Getting it all out in the open.

[bearcatrunner]

I've always had an issue with the fact we are so low on pure shooters since Mick became coach. I don't understand this when the Creighton team was full of them. I mean how is it possible that we don't have just one? I believe Mick can teach almost any kid to play defense if he needed to. He understands this very well.

In the end you need a well balanced team and that is what was wrong with Creighton's team. They did not have the athletes to compete with the big time programs like Duke. We were good enough to hang with anyone in the country but could not score enough to win those big games. Just imagine how good this team could have been with just one pure shooter or if the whole team could hit free throws. Why is it so hard to hit Free Throws? Don't coaches understand what a difference those can make in a game.

BTW - I love Mick but I don't understand why he allows Rubles to shoot the three. I mean serioulsy he is shooting .09%. Driblle & Drive. That kid would be sitting on my bench when he did that. I can't believe he took that shot at the end of the game.

Okay I've gotten it all off my chest now.

 

[JasonS]

We were short on shooters most of the late 90s and early 2000s. The only real pure shooter during that span was Field Williams. Were people complaining then?

This isn't about shooters as much as it is about getting open looks. SK shoots a higher percentage if he is not taking contested threes or jumpers all the time. Same with Cash. Run good offense, get open looks, and you shoot a higher percentage.

All the people that complain about not having shooters would be complaining if Mick was signing these same players saying "Why can't we land the big time players." Sometimes Mick can't win. Period.

 

[BearcatMick]

Uc had plenty of shooters this year. Don't be ridiculous

 

[bearcatfan1211]

I've always had an issue with the fact we are so low on pure shooters since Mick became coach. I don't understand this when the Creighton team was full of them. I mean how is it possible that we don't have just one? I believe Mick can teach almost any kid to play defense if he needed to. He understands this very well.

In the end you need a well balanced team and that is what was wrong with Creighton's team. They did not have the athletes to compete with the big time programs like Duke. We were good enough to hang with anyone in the country but could not score enough to win those big games. Just imagine how good this team could have been with just one pure shooter or if the whole team could hit free throws. Why is it so hard to hit Free Throws? Don't coaches understand what a difference those can make in a game.

BTW - I love Mick but I don't understand why he allows Rubles to shoot the three. I mean serioulsy he is shooting .09%. Driblle & Drive. That kid would be sitting on my bench when he did that. I can't believe he took that shot at the end of the game.

Okay I've gotten it all off my chest now.

This is something that has had me thinking. For those of you that watched the Kansas-UNC game on Sunday, Ben Mclemore was sat on the bench for 15 minutes in the second half because of his play and this guy is the likely #1 pick in the draft this year. Why doesn't Mick have the balls to sit guys that aren't performing and play other guys?

 

[Cataclysmo]

I agree, my biggest problem this season was Micks inability to get Rubles to stop shooting. Look, i get if a player is wide open 15 feet out that they will take the shot, that's okay. However, if Rubles is shooting a 3 when we absolutely need to hit one, then that is a huge problem. I don't know if Mick has told him not to shoot or what, but he needs to find out how to stop it.

Secondly, we don't have shooters. Shooters are guys that can take open threes and have it be a surprise should they not hit them. We have guys who can shoot, and they need to find confidence quickly before next year.

 

[User Name:]

This is something that has had me thinking. For those of you that watched the Kansas-UNC game on Sunday, Ben Mclemore was sat on the bench for 15 minutes in the second half because of his play and this guy is the likely #1 pick in the draft this year. Why doesn't Mick have the balls to sit guys that aren't performing and play other guys?

Comparing Kansas to UC is apples and oranges. Kansas is a National Championship contender. They have plenty of other top flight players. It's much easier to 'have the balls to sit guys that aren't performing' when your bench players are also top flight players and its not a complete detriment to the team

Calipari has 6 incoming top 20 players next year. If one of them is having a bad game or isn't playing Defense or being selfish, its easy for him to 'make a point' by benching him because, most likely, they are going to win easily anyways.

 

[Cpaw]

I agree with Rubles, but we don't know what happens in practice. We have always heard he is a good shooter and can make shots, so I can only go with the notion that you have to let these kids shoot through it, even though it has been majority of the season. I did comment against Creighton when the refs whistled a play dead, Rubles shot a great looking 3 and made it that was his first 3 in months!

 

[L-T]

We were short on shooters most of the late 90s and early 2000s. The only real pure shooter during that span was Field Williams. Were people complaining then?

This isn't about shooters as much as it is about getting open looks. SK shoots a higher percentage if he is not taking contested threes or jumpers all the time. Same with Cash. Run good offense, get open looks, and you shoot a higher percentage.

All the people that complain about not having shooters would be complaining if Mick was signing these same players saying "Why can't we land the big time players." Sometimes Mick can't win. Period.

