The Return of Hope - Self motivated PG's vs. Athletic PG's
by giantkillerzags on Dec 1, 2011 1:27 PM PST
Email
Print
Hey all,
I don't know if any of you remember me from a few years back but I used to post on this site pretty regularly. My Zag fandom has not diminished, but I think many will agree that it's been tough sledding for us hardcore fans the past couple seasons. My goal for this team has always been to reach a Final Four, and I won't be satisfied until we do. We had been getting further away from that goal (especially last season). The reason I stopped writing here is I just didn't want to bring you all down with my negativity (even though some of it may have been warranted).
But enough of the depressing past; the reason why I am hear posting today is because I want to tell you why I have had my hope restored these past few weeks, and I think we are back on track to accomplishing the ultimate goal. The reason is simple; we have finally recruited a point guard that has a chance to succeed in this system.
As I've stated before, I think Few is a tremendous recruiter but his weakness as a coach lies in player development. This weakness was exposed most clearly in the tournament loss to North Carolina in the Sweet 16. We played that same NC team two years before and won with a clear talent advantage. Two years later we were blown out because all of a sudden Raymond Felton could shoot 3's. The key was player development; Felton (and others on his team) got MUCH better over the 2 years. Pargo arguably regressed from his sophomore to senior campaign. Why is that? Is Roy Williams that much better of a player developer?
I don't think Roy teaches shooting mechanics any different that Few. I do think that Roy deals with certain player personalities much differently than Few, and in the case of a player like Raymond Felton, Roy is able to get more.
Here's a list of the great guards in Zags history:
- Matt Santangelo
- Richie Frahm
- Blake Stepp
- Dan Dikua
- Matt Bouldin
- Adam Morrison
- Derek Ravio
What did these players all have in common? They were heady, self motivated players that all had an intuitive "feel" for the game before they ever arrived on campus. In other words, they were all "gym rats."These are the players Few is able to mold
Pargo and Goodsen, while both highly talented and athletic, never struck me as the type of self motivated "coach on the floor" type player. Our "athletic" guard recruits for whatever reason have not been able to fully develop in the zag system (especially in the shooting department). Even Austin Daye, who was a good shooter coming in, (but not what I would describe as "self motivated") did not improve from year to year.
Pangos strikes me as the next great "gym rat" we can pin our collective hopes on. This is a guy who understands the game as well as any incoming frosh I have seen enter the program. I base this on two things I've observed. First, almost all of his 3's are off the pass (catch and shoot). Shooting off the pass is the most fundamentally sound way to shoot and it gives you the best chance of making the basket. Zag guards have not always followed this rule. I'm pretty sure I never saw Pargo shoot a 3 off a pass.The second thing I am seeing is entry passes into the post to keep and extend leads. At times, zag teams have lost sight of this with a lead and lost because they didn't go to the post enough when they had a comfortable lead. It seems like Stockton and GBJ are taking notes because all three are playing fundamentally sound basketball.
It's been a long time since we have had guards that can truly blossom under Few's coaching style. I can't tell you how happy I am that we are back on track and I hope all of you are as excited about this team as I am! Even with the youth, this group has the potential to go where the others could not.
GO ZAGS!!!!!!!
This post does not reflect the views of the blog authors or SB Nation.
30 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
They also have a clearly different style of play than Goodson and Pargo...
Both players relied too strongly on their athleticism and speed, and were apt to driving the lane blindly instead of incorporating themselves into a half-court set. If you want to add Gary Bell to the first list, I get the impression he is a think first, drive second type of guard. But regardless, get the hell out of here with your implications of racial bias. You are adding nothing the the conversation with such a comment.
Zagnificent - GU Class of 2010
by Zagnificent on Dec 3, 2011 6:44 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
When you say Raymond Felton,
do you really mean Ty Lawson? — Who, by the way, was an absolute animal on the court; so freaking fast. His ability to shoot the three — come Junior year — made him unstoppable. In my opinion, I don’t think you can really compare Lawson to Pargo; Lawson was a ridiculously good college player. Plus, he had that other — we’ll say he was okay — player Hansbrough to alleviate any pressure he might have had on him.
As for Pargo, give the guy some more credit. He was pretty darn good, for how not very good he was. He worked his butt off and was a good — if not great — leader on and off the court. To me, Pargo did fit the mold of a Few guard. Unfortunately, he just wasn’t a good shooter — or end up as one — and was occasionally prone to severe meltdowns and fantastical disappearing acts. In my mind, Pargo was a very, very solid guard.
Goodson, on the other hand, was a total disaster. That’s the guy that didn’t fit the mold. Our team is much, much better now without Goodson — Loved his runner though!
Derek Raivio
was a huge part of that Gonzaga win way back and absent from the Roster in the 09 loss. But that UNC team was one of the best College teams ever, they steamrolled through the tournament, nobody stood a chance.
