PDA

View Full Version : Gottlieb on Top PGs for '08-09



SilkyJ
09-18-2008, 12:03 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3592848&name=ncbexperts&univLogin02=stateChanged

Insider article so apologies to those who can't view it. A snip it or two: They've got Collison at #1, Lawson #3, Curry #8, Vasquez #10. Little surprised by the Vasquez selection. He's good, very good at times, but I don't know if he'd make my top 10.

I think Greg has an opportunity to crack the top 10 by the end of the year. He'll be pushed by Nolan, but hopefully that will only make him (and nolan) better.

riverside6
09-18-2008, 12:33 PM
I'm going to go the other way with Vasquez (http://www.scacchoops.com/players.asp?search=greivis vasquez), I'm a bit surprised he's not higher on the list. Erratic yes, but the numbers (17 ppg, 6.8 apg, 5.7 rpg) he put up as a sophomore are pretty incredible.

The comps we have for Vasquez (http://www.scacchoops.com/tt_player_page.asp?nologin=1&reporttype=Details&total=yes&hleague=0&howner=all&hplayer=324&pp=yes&season=2009&comparableplayers=-1) on scacchoops.com have pretty low comp scores which means it's difficult to find a player like him in ACC history.

weezie
09-18-2008, 12:37 PM
Reading or listening to Gottleib is just a price hoops fans have to pay for their addiction.

greybeard
09-18-2008, 12:49 PM
I'm going to go the other way with Vasquez (http://www.scacchoops.com/players.asp?search=greivis vasquez), I'm a bit surprised he's not higher on the list. Erratic yes, but the numbers (17 ppg, 6.8 apg, 5.7 rpg) he put up as a sophomore are pretty incredible.

The comps we have for Vasquez (http://www.scacchoops.com/tt_player_page.asp?nologin=1&reporttype=Details&total=yes&hleague=0&howner=all&hplayer=324&pp=yes&season=2009&comparableplayers=-1) on scacchoops.com have pretty low comp scores which means it's difficult to find a player like him in ACC history.

John Roche, South Carolina, similar size, temperment (hot doggy/irreverent and intense), and style.

riverside6
09-18-2008, 01:03 PM
Thanks greybeard, I'm always interested to hear about guys like this. John Roche (http://www.scacchoops.com/tt_archived_player_page.asp?hArchivedHeader=1674) wasn't quite the rebounder, it appears from the numbers, and unfortunately I don't have assists numbers from those years.

In researching I found this great article on Roche (http://www.thestateonline.com/history/files/20030309_A10.pdf) (link to PDF).

gw67
09-18-2008, 02:20 PM
riverside - I agree with you. I've seen him play a number of times and he is an excellent passer, good scorer and rebounder, and a decent defender. Roche was a good player who played with a chip on his shoulder. IMO, he was a better shooter/scorer than Vasquez but nowhere near the passer, rebounder or defender. He was also 3-4 inches shorter than Vasquez.

gw67

greybeard
09-18-2008, 02:39 PM
riverside - I agree with you. I've seen him play a number of times and he is an excellent passer, good scorer and rebounder, and a decent defender. Roche was a good player who played with a chip on his shoulder. IMO, he was a better shooter/scorer than Vasquez but nowhere near the passer, rebounder or defender. He was also 3-4 inches shorter than Vasquez.

gw67

Maybe I thought he was taller because of his mouth. :rolleyes: I thought the offense sort of ran through him, and that he distributed the ball quite well. I also thought he was a good rebounder and defender; however, South Carolina was real big up front, and he had to do less of both.

Also, the game was different back then. Before Knight emerged as a force, in-your face defense as soon as one passed half court and were not in a place where you could attack or score the ball was not part of the game. Close guarding that far away, especially the bodying-up parts of today's game, would probably have been called a defensive foul. So, I don't think giving V the edge as a defender is accurate. Rouch was pretty rough as a defender, which was where I saw the comparison to V.

Also, Frank McGuire built that team to outscore people, and intimidate physically. Gary's team had some of the latter in it, especially from V and especially in the second game against Duke. In that game, I remember thinking he reminded me attitude-wise of Roche.

gw67
09-18-2008, 03:19 PM
greybeard - good points; particularly, the difference in playing styles. I know that teams back then didn't make a distinction between a point guard and a shooting guard but I believe that Cremins handled the ball while Roche was primarily a scorer (and a very good one at that without the luxury of the 3-point shot). I should not have compared Roche and Vasquez on the defensive end because I don't recall Roche being particularly good or bad on defense. Vasquez, on the other hand, has played some outstanding defensive games within conference the past two years. Where Roche is clearly better was his consistency. Vasquez will be a superstar one night (capable of triple doubles and good D) and out of sync the next game.

