Omar Cahloun, Niels Giffey, and Glue Guys.

[elduderino]

Just about every day I come across a thread mentioning OC with hopes that he will return to some level of productive play and/or become a Glue Guy. I don't get it. He's got a high school resume stacked with outstanding accomplishments and a great freshman year of high-major D1 ball. Last year, he had a bad year, but IMO it was in no small part due to an array of injuries and a less than minor surgery over the prior summer. Last year however, is also the outlier, in comparison to his resume as a whole. Analysts make nice livings determining the value of a asset based not only on recent performance, but historical, and are trained not only to identify the outliers but to adjust and normalize the out-values so that the present assessment better reflects future performance. So why then are so many 'Yarders hoping he becomes a Glue Guy? Or even crazier yet, a Glue Guy like Giffey?! How Giffey, this year's team's best outside threat, solid defender, and debatably hardest worker is still often referred to as a Glue Guy is beyond me. Maybe during his first few years at UCONN Giffey was sticky, but calling his senior year performance a Glue Guy is pretty phucked up. Given Omar's resume as a whole, he still looks like a very good player to me, with stud potential, if the injury bug is behind him. Am I the only person thinking the starting 3 spot is up in the air, leaning towards, Calhoun's to lose?

 

[CallMeBruce]

What do you think "glue guy" means? Giffey wasn't a star, but he was an incredibly useful player that did a lot of different things well, patching up a lot of holes.

 

[UChusky916]

I agree on both premises... Senior year Niels or should NOT be considered a 'glue guy', he was far more than that. In the same sense, I agree that demoting Omar to a 'glue guy' because of 1 bad year is ridiculous in it's own right as well.

Where I disagree with you is I think Omar begins the preseason with a shot at starting at the 3, but ultimately in game 1, D-Ham starts at the 3.
Similarly to how Kromah/Giffey both split time at the 3, starting will not matter. What matters is who gets the most minutes and is playing well.

 

[mcs333]

I hope your right. The reason for the concern is that he was so far off in his shooting and got much worse as the season went on. For the year he shot 30% and 24 % from three. But even worse once we got in conference play his shooting dropped to 18 % from the field and 9 % from distance. Those are just horrible and they can't be sugar coated. KO lost faith because he just couldn't put the ball in the basket. I know he was like 1-24, 4% very late in the year. Everyone is rooting for him but those numbers put up such a red flag that he just may not be a VG shooter. Hope he turns it around, we will see.

 

[LRock34]

Its up to Omar. How much work is he willing to put it. His jumper was off this year, his ball handling skills and decision making were lacking as well. If he spends his entire summer working on his game the sky is the limit. He has the tools, the question is will he refine them.

The transformation of Kemba from his Junior to Senior year is one of, if not the greatest I've ever seen. He was a ball handler/driver/passer. In 6 months he became a lights out stop and pop shooter, a first round draft pick and the best college player in the country. Its up to Omar...

 

[Strummer]

I think you're wrong on all points.

Saying a guy is a "glue guy" is not an insult. It's an exceptional compliment. It means you do anything and everything to help the team. It exactly describes Giff - very good in all categories, including effort and selflessness, but not tremendous in any one thing. Giff is, in fact, the incarnation of the glue guy - your 3rd or 4th best rebounder and scorer, and excellent defender. So it's not a slight. The guy was the 2nd or 3rd most important piece of the puzzle as the prototypical glue guy. With tremendous respect given for that.

Regarding OC, I disagree that he had a "great" freshman year. He averaged 11 points and 4 rebounds in 32 minutes while playing iffy defense and averaging 32% from 3 and about 40% overall. That is acceptable for a freshman, but by no means would any reasonable person confuse that with a "great" freshman year. I'm not sure why - maybe because of his loyalty and support of the program - but there's an urban myth surrounding OC, and I think expectations are waaay too high.

OC for next year:

Worst case - continues his current maladies and sits all but 5 minutes a game.
Middle case - contributes 10-15 minutes a game as a backup, plays solid D, hits threes at a 35% or greater clip, and does not turn the ball over.
Best case - 20 minutes a game as a backup, is very effective hitting open 3s to spread the floor, rebounds aggressively, and develops into a nice glue guy.

