Maximizing Grant

[spider23]

Thinking about our season, I think this is a big question. Grant IMO is a POY type talent. Obviously the guard at Davidson is an absolute stud and a couple of other guys are very good. If we are to have a big bounce back year, I do think Mooney needs to max out Grant's impact. TJ was able to really impact the game just by his IQ, passing and shooting. But he was not a physical presence like Grant.
Grant has a nice developing skill set, which I don't mind him using at times (taking a few 3's), but I want him beasting guys inside a lot. If he is a guy that the other team has to double, that makes everyone more dangerous. Bottom line, I want this guy getting many touches in the paint, and offensive sets to take advantage, not having him on the perimeter too much. What you think?

 

[Hanca]

Think you are correct. Doubt Mooney does

 

[SpiderGuy]

Think you are correct. Doubt Mooney does

X2

The Mooney System is intact. Asking him to change is a wish, but doubt it will happen.

 

[kneepadmckinney]

Good topic. I do think for us to be effective as an offense, Grant has to show enough from the perimeter to open up the offense for everyone else. But I would like to see more of those plays that eventually got designed for Terry Allen, TJ, and even Gonzo where he starts at the elbow and eventually gets set for a post on the opposite block. Definitely establish more set plays down low, and then work out and around from there.

 

[kneepadmckinney]

As for the other two comments, Mooney has very obviously added plays and wrinkles to the offense over time, to maximize certain players. I listed three examples above -- Terry Allen, TJ, and Gonzo. Geriot down low. Justin Harper automatic from the elbow. High ball screens for Kevin Anderson, Kendall, and then Shawn'Dre. There are countless examples of him adjusting the offense. Saying otherwise means you aren't watching, or you aren't understanding what you are watching.

 

[spiderman]

I don't take one of today's multi dimensional big men and ask him to play like a 1960's big man. continue to develop Grant's skills in shooting, passing and handling. yes his bread and butter is inside, but he should be used all over. like TJ was. we used film of TJ to lure Grant to UR. we want to use film of Grant to lure the next great UR big man too.

 

[ur2K]

Agree on Grant - he's so good in the post. The offense should move through him down there. Will be interesting to see who can run it from the top of the key if Grant stays down low.

 

[LongTimeSpiderFan]

Thinking about our season, I think this is a big question. Grant IMO is a POY type talent. Obviously the guard at Davidson is an absolute stud and a couple of other guys are very good. If we are to have a big bounce back year, I do think Mooney needs to max out Grant's impact. TJ was able to really impact the game just by his IQ, passing and shooting. But he was not a physical presence like Grant.
Grant has a nice developing skill set, which I don't mind him using at times (taking a few 3's), but I want him beasting guys inside a lot. If he is a guy that the other team has to double, that makes everyone more dangerous. Bottom line, I want this guy getting many touches in the paint, and offensive sets to take advantage, not having him on the perimeter too much. What you think?

Teams honestly had no answer for him. The only one who slowed him down was himself by trying to do too much (i. E. taking inappropriate shots or failing to get his teammates more involved) . He was already getting double teamed by the end of the year. He will be double teamed from game 1 this year so we'll have to see how well he handles that. As i said in earlier posts, TJ didnt start getting doubled until the middle of his Junior year (2nd year with UR), GG was being doubled by the end if his freshman year - think about that...
He will be 1st team all A10 and POY candidate if Spids do well as a team.

 

[LongTimeSpiderFan]

Good topic. I do think for us to be effective as an offense, Grant has to show enough from the perimeter to open up the offense for everyone else. But I would like to see more of those plays that eventually got designed for Terry Allen, TJ, and even Gonzo where he starts at the elbow and eventually gets set for a post on the opposite block. Definitely establish more set plays down low, and then work out and around from there.

I sincerely disagree that he must be effective from the perimeter for us to be successful. He will be constantly double teamed in the post which will open up the perimeter for open shots and someone to drive the ball. I think his outside shot looks good so he'll probably improve from there and those points will be backbreakers fir opposing D's, his physical presence in the paint is whats needed for us to be an efficient offensive team. NS will have the other teams best defender on him (NS is very good posting up so i think that'll be a great option when GG is not on the floor) so plenty of outside opportunities for shooters and drivers.

 

[SpiderGuy]

The ability for Grant to play away from the basket is a bonus. However for his size & strength, he is needed inside to score and to get rebounds. We have a rebounding deficit team as is, & the more he plays closer to the goal the chances increase for rebounding.

It's not outdated or a yesteryear thing to want your biggest and physically advantaged players to play inside.

 

[spiderman]

It's not outdated or a yesteryear thing to want your biggest and physically advantaged players to play inside.

tell that to a talented, highly skilled big guy you're recruiting and you just lost him.

 

[SpiderGuy]

tell that to a talented, highly skilled big guy you're recruiting and you just lost him.

Sorry - disagree. Many of the most successful teams play their big men in the paint.

 

[spider23]

We can find a happy medium here. I don't have a problem with Grant being modern big man, I do think he can shoot it well and his percentages will go up. He is such a beast though, that is the position that we will be physically dominant. He needs touches in the paint to punish the defense, and he can run the floor. Easy buckets make for easy buckets.

 

[spiderman]

Sorry - disagree. Many of the most successful teams play their big men in the paint.

and so do we! jeez, it's not like I'm saying he should play point guard. he scores mostly inside but has a nice mid range jumper and his form is good from 3. there's obviously an advantage to having a guy like this who can draw another team's big man out of the lane.

you just don't take a skilled big man and tie him down to the block. not in today's game.

