Gophers offer JUCO PG Dre Mathieu, will visit May 3

Donate To GopherHole
WILLBGOPHER said:
Dude, Andre Hollins doesn't hurt the gophers by being the point guard. But can you understand that the team as a whole should be much better with a competent ball handler/defender, and by all reports scorer. This allows the team to improve at 3 positions. Dre Hollins is a better 2 than Austin, Austin is a far better 3 than Coleman. It also improves the depth on the team with Coleman coming off the bench. This allow the team to spread the floor and allow for lanes to penetrate (wow what a concept). This was nearly impossible the last few years with both Coleman and Rodney on the floor. There was a reason that the offense looked brutal most of the time.
Click to expand...

+19

I'll also add my bold to Howie's.
 

WILLBGOPHER said:
Dude, Andre Hollins doesn't hurt the gophers by being the point guard. But can you understand that the team as a whole should be much better with a competent ball handler/defender, and by all reports scorer. This allows the team to improve at 3 positions. Dre Hollins is a better 2 than Austin, Austin is a far better 3 than Coleman. It also improves the depth on the team with Coleman coming off the bench. This allow the team to spread the floor and allow for lanes to penetrate (wow what a concept). This was nearly impossible the last few years with both Coleman and Rodney on the floor. There was a reason that the offense looked brutal most of the time.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 

I think Andre is still better off at pg. He's going to have the ball in his hands more that way, he's going to have more screens set for him (which is how he scores a ton of his points), and I think it will be a lot tougher for him shooting over sgs than pgs. He already has his shot blocked a decent amount with smaller guys guarding him.
 

underground629 said:
I think Andre is still better off at pg. He's going to have the ball in his hands more that way, he's going to have more screens set for him (which is how he scores a ton of his points), and I think it will be a lot tougher for him shooting over sgs than pgs. He already has his shot blocked a decent amount with smaller guys guarding him.
Click to expand...

I am admittedly not a genius basketball mind, but doesn't that mean he'd be more likely to be quicker than the bigger SG that would be guarding him, and therefore be more likely to break free and get a better look at an open shot?
 

MinneStoa said:
I am admittedly not a genius basketball mind, but doesn't that mean he'd be more likely to be quicker than the bigger SG that would be guarding him, and therefore be more likely to break free and get a better look at an open shot?
Click to expand...

That's really hard to say. I like Dre at PG, but at SG he will expend more energy trying to score IMO. I envision a Bobby Jackson type role, where Dre will take over the point at crunch time.
 


Gold Vision said:
Those were the coach's words, not mine. And that is also kind of my point. McNeil is no more of a PG than Dre Hollins from what I can see.
Click to expand...
Different type of players. Dre's strength is not ball handling or driving to the hoop. Mcneil's is. This teams ball handling has been terrible. Mcneil seems to be a guy who can handle the ball,true point guard or not. This true point thing is way over done on here. Give me three good ball handlers on the floor at once. You need guys who can make plays off the bounce. The Bobby Jackson anology is a great one concerning guards.
 

Blackhammer said:
Different type of players. Dre's strength is not ball handling or driving to the hoop. Mcneil's is. This teams ball handling has been terrible. Mcneil seems to be a guy who can handle the ball,true point guard or not. This true point thing is way over done on here. Give me three good ball handlers on the floor at once. You need guys who can make plays off the bounce. The Bobby Jackson anology is a great one concerning guards.
Click to expand...

I 100% disagree on the true point guard, its a definite need in college basketball, especially in the Big 10. Look at the teams that have them and the teams that dont.

What I will agree with you (kind of agree) is that this site's definition of a true point guard might be a bit jaded.
 

Winasota Gopher said:
I 100% disagree on the true point guard, its a definite need in college basketball, especially in the Big 10. Look at the teams that have them and the teams that dont.

What I will agree with you (kind of agree) is that this site's definition of a true point guard might be a bit jaded.
Click to expand...

Would you consider Kemba Walker a "true PG"? How about Derrick Rose?

I'd also argue an extreme example here, but lets say the year Nolen and Devoe left - no PG's ahhhh! However, the Gophers were lucky enough to sign Kobe Bryant at this point. Kobe said, yeah ill play PG for you guys.

Is there any non-injury scenario in which the Gophers would have not won the national championship that year? Even though they had no true PG on the roster?

My point here is, if you have the talent who cares who brings the ball up?
 

What some of you are really trying to say is, "Tubby should have had Julian Welch and Dre Hollins out on the floor together more often in 2012-13."

As for Dre Hollins at point - (1) Can someone else on the 2013-14 roster play PG and add more value than Dre did last season at the position? No; (2) If Dre Hollins doesn't play PG in 2013-14, will he add more value because of a position move as compared to 2012-13? I don't believe so and it could be difficult to do (already had a high shot%, shot more 3's than 2's, made his 3's at a high rate... where is the shooting improvement going to come from? His 2FG% should improve whether he's playing point or off the ball due to experience).
 



