AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Recruiting Heading Forward
- Thread starter Goose
- Start date
Just for giggles, I looked up what Grabau is doing this year. He's only hitting 48% from behind the arc. Yeah, we couldn't use that. Not when we have Brett whathisname on the team. The two are exactly the same player.
And oops, I was wrong - he's a junior this year, not a sophomore. I could have sworn it was just a couple years ago that he was at BHS.
And oops, I was wrong - he's a junior this year, not a sophomore. I could have sworn it was just a couple years ago that he was at BHS.
FWIW Sack, if we get Boatwright he just might be the pure shooter you are looking for but also add some other dimensions that a guy like Levi did not. Watching Bennie's jumper is like watching Jesus Shuttlesworth out there, silky smooth.
Last edited:
That would be awesome. I won't pretend to know much about guys we are recruiting. I do get frustrated when I see the team go into scoring slumps that a pure shooter would really help.
Our defense was atrociious, and we refused to feed scott in the 2d half last night. Deserved to lose. Even if we had a 3 pointer going off in the 2d half, it wouldn't have mattered. we lost by what, 18?
His defensive rating is 106.6 - on CU's team that would put him right ahead of Beau Gamble and Ben Mills as the 13th best defender on the team. Which would put him right next to Brett Brady on the bench.
Well then check this out...super quick release and great elevation. Has a lot of of Durant in his game. Not saying he will reach that level but the style of game is similar. I really hope we get this kid.
[video=youtube;afzzeEnZ8Lc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afzzeEnZ8Lc[/video]
Sacky, would we have won if we had alford's clone playing the exact same game for us last night?
I must have missed the part of the Super Bowl when the Broncos were leading at halftime.
No idea. Honestly, I don't know. We may not have won last night no matter what. My point all along has been that when your defense is having an off night, having a guy who sucks at defense isn't going to make that defense any worse, but if he can shoot "3"s, he can keep us in the game.
The counterpoint is this: "3's" don't keep you in the game if you are giving up 1.3 ppp. You are choosing the wrong game to use as an example of when a short, nonathletic white guy from Boulder High could have helped the Buffs win.
B/C all of the sudden 1.3 becomes 1.7 which means Riley better be a magician and come up with a 4 point shot.
My point isn't getting across at all. I'll try one more time and state it differently:
When you hit a rough stretch, having a guy on your team that can keep it close really helps. I fully realize that last night may have been a lost cause regardless. I also realize that we were winning at halftime and the game was not out of reach until about 1:30 left. I understand it's impossible to say "if this guy had been there, we would have won". I don't like making those kinds of statements. What I will say is having a guy like Levi Knutson (or Riley Grabau, for the sake of argument) would have given us a scoring weapon that we didn't have. It's not like we have that weapon sometimes, but just not last night. We never have that weapon. If you look at this team, there are damn few weaknesses. The one that is obvious is that we don't have a guy that teams need to worry about from behind the arc.
I get annoyed when I hear "Tad isn't going to recruit a pure shooter, so forget about that". It annoys me because I see value in players like that.
This has been said a million times before, but I guess it needs to be said again. tad will recruit a pure shooter if he can play defense, Riley can't play D, Levi probably wouldn't have been recruited by Tad. Guys that can shoot and play D are hot commodities that go to the blue bloods. If it comes down to a guy like Riley or King, it's King everyday.
what backcourt could Riley match up with defensively in the Pac12?
As a point to be made in support of Tad's philosophy here, the recent national championship teams of Louisville and Kentucky won with defense and athleticism. Not great 3pt shooting teams. Likewise when we look at top teams like Syracuse, Florida, Arizona and Kansas this year.
I don't understand how the 2011 buffs could go 3-9 on the road while have such a hot shooter as Levi? Why don't anyone NBA draft Levi? Do they not need scoring weapons? I understand that Levi did essentially nothing for 3 years here before having a great senior year, but why couldn't Tad find a freshman that shoots 47% from 3? I mean sure the #1 shooting guard (Aaron Henderson, Kentucky) from the 2013 class is shooting 30% as is the number #2 shooting guard (Jabari Bird, Cal) but Tad knew that I'm sure.
I'm gonna jump in late here, but I agree with Sacky, to an extent. I understand Tad's philosophy, and there's been little to find fault with so far, but it doesn't mean he's infallible. In this case, I think we could benefit by dedicating one scholarship to a pure shooter.
