STrib: Point guard for Gophers men's basketball is now a three-player job

Donate To GopherHole
BleedGopher

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
60,774
Reaction score
16,182
Points
113
Per Marcus:

The point guard position has been a revolving door since Ben Johnson's been the Gophers men's basketball coach. In three years, he's had different point guards each season.

Three guards have shared duties and gotten the job done so far this year.

The Gophers (4-1) are facing their first road test Sunday against San Francisco at the Golden State Warriors' Chase Center. Elijah Hawkins, Mike Mitchell Jr. and Cam Christie will play on the same floor as one of the best point guards of their generation.

NBA star Steph Curry is arguably the best shooter of all-time but also is one of the game's best facilitators. Hawkins, Christie and Mitchell love to shoot from three, but they also bring different elements to perhaps the most important position in the game.

"As far as the point guard situation is concerned," Johnson said. "I think we've done a pretty good job throughout my years here of finding guys that fit us, and I think that's the most important thing."

www.startribune.com

Point guard for Gophers men's basketball is now a three-player job

Elijah Hawkins, Cam Christie and Mike Mitchell Jr. have shared Gophers point guard duties this season. This year, it looks like three players will share the role of running the offense.
www.startribune.com www.startribune.com

Go Gophers!!
 



At least he didnt bring up Tomlin or euro soccer. thinks he is some polymath.
 

If you have two...er 3 point guards you have none.
When the kid from Cherry gets here next year will we have four?
 





SanDiegoGopherFan said:
He's proud of what he's accomplished at one of the most crucial positions.
Click to expand...
And?

So Willis had one year and then Carr transferred out. Both were very good. But we basically had just one PG each year and a weak supporting cast.

Now we have three which gives Ben options. And Asuma coming next year which will only strengthen the position.

Ben is developing depth which is something absent in year one and two.
 



60's Guy said:
If you have two...er 3 point guards you have none.
When the kid from Cherry gets here next year will we have four?
Click to expand...
Christie is going to be really good but he's not a Big Ten point guard yet and really more of a 2 anyway. Hawkins, I like a lot, he needs to take care of the ball better. But, he is going to be up against it defensively against a lot of Big Ten guards. Mitchell is a 2 guard.
Asuma is the best of the lot at the point. I think he and Christie will be dynamite together next year.
 

fan of Ray Williams said:
Not following your thinking here. What is the issue with having more than one point guard? To the contrary, it’s seems to be very important.
Click to expand...
Totally agree you need more than one guy who can play the point...foul trouble, injuries, off nights on and on. But, I don't think we have any point guards...we have guys who play the position but they do it differently. I don't think this is a strategic thing...more just a do your thing like you always have.
I want a point guard who is the leader...the other guys are trained to listen to him...in the half court he's in charge. He sets up the offense, he initiates it. We can still run, other guys can push it up and explore easy baskets but if we don't have anything we get it to the point guard who communicates to the others what we are running (many ways...verbally, where he passes it, a hand signal, pre-determined) but he's in charge. He goes to get the ball...he's visibly in control of the offense. People have roles...one of his is to be sure we get a good shot, we change sides of the floor with the ball etc, we get it into the post from a proper passing angle...on and on.
A different philosophy than we play with. This guy is trained to be a coach on the floor and the other guys are trained to follow him. He directs traffic, gets the other four guys in the right spots.

Hawkins is a point guard. Mitchell is a 2 guard. Christie is a 2 or 3. Carrington is not a point guard yet he brings the ball up on occasion. Garcia brings it up, Ihnen brings it up etc. all in situations where we are not attacking.

The last 10 minutes of Missouri is evidence of not having a point guard or the philosophy of having one. We don't seem to have a motion offense and we don't seem to have set plays other than out of bounds under ... but only sometimes. And sometimes but rarely after timeouts do we run something.

I'm thinking Ola Joseph lob dunks are a set play sometimes, Hawkins and Ola Joseph just doing it sometimes. More of these sorts of things would be welcome.

When Hawkins and Mitchell play together they both seem unsure what to do.
Things like this are what I mean by my comment.
 


60's Guy said:
Totally agree you need more than one guy who can play the point...foul trouble, injuries, off nights on and on. But, I don't think we have any point guards...we have guys who play the position but they do it differently. I don't think this is a strategic thing...more just a do your thing like you always have.
I want a point guard who is the leader...the other guys are trained to listen to him...in the half court he's in charge. He sets up the offense, he initiates it. We can still run, other guys can push it up and explore easy baskets but if we don't have anything we get it to the point guard who communicates to the others what we are running (many ways...verbally, where he passes it, a hand signal, pre-determined) but he's in charge. He goes to get the ball...he's visibly in control of the offense. People have roles...one of his is to be sure we get a good shot, we change sides of the floor with the ball etc, we get it into the post from a proper passing angle...on and on.
A different philosophy than we play with. This guy is trained to be a coach on the floor and the other guys are trained to follow him. He directs traffic, gets the other four guys in the right spots.