Gopher Warrior said:
What some of you are really trying to say is, "Tubby should have had Julian Welch and Dre Hollins out on the floor together more often in 2012-13."

As for Dre Hollins at point - (1) Can someone else on the 2013-14 roster play PG and add more value than Dre did last season at the position? No; (2) If Dre Hollins doesn't play PG in 2013-14, will he add more value because of a position move as compared to 2012-13? I don't believe so and it could be difficult to do (already had a high shot%, shot more 3's than 2's, made his 3's at a high rate... where is the shooting improvement going to come from? His 2FG% should improve whether he's playing point or off the ball due to experience).
Click to expand...

Not even close to what some of us are saying.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
What some of you are really trying to say is, "Tubby should have had Julian Welch and Dre Hollins out on the floor together more often in 2012-13."

As for Dre Hollins at point - (1) Can someone else on the 2013-14 roster play PG and add more value than Dre did last season at the position? No; (2) If Dre Hollins doesn't play PG in 2013-14, will he add more value because of a position move as compared to 2012-13? I don't believe so and it could be difficult to do (already had a high shot%, shot more 3's than 2's, made his 3's at a high rate... where is the shooting improvement going to come from? His 2FG% should improve whether he's playing point or off the ball due to experience).
Click to expand...

Putting Coleman on the bench. Coach P. didn't sign 2 new guards so he could just trot the same 3 out there.
 

scher215 said:
Would you consider Kemba Walker a "true PG"? How about Derrick Rose?

I'd also argue an extreme example here, but lets say the year Nolen and Devoe left - no PG's ahhhh! However, the Gophers were lucky enough to sign Kobe Bryant at this point. Kobe said, yeah ill play PG for you guys.

Is there any non-injury scenario in which the Gophers would have not won the national championship that year? Even though they had no true PG on the roster?

My point here is, if you have the talent who cares who brings the ball up?
Click to expand...

well no sh!t when you throw extreme situations out there.

But we are the Minnesota Gophers... 99% of the time a "true pg" is going to drastically improve a team that doesn't have one.
 

scher215 said:
Would you consider Kemba Walker a "true PG"? How about Derrick Rose?

I'd also argue an extreme example here, but lets say the year Nolen and Devoe left - no PG's ahhhh! However, the Gophers were lucky enough to sign Kobe Bryant at this point. Kobe said, yeah ill play PG for you guys.

Is there any non-injury scenario in which the Gophers would have not won the national championship that year? Even though they had no true PG on the roster?

My point here is, if you have the talent who cares who brings the ball up?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't need a true PG if we had Lebron too, but those players you mentioned are the exception to a pretty solid rule: teams are better with a guy dedicated to handling the ball, running the floor, and finding open shooters.
 



Its this simple: We NEEDED more ball handlers on the team. Dre is a compotent ball handler for a PG but that's about it. Neither Austin nor Mav are above average ball handlers either. We now have 2 more guys that can handle the ball well enough to play point (McNeil is a combo but at least has the skills to give minutes at PG). Dre Hollins is a very good scorer but is not a natural playmaker. He got most of his points off the bounce last year and isn't a true penetrator/creator. IF Mathieu is good enough to start moving Dre to SG and Austin to the 3 gives us 3 guys that can handle the ball and create for themselves instead of 2 (not Joe's strength), gives us consistent shooters on the wings allowing for more room to operate on offense. It also improves our size at the 3. If he's not good enough to start then we've still improved our depth behind Dre
 

We need some players who can drive to the hoop and score or penetrate and dish. Someone in charge. That makes everyone better. I didn't see very much of that last year.
 

oleboy41 said:
Its this simple: We NEEDED more ball handlers on the team. Dre is a compotent ball handler for a PG but that's about it. Neither Austin nor Mav are above average ball handlers either. We now have 2 more guys that can handle the ball well enough to play point (McNeil is a combo but at least has the skills to give minutes at PG). Dre Hollins is a very good scorer but is not a natural playmaker. He got most of his points off the bounce last year and isn't a true penetrator/creator. IF Mathieu is good enough to start moving Dre to SG and Austin to the 3 gives us 3 guys that can handle the ball and create for themselves instead of 2 (not Joe's strength), gives us consistent shooters on the wings allowing for more room to operate on offense. It also improves our size at the 3. If he's not good enough to start then we've still improved our depth behind Dre
Click to expand...