Pangos is something special, heck even Stockton is showing flashes of brilliance. I’m not sure if this year or next year will be our year. I don’t know how losing Sacre will effect us, and I’m anxious to see how Guy Landry will make his way into the lineup.
This team is a lot of fun to watch. It is much more enjoyable to watch Stockton Pangos and Bell on the court than watching Bouldin Gray and Goodson, just my opinion. Stockton Pangos and Bell seem like “basketball guys” guys that are truly motivated to be great, whereas Bouldin Gray and Goodson just seemed like talented guys who happened to play basketball.
Stockton
continues to impress me on both ends. He and Pangos both play a very intelligent style of basketball and are definitely true point guards. I don’t think we’ve seen such quality pg play since Raivio, possibly since Stepp.
Jeremy Pargo
Forever underrated. Oh well.
The Slipper Still Fits - SB Nation's home for the Gonzaga Bulldogs!
by Zach Bell on Dec 1, 2011 10:33 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Why
Why do you think that is? I feel like my memories of him are somewhat skewed…Maybe because he wasn’t a great shooter?
So true
He and Bouldin both never really showed up very often in big games against tough opponents but Pargo always seemed to take most of the criticism.
help
This post is very well-written, yet I’m thoroughly confused…
I’m trying my best to grasp the intent/meaning of this article: the great white hope? intrinsic players vs athletic players? riddle w/ stereotypes? I dunno, I guess I’m lost a bit on this one.
I can be pretty slow on occasion…can someone help explain this one to me — maybe in a sentence or two? Apologies ahead of time.
Again, well written & researched, but I don’t ‘get it’.
no stereotypes intended
What I am trying to say is that Few seems to have trouble developing a “game manager” from a raw, athletic talent. Guards who seem to succeed under Few already come into the program with those qualities. I think GBJ is a “heady” player who will also get better in this system (he is also not shooting jumpers off the dribble).
Roy Williams, Coach K, they don’t have this issue. Players like Goodsen and Pargo improve leaps and bounds. They become consistent shooters.
Pangos is extremely athletic, but it is not the cornerstone of his game. He’s the son of two coaches. Go to Youtube and there is a video of Pangos dunking with two hands in HS. Yet, he lays it up on the fast break. It’s a state of mind.
Correction: I do mean Ty Lawson
and I’m not saying we should have beat NC. Just that Lawson was able to dramatically increase his 3 pt % in 2 years. I think Pargo was a similar blue chip talent who could physically do everything Lawson could do and more (at times). Why did he not develop into a 45% outside shooter while a player like Bouldin (who struggled shooting early) did?
I thought that came across well.
From the title of the post, I thought you were going to be passing judgment on different players based on how well they did at Gonzaga (or using their Gonzaga performance to evaluate their characters), but I don’t think that’s what you did here. You’ve got a hypothesis about the kind of player who thrives under the Mark Few system (no judgment there), and you’ve provided some anecdotal evidence to support your hypothesis. It’s nothing against Pargo and Meech that they didn’t show the same improvement within Few’s system, but rather that Few has less success in developing those kinds of players.
I think it’s important to try to evaluate the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the Gonzaga program (i.e., the characteristics of the parts that don’t leave the school every few years, like the head coach) in order to divert resources into maximizing those strengths and minimizing the weaknesses. I’m not sure if your assessment of the system is completely correct, but I think you’ve got a good approach.
this all seems to be saying...
yeehaaaaw thank god GU is back to playing like the kids in Hoosiers!
What did these players all have in common? They were heady, self motivated players that all had an intuitive “feel” for the game before they ever arrived on campus. In other words, they were all “gym rats.”These are the players Few is able to mold
I would just LOVE for you to explain yourself on this one especially given that you go on to say
As I’ve stated before, I think Few is a tremendous recruiter but his weakness as a coach lies in player developmentIt appears you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand the kids who are self motivated and already have BB IQ do well. But those who have athletic ability do poorly. The common factor in both is still Few’s lack of coaching ability and developement…is it not? On one had you have kids who already have a good grasp…they do well…on the other you don’t and they suffer. What am I missing?
Shooting off the pass is the most fundamentally sound way to shoot and it gives you the best chance of making the basket.
Is that so? Well then Matt Santangelo, Frahm, Stepp, Dickau and Ravio were not fundamentally sound. They all shot off the dribble…a lot. So did Morrison, though he was not a guard. Santangelo made a living off a pretty floater in the lane.
we have finally recruited a point guard that has a chance to succeed in this system.
I agree and his name is David Stockton. This system suits him, and Pangos can operate in it….but the flip side is GBJ will suffer under this same system. Maybe you will then accuse him of not being Heady, or self motivated…and not living up to his potential. hmmmm???
If you don't like my fire then don't come around...
