Joe Coleman

Donate To GopherHole


scher215 said:
That's was my point. The OP said you were born a shooter or you weren't. Which is completely and utterly false.

Agree on the different conference too. Kind of. The players we have dictate a fast half court offense. Constant movement. Take the first decent shot, constant ball movement, etc.

Tubby is trying to play a sped up version of Wisconsin offense without the type of talent Wisconsin has.

He either needs to switch to a conference where we can play as little half court as possible, adjust his half court offense, or start recruiting like Wisconsin and adjust his defense.

Or he needs to recruit like UK. Kentucky could (and occasionally does) run a half court offense very similar to ours, and it works. Because they have great athletes with great basketball skills (usually, not so much this year) and are confident running it but they can also play that fast paced defense and run. IMO that's what Tubby wants to do here.

The issue is, he can't or hasn't signed top10, 5 star talent every year like UK does. Why did Damien do so well here? Athletic and had good basketball skills. Westbrook. Athletic and good basketball skills. Same for Dre and Austin. He needs a team full of those guys to employ the defense he wants to and the offense he wants to. But you have Rodney - super athletic, great defense, limited offensive skills. Joe - athletic, limited skills, Trevor/Dre/Austin - athletic and skilled. However, joe and Rodney make it tough for them to excel not being able to shoot. Not even need to shoot at an elite level, but just a respectable level.

Bench, Mav can shoot but not that athletic. Welch can shoot, but not that athletic. Oto fairly athletic but can't shoot. Elliot is a hard worker, but can't shoot. Mo can somewhat shoot but isn't athletic.

The offense and defense are very team oriented and require 5 guys. He has the right 5 for defense, Trevor is a little short, but eh. Offensively, Rodney and Joe bog things down bad with their inability to shoot.
Click to expand...

"Oto.. can't shoot", "Elliot... can't shoot." Your words contradict your point that a shooter is created and not born. Oto, EE and Coleman practice their shot 7 days a week. My guess is that they shoot hundreds of shots per day. A published story discussed how Coleman had worked all summer on his shot/game with his brother Dan. Yet he is at best a streaky shooter and when he starts off bad forget it. Tubby has sat him for long stretches when he starts bad and explained the situation in the press. Is he a better shooter than he was when his game at Hopkins was to explode to the hole against Mn HS opposition? Yes. But it is a stretch to say he is "a very good shooter". Furthermore if what you claim about nurture vs nature is true, every crazy for basketball, practice endlessly high school player would be raining 3s all night long. Practice can make most players better but great shooters have talent they are born with. I would wager a huge sum that Reggie Miller could get on the court with no practice for a month a drain a high percentage of 3s and bury the well-practiced pick-up game player.
 


BuckyGopher said:
Wasn't Coleman a top 100 player coming out of HS?
Click to expand...

Which is the total problem with the gophers. There are a bunch of players rated in that ballpark - I think Williams was what in the 90's? Hollins, Hollins, Coleman, and Walker - all top 150 players. But you put a bunch of top 150 guys on a team and no one really plays well above expectations or develops into a star, and you have what MN has - a decent team. Capable of getting hot and beating good teams, but not a consistant winner.

Sampson, Devoe, Colton, are more examples. IMO, the thing Tubs is missing is a big time, go to guy. I thought Andre might be that guy but he has not proven to be that so far. My guess is that Royce White would have been that player.
 


gopherMD said:
"Oto.. can't shoot", "Elliot... can't shoot." Your words contradict your point that a shooter is created and not born. Oto, EE and Coleman practice their shot 7 days a week. My guess is that they shoot hundreds of shots per day. A published story discussed how Coleman had worked all summer on his shot/game with his brother Dan. Yet he is at best a streaky shooter and when he starts off bad forget it. Tubby has sat him for long stretches when he starts bad and explained the situation in the press. Is he a better shooter than he was when his game at Hopkins was to explode to the hole against Mn HS opposition? Yes. But it is a stretch to say he is "a very good shooter". Furthermore if what you claim about nurture vs nature is true, every crazy for basketball, practice endlessly high school player would be raining 3s all night long. I would wager a huge sum that Reggie Miller could get on the court with no practice for a month a drain a high percentage of 3s and bury the well-practiced pick-up game player.
Click to expand...

