|
|
Post by willtalk on Apr 13, 2018 12:46:37 GMT -8
I guess it all depends on what you mean by having the offense "revolve" around one player. The 76-77 Blazers revolved around Bill Walton - but if he scored more than 25, it usually meant that they had lost - his ability to pass through and around the double team (he was a damned good guard before he went from 6' 1" to 6' 11") meant that he was a great assist machine. Then there is Lebron vs the rest of his team. The world revolves around Lebron, and he is good enough that his team mates (and coaches) have to suck it up or leave, but there are a lot of great players who want a shot at the title and will come to play his basketball to get there. That team was one of my three favorite teams of all time. What I was referring more to is the team revolving around a ball dominant guard. Having the Center like Walton be the distributor and controlling the offense works really well. The Kings also did well when Vladi Divac controlled the Kings offense. Most people thought it was Weber who was the key to Sacs success but it was in fact Divac. They still won without Weber ( injured for a time ) but when they lost Divac the went down hill. Of course if you ask Walton who the best passing center of all time was, he would say Arvydas Sabonis- but of course most people only saw him as a simi cripple when he played in the NBA. The center is in the optimum position to distribute the ball over the entire court. I think AA might have that ability. She appears to have good court vision. Just think what a 6"9" player could do passing the ball to open shooters from the center. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:04:37 GMT -8
AA will have a big impact no doubt, with her height and with our coaching she will be formidable for this team. With DS as the general in the backcourt and our teams ability to shoot the 3 it is going to be a fun season to watch. I don't know how they will top the amazing year we just witnessed but it will be different and hopefully just as rewarding.
|
|
|
|
Post by beavershoopsfan on Apr 13, 2018 13:37:01 GMT -8
An exact quote from willtalk in an above post made earlier today: "If you check my post I never stated they did not have a successful season. I only said they underachieved. I stated this because they should have beaten Florida St. and perhaps SC as well. They certainly had the potential to do so."
After checking willtalk's previous post on this thread, I found this exact quote from willtalk from April 6: "The 2016-17 team was not an example of success but of the failure of such a system. That team underachieved in respect to the talent that was on that team."
Willtalk,
You are posting out of both sides of your mouth. Which one is it? Was the '16-'17 OSU Beavs women's basketball squad that starred Sydney Wiese a success or was it not successful? When you write that the Beavs were an example of a failure of such a "star" system and that the team "was not an example of success", you certainly imply very strongly that the team was not successful.
It is a very rare individual who can assert in writing that a team was an example of a "failure of such a (star) system" and "not an example of success" and yet somehow honestly claim that he did not intend to imply (or more accurately post virtually those same words) that the 2016-2017 team was unsuccessful. Perhaps you are that rarity.
Your logic is often baffling, prompting me to attempt to look through previous posts of yours to see where some foundation of your logic initially went wrong. After reading a number of your posts on this site and on TheBoneyard.com (UConn) website, I have often thought to myself, "Did he really mean that?" and/or "Is he being serious?"
|
|
|
|
Post by willtalk on Apr 13, 2018 21:00:27 GMT -8
Having a star system is great on the one hand because at least you have a star. (Which every coach wants). On the other hand, the coach must get the supporting cast to buy in, to channel their game to maximize the Star's performance.