+1
 

This team doesn't need a "true pg", they need a ballhandler. Put someone on this team that is a maestro with a basketball in his hands, I dont care if he puts up 30 a game as long as he doesnt turn the ball over. Also, I also dont care what position he plays. As long as he doesn't reduce the Gophers opportunities to score by carelessly handling the basketball. The Gophers need a player with the ability to score off the dribble. Aggressive dribble penetration will either create open looks for himself or for teammates. A "true pg" isn't necessary, a player with a high basketball IQ that can recognize the right time to score or pass after the dribble would be much more beneficial. Scoring isn't generally a characteristic attributed to a "true pg".

Edit: looks like 2 others beat me to the punch.
 

cjcarter8 said:
This team doesn't need a "true pg", they need a ballhandler. Put someone on this team that is a maestro with a basketball in his hands, I dont care if he puts up 30 a game as long as he doesnt turn the ball over. Also, I also dont care what position he plays. As long as he doesn't reduce the Gophers opportunities to score by carelessly handling the basketball. The Gophers need a player with the ability to score off the dribble. Aggressive dribble penetration will either create open looks for himself or for teammates. A "true pg" isn't necessary, a player with a high basketball IQ that can recognize the right time to score or pass after the dribble would be much more beneficial. Scoring isn't generally a characteristic attributed to a "true pg".


Edit: looks like 2 others beat me to the punch.
Click to expand...

I'd say you are arguing for and defining a "true pg" but contradicting yourself in conclusion by saying a "true pg"
doesn't score. Have I got that right? I'd disagree. How about this: a point guard is critical to the success of a basketball team. The Gophers did not have any last year....just my opinion....and I'm guessing Pitino's opinion too if the first thing he does is recruit two of them. McNeil is a point guard imo. A good point guard doesn't have to score but a great point guard adds scoring to his assets. A good point guard has to be able to get the ball up the floor (without falling down, without getting picked etc. somebody you can trust to do this) and initiate the offense at your desired starting point on the floor. Then if he can create and dish that's another level. Now if he can get to the rim and finish at the rim that's another level. Can he make free throws to close out the game. Last, for me, can he knock down threes? That's nice but it's not necessary if they can do the other things. We had point guards who were more shooters than anything else.
 

cjcarter8 said:
A "true pg" is't necessary, a player with a high basketball IQ that can recognize the right time to score or pass after the dribble would be much more beneficial. Scoring isn't generally a characteristic attributed to a "true pg".

Edit: looks like 2 others beat me to the punch.
Click to expand...

Fixed for ya
 

Basically, I'm saying get people that can score the ball off the dribble and are competent basketball players. When I think of a "true PG", I think of a player who's first instinct is to set up teammates for an open shot. Get more people that scare defenses off the bounce. Get in the lane, cause the defense to collapse, find the open shot whether its their own or their teammates. I dont care if they start 2 SGs in the backcourt as long as they are competent with the basketball.

McNeil may be a PG but most people would not call him a "true PG". While many are capable, the threat of scoring is not a prominent attribute of a "true PG".
 


cjcarter8 said:
Basically, I'm saying get people that can score the ball off the dribble and are competent basketball players. When I think of a "true PG", I think of a player who's first instinct is to set up teammates for an open shot. Get more people that scare defenses off the bounce. Get in the lane, cause the defense to collapse, find the open shot whether its their own or their teammates. I dont care if they start 2 SGs in the backcourt as long as they are competent with the basketball.

McNeil may be a PG but most people would not call him a "true PG". While many are capable, the threat of scoring is not a prominent attribute of a "true PG".
Click to expand...

Ummm yea it is. Maybe not 30 years ago when post play was still vital and the 2 guard was the defacto 'scorer' in every offense, but not these days. The best PGs in the NBA are (in some order) Chris Paul, Darren Williams, Derrick Rose when healthy, Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo, Russel Westbrook. ALL of them sans Rondo is a big scoring threat. Yes they set up teammates but they are all threats to go for 30 at any time. They are 'true' pgs, just not old school 'traditional' pgs. Its like saying Dirk isn't a 'true' PF because he doesn't play on the block or roll on P&Rs like Karl Malone. The only attributes needed to designate someone as a 'true' pg are excellent ball handling, the ability to run/set up the offense, and the ability to penetrate. Outside of that the attributes that seperate mediocre players from good ones are the ability to limit TOs, score, and defend. The better scorer a PG is the more things are opened up for teammates. Al Nolen was a true PG but really struggled to score so when he drove teams took their chances and didn't collapse on him
 

oleboy41 said:
Ummm yea it is. Maybe not 30 years ago when post play was still vital and the 2 guard was the defacto 'scorer' in every offense, but not these days. The best PGs in the NBA are (in some order) Chris Paul, Darren Williams, Derrick Rose when healthy, Tony Parker, Rajon Rondo, Russel Westbrook. ALL of them sans Rondo is a big scoring threat. Yes they set up teammates but they are all threats to go for 30 at any time. They are 'true' pgs, just not old school 'traditional' pgs. Its like saying Dirk isn't a 'true' PF because he doesn't play on the block or roll on P&Rs like Karl Malone. The only attributes needed to designate someone as a 'true' pg are excellent ball handling, the ability to run/set up the offense, and the ability to penetrate. Outside of that the attributes that seperate mediocre players from good ones are the ability to limit TOs, score, and defend. The better scorer a PG is the more things are opened up for teammates. Al Nolen was a true PG but really struggled to score so when he drove teams took their chances and didn't collapse on him
Click to expand...

