OU and a clear system

[Edmond_Sooner]

Players make the system. We need more better ones.

True...but you recruit players based on your system...in some cases like with Blake, you might change your philosophy a little to highlight that talent...but mostly you recruit to fill needs for your system...

I thought when he came in i knew what kind of athlete he liked and system he was going to run by his first few recruits...but now i dont know...

 

[bocabull]

To me no matter what system you run you need a primary ball handler/distributor, perimeter shooters who can score off the dribble, spot up shooters, back to the basket post players, rebounders and a defensive stopper.

When you have players with those skills run any system you want and as long as your players are better than the other teams players you will win.

 

[Dem Coltz]

A foolish consistentcy is the hobgoblin of small minds. Is "get good players and teach them how to play good bball" a system? Let's do that.

Calipari's system? What, you mean get the best players money can buy, cut scholarship players to have room for 1 and dones, and play cutthroat recruiting by wooing people with verbal commitments? Count me out, I would like to remain a fan of OU.

 

[MNsooner]

Of course Capel has a system. It's probably the same one Quin used at Mizzou (which we couldn't ever really figure out, either). It's basically the same philosophy that Duke employs under K. The problem is he's doing it with players typically much more skilled and almost always with a much higher basketball IQ. He can pretty much hand pick players he wants, so it works for him. His assistants/former players leave and try the same thing and realize it doesn't work so well without Duke talent.

If I remember Quin's explanations right, basically it's a system of no system. They're not going to run set plays, it's not really a true motion, but players are supposed to be able to read and react to every situation in a specific way. When it's done right, it works well. But when it's done with average to above average college basketball talent, it looks like five guys standing around the three point line then chucking up a bad shot.

Also... I find the "I don't care as long as we win" people a bit disingenuous. If you really don't care at all, why do you watch the game? All else being equal, EVERY basketball fan has a preferred style of play.

Good post. I disagree with the bolded part. I think it is fair to say that any basketball style when run well is enjoyable to watch. I think preferences between them for me are mostly cosmetic (e.g. zone press, preassure defense generates turnovers which is more fun than a more vanilla zone even if it forces an opponent to take tough shots). In the end, I just want to see a style off basketball that is run effectively and the best measure of that is wins. I loved watching Sampson's teams even though some people hated it. I liked it because they were well coached and executed a system well. I didn't see 'boring game' or 'nothing happening' I saw a physical dog fight, a battle. I guess I am saying that a style like Sampson's which could be considered boring I liked. I liked it because it was run well. I think the sentiment that executing the system well is more important to most of us than the style of the system doesn't mean you don't enjoy basketball.

 

[Max Power]

To me no matter what system you run you need a primary ball handler/distributor, perimeter shooters who can score off the dribble, spot up shooters, back to the basket post players, rebounders and a defensive stopper.

When you have players with those skills run any system you want and as long as your players are better than the other teams players you will win.

and whose fault is it that we don't have any of the pieces you described above?

 

[Dem Coltz]

and whose fault is it that we don't have any of the pieces you described above?

Bob Hope?

 

[bocabull]

and whose fault is it that we don't have any of the pieces you described above?

We have some of the pieces, just not all. The fault for not having all the pieces lies with Willie Warren, Tommy Griffin and Tiny Gallon.

If those 3 guys are on this team a year better please tell me which pieces we are missing?

Tommy Griffin
Willie Warren
Cameron Clark
Drew Fitzgerald
Tiny Gallon

Bench:
Cade Davis
Stephen Pledger
CJ Washington
Carl Blair

That is a sweet 16 lineup. Capel has done it before and he'll do it a
again.

 

[Max Power]

We have some of the pieces, just not all. The fault for not having all the pieces lies with Willie Warren, Tommy Griffin and Tiny Gallon.

If those 3 guys are on this team a year better please tell me which pieces we are missing?

Tommy Griffin
Willie Warren
Cameron Clark
Drew Fitzgerald
Tiny Gallon

That is a sweet 16 lineup. Capel has done it before and he'll do it a
again.

Well since we all knew willie was a two and done player you cant count him. So out of that group I see a me first, undersized point guard. A center in NCAA trouble, and still a lack of 3 point shooting on most nights

 

[okcsooner83]

The "system" I prefer is mizzou's forty minutes of hell style.