Bordergopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2010
- Messages
- 1,397
- Reaction score
- 289
- Points
- 83
My first post here. I would love to hear some discussion about the importance of shooting touch.
First my thoughts: In general, shooting ability is a learned skill, and thus is teachable. However, like many things, it is best learned at a young age. It seems to me that most highly skilled shooters developed this skill when they were young (school age), and thus it is difficult (but not impossible) to fix a bad shooter. I am a good example. I am not very athletic, but I learned to shoot as a kid. I never played organized basketball. As an middle-aged guy, I can still walk into a gym and beat most athletic young guys in a game of horse, and out-shoot them in a free-throw contest. I don't understand why many of them can't shoot better. It baffles me.
Now my main question: If you had to choose between a guy that is a great shooter, but not athletic or a guy that is very athletic, but an average to poor shooter, what would you choose? In the world of Division I basketball, it seems that only the elite tier of schools have their choice of guys that combine great athleticism and great shooting skills. They are the five star and perhaps high four-star recruits. Minnesota rarely gets them. Instead, we get good players who usually have at least one fairly obvious deficiency. It seems to me that Tubby prefers to forego the shooting skill in favor of athleticism. I suppose the idea is that you can teach the good athlete to shoot, but you can't really teach athleticism. Bo Ryan prefers the ability to shoot. The difference between the teams is pretty glaring. We get the highlight-reel dunks, fabulous shot-blocks, and electrifying fast breaks. We also get a lot of clunk when we shoot a jumpshot (unless it is Blake shooting). With Bo's teams, they get a lot of swoosh when they shoot jumpshots and free throws, but not much of the rest. Am I far off on this?
My conclusion is that ultimately, you have to be able to put the ball in the hole. All the great leaping, darting, blocking, slamming is great, and certainly counts for something. The athleticism is a great benefit on defense. However, if you can't put the ball in the hole when it counts because you don't have any shooting touch, in the end you won't win most of the time. Although I love to watch Rodney screaming down the court and flying over Goldy's head, or Trevor jumping over Tubby's motorcycle (Tubby's Tipoff) as much as anyone, I would prefer some guys that can flat out shoot the ball. That skill seems to cover up more deficiencies than the other way around. It also seems to me that the one constant to Bobby Knight's teams of yesteryear is that those guys could flat out shoot the ball. I'm excited about Andre Hollins, because it sounds like he is a shooter. Your thoughts? Thanks for the chance to write my first post, and I hope I wasn't too wordy.
First my thoughts: In general, shooting ability is a learned skill, and thus is teachable. However, like many things, it is best learned at a young age. It seems to me that most highly skilled shooters developed this skill when they were young (school age), and thus it is difficult (but not impossible) to fix a bad shooter. I am a good example. I am not very athletic, but I learned to shoot as a kid. I never played organized basketball. As an middle-aged guy, I can still walk into a gym and beat most athletic young guys in a game of horse, and out-shoot them in a free-throw contest. I don't understand why many of them can't shoot better. It baffles me.
Now my main question: If you had to choose between a guy that is a great shooter, but not athletic or a guy that is very athletic, but an average to poor shooter, what would you choose? In the world of Division I basketball, it seems that only the elite tier of schools have their choice of guys that combine great athleticism and great shooting skills. They are the five star and perhaps high four-star recruits. Minnesota rarely gets them. Instead, we get good players who usually have at least one fairly obvious deficiency. It seems to me that Tubby prefers to forego the shooting skill in favor of athleticism. I suppose the idea is that you can teach the good athlete to shoot, but you can't really teach athleticism. Bo Ryan prefers the ability to shoot. The difference between the teams is pretty glaring. We get the highlight-reel dunks, fabulous shot-blocks, and electrifying fast breaks. We also get a lot of clunk when we shoot a jumpshot (unless it is Blake shooting). With Bo's teams, they get a lot of swoosh when they shoot jumpshots and free throws, but not much of the rest. Am I far off on this?
My conclusion is that ultimately, you have to be able to put the ball in the hole. All the great leaping, darting, blocking, slamming is great, and certainly counts for something. The athleticism is a great benefit on defense. However, if you can't put the ball in the hole when it counts because you don't have any shooting touch, in the end you won't win most of the time. Although I love to watch Rodney screaming down the court and flying over Goldy's head, or Trevor jumping over Tubby's motorcycle (Tubby's Tipoff) as much as anyone, I would prefer some guys that can flat out shoot the ball. That skill seems to cover up more deficiencies than the other way around. It also seems to me that the one constant to Bobby Knight's teams of yesteryear is that those guys could flat out shoot the ball. I'm excited about Andre Hollins, because it sounds like he is a shooter. Your thoughts? Thanks for the chance to write my first post, and I hope I wasn't too wordy.
