Having the eye for talent
- The Flash Point
- 1 Replies
Back in the late 70s, I watched the Dayton Flyers play a basketball game with my brother at the UD Arena. Although I knew the Flyers had a great player on the team, I didn't know his number or what he looked liked because that was the first time I ever saw Dayton play. My brother had told me about Jim Paxson and how good he was as a player so I knew the Flyers had at least one excellent shooter on the team. After watching Dayton warm-up, I confidently told my brother, "Number 42 is your best player." I didn't know who the player was but noticed he had great shooting form and made his shots. Of course, later I realized the player was Jim Paxson, the one my brother had told me about. Paxson was a 6-6 shooting guard/small forward from Archbishop Alter High School in Kettering, Ohio. He became a four-year starter for the Flyers and was an All-American in 1979 as a senior averaging more than 23 points per game. Paxson also averaged 17 points as a junior and 18 points as a sophomore at Dayton. He was a first round draft pick (12th overall) in the 1979 NBA Draft by the Portland Trailblazers and had an 11-year professional basketball career as a forward and guard.
Although I easily recognized the talent of Jim Paxson before I even saw him play in a game, I have not always been right in assessing a player's ability. What I typically look for in a player is his ability to shoot the ball utilizing good shooting technique. Having had good shooting form myself, I understand that a player with good shooting touch is more likely to be a consistent scorer than one with poor shooting technique. But of course there are some players who became great scorers despite their lack of textbook mechanics. Anthony Grier was a great scorer for the Flashes but did not have the best shooting form. In shooting, the ball should stay in front of you and not go behind your head. The reason the ball should not go behind your head is because you want to release the ball quickly. Placing the ball behind your head when shooting prevents you from getting a quick release of the ball and gives the defender a better chance to block the shot. Grier typically placed the ball behind his head when he shot but did not have a problem getting it blocked. As a matter of fact, Grier was first team All-MAC and received All-America honorable mention in 1984-1985 after averaging 20.9 points per game.
Another player with a much more unorthodox shooting style is Kevin Martin, who recently retired after playing 12 years in the NBA. Martin played basketball for Zanesville High School and Western Carolina University before he was drafted by the Sacramento Kings. Having the ugliest shot in the NBA, it's quite apparent Martin taught himself how to shoot because after watching him shoot a jump shot, it's obvious he didn't discover his form in any sort of basketball textbook.
According to Martin, his shooting motion came from playing against older kids when he was younger. Because he couldn’t go inside against taller opponents when he was a kid, he stayed out around the perimeter. And since he was smaller, he needed to put a little extra muscle into his shot. As Martin grew older, he never changed his shot.
“It’s kind of far, so shooting threes at age seven or eight you’re not going to shoot a picture-perfect motion as a little kid,” Martin said. “It just kind of stuck with me.”
As a short player who played with older kids myself, I developed my own style as well. Since I couldn't go inside against taller players, just as Martin couldn't as a kid, I learned to shoot from far out but always started the motion of the ball directly upwards above and in front of my head without dipping the ball. Because I shot the ball with a mere flip of the wrist, I had to release the ball as I was going up rather than at the peak of the jump shot. I found jumping when shooting helped propel the ball particularly when shooting beyond 15 feet. I didn't have to jump when shooting free throws but I had to jump when I was shooting from the top of the key because a simple flip of the wrist would not have enough projection to get the ball to the rim. I admit my shot was not exactly textbook like the picture below but it was very effective and most consistent. Below, former NBA star Allan Houston is using his whole hand and wrist to launch the ball like you are suppose to. I, on the other hand, only used my wrist (and legs) to propel the ball. But because I only had to flip my wrist to shoot, I had great control of the ball and consequently made most of my shots from 3-point range although there wasn't a three-point shot when I played many years ago.
The problem I have with most mid-major players today is their lack of shooting ability beyond eight or ten feet from the basket. These players have great athletic skills in terms of vertical leap but they simply cannot shoot consistently well. The reason is many of them lack good shooting form. That is why you see such low free throw shooting percentages from players today. I always thought making a free throw was automatic since all it took was a simple flip of the wrist. But players with poor shooting mechanics will always struggle at the free throw line even though they can dunk the ball with ease.
Of course tall players with both athletic skill and shooting ability are recruited by the power conferences leaving the shorter or less proficient shooters for the mid-major schools to recruit. But if you cannot shoot well from the perimeter in high school, you're certainly not going to be able to do it in college because every team at that level plays strong defense, at least compared to high school.
So who should mid-major coaches recruit after the power conferences recruit the blue chips players? Should they recruit the tall, athletic players with shooting limitations or the shorter, less athletic players who can shoot? Obviously, Kent State prefers to recruit the former while I personally prefer the latter. I realize the fans today love to see all the dunking that you have with athletic players. And I admit teams that run the Princeton offense with vertically challenged players sometimes are not the easiest to watch. However, seeing players throw up brick after brick hoping one will go in is not exactly my idea of entertainment either.
There comes a time when you have to have at least one player who can shoot the ball well from the perimeter. And if he is considered a step too slow by Division I standards, then perhaps he should still be recruited because that is better than what I have seen lately.
Although I easily recognized the talent of Jim Paxson before I even saw him play in a game, I have not always been right in assessing a player's ability. What I typically look for in a player is his ability to shoot the ball utilizing good shooting technique. Having had good shooting form myself, I understand that a player with good shooting touch is more likely to be a consistent scorer than one with poor shooting technique. But of course there are some players who became great scorers despite their lack of textbook mechanics. Anthony Grier was a great scorer for the Flashes but did not have the best shooting form. In shooting, the ball should stay in front of you and not go behind your head. The reason the ball should not go behind your head is because you want to release the ball quickly. Placing the ball behind your head when shooting prevents you from getting a quick release of the ball and gives the defender a better chance to block the shot. Grier typically placed the ball behind his head when he shot but did not have a problem getting it blocked. As a matter of fact, Grier was first team All-MAC and received All-America honorable mention in 1984-1985 after averaging 20.9 points per game.
Another player with a much more unorthodox shooting style is Kevin Martin, who recently retired after playing 12 years in the NBA. Martin played basketball for Zanesville High School and Western Carolina University before he was drafted by the Sacramento Kings. Having the ugliest shot in the NBA, it's quite apparent Martin taught himself how to shoot because after watching him shoot a jump shot, it's obvious he didn't discover his form in any sort of basketball textbook.
According to Martin, his shooting motion came from playing against older kids when he was younger. Because he couldn’t go inside against taller opponents when he was a kid, he stayed out around the perimeter. And since he was smaller, he needed to put a little extra muscle into his shot. As Martin grew older, he never changed his shot.
“It’s kind of far, so shooting threes at age seven or eight you’re not going to shoot a picture-perfect motion as a little kid,” Martin said. “It just kind of stuck with me.”
As a short player who played with older kids myself, I developed my own style as well. Since I couldn't go inside against taller players, just as Martin couldn't as a kid, I learned to shoot from far out but always started the motion of the ball directly upwards above and in front of my head without dipping the ball. Because I shot the ball with a mere flip of the wrist, I had to release the ball as I was going up rather than at the peak of the jump shot. I found jumping when shooting helped propel the ball particularly when shooting beyond 15 feet. I didn't have to jump when shooting free throws but I had to jump when I was shooting from the top of the key because a simple flip of the wrist would not have enough projection to get the ball to the rim. I admit my shot was not exactly textbook like the picture below but it was very effective and most consistent. Below, former NBA star Allan Houston is using his whole hand and wrist to launch the ball like you are suppose to. I, on the other hand, only used my wrist (and legs) to propel the ball. But because I only had to flip my wrist to shoot, I had great control of the ball and consequently made most of my shots from 3-point range although there wasn't a three-point shot when I played many years ago.
The problem I have with most mid-major players today is their lack of shooting ability beyond eight or ten feet from the basket. These players have great athletic skills in terms of vertical leap but they simply cannot shoot consistently well. The reason is many of them lack good shooting form. That is why you see such low free throw shooting percentages from players today. I always thought making a free throw was automatic since all it took was a simple flip of the wrist. But players with poor shooting mechanics will always struggle at the free throw line even though they can dunk the ball with ease.
Of course tall players with both athletic skill and shooting ability are recruited by the power conferences leaving the shorter or less proficient shooters for the mid-major schools to recruit. But if you cannot shoot well from the perimeter in high school, you're certainly not going to be able to do it in college because every team at that level plays strong defense, at least compared to high school.
