MBB: Midwest Conference

Maverick · February 01, 2007, 04:12:24 PM

Quote from: schwanman on February 01, 2007, 03:36:25 PM
jeffdc,

Against Monmouth, he got some uncontested shots, beating his defender off the dribble (which takes a fair amount of skill) and finding no one else to stop him once he was in the paint. All I've ever seen -- except for one bad night on ESPN2 -- is Grinnell play against Monmouth, so maybe other teams defend that isolation play much better than the Scots seem to.

And yes, Wood was great at that, too, as well as making his free throws when fouled on the isolation plays.

Is it just me or was that 2004-05 season when Grinnell was down a bit the only recent year when there wasn't a Wood or Grotberg style of player that made a living on those isolation plays? It seems like that type of player is the main key to "The System" and without a scorer like that, it isn't as effective in the overall season of games. Anyone have comments supporting or arguing that? Just curious.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · February 01, 2007, 04:48:00 PM

I think it's simply that while the system allows an amazing number of players to play and contribute, it can't win very well without at least one (probably three) players who would excel in any style of ball. Wood and Grotberg are great examples. These guys are just good ballplayers.

Wasn't the system conceived because Grinnell couldn't get the kind of players necessary to compete in a traditional system? It's great for making benchwarmers into role players, but it still needs the talented guys to take the team to the next level.

GC is just lucky that Coach A raised a pretty dang good player and was a nice enough dad that he wanted to come play for him. They've got two ballers now with court vision and above average talent. It's only going to get better as they mature and improve.

You're definitely right, though. The ultimate success of the system in terms of wins and losses depends on those one or two top level guys.

systemfan86 · February 01, 2007, 04:52:47 PM

Quote from: Hoops Fan on February 01, 2007, 04:48:00 PM

I think it's simply that while the system allows an amazing number of players to play and contribute, it can't win very well without at least one (probably three) players who would excel in any style of ball. Wood and Grotberg are great examples. These guys are just good ballplayers.

Wasn't the system conceived because Grinnell couldn't get the kind of players necessary to compete in a traditional system? It's great for making benchwarmers into role players, but it still needs the talented guys to take the team to the next level.

GC is just lucky that Coach A raised a pretty dang good player and was a nice enough dad that he wanted to come play for him. They've got two ballers now with court vision and above average talent. It's only going to get better as they mature and improve.

You're definitely right, though. The ultimate success of the system in terms of wins and losses depends on those one or two top level guys.

Everyone needs those top players. Grinnell is no different in that respect. What might be more interesting is trying to determine how good players like Chamberlain and Paul Norlund before him might be on other teams when they are asked to play specific roles at Grinnell.

Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan) · February 01, 2007, 04:57:40 PM

Chamberlain would have been very good elsewhere, except no one wanted to take a flyer on a skinny 16 year old college freshman.

Greek Tragedy · February 01, 2007, 05:13:36 PM

I've always said I like Chamberlain, the token tall guy on a team with a bunch of smaller shooters!

scottie · February 01, 2007, 05:19:19 PM

Chamberlain had some key blocks, rebounds and putbacks against the Scots. Without the inside presence, it would have been a much closer game. He's not a dominator, but he IS a contributor (at least from the 20 minutes I saw on my computer screen).

fightingscots13 · February 01, 2007, 06:52:57 PM

Well, since no one took me up on my "What's the biggest adjustment from h.s. to college" question, and I'm done talking about GC - I think we've beaten it to a pulp - how about a different thread of conversation?

Unfortunately, I don't have any ideas on the tip of my tongue, but with the number of brilliant minds on this board I'm sure there's SOMETHING else we can discuss.

scottie · February 01, 2007, 08:02:35 PM

How about tomorrow's weather forecast for the Maple City?

SCOTTIEPALOOZA (TM) is coming to Glennie Gym!

fightingscots13 · February 01, 2007, 08:35:30 PM

Since there isn't any bb tonite, I'll offer a different kind of line of the night...as I'm asking my loving wife, a posting up virgin, to bring up "the board" to see if anyone has started a different topic, she scrolls down to the bottom of page 401 and asks, "Who's Karma?"

Maybe it's more of a had-to-be-there line, but I couldn't help but have a good laugh...

BTW, Scottie...better have something on under your kilt tomorrow - how's that for a weather forecast?

scottie · February 01, 2007, 08:49:03 PM

Did she also ask, "Why doesn't Scottie get any Karma love?"

I'll throw on an extra pair of short pants under my kilt tomorrow...

fightingscots13 · February 01, 2007, 10:00:46 PM

No, I think she realized the best thing she could do was to say nothing...

cardinalfanrochelle · February 01, 2007, 10:19:29 PM

Lakeland over Rockford, 23 points for Rogers, not bad for a kid who had surgery on Wednesday morning

cardinalfanrochelle · February 01, 2007, 10:20:11 PM

Sorry wrong board

Scots4 · February 01, 2007, 11:02:50 PM

Fighting Scots13- You ask what the biggest adjustment from high school to college is? Hmm, if I was a freshman this would be easier to answer but I know with me it was just basically mental. As a freshman in college, you get beat up a little bit because you are not "the guy" anymore. Everyone in college was "the guy" in high school. So it takes time in the weight room and the gym to make yourself college level. Taking extra shots at this stage in your career may not make you that much better of a shooter, but it does something for your mentality. The same with the weight room and thats where I think careers can be changed. The work I did in the weight room probably didnt make me that much stronger, but I just felt alot more confident in my ability.

systemfan86 · February 02, 2007, 08:40:42 AM

We could always go back to the old standards: POY and COY debate. We could start the 'Who has the best chance of making noise in the NCAA tournament?" discussion. We could throw out the Super Bowl predictions in Haiku form. How about best and worst looking players in the league. Which coach has the most style?

How about, "If you had to trade the best player on your team for another player in the league, who would you pick up?" For example, while I'd hate to lose TTMG, if I had to trade him, I'd be tempted to pick up an athletic big man. If it was only for the rest of the year, I think I go with Schmitting; if it's a longer term trade, I'm intrigued by guys like Horton (BC), Hurley (LU), or Terwelp (MC). I'd be interested to see which of those guys you folks think could play in the 'system'.

Then again, Drury might be an apt short term replacement for TTMG.