Hawkins is a point guard. Mitchell is a 2 guard. Christie is a 2 or 3. Carrington is not a point guard yet he brings the ball up on occasion. Garcia brings it up, Ihnen brings it up etc. all in situations where we are not attacking.

The last 10 minutes of Missouri is evidence of not having a point guard or the philosophy of having one. We don't seem to have a motion offense and we don't seem to have set plays other than out of bounds under ... but only sometimes. And sometimes but rarely after timeouts do we run something.

I'm thinking Ola Joseph lob dunks are a set play sometimes, Hawkins and Ola Joseph just doing it sometimes. More of these sorts of things would be welcome.

When Hawkins and Mitchell play together they both seem unsure what to do.
Things like this are what I mean by my comment.
Click to expand...
Agreed that Hawkins is the most "pure" point guard. And I don't have a problem with having 3 guys playing the point and getting some reps running the offense in game situations, especially early in the season. For instance, Hawkins sprains an ankle, Mitchell starts and gets into foul trouble, then what do you do? Having said that, I would prefer to see Hawkins at the point most of the time. The reasons:
  • He handles the ball extremely well and can more effectively push the pace when needed to help produce open shots
  • He's shown he can get by his man more easily than the others, which will also create better shot opportunities for others
  • He passes the ball extremely well, and yes, he will turn it over more than we'd like
  • His hustle, quickness, toughness, and energy will help to energize the team
And there will be times when Hawkins turns it over too much or has a really bad match up defensively-during those times he may see the court less often. And I'm also hopeful that he can learn to play under control better over the course of the season and choose the "makeable" pass more often.

Our best opportunity to win a decent number of Big Ten games is to be able to play improved defense, to score inside consistently with Garcia and Payne, and to get open 3's through pushing the pace (something we couldn't do last year) and getting some guard penetration and kick-outs for open shots. Hawkins, even with his limitations, does that better than anyone else on this team.

He's got a chip on his shoulder. This team needs that chip, let's go with it.
 



Formerswish said:
Agreed that Hawkins is the most "pure" point guard. And I don't have a problem with having 3 guys playing the point and getting some reps running the offense in game situations, especially early in the season. For instance, Hawkins sprains an ankle, Mitchell starts and gets into foul trouble, then what do you do? Having said that, I would prefer to see Hawkins at the point most of the time. The reasons:
  • He handles the ball extremely well and can more effectively push the pace when needed to help produce open shots
  • He's shown he can get by his man more easily than the others, which will also create better shot opportunities for others
  • He passes the ball extremely well, and yes, he will turn it over more than we'd like
  • His hustle, quickness, toughness, and energy will help to energize the team
And there will be times when Hawkins turns it over too much or has a really bad match up defensively-during those times he may see the court less often. And I'm also hopeful that he can learn to play under control better over the course of the season and choose the "makeable" pass more often.

Our best opportunity to win a decent number of Big Ten games is to be able to play improved defense, to score inside consistently with Garcia and Payne, and to get open 3's through pushing the pace (something we couldn't do last year) and getting some guard penetration and kick-outs for open shots. Hawkins, even with his limitations, does that better than anyone else on this team.

He's got a chip on his shoulder. This team needs that chip, let's go with it.
Click to expand...
Ya, agree with all that about Hawkins abilities but is he just playing? Or have we designed our offense to play with his abilities? I think he's just doing what he does.
If we want that type of point guard why do none of the others share similar traits?
My only point is we are just playin' with no plan in mind...game wise or program wise.
That's why I don't think we have a point guard...we don't have a focus, a plan, a system, a program, a philosophy. 5 different guys on the Gophers could play the point, great! ...not my argument.
 

60's Guy said:
Ya, agree with all that about Hawkins abilities but is he just playing? Or have we designed our offense to play with his abilities? I think he's just doing what he does.
If we want that type of point guard why do none of the others share similar traits?
My only point is we are just playin' with no plan in mind...game wise or program wise.
That's why I don't think we have a point guard...we don't have a focus, a plan, a system, a program, a philosophy. 5 different guys on the Gophers could play the point, great! ...not my argument.
Click to expand...
They certainly like the 3 pointer more this year. Small sample, but they have shot 128 so far in the first 5 games, compared to 85 in the first 5 last year. That's 8.6 more a game. Huge increase.
Thought the free throws would have more disparity. 123 free throw attempts so far this year compared to 112 last year after 5 games. So around 2 more a game.
Trouble is only one of the four guards, so far, shoots the 3 well, Christie. Mitchell is ok, Hawkins is bad and Carrington is terrible.
 

Well, after watching the football team this season, I could see how three point guards might be better than one quarterback.
 

60's Guy said:
Ya, agree with all that about Hawkins abilities but is he just playing? Or have we designed our offense to play with his abilities? I think he's just doing what he does.
If we want that type of point guard why do none of the others share similar traits?
My only point is we are just playin' with no plan in mind...game wise or program wise.
That's why I don't think we have a point guard...we don't have a focus, a plan, a system, a program, a philosophy. 5 different guys on the Gophers could play the point, great! ...not my argument.
Click to expand...
Asuma thinks there is a plan and he’s the point guard of the future.
 


60's Guy said:
Ya, agree with all that about Hawkins abilities but is he just playing? Or have we designed our offense to play with his abilities? I think he's just doing what he does.
If we want that type of point guard why do none of the others share similar traits?
My only point is we are just playin' with no plan in mind...game wise or program wise.
That's why I don't think we have a point guard...we don't have a focus, a plan, a system, a program, a philosophy. 5 different guys on the Gophers could play the point, great! ...not my argument.
Click to expand...
In response to your post, I'd respond with these:
Or have we designed our offense to play with his abilities? In view of Hawkins lack of consistency and the difficulty in designing an offense around his abilities (to design an offense around one player who may only play 1/2 the game is very unlikely) I don't see this happening-design an offense around Hawkins abilities? Being able to play more up tempo is about as far as that would go.
If we want that type of point guard why do none of the others share similar traits?: I'm not sure what this means? Others play the way they play, why would they have to share similar traits?
My only point is we are just playin' with no plan in mind...game wise or program wise: I don't particularly like their present offensive sets, with Garcia or Payne often initiating from the top of the key, or pick and rolls off the wing, but a lot of teams use it, and their plan is to run their offense. Not having a plan game-wise or program-wise? Just because they don't have the talent yet to run a smooth offense or execute their plan doesn't mean they don't have any plans.
That's why I don't think we have a point guard...we don't have a focus, a plan, a system, a program, a philosophy. 5 different guys on the Gophers could play the point, great! ...not my argument:. Well, we do have some point guards, some more well-suited to the position than others. No system, no program, no philosophy? How about no morality, no decency, no common sense...we could keep going and make a long list here. We do have a plan, a program, and a philosophy-it's just not working very well so far. Talent makes all of these things become more clear.
 



60's Guy said:
If we want that type of point guard why do none of the others share similar traits?
Click to expand...

You do realize the truth of the Rolling Stones title don't you? "You Can't Always Get What You Want"

Of the two transfer points, I would rate Hawkins as the more valuable so far but you need to remember that we didn't get him to commit until after at least several recruits went elsewhere (and they weren't all point guards). Mitchell was the first transfer to commit and he did that early. It's quite possible that Ben Johnson originally envisioned Mitchell as the starting point guard.
 


Formerswish said:
In response to your post, I'd respond with these:
Or have we designed our offense to play with his abilities? In view of Hawkins lack of consistency and the difficulty in designing an offense around his abilities (to design an offense around one player who may only play 1/2 the game is very unlikely) I don't see this happening-design an offense around Hawkins abilities? Being able to play more up tempo is about as far as that would go.
If we want that type of point guard why do none of the others share similar traits?: I'm not sure what this means? Others play the way they play, why would they have to share similar traits?
My only point is we are just playin' with no plan in mind...game wise or program wise: I don't particularly like their present offensive sets, with Garcia or Payne often initiating from the top of the key, or pick and rolls off the wing, but a lot of teams use it, and their plan is to run their offense. Not having a plan game-wise or program-wise? Just because they don't have the talent yet to run a smooth offense or execute their plan doesn't mean they don't have any plans.
That's why I don't think we have a point guard...we don't have a focus, a plan, a system, a program, a philosophy. 5 different guys on the Gophers could play the point, great! ...not my argument:. Well, we do have some point guards, some more well-suited to the position than others. No system, no program, no philosophy? How about no morality, no decency, no common sense...we could keep going and make a long list here. We do have a plan, a program, and a philosophy-it's just not working very well so far. Talent makes all of these things become more clear.
Click to expand...
"I'm not sure what this means? Others play the way they play, why would they have to share similar traits?" In DI college basketball I get to recruit the players...it isn't high school where I adapt what I'd actually like to do...instead to the abilities of what is available to me.
If I like the traits of Hawkins and I want my offense to run that way...then I find another point guard of similar style and recruit him. Why share similar traits? 1. So the other four guys know what we are trying to do. We can break it down in drills and learn to execute our concepts. We KNOW what our spacing is...we know when to cut or when not to cut so Hawkins can penetrate and kick or finish and we can crash...timing-recognition.
If Mitchell is the point guard we have a very different offense...do we spend half the practice working on what Mitchell does best to utilize his talents for the other four guys? Oh wait, the other half we'll work on Christie at the point who is again a different style point guard.