Using last night's game as an example, there were two big differences in the second half. The biggest was the lack of D, with UCLA taking advantage. As a result, though, the made baskets took us out of our transition game, UCLA packed in near the hoop, daring us to shoot, then generating their own transition game off of the rebounds. It became a downhill spiral, and one that one player was unlikely to overcome, but a couple of key baskets may have helped stem the tide, slow down UCLA's transition game, and changed momentum.
The thing about having a pure shooter is you don't even have to go on one of those runs where he knocks down 3 or 4 straight shots, just the presence of a shooter can pull the defense away from the basket, creating a crease for a guard to penetrate and create, or giving Josh room in the post. It's got to be preferable to Scott posting his man, only to have DT wander down to within about 2 feet of him, bringing an extra defender in the process, and standing directly in the path of a potential entry pass.
In the end, you're going to see tradeoffs with any recruit, but I do think a pure shooter, if used appropriately for limited minutes, can change the complexion of the game at times. Sure, he'll also have nights where he's invisible, but if we're talking about a 10 mpg player who is OK getting inconsistent minutes, or even not getting off the bench depending on the matchup, I think it's worth the scholly.
Using last night's game as an example, there were two big differences in the second half. The biggest was the lack of D, with UCLA taking advantage. As a result, though, the made baskets took us out of our transition game, UCLA packed in near the hoop, daring us to shoot, then generating their own transition game off of the rebounds. It became a downhill spiral, and one that one player was unlikely to overcome, but a couple of key baskets may have helped stem the tide, slow down UCLA's transition game, and changed momentum.
The thing about having a pure shooter is you don't even have to go on one of those runs where he knocks down 3 or 4 straight shots, just the presence of a shooter can pull the defense away from the basket, creating a crease for a guard to penetrate and create, or giving Josh room in the post. It's got to be preferable to Scott posting his man, only to have DT wander down to within about 2 feet of him, bringing an extra defender in the process, and standing directly in the path of a potential entry pass.
In the end, you're going to see tradeoffs with any recruit, but I do think a pure shooter, if used appropriately for limited minutes, can change the complexion of the game at times. Sure, he'll also have nights where he's invisible, but if we're talking about a 10 mpg player who is OK getting inconsistent minutes, or even not getting off the bench depending on the matchup, I think it's worth the scholly.
To me, I don't really have an issue with Tad's recruiting. But at the same time, don't think having one scholarship player out of 13, that is maybe an average defender but a knock down shooter is going to really kill the team. That might fit Dustin Thomas to an extent, he just hasn't been able to build confidence.
mattrob - good post and I do completely agree on what a shooter can do to extend a defense. But the problem I see with having a guy that's going to play spot minutes as a decoy doesn't really make him a threat. It's really easy to deny a likely not overly athletic shooter the ball or be aware that you need to close out on him quickly. You don't even need to put a good defender on him, just somebody who can stay with him. So if you want him to have an actual impact you have to run plays for him or run him off screens which completely changes up what CU does on offense. And do you want to waste possessions on a catch-and-shoot guy for a few possessions or do you try to get Scott the ball in the post or let Ski try to create on those possessions?
I also completely agree on that fact that the 2nd half totally changed b/c CU couldn't get stops and get into transition like they did in the first half (but UCLA has really really good players, I think this is being underplayed in all of this), but isn't that going to be exacerbated by a pure shooter? If you use a guy like Riley Grabau as an example, who does he guard last night? Do you have to play zone? We already have to do that to cover Mills on defense when he comes in, so I don't think you could dare play them together, so then do you have to have run 2 line-ups in zone in a situation like last night? Every possession they are a liability on defense they have to make up for it on the offensive end or you're just giving away points.
I think it comes down to the fact you have to find the "right guy" to make this work and the right guy for Tad has to be able to play some defense. It seems like there aren't a lot of these guys and the ones that are out there are highly coveted. Dustin Thomas was supposed to be that guy, so was Chris Jenkins. I really think that Tad is under the assumption that he already recruited his "right guy" - Dustin Thomas shot 48% from 3 in high school. XJ was a 44% 3pt shooter last year, he's shooting better of late and is at 36% now (41% since Dinwiddie went down). It also gets glossed over that Levi was really only an elite shooter for 1 year.