My memory differs from yours on one other issue - the emergence of today's chest-to-chest defense. You attribute it to Bob Knight and certainly his undefeated national champion team had two outstanding defensive guards. However, I think that John Thompson and his Hoyas were primarily responsible for changing the way coaches recruited and played the game. In general, he recruited and played kids who were so-so shooters but who were very quick, and his style was to rely on a very tight defense. After he won his championship, many schools start recruiting "athletes" who needed to refine their basketball skills. IMO, it is only in recent years where many of the terrific athletes coming out of high school are also good all around basketball players.

Just my two cents.

gw67

greybeard
09-18-2008, 06:17 PM
greybeard - good points; particularly, the difference in playing styles. I know that teams back then didn't make a distinction between a point guard and a shooting guard but I believe that Cremins handled the ball while Roche was primarily a scorer (and a very good one at that without the luxury of the 3-point shot). I should not have compared Roche and Vasquez on the defensive end because I don't recall Roche being particularly good or bad on defense. Vasquez, on the other hand, has played some outstanding defensive games within conference the past two years. Where Roche is clearly better was his consistency. Vasquez will be a superstar one night (capable of triple doubles and good D) and out of sync the next game.

My memory differs from yours on one other issue - the emergence of today's chest-to-chest defense. You attribute it to Bob Knight and certainly his undefeated national champion team had two outstanding defensive guards. However, I think that John Thompson and his Hoyas were primarily responsible for changing the way coaches recruited and played the game. In general, he recruited and played kids who were so-so shooters but who were very quick, and his style was to rely on a very tight defense. After he won his championship, many schools start recruiting "athletes" who needed to refine their basketball skills. IMO, it is only in recent years where many of the terrific athletes coming out of high school are also good all around basketball players.

Just my two cents.

gw67

We are not far apart. I think Knight made stiffling/over powering half-court defense acceptable, perhaps by his sheer force of personality--anyway, the refs did not stand up to it as they might have.

While when you played a Knight team you had to fight for space, any space, once you passed half court, Thompson took that concept to an unimaginable level. He made you fight for space even to walk onto the court. 90-feet worth. In order to do that, he not only needed exceptional athletes, he needed a lot of them and also needed to be able and willing to deploy them.

I was a terrific fan of Georgetown's from the time Thompson's first class arrived, Bebe and Shelton, and the next year Sleepy. However, I am not a fan of where his full-court all-out-pressure took the game. And, after you pointed it out, yes, perhaps more even than Knight, he popularized the notion that you could take someone's legs and will by making them compete about space, not space that was strategically important to attacking the basket, space that had no strategic value whatever.

And, even in the half court, you are right that Thompson took what Knight's teams were doing to a whole other level. His approach was much more dynamic. The overplay Georgetown employed was extraordinary because it required people way on the perimeter to beat their man off the bounce while still being miles from an attack position only to confront the rest of the defense deploying in high speed with the guy you just beat either catching you from behind or anticipating a latteral passing lane and being in it, you never knew which. Knight was more methodical in his deployments; guys wer forced into vulnerable positions and attacked there. Thompson was happy just to make them bounce the thing to be able to breath only once they started to move he took their ability to breath away.

It wasn't just that he had superior athletes who had a will to defend, the guy had them moving to make adjustments at high speed that were near impossible to read, and when someone needed a blow, he didn't hesitate and there were guys as athletic and smart as those they replaced. It was remarkable.

But, alas, it did not last for John for a variety of reasons, parity for one, and brought changes to the world of defense that I personally do not like. However, the door to all this I always felt was opened by Knight, who used to deploy strong tenacious guards and forwards who bullied guys on the court, preventing screens, preventing normal movement, which uglified the game.

Thompson's innovations were at least to a Georgetown fan tremendously exciting because it was like a high wire act. What we are left with in the main is just too much contact on the court that goes uncalled for my taste.

JBDuke
09-19-2008, 12:49 AM
I'm going to go the other way with Vasquez (http://www.scacchoops.com/players.asp?search=greivis vasquez), I'm a bit surprised he's not higher on the list. Erratic yes, but the numbers (17 ppg, 6.8 apg, 5.7 rpg) he put up as a sophomore are pretty incredible.

