Tubby and Chip

Donate To GopherHole
B

Block M

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2009
Messages
1,610
Reaction score
818
Points
113
Tubby should make a very strong commitment to Chip as the 2G of the future for this team. He has the most potential of the freshmen and Tubby needs to make it clear to that he is high on Chip's future contributions to the team. I do not want to lose Chip under any circumstance.
 

6th man, maybe. 2G of the future? No chance, not on a title contending team.
 

Chip would be a great 6th man... not sure I see him as a starter on a championship quality team. I think Joe Coleman has the current title of 2G of the future for this team.
 

I continue to find it curious how easily people dismiss or give up on a young player. Chip has a very high ceiling and is a potential starter down the road. He just needs to do what a lot of players do during the course of their collegiate careers - work on things and improve. Nothing against Joe Coleman, but he hasn't played one god-blessed minute of college ball yet.
 

Bad Gopher said:
I continue to find it curious how easily people dismiss or give up on a young player. Chip has a very high ceiling and is a potential starter down the road. He just needs to do what a lot of players do during the course of their collegiate careers - work on things and improve. Nothing against Joe Coleman, but he hasn't played one god-blessed minute of college ball yet.
Click to expand...

I have nothing against Chip, I just don't think he's fits the SG mold. He's more of a forward/wing in a PG body. If he works his ass off on his jump shot, that could change my mind. I think Andre Hollins is the SG of the future.
 


Bad Gopher said:
I continue to find it curious how easily people dismiss or give up on a young player. Chip has a very high ceiling and is a potential starter down the road. He just needs to do what a lot of players do during the course of their collegiate careers - work on things and improve. Nothing against Joe Coleman, but he hasn't played one god-blessed minute of college ball yet.
Click to expand...

You have that right.

I too like his potential. He has a lot to learn but the raw talent is there. IMO, he has a bigger upside that Rodney did after year one. Joe Coleman may be a flop.
 


chip

I like Chip and hope he stays but I do not see Tubby promising him anything.

Chip has some work to do if he expects to get more minutes next year.

Among other things he shot 22% from threes and 55% from the free throw line. That says Chip has an upside. :)
 




Bad Gopher said:
I continue to find it curious how easily people dismiss or give up on a young player. Chip has a very high ceiling and is a potential starter down the road. He just needs to do what a lot of players do during the course of their collegiate careers - work on things and improve. Nothing against Joe Coleman, but he hasn't played one god-blessed minute of college ball yet.
Click to expand...

Just my opinion, but in most systems the 2G is the player most likely to be your 3pt shooter. It is extremely unlikely Chip ever fills that role. Michigan had a kid who played SF at 6'3" who Chip actually reminds me of, on the team that finished as runner up to Indiana in the national championship game (Wayman ?). He was a very good player and did not shoot outside, just attacked the basket and had very good hands on D. But that was something like 25 years ago. I guess you could call it an early 3G team, with Steve Grote, and Ricky Greene at guard (fastest guard in BigTen history), and Phil Hubbard as the most aggressive skinny 6'7" center in Big Ten history. (He was probably about Trevor's size, actually lighter, really quick, and was a monster to handle. He gave Mychal Thompson great games in the paint despite being 3" and 50 pounds lighter.) Games in the barn against Michigan and Indiana were absolute wars on every possession and incredibly great fun. The three point shot was not in place then.
With that team, Michigan played the toughest and best man to man defense I have ever seen. They contested every pass.
Getting past the reminiscing, if Chip were to be the 2G, someone else has to be the designated three point shooter; you can't compete without a good three point shooter anymore.
 

corcoran1 said:
Just my opinion, but in most systems the 2G is the player most likely to be your 3pt shooter. It is extremely unlikely Chip ever fills that role. Michigan had a kid who played SF at 6'3" who Chip actually reminds me of, on the team that finished as runner up to Indiana in the national championship game (Wayman ?). He was a very good player and did not shoot outside, just attacked the basket and had very good hands on D. But that was something like 25 years ago. I guess you could call it an early 3G team, with Steve Grote, and Ricky Greene at guard (fastest guard in BigTen history), and Phil Hubbard as the most aggressive skinny 6'7" center in Big Ten history. (He was probably about Trevor's size, actually lighter, really quick, and was a monster to handle. He gave Mychal Thompson great games in the paint despite being 3" and 50 pounds lighter.) Games in the barn against Michigan and Indiana were absolute wars on every possession and incredibly great fun. The three point shot was not in place then.
With that team, Michigan played the toughest and best man to man defense I have ever seen. They contested every pass.
Getting past the reminiscing, if Chip were to be the 2G, someone else has to be the designated three point shooter; you can't compete without a good three point shooter anymore.
Click to expand...

You're basing that on where Chip is with his game at this moment in time, right after his freshman year. I've seen so many players expand their game during college; based on that, there are a lot of possibilities. The question is how much natural ability a guy has, and Chip has a lot. He also has a lot of work to do.

My prototypical two-guard shoots from outside but can also operate closer in and drive the lane in order to keep defenses honest. Chip has rare abilities to attack the goal. Those are natural abilities and are hard to teach. The shot can still come.
 

corcoran1 said:
Just my opinion, but in most systems the 2G is the player most likely to be your 3pt shooter. It is extremely unlikely Chip ever fills that role. Michigan had a kid who played SF at 6'3" who Chip actually reminds me of, on the team that finished as runner up to Indiana in the national championship game (Wayman ?). He was a very good player and did not shoot outside, just attacked the basket and had very good hands on D. But that was something like 25 years ago. I guess you could call it an early 3G team, with Steve Grote, and Ricky Greene at guard (fastest guard in BigTen history), and Phil Hubbard as the most aggressive skinny 6'7" center in Big Ten history. (He was probably about Trevor's size, actually lighter, really quick, and was a monster to handle. He gave Mychal Thompson great games in the paint despite being 3" and 50 pounds lighter.) Games in the barn against Michigan and Indiana were absolute wars on every possession and incredibly great fun. The three point shot was not in place then.
With that team, Michigan played the toughest and best man to man defense I have ever seen. They contested every pass.
Getting past the reminiscing, if Chip were to be the 2G, someone else has to be the designated three point shooter; you can't compete without a good three point shooter anymore.
Click to expand...

http://www.hickoksports.com/history/ncaambask1976.shtml#boxs Wayman Britt.
 

2 guard is not a designated 3 point shooter...I know you are used to Blake, but c'mon.

Chip has shown that he can slash and finish and if he improves his jump shot and defense he can absolutely be a great 2 guard. A 6'3'' slashing 2 guard is something we need. Next year he should be one of the first guys off the bench, ready to attack. He's got a nice future.
 



I was pleasantly surprised by Armelin's performance this year and who knows how he might improve. That said, I don't think a coach should promise anything about playing time (and I doubt Tubby will). PT should be based on practice and game performance, not promises.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom