RE: Chauncey vs Marcus

[Ryan W <ubiquitous_am_i@xxxxxxxxx>]

--- Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 07:18 PM 11/4/2003, Ryan W wrote:
> >Good point, Kim.  I'm assuming that you're assuming
> >that Mike James is not this type of player (that
> is,
> >the veteran player capable of teaching Marcus by
> >repeatedly burning him in practice)...
> 
> Actually not what I believe I originally said (a
> post before the one this 
> was in reply to). Not a veteran player in general, a
> specific type - a 
> crafty veteran classic PG, since those are the
> skills we want the 
> accellerated learning on.

Ah, the light bulb goes off...

> 
> >yet don't you
> >think he gets by (that is, if you think he is
> getting
> >by--I do, btw) on his veteran savvy as opposed to
> any
> >sort of physical attributes?
> 
> Well no, I think it's a mix and heavier on
> skills/hustle, but also see 
> above about why he doesn't fit the role regardless.
> He's another crossover 
> guard with PG skills, not a classic pure PG. Better
> PG, probably not as 
> good a pure shooter as Delk, but similar type.
> 
> >  As such, it seems a safe
> >assumption that when James is beating Banks in
> >practice (he must be, since James is starting over
> >Banks),
> 
> Nope, don't agree with this either. Banks could be
> beating him one on one 
> but James gets the start because he gives us the
> best chance to win and 
> issues with his own development don't interfer as
> much with the other 
> development issues on the court. That last is one
> that gets ignored too 
> many times in discussion over who is and isn't
> getting PT and why.

Good point, but is O'Brien smart enough to think about
this factor?  I doubt it.  Don't get me wrong, I think
O'Brien is a fantastic coach (not with in-game
strategy changes, or in player development, however),
but I think he's more practical in making his
determinations (i.e., if a players busts his ass in
practice, he plays, no bullshit about how it might
affect another's development).  This "issues with his
own development not inteferring much with the other
development issues on the court" substitutional
rationale might fly with Jackson or other
intellectually driven coaches, but not with O'Brien
(not to say that O'Brien is stupid; I'm just saying
he's more pragmatic).
  
> 
> >  he is already providing the "learning by
> >failure" model you propose below.
> 
> Not the intensive training one on a particular
> skillset I had originally 
> proposed. While he's also young and athletic enough
> that that could be seen 
> by the student as a significant factor in his
> getting beaten vs the 
> difference in pure PG skills, blurring the intended
> lesson about how 
> important they are.

So, who are we talking about?  Mark Jackson?  
> 
> Look, maybe this will help make what I'm talking
> about clear. I'm female. 
> I'm about 5'10" and have been since about 6th grade.
> I grew up playing 
> hoops, as tall as or taller than most of the boys
> (small town with limited 
> gene pool <g>), playing a lot of inside banger post
> game. Which do you 
> think would make a bigger impression about the
> importance of things like 
> boxing out - getting beaten by another slightly less
> athletic but more 
> experienced guy or by *horrors* a girl with really
> good technique who 
> played smart with more tenacity than grace? That's
> why my original post 
> said I wish they had a crafty veteran PG he would
> see as past his prime or 
> someone who never was as athletic to beat him purely
> as a PG and school him 
> on how it's done in practice.
> 
> Kim

So basically you're advocating that we bring in a
bunch of women to play against Marcus and when they
beat him with their superior minds he'll suddenly see
the light and become a savvy point himself.  Good plan
(and I'm only half kidding)

Ryan 


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree