We'll never know on this board, of course. :drinks:Quote:
Originally Posted by X-ceptional
Printable View
We'll never know on this board, of course. :drinks:Quote:
Originally Posted by X-ceptional
He made 4 three's in game, something neither Semaj Christon ever did or Ed has done. He's got solid form on his shot, better than both Semaj and Ed. Semaj had a funky chicken wing elbow and Ed kind of flicks it up there.Quote:
Originally Posted by XMuskieFTW
I don't think it's out of the question for Goodin to make 35% of his threes, especially if they're solid, open looks. He's not going to make 3 or 4 a game obviously, but he could knock down 1 or 2 a game, and that would be a big help for this offense.
This made me laugh. So true. If there's a chance in hell Ed or anyone in his ear is reading this board, I sure hope they take it with a giant grain. If we shot the ball like this (last few games) when Ed was in the lineup, we'd have 20+ wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by SemajParlor
Semaj Christon isn't really relevant here (though both Ed and Goodin are probably better shooters).Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
As for Ed, I imagine if he was left as wide-freaking-open as Q was, he would hit a few threes. Creighton gave Q the same treatment that UC gave Dee Davis his senior year; they chose not to guard him. Just as Dee was not as good of a shooter as his 5-5 on practice threes, so too is Q not as good as his 4-7 on practice threes. I do not get how people somehow try to reason that Q is a better shooter because he had ONE good shooting game when no one guarded him.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
In a renewed effort to get the thread back on point, all you have to say is you would or would not put both Ed and Q on the same floor at the same time, with Q at the point. Your answer will instantly reveal your basketball IQ......or maybe you overall IQ.
Ed air-balled a wide open 3 earlier this year in Cintas. Also, teams play off Ed because they know he can't shoot. I agree, anointing Q the next Steph wild, but I don't think it's inaccurate to say that we could have more hope for Q's outside shot than Ed's.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09
Q has airballed multiple threes, regardless I think he's a better shooter.
He will have to show me that he is a better than 50% free throw shooter before I would agree that he is capable of shooting 35% of his threes.Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
Realistically there was likely not enough tape for a true assessment so Creighton took the approach they thought would work and got burned. However, teams that play us still have to guard Tre and JP from the three and at least some on Kaiser so Q is likely to get some open threes with those guys around.Quote:
Originally Posted by mirabilelectu
I think he's marginally better than Ed from 3. Like I said though, I'd be very happy with 32% from him and he's the last one I'd want taking a three outside the centers. His shot has greatly improved from last year to this, so hopefully that can continue.
I'm still a little unsure why we're working under the impression that Ed playing off the ball with Goodin has more net value than Ed playing point. But sure I'd give it a try and see. I suspect that idea was floated around the coaching staff a few times this year - especially with an unexpected change in the starting backcourt. They seemed to implement it situationally against SJU's very small backcourt.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOX
If they're on the floor at the same time... fine, have Q at the "point" but I think it would really be in name only. In reality, the positions in basketball get increasingly nebulous with each passing year (I mean, does anyone really think Tre is a "power" forward, even though we technically play him at the 4 sometimes?). If anything, I would say we have two point guards on the floor, and while Q may fit the definition of a "true" PG, whatever that may be, in certain situations, I would still want the ball in the more experienced of the two's hands (i.e., if a team were pressing, etc.).Quote:
Originally Posted by GOX
But if there can be only one (Highlander style), I'll echo what I think AviatorX said earlier in the thread: As of right now (if not for the injury of course), I would choose Ed 100/100 times, AND THAT IS NOT A KNOCK ON Q AT ALL.
Au contraire...I have a reasonable mind, and I differ with myself all the damn time.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoMuskies
This whole phenomenon spreading that it's a good thing Ed got hurt is absurd. I think they feel a sense of urgency without him that they didn't before, but if our supporting cast had been playing like this before Edmond was hurt we'd never have fallen out of the top ten. This is insulting to one of the most talented players to ever play at Xavier. Trevon, JP, and Kaiser are all shooting much better and Kaiser is probably our best rebounder at this point. Tyrique and Q are fully comfortable and asserting their will. None of this was happening for much of the season. The emergence of Kaiser, Q, and Rique and re-emergence of Tre is the real story. I would like to see the Q at point, Ed at 2 line-up and I think it might be a more ideal set-up, but in no way was Ed going down a positive thing.
Of course we would be better with Ed, but can we not be happy with the fact that perhaps we can win even without Ed? I believe that is what people are saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by scoscox
So Ed played 696 minutes this year and made 12 three pointers at a 27% clip.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09
Goodin has played 385 minutes and has made 9 threes pointers at a .375% clip.
Ed really wasn't even a threat from three. That's why I'm struggling to see him have a long NBA career, even fully healthy. You HAVE to be able to shoot in the NBA. Freakin' DeMarcus Cousins can stroke it from deep. I mean, just about every wing and guard can shoot the ball.
I'm not saying Goodin is going to make 4 threes a game, certainly not, but he is going to be a legitimate threat from three, unlike Ed.
And please, I am NOT knocking Ed. We would be SO much better with Ed in the lineup, along with Goodin.
