Terry Larrier VCU Game Film

[Peacefrog]

I love how dudes watch one highlight video and know how Larrier should fundamentally change his game.

I think you're extrapolating quite a bit here and I'm not sure that anything I said deserved you jumping all over me. Maybe lighten up a bit. I was careful to note how I had little to go on but hey, those were my observations. For the love of Pete if someone can't post a reasonable opinion based on video provided here what good is this discussion forum.

 

[Rico444]

Giffey shot 32% from 3 as a freshman. That's not great, but that's what Calhoun shot as a freshman and everybody thinks he was a marksman that year. DeAndre came in with a better rep as a shooter than Larrier did out of high school, and Larrier shot over twice as many threes as DeAndre did in their respective freshmen years, so his sample size was bigger.

I don't care if Larrier shot 1000 3s last year; the difference between freshman and sophomore years can be huge. Caron Butler made a 10% jump from his freshman to sophomore year, so did AJ Price. Coming to the conclusion that Larrier is a bad shooter after one season is short-sighted.

 

[Peacefrog]

I don't care if Larrier shot 1000 3s last year; the difference between freshman and sophomore years can be huge. Caron Butler made a 10% jump from his freshman to sophomore year, so did AJ Price. Coming to the conclusion that Larrier is a bad shooter after one season is short-sighted.

Christ Almighty, I'm a long-timer who doesn't post much anymore and now I remember why. This place can be full of rock-heads who seem more intent on being the self-appointed voices of reason and authority than having a discussion or sharing opinions. Did you even pay attention to the language I used because it wasn't happenstance. "not sure", "might", "seems"; does this sound like someone who has drawn any firm conclusions, suggested that he fundamentally change his game or cease to be a perimeter player entirely? I admitted that all I had to go on was what was available here. My observation were based on the video and I don't think they are unreasonable. Offer an alternative position if you like, that's the whole point of this place, but maybe come down off your high horses.

 

[jibsey]

The kid has tools and some talent for our coaching staff to work with, that's about it for now until we get word from team practices that profess he's the best player on the floor and he's a Maserati waiting to be let out of the garage.

 

[Tenspro2002]

A lot of the bad shots appear to be taken in the context of a frenetic offense. It's more a matter of shot selection.

His stroke looks good, he's a 6'7 small forward, he should be taking 3's. (Minus the girth of someone like Shonn Miller, he's not playing the 4 with much regularity, in the same manner as Hamilton.) I would wager that within our offense, with playmakers around him (hopefully), he's a 33-35% shooter from deep.

That said, he shouldn't be taking as many 3's as he did with VCU. With his athleticism, he should be attacking the rim more.

 

[Rico444]

Did you even pay attention to the language I used because it wasn't happenstance. "not sure", "might", "seems"; does this sound like someone who has drawn any firm conclusions, suggested that he fundamentally change his game or cease to be a perimeter player entirely?

You said flat out that the kid can't shoot like DeAndre did. That was the line I was responding to; in fact, that's the line I quoted in my post, and you didn't use any qualifiers in the sentence. Also, I didn't attack you at all, so I don't appreciate being called a rockhead just because your reading comprehension is poor.

 

[Peacefrog]

You said flat out that the kid can't shoot like DeAndre did. That was the line I was responding to; in fact, that's the line I quoted in my post, and you didn't use any qualifiers in the sentence. Also, I didn't attack you at all, so I don't appreciate being called a rockhead just because your reading comprehension is poor.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest and I apologize for the name-calling. Hopefully you can see how I might be frustrated after clearly indicating I had limited information to go on and hedging everything I said against that admission I get words put into my mouth (primarily by Bruce incidentally).

As far as the sentence you originally quoted I might point out that the assertion is undoubtedly true so I'm not sure where the comprehension issue lies. Larrier was a much poorer shooter than Daniels when he left. If you want to contend that he will or can improve, fine, I wouldn't necessarily disagree and would hope you're right. I never "concluded" that he wouldn't improve. I will observe again, however, that he seemed to have a nice mid-range game and could take people off the dribble but seemed to spend a lot of time shooting threes at a very low percentage instead.

Back to lurker mode.

 

[tcf15]

I don't want to get into a pissing contest and I apologize for the name-calling. Hopefully you can see how I might be frustrated after clearly indicating I had limited information to go on and hedging everything I said against that admission I get words put into my mouth (primarily by Bruce incidentally).

As far as the sentence you originally quoted I might point out that the assertion is undoubtedly true so I'm not sure where the comprehension issue lies. Larrier was a much poorer shooter than Daniels when he left. If you want to contend that he will or can improve, fine, I wouldn't necessarily disagree and would hope you're right. I never "concluded" that he wouldn't improve. I will observe again, however, that he seemed to have a nice mid-range game and could take people off the dribble but seemed to spend a lot of time shooting threes at a very low percentage instead.

Back to lurker mode.

I think with Larrier, though, the potential is there. Shot selection should improve, yes, but I don't think he should totally abandon shooting from the perimeter (not that that's what you're arguing, I'm just saying).

Coming out of high school, at least according to Scout, perimeter shooting was considered a strength of Larrier's. And while Daniels was a great shooter in his last year here, he was awful during his freshman and sophomore years, shooting just as poorly as Larrier did last year. Larrier hit 26% last year and Daniels shot 28% over his first two years.

 

[Rico444]

I don't want to get into a pissing contest and I apologize for the name-calling. Hopefully you can see how I might be frustrated after clearly indicating I had limited information to go on and hedging everything I said against that admission I get words put into my mouth (primarily by Bruce incidentally).

As far as the sentence you originally quoted I might point out that the assertion is undoubtedly true so I'm not sure where the comprehension issue lies. Larrier was a much poorer shooter than Daniels when he left. If you want to contend that he will or can improve, fine, I wouldn't necessarily disagree and would hope you're right. I never "concluded" that he wouldn't improve. I will observe again, however, that he seemed to have a nice mid-range game and could take people off the dribble but seemed to spend a lot of time shooting threes at a very low percentage instead.

Back to lurker mode.

Fair enough, not looking to be antagonistic here either. I just didn't understand the point in comparing freshman Larrier to junior Daniels. I would agree he's likely going to be at his best slashing and attacking the rim, but just didn't want to see him lose his aggressiveness from outside the arc.