Wow, you've forgotten a lot of Bearcat history. We had a lot more pure shooters than you remember. Just in the short period you mentioned above, we had Steve Logan, Demarr Johnson, among others. Logan was one of the greatest players to ever put on a Bearcat uniform and Johnson was a #3 pick in the NBA.

The difference is we had balance in those years. We had a strong inside game to go with our shooters. Now we have no inside game, and sub-standard shooters, Kilpatrick possibly, and I repeat..."possibly" the exception. His shooting this year left a lot to be desired.

 

[bearcatfan1211]

Comparing Kansas to UC is apples and oranges. Kansas is a National Championship contender. They have plenty of other top flight players. It's much easier to 'have the balls to sit guys that aren't performing' when your bench players are also top flight players and its not a complete detriment to the team

Calipari has 6 incoming top 20 players next year. If one of them is having a bad game or isn't playing Defense or being selfish, its easy for him to 'make a point' by benching him because, most likely, they are going to win easily anyways.

If the guys on the bench though are really a detriment to the team then why are they even here in the first place? especially if his coming off the court could mean Shaquille going on.

 

[Hicks' Guns]

I think SK is a pure shooter that's incorporating other elements into his game. He was great his freshman and sophomore year. He just shot poorly this year and I think a lot of that was due to failure for him to get open and better looks...and the lack of other options that allowed defenses to key on him. He turned into a volume shooter this year and a lot of that volume was poorer shots than he's taken in the previous two years..

I do think we need more than one though and I'd love the have at least one "crap...we forgot about him guy".

 

[L-T]

The premise made by bearcatrunner is an accurate one. As I watch the NCAA tournament, two things stand out to me....how much better everyone's shooters are than ours...and how much more speed I see than what I watched all year on our team. Even on the so-called mid-major teams...better shooters, more speed. Trying to fathom how we ended up with this roster that we have is just mind-boggling. They certainly do not pass the eye test in any way, shape, or form...yet they made the tournament. I hear some people comment that Mick recruits athletes instead of basketball players. I don't even agree with that. I don't see our team being all that athletic either. Jackson, Mbodj, and Shaq...maybe Rubles....have some pretty good athleticism, but the rest of the roster is average at best. This roster has a long way to go before anyone ever takes us serious. Watching ugly, boring basketball, with no ability to score, and that finishes 10th in the league and squeaks their way into the tournament because they can defend is not where I wanted this program to be 7 years after Mick was hired.

Just like people on here want to take Huggins' early years out of his history and give him no credit for the Final Four or Elite 8s, we should now also eliminate Mick's early years from the conversation. Year 5 was when he supposedly got us back to where we were before him, so that is his new starting point. This year was by far the worst of the three years, so the trend is down, not up, and the future appears more shaky than it does optimistic. The recruiting class is decent, but nowhere near top 10, so there is more chance that they'll take a few years to develop. Our best player will be gone after next season, along with a lot of our "athleticism", so we'll be back to an inexperienced squad. This does not look like we're on the verge of a sustained run of success. Quite the opposite...veteren players graduating and a new lower profile league....and a roster full of unproven players.

If all this results in a period of great basketball, ranked teams, sweet 16 and better tourney runs, then Mick is our guy. I'll have to see it to believe it.

 

[TheLongHaul]

I agree with Rubles, but we don't know what happens in practice. We have always heard he is a good shooter and can make shots, so I can only go with the notion that you have to let these kids shoot through it, even though it has been majority of the season. I did comment against Creighton when the refs whistled a play dead, Rubles shot a great looking 3 and made it that was his first 3 in months!

Rubles shot is incredibly ugly. He shot 25% from 3 in JUCO. I doubt he made 2 threes in a row (even if in consecutive games) this year. I don't care how he looks in practice, if Mick thinks Rubles is a good shooter from 3 he needs to have his head checked. I like Rubles but he has no business shooting 3's. It's one thing if it's early in the season and he can shoot through it or prove himself. But he proved he is a horrible shooter.

 

[joshuag12000]

I think there was just such high expectations this year after a sweet 16 appearance last year that everybody overlooked the major flaws this team had. They had no threat of scoring inside and had nobody willing or able to carry the team offensively by creating their own shot or drawing the defense enough to create shots for others.

I cringed everytime Rubles shot a 3 by the end of the year, but he almost had to shoot that shot against Chreighton. His defender sat so low in the middle clogging up everything else daring him to shoot. He needed to prove he could hit it to draw his defender out. His enability to hit the shot was just another flaw in the team along with their enability to make a large percentage of their free throws. Defense and rebounding can keep you in games, but the teams that win in tournament time make the shots they have to down the stretch. This team just didn't have what it takes this year. Hopefully next year they do.

