Blair vs Grooms

[NickZepp]

Who cares about how high Grooms is or was recruited? That means nothing, it'll be if he can prove himself to be a better ball handler and can play the system better than Blair. Recruiting rankings shouldn't mean a thing. They did with our last coach and that got us in trouble with some of those guys.

 

[campbest]

I'm not high on the Grooms signing, think he is just a stop-gap guy as others have mentioned. The one inherent advantage Grooms does have is the fact he is a Kruger recruit. Always a bit skeptical of the late spring JUCO commitment.

 

[seniorsooner]

2/15/11 THE CARDINAL CONNECT -"Coach Pitino is stating to show interest in 4 star juco Sam Grooms. Grooms has yet to land an offer from a major program, but, is considered to be one of the best juco point guards in the country. North Carolina, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Houston are all activly recruiting him" 2/26/11 The Times Picayune reported that LSU was activly recruiting Sam Grooms. 2/28/11 Tar Hill times- "Here are the names UNC is strongly considering?evaluating as a last signee replacement for Larry Drew. Pierre Jackson, Darius Smith, and Sam Grooms" 3/15/11 St Petersbutg Times. "The University of South Florida is recruiting and in contention for University of North Carolina prospect Sam Grooms.The top juco prospect is also being condidered by other national powers Florida and Kansas" Need i go on? there is more. For people on this message board to dismiss grooms as a role playing backup to blair is misguided. it is incumbent on blair to get much better very quickly if he wants to beat this kid out. not the other way around. now, really don't care who the point guards ends up being. i just want however it is to be better than last years version of blair.

It's just as misguided to assume that Grooms is automatically going to come in and start over a guy that started all year last year before he has even participated in a practice at OU.

 

[garyeb2]

It's just as misguided to assume that Grooms is automatically going to come in and start over a guy that started all year last year before he has even participated in a practice at OU.

well, mayby. but, we are not talking about coming in here and trying to de-throne tj ford are we? and besides, blair didn't start all year did he? how long did it take him to knock the true freshman shooting guard off the point guard perch?

 

[seniorsooner]

True, Blair is not TJ Ford. But neither is Grooms. Therein lies the point.

 

[sperry]

Carl Blair had ups and downs last year, but he showed that he is good enough to be a reasonable starting PG in the Big XII. I haven't seen Grooms play, but the last two JUCO PGs we have signed have been a guy that wasn't good enough to play, and a guy who was a hard worker and a marginal backup PG. I think anything other than hope that Grooms can be an adequate backup is wishful thinking at this point.

 

[skyvue]

I think anything other than hope that Grooms can be an adequate backup is wishful thinking at this point.

Based on what -- the fact that the last two juco PGs we signed weren't great? Quannas White was a juco transfer, too, so does he count?

I have no idea how good Grooms will be, but your pronouncement that he will be nothing more than adequate backup seems premature and unfounded.

 

[garyeb2]

Carl Blair had ups and downs last year, but he showed that he is good enough to be a reasonable starting PG in the Big XII. I haven't seen Grooms play, but the last two JUCO PGs we have signed have been a guy that wasn't good enough to play, and a guy who was a hard worker and a marginal backup PG. I think anything other than hope that Grooms can be an adequate backup is wishful thinking at this point.

ok, i'm confused. blairs resume is that he was a flawed point guard on a team that acheived absolutely terrible results. all of them that participated last year, blair,pledger,fitz,clark, newell,washington,neal, were major contributors on a very bad big 12 team. there is no "evidence" that any of them are capable of making a positive contribution on a good big 12 basketball team. to believe otherwise would be "wishfull" thinking at this point.

 

[pnkranger]

blair averaged almost 5 assists per game in the Big 12.

 

[garyeb2]

blair averaged almost 5 assists per game in the Big 12.

and twice as many turnovers as kruger would tolerate. just because capel had to run around slapping together a roster any way he could in a short amount of time doesn't mean that is what krueger did with grooms. the fact that kruger passed on richards and apparently also on the 6'10'' kid makes me think he isn't in a desparation mode and is putting some thought into it. there is still 2 weeks left in the signing period. there is no reason that he had to jump up and sign a blair backup in the first 72 hours. there are obviously alot of people nationaly that think grooms is a legit D1 prospect. some of the posters on this message board seem to think he is some yardbird from rose state.

 

[seniorsooner]

The fact is I don't know what Grooms will be able to do next year at the big 12 level. Another fact is neither do you. My only point is that I believe it is preposterous for you or anyone to come on here and act like it is a foregone conclusion that Grooms will supplant Blair next year. It's not.

 

[Max Power]

The fact is I don't know what Grooms will be able to do next year at the big 12 level. Another fact is neither do you. My only point is that I believe it is preposterous for you or anyone to come on here and act like it is a foregone conclusion that Grooms will supplant Blair next year. It's not.

At the same time though, it is preposterous that any starters from a 14 win team, that has a new coaching staff, is guaranteed to start next year. It is a new staff with a new philosophy and everybody is starting at the same place trying to earn starting jobs and PT. Some Like Cam and Osby are most likely going to start, but until November no one is a guaranteed starter on opening day

 

[garyeb2]

well, i'm glad we got that settled.

 

[DenverSooner]

our biggest deficiency was at the point?

you're kidding...right?

Our biggest deficiency was in the paint. Without a single shred of doubt.

More to the point it was rebounding. OU was last or second to last in most major rebounding statistics in the Big XII.

 

[coolm]

More to the point it was rebounding. OU was last or second to last in most major rebounding statistics in the Big XII.

exactly

 

[WTSooner]

More to the point it was rebounding. OU was last or second to last in most major rebounding statistics in the Big XII.

Rebounding is a funny stat. If you are a bad defensive team, you will most likely be a bad rebounding team, b/c most rebounding stats are based on rebounds per game. If you play a slow pace AND you are a bad defensive team, your rebounding numbers will almost certainly stink.

I'm not arguing that we were a good rebounding team last year. We were not. I'm just saying, rebounding stats aren't a very good indicator. I think Pom has a rebounding effeciency stat, and that is probably a better indicator of just how bad we were.

 

[AdaSooner]

Rebounding is a funny stat. If you are a bad defensive team, you will most likely be a bad rebounding team, b/c most rebounding stats are based on rebounds per game. If you play a slow pace AND you are a bad defensive team, your rebounding numbers will almost certainly stink.

I'm not arguing that we were a good rebounding team last year. We were not. I'm just saying, rebounding stats aren't a very good indicator. I think Pom has a rebounding effeciency stat, and that is probably a better indicator of just how bad we were.

I think it's safe to say that the answer to this question is "all of the above."

In other words, CoolM is right, our greatest deficiency last season was in the front court. We were at a disadvantage against nearly every team we played, because we were undersized and outmanned, and we weren't very good at rebounding, defending or scoring in the paint.

 

[perryj74]

I do think Grooms was brought in to upgrade the PG position. Someone brought up how Grooms was signed almost immediately after the new staff was announced. It sure made it look like they made finding a PG a priority and the guy they wanted and went after was Grooms. Read into what you will but I don't think you make your first priority finding a back-up PG for a team that went 14-18 the year before.

At the very least he is going to provide competition that will make each player get better and allow them to not get worn out from having to play so many minutes each night.

 

[cowboysooner]

My opinion that point play was our greatest weakness was a subjective opinion. If I elaborated, I would have said rebounding was our second biggest problem. Statisticallly, I don't know how it plays out. I just believe that with better or high end point play, we win a few more games and just don't know if that is true with a few more rebounds. Maybe so.

WTSooner makes a interesting point that I would agree with. I have never really thought about it before, but maybe our pace of play impacts our rebounding stats.

Anyway, I think we need better point play next year and better rebounding and don't care what the kids names are. My point has just been that I can't imagine us bringing in a juco point unless someone looked at him and thought he dribbled better than the kids we have. I guess we will find out. I have been wrong before.

 

[AdaSooner]

I do think Grooms was brought in to upgrade the PG position. Someone brought up how Grooms was signed almost immediately after the new staff was announced. It sure made it look like they made finding a PG a priority and the guy they wanted and went after was Grooms. Read into what you will but I don't think you make your first priority finding a back-up PG for a team that went 14-18 the year before.

At the very least he is going to provide competition that will make each player get better and allow them to not get worn out from having to play so many minutes each night.

Whether Grooms was brought in to start or as a back up to Blair is debatable, because none of us really knows for sure. But it's no secret that signing a point guard was a priority while Capel was the coach and it continued to be a focus of attention when Kruger took over.

That's not to say that Blair will not emerge as the starter when the season begins. It does suggest that both coaches believed the point guard position needed an upgrade, or they felt more depth was needed when Newell did not prove to be the answer as a back up. Either way, there has to be a reason why Capel and Kruger made recruiting a point guard a matter of importance.