For an excellent example of how this system works effectively when it's done right you have only to look at the 2016 - 2017 Beavers. Sydney was the offensive star, and the offence was geared to her skills, to her temperament, to her taking critical shots, to her controlling the ball, and to her sticking with her star responsibilities even when she was having a tough nite. To my knowledge, this Sydney-centric game plan never caused player dissension. It never reduced on-court performance. It did not create resentment.I have never ever been a fan of any teams offense revolving around any one player. You do not win championships that way. The purpose of a team is to bring out the best of each individual player so that the whole becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. The purpose is not to maximize the stars performance. Unfortunately this is where basketball has gravitated to, due to the influence of the NBA's focus on individual stars to sell the league. The 2016-17 team was not an example of success but of the failure of such a system. That team underachieved in respect to the talent that was on that team.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
|
Post by willtalk on Apr 13, 2018 21:52:58 GMT -8
An exact quote from willtalk in an above post made earlier today: "If you check my post I never stated they did not have a successful season. I only said they underachieved. I stated this because they should have beaten Florida St. and perhaps SC as well. They certainly had the potential to do so." After checking willtalk's previous post on this thread, I found this exact quote from willtalk from April 6: "The 2016-17 team was not an example of success but of the failure of such a system. That team underachieved in respect to the talent that was on that team."If you read the my entire paragraph and include it in context to the post I was responding to it gives a different picture than you paint. You have, much as you have often done before, taken my post out of context. The term for that is Prevarication- to leave things out in order to create a partial truth in order to to distort. My reference to failure was purely in respect to their not fully utilizing all their talent, but not in respect to their season as a whole. They were champions of the Pac 12 and were rated #2 in their region and that can not be considered failing. What they failed in was integrating all the talent the team had to offer so that the whole became greater than the sum of it's parts. The failure of the offense when Sydney went cold attests to that. The failure, referred to, was of the system that kept them from maximizing their potential and being even more successful than the were. Despite their success had they been less Sydney centric and maximized their potential, they could have done still better. . Willtalk, You are posting out of both sides of your mouth. Which one is it? Was the '16-'17 OSU Beavs women's basketball squad that starred Sydney Wiese a success or was it not successful? When you write that the Beavs were an example of a failure of such a "star" system and that the team "was not an example of success", you certainly imply very strongly that the team was not successful.
Here you say I only imply very strongly. Even if that were true, and not just your perception, implying is a far cry from actually saying that the season was not successful. It seems that even you recognize that I did not actually state the season was not successful. So the question is why you would take the time to call me out on something that is not that clear. Why are you going out of your way to get into an argument? You stated on the Bear insider that you would follow me around from site to site to make sure I didn't spread any untruths about any Beaver players. I told you that you seemed to not recognize the difference between fact and opinion. I also responded with my last post that I felt your agenda had little to do with defending Oregon St players but your own perspective and you were just using players as an excuse to justify your agenda. What ever that might be. It is a very rare individual who can assert in writing that a team was an example of a "failure of such a (star) system" and "not an example of success" and yet somehow honestly claim that he did not intend to imply (or more accurately post virtually those same words) that the 2016-2017 team was unsuccessful. Perhaps you are that rarity. I wrote what I meant to write and I explained it so you might understand. That is the best I can do. If you can not understand than it is your problem. But then it might not really about your understanding. As I stated before that your agenda might just be about harassment via prevarication.
Your logic is often baffling, prompting me to attempt to look through previous posts of yours to see where some foundation of your logic initially went wrong. After reading a number of your posts on this site and on TheBoneyard.com (UConn) website, I have often thought to myself, "Did he really mean that?" and/or "Is he being serious?" If my logic is so baffling to you perhaps you should quit trying to understand it. If it make you feel better than believe that I make no sense, but if that is true why not leave it to others to come to their own conclusion instead of working so hard to convince them by presenting posts out of context. |
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Apr 13, 2018 23:00:56 GMT -8
Willtalk... does it far too much... on multiple sites it seems... called out with his own direct quotes... still tries to BS his way as usual...
There was nothing "out of context" except for his blatant "arm chair coaching" posts. That is a lot of wasted space.
|
|
|
|
Post by lotrader on Apr 14, 2018 7:01:42 GMT -8
baseba1111, why don't you & willtalk drop it. Agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by baseba1111 on Apr 14, 2018 8:12:00 GMT -8
baseba1111, why don't you & willtalk drop it. Agree to disagree. For the same reason you don't read? Don't think his replies are to my posts... yet! Pretty obvious how quote function works. Thanks for trying. 😉 |
|