I just don't see OC metamorphosing from a guy who didn't see the floor in March and April to a guy who, 6 months later, plays starter minutes on a team that is loaded at his position.

Not a slam on the kid - love his attitude and commitment to UConn - but I think it's unrealistic to see him become something he hasn't yet shown any consistent glimpses of.

 

[champs99and04]

I think you're wrong on all points.

Saying a guy is a "glue guy" is not an insult. It's an exceptional compliment. It means you do anything and everything to help the team. It exactly describes Giff - very good in all categories, including effort and selflessness, but not tremendous in any one thing. Giff is, in fact, the incarnation of the glue guy - your 3rd or 4th best rebounder and scorer, and excellent defender. So it's not a slight. The guy was the 2nd or 3rd most important piece of the puzzle as the prototypical glue guy. With tremendous respect given for that.

Regarding OC, I disagree that he had a "great" freshman year. He averaged 11 points and 4 rebounds in 32 minutes while playing iffy defense and averaging 32% from 3 and about 40% overall. That is acceptable for a freshman, but by no means would any reasonable person confuse that with a "great" freshman year. I'm not sure why - maybe because of his loyalty and support of the program - but there's an urban myth surrounding OC, and I think expectations are waaay too high.

OC for next year:

Worst case - continues his current maladies and sits all but 5 minutes a game.
Middle case - contributes 10-15 minutes a game as a backup, plays solid D, hits threes at a 35% or greater clip, and does not turn the ball over.
Best case - 20 minutes a game as a backup, is very effective hitting open 3s to spread the floor, rebounds aggressively, and develops into a nice glue guy.

I just don't see OC metamorphosing from a guy who didn't see the floor in March and April to a guy who, 6 months later, plays starter minutes on a team that is loaded at his position.

Not a slam on the kid - love his attitude and commitment to UConn - but I think it's unrealistic to see him become something he hasn't yet shown any consistent glimpses of.

1. You think Omar's "best case" is 20 minutes a game? When he played 32 as a freshman? Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. I don't think anybody thought Omar was a great player his freshman year. I do think he was great for being a freshman. There was plenty of reason following Omar's 2012-13 campaign to think he was going to be a really good college player.

2. If you like the term "glue guy", fine, but to say Giffey wasn't tremendous in any one area is inaccurate. He was tremendous as a spot up shooter and exceptional as a defender. Was Boatright a glue guy? Was Daniels? I'm just wondering where you draw the line.

 

[pnete]

Cahlhoun has to hit his shots early and often. With Purvis, Hamilton, Sam Cassell on the team, he has little room for turnovers and airballs.

 

[elduderino]

In response to a few comments, this is absolutely part of why I started the thread. There seems to be wildly differing opinions as to the definition of a Glue Guy. I always considered it a guy who fostered chemistry, maybe 1 nonglaring weakness, reliable effort with occasionally great performances, and typically playing less than half a game. And I did mean OC's freshman year was great for a freshman.

 

[Strummer]

1. You think Omar's "best case" is 20 minutes a game? When he played 32 as a freshman? Sorry, but that just doesn't make any sense. .

It makes a ton of sense. In 13 we had a serious player shortage. Take a look at that roster. He got the minutes because he had little or no competition at his position. The 32 minutes a freshman is part of the myth.

I don't think anybody thought Omar was a great player his freshman year.

The OP wrote that he had a "great" freshman season. If you want to parse whether having a "great" season makes you a "great" player, I'll beg out of that. I literally quoted the OP.

There was plenty of reason following Omar's 2012-13 campaign to think he was going to be a really good college player.

What? His 32% shooting from 3? His weak handle? His weak defense? Again, not trying to knock the kid, just wondering how you come to that conclusion.

He was tremendous as a spot up shooter and exceptional as a defender.

No. He averaged 8.4 PPG. Nobody who averages 8.4 shots a game is a "tremendous shooter." He shot the open 3 extremely well, sure, but he mostly only shot it when wide open. "Tremendous" is too much. There are probably many other shooters who could shoot 50% from 3 if they only shot when wide open. As another poster said on this board, if you're shooting 55% from 3 it means you are not shooting enough. He was an exceptional defender - I'd say exceptional is lower than "tremendous."