Maybe I should have said "Currently can't shoot in games at a respectable level" ?

Reggie Miller has that shot because he's practiced it a billion times. He wasn't a good shooter out of the womb. Is that what you are telling me here? That if you stuck baby Steph Curry in a gym he'd be raining 3's as an infant?

Joe very well could develop a shot like Reggie Miller, but it takes a LOT of work and getting that muscle memory down. Reggie and other elite shooters practiced that same shot for years and years and spent hours and hours in the gym. It's how Vince Carter transformed his game to have a good jump shot. An NBA level jump shot. It take a lot of work to get there. Trenton Hassle eventually got a respectable jump shot. Trevor Ariza got a respectable jump shot. You can develop your jump shot, it is practiced. Not a gene. Guys don't have the jump shot gene in them.
 

shooting

scher215 said:
Maybe I should have said "Currently can't shoot in games at a respectable level" ?

Reggie Miller has that shot because he's practiced it a billion times. He wasn't a good shooter out of the womb. Is that what you are telling me here? That if you stuck baby Steph Curry in a gym he'd be raining 3's as an infant?

Joe very well could develop a shot like Reggie Miller, but it takes a LOT of work and getting that muscle memory down. Reggie and other elite shooters practiced that same shot for years and years and spent hours and hours in the gym. It's how Vince Carter transformed his game to have a good jump shot. An NBA level jump shot. It take a lot of work to get there. Trenton Hassle eventually got a respectable jump shot. Trevor Ariza got a respectable jump shot. You can develop your jump shot, it is practiced. Not a gene. Guys don't have the jump shot gene in them.
Click to expand...

Anyone can get better at shooting. But to insist that players can become like Reggie Miller, I don't buy. If your not a good 3 pt shooter in high school, the odds you can become one through college is probably pretty low. You can become respectable with practice, but come one, Reggie is the best in history. Something in born, in the hand eye, to go along with that practice.
 

The gophers have 2 starters, who aren't playing center that can't shoot the 3. They are similar players really. They play ok defense, they can play in the open court, which is what like 10% of big ten scoring? They can rebound ok. But on the offensive end against a zone, it is brutal.
 

march madness said:
Anyone can get better at shooting. But to insist that players can become like Reggie Miller, I don't buy. If your not a good 3 pt shooter in high school, the odds you can become one through college is probably pretty low. You can become respectable with practice, but come one, Reggie is the best in history. Something in born, in the hand eye, to go along with that practice.
Click to expand...

I think to say Reggie was born a good shooter discredits the work he put in his entire life to be that good.

Maybe he was born with the confidence I guess, but he still had to work his butt off to get to that level and he did it for a long long time.
 



Some of the Tubby supporters are just chasing their tail. I think I'm fairly middle of the road with Tubby (I think it's about that time with him now), but the talent that is here, is his.

If people bash on his recruiting, the supporters point to the fact that some of the players are higher rated than we'd been used to.
If people bash on the coaching, supporters argue that they just aren't that talented.
Furthermore, they excuse him for the fiasco surrounding Joseph, Cobbs, and White transferring, Al Nolen's academic issues, etc.

The point is that Tubby is responsible for the product that is on the floor and the product isn't good right now. I would give the guy excuses if it were a rash of freak injuries (I'm not exactly slamming the TWolves this year), but Tubby doesn't get an exemption from criticism for players transferring and not performing well academically.
 

scher215 said:
I think to say Reggie was born a good shooter discredits the work he put in his entire life to be that good.

Maybe he was born with the confidence I guess, but he still had to work his butt off to get to that level and he did it for a long long time.
Click to expand...

He was born with a higher ceiling as a shooter. No matter how much I worked, I could never shoot like Reggie Miller. He was born with a god given ability and through his hard work, he was able to cultivate that ability into being a GREAT shooter.

It's a bit of both.
 

Exactly. Can our players improve yes. Will Coleman ever be a 45% 3 pt shooter? I would bet a lot of money that it won't happen.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
He was born with a higher ceiling as a shooter. No matter how much I worked, I could never shoot like Reggie Miller. He was born with a god given ability and through his hard work, he was able to cultivate that ability into being a GREAT shooter.

It's a bit of both.
Click to expand...

We will just have to agree to disagree.

I'd bet if you spent 8 hours a day at a gym, eating the best foods available with the best trainers in the world with Reggie himself there to coach you on shooting and watching your every jump shot and you did this for 4 years working as hard as possible every single day you could shoot like Reggie Miller. Now, you porbably wouldn't make it to the NBA because I am guessing you are not 6-7, but I just dont think shooting is a skill you are born with or even remotely "given". It is why Kobe Bryant was able to develop a pretty elite post game as a 6-6 guard. He worked with coaches and trained for it. He wasn't born a dominant post player.

The odds of Coleman ever being that dominant of a shooter are slim to none, but I think if Joe worked with Steph Curry every day for 4 years he could be that could of a jump shooter. Just not realistic though. Now, had Joe started with dedicated work to have an elite jump shot from the time he was maybe, 10 years old and worked on it every day until he was 18 for at least 4 hours a day. I think hed be a ridiculously good jump shooter right now.

I think it is more Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours. Reggie lived and breathed basketball and shooting his entire life and that is why he is so great at it. Steph Curry was taught to shoot and had an NBA player for a dad who could spend time coaching him how to shoot from a young age, he wasn't just born a good shooter or to be a good shooter. He was around basketball his entire life. Kids that play soccer in Mexico aren't born good soccer players. They spend hours and hours from the time they are very young playing soccer.
 



gopherbadgerman said:
Which is the total problem with the gophers. There are a bunch of players rated in that ballpark - I think Williams was what in the 90's? Hollins, Hollins, Coleman, and Walker - all top 150 players. But you put a bunch of top 150 guys on a team and no one really plays well above expectations or develops into a star, and you have what MN has - a decent team. Capable of getting hot and beating good teams, but not a consistant winner.

Sampson, Devoe, Colton, are more examples. IMO, the thing Tubs is missing is a big time, go to guy. I thought Andre might be that guy but he has not proven to be that so far. My guess is that Royce White would have been that player.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, and I agree. I thought the same thing you did, Andre would be the star but he has not stepped up (other than a few huge games). If Royce would have stayed at the U I still think he would have been an early entry. He was just so damn good!
 

I don't believe college players have 8 hours a day to practice, nor reggie miller, or stepen Curry to help them. Everyone can improve. I would imagine if you investigated it you would find that most of the nations best 3pt shooters were great shooters in high school. They may have practiced a ton and still do, but i bet few of them were bad shooters who practiced so much now they are elite.

scher215 said:
We will just have to agree to disagree.

I'd bet if you spent 8 hours a day at a gym, eating the best foods available with the best trainers in the world with Reggie himself there to coach you on shooting and watching your every jump shot and you did this for 4 years working as hard as possible every single day you could shoot like Reggie Miller. Now, you porbably wouldn't make it to the NBA because I am guessing you are not 6-7, but I just dont think shooting is a skill you are born with or even remotely "given". It is why Kobe Bryant was able to develop a pretty elite post game as a 6-6 guard. He worked with coaches and trained for it. He wasn't born a dominant post player.

The odds of Coleman ever being that dominant of a shooter are slim to none, but I think if Joe worked with Steph Curry every day for 4 years he could be that could of a jump shooter. Just not realistic though. Now, had Joe started with dedicated work to have an elite jump shot from the time he was maybe, 10 years old and worked on it every day until he was 18 for at least 4 hours a day. I think hed be a ridiculously good jump shooter right now.

I think it is more Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours. Reggie lived and breathed basketball and shooting his entire life and that is why he is so great at it. Steph Curry was taught to shoot and had an NBA player for a dad who could spend time coaching him how to shoot from a young age, he wasn't just born a good shooter or to be a good shooter. He was around basketball his entire life. Kids that play soccer in Mexico aren't born good soccer players. They spend hours and hours from the time they are very young playing soccer.
Click to expand...
 

scher215;661749 I think it is more Malcolm Gladwell's 10 said:
are you saying Joe should take up ping-pong? jk-- good post, I like to see some intelligence brought to an argument rather than just name calling.
Click to expand...
 

IMO, Outliers by Gladwell was an outstanding read. What I took from it is that the right situations, your genetics and your desire to do the right type of practice dictate your ability to become truly great at anything.

Doing something wrong 10,000 times will just make you great at failing.
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Some of the Tubby supporters are just chasing their tail. I think I'm fairly middle of the road with Tubby (I think it's about that time with him now), but the talent that is here, is his.

If people bash on his recruiting, the supporters point to the fact that some of the players are higher rated than we'd been used to.
If people bash on the coaching, supporters argue that they just aren't that talented.
Furthermore, they excuse him for the fiasco surrounding Joseph, Cobbs, and White transferring, Al Nolen's academic issues, etc.

The point is that Tubby is responsible for the product that is on the floor and the product isn't good right now. I would give the guy excuses if it were a rash of freak injuries (I'm not exactly slamming the TWolves this year), but Tubby doesn't get an exemption from criticism for players transferring and not performing well academically.
Click to expand...

Not sure who this is directed at (assuming it's more in general) but I've always been on the side that he's done a good job of recruiting, but hasn't done a great job keeping players in the program and developing those he has. My problem with some people's remarks is they think guys like Maverick and Welch were brought in in the same circumstances as Rodney Williams or Andre Hollins. That's just not the case. They were brought in because of players leaving, plain and simple. A lot of the blame should still be on Tubby, I just think it's directed in the wrong area.
 

BTen said:
Been waiting 4 yrs & counting.......
Click to expand...

Rodney Williams has been a good player for us. He just hasn't developed nearly as much as we'd thought he would. If he had been an average recruit and had the same career, most would call it productive.
 

gopherMD said:
Agree. Coleman and Williams dominated Minnesota HS basketball because they were explosive players who could take it to the rim against inferior opposition. Neither can shoot with any consistency. You cannot create a shooter; either you are one or you are not. Your genetics limit you plain and simple. Coleman gets stuffed too often even when he takes it to the hole. Rodney cannot score off the dribble; he is a slasher who is best in transition; a skill of little value in the half-court dominated B1G.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you. A notable exception would be Michael Jordan. He really improved his 3 point shooting after 2-3 years.
 

scher215 said:
We will just have to agree to disagree.

I'd bet if you spent 8 hours a day at a gym, eating the best foods available with the best trainers in the world with Reggie himself there to coach you on shooting and watching your every jump shot and you did this for 4 years working as hard as possible every single day you could shoot like Reggie Miller. Now, you porbably wouldn't make it to the NBA because I am guessing you are not 6-7, but I just dont think shooting is a skill you are born with or even remotely "given". It is why Kobe Bryant was able to develop a pretty elite post game as a 6-6 guard. He worked with coaches and trained for it. He wasn't born a dominant post player.

The odds of Coleman ever being that dominant of a shooter are slim to none, but I think if Joe worked with Steph Curry every day for 4 years he could be that could of a jump shooter. Just not realistic though. Now, had Joe started with dedicated work to have an elite jump shot from the time he was maybe, 10 years old and worked on it every day until he was 18 for at least 4 hours a day. I think hed be a ridiculously good jump shooter right now.