"Just because they don't have the talent yet to run a smooth offense or execute their plan doesn't mean they don't have any plans." OH, year four when the two freshmen from northern Minnesota come in and dominate? Who is responsible to acquire this talent? When is it coming? What plan are we recruiting talent to? And if Hawkins becomes a grad transfer because he is the only point guard with those abilities...we'll just start over?
1000% executing an offense is not waiting on talent it is coaching...the ability to teach. The obsession with details to do things the way you require them to be done. Demanding perfection. Do it again.
Or we are going to develop the talent? Just playing 60 games they should get better but that is pretty close to the definition of us developing talent.
"We do have a plan, a program, and a philosophy-it's just not working very well so far. Talent makes all of these things become more clear."
Ya, it could work that way but there is the portal...it ain't 1960. And we'd have to recruit that talent and then we would need that talent to be able to play together. That requires a vision.
I don't believe you have one other than the crutch of more talent.
Coaching, teaching, evidence of a plan? Articulation of your plan or Ben's beyond more talent?
Take Houston...does Kelvin Sampson have a philosophy? does he recruit to it? do their players have similar traits? Or Take Wisconsin, take Virginia, take Purdue, take Syracuse with Boeheim
all these teams that win...the coach has a plan...he recruits to it...he has a style of play.
They teach, they demand things to be done a certain way....not three styles of point guards with diverse abilities.
 

60's Guy said:
"I'm not sure what this means? Others play the way they play, why would they have to share similar traits?" In DI college basketball I get to recruit the players...it isn't high school where I adapt what I'd actually like to do...instead to the abilities of what is available to me.
If I like the traits of Hawkins and I want my offense to run that way...then I find another point guard of similar style and recruit him. Why share similar traits? 1. So the other four guys know what we are trying to do. We can break it down in drills and learn to execute our concepts. We KNOW what our spacing is...we know when to cut or when not to cut so Hawkins can penetrate and kick or finish and we can crash...timing-recognition.
If Mitchell is the point guard we have a very different offense...do we spend half the practice working on what Mitchell does best to utilize his talents for the other four guys? Oh wait, the other half we'll work on Christie at the point who is again a different style point guard.

"Just because they don't have the talent yet to run a smooth offense or execute their plan doesn't mean they don't have any plans." OH, year four when the two freshmen from northern Minnesota come in and dominate? Who is responsible to acquire this talent? When is it coming? What plan are we recruiting talent to? And if Hawkins becomes a grad transfer because he is the only point guard with those abilities...we'll just start over?
1000% executing an offense is not waiting on talent it is coaching...the ability to teach. The obsession with details to do things the way you require them to be done. Demanding perfection. Do it again.
Or we are going to develop the talent? Just playing 60 games they should get better but that is pretty close to the definition of us developing talent.
"We do have a plan, a program, and a philosophy-it's just not working very well so far. Talent makes all of these things become more clear."
Ya, it could work that way but there is the portal...it ain't 1960. And we'd have to recruit that talent and then we would need that talent to be able to play together. That requires a vision.
I don't believe you have one other than the crutch of more talent.
Coaching, teaching, evidence of a plan? Articulation of your plan or Ben's beyond more talent?
Take Houston...does Kelvin Sampson have a philosophy? does he recruit to it? do their players have similar traits? Or Take Wisconsin, take Virginia, take Purdue, take Syracuse with Boeheim
all these teams that win...the coach has a plan...he recruits to it...he has a style of play.
They teach, they demand things to be done a certain way....not three styles of point guards with diverse abilities.
Click to expand...
Ben is doing the Fake it til ya make it. I did enjoy your post
 

"As far as the point guard situation is concerned," Johnson said. "I think we've done a pretty good job throughout my years here of finding guys that fit us, and I think that's the most important thing."


Lol. He has no f'n clue..... What a waste of 8 million dollars....
 

Off-GridTNgopher said:
"As far as the point guard situation is concerned," Johnson said. "I think we've done a pretty good job throughout my years here of finding guys that fit us, and I think that's the most important thing."


Lol. He has no f'n clue..... What a waste of 8 million dollars....
Click to expand...
WOW!!!!! BRUTAL!!!!!
 

Off-GridTNgopher said:
"As far as the point guard situation is concerned," Johnson said. "I think we've done a pretty good job throughout my years here of finding guys that fit us, and I think that's the most important thing."


Lol. He has no f'n clue..... What a waste of 8 million dollars....
Click to expand...
Pretty bad - although I will say that Willis was good year one- not really a PG but he played great.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom