Correct, he wasn't dominate, but he also hasn't shown anything in his two years to demonstrate that he's going to be special. Serviceable, yes, special....we'll see.
I think that you have locked into this idea that a point guard has to be a scorer and score at the rate of 15-20 points per game. I am not sure why this is a "must have" for you. In my opinion, we have deadly scoring options all along our front line, and the potential for good scoring from our off-guard position. Our PG just need to feed the right guys at the right time. Morton has shown he can do that.
PG is the most important position on the floor and he needs to be able to do a lot of things. I like PGs who are able to create, break down the D, force rotations, penetrate and finish. Basically, I like score-first mentality guards, and we haven't had many (Edwards and Ivey were both like that and happened to be our best players) Any college guard should be able to dump the ball into the post or get the ball to a guy coming off a screen, that's high school skill stuff.
So because you like score-first point guards- the guards we have had that were score-first guards are now retroactively point guards? The Starting point guard when Carsen was here was either PJ Thompson or Nojel Eastern. The starting point guard while Ivey was here was either Isaiah Thompson or Eric Hunter. Nice revisionist history.
PG is the least important position on the floor in Painter’s system. The PG you describe here would not do well in Painter’s system.
Thus, why Painter's teams struggle in the tourney.
I talked to a few high school and aau coaches I respect that absolutely rave about Smith.
Surely this can't be right. We've been lectured about Smith. I mean, just look at his height and size, he can't be any good.
Yep, wingspan is important. A player is not going to block shots with his head or torso like in soccer.Surely this can't be right. We've been lectured about Smith. I mean, just look at his height and size, he can't be any good.
We will all find out soon enough if it matters or not.Surely this can't be right. We've been lectured about Smith. I mean, just look at his height and size, he can't be any good.
I’d add a significant strength advantage vs IT. If he can take care of the ball, hit open shots and play defense that would be a huge win. Anything beyond that his first year seems unrealistic.
He was under the radar because of the pandemic....he had no aau the summer before junior year....he committed right before his senior year aau... Painter offered at the right time, otherwise he would've been a highly touted recruit....Waddell is the same way....those two will be hidden gems if healthy....
Yes, exactly. I think Braden will surprise more than a few. Maybe even convert Bone before seasons end? Alright, maybe that's too much to ask.
that's exactly the point. Purdue made a deep run that year because of guard play. Poor guard play usually results in an early exit.
Nothing would make me happier than to come here and say that I was 100% completely wrong on Smith.Yes, exactly. I think Braden will surprise more than a few. Maybe even convert Bone before seasons end? Alright, maybe that's too much to ask.
But in all seriousness, the guy can play. Here's an AAU clip from a couple years ago when he went head to head with DGL. He's not exactly playing against cupcakes, and remember this was from 2 years ago. Surely he's improved since then.
Just curious...what kind of numbers would Smith need to put up this year to prove you "wrong"? What would constitute a successful freshman season in your opinion?
I completely agree with your two points above. Guard play is crucial in the tournament. While I am more optimistic around this year's backcourt than you are, I also agree that there are bunch of questions there.
Neither was Ivey and we struggled with the ball in his hands at times, but he was the #5 pick. Bone likes numbers...only when it benefits his narrative.
Not sure if it's statistically quantifiable. I want to see a guy who can compete size-wise, quickness wise, athletically and not get targeted on defense or abused on offense. A guy who looks like he belongs on the floor against P5 or B10 schools and not at Buffalo, Akron or those only schools recruiting him.
Edwards was a ball dominant, high volume 3 level scorer who could go get you a bucket at any time, especially crunch time. That's what you need in the tourney; a guy you can give the ball to and he can get you a bucket.
Purdue won a lot more games with Ivey playing than had he not played for Purdue. Keep in mind, Hunter threw up a goose egg against St. Pete.
So he doesn’t need to have any quantifiable skills, just needs to be big and athletic, and look good coming off the bus?
Not sure about that. Every position is important. I just think Matt has a different priority weighting on the 1 than some other coaches. Matt is a bit of a contrarian with his play at the 5, 1 and off ball screening than many other coaches.
It depends.
No, that's not what I said. Reread it.
So basically have stats like Carsen Edward's freshman year and he's good, but anything less and he's a bum?
Good post. The second set of stats you posted seems realistic. Unless Smith is significantly better or worse than expected I’m not sure that he’s the primary determinant as to whether or not this team competes for a BT championship. A lot of questions in that backcourt.
Again, not what I said. But, if he were another Carsen Edwards, I'd be pretty happy.
So what stats are good enough for you? I agree with SCBoiler's 2nd paragraph assessment. Do you?
it is hard for me to put numbers down on a player that is not the go to player and somewhat difficult for the go to player. Can a player be good and the other players perhaps better on a given metric? What if Caleb only averages 9 points a game..or Mason or Brandon or...???? What if there is more depth than imagined and a LOT of minutes are shared...does that variable affect the given metrics? For the life of me I don't know and not interested in researching, but do wonder what are the metrics for the guards that play over 12...15, or some number of minutes a game for the top four finishers in the Big the last decade...and is there a significant difference between those numbers and the guards of the bottom 4 teams under the same criteria?