 

[SpiderGuy]

and so do we! jeez, it's not like I'm saying he should play point guard. he scores mostly inside but has a nice mid range jumper and his form is good from 3. there's obviously an advantage to having a guy like this who can draw another team's big man out of the lane.

you just don't take a skilled big man and tie him down to the block. not in today's game.

Below is what my original post said - see the first sentence.

"The ability for Grant to play away from the basket is a bonus. However for his size & strength, he is needed inside to score and to get rebounds. We have a rebounding deficit team as is, & the more he plays closer to the goal the chances increase for rebounding."

 

[spiderman]

so how is it a bonus if you don't let him do it? Grant obviously plays inside a lot already. do you think he should be inside offensively all of the time? that was my understanding when you said "It's not outdated or a yesteryear thing to want your biggest and physically advantaged players to play inside."
I said "tell that to a talented, highly skilled big guy you're recruiting and you just lost him". and you disagreed.

I'm saying that if you find some old school kid who works on his drop step and baby hook all day, then that'll play. but if you're recruiting today's 6'8"+ skilled big man, the guy in the gym every day working on his handle and his shot, and you tell him you're plan is to plant him on the block ... then you lost him. because another school will have a more attractive plan.

 

[SpiderGuy]

so how is it a bonus if you don't let him do it? Grant obviously plays inside a lot already. do you think he should be inside offensively all of the time? that was my understanding when you said "It's not outdated or a yesteryear thing to want your biggest and physically advantaged players to play inside."
I said "tell that to a talented, highly skilled big guy you're recruiting and you just lost him". and you disagreed.

I'm saying that if you find some old school kid who works on his drop step and baby hook all day, then that'll play. but if you're recruiting today's 6'8"+ skilled big man, the guy in the gym every day working on his handle and his shot, and you tell him you're plan is to plant him on the block ... then you lost him. because another school will have a more attractive plan.

I think that's the problem. You misunderstood the point. You stated it in your own words. Where did I say "you don't let him do it"? It wasn't stated nor implied.

The point was that it's a "bonus". Maybe I should have been more black & white. The bonus is that he can play & shoot outside, set screens, etc.

However since we are as a 5 man unit undersized and the offensive has historically not been geared heavily towards rebounding (i.e. - not capitalizing / maximizing on the potential for 2nd chance points), it would benefit us to have Grant play percentage wise more of his time in the paint and under the basket. IMHO that is where we get the greatest payback on him.

If we look around at the rest of the supporting players we put on the floor, we just are not physically big and aggressive beyond Grant - all the more reason for him to play around the boards. Losing Buck is also a real hit. Even though he was not a big tall guy, he played like one & was exceptionally aggressive. With him gone, that skill set is a void.

 

[spiderman]

now I get it. you're just talking percentages. you're ok with him outside, just a higher percentage inside than last year. I understand but I don't think it would have a huge impact in rebounding. how big a pop would you expect by him staying inside more? he was near the paint a good amount last year and lead the team with 49 offensive rebounds (along with Buck) in 32 games.

losing Buck definitely hurts on the boards. Nathan's going to have to rebound on both ends to earn his minutes. and come to think of it ... Nathan's probably the guy I'd choose to crash the offensive boards more.

 

[SpiderGuy]

now I get it. you're just talking percentages. you're ok with him outside, just a higher percentage inside than last year. I understand but I don't think it would have a huge impact in rebounding. how big a pop would you expect by him staying inside more? he was near the paint a good amount last year and lead the team with 49 offensive rebounds (along with Buck) in 32 games.

losing Buck definitely hurts on the boards. Nathan's going to have to rebound on both ends to earn his minutes. and come to think of it ... Nathan's probably the guy I'd choose to crash the offensive boards more.

Yes - ok with Grant outside. That was the bonus reference.

To answer your question - Not sure how much pop inside by the numbers, but it seems that if he's closer to the basket more 1) it would increase shooting percentage, 2) provide for greater probability of offensive rebounds, and 3) lead to more 2nd chance points. I'll leave it to the stats guy on this site to run numbers to possibly give actual percentages.

Beyond Grant, we have some height, but it needs to be accompanied by (preferably) more weight & muscle to hang and pound with the bigger players in the conference. Grant is a big guy with big man tools yet flexible to play a 3 or 4. I don't think we truly have anywhere near similar backup for him. This is not a rap on the other guys - just what the makeup is.

With this discussion, it really doesn't matter if we keep running the same offense. It is Mooney's base system, and regardless of some tweaks, the base system has been here for years, and unless something radical happens, it is here to stay. If that is what we'll run then what we saw last year is what we'll see this year. The following year - TBD.

 

[urfan1]

size alone will get GG looks at the NBA. If he can play inside and outside his stock goes way up. If Grant can make the NBA and be successful, he will be a great recruiting tool for us going forward.

 

[VT4700]

Sorry - disagree. Many of the most successful teams play their big men in the paint.

I don't think this is close to accurate. More often than not, the most successful teams have the best talent, and the most talented big men play all over the court, with very very few of them being in the paint guys. The game has changed so much I cannot even think of 5 really good returning guys in the whole country who are strictly in the paint guys.

This is why so many teams, including ours, do not even bother calling anyone a C for center anymore. Most are just made up of guards and forwards.

 

[gospidersgo]

Looking back at the stats from last year Grant took 2 1/2 threes per game. I think I'd like to see him cut that in half and find a way for Nick or Gilyard to take that extra 3. The league knows he can and will take threes and has the ability to make them. So the threat is established now. But as mentioned above where he is most desperately needed and also most effective is inside.

The thing I'm most worried about is how he handles being the main focus of the opposition from opening tip next year. At times last year he forced shots instead of kicking it back out. If he can play smart he can really pile up some assists, especially if one more guy can prove to be a shooter along with Nick and Jacob.