I think it is more Malcolm Gladwell's 10,000 hours. Reggie lived and breathed basketball and shooting his entire life and that is why he is so great at it. Steph Curry was taught to shoot and had an NBA player for a dad who could spend time coaching him how to shoot from a young age, he wasn't just born a good shooter or to be a good shooter. He was around basketball his entire life. Kids that play soccer in Mexico aren't born good soccer players. They spend hours and hours from the time they are very young playing soccer.
Click to expand...

Your post is sort of making my point though. The 10,000 hour rule didn't mean that everyone could get to the SAME level as a result of putting in 10,000 hours.

The Gladwell hypothesis isn't that the natural ability doesn't matter, his hypothesis was that the other factors (work, accumulative advantage, etc.) were AS important as the natural abilities.

As far as your last paragraph, that's not what I said. I said that people with natural athletic ability will have a higher ceiling than someone with less athletic ability if they put in the same amount of work. I never said that Reggie Miller was BORN a good a shooter, I said he was born a superior athlete who had a higher ceiling to be a better shooter (or whatever athletic endeavor he chose) than me with equal amounts of practice.


To quote Gladwell, “Nor is success simply the sum of the decisions and efforts we make on our own behalf. It is, rather, a gift. Outliers are those who have been given opportunities — and who have had the strength and presence of mind to seize them."

For a lot of athletes those "gifts" or "opportunities" are there natural born athletic abilities.
 

scher215 said:
I think to say Reggie was born a good shooter discredits the work he put in his entire life to be that good.

Maybe he was born with the confidence I guess, but he still had to work his butt off to get to that level and he did it for a long long time.
Click to expand...

There is little doubt Reggie Miller practiced a lot and of course no one pops out of the womb with the ability to shoot a basketball. That said if you took Reggie Miller and Joe Coleman and had them take the same number of shots over a number of years, Reggie would still be far better. There is without a doubt a genetic component to shooting the basketball just like there is a genetic component to running fast, throwing a baseball accurately or hitting a tennis ball precisely with high velocity. Endless practice can not make up for a lack of exceptional inborn hand-eye skills( and may lead to overuse injuries). If practice was the key component we would not be having this discussion. It is as evident as watching youth leagues where anyone can see some kids have more talent. Michael Jordan did develop his jump shot but Joe Coleman is no Michael Jordan to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen. Jordan could dominate in college without a great jumpshot but he always had that ability.
 

GopherState said:
IMO, Outliers by Gladwell was an outstanding read. What I took from it is that the right situations, your genetics and your desire to do the right type of practice dictate your ability to become truly great at anything.

Doing something wrong 10,000 times will just make you great at failing.
Click to expand...

Or you might become Jim Furyk.
 

We dont need Joe Coleman to shoot like Reggie Miller. I would take an Eric Harris jump shot.

Then he could work on dribbling.. Dont need him to dribble like Osborne Lockhar I would take Blake Hoffarber..
 

Bob_Loblaw said:
Your post is sort of making my point though. The 10,000 hour rule didn't mean that everyone could get to the SAME level as a result of putting in 10,000 hours.

The Gladwell hypothesis isn't that the natural ability doesn't matter, his hypothesis was that the other factors (work, accumulative advantage, etc.) were AS important as the natural abilities.

As far as your last paragraph, that's not what I said. I said that people with natural athletic ability will have a higher ceiling than someone with less athletic ability if they put in the same amount of work. I never said that Reggie Miller was BORN a good a shooter, I said he was born a superior athlete who had a higher ceiling to be a better shooter (or whatever athletic endeavor he chose) than me with equal amounts of practice.

To quote Gladwell, “Nor is success simply the sum of the decisions and efforts we make on our own behalf. It is, rather, a gift. Outliers are those who have been given opportunities — and who have had the strength and presence of mind to seize them."

For a lot of athletes those "gifts" or "opportunities" are there natural born athletic abilities.
Click to expand...

Agreed completely.