Was Boatright a glue guy? Was Daniels? I'm just wondering where you draw the line.

No. Neither were. Daniels had many games where he was invisible. That is inconsistent with being a glue guy. Boat is more than a glue guy because he's a natural scorer and a guy you could ride, if need be. Glue guys don't have that ability.

 

[elduderino]

No. He averaged 8.4 PPG. Nobody who averages 8.4 shots a game is a "tremendous shooter." He shot the open 3 extremely well, sure, but he mostly only shot it when wide open. "Tremendous" is too much. There are probably many other shooters who could shoot 50% from 3 if they only shot when wide open. As another poster said on this board, if you're shooting 55% from 3 it means you are not shooting enough. He was an exceptional defender - I'd say exceptional is lower than "tremendous."

Supposedly there's at least 4 NBA front offices that are looking to test your belief.
http://the-boneyard.com/threads/nie...with-three-teams-this-week.60710/#post-976150
Seems they like his talents enough to potentially make room for him at the next level, but I don't think Ive ever heard an NBA exec talk about bringing in a rookie glue guy.

 

[VAHuskyFan]

In response to a few comments, this is absolutely part of why I started the thread. There seems to be wildly differing opinions as to the definition of a Glue Guy. I always considered it a guy who fostered chemistry, maybe 1 nonglaring weakness, reliable effort with occasionally great performances, and typically playing less than half a game. And I did mean OC's freshman year was great for a freshman.

Glue guy: basketball team
The Dude's rug: the Dude's living room

As I'm sure you'll recall, the Dude's rug really tied the room together, but it was also a pretty sweet rug. The Dude went through a lot of effort to get it back. Heck, it even had sentimental value to Maude.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

No. He averaged 8.4 PPG.

Omar averaged 11 points a game as a freshman. Not sure where your number comes from. The rest of the debate is really just semantics. I don't think you're going to find common ground as to whether "tremendous" is better than "exceptional."

 

[elduderino]

Glue guy: basketball team
The Dude's rug: the Dude's living room

As I'm sure you'll recall, the Dude's rug really tied the room together, but it was also a pretty sweet rug. The Dude went through a lot of effort to get it back. Heck, it even had sentimental value to Maude.

The Dude and I abide.

 

[champs99and04]

It makes a ton of sense. In 13 we had a serious player shortage. Take a look at that roster. He got the minutes because he had little or no competition at his position. The 32 minutes a freshman is part of the myth.


The OP wrote that he had a "great" freshman season. If you want to parse whether having a "great" season makes you a "great" player, I'll beg out of that. I literally quoted the OP.


What? His 32% shooting from 3? His weak handle? His weak defense? Again, not trying to knock the kid, just wondering how you come to that conclusion.


No. He averaged 8.4 PPG. Nobody who averages 8.4 shots a game is a "tremendous shooter." He shot the open 3 extremely well, sure, but he mostly only shot it when wide open. "Tremendous" is too much. There are probably many other shooters who could shoot 50% from 3 if they only shot when wide open. As another poster said on this board, if you're shooting 55% from 3 it means you are not shooting enough. He was an exceptional defender - I'd say exceptional is lower than "tremendous."



No. Neither were. Daniels had many games where he was invisible. That is inconsistent with being a glue guy. Boat is more than a glue guy because he's a natural scorer and a guy you could ride, if need be. Glue guys don't have that ability.

1. It's true that Omar played that many minutes because of how limited the roster was, but it's also more than conceivable that he is a far better player next season than he was his freshman year.

2. The OP clarified that his "great season" comment was relative. The same way you could say guys like Shabazz and Kemba had "great" freshman years, I think the same could be said of Omar.

3. From his 20 point explosion against the eventual champs to his defining moment as a Husky against Georgetown, Omar averaged 14 points and 5 rebounds per game on 45% from the floor and 39% from three. He also got to the line 4.4 times per game and made 75% of his free throws once he got there. Was his handle shaky? Yes. Was he a good decision maker under pressure? No. Was he a minus defender? For the most part, yes. Yet still, over a 12 game stretch, in arguably the toughest conference in the country, he put up those type of numbers as a freshman and was an integral part of a borderline top 25 team. He wasn't a great shooter, but he had games where he shot the three ball very well. He wasn't a great slasher, but he had games where he displayed a quick first step and got to the rim. He wasn't a great finisher, but he showed he had a penchant for drawing contact and getting to the line. Are these not "consistent glimpses" of being a high-end talent?

