Do you agree with Charles Barkley?

SoonerNorm

Super Moderator
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
19,033
Reaction score
1
Charles Barkley said, "Jumpers end your season." Have to attack the rim either by pass or dribble.

Applying his quote to our program...do you agree?
 
Westbrook going down ended the season. Of course, if Harden stayed. Everyone would still be fearing the beard. Thunder had a dream team. Westbrook, Harden, and Durant.
 
I pretty much agree with Barkley. I do think it is very hard to win a NC when relying primarily on jump shots. It is necessary to have balance. Right now we are a guard oriented offense. We have Sharane who can penetrate but we need others who can do the same thing to have more balance. I'm hoping that Maddie can be one of those players and perhaps Kaylon will be able to shore up some inside scoring as well. If that comes together we should have a good shot at another final four.
 
The Thunder are built on shot making, incredible shot making. Not defense, rebounding, etc.

Hard to win 16 playoff games that way.
 
The Round Mound of Rebound, who has an opinion on every subject, states the obvious, and someone notices? You don't win by only jump shooting? It might be a little prejudicial on his part since he scored mostly by layups. But, you don't win with only layups or dunks either. Teams win because the cover the various facets of scoring. If they don't, they are easier to defend. It's kind of difficult to disagree with such a mundane and obvious statement, but it is also, like Sir Charles, rather limited in scope.
 
The Round Mound of Rebound, who has an opinion on every subject, states the obvious, and someone notices? You don't win by only jump shooting? It might be a little prejudicial on his part since he scored mostly by layups. But, you don't win with only layups or dunks either. Teams win because the cover the various facets of scoring. If they don't, they are easier to defend. It's kind of difficult to disagree with such a mundane and obvious statement, but it is also, like Sir Charles, rather limited in scope.

I don't think it so obvious to Scott Brooks and since the departure of CP, OU has relied on jump shooting a great deal as well. That is the reason following a loss several have mentioned, "you live by the three and you die by the three".

Griffin has come up big in a few games and it certainly makes winning much easier. But, she is very inconsistent. When Jo was struggling we normally got very limited production at the 4 and the 5 combined and; therefore, we were a predominately jump shooting team. Even when Jo returned to her old form, she shot a lot if jump shots which again made us a jump shooting team. Some do not think Kaylon will be a productive 4. If that is true, we have seen several speculate what Sherri will do.

I hope some of the new girls coming in are adapt at taking the ball to the rim.
 
Every coach would prefer to have teams that are well rounded but it seldom happens that way, even among the elite teams.

You coach the kids you have and do what you can do.
 
Every coach would prefer to have teams that are well rounded but it seldom happens that way, even among the elite teams.

You coach the kids you have and do what you can do.

Other than maybe UCONN, and at times a few other teams, I agree with you. That is why I thought we had a great shot at a NC when Courtney was here. We had inside scoring, rebounding, defense, and outside scoring but still got eliminated before winning it all.

I don't think there is any doubt the Thunder would have been much better equipped to beat the Grizzlies if they would have had Westbrook. He was very good at getting to the rim.
 
I think it's been documented and common knowledge that shots closer to the basket are higher percentage shots than shots farther away from the basket. Barkley might as well have said some basketball cliche that you miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take. Or, he could have just claimed to be losing weight again while endorsing Taco Bell.

#thefivebuckboxitrocksitrocks
 
I've always thought you have to work inside out. I think it should go inside every trip down. I'm also a firm believer of attacking the basket/lane if you have the players to do so. Many times it will get you to the line and also get them in foul trouble.
 
I've always thought you have to work inside out. I think it should go inside every trip down. I'm also a firm believer of attacking the basket/lane if you have the players to do so. Many times it will get you to the line and also get them in foul trouble.

I could not agree more! I am not a fan either of having someone fire up a three pointer when we have no one in the area to possibly rebound the ball.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it so obvious to Scott Brooks and since the departure of CP, OU has relied on jump shooting a great deal as well. That is the reason following a loss several have mentioned, "you live by the three and you die by the three".

Griffin has come up big in a few games and it certainly makes winning much easier. But, she is very inconsistent. When Jo was struggling we normally got very limited production at the 4 and the 5 combined and; therefore, we were a predominately jump shooting team. Even when Jo returned to her old form, she shot a lot if jump shots which again made us a jump shooting team. Some do not think Kaylon will be a productive 4. If that is true, we have seen several speculate what Sherri will do.

I hope some of the new girls coming in are adapt at taking the ball to the rim.
It's interesting how such a mundane statement by pro basketball's equivalent of Scott Bayless could be turned into disapproval of an OU player, players, or coach.
 
It's interesting how such a mundane statement by pro basketball's equivalent of Scott Bayless could be turned into disapproval of an OU player, players, or coach.

Instead of attacking my comments, please post your own opinions if you have any.
 
Balance in all things is desirable. Obviously, a team whose only weapon is the jump shot is going to have a hard time. We've had some teams in the recent past that were defended stoutly at the 3 point line because we had no inside weapons, and it's hard to win that way. At the same time, the reverse is also true. No matter how great your inside game, you have trouble winning if the defense can put 5 guys in the paint. A three point shot is worth a dunk and a half.

It's also a nice homily to say we should go inside out. I even seem to recall our coaches saying that. But in my way of thinking, if we had to be able to do one thing every time, I'd be in favor of scoring in transition.

The thing is, that we recruit what we can, and we game plan to maximize the abilities of the players we've got. In that context, you really can't take an off the cuff remark made by Charles Barkley about the Thunder, and turn it into a Universal Truth about the Sooners.
 
It seems that Sherri's philosophy is, if you're open and you feel it, shoot. I would say that is Scott Brook's philosophy as well. When it goes it, that's fun basketball to watch. Of course, when it doesn't go in, it most often results in the ball going the other way.

I recall hearing Bob Knight say that he almost never wanted his players to take the first available shot from a distance. He felt it was important to make a couple of passes to see if they could get a higher percentage shot because he felt a longer shot would almost always be available if they could not score from inside 15 feet. That philosophy certainly has merit.

While I love to see the ball go inside to see if we can get an easy score, I would say another consideration is, who is taking the longer shot. If it is a player who shoots 30% from BTA, they should not take the shot just because they're open. But, if you have a 40% Aaryn taking the shot, it is hard to say that she shouldn't shoot.
 
I have always been an inside/out guy. Live with the best percentage shot you can get, outside will always be there. The exception, if you have a player who is hot, get them the ball.
 
Back
Top