So who should mid-major coaches recruit after the power conferences recruit the blue chips players? Should they recruit the tall, athletic players with shooting limitations or the shorter, less athletic players who can shoot? Obviously, Kent State prefers to recruit the former while I personally prefer the latter. I realize the fans today love to see all the dunking that you have with athletic players. And I admit teams that run the Princeton offense with vertically challenged players sometimes are not the easiest to watch. However, seeing players throw up brick after brick hoping one will go in is not exactly my idea of entertainment either.
There comes a time when you have to have at least one player who can shoot the ball well from the perimeter. And if he is considered a step too slow by Division I standards, then perhaps he should still be recruited because that is better than what I have seen lately.
Will we ever learn from past mistakes?
- The Flash Point
- 0 Replies
The above comment was written on November 23, 2010 as a response to the article, "Doug Martin to resign as football coach." We all know that Martin's replacement was Darrell Hazell, but if Hazell didn't have Martin's recruits, he would have struggled as much as Coach Haynes. And when you consider all the injuries and tragedies over the last four years, Hazell probably would have done worse than Haynes. Seeing how badly Hazell coached at Purdue, I really don't believe that he would have defeated Miami this year. Although the RedHawks had superior talent, Kent State found a way to win against Miami on Homecoming Day. That would not have happened if Hazell was still here. Why, would I believe that you ask? Well, read what Tom Dienhart, BTN.com Senior Writer wrote about Hazell.
"Hazell’s hire was an absolute abomination. He was the worst coach in Purdue history. In fact, his tenure will go down as one of the worst in the history of the Big Ten—and arguably the most disastrous since Rick Venturi’s went 1-31-1 at Northwestern from 1978-80."
If you don't agree with what I said about Hazell winning with Martin's recruits, read an excerpt from the article, "Some Thoughts on Darrell Hazell."
"Was he alright as the head coach at Kent State for two years? Yeah, he was actually pretty good. Although he didn’t recruit anyone there, and the last coach left some pretty good players, and his assistant coaches were pretty good. There’s no way of knowing for sure, but I would guess that if Hazell stayed with the Golden Flashes for a few more years, that his great 2012 season would be seen as an aberration. Kent State has been awful since he left; I would be surprised if they would have done better if Hazell had stayed.
Darrell Hazell got lucky in 2012. He had a great player in Dri Archer, and he turned a great season into $12 million dollars or so. He was never an interesting coach who had a lot of neat ideas; he coached at OSU with superior talent, and then did the same with Archer at Kent State.
When he arrived at Purdue, he no longer had superior talent. In fact, he had the opposite. And what did he do about it? According to some reports, not much. He apparently didn’t concern himself with recruiting as much as lower tier football teams need to do."
Now, would I fire Hazell if he was still coaching at Kent and had the same record that he had at Purdue? Probably not because I would be afraid of getting another Pete Cordelli. That is how I still feel about Paul Haynes. I know his record is not good but realize that things could be worse. If you think recruiting is bad now, just wait until the Flashes go 0-12. Who would want to come to Kent State and play football after a winless season?
Will we ever learn from past mistakes? I doubt it. I can just see KSU printing shirts promoting the new football savior just like it did with Cordelli.
https://dks.library.kent.edu/cgi-bi...n-20--1--txt-txIN-doug+martin+to+resign------
https://www.offtackleempire.com/2016/10/18/13312336/darrell-hazell-fired-purdue
http://btn.com/2016/10/16/dienhart-purdue-finally-puts-end-to-darrell-hazell-era/
Why FCS is not the answer
- The Flash Point
- 0 Replies
I know there are some fans who want Kent State to drop down to FCS, or drop football altogether. If Kent chose the former, then it would most likely play football in the Missouri Valley Football Conference with North Dakota State. South Dakota State, Youngstown State, Northern Iowa, Illinois State, Western Illinois, South Dakota, Southern Illinois, Missouri State. and Indiana State. If Kent chose the latter, it would lose its ability to stay in the Mid American Conference because the MAC requires member universities to sponsor football, men's basketball, women's basketball, and women's volleyball.
As a member of the Missouri Valley Football Conference, Kent would replace rival Akron with Youngstown State, which may not be bad, but it would have to travel to North Dakota and South Dakota. Replacing Akron, Bowling Green, Toledo, Ohio, Miami, and Buffalo with far away schools such as North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, South Dakota, and Missouri State just doesn't appeal to me.
Furthermore, I have always believed that academics play a part in conferences. When you look at the MAC, you see that all the schools are academically similar. The same can be said about the Big Ten and the Atlantic Coast Conference.
College presidents typically want to align themselves with colleges that share similar academic goals. If you don't agree with this statement, read what another poster said about this subject below.
"To answer those who joke about conferences having nothing to do with academics, on the surface, sure, it seems crazy, but Presidents are the decision makers. Presidents want to align with other Presidents with similar goals. Athletics is nothing but a marketing division of a major university, so think of athletic conferences as university marketing partnerships. Some Presidents would prefer not to align their marketing efforts with schools that don't align with their academic profile/mission.
L'ville, I believe, was a decision made in fear of the ACC falling apart. ACC Presidents were willing to "sacrifice" the overall profile of the league in an effort to keep the existing partnerships intact.
All that said, if a university's athletic department was put in a position of being irrelevant, the President would have to decide what to do, and would likely seek a path of relevance since athletics is the face of the university. That is why people say most presidents in the ACC want it to remain intact, but if it begins to fall apart, it would ultimately be every man for themselves.
Going full circle in this thread back to the AAU question. It's simple, AAU schools like to be affiliated with one another (including through marketing/sports), and schools aspiring to be AAU would be doing themselves a favor by aligning themselves as closely as possible with other AAU schools. Sports may not be the only way, but it's a really good one since athletic conference presidents are very active with one another."
Although the MAC has only one AAU member (Buffalo), I believe it's fair to say that academics is an important factor in determining conference membership.
Sure, Kent State could be more competitive in the FCS, but the prestige that comes with the MAC out weighs any competitive advantage of playing in the Missouri Valley Football Conference.
http://www.ubbulls.com/general/2016-17/releases/20170403cae0jo
As a member of the Missouri Valley Football Conference, Kent would replace rival Akron with Youngstown State, which may not be bad, but it would have to travel to North Dakota and South Dakota. Replacing Akron, Bowling Green, Toledo, Ohio, Miami, and Buffalo with far away schools such as North Dakota State, South Dakota State, Northern Iowa, South Dakota, and Missouri State just doesn't appeal to me.
Furthermore, I have always believed that academics play a part in conferences. When you look at the MAC, you see that all the schools are academically similar. The same can be said about the Big Ten and the Atlantic Coast Conference.
College presidents typically want to align themselves with colleges that share similar academic goals. If you don't agree with this statement, read what another poster said about this subject below.
"To answer those who joke about conferences having nothing to do with academics, on the surface, sure, it seems crazy, but Presidents are the decision makers. Presidents want to align with other Presidents with similar goals. Athletics is nothing but a marketing division of a major university, so think of athletic conferences as university marketing partnerships. Some Presidents would prefer not to align their marketing efforts with schools that don't align with their academic profile/mission.
L'ville, I believe, was a decision made in fear of the ACC falling apart. ACC Presidents were willing to "sacrifice" the overall profile of the league in an effort to keep the existing partnerships intact.
All that said, if a university's athletic department was put in a position of being irrelevant, the President would have to decide what to do, and would likely seek a path of relevance since athletics is the face of the university. That is why people say most presidents in the ACC want it to remain intact, but if it begins to fall apart, it would ultimately be every man for themselves.
Going full circle in this thread back to the AAU question. It's simple, AAU schools like to be affiliated with one another (including through marketing/sports), and schools aspiring to be AAU would be doing themselves a favor by aligning themselves as closely as possible with other AAU schools. Sports may not be the only way, but it's a really good one since athletic conference presidents are very active with one another."
Although the MAC has only one AAU member (Buffalo), I believe it's fair to say that academics is an important factor in determining conference membership.
Sure, Kent State could be more competitive in the FCS, but the prestige that comes with the MAC out weighs any competitive advantage of playing in the Missouri Valley Football Conference.
http://www.ubbulls.com/general/2016-17/releases/20170403cae0jo