 

[mplebanon]

Ibrahima Thomas was good for a missed attempted three pointer, 2 minutes into every game he played, and Mick never stopped him. Not sure why anyone thinks he'll stop Rubles. I'm surprised Mbodj and Nyarsuk weren't shooting them too!

As for pure shooters in the 90's and 00's, Buford, Burton, Durden, Logan............I'm sure there's a lot more. Keith Legree comes to mind.......just kidding.

 

[ralph1950]

It is a lot easier to teach a guy how to play defense than how to shoot. It is very difficult to change a guy's shooting motion. For example from football, Tim Tebow, the best QB coaches have worked with him to change his throwing motion without success.

If Mick could have gotten Doug McDermmit to come to UC he would have, you can only get who you can get.

 

[bearcatfan1211]

It is a lot easier to teach a guy how to play defense than how to shoot. It is very difficult to change a guy's shooting motion. For example from football, Tim Tebow, the best QB coaches have worked with him to change his throwing motion without success.

If Mick could have gotten Doug McDermmit to come to UC he would have, you can only get who you can get.

I know there is no way of knowing, but i think the real question is if Mick is targeting and pursuing guys like a McDermott.

 

[L-T]

It is a lot easier to teach a guy how to play defense than how to shoot. It is very difficult to change a guy's shooting motion. For example from football, Tim Tebow, the best QB coaches have worked with him to change his throwing motion without success.

If Mick could have gotten Doug McDermmit to come to UC he would have, you can only get who you can get.

If you're going to compete to win the Big East (thing of the past) or compete for a national title, then you shouldn't be recruiting anyone who doesn't have basic basketball skills. Even Florida Gulf Coast has shooters, penetrators, high flying dunkers, athleticism, inside players, etc. Look at the speed on LaSalle, Temple, etc of the lowly A10....not to mention what's on all the top level teams throughout the tourney. You should restate your sentence to say, "Mick can only get what Mick can get." There are a lot of programs, including mid-majors who seem to be able to get these players. For some reason, Mick doesn't seem to be able to get them.

 

[joshuag12000]

If you're going to compete to win the Big East (thing of the past) or compete for a national title, then you shouldn't be recruiting anyone who doesn't have basic basketball skills. Even Florida Gulf Coast has shooters, penetrators, high flying dunkers, athleticism, inside players, etc. Look at the speed on LaSalle, Temple, etc of the lowly A10....not to mention what's on all the top level teams throughout the tourney. You should restate your sentence to say, "Mick can only get what Mick can get." There are a lot of programs, including mid-majors who seem to be able to get these players. For some reason, Mick doesn't seem to be able to get them.

This is the one area I think Mick deserves some criticism. A lot of these teams have less hyped players and the coaches get everything they possibly can out of them. I think Mick has decent players he just didn't get enough from them. We have plenty of guys come in with high expectations but none have yet to show the improvement over 4 years everyone expects.

 

[mplebanon]

I've always had an issue with the fact we are so low on pure shooters since Mick became coach. I don't understand this when the Creighton team was full of them. I mean how is it possible that we don't have just one? I believe Mick can teach almost any kid to play defense if he needed to. He understands this very well.

In the end you need a well balanced team and that is what was wrong with Creighton's team. They did not have the athletes to compete with the big time programs like Duke. We were good enough to hang with anyone in the country but could not score enough to win those big games. Just imagine how good this team could have been with just one pure shooter or if the whole team could hit free throws. Why is it so hard to hit Free Throws? Don't coaches understand what a difference those can make in a game.

BTW - I love Mick but I don't understand why he allows Rubles to shoot the three. I mean serioulsy he is shooting .09%. Driblle & Drive. That kid would be sitting on my bench when he did that. I can't believe he took that shot at the end of the game.

Okay I've gotten it all off my chest now.

When I first read the thread title, I thought you were coming out of the closet.

 

[JasonS]

Wow, you've forgotten a lot of Bearcat history. We had a lot more pure shooters than you remember. Just in the short period you mentioned above, we had Steve Logan, Demarr Johnson, among others. Logan was one of the greatest players to ever put on a Bearcat uniform and Johnson was a #3 pick in the NBA.

The difference is we had balance in those years. We had a strong inside game to go with our shooters. Now we have no inside game, and sub-standard shooters, Kilpatrick possibly, and I repeat..."possibly" the exception. His shooting this year left a lot to be desired.

Logan was not a pure shooter. Good shooter, yes. Pure shooter, no. He never shot higher than 45.7% from the floor in any season. He started as a 33% 3 point shooter at UC and only broke 40% once (sophomore year). Hardly a pure shooter.

Here are DerMarr's stats from his only year at UC:
Year GP MPG PPG FG% 3% FT% APG RPG BPG SPG
1999-00 32 27.5 12.6 47.8 37.1 73.7 1.4 3.8 0.9 1.0

Hardly a pure shooter.

Maybe you've "misremembered" your Bearcat history.