquent now for saying butt head?)
Expand...

Wow. That's kinda nutty. I mean, i PG does shoot, right? A PG's shooting efficiency sorta affects a PG's effectiveness, no? He doesn't have to be a 3-pt marksman, but if he doesn't have to be guarded in one particular aspect, he'd better be able to exploit the other offensive aspects. All of which, though, are part of PG skills and determine the PG's effectiveness. So, yeah, shooting is relevant. It determines what kind of PG he is, and what he needs around him for the team to be able to score. Which is pretty much Criteria No. 1 for a Point Guard.

Isn't the argument against Kadary that he 'can't shoot' and therefore 'compromises the spacing?'
 
Zelda Zonk said:
Wow. That's kinda nutty. I mean, i PG does shoot, right? A PG's shooting efficiency sorta affects a PG's effectiveness, no? He doesn't have to be a 3-pt marksman, but if he doesn't have to be guarded in one particular aspect, he'd better be able to exploit the other offensive aspects. All of which, though, are part of PG skills and determine the PG's effectiveness. So, yeah, shooting is relevant. It determines what kind of PG he is, and what he needs around him for the team to be able to score. Which is pretty much Criteria No. 1 for a Point Guard.

Isn't the argument against Kadary that he 'can't shoot' and therefore 'compromises the spacing?'
Expand...
By the current logic MCW would sit because he can’t shoot thus “spacing” requires he be the bench guard.
Kadary is the best point guard on this team by a country mile.
He doesn’t shoot well but he should have the keys the position and just let him grow but that can’t happen because ......
 
Zelda Zonk said:
Wow. That's kinda nutty. I mean, i PG does shoot, right? A PG's shooting efficiency sorta affects a PG's effectiveness, no? He doesn't have to be a 3-pt marksman, but if he doesn't have to be guarded in one particular aspect, he'd better be able to exploit the other offensive aspects. All of which, though, are part of PG skills and determine the PG's effectiveness. So, yeah, shooting is relevant. It determines what kind of PG he is, and what he needs around him for the team to be able to score. Which is pretty much Criteria No. 1 for a Point Guard.

Isn't the argument against Kadary that he 'can't shoot' and therefore 'compromises the spacing?'
Expand...
 
Zelda Zonk said:
Wow. That's kinda nutty. I mean, i PG does shoot, right? A PG's shooting efficiency sorta affects a PG's effectiveness, no? He doesn't have to be a 3-pt marksman, but if he doesn't have to be guarded in one particular aspect, he'd better be able to exploit the other offensive aspects. All of which, though, are part of PG skills and determine the PG's effectiveness. So, yeah, shooting is relevant. It determines what kind of PG he is, and what he needs around him for the team to be able to score. Which is pretty much Criteria No. 1 for a Point Guard.

Isn't the argument against Kadary that he 'can't shoot' and therefore 'compromises the spacing?'
Expand...

Context: None of the arguments about Joe not being a PG have had anything to do with his shooting. His shooting has been knocked, but that’s a separate debate from his ability as a PG.

So, to compare him to GMac as a PG it made sense to strip away shooting (since shooting isn’t in the argument for Joe as a PG). That’s it.

Theoretically, a PG who can’t do PG things well is a SG. That’s the argument for Joe being a SG. If Joe is a SG by that argument, then GMac was a SG. GMac being a better shooter further solidifies the argument that GMac was a SG playing PG.

GMac was a better player than Joe is.

I’m assuming you weren’t following the pages of this garbage debate we’ve all been having
 
Alsacs said:
By the current logic MCW would sit because he can’t shoot thus “spacing” requires he be the bench guard.
Kadary is the best point guard on this team by a country mile.
He doesn’t shoot well but he should have the keys the position and just let him grow but that can’t happen because ...
Expand...

Since players grow in practice instead of games, why not stick to 25 minutes per game and let him grow instead of 40?

MCW improved a ton after getting like 7 minutes per game and a bunch of DNP’s.
 
bigmike said:
Could not agree more. I would add (which I think follow your point #’s 1 & 2) that the lack of a low post scoring presence takes what I think the team has in abundance (good catch and shoot players) and has turned them into iso (beat your man off the dribble) players - and they are simply not equipped for that.

BB and JG both would benefit from a Rick Jackson or Arinze down low. Unfortunately, those guys don’t come along every day.
Expand...
Does JB even want those types anymore?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
the 44 yr hype
Replies
2
Views
291
David321
David321

Forum statistics

Threads
170,036
Messages
4,867,555
Members
5,987
Latest member
kyle42

Share this page

Online statistics

Members online
30
Guests online
1,482
Total visitors
1,512
Totals may include hidden visitors.


...
Top Bottom