4. Being a great shooter and being able to create enough space to get those shots up are two different skills. Giffey excelled at the former, not the latter. Shabazz, for example, was great at both. Also, keep in mind I said he was tremendous "as a spot up shooter" - there are certain guys who are in the NBA solely because they excel at that role. I don't agree that how many points per game somebody scores has any baring on what kind of shooter he is. Steve Kerr averaged 6 points per game in his NBA career, was he not a great shooter? Is Kyle Korver not a great shooter? James Jones? There are hundreds of examples of guys who were great shooters but not necessarily great offensive players.

5. Fair enough.

 

[huskyharry]

It would & hopefully will be awesome to see Omar play ball with confidence again and get back up to the 32% 3 pt shooting stats etc (IIRC from 1 Jan on he was <15%) but he will need to and IMO the team needs him tostep up several aspects of his game to fully qualify for what I consider a glue guy: hustle and scramble hard for every loose ball and rebound & play consistent, tough defense & make the right passes at the right time. These are things that Niels and Lasan provided in spades. Last year, perhaps due to shaky confidence, Omar struggled in these areas and tended to lose focus and made very bad turnovers, lose his man defensively etc.
We really need him to be able to be a strong wing defender (i.e. cover the players that Niels and Lasan covered this past season). This is why I said he needs to be a glue guy. If he can shoot 32% or better from three, of course that would be a welcome benefit.

 

[sledog]

Gif's 3s made him a star to me.

 

[jazyj]

What do you think "glue guy" means? Giffey wasn't a star, but he was an incredibly useful player that did a lot of different things well, patching up a lot of holes.

exactly

 

[Waquoit]

I can't pinpoint the exact game, but midway through conference play Giffey just started attacking the boards. I'd like to see Omar do the same thing. That's a way he can contribute if his shot isn't falling. More than once I'd see Omar get decent position but not come up with the ball.

 

[jleves]

No. He averaged 8.4 PPG.

Omar averaged 11 points a game as a freshman. Not sure where your number comes from. The rest of the debate is really just semantics. I don't think you're going to find common ground as to whether "tremendous" is better than "exceptional."

He was referring to a different thought in thread (Gif being a tremendous shooter) and was giving Gif's ppg this year - not OC as a frosh.

 

[CTBasketball]

Niels hit some absolute crucial DAGGERS in March/April. At times we depended on Niels last season. That's not glue guy material.

I'd say a glue guy was Terrence Samuel, Kromah, or Nolan.

 

[Walker11]

Considering that KO often referred to Niels as the glue guy, I can't see why it should bother anyone. It's not detracting anything from him, but it is stupid to consider Omar as a glue guy because he struggled last year. Omar hasn't really rebounded, defended or been enough of an overall solid player to be a glue guy but he did show great potential as a scorer his first year. You just can't take away how he performed during the Big East that year and he was supposed to be one of the most prolific scorers in his high school class. Does doubles hip surgery mean nothing?

 

[Strummer]

Anyway, I hope I'm as wrong as some you think I am, because if Omar is playing more than 20 a game then that means we're a top 10 team, and my Goodness, how much can our cup hold before it overrunneth?

 

[Onions]

Just about every day I come across a thread mentioning OC with hopes that he will return to some level of productive play and/or become a Glue Guy. I don't get it ... Am I the only person thinking the starting 3 spot is up in the air, leaning towards, Calhoun's to lose?

Yes.

 

[James]

Niels Giffey was the most efficient shooter in the country last year. He was also a tremendous 1v1 defender as well as rebounder , guarding 2-4 positions. Our offense was at its best with Giff on the floor (Orating), worst with Calhoun... Who did literally nothing well last year.

The kind of season he exhibited , his potential for next year is a kromah role , and that's if he completely overhauls every facet of his game . He needs to regain his instincts from old big east play, when he had a nose for the ball and spaced the floor.