I don't see the contradiction
Few’s not a perfect coach. He has aspects of player development that he’s good at, and others where he’s not so great. I think giantkillerzags is just saying that some players fit better into Few’s strengths as a player developer than others do.
also...
I think giantkillerzags is just saying that some players fit better into Few’s strengths as a player developer than others do.
that is to say: it is the players fault Mark Few can’t develop them cause they don’t fit into the mold he needs in order to teach them. So now I see, it was Pargo and Daye and Down’s fault Mark Few could not develop them. makes perfect sense!
If you don't like my fire then don't come around...
I think you're adding the word "fault" here.
It’s not Pargo’s or Daye’s fault that they didn’t fit into Few’s strengths — rather it’s simply a mismatch. They still improved at Gonzaga and made huge contributions to the team, but they didn’t fall right into Few’s “sweet spot” and weren’t able to get maximum benefit from his player development approach. I don’t think it’s as simple as giantkillerzags is proposing, and I think he could’ve used better labels than “self-motivated” and “athletic,” but I think you’re putting words into his mouth.
What I’m trying to say is, maybe I don’t really like your fire. I wonder if there’s something I should do about that.
indeed
and talk in circles all you want, the culpabiltity lies with one or the other. And he described them as weakness and I say faults. Of course you seem to want to have it both ways. If they succeed then they are in Few’s “sweet spot” whatever the hell that is suppose to mean….and if they are not then it is no ones fault, it just happened apart from any action or lack there of by Mark Few.
my fire…I imagine your milk toast view of the world wouldn’t….and I have some suggestions.
If you don't like my fire then don't come around...
Sheesh.
I tried to set you up to make a joke about your signature, and all I get in return is a malapropism.
Milk toast doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Come to think of it, I don’t think milquetoast does either.
ah...
Of course it does, but the meaning intended is eluding you….but…white-ever.
If you don't like my fire then don't come around...
I would be more inclined to blame Few than the players (esp in Pargo's case)
But I’m not trying to assign fault, just postulating on why some players get so much better (like bouldin) while others seem to stagnate in this system.
This post was not made to bash Pargo. I loved Pargo when he was here, I just think he would have developed more as a shooter in a different system. It seems to be a personality thing because I’m pretty sure Pargo is a good outside shooter over seas now. His shooting improved markedly under a different coach/system.
IMO Few is better at developing/coaching “gym rats” with a lower athletic ceiling than he is at coaching/developing raw players with a high athletic ceiling (I would imagine most coaches have an easier time with gym rats except for guys like Calipari). I don’t think it has anything to do with Few’s b-ball knowledge or day to day methods, but rather his personality clashing with players who lack certain “game manager” qualities.
by giantkillerzags on Dec 2, 2011 1:40 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
It seems as though our recent guards have improved year by year,
but really, they were who they were/are; and in the end, they really didn’t improve year by year because, well, they were who they were/are. Follow? No? Yes!? Perfect!
Looking back through some statistics revealed a certain FG% and a certain 3PT% that represented who that guard was, statistically speaking. Sometimes they were above that number, sometimes they were below that number; but, realistically, they stayed around that certain number — revealing who they were/are. So, even though we thought a player was improving year by year — at, say, their 3PT% — they were, in reality, just having another year. I am not going to say what that certain number was/is, because you can figure that out yourself by looking through the stats, but that number does exist; it exists because it was/is who that guard was/is.
Now the stats (from a few guards you mentioned above):
Pargo – FG% 3PT%
05/06 – 27.9 – 22.9
06/07 – 48.6 – 37.3
07/08 – 49.7 – 26.5
08/09 – 47.9 – 35.9
Bouldin – FG% 3PT%
06/07 – 44.8 – 36.3
07/08 – 46.2 – 36.5
08/09 – 49.1 – 42.3
09/10 – 45.1 – 36.5
Ravio – FG% 3PT%
03/04 – 48.4 – 48.9
04/05 – 42.7 – 45.8
05/06 – 38.8 – 35.8
06/07 – 45.3 – 40.9
Stepp – FG% 3PT%
01/02 – 39.3 – 35.6
02/03 – 43.1 – 40.3
03/04 – 43.5 – 38.1
Morrison – FG% 3PT%
03/04 – 53.0 – 30.9
04/05 – 49.8 – 31.1
05/06 – 49.6 – 42.8 (biggest improvement — ridiculous)
by ZigZags on Dec 2, 2011 3:36 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Steven Gray
07/08 – 49.2 – 46.3 (that’s why I initially liked him so much — and we all had such high hopes)
08/09 – 45.0 – 35.9
09/10 – 46.1 – 32.9
10/11 – 41.0 – 37.2
you can only credit, or dismiss a coach's input so much
guys like Magic, Stockton, and Isiah Thomas have an innate, more mental than physical, ability to tell what team needs, and deliver… Nothing to do with race,
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