I also completely agree on that fact that the 2nd half totally changed b/c CU couldn't get stops and get into transition like they did in the first half (but UCLA has really really good players, I think this is being underplayed in all of this), but isn't that going to be exacerbated by a pure shooter? If you use a guy like Riley Grabau as an example, who does he guard last night? Do you have to play zone? We already have to do that to cover Mills on defense when he comes in, so I don't think you could dare play them together, so then do you have to have run 2 line-ups in zone in a situation like last night? Every possession they are a liability on defense they have to make up for it on the offensive end or you're just giving away points.
I think it comes down to the fact you have to find the "right guy" to make this work and the right guy for Tad has to be able to play some defense. It seems like there aren't a lot of these guys and the ones that are out there are highly coveted. Dustin Thomas was supposed to be that guy, so was Chris Jenkins. I really think that Tad is under the assumption that he already recruited his "right guy" - Dustin Thomas shot 48% from 3 in high school. XJ was a 44% 3pt shooter last year, he's shooting better of late and is at 36% now (41% since Dinwiddie went down). It also gets glossed over that Levi was really only an elite shooter for 1 year.
Can I point out that what you guys are wanting is what Xavier Talton is becoming?
Levi's highs prior to his senior season:
18.3 minutes per game
4.6 Points
1.2 Assists
1.7 Rebounds
0.5 Steals
41.5% FG
84.2% FT
35.7% 3PT
XT's sophomore stats thus far:
16.8 minutes
4.3 Points
1.6 Assists
1.7 Rebounds
0.6 Steals
40.7% FG
69.6% FT
36.2% 3PT
Now, I fully appreciate that Levi wasn't healthy his sophomore or, especially, his junior season. (As they read that, Goose, Scotch & others are sending voodoo hex waves toward Bzdelik for failing to redshirt Levi that year.) And then Levi, fully healthy, ended up having a spectacular senior year by shooting over 50% from the field, over 90% from the line and over 47% from 3pt range while scoring 11.7 ppg.
But I look at XT and say that he was recruited to be a backup guard who can play both PG and SG with enough athleticism to man up with Pac-12 guards... and develop into a Levi type shooter as an upperclassman. I firmly believe that in 3 years the same people who are saying that Tad needs to recruit more Levi type players will be saying that he needs to recruit more XT type players.
Against UCLA, XT went 3/5 from deep and also helped us on the defensive end with 2 steals. He's got to work on his handle, for sure, and develop more consistency... but he's getting there, guys. And while he may never match those ridiculous shooting stats that Levi put up his senior year, XT also brings PG skills, rebounding, and man defense that Levi never had.
Likewise, guys like Dustin, Fletch and King will develop over their time here.
Right now, CU is not a good 3pt shooting team (something like 280 in the nation in %) and that's with Spencer's 41% in the stats. It's frustrating. It needs to get better. But I don't believe in compromising core principles to get there. I believe strongly that would be an over-reaction to a bit of a fluke year -- Jenkins left, Spencer went down, and the freshmen all slumped below their capabilities. This will get better.
Levi's highs prior to his senior season:
18.3 minutes per game
4.6 Points
1.2 Assists
1.7 Rebounds
0.5 Steals
41.5% FG
84.2% FT
35.7% 3PT
XT's sophomore stats thus far:
16.8 minutes
4.3 Points
1.6 Assists
1.7 Rebounds
0.6 Steals
40.7% FG
69.6% FT
36.2% 3PT
Now, I fully appreciate that Levi wasn't healthy his sophomore or, especially, his junior season. (As they read that, Goose, Scotch & others are sending voodoo hex waves toward Bzdelik for failing to redshirt Levi that year.) And then Levi, fully healthy, ended up having a spectacular senior year by shooting over 50% from the field, over 90% from the line and over 47% from 3pt range while scoring 11.7 ppg.
But I look at XT and say that he was recruited to be a backup guard who can play both PG and SG with enough athleticism to man up with Pac-12 guards... and develop into a Levi type shooter as an upperclassman. I firmly believe that in 3 years the same people who are saying that Tad needs to recruit more Levi type players will be saying that he needs to recruit more XT type players.
Against UCLA, XT went 3/5 from deep and also helped us on the defensive end with 2 steals. He's got to work on his handle, for sure, and develop more consistency... but he's getting there, guys. And while he may never match those ridiculous shooting stats that Levi put up his senior year, XT also brings PG skills, rebounding, and man defense that Levi never had.
Likewise, guys like Dustin, Fletch and King will develop over their time here.
Right now, CU is not a good 3pt shooting team (something like 280 in the nation in %) and that's with Spencer's 41% in the stats. It's frustrating. It needs to get better. But I don't believe in compromising core principles to get there. I believe strongly that would be an over-reaction to a bit of a fluke year -- Jenkins left, Spencer went down, and the freshmen all slumped below their capabilities. This will get better.
XT is a great example, (even though some people here think I hate him) he's been knocking down some shots lately and has a great looking shot overall. If he can take care of the ball, knock down some shots, stay in-front of his man and play 15-18 mins that'd be ideal. He's struggled with all of those things at times, but you can see the promise there.
jg- I don't think you run a guy out there as a decoy. If the defense continues to pack the lane, you give a shooter a clean look. If they attach someone to him, even a poor defender, that's one less person in the lane. For a CU team that's seeing teams focus on taking away penetration almost every night, that's important. As for taking possessions away from Scott and Ski, when the offense starts to go of the tracks, we don't get ANYONE good looks, so I don't think you're go on up a lot.
I used last night as an example because that's what has been discussed here, but agree it's a bad matchup for us. They're just a bigger, more athletic, more versatile team, and nothing was going to change that. I do think that talent discrepancy widens if you bring in a pure shooter, but as a change of pace, I'd be willing to take the chance. Going back to UCLA, I don't think things would have been any worse, since we couldn't get a stop or a bucket for about 5 minutes. Defensively, the only option would have been to guard Alford. You mentioned a zone d, but with the way UCLA was shooting, they would've destroyed a zone. If you can hide a Grabau on an average offensive player and dare him to beat you, I'm OK with that. If we're talking about forcing him to match up against Anderson or Adams, that's a disaster waiting to happen and you have to leave him on the bench.
In the end, I'm not clamoring for a one-trick pony gunner to come off the bench. I believe more of our problems are related to youth right now. You already mentioned Thomas, and he has a good chance to grow into that perimeter that. In the meantime, since so few HS kids come in and shoot a high percentage from behind the line, a grad transfer is probably the best solution. We should have the scholarship open for it, and I'd much prefer that to taking another late flier on a project on the wing.
I used last night as an example because that's what has been discussed here, but agree it's a bad matchup for us. They're just a bigger, more athletic, more versatile team, and nothing was going to change that. I do think that talent discrepancy widens if you bring in a pure shooter, but as a change of pace, I'd be willing to take the chance. Going back to UCLA, I don't think things would have been any worse, since we couldn't get a stop or a bucket for about 5 minutes. Defensively, the only option would have been to guard Alford. You mentioned a zone d, but with the way UCLA was shooting, they would've destroyed a zone. If you can hide a Grabau on an average offensive player and dare him to beat you, I'm OK with that. If we're talking about forcing him to match up against Anderson or Adams, that's a disaster waiting to happen and you have to leave him on the bench.
In the end, I'm not clamoring for a one-trick pony gunner to come off the bench. I believe more of our problems are related to youth right now. You already mentioned Thomas, and he has a good chance to grow into that perimeter that. In the meantime, since so few HS kids come in and shoot a high percentage from behind the line, a grad transfer is probably the best solution. We should have the scholarship open for it, and I'd much prefer that to taking another late flier on a project on the wing.
The one other point I'd make here is that, while I understand Tad wants the foundation to be built on the defensive end, that hasn't necessarily been the case this year. We're seeing a lot of freshmen struggle at times, losing their man and giving up open looks. I don't buy that giving 10 mpg to a specialist is going to destroy our team defense.
I'll be honest, I'm surprised so many are so opposed to adding a shooter. I agree that some are focusing too hard on that one area, primarily due to our own defensive philosophy of challenging teams to beat us from behind the line, leading to some big performances against us. That doesn't mean it's a terrible idea though.
I'll be honest, I'm surprised so many are so opposed to adding a shooter. I agree that some are focusing too hard on that one area, primarily due to our own defensive philosophy of challenging teams to beat us from behind the line, leading to some big performances against us. That doesn't mean it's a terrible idea though.