The comps we have for Vasquez (http://www.scacchoops.com/tt_player_page.asp?nologin=1&reporttype=Details&total=yes&hleague=0&howner=all&hplayer=324&pp=yes&season=2009&comparableplayers=-1) on scacchoops.com have pretty low comp scores which means it's difficult to find a player like him in ACC history.

He reminds me a lot of Bob Sura. Vasquez is 6'6", 190, 17 ppg, 6.8 apg, 5.7 rpg. Sura was 6'5", 200, and his senior year stats were 17.9 ppg, 5.4 apg, 6.9 rpg. Both can cause a coach heartburn with the number of TOs. Both have the "hot dogging" style. Both can be a lot of fun to watch.

Jim3k
09-19-2008, 02:05 AM
Both greybeard and gw67 are crediting Knight with the stifling defensive schemes we are now used to -- with a nod to John Thompson.

They were applying that technique to man-to-man defenses and I agree there is credit to be give out. However, the in your face all the time stuff was actually begun by Duke's Vic Bubas and instantly followed by -- urk! -- Dean Smith. Smith wrote a book about it and has been given/taken credit for the concept -- but it was Bubas trying something suggested originally by Willis Case which started it all. All three coaches frequently used mtm, but they began this type of close guarding when using the zone. It was sometimes called a 'jump-in.' I think they thought using it in mtm would too quickly tire out the defenders. We now know it to be a matter of conditioning, but in the early 60's it was too new for its limits to be understood and coaches proceeded cautiously.

I suspect it grew from early success with some of the gimmick defenses, such as the box and one or other man-zone hybrids. The man defender was assigned as a stopper for a specific offensive player. So that guy would get right in the target's jock and stay there. That eventually led to trying it with more than one player.

Early practitioners for Duke were Denny Ferguson, Ron Herbster and Steve Vacendak . The first two were known as 'Heckle and Jeckle' because of their close and somewhat frenetic guarding tactics. Think Wojo x 2. Vacendak got to the varsity the following year and won a starting job. He guarded the same way.

Even before them, both Heyman and Mullins tried something similar in the forecourt. It was not as discernible, but it was one of the reasons Heyman was considered an excellent defender -- he was adept at stealing. The centers, Jay Buckley and Hack Tison were not quick enough to avoid fouling, so did not utilize the technique.

And, as an aside, there was indeed such a thing as a point guard in some programs in Roche's day and earlier. John Wooden referred to that player in the UCLA system as the 'lead guard.' AFAIK, he still uses the term. I never could figure out if the lead was Goodrich or Hazzard, but still...

Let's give Bubas his credit.

dukemomLA
09-19-2008, 04:11 AM
Don't disagree with some of his choices, but Gottlieb is an idiot most, almost all of the time. How do some of these guys (...and yes, guys -- since most of the female folk working in sports have some degree of integrity) keep their jobs. sigh....

Olympic Fan
09-19-2008, 10:22 AM
Just to correct one misconception here -- Bobby Cremins never played point guard or anything like it. He was NEVER a primary ballhandler for the 'Cocks.

He played three varsity seasons. As a sophomore in 1968, he joined a team that had four returning starters -- senior Jack Thompson was the primary ballhandler, although senior Skip Harlicka also played in the backcourt, where he was the primary scorer and the team's secondary ballhandler. Up front, McGuire started senior Gary Gregor (listed at 6-6 by the Gamecocks, but measured at 6-8 in the NBA), senior Frank Thompson, a 6-3 forward who was a terrific rebounder, and the sophomore Cremins. He played forward ...

With four senior starters gone, Cremins returned to forward as a junior as sophomore John Roche and sophomore Billy Walsh shared the backcourt. Up front, Cremins joined soph Tom Owens, a slender 6-11, and soph John Ribock, a burly 6-8 thug.

Nobody else played any significant moments that season (when SC lost to Duke in the ACC Tournament semifinals, McGuire went the distance with five guys ... the only subs played in mopup time.

A year later, Cremins finally moved into the backcourt when Walsh flunked out of school and heralded center Tom Riker joined the lineup. Owens moved to PF and Ribock to SF -- a role he was unsuited for, which led to greatly reduced minutes as McGuire sometimes used 6-7 soph Rick Aydlett or 6-2 soph guard Bob Carver in his place. When Carver played, Cremins moved back to forward.