How do you differentiate between "true pg" and "traditional pg"? In my opinion, a true pg is a traditional pg but I may have misinterpretted the meaning in this discussion. The only thing that the players you name have in common are that they are all freak athletes that fit the generally accepted physical description of a PG. Add 4-5" (all else stays the same) to everyone of those players. How many of them stay at PG? If it makes the most sense for that player to remain at PG based on his skill set and style of play, thats a "true PG".
 

In regards to the Gophers, I believe the thing they have been lacking is a player who can consistently attack the basket and draw the additional defender to commit. I think Westbrook was last one we had with that ability. With that dribble penetration, it opens up shots for our jump shooters or gets you layups. From the video clips, both McNeil and Mathieu look like that type of player and I am really excited about having them in the Maroon and Gold. Aggressive basketball is what you want, the rest is semantics...
 

Golden Yooper said:
In regards to the Gophers, I believe the thing they have been lacking is a player who can consistently attack the basket and draw the additional defender to commit. I think Westbrook was last one we had with that ability. With that dribble penetration, it opens up shots for our jump shooters or gets you layups. From the video clips, both McNeil and Mathieu look like that type of player and I am really excited about having them in the Maroon and Gold. Aggressive basketball is what you want, the rest is semantics...
Click to expand...

Yup...pretty much. Welcome!
 

Possibly, but I don't think the quickness advantage he'd have against a sg would help him that much with his style of play. If he drove more or really faked people out more, I'd say yes. Most of his shots come from going around screens and pulling up or simply just pulling up with someone in his face because he elevates so well on his j. I think it's going to be tough for him to pull up while guarded if he has a taller guy on him. He already has his jumpshot blocked a decent amount.

MinneStoa said:
I am admittedly not a genius basketball mind, but doesn't that mean he'd be more likely to be quicker than the bigger SG that would be guarding him, and therefore be more likely to break free and get a better look at an open shot?
Click to expand...
 

I like the idea you guys are mentioning of having Joe come off the bench, but we would have matchup problems with Austin at the 3. Dawson from Michigan St. is one that comes to mind that Austin could not guard (under the assumption that Dawson would stay at 3 and not move to 4)!
 

Thugunin said:
I like the idea you guys are mentioning of having Joe come off the bench, but we would have matchup problems with Austin at the 3. Dawson from Michigan St. is one that comes to mind that Austin could not guard (under the assumption that Dawson would stay at 3 and not move to 4)!
Click to expand...

I agree, but isn't that the coaches job? To put players in situations to succeed offensively and defensively. I have confidence that Pitino will adapt to the situation.

I still think that those hoping that Mathieu starts are a little off base though. I think Andre continues to be the starter at the point, then when Mathieu (or Malik Smith) comes in we will give the opposing teams different looks. That is what I would do anyway, with all these guards and wings, just throw different combos out there and move Andre between pg and sg.
 

cjcarter8 said:
What'd you fix? The only change I see is going from isn't to is't. I'm not sure what that collection of letters adds to my point.
Click to expand...

Didn't format like I expected.... The letters were supposed to be much smaller...

A "true pg" IS a player with a high basketball IQ that can recognize the right time to score or pass after the dribble...

You said a true pg wasn't necessary, and then you went and described a true PG in the next breath...
 

cjcarter8 said:
How do you differentiate between "true pg" and "traditional pg"? In my opinion, a true pg is a traditional pg but I may have misinterpretted the meaning in this discussion. The only thing that the players you name have in common are that they are all freak athletes that fit the generally accepted physical description of a PG. Add 4-5" (all else stays the same) to everyone of those players. How many of them stay at PG? If it makes the most sense for that player to remain at PG based on his skill set and style of play, thats a "true PG".
Click to expand...

To me a traditional PG is a pass first guy that doesn't need to score to influence the game. Traditionally you'd want your PG to be the lowest scorer among your starters because his job was to get the offense started and set up others. These days with the emphasis on P&Rs and dribble drives the PG can have huge influence while also being a major scoring threat and STILL being a facilitator. I don't agree that most of those guys would switch positions with another few inches. If anything those guys taller would struggle to guard PGs so that's a flawed argument. Westbrook is probably the least 'traditional' type PG of the group but him, Rose and Williams are the only ones I'd consider more shoot first types but all are excellent PGs because of the constant pressure they put on the D
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom