Age old question...which would you rather have...

Which type of player would you rather have....

  • Total voters
    0
#1
BigOrangeVol29

BigOrangeVol29

aka UTVolFan29 on Twitter
Joined
Jul 20, 2009
Messages
474
Likes
72
#1
So, after watching this team it got me thinking. Which as a fan would you rather have: A freakish athlete who can fun fast and jump high, then hope you can coach him on the basics of things such as understanding a zone, situational play(such as when to drive the ball, when you've gotten too deep to make an effective pass, etc.) Or would you rather have a guy who isn't as athletic(slower, doesn't jump as high, etc.), but has a greater understanding of situational play(i.e. basketball "IQ"), zones, and the like. I.e. would you rather have as a coach and fan a Stanley Asumnu type(could jump out of the gym) or a Chris Lofton type.


And yes, I know I will get a million answers of "both" an athlete that has high IQ..
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
The second, because the first makes we want to pull my hair out sometimes.
 
#5
#5
Also depends on the other players around the guy. When I played, I was a point guard and I did a lot of directing on the court with a couple of teammates that were extremely athletic but not so great at decision-making sometimes. Honestly, I probably had a decent "basketball IQ" (or so my coach said) and (maybe) slightly above average athleticism . . . if you have a floor leader with a really strong basketball IQ that can help a really athletic player with IQ issues, you might be able to take the pure athlete.

As with most questions, I guess it boils down to "it depends."
 
#6
#6
The Chris Lofton example is a pretty good one. I guess if that is the case, I would go with the high IQ guy.
 
#7
#7
Too many variables in a question like this to really answer. But would I rather have Larry Bird than Harold Minor if that's what you are asking.
 
#8
#8
does this pertain to only basketball or football as well? a freak at the qb position can win games but so can a smart one. i think both situations depend on the other players around him
 
#9
#9
As a middle school coach, I have had both, and I think at the middle, high school, and college level a lot can be done with a semi-athletic but smart player. The NBA is a different animal, but I've seen a lot of teams win with less athletic players because they play smart and as a team.
 
#10
#10
Asumnu vs Lofton isn't a fair comparison. I don't think one of the greatest players in school history is a fair sampling of a "less athletic player who relies on basketball IQ."

The athletic player has greater upside.
 
#11
#11
I believe our team would be fine if we could find players who could put the ball in the basket. We miss several layups and dunks in a row. If we get fouled, we get at most 1 out of 2. We have no feared outside shooter who draws the defense out and I can't remember the last mid range shot we made. I believe the team plays hard, but out of control at times and tries to make the highlight films instead of making the sure basket.
 
#13
#13
ukvols said:
Asumnu vs Lofton isn't a fair comparison. I don't think one of the greatest players in school history is a fair sampling of a "less athletic player who relies on basketball IQ."

The athletic player has greater upside.
Click to expand...

Okay, I'll try this one instead. Chris Lofton was not a heavily recruited player coming out of college (a 3 star according to rivals) because he wasn't a great athlete. He was a guy that had to work incredibly hard in the gym and had the smarts and savvy to play at the high level. I will compare him with Renaldo Woolridge. Woolridge, a highly recruited, athletic guy has all the physical, athletic tools to be a dominant player(can run, jump, etc.) but CBP cannot seem to find the key to unlock his toolbox so to speak. I personally think Lofton is a great comparison to use. A great player who couldn't rely solely on his athletic skills, he's the perfect embodiment of a guy who relied on tools other than athleticism to be great.

And yes, you could use this for football as well. One of my greatest criticisms of the previous staff in football was that they were too concerned with a guys "measurables" and not going after enough guys who were just good at football.
 
#14
#14
JZVOL said:
Too many variables in a question like this to really answer. But would I rather have Larry Bird than Harold Minor if that's what you are asking.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The package of skills, size, strength plays into it too.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#15
#15
emainvol said:
The way I look at it, you take the more athletic guy. You simply can't teach athleticism
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good way to look at it. You aren't going to teach someone to be more athletic but you at least have a chance of teaching someone to play smarter.
 
#16
#16
Sometimes we get too focused on athletic ability instead of focusing on basketball ability. I've seen lots of guys that weren't terribly athletic, but were very good basketball players. Woolridge is a good example of a gifted athletic guy who does not have good basketball skills.
 
#17
#17
BasketvolsFan said:
Sometimes we get too focused on athletic ability instead of focusing on basketball ability. I've seen lots of guys that weren't terribly athletic, but were very good basketball players. Woolridge is a good example of a gifted athletic guy who does not have good basketball skills.
Click to expand...

100% correct. People these days think you have to be a high flier super athletic guy to be great at basketball and it's simply not true.

Guys in the 70's and 80s weren't as athletic as guys are now but were better skilled and thus better basketball players.

It used to be be basketball skill first athleticism second and it's reversed today and it's hurting the game.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top