Now, you can dismiss positions if you want -- I know both DeMarcus Nelson and Jon Scheyer played forward in Coach K's three guard set, but Cremins really played that position in terms of the way he played . It should be noted that he averaged 6.8 rebounds (and 7.6 points) in his three-year career. He was closer to DeMarcus Nelson than to a point guard.

Cremins' first season, the Gamecocks were a bit more freeflowing and flexible, but in his junior year, because of the total lack of depth, McGuire played an extremely slow game. The ball was ALWAYS in Roche's hand. Their offense largely consisted of a two-man game that Roche and Owens ran -- a kind of Stockton/Malone pick and role. Defensively, the Gamecocks played a very tight, but unaggressive 2-3 zone ... how unaggressive? South Carolina led the nation in 1969 and 1970 in fewest fouls per game.

The offense (but not the defense) opened up a little bit in 1970. McGuire used seven players and not five. But the ball was still in Roche's hands.

While the term wasn't used so much in that era, in hindsight, he was clearly the point guard, even though he was the team's primary scorer.

Roche was a great offensive player -- his 22.5 career scoring average was misleading since the Gamecocks played at such a slow tempo (he had a good 45.0 FG percentage). Too bad we don't have his assist totals -- they would have been decent. But unlike Vasquez, he was never asked to rebound (2.5 a game for his career) and he wasn't asked to assert himself on defense -- he hid in the zone.

I like the comparison of Vasquez and Sura a lot more than any comparison with John Roche.

jimsumner
09-19-2008, 01:33 PM
Agree. The Sura comparison makes a lot more sense than the Roche one. GV thinks the best comparision is Maravich, or at least he plays like it. A fun player to watch but his tendency to take risks drives GW crazy. If he had some John Lucas-style discipline, he'd be a much better player, IMO. Maybe not as exciting to watch, however.

Remember last year's Duke-UMD game in CIS? The Crazies clearly got to Vasquez and he decided to show them. Made some nice plays but also made some what-was-he-thinking-plays and totally lost any concept of team play.

Of course, given Maryland's apparent lack of inside strength this season we may see GV shoot as often as Maravich. Who's he supposed to pass to? Landon Milbourne?

jimsumner
09-19-2008, 01:36 PM
"Nobody else played any significant moments that season (when SC lost to Duke in the ACC Tournament semifinals, McGuire went the distance with five guys ... the only subs played in mopup time."

Actually, neither team used a sub during the entire game, a 68-59 Duke win.

riverside6
09-19-2008, 01:56 PM
He reminds me a lot of Bob Sura. Vasquez is 6'6", 190, 17 ppg, 6.8 apg, 5.7 rpg. Sura was 6'5", 200, and his senior year stats were 17.9 ppg, 5.4 apg, 6.9 rpg. Both can cause a coach heartburn with the number of TOs. Both have the "hot dogging" style. Both can be a lot of fun to watch.
Completely agree about Sura (http://www.scacchoops.com/players.asp?search=bob sura), although earlier on in his career he wasn't asked to be the playmaker that Vasquez has been.

Olympic Fan
09-19-2008, 03:46 PM
"Nobody else played any significant moments that season (when SC lost to Duke in the ACC Tournament semifinals, McGuire went the distance with five guys ... the only subs played in mopup time."

Actually, neither team used a sub during the entire game, a 68-59 Duke win.

Sorry ... that was a badly written sentence. I MEANT to say that the only subs McGuire used all season were at mopup time.

That's one reason they lost to Army in the second round of the NIT. After SC beat Southern Illinois in the opener, they returned to their hotel. As the players entered through a revolving door, Billy Walsh stuck his hand through the glass front of the door, badly cutting his right hand. He was unable to play against Army and McGuire simply didn't have another player to use in the game ... which allowed Army to concentrate on Roche, the team's only ballhandler and perimeter scorer.

micah75
09-19-2008, 05:13 PM
Up front, McGuire started senior Gary Gregor (listed at 6-6 by the Gamecocks, but measured at 6-8 in the NBA), senior Frank Thompson, a 6-3 forward who was a terrific rebounder, and the sophomore Cremins. He played forward ...

You probably meant Frank Standard there, if memory serves me, who was indeed a great rebounder, especially for his size.

Very nice summary of those Gamecock lineups during the Cremins/Roche era. Roche was indeed the primary ballhandler.