Reggie was given opportunities. Much like Steph Curry was. Bill Gates was given the opportunity of being at one of the very few universities with computer programming available. The Hockey players were given the opportunity at better coaching due to their birth date. The Beatles had the rare opportunity to play multiple concerts together prior to making it big. Steph Curry had the rare opportunity to be born of an NBA player who would help him play basketball.

So yes, Steph was given great opportunity the vast majority of people never get. I just think if you gave, say Joe Coleman, those same opportunities as a child he may have developed into close to as good of a shooter.

I'm only arguing that you can't necessarily know that were Joe Coleman the adopted son of Dell Curry at one day old he wouldn't have the same shooting ability as Steph and Seth do. I don't see those opportunities as "nature" I guess. If Joe got drafted and spent every day with Kyle Korver he could probably learn to shoot at a pretty high level.

Btw, props to everyone for actually having an insightful and intelligent conversation on this with no personal attacks or Tubby bashing/praising lol
 

howieramone said:
I have to agree with you. A notable exception would be Michael Jordan. He really improved his 3 point shooting after 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

I don't think when kids are born you can put a stamp on there head "never learn to shoot" "adequate shooter" "elite shooter"

Jason Kidd, Vince Carter, even Rondo have all greatly improved their jump shots during their NBA career. To think Joe Coleman or Rodney Williams couldn't do that is wrong I think. Maybe they never will/did in college due to time constraints or other issues, but i'd bet there are those in the NBA believing they can teach both (more so Rodney as he's been scouted more) to shoot at an NBA level.
 

Roland Brooks said:
We dont need Joe Coleman to shoot like Reggie Miller. I would take an Eric Harris jump shot.

Then he could work on dribbling.. Dont need him to dribble like Osborne Lockhar I would take Blake Hoffarber..
Click to expand...

I completely forgot about Harris. He made himself into a pretty good 3 point shooter.
 

Jason Kidd is still a poor jump shooter. He has developed into a good set shooter. Rondo shoots a tip toe jumper. To elevate and release the ball at apex of jump with soft touch is not easily learned. Natural fluidity , coordination, and hand eye play a large part in your ability to shoot. You can always improve with practice but there are definitely natural shooters. You think Nolen and DJ didn't practice shooting ? Joe and Rodney both seem a bit stiff, but could become respectable shooters by improving mechanics and practice.
 

Gladwell's hypothesis is just that. It is based on flimsy science, inferences, and pop psychology at best according to many critics. There are no double-blind, controlled studies of the 10,000 hour notion nor will there ever be. IMO there is an inborn limit to your abilities in athletics and academics. Reminds me of a student I knew in college who clung to the theory(unsubstantiated) that even Einstein only used 10% of his intellectual capacity. He believed that if he worked as hard as he could he would get into medical school. Never happened. Work hard, do your best and hope that circumstances work in your favor. Agree, a good civil discussion.
 

There's only so much capacity to grow as a shooter. Yes, you can obviously improve, but it's extremely rare that a player goes from being a bad shooter to a very good shooter in college or even the NBA. You've given a few examples, but I'd say only the Rondo "jump" was somewhat big, and it was only in terms of his mid-range shot. He hasn't become a better ft shooter or 3 point shooter. Vince Carter was always a decent 3 point shooter, he just started taking more as he got older and less athletic. Kidd never became a very good shooter. Hell, he's a career 40% shooter. He just went from terrible shooter to well below average. Shooting ability is pretty damn stable. Shot selection is more of the change we see.

scher215 said:
I don't think when kids are born you can put a stamp on there head "never learn to shoot" "adequate shooter" "elite shooter"

Jason Kidd, Vince Carter, even Rondo have all greatly improved their jump shots during their NBA career. To think Joe Coleman or Rodney Williams couldn't do that is wrong I think. Maybe they never will/did in college due to time constraints or other issues, but i'd bet there are those in the NBA believing they can teach both (more so Rodney as he's been scouted more) to shoot at an NBA level.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom