Are we going to be deficient at shooting the 3 this year? Outside of Walter, who can we depend on to shoot the 3 consistently? Losing Flagler and Cryer's 3-point shooting may end up lowering our ceiling.

It depends. Is 0-7 deficient?

Said this in the game thread. Whole lot of bricklayers on this squad. That's not an insult. It's just what it is. We lack any pure 3 Pt shooting.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Do you usually make knee-jerk reaction posts based on one half of play?

We're shooting 35% on the year from 3 by non-walkons. It might not be the weapon it was in years past, but I think we'll be fine.

Edit: I'll add that, in our one game against high-major competition, we shot 9-19 (47%).

---

I'm simply asking questions, chief. They haven't made 1 3-point shot in the game. The 3-point shot is kind of an important part of the game.

MashedPotatoes said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Do you usually make knee-jerk reaction posts based on one half of play?

We're shooting 35% on the year from 3 by non-walkons. It might not be the weapon it was in years past, but I think we'll be fine.

Edit: I'll add that, in our one game against high-major competition, we shot 9-19 (47%).

---

I'm simply asking questions, chief. They haven't made 1 3-point shot in the game. The 3-point shot is kind of an important part of the game.

---

It's much less important when you're shooting 32 free throws.

Almost 35 years since 0 fer 3

Wow

It's quite possible that today's game was an anomaly. Maybe it was a delayed let down from the big win over Auburn (the John Brown game was do soon after). I'm just speculating here but despite the issues with this game it's only one game. If we see similar problems Tuesday not then there may be more room for concern.

Regardless, we can trust Drew & staff to work on all issues before the trip to Brooklyn.

CTbruin said:

---

Our 3 point shooting will be fine. Remember Auburn

---

It will be better than it's been the last two games, but that won't be a strength of this team IMO.

We will be adequate in that area, but this will be a team that gets into the paint and scores at the rim and from the line. When you look at our guards, all of our top four not only have the ability to penetrate and finish, it's a big part of their offensive game. And Grimes flashed that ability last night as well.

This is a team that, at its best, will attack, attack, attack. That will lead to some frustrating turnovers, but it will also get a lot of our opponents in foul trouble, which will play to our strength because we'll be deeper than most of the teams we play.

I think that has factored into our second-half success through the first three games.

I think our guys might be a little mentally fatigued, and with another game coming up tomorrow for the 4th game in a little over a week. They'll be fine.

MashedPotatoes said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Do you usually make knee-jerk reaction posts based on one half of play?

We're shooting 35% on the year from 3 by non-walkons. It might not be the weapon it was in years past, but I think we'll be fine.

Edit: I'll add that, in our one game against high-major competition, we shot 9-19 (47%).

---

I'm simply asking questions, chief. They haven't made 1 3-point shot in the game. The 3-point shot is kind of an important part of the game.

---

With the new block/charge rules, the 3 point shot will be much less a crutch as it has been. Athletic teams that can get to the rack will have dozens of 3pt opportunities per game.

Timbear said:

---

I think our guys might be a little mentally fatigued, and with another game coming up tomorrow for the 4th game in a little over a week. They'll be fine.

---

They don't seem that mentally soft to me.

While I agree this team's offensive identity is primarily get into the paint and attack the rim, we're still going to have to at least make the higher end opponents (which is most of our schedule) respect our ability to burn them with an open 3 if we need to - otherwise teams are going to start sagging off and packing the lane, making penetration extremely difficult if not impossible, while daring us to beat them from outside the arc. I think the 3 point " 0-fer" was a rare anomaly that won't repeat itself and ended up not being a big issue against in this case an over-matched opponent, but in any case weak 3 point shooting better not become a trend when we get back to playing the real teams or it could become a major achilles heal for this team.

beyond not making a three yesterday, I think a concern is we're not drawing up sets to get good looks behind the arc. I think Langston will be asked to score a bunch off the bench if this trend continues.

Within the starting five, I definitely think we need more assertiveness from Bridges...we know he started slow last year so no need to hit panic button.

On the plus side (as mentioned) we have a definite finisher at the rim w Missi (and Josh is improving here) and we have Nunn and Dennis attacking the hoop with effectiveness.

trey3216 said:

---

MashedPotatoes said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Do you usually make knee-jerk reaction posts based on one half of play?

We're shooting 35% on the year from 3 by non-walkons. It might not be the weapon it was in years past, but I think we'll be fine.

Edit: I'll add that, in our one game against high-major competition, we shot 9-19 (47%).

---

I'm simply asking questions, chief. They haven't made 1 3-point shot in the game. The 3-point shot is kind of an important part of the game.

---

With the new block/charge rules, the 3 point shot will be much less a crutch as it has been. Athletic teams that can get to the rack will have dozens of 3pt opportunities per game.

---

This is a really good point. With more freedom of movement, you'll see a lot more penetration.

CST Bear said:

---

beyond not making a three yesterday, I think a concern is we're not drawing up sets to get good looks behind the arc. I think Langston will be asked to score a bunch off the bench if this trend continues.

Within the starting five, I definitely think we need more assertiveness from Bridges...we know he started slow last year so no need to hit panic button.

On the plus side (as mentioned) we have a definite finisher at the rim w Missi (and Josh is improving here) and we have Nunn and Dennis attacking the hoop with effectiveness.

---

Bridges made three or four huge hustle plays in the final six or seven minutes yesterday. He'll usually give us more offense than he did last night, but he still did a lot of little things that helped us gain and maintain control in the second half. That's who he is -- a blue collar energy guy.

The Bears attempted only 9 3-pointers all game. That's so few I can't help but wonder if the inside game wasn't a specific, coached focus yesterday.

bear2be2 said:

---

CST Bear said:

---

beyond not making a three yesterday, I think a concern is we're not drawing up sets to get good looks behind the arc. I think Langston will be asked to score a bunch off the bench if this trend continues.

Within the starting five, I definitely think we need more assertiveness from Bridges...we know he started slow last year so no need to hit panic button.

On the plus side (as mentioned) we have a definite finisher at the rim w Missi (and Josh is improving here) and we have Nunn and Dennis attacking the hoop with effectiveness.

---

Bridges made three or four huge hustle plays in the final six or seven minutes yesterday. He'll usually give us more offense than he did last night, but he still did a lot of little things that helped us gain and maintain control in the second half. That's who he is -- a blue collar energy guy.

---

I love Bridges. Never takes a dumb shot. Protects the ball. Still want more from him.

canoso said:

---

The Bears attempted only 9 3-pointers all game. That's so few I can't help but wonder if the inside game wasn't a specific, coached focus yesterday.

---

I think going 0 for 7 in the first half had a lot to do it. We basically abandoned 3-point shooting altogether after halftime.

CST Bear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

CST Bear said:

---

beyond not making a three yesterday, I think a concern is we're not drawing up sets to get good looks behind the arc. I think Langston will be asked to score a bunch off the bench if this trend continues.

Within the starting five, I definitely think we need more assertiveness from Bridges...we know he started slow last year so no need to hit panic button.

On the plus side (as mentioned) we have a definite finisher at the rim w Missi (and Josh is improving here) and we have Nunn and Dennis attacking the hoop with effectiveness.

---

Bridges made three or four huge hustle plays in the final six or seven minutes yesterday. He'll usually give us more offense than he did last night, but he still did a lot of little things that helped us gain and maintain control in the second half. That's who he is -- a blue collar energy guy.

---

I love Bridges. Never takes a dumb shot. Protects the ball. Still want more from him.

---

I think we'd all like more from him. But I also think, based on the entirety of his career at both WVU and Baylor, what we saw last year is probably what we're going to get. He's just not the guy many here think he is.

He's a really good energy player and glue guy, and that's alright. Good teams need those guys, and we've seen several of ours (O'Neal, Wainright, Sochan) go on to multi-year careers in the NBA.

CST Bear said:

---

beyond not making a three yesterday, I think a concern is we're not drawing up sets to get good looks behind the arc. I think Langston will be asked to score a bunch off the bench if this trend continues.

Within the starting five, I definitely think we need more assertiveness from Bridges...we know he started slow last year so no need to hit panic button.

On the plus side (as mentioned) we have a definite finisher at the rim w Missi (and Josh is improving here) and we have Nunn and Dennis attacking the hoop with effectiveness.

---

ha, I mentioned to my son several times that certain plays yesterday would have been 3s last year. On a few of them the defenders were going under the screen to try and prevent a blow by. Last year, those were automatic 3 attempts.

The same actions can get you 3s or drive opportunities depending on how the defenders handle the screen, opponent's fouls and who has a hot hand.

Imagine if this team still had Flag.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

Do you usually make knee-jerk reaction posts based on one half of play?

We're shooting 35% on the year from 3 by non-walkons. It might not be the weapon it was in years past, but I think we'll be fine.

Edit: I'll add that, in our one game against high-major competition, we shot 9-19 (47%).

---

Looking at the numbers a different way, we are shooting 47% from 3 away and 15.6% at home. Combined 3pts shooting for all teams first 2 games at Farrel= 22.6%.

Story I remember hearing about from when Bobby Knight was coach at West Point (I think?): One of their opponents had this old gym renowned as a really difficult place for opponents to play (nobody could hit a basket in that gym). On his return to that Gym one year, Knight had his players begin their pregame shootaround by measuring the Rim to the floor on each basket. Turned out, the rims were about 6" off. If we struggle again tomorrow night, maybe someone should get out the tape measure.

Don't worry. You'll see a lot more 3 pointers taken by the Bears over the next few weeks. When we start playing high major teams, they'll have bigger athletes that will attempt push our offense farther and farther toward mid-court as the Bears start to initiate its half court offense. Happened frequently last year moreso than other years because our off ball movement was awful at times. Those are the nights our offense looked really bad in Big 12 play.

No reason to take a lot of 3 pointers against a team that played completely off the ball and put minimal pressure until we got closer to the paint. The NAIA school we played Thursday put more on-ball pressure once we crossed mid court than GW did.

I don't suspect JaKobe is gonna be a 29% 3 point shooter for the year, which is where his stats are now. But, I also don't suspect we'll be as heavily dependent on the 3 this year, both due to rule changes as well as roster makeup. We actually have a guy in the paint (Missi) who has the athleticism to score, something we haven't had in quite awhile.

bear2be2 said:

---

And I'll take a team that can get into the paint and to the line over one that's super dependent on the 3 like last year's squad.

---

Agree, in the past few years, we've been heavily dependent on that high 3 pt. %. We struggled against certain defenses.

I don't hear too many people kvetching about three point shooting. I wonder why...