okcsooner83
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 910
- Reaction score
- 0
Jerami Grant Nearing Decision
- Thread starter okcsooner83
- Start date
BigTime
The Red Wig
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2008
- Messages
- 11,626
- Reaction score
- 0
Sounds like Oklahoma may at least get a visit upcoming.
Sam
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 6,081
- Reaction score
- 0
I disagree there, I think its more than OU not needing Grant. I just dont think there is a lot of interest in OU right now due to the recent records.
Grant would be a good fit at OU, he is a 6'9' hybrid forward. In some ways he is a victim of any player in the 6'7-6'10 range with a modicum of perimeter skills thinking they're the next Lebron or Durant. When I saw him play at the Dallas EYBL he is much closer to a power forward with an advanced face up game than a true three.
Grant rarely shot jumpers and when they did they were of the free throw line variety off catch and shoots vs a zone. Not a pull up variety. He took bigs off the dribble and was very efficient at that while also playing big down low. I remember Grant closing out a game vs Brandon Ashley (top 25 type PF) but just giving it to him off the bounce.
If OU were to somehow get him he would've headlined their 2012 class (unless they pull in Marcus Smart) and he could be a post for OU (and big is a huge need). If Grant was a Sooner they could theoretically have a line up of Osby, M'baye and Grant all on the court at the same time. That would be 3 guys in the 6'8 range, all athletic and all can put the ball on the floor. You cant tell me that a scenario like that doesn't fit into a coach like Kruger's plan.
Yes Sam. I think that is right about Kruger wanting long athletic guys that can play inside out. I certainly do not know what recruits think. But, they may feel the way alot of long time fans that I know feel. While they are very pleased about the coaching change, they want to see Kruger win some games before getting all involved again.
WTSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 11,801
- Reaction score
- 842
Oh, I didn't mean to imply "need" was the only reason for the lack of interest. I agree with you, I think it's more than just that. Just pointing out, from both sides, that he isn't filling a big hole at OU if he comes here.
I just don't see that happening. I've had this discussion with gary on a number of occasions. That would also put Cam at SG, something else I don't like. That team wouldn't handle pressure at all, and would struggle quite a bit playing man defense. I think LK wants some athletic bigs that can stretch the floor, but that doesn't mean he wants a roster full of them, and it doesn't mean he wants all of them on the floor at the same time. I'm guessing we see a much more "common" type lineup out of him (3 guards, a 4 with range, and a post) most of the time.
WT, I just do not understand this Cameron Clark position that you have taken. I trust that Kruger will make all the right choices when it comes to who plays where. And this chatter is all for fun. But, I went back and watched an hour of you tube videos and it is plain that in HS Clarke was quicker off the dribble and a better ball handler than Pledger. And a much better defender. Every recruiting profile tagged defense as a problem for Pledger. Clarke was a top 50 type and Pledger, when he signed, held offers from Oklahoma,VCU, and Hampton. Osby wants to be a wing. That is the reason he left Miss. ST. If Kruger gives him a shot at the 3, then Clark will have to move to the #2 or go to the bench.
WTSooner
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2011
- Messages
- 11,801
- Reaction score
- 842
Time will tell. I feel pretty confident in the position I've taken though. I've been taking the same position for YEARS, and it's rarely let me down. College basketball is becoming "smaller", not bigger. You stick a bunch of forwards out there on the floor, and you won't be very good. All those guys.....Osby, Cam, M'Baye, potentially Grant.....all are athletic FOR THEIR SIZE. That doesn't mean they are athletic when matched up against true guards. At their size, they'd struggle to fight through perimeter screens.
And yes, Pledger has struggled some. I expect with better coaching, and hopefully another summer of trying to get quicker, that he'll be adequate. I also think he starts b/c he should be our best shooter. Again, I'm basing that on improvement I think he'll see with LK as our coach.
This seems to be like eyewitness accounts of the same crime. Everyone saw something different. Wasn't it Switzer that said, "It isn't as much about the alignement as it is about the alignee's" Just in sheer numbers. There are more guard types that play basketball pretty good than there big guys that play basketball pretty good. A typical squad will have more decent guards than decent bigs. The rational that coaches have always used for the 3 or even 4 guard approach is that they were putting their best players on the floor. Wouldn't that same rational still be valid, if past the point guard. The best players were all over 6'6? Depending on whether or not Osby has been overhyped. That could be the case this season. If Kruger gets Austin(or one like him) locked down and with the addition of M'buy that will be the case next season. Having a marginal guard on the floor and a good big on the bench sounds flawed to me.
Sam
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
- Messages
- 6,081
- Reaction score
- 0
Not even in spurts? I didn't mean to make it seem like it a was a full time lineup but what coach at the college level would've like to be able to throw three 6'8 guys with skills on at the same time for at least spurts? Yeah its not the primary line up, but a line up like that could cause some true havoc in the right coach's hands.
campbest
New member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2008
- Messages
- 6,500
- Reaction score
- 0
OK, let me see if I have this straight. If some time in the future the "current" trend in college basketball is that many teams are starting 2 guards, a rooster, a donkey, and a pirate. Then, OU would need to start 2 guards, a rooster, a donkey, and a pirate. Failure to do so would result in some sort of negitive matchups that would result in defeat.
Nothing is free. Going small does create alot of matchup problems. The problem is that it creates just as many for ones self as it does for the oppenents. Interior defense and rebounding are the biggies.
The concept of going small wasn't born with the belief that it offered some advantage. But, moreso that it negated to some degree the opponents advantage of having bigger longer and more athletic players.
OU will not have the horses inside to get away with putting a couple of marginally talented guards on the floor. The strength and scoring from this team will have to be the wing players. A line-up of Grooms,Clark,Osby,Fitz, and Arent seems to be the most likely way to have a team that can rebound,defend, and score enough points to have a chance to win more games than they lose.
Of course that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Nothing is free. Going small does create alot of matchup problems. The problem is that it creates just as many for ones self as it does for the oppenents. Interior defense and rebounding are the biggies.
The concept of going small wasn't born with the belief that it offered some advantage. But, moreso that it negated to some degree the opponents advantage of having bigger longer and more athletic players.
OU will not have the horses inside to get away with putting a couple of marginally talented guards on the floor. The strength and scoring from this team will have to be the wing players. A line-up of Grooms,Clark,Osby,Fitz, and Arent seems to be the most likely way to have a team that can rebound,defend, and score enough points to have a chance to win more games than they lose.
Of course that is just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Similar threads