RaJon rondo, John wall and numerous other point guards completely disagree with you that you have to be able to shoot in the NBA to have a successful career.Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
Those are all-star caliber players. Why do you think Semaj struggling to stick in the NBA? He was shooting 19% from three before he got sent down the NBDL. He is big enough and athletic enough to play in the NBA, but he can't shoot a lick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
And therein lies the conundrum..... You can't make it if you can't shoot, but you can be an All Star if you can't shoot. Ummm, which is it? I'll wait and see, because I have no idea. A decent shot would certainly help.Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
Are you worried that pretty much half of Q's makes came in one game that could be a complete outlier? Not sure there's really enough of a sample to say he'll definitely be a better shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
So u can not shoot a lick yet be an all star caliber player. You just proved my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
Yeah, and Q has airballed multiple threes. I don't think an airball here and there is actually relevant next to the overall shooting, but hey, if you want to bring it up, it just supports my skepticism. Yes, defenders have played off Ed, but there are degrees of playing off a guy. No one has regularly played as far off Ed as the Creighton defense played off Q. Heck, Creighton didn't even contest some of Q's attempts. They basically told him to shoot it like Xavier told Angel Delgado to shoot the midrange jumper in the game before.Quote:
Originally Posted by mirabilelectu
We might have hopes for his shot long-term, but I'm not expecting much as a freshman.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Following this thread helped me get through work today. Thanks everybody!
You have at least improved from treating a single game as substantial. Still, they are very small sample sizes. I don't know why you're using minutes played when we have the actual number of attempts. Ed has only 44 attempts on the season while Q has a measly 24 attempts. The margin of error (with 95% confidence) on Ed's "true shooting percentage" is +/-13%. For Q, it's +/-19%. Those are massive margins of error. Heck, Q actually falls just short of the minimum number of attempts needed to justify assuming a normal distribution. That's how small the sample size is.Quote:
Originally Posted by X Factor
I've never thought that you or most on this board are actually bashing Ed. I just think we shouldn't expect Q to be noticeabley better than Ed as a shooter. It's a possibility, but they are more likely on a similar level.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
It's possible that I hated Stats more than Theology. Tough call....
I guess the difference between our POVs is that I can remember teams playing off of Ed too, far enough that he could have gotten shots off and chose not to. Kind of why, for me, the minutes played stat is still meaningful (though I agree, your point about margin of error makes the comparison almost moot); I guess I feel like Ed has a proclivity for going to the hole, and some of that stems from his confidence in his shot. Great stats though re: their percentages.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09
The greatest 3 point shooter in the history of the game
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN26NOMARJ8
Not Really. You can be an NBA point guard with no shot if you are an EXTRAORIDARY floor coach and and have an EXCEPTIONAL eye for the open man and play EXCEPTIONAL defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xville
Ed has no outside shot, is distracted with finding his path to the basket, and is not a defensive stalwart .
Ed is an EXCEPTIONAL athlete who plays basketball. The NBA s scouts were so impressed with his ATHLETICISM they would take a chance on building out his body and game.
It is understandable that the average equated his athleticism with his basketball skills. But we on this Board are not average.
I beg your pardon, but I aspire to be average one day!Quote:
Originally Posted by GOX
Your original point was that you have to be able to shoot in the NBA, I pointed out two that are very medicare shooters that have had long successful NBA careers. Sumner can develop the other parts of his game to have a successful career.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOX
You stated that Semaj can't stick because he can't shoot and equated rhat as to why Sumner can't make it. Semaj has more problems than not being able to shoot. Shooting is only one reason why he isn't sticking.
Didn't read the whole thing just the first post. My opinion is JP is not a starter. He is energy off the bench and the best sixth man in the league. It is a moot point now but if Ed was still playing I would say our optimal lineup would be Q at 1, Ed at 2, Blueitt at 3, Tyrique at 4 Gaston at 5 with JP, Bernard, Gates and Omara coming off the bench. Of course he is done for the year so that is pretty pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by GOX
Why on earth would you start both Tyrique and Gaston? Why would you sit one of our best offensive players? Makes no sense at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by nasdadjr
You're entitled to your opinion.
And you thought X couldn't shoot before! Imagine that lineup.Quote:
Originally Posted by nasdadjr
I don't know why people still think a two-big lineup is a good idea. Jones and Gaston have half a jump shot between them. It would be one thing if one of those guys could stretch the floor, but if you threw out a lineup with Jones and Gaston together on a regular basis, you would see defenses pack in more than Xavier did against Seton Hall.
You just never had me as a professor ;-). See, that's your problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by xu82
Let's see how he does vs Nova before we warm up the chrism. M thrilled he has shown us three very good games, and that he seems to be maturing before our eyes. It's a silver lining to Ed going down, true. BUT.........All the rest of this discussion is angels on the head of a pin HOOEY.
Concerning the original topic, the coaches did play Goodin and Ed alongside each other from time to time, and I did like that look. Still, there's too much talent on the team to put out that look consistently, and Ed at point guard did have one of the better assist rates in the country. The team itself seems to be moving off the ball with more urgency now that Ed's gone, but frankly, they should have been doing that already, considering the missed opportunities this team has had.
Good luck on Blueitt ever getting an open shot with that lineup. A bunch of layup attempts and one three point shooter.Quote:
Originally Posted by AviatorX
To be fair, Mack has gone with two-big lineup's in the past. Farr and Reynolds sometimes started together, as did Frease-Walker, McLean-Frease, and McLean-Love. These weren't always his go-to pairing, but they were frequent. Depending on the match up, and with our shooters, I think packing it in is exactly what we want.Quote:
Originally Posted by XUFan09
In the past 2 years we've lacked the depth to do this, and this year we've lacked the talent.
Farr and Reynolds were both capable of stepping away from the basket and scoring. Our present big men can't do that at this time. With this group Gates has